TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2005 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

                                ____

The Council met at 14:00.

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.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

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

Dat die Raad kennis neem van die volgende:

(1) dat die ANC in die Vryheidsmanifes verklaar dat Suid-Afrika aan almal wat hier woon, behoort;

(2) dit beteken dat Suid-Afrika ook aan die Afrikaner behoort;

(3) dat daar in die ANC ruimte en respek vir alle tale, kulture en groeperings van die samelewings is; (4) dat die ANC alle Afrikaners uit nooi om die boeie van die verlede en die vrese waarmee hulle leef, af te skud en saam met mede- Suid-Afrikaners van alle rasse en kulture die vryheid van Afrikaanswees binne die ANC ervaar. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council notes that –

(1) the ANC declared in the Freedom Charter that South Africa belongs to all who live in it;

(2) this means that South Africa also belongs to the Afrikaner;

(3) within the ANC there is a place and respect for all languages, cultures and groupings of society; and

 4) the ANC invites all Afrikaners to shed the shackles of the past and
    to do away with the fears in which they live and with fellow
    Afrikaners of all races and cultures to experience the freedom to
    be Afrikaans in the ANC.    Thank you.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Any further notices of motion?

Mr A WATSON: Chair, you asked whether anybody wished to give notice of a motion, but the member read a motion without notice. If that’s so, then I object to that motion.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Oh, was it a motion without notice? Oh, we have not yet come there. Ok. So there are no . . . All right, I’ll come back to that. There are no notices of motion. So we have started with a notice of motion that is actually a motion without notice. There is an objection to that motion and therefore the motion will be printed in the Order Paper. It becomes a notice of a motion. Any other person who wants to move a motion without notice? Hon Kgoshi Mokoena.

                 CONGRATULATIONS TO ROLAND SCHOEMAN


                         (Draft Resolution)

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council notes that –

(1) Roland Schoeman, our South African professional swimmer, has been made a multi-million rand offer to swim for Qatar;

(2) Schoeman, the reigning world 50m freestyle and silver medallist over 100m, has rejected that multi-million rand offer to swim for Qatar;

(3) he rejected the offer to swim for Qatar because he wants our national anthem, Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrica, to be sung whenever he lifts a medal;

(4) the rejection of the offer and motivation thereof shows a deep sense of patriotism on the part of Schoeman, who is an Afrikaner athlete; and

(5) patriotism in South Africa is gaining more value and recognition at the expense of individualistic, material gains and benefits.

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

                           CHILDREN’S BILL


            (Consideration of Bill and of report thereon)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, hon members, thank you for the opportunity to introduce the Children’s Bill in this session of the House. The debate on the Children’s Bill in the NCOP today is indeed a milestone in the efforts of government to protect the rights of children as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

I wish to thank all members of the Select Committee on Social Services for their assistance in finalising the Children’s Bill. The process of developing this Bill has taken very long. It started in 1996, when existing legislation was found not to be in keeping with the realities of current social problems, and no longer protected children adequately.

South Africa had introduced a new Constitution, that also acceded to various international conventions, the principles of which had to be incorporated into local legislation. During 1997, the then Minister for Welfare requested the South African Law Reform Commission to develop comprehensive new legislation for children. After an extensive process of research and consultation due to the envisaged comprehensive nature of the Bill, the Law Reform Commission finalised its report and proposed a draft Children’s Bill in December 2002. The Bill was deliberated upon and approved by Cabinet with changes in July 2003 and submitted to Parliament in August 2003. The current Bill contains part of the envisaged Children’s Bill Act. The Bill that was initially submitted to Parliament in 2003 dealt with the full spectrum of protection of children in both national and provincial spheres and was to be dealt with in terms of section 76 of the Constitution.

It was, however, found to be a mixture including elements to be handled in terms of both section 75, which is a functional area of national legislative competence, and section 76 of the Constitution. Due to the mixed character, the consolidated Bill was split. The provisions of the consolidated Bill that would apply to the provincial government had been removed and consequently the current Bill contains matters that have to be dealt with in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

As soon as the current Bill is enacted, an amending Bill containing the matters that apply to the provincial government only will be introduced. The amending Bill will then be dealt with in terms of section 76 of the Constitution, and will complete the current Bill by inserting the provisions, which deal mainly with social welfare services.

Chairperson, the Bill gives effect to certain rights of children as contained in the Constitution in the following manner: to stipulate principles relating to the care and protection of children; to define parental responsibilities and rights; to determine principles and guidelines for the protection of children and the promotion of their wellbeing; to regulate matters concerning the protection and wellbeing of children; and to consolidate the laws relating to the welfare and protection of children.

The objects of the Bill are: the promotion of the preservation and strengthening of families; to give effect to the Constitutional rights of children, the protection against maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation and that the best interests of the child are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. The Bill also provides giving effect to the Republic’s obligations concerning the wellbeing of children in terms of international instruments binding the Republic.

It further makes provision for structures, services and means for promoting and monitoring the sound, physical, psychological, intellectual, emotional and social development of children. Strengthening and development of community structures to assist in providing care and protection of children are also one of the main objectives of the Bill. Children should be protected against discrimination, exploitation and any other harm or hazard.

The Bill further provides for the care and protection of children who are in need of care and protection, and it recognises the special needs of children with disabilities. The Bill generally promotes the protection, development and wellbeing of children. Chairperson, I would like to emphasise the intersectoral nature of the Bill and the importance of working together in the best interests of children. The Bill emphasises that services to children should be prioritised by government on national, provincial and local levels, and that all spheres of government should strengthen their own services and support and assist each other in terms of budgets to ensure services to children.

The Bill attempts to promote child participation and enables children to have a say in their own situation and future arrangement. The Bill further provides for the child’s right not to be subjected to social, cultural and religious practices that are detrimental to his/her wellbeing. Issues like virginity testing, female and male genital mutilation or circumcision received special attention in the select committee meetings as there are cultural, religious and social practices that require harmonisation with children’s rights as expressed in the Constitution. After public hearings and comprehensive deliberations during the select committee meeting, it was decided that virginity testing of children under the age of 16 should be prohibited and that virginity testing of children older than 16 only be performed if the child has given consent to the testing, after proper counselling of the child and in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the Act. It was also decided not to disclose the results of the virginity test without the consent of the child, and that the body of the child who has undergone virginity testing may not be marked.

Regarding circumcision of male children, the Bill proposes the prohibition of circumcision for boys under the age of 16, except when circumcision is performed for religious purposes, in accordance with the practices of the religion concerned and in the manner prescribed by regulation; or when circumcision is performed for medical reasons on the recommendations of a medical practitioner. Circumcision of male children older than 16 may only be performed if the child has given consent to the circumcision and; after proper counselling of the child and; in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the Act.

However, taking into consideration the child’s age, maturity and stage of development, every male child has the right to refuse circumcision. The Bill also provides for the lowering of the age of maturity from 21 years to 18 years.

The Children’s Bill regulates parental rights and responsibilities, the entering into agreements and that such agreements should be registered with the Family Advocate or the High Court or divorce court. Fathers of children born out of wedlock are provided with an opportunity to play a major role in their children’s lives by being assigned rights and responsibilities under specific circumstances. The Bill further provides for parenting plans, lay forum hearings and family group conferences, to act in the best interests of the child and to ensure more protection. A two-part child protection register is provided by the Bill. Part A of the register will contain a record of all reports of abuse or deliberate neglect of the child. All convictions of all persons on charges involving the abuse or deliberate neglect of the child, and all findings of the children’s court that the child is in need of care and protection.

Part B of the register will contain a record of persons who are unsuitable to work with children and the information on the register will be used in order to protect children in general, against abuse from such persons. Another important provision is that an alleged offender could be removed with a written notice from a home or place where the child resides, instead of the child being removed. The child is actually the person in a vulnerable position, and should stay in familiar surroundings.

The Bill provides for the HIV-testing of children for foster care and adoption purposes in order to ensure that children who are living with Aids are provided with appropriate family care. The provision to regulate intercountry adoptions gives effect to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The chapter safeguards and ensures that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child. These safeguards should be respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of or the trafficking in children. The child abduction chapter aims to ensure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in another state. The chapter on child abduction promotes the rights of custody and of access under the law of one state and are effectively respected in another state.

The Children’s Bill further provides for the prevention and combating of trafficking in children. International co-operation is of the utmost importance and particular attention should be paid to women and children. The Bill attempts to protect and assist the victims of trafficking with full respect for their human rights. The Bill is forwardlooking and requires a new approach in implementing changes that must replace old practices. New skills are required to implement this Bill successfully. Existing service providers should be strengthened to take the challenges in implementing this Bill into consideration.

There is also an important role for the private sector and civil society to play in assisting with the implementation of this Bill and being involved in the protection of children. Resources required to implement the Bill will be provided in terms of an approach that recognises the existence of competing social and economic needs, and that organs of state in the national, provincial and, where applicable, local spheres of government, will take reasonable measures within their available resources to prioritise the realisation of the objectives of this Act.

Chairperson, the Bill is one of the foundation Acts of Parliament to protect our children and to ensure actions in the best interests of families and children.

I want to thank the members of the Select Committee on Social Services for processing the Bill. I would also like to thank the officials of the SA Law Reform Commission and the State Law Advisors for assisting with the drafting of amendments to the Bill, as well as officials of the Department of Social Development and other departments who are on the children’s Bill steering committee, for their hard work and persistence over this period. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms J M MASILO: Thank you, hon Chairperson. Hon Deputy Minister, hon members, senior officials from the Department of Social Development, the Children’s Bill aims to provide workable solutions to the major challenges facing children in the areas of social services and protection against abuse and neglect.

The Children’s Bill Working Group was established in March 2003 and the Department of Social Development has been working on this Bill since in consultation with most of the child sector civil society bodies. On 2 August 2005, the Department of Social Development briefed the Select Committee on Social Services on this Bill. The committee had the workshop with the department, where it was stated that this is comprehensive legislation to protect children. However, some issues were still causing concerns, namely virginity testing, children’s access to medical treatment, surrogate motherhood, trafficking in children, genital mutilation or circumcision of female children, information on healthcare, access to court, parental responsibility and rights.

The workshop was also attended by representatives from the Departments of Correctional Services, Safety and Security, Home Affairs, Health, Provincial and Local Government, National Treasury and the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF.

For further consultation with stakeholders, the committee agreed that public hearings should be held on 11 October 2005. Sixteen written submissions and fifteen oral presentations were received, including that of Inkosi Mzimela of the National House of Traditional Leaders.

On 25 October 2005, during deliberations on the Children’s Bill with the Department of Social Development the following recommendations were made: Virginity testing for children under the age of 16 years would be prohibited. Virginity testing for children over the age of 16 years is allowed only with the consent of the child involved.

It was agreed that religious practices should not of necessity be blocked but that circumcision should take place under acceptable medical health supervision. The age of consent for male children is also set at 16 years.

The committee stated that female circumcision – bojale – should be regulated and not prohibited. But it was noted that the practice was not in the best interest of the child and that the Bill is about restricting cultural practices that are harmful to the girl child. It was also agreed that not all cultural practices are harmful and that genital mutilation is one such practice.

There were presentations on female genital mutilation, circumcision, initiation schools and the committee was briefed by five women on how female genital mutilation is performed by various groups in our society. This was part of the further consultation on this Bill by the Select Committee on clause 12. Mrs Albina Kekana’s presentation was on research of female circumcision, Mrs M Lokotu made her presentation from a Venda perspective, Mrs Mahlangu represented the Ndebele Princess of Manala, Mrs G Masango represented the Ndebele of Ndzunza and Mrs G Fakude represented the Swazis from Mpumalanga.

The traditional practice is as old as the people in every ethnic group. It was and still remains a method of socialising girls and preparing them for transition into womanhood. The main purpose was to empower girls to enter womanhood with confidence from lessons and information given during the initiation period.

With regard to forced marriages, it was noted by the committee that the provision accommodated the request for criminal offence in the discussion. It was agreed that the boy child as well as the girl child should be protected.

With regard to consent to adoption, the committee agreed that the current clause be kept as it is. A child is adopted if the child has been placed in the permanent custody of a person in terms of a court order that has the effect contemplated in clause 24(2). The purposes of adoption are to protect and nurture children in a safe and healthy environment with positive support and to promote the goals for permanently placing children in a position where they can enjoy safe and nurturing family relationships.

On the issue of a High Court granting guardianship, the committee felt that the magistrate courts should deal with this in future.

With regard to HIV-testing provided by clause 130(2), consent for HIV- testing of a child may be given by the child, if the child is 12 years of age or older and is of sufficient maturity to understand the benefits, risks and social implications of such a test. No person may disclose the fact that a child is HIV-positive without the child’s consent, which can be given in terms of subsection 2. Consent to disclose the fact that a child is HIV-positive may be given by the child, if the child is 12 years of age or older. The IFP did not support this position.

The purpose of Part B of the National Child Protection Register is to have a record of persons who are unsuitable to work with children and to use the information in the register in order to protect children against abuse from these persons. The committee agreed to maintain the current formulation in clause 128 of the Bill, which allows for application for removal from the register five years after certain conditions have been met, except the DA’s position that the offender should be in the register for a lifetime.

With regard to clause 134, which provides for access to contraceptives, no person may refuse to sell condoms to a child over the age of 12 or to provide a child of the age of 12 years with condoms on request where such condoms are provided for distribution free of charge.

Ka gonne bana ba rona ba montaga ba le dingwaga di le 12. Rona fa re gola, bana ba dingwaga di le 12 e ne e sa le masea. Ba jaanong ba setse ba tlhalefile. Ke ka moo re reng fa ba ya go dira voluntary testing ba kopa le dikhondomo ba se ke ba ba tima tsona. (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)

[It is because our children are mature at the age of 12. During our childhood, we used to know that children who were 12 years old were still babies. It is a different case now with today’s generation, they become mature earlier. It is for that reason that we advise them; when they go for voluntary testing, and not to allow to be refused condoms when they ask for them.]

Proper medical advice is given to the child to determine whether there are medical reasons why a specific contraceptive should not be provided to a child. A child who obtains condoms, contraceptives and advice in terms of this legislation is entitled to confidentiality in this respect.

The Bill also acknowledges that children can be given responsibilities, having proper regard to age and maturity of the child. A child, whether male or female, becomes mature upon reaching the age of 18 years.

In conclusion, in terms of consultation on this Bill, I believe that members of the select committee have done their best by holding open meetings, including consultations, workshops, public hearings, dedicating and sacrificing their time, working after hours even during the recess period to finalise this important piece of legislation. Well done! Keep it up, as we are all a nation at work, comrades and friends.

Thanks and appreciation go to the Department of Social Development working group, the legal department, and the Chief Director, Dr Mabetoa, for their work.

Tshwara jalo mme gonne mmangwana o tshwara thipa ka mo bogaleng. [Madam, keep up the good work, because a mother protects the interests of the child.]

I hope you and your staff qualify for a good performance bonus. That’s the message, Deputy Minister. The committee wishes all of you in the House a merry Christmas and good health in the coming New Year.

The committee supports the Bill 120%. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr O M THETJENG: Ndi a livhuwa, Mudzulatshidulo. [Thank you, Chairperson.]

Members of the public and representatives of civil society and NGOs that took an interest in this particular Bill, we want to thank you and welcome you. Your contributions have been valuable and are welcomed. You are involved in matters relating to children’s wellbeing on daily basis and I am touched by that. Some of your valuable contributions have been thrown out of the window by those who use their majority power to the detriment of the general public that put them in those positions of authority.

The implementation of this Bill, once it becomes law, will have unintended consequences that were deliberately allowed to go through by the ANC members, despite our objection to certain formulations. We have provided provisions that were to avert such instances. Virginity testing is a nonstarter for the DA. Individuals are humiliated and their rights are violated.

The major purpose of any law is to be accessible by all, rich and poor, old and young. Section 24 (1) deals with the assignment of guardianship:

Any person having an interest in the care, wellbeing and development of a child may apply to the High Court for an order granting guardianship of the child to the applicant.

Most of our rural areas do not have access to a High Court in whatever form but have easy access to the magistrates’ courts. Travelling to places where these courts are is a nonstarter because the majority of our people are without money. They find it difficult to travel to apply for a mere ID and for the birth certificates of their own children, and yet we are burdening them with matters of guardianship to be taken up at High Court level.

Let us capacitate our magistrates’ courts so that they are able to handle guardianship matters. This may encourage more individuals to become guardians of children whose parents have died. This will curtail the high number of child-headed families, which is on the increase lately, due to HIV/Aids, about which the ANC government continues to be in denial that it is a killer disease and sufferers must be provided with antiretroviral drugs.

Clause 42(8)(d) of the Bill provides for children that are both physically challenged and have special needs to have access to the children’s courts. It is a disgrace that this clause has been removed on the basis that it is costly. We need to provide services to all citizens of our country without discriminating against them on the basis of their physical disability. Are the rights of these groups of people taken into cognisance? Are they not South Africans?

Formulation on male circumcision is appreciated and it should perhaps be noted that it is a cultural practice that does not undermine individual rights.

The police have contributed significantly to this Bill and we really appreciate the extent of their contribution because their contribution will ensure that they actually deal with these matters within the law and that access is actually given. They have taken the interests of children seriously. It is my prayer that this section will remain when the Bill is finally referred to the National Assembly, but I have my doubts if this section will be retained.

Section 28 offers perpetrators of abuse against children an opportunity to be removed from the Part B register on application after a period. Thank you, Chairperson, for acknowledging the position of the DA. You should have done more on other matters as well. Any abuse, particularly rape and other forms of abuse, of a child leaves a scar for life. Offenders should not be given the opportunity ever to work with children for the rest of their entire lives. They can find work opportunities elsewhere, but not where children are involved at any level, including the private sector, the Public Service and municipalities. Once an offender against a child, it becomes in perpetuity.

Members of the ANC in the committee insisted that offenders must be allowed to be removed from Part B of the register on application and the DA says no. Actually, these offenders must spend a lifetime in jail. Can you imagine how a child will feel meeting a person who abused him or her in the streets? Children have long been ignored and this is the time that they should be fully protected.

A foreign tourist, who has been reported as being lawyer by profession, recently abused one child. He was given a fine of R10 000 after making a deal with state organs to avoid prosecution. He paid and went home and the abused child still has a scar that will probably last a lifetime. How did he lure this child into the hotel? Is there not a cartel that is involved? Why was he allowed to go without serving his time in jail? The police caught him red-handed; in the act . . . [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister, hon members, firstly I would like to highlight to this House that apart from section 28 of the Constitution, which clearly stipulates the rights of children, there are various pieces of legislation and international conventions affecting the lives of children.

It is clear that the existing legislation is not in keeping with the realities of current social problems and no longer protects children adequately, hence this new Bill.

Some of the main objects of the Bill are: to make provision for the structure, the services and the means for promoting and monitoring the sound physical, intellectual, emotional and social development of children; to protect children against maltreatment, abuse, neglect, degradation, discrimination, exploitation and any other physical, emotional or moral harm or hazards.

Chapter 9 of the Bill says a child in need of care and protection, if abandoned, orphaned and living in the streets, begging for a living, can be removed by a designated social worker or a police official into temporary safe care without a court order.

The children’s court will decide the question of whether a child who was subject to proceedings is in need of care and protection. Before a child is brought before the children’s court, the designated social worker must investigate the matter and within 90 days compile a report in a prescribed manner on whether the child is in need of care and protection. Such matter should be reported to the provincial Department of Social Development. The report should include the conditions of the child’s life.

There is a contribution order, where a children’s court may make an order instructing a respondent to pay a sum of money or recurrent sum of money as a contribution towards the maintenance or the costs resulting from the special needs of a child. This contribution order has the effect of a Maintenance Act, as the case may be.

Chapter 15 talks about the adoption of children. Children may be adopted and the purpose of the adoption is to protect and nurture children by providing a safe, healthy environment with positive support and promote the goals of permanency planning by connecting children to other safe and nurturing family relationships intended to last a lifetime.

The director-general is responsible for keeping and maintaining a register which is to be called the Register on Adoptable Children and Prospective Adoptive Parents for the purpose of keeping a record of adoptable children and keeping a record of fit and proper adoptive parents. Such information may not be disclosed to any person, except to an adopted child after the child has reached the age of 18 years or by an order of the court, if the court finds that such disclosure is in the best interest of the adopted child.

Chapter 16 talks about the intercountry adoption. The purpose of intercountry adoption is to give effect to the Hague Convention, to provide for the recognition of certain foreign adoption, to find fit and proper adoptive parents for an adoptable child and generally to regulate intercountry adoptions.

The Bill, in Chapter 18, deals with combating trafficking in children and gives effect to the UN Protocol to prevent trafficking in persons.

Before I sit down, I would like to relate the Gauteng province situation. The Department of Social Development, in its programme for children living and working on the streets, it managed to register and fund 20 shelters accommodating a total of 1 043 children. All shelters received additional funding to appoint at least two outreach workers to target so-called street children not currently receiving social services. Through these measures at least 40 additional jobs were created for young people and volunteers who are over 18 years of age.

Social work processes attempting to reunite children with their families have so far proved extremely successful. Of the 1 525 so-called street children cared for in the shelters, 286 were reunited with their families or placed in foster care or adopted.

The Gauteng Premier, Mbhazima Shilowa, launched a project called Bana Pele on 1 June, International Children’s Day. The aim was to provide a package of services to improve the lives of the poor and vulnerable children in the province. The Premier called on society to protect children against abuse, drugs and poverty. [Applause.]

Nkk J N VILAKAZI: Mphathisihlalo ohloniphekileyo, Ngqongqoshe nomnyango wakho, abahlonishwa abakhona phakathi kwethu kanye nendlu yonke. Engifisa ukukuphawula egameni leqembu lami Inkatha Freedom Party ngalo Mthetho oshayelwa abantwana abaneminyaka eyi-12 nje vo, okuthiwa sebengaqala ukuvimbela inzalo bafake namakhondomu – ingane iye emtholampilo wokuhlela umndeni ukuthola konke ekudingayo bese umzali engangeni ndawo kukho konke lokhu. Kithina esithanda ubuzwe bethu namasiko esizwe, lokhu sikubona kuyinsumansumane uqobo lwayo. Hawu, laze lafa elihle kakhulu!

Ingane eneminyaka eyi-12, kungaba umfana noma intombazane, kuseyingane leyo. Thina bazali asifundise abantwana bethu indlela eqotho yempilo yokuziphatha besebancane okuyothi sebekhulile bangasuki kuyo. Nawe mzali uyoziqhenya ngayo uma isiyenza lokho oyifundise khona isencane. Iminyaka eyi-12 yiklume lelo. Usakhula lo mntwana futhi usafundiseka. Mfundise mzali ungethembeli kumakhondomu nokunye. Angiphiki ukuthi ingane ekule minyaka iyalwazi ucansi kodwa iningi alukakazi lutho olutheni kulesi sigaba. Kudala abantwana babewudlala umacashelana kodwa hhayi le ndlela osekukhulunywa ngayo.

Lesi sigaba sisodwa nje egameni le-IFP ngithi asivumelani impela naso thina. Lesi sigaba sodwa hhayi okunye. Okunye kulungile. Siyancoma kakhulu ukuhlolwa kwezintombi ukuthi kwachibiyelwa kangcono kunalokhu okwase kushiwo ukuthi azingahlolwa izintombi. Bakithi sakha isizwe lapha. Nanso-ke indlela yokuvimbela engenasihluku. Akuphoqwa muntu kodwa kwenziwa othandayo. Umzali uyathanda ukubona ingane yakhe ikhula kahle iyintombi nto kunokuba iguge ivela nje. Siyabonga Ngqongqoshe ngalokhu nasemnyangweni wakho ngokuthi wasizwa. Nanto-ke ikhambi elihle lokuphephisa intsha yethu ekutholeni izifo zocansi zisencane. Indlela emsulwa neqotho kunamakhondomu nokunye okunganambitheki kahle kithina bazali nentsha yethu eyakhuliswa kahle. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Hon Chairperson, the Minister and her department, the dignitaries here in our midst, and the House at large, I will be speaking on behalf of my party, the IFP, regarding this Bill, which allows children as young as 12 to start using preventive measures, including condoms; children are even allowed to go to clinics to get prophylactics without the parents being aware of it. People like us, who are patriotic and love our cultures, see this as a mystery at its worst. Alas, cry the beloved country!

A person aged 12, whether it is a girl or a boy, is still a child. We as parents should instead very early on teach our children good behavioural patterns that they will adhere to even when they grow old. A person aged 12 is still an infant for all intents and purposes. This is still a child, who is growing and educatable. A parent should educate his or her child and not trust condoms and other things. I am not for a minute saying children at this stage know nothing about sex, but most of them have very limited knowledge as far as sex is concerned. In the olden days, children would indeed play father and mother, but it would not be as explicit as it is now . . .

We in the IFP do not support this part of the Bill; this part only, not the other parts. The rest is fine. We are also happy with the amendment regarding the banning of virginity testing. It could not have been done better than this. People, we are building the nation here. These are preventive measures that do not contain any form of abuse. It is every parent’s dream to see his or her girl-child growing up a virgin, rather than one who throws herself at men. We thank the Minister and her department for this amendment and for giving effect to our plea. This is the best cure for saving the youth from contracting sexually transmitted diseases at a tender age. This is the purest way, a better way than using condoms and other things, which do not go down well with us as parents and the youth who grew up in stable families.]

Today we are debating a very crucial topic, the Children’s Bill. Children play a very important role in our families; hence we must take good care of them. A home without children is very quiet and empty; it’s like a bereaved family after the death of a mother, who besides the motherhood was the breadwinner in the family. By this, I mean children must be properly nurtured, without any abuse whatsoever.

We must teach our children rights and responsibilities, which instil the culture of morality more than anything else. Teaching about condoms and contraceptives does not augur well with the moral way of bringing up children. Our children need proper education in life skills according to their stages of development. Parents should play a pivotal role in their children’s lives. Let us as parents strive to promote favourable ways of living rather than promoting depravity in our children.

I want to emphasise that a 12-year-old is just a child that needs to be taught about morality. It must not be made easy for children to be immoral. She or he must remain 12-year-olds and not be pushed up to 14. Of course, we are aware that children nowadays enter the puberty stage at an early age. [Time expired.]

Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson, Minister and the House, the Bill before the House is one of the most extensively interrogated pieces of legislation. This was due to the sensitive nature of certain provisions and their relation to certain cultural beliefs and customs.

One of the provisions which were hotly debated and for which a number of submissions and presentations were made, was virginity inspection or testing. The committee had agreed as a compromise that it could be performed on girls of over 16 years, after the necessary counselling and with the consent of the girl concerned. This places the onus to agree or not to agree on the child concerned.

Another common incident for which provision was made in this Bill is the refusal of access or refusal to exercise parental responsibilities and rights. The Bill is very clear that, if a parent, guardian or caregiver of a child prevents the other parent or guardian from having contact with the child or refuses to let them exercise their responsibilities and rights, they would be guilty of an offence.

Another heated debate was around the National Child Protection Register. The committee regarded it as a useful mechanism for protecting children. For instance, the committee was in agreement that the name and particulars of a person convicted more than once of an offence with regard to a child might not be removed from the register, lest he or she repeats the offence. [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister, Dr Benjamin, hon members, fellow colleagues and comrades, the passage of the Children’s Bill this afternoon represents yet another important milestone in our ongoing struggle to create a caring society for the weak and vulnerable sections of our society.

The children as the bedrock and foundation of the future of our nation are through this Bill accorded their rightful place in the ongoing task of social transformation.

I rise on behalf of the ANC to salute the Ministry of Social Development for the visionary and sterling leadership provided in the course of the consideration of this Bill.

Chairperson, the commitment and patience of the Deputy Minister to listen and accommodate various viewpoints that were aimed at shaping this Bill is something that cannot go by without notice and appreciation. As the member of the Executive she afforded us a noble opportunity to interact with various stakeholders and interest groups without any undue interference.

The process of considering this Bill was indeed long and arduous and at times riddled with robust contestations amongst stakeholders. As we present this Bill to this august House for adoption this afternoon we want to acknowledge that it was one of the most complex pieces of legislation ever presented before our select committee.

The confusion in the minds of some among us in the select committee, thinking that this Bill will address the problem of accessibility of courts in the country, actually points to the complexity of the Bill itself.

So, we don’t need amateurs to come here, thinking that the problem of South Africans’ access to courts by the majority of our rural people can be resolved by this Bill. This Bill is not intended to address that particular problem. I think the point made by hon Thetjeng is misguided and at worse it represents infantile disorder in this honourable House.

It would certainly be an omission on my part not to acknowledge and express similar words of gratitude to the director-general of the department and his dedicated team who spent sleepless nights to bring us to the point of passing this Bill this afternoon.

Chairperson, in dealing with the Bill I will limit myself to the issues that were the focus of disputes and contestation at both public and committee levels. Before I do that, I must caution that the public and the House must not be misled; it is the ANC that rose and consciously came up with this Bill. And there is no way that the ANC could reject its own product. What we have rejected is some of the proposals that were made and were not realistic, firstly, to our country, and that were inconsistent with the policy prescription of our country.

For example, the issue that was raised earlier on by Mr Thetjeng, the issue of clause 42 (8)(d), in the terms of Mr Thetjeng, that the clause was saying that the courts must be accessible and user-friendly to people with disabilities and those with special needs. We agree with that. But our view is that for the past four years the Department of Public Works, in pursuit of the National Integrated Disability Strategy, which is a policy of government, has taken a conscious programme and unleashed resources to the effect of ensuring that all public places, public institutions, are actually accessible and user-friendly to the disabled people of our country.

So, this Bill is not aimed at that, Mr Thetjeng. You must refer to the Department of Public Works, programme. There are reports on this particular matter. I think it is addressing that. It is our view that that matter does not belong to this Bill. In actual fact, if you look closely at clause 11 of the Bill, that clause on its own is quite comprehensive and it addresses all the needs and the plight of the people, particularly children who have special needs and are disabled. So, the attempt to get some luck by Mr Thetjeng, by thinking that when he played to the gallery he would change the mind of the ANC and its position on this Bill, is misguided. And I say it’s hard luck.

As part of the measures to ensure that perpetrators of abuse and neglect against children are not let loose to repeat the same offences, the Bill makes provision for the National Child Protection Register. The National Child Protection Register is an instrument to be employed by the director- general, where records of abuse or deliberate neglect inflicted on children are kept.

This record will provide full details of the nature of the abuse or neglect against the child, full particulars of the child and the perpetrator, including details of circumstances surrounding that abuse.

The register will have two parts, namely Part A and Part B. I think the contestation was around the Part B of the register. The Part B of the register is intended to have records of people who are unsuitable to work with children and to use that information to protect the children against abuse from these persons.

If a person’s name appears in that part of the register that person may, among others, not manage, operate, or participate in an institution that provides services to children; work with or provide services or have access to the institution that provides services to children; or work in any unit of the SAPS that provides protection for children.

A person whose name has been entered in that part of the register may apply for the removal of his or her name or any information relating to him or her from the register. This application can only be made after at least five years since the entry was made to any competent court the director- general if the entry was made in error, or to the High Court if the director-general refuses an application. The ANC supports the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, my comments will be much shorter than 10 minutes, that I see on the clock here, that has been allocated to me.

I would like just to respond to a few points that have come up in the debate. The member from the DA refers: With regard to foreign minors this issue is dealt with in the Bill in the same way as all other children who are residents or citizens of the country, in accordance with the Constitution.

With regard to the removal of offenders from the register, after five years application for removal of offenders from the register is proposed in the Bill to provide for offenders who have been rehabilitated. This will not be automatic. Applications must be made to the High Court and strict criteria will apply. No automatic removal will take place.

The department feels that guardianship issues should for the time being stay in the jurisdiction of the High Court. However, research will continue on the matter.

In applying a global perspective on this Bill, if implemented, this Bill will place South Africa in a favourable position on the globe if one takes into account the situation of the majority of children in the world, and I quote:

The global scandal of violence against children is a horror story too
often untold. With malice and clear intent, violence is used against the
members of society least able to protect themselves, children in
schools, in orphanages, on the street, in refugee camps and war zones,
in detention and in fields and factories.

In its investigations of human rights abuses against children, Human Rights Watch has found that in every region of the world in almost every aspect of their lives children are subjected to unquestionable violence most often perpetrated by the very individuals charged with their safety and their wellbeing.

Government has many priorities and many challenges remain in the implementation of integrated services in general and in particular with regard to the children in need of care and those who are vulnerable. Such challenges include budget constraints and the realisation of government’s integrated approach to social transformation.

After this Bill is passed, a framework for implementation will be formulated and a phase-in approach will be adopted. I thank the House for their collective commitment to providing the children of our country with the love, protection and care needed to ensure a better future and quality of life for all our people. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you, Deputy Minister. I shall now put the question and the question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with rule 63 I shall first allow political parties to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any party that wishes to do so? None. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. Those in favour, please say Aye! and those against say No!

HON MEMBERS: Aye! HON MEMBERS: No!

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I think the ayes have it. The majority of members have voted in favour and I therefore declare the Bill subject to the proposed amendments, agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

 INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA AMENDMENT BILL



                   ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BILL





                     (Consideration of Reports)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms M P Hollander): Order! I have been informed that there will be only one speakers’ list for the second and third Orders of the Day. As the Secretary has already read both of them, I shall now call upon the Minister of Communications, the hon Dr I Matsepe- Cassaburi, to take the platform. Minister, you can use the podium here or, if you feel like it, there, it is fine; it is up to you. [Interjections.] They want you at the podium. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Hon Chairperson, hon members of the NCOP, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, when this Electronic Communications Bill, called the Convergence Bill at the time, was decided in the National Assembly, it was praised as breaking out of the old mould, a Bill for the South Africa of today and yet there was some fear that it might be a trick rather than a treat. I assured members that it was actually a treat and not a trick.

Indeed both Bills before the House are groundbreaking. We are discussing these Bills after the conclusion of the World Summit on Information Society, a summit at which the South African delegation and a team of officials under the leadership of my director-general, Lyndall Shope- Mafole, and Ingrid Poni received outstanding recognition and an ovation for the work that they had done.

In particular, the summit entrenched several principles, amongst which were, firstly, the principle of inclusivity and multi-stakeholder partnership; secondly, using ICT for development and, thirdly, an agreement that Internet cannot be governed by one country but that a legitimate mechanism for its governance must be explored and, finally, the implementation mechanism was agreed upon. These are some of the things that were agreed upon.

These Bills, the Electronic Communications Bill and the Icasa Bill, are an expression of some of those principles of the World Summit of Information Society. They do not allow us to go back to the drawing board, but to move forward with the implementation of the decisions that were made.

The Electronic Communications Bill contains a forward-looking policy whist the Icasa Amendment Bill is a regulatory framework Bill intended to establish proper governance of the ICT sector in a converged environment. Not many countries have been able to achieve this so we are quite lucky that we were ahead of most countries including developed countries.

Given the challenges that we face after 10 years of democracy, the challenge of ensuring the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, the Electronic Communications Bill breaks totally new ground because it seeks to delineate the powers of the Minister as well as those of Icasa without sacrificing our constitutional principles. It entrenches transparency of processes and the accountability of everyone. According to the Electronic Communications Bill, Icasa shall bear responsibility for the implementation of national policy through promulgation of regulation related to the communication sector.

Better clarity has been given to the different classes of licences that can be granted by Icasa. It allows for competition while it gives recognition to necessary action by the Regulator when the asymmetry of the market or the abuse of the market by the dominant players has an adverse impact on society.

The Electronic Communications Bill allows Icasa to prescribe rights and obligations of facility and network owners. It allows Icasa to control, plan, administer and manage frequency spectrum in accordance with international regulations and national needs. It allows Icasa to set communication equipment or apparatus standards and set out interconnection regimes.

All of these must of course ensure that consumer issues and the needs of broadcasting services are met through a code of conduct prescribed by Icasa. There is therefore nothing in the Bill that sacrifices Icasa’s independence, as many out there have tried to make us believe.

The Icasa Amendment Bill on the other hand addresses the need for strengthening the Regulator to make it capable of responding to the changing communications landscape, particularly in view of a more converged and competitive environment. It also enables the Regulator to develop regulations timely to ensure certainty within the market to attract investment capital to the communications sector. I suppose at this stage I can refer to the fact that you have seen what happened to the SNO which we thought we would have licensed 18 months ago, but the process indeed took so long that only three years later will we be able to licence the SNO. So, the intention is to make sure that those processes are speeded up so that investors would be interested.

The Icasa Amendment Bill, which allows for the principle of the separation of powers, provides for the change in the appointment procedures of the councillors. According to the latest draft emanating from this House, the Minister will appoint a panel that will conduct the process of appointing the councillors and make recommendations to the Minister, who will then appoint the panel.

The panel includes two representatives from Parliament. This will be a shorter process than before but it will be transparent. The proposed appointment takes into consideration some of these issues, which may be raised as constitutional matters in the body that regulates broadcasting. This would arise, for example, with reference to section 192 of the Constitution.

This Bill and its new appointment procedures, does not interfere with the independence of regulating broadcasting content and this is whether it is radio, television, Internet or anything else.

The amending Bill provides for the establishing of the postal regulator within Icasa, which regulator is currently located within the Department of Communications. The amending Bill also provides for the enforcement of the postal regulations by Icasa. Further, the amending Bill empowers Icasa to investigate better and more efficiently and resolve consumer complaints and noncompliance by licensees with regard to their obligations timeously by establishing a complaints and compliance committee.

In addition, the amending Bill recognises the delays in resolving consumer complaints and disputes among industry players, used as an effective strategy to thwart competition and gain unfair advantage in a competitive market. Therefore, the Bill requires that Icasa creates an investigating unit as well as a complaints and compliance committee to investigate and resolve consumer complaints timeously. The Icasa Amendment Bill consolidates the powers of Icasa to conduct enquiries formally contained in other Acts, including the treatment of confidential information obtained in the course of such enquiries.

The Bill requires compliance with decisions and orders issued under the powers granted to Icasa and makes noncompliance an offence with serious consequences and this did not use to be the case.

Finally, the amending Bill recognises the Broadcasting Act, the Sentech Act and the Icasa Act together with this new convergence law that we call the Electronic Communications Bill, which will later be an Act, but they must all work together in this converged environment. Accordingly, it resolves conflicts that may arise among the various Acts by creating a hierarchy within the various Acts for interpretation purposes.

Given the above challenges that Icasa will now face the amending Bill provides for a consultative mechanism for the development of the Icasa budget, which will more realistically reflect the financial needs of the Regulator for a given period. The Minister will consult with the Minister of Finance for any additional funding.

I wish to take this opportunity to express appreciation to all members of the committee of the NCOP as well as the National Assembly who have worked very hard to make sure that we can pass these Bills this year. Therefore, I would like to say I hope that after the good work that the committee has done, I can urge members please to adopt this Bill. Thank you very much.

Ms M P THEMBA: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, allow me to start by congratulating the government on its participation in the World Summit on the Information Society, which was convened in Tunis last month. The aim of the summit was to tackle the problem of the digital divide and, most importantly, to harness the potential of ICT to drive the economic and social development of countries. The Tunis commitment and the proposed agenda for the information society is confirmation that ICT is central to development and should be given priority.

The rapid technological changes and the ICT global pressures cannot be ignored. South Africa, like any country, is faced with challenges and to address some of these challenges the government deemed it necessary to introduce radical changes within the ICT sector.

The introduction of the Electronic Communications Bill, previously known as the Convergence Bill, and the introduction of the Icasa Amendment Bill is without doubt a milestone in the development of our people and the nation. It is without doubt that these pieces of legislation will bring forth dramatic changes and, most importantly, contribute towards the achievement of an accelerated shared growth with its target of six percent.

Both these Bills will undoubtedly contribute towards the achievement of the people-centred, inclusive development-oriented and non-discriminatory information society. These pieces of legislation were negotiated through a process with a multistakeholder approach, which included the participation of industry, civil society and government, including Cabinet, and this emphasises our country’s democratic principles of consultation and inclusive participation. The sensitising and educating of our people on these important pieces of legislation remain vital.

The Electronic Communications Bill has been introduced with the aim of clarifying the legal and regulatory framework, which allows for the convergence of technologies and services that have been previously developed and regulated separately. In other words, the Electronic Communications Bill crosses the existing boundaries between the broadcasting and the telecommunications sector. This is long overdue given the considerable public interest.

The Icasa Amendment Bill has been introduced with the intention of consolidating certain powers and duties of the regulator. The impact and importance of Icasa is fundamental to the development of the ICT sector. The government, through the Department of Communications, has sworn its commitment in building and positioning the regulator and, most importantly, addressing some of the challenges facing Icasa, hence the introduction of the Icasa Amendment Bill.

I want to put on record and I want to register that the amendments to this Bill by the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises seek to place the central role of Parliament in ratifying the appointment of councillors to Icasa, not, as the Business Day said, that the officials of the Department of Communications campaigned to the committee to rip off the central role played by Parliament. When we talk of Parliament we talk of both Houses, the NCOP and the NA, hence we are emphasising the fact that our amendments seek to place on record the central role of Parliament in ratifying the appointment of councillors to Icasa. So Parliament, the NCOP and the NA, will take part.

Allow me to indicate that these pieces of legislation apply to ordinary citizens of this country and therefore the impact will be felt across the entire country, including those located in the second economy. The impact of the legislation on communities, including the rural masses, will be through the promotion of vigorous and effective competition within the ICT sector. Competition provides a consumer with a choice and issues such as preselection, which is emphasised in the Electronic Communications Bill, will allow people to have access to communications services of their choice. The mandate of Icasa is to serve and protect consumers and Chapter 12 of the Electronic Communications Bill deals with consumer issues, which Comrade Gamede will talk about.

The Electronic Communications Bill promotes the empowerment of historically disadvantaged people with particular attention to women and people with disabilities. Through the SMMEs marginalised groups are prioritised and the regulation on a code of conduct regarding people with disabilities will be prescribed and made applicable to licensees.

Comrade Gamede will also talk about Chapter 14 of the Electronic Communications Bill, which emphasises the importance of bridging the digital divide through universal services access. The continued existence of the universal agency and universal fund is emphasised and also confirms the government’s commitment to ensuring that rural communities are prioritised and taken seriously.

Lastly, it is important to note other important aspects covered by the legislation, such as the establishment of the public emergency centres, which will be known as the 112 emergency centre; this is critical for communities since this means that people will be able to access the same number for any emergency, unlike previously, when people were faced with many numbers.

In conclusion, one would like to emphasise the fact that the past year has been a very interesting year in the history of the ICT sector. We have witnessed the licensing of the underservice-area licensees, the ministerial determination and last Friday a historic licensing of the SNO. It is without doubt that the country is moving forward and aligning itself with technological changes.

The committee supports the Electronic Communications Bill without amendments and the Icasa Amendment Bill with proposed amendments from the select committee. I urge this House to support these Bills. I also would like to, once again, thank the Minister, the department and all the members for their hard work. Well done. I thank you, Chair. [Applause.]

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Chairperson, at the start I would like to say that owing to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances my colleague Su Chen and I could not attend the Icasa briefing, but I was thoroughly briefed by the spokesperson in the National Assembly and the portfolio committee. We have dealt with this issue for the past seven years, and not only had one briefing or two meetings on the issue.

To quote Tony Leon in his latest weekly newsletter SA Today: “Parliament has kowtowed before the executive on every occasion that has mattered this past year.” Unfortunately, this disease of deference to the executive has now spread from the National Assembly to this House.

’n Voorbeeld hiervan is ’n uiters belangrike wysiging aan die Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Onafhanklike Kommunikasiegesag van SA, wat ongedaan gemaak is deur die Gekose Komitee op Arbeid en Openbare Ondernemings.

In sy oorsponklike gedaante het die wetsontwerp die Parlement se bevoegdheid om OKGSA-raadslede te kies, weggeneem, en die bevoegdheid toegeken aan ’n paneel wat regstreeks deur die Minister aangestel word.

Die DA het dit verwerp en ’n alternatief aan die hand gedoen wat sou sorg dat die Nasionale Vergadering en die Parlement, in plaas van die Minister, die raadgewende paneel kies. Die Nasionale Vergadering sou ook oor die finale lys name kon stem. Dit wou voorkom of die ANC hierdie kompromie in die Nasionale Vergadering aanvaar het.

Die NRVP se Gekose Komitee op Arbeid en Openbare Ondernemings het egter in sy wysheid besluit om die Nasionale Vergadering se besluit te verwerp en die oorspronklike bepalings in die wetsontwerp weer in te stel. Die komitee het selfs voorgestel dat die Minister die bevoegdheid moet hê om OKGSA- raadslede te ontslaan en aan te stel.

Die afwenteling van bevoegdhede op die Minister sou nie net OKGSA se politieke onafhanklikheid, wat in die Grondwet verskans is, in die gedrang bring nie, maar sou nog ’n stap op die pad na ’n rubberstempelparlement wees. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[An example of this is the crucial amendment to the Independent Communications Authority of SA Amendment Bill, which was negatived by the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises.

In its initial format the Bill withdrew Parliament’s powers to elect the members of the Icasa Board and furnished a panel directly appointed by the Minister with these powers.

The DA rejected this and recommended an alternative that would ensure that the National Assembly and Parliament elect the advisory panel, instead of the Minister. The National Assembly would also be able to vote on the final list of names. It would appear as if the ANC accepted this compromise in the National Assembly.

The Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises of the National Council of Provinces, however, in its wisdom decided to reject the decision of the National Assembly and to reintroduce the initial provisions of the Bill. The committee even suggested that the Minister should have the powers to discharge or appoint members of the Icasa Board.

The devolution of powers to the Minister would not only implicate Icasa’s political independence, which is entrenched in the Constitution, but would just be another step on the road to becoming a rubber-stamp Parliament.]

The issue of independence of the regulator has been a subject of dispute since 1998 when President Mandela, at our request, sent the broadcasting Bill back to the National Assembly to address the DA’s objection to the infringement of the Independent Regulator.

Since then it has been the subject of dispute repeatedly, yet this House overturned many weeks of deliberation in the portfolio committee, thereby overturning their carefully wrought compromise in a single sitting at the behest of the Department of Communications.

Hierdie selfde Huis het in die vorm van die Gesamentlike Konstitusionele Hersieningskomitee, saam met die Nasionale Vergadering, aanbeveel dat ons die voorstel ondersoek dat artikel 192 van die Grondwet verander behoort te word, sodat telekommunikasie gevoeg word by die uitsaaiwese vir onafhanklike regulering. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[This very same House, through the Joint Constitutional Review Committee, together with the National Assembly, proposed that we investigated the suggestion that section 192 of the Constitution should be amended in order to include telecommunications in the independent regulation of broadcasting.]

In other words, both Houses of Parliament think it is appropriate to consider augmenting the constitutional independence of Icasa, not eroding it.

Interestingly enough, the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review . . .

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chair, I am not sure whether the interpretation was correct. I would just like to check with the member whether she would agree with the interpretation that the NCOP is the stepchild of the NA. I just want to get clarity on that.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: That is not what I said, Chairperson, and that’s not a point of order either.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: She’s saying that she didn’t say that the NCOP is the stepchild of the NA. Continue, hon member.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Thank you. Interestingly enough, the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review was debated at the same time that the National Assembly passed the Electronic Communications Bill and the Icasa Amendment Bill – on 3 November. Unfortunately, the achievements of the Electronic Communications Bill, which has been rewritten from start to finish and with which we are very pleased, are eroded by what the NCOP has done with the independence of the regulator.

The regulator presides over the new regulation regime created by the Electronic Communications Bill. Also, by approving the amendments of the NCOP committee today, we, as South Africa, move away from the direction the rest of this continent is taking. I quote from a Constitutional Court judgment, Independent Electoral Commission v Langeberg Municipality:

Our Constitution has created institutions, such as the commission, that perform their functions in terms of national legislation, but are not subject to national executive control. The very reason the Constitution created the commission and other Chapter 9 bodies was so that they should be and manifestly be seen to be outside government.

It is noteworthy that the Constitutional Court did not see fit to distinguish between the independent authority to regulate broadcasting and other Chapter 9 institutions in respect of the nature of the independence these institutions enjoy.

Therefore, the DA will oppose the Icasa Bill and support the Electronic Communications Bill. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mnu D D GAMEDE: Sihlalo, Ngqongqoshe, malungu ahloniphekile akhona, ngingakaqali nje ukukhuluma amanye amalungu ahloniphekile ePhalamende kuye kube khona angakwazi uma kwenzeka ngelinye ilanga angabi khona emhlanganweni. Ukulungisa okukodwa nje umhlonishwa u-Terblanche wayekhona emhlanganweni sizokhuluma ngoMthethosivivinywa we-Icasa kodwa wafika emva kwesikhathi njengokujwayelekile. Emva kwalokho washeshe wahamba. Wafika nje ephethe ipheshana elinemibuzo emva kwalokho wabuza, wabuza wase ehamba. [Uhleko.] Usekhohliwe-ke manje ukuthi wayekhona emhlanganweni. Uthi wayengekho.

Okwesibili uMkhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe asingawenzi indlu noma indawo lapho okuzothi uma izinto zingaphumelanga kwiSishiyamthetho sikaZwelonke bese zilethwa kuMkhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe. UMkhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe yingxenye yePhalamende efanayo futhi neSishiyamthetho sikaZwelonke. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Mr D D GAMEDE: Chairperson, Minister, hon members present here, before I start, there are some things that other hon members of Parliament don’t get if they are not present in meetings. On a point of correction, hon Terblanche was present in a meeting where we were discussing the Icasa Amendment Bill, but as usual she arrived late. She also left immediately. She came with a piece of paper with questions. Then she asked her questions and left. [Laughter.] She has forgotten that she was present at that meeting. She is saying that she was not present.

Secondly, let us not make the National Council of Provinces a House or a Place where we bring issues that failed in the National Assembly. The National Council of Provinces is part of Parliament, just like the National Assembly.]

In my speech I’ll deal with certain issues, one of them being the consumer issue. The Bill reinforces and asserts the importance of consumer issues in the communications industry. It provides for the regulator to prescribe regulations, setting out a code of conduct for licensees as they provide a service to the public. It can also set minimum standards for end-users and subscriber-service charters. It provides for complaint procedure and remedies to address complaints.

Moreover, the authority is compelled to establish a consumer advisory panel, which will advise it on matters relating to consumer issues. This is very good as it gives the consumer more leverage, and we are confident this will result in better services for consumers in the future.

There are issues that are general, those that talk about E-rates, offences and penalties. These issues are covered in Chapter 13 of the Bill. Regarding the E-rate, this means that all public schools – now for the first time with this ANC-led government – and all public further education and training institutions will be able to access Internet services at a minimum discounted rate of 50%. This discount applies, for example, to connectivity to the Internet, and to equipment used for and in association with such connectivity, as well as to all calls made to Internet service providers.

Chapter 14 of the Electronic Communications Bill deals with the universal services and access agency, as the ANC-led government recognises ICTs as critical in rolling out services, especially to poor people in rural areas. As part of our Reconstruction and Development Programme, this agency has a very important function in regards to promoting universal service and access. Under this Bill, the Universal Service Fund will continue to exist but will now be renamed the Universal Service and Access Fund. Some of the functions of this fund are to help needy people with the costs involved in providing them with broadcasting and electronic communications services.

The licensees described in Chapter 3 will also now contribute no more than 1% of their annual turnover to this fund, and this will be regulated by the authority. However, broadcasting service licensees can offset their Media Development and Diversity Agency, MDDA, contributions against their prescribed annual contributions.

Finally, the transitional provisions, which are provided for in Chapter 15, provide for the validity of all current licences until they are converted. So, the fear that is being talked about that some people will lose their licences is unfounded.

These licences can be converted by the authority between 24 and 30 months after the commencement of this Act. Licences will also be issued on no less favourable terms than existing licenses. Within 30 days of this Bill becoming law, the authority must also publish a schedule of how it plans to undertake the licence conversion.

The ANC supports this Bill as we know that it will offer exciting opportunities for both the industry and consumers. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr M J SIBIYA: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, comrades, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, before I get down to my speech, let me refer to some of the things that have been said by the hon Ms Terblanche. Our committee did not confer any powers to the hon Minister - she knows that. It only emphasised her duties.

The sin, which is alleged to have been committed by the committee, was to amend the Bill where it was referring to Parliament as consisting of the NA only. Parliament consists of two Houses, the National Assembly, as well as the National Council of Provinces. There is no way in which the NCOP, on its own, can confer powers to the Minister. It did not happen. Thank you. [Laughter.]

The Bill under discussion today does seek to promote convergence in broadcasting, as our chairperson, hon Priscilla Themba, has said earlier on. Not only that, but also to provide for broadcasting services, competition matters as well as granting of new licences and social responsibilities, amongst others.

In keeping with its primary objectives of promoting, facilitating and regulating electronic communication in the Republic of South Africa in the interest of the public, the Bill envisages that the authority, in considering the grant of a new public broadcasting service licence, and inconsistent with principles initiated in section 2, take into account the following: Firstly, the demand for the proposed broadcasting service within the proposed licensed area. Secondly, the need for the proposed service within such area, having regard to broadcasting services already existing in that area. Thirdly, the technical quality of the proposed broadcasting service in regard to developments in broadcasting technology.

In our view, consideration of and adherence to above requirements will enable the authority to determine whether or not the proposed broadcasting service is necessary or otherwise. It will also help to check whether the proposed broadcasting service is a step forward, a step backwards, or a modern-time facility in as far as the development of technology in the broadcasting field is concerned.

The question of granting of community broadcasting service licenses will be a duty of the authority to ensure that the proposed broadcasting service is not controlled by a profit-making entity, and that the applicant intends to serve the interests of the relevant community, whereby members of such a community participate in the selection and provision of programmes to be broadcast in the course of such broadcasting service.

These requirements definitely enable the communities concerned to gain control of what goes on in the proposed broadcasting service. It also is in line with the nitty-gritty of the first clause of our sacred document, the Freedom Charter, which says that the people shall govern.

I say so because governing, in a broader sense, is not only to make and enforce laws, but also to determine what is better for us, and to formulate it, as well as to communicate it to the broad masses.

The Bill comes out very clearly on prohibiting granting of broadcasting service licenses to party-political entities, while commercial broadcasting service licenses will be granted if the applicant, among others, has not before been convicted of an offence in terms of this Act or the related legislation. The government, through this Bill, foresees great opportunities of beneficiation accruing to our people in this multipronged approach, while elements hostile to our society will have their wings clipped – and this is a very big step forward. It also erodes the vast monopoly the media has had in this country.

On competition matters, the Bill reflects the commitment of our ANC-led government to fair play and a level field. The authority guarding fair competition will keep in check broadcasting service licence holders to determine if they have been engaged in or if they intend to be engaged in any activity likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition by giving undue preference to or causing undue discrimination against any other licence providing broadcasting services. On the regulation part of it, the Bill demands that the authority makes regulations, prescribing a numbering plan and that it maintains and manages a central numbering database system. From the above it is clear that the Bill, if passed, will go a long way to contribute to the meaningful involvement of our people in broadcasting services, whereby jobs will be created and skills will be transferred and some control of broadcasting service programmes will be in the hands of our people.

Dames en here, dit sal baie waardeer word as hierdie agbare Huis hierdie belangrike wetgewing steun. Ek weet dat die Wes-Kaap dit sal steun. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Ladies and gentlemen, it would be appreciated if this august House would support this important legislation. I know that the Western Cape will support it.]

The ANC unreservedly supports this Bill and urges this august House to do the same. Thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Agb Voorsitter, kan ek miskien vir die agb Terblanche iets sê wat sy sal leer, nie net van die ANC nie, maar ook die geskiedenis, oor waar hierdie twee Huise vandaan kom. Soos baie van die lede hier gesê het . . . [Hon Chairperson, may I perhaps tell the hon Terblanche something that she will learn from not only the ANC, but also from the history of the origins of these two Houses. As many of the members have indicated here . . . ]

. . . the NCOP makes its decisions according to what it believes. It is not a rubber stamp for the NA or a rubber stamp for the Minister either. We need to understand this and we cannot really start from our fears of the past. Everyone knows that when we became democratic, there were certain areas where we said, do we have to fight over this when it is clear that there is no trust between others and us. We made certain compromises. One of the comprises that we made . . . We never actually made it totally clear in some cases, not all cases, of what the roles are of the legislatures the executive and the judiciary. I would like to remind Ms Terblanche that the judiciary made a decision, for example, about nevirapine, a decision that was a policy decision. They don’t have the capacity to decide, they just know what others tell them about the role of nevirapine. Two years later, when certain issues were being raised at those international forums, which had promoted nevirapine before, we were stuck with a decision by the judiciary saying that we must give nevirapine. We now had to say . . . [Interjections.]

Jy verstaan dit nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Wat ons toe gedoen het, was om te sê: Laat ons seker maak, die rol van die geregtelike gesag is dat . . . [You don’t understand it. [Interjections.] What we decided then was to say: let us determine the role of the judiciary is that . . .]

. . . the legislature does this, the executive does this and don’t conflate the issues. I will give examples of what can actually be the consequences of the previous dispensation. If any of the councillors or any of the SABC board members that might have misbehaved . . . I had no powers. You can’t have your cake and eat it. I had no powers, as Minister, to do anything. The powers would be vested in the President and the President said: You made me appoint these people, what can I do? I have no authority to sack this person. On what basis can I do that? Yet, everyone in the Assembly would say: Minister, come and answer. Now I must go and do so on the basis of the fact that the Minister must stay away from it. She must not go and interfere in it. Yet, when accountability has to be placed, accountability is on the Minister. It is really schizophrenic. Let us make up our minds. It is not an easy thing to do, but we have all gained experience from what was before and what is now.

The second thing is: If you read section 192 - and we have read and reread it - Icasa as a chapter 9 institution is not dealt with in the Constitution as is the case with other chapter 9 institutions. It says: “Establish or put in motion legislation for Icasa.” We must actually make sure of the independence of Icasa regarding the regulation of broadcasting. At the time we were faced with an SABC, which was this big monopolistic thing that was said would be a propaganda tool for the ANC and so on. We have since then established more than 38 community radio stations. Now you have broadcasting over the Internet. Some of it is pornographic; some of it is not. It is no longer that same old SABC. Icasa has to regulate the content and the Minister does not interfere with the regulation of the content. That is what this Bill does. It sets out clearly in the communications section of the Bill what the Minister must do, what Icasa must do . . .

. . . en ek ken my plek. Ek gaan krap nie waar dit nie jeuk nie. [Gelag.] Dit doen ek nooit nie. In laaste jare het ons gesien hoe ek nooit gaan krap in Icasa se sake of in die SABC se sake nie. [ . . . and I know my place. I will not meddle in other people’s affairs. [Laughter.] I never do that. These past years we have seen that I never interfere in the matters of Icasa and the SABC.]

I only did so when there were matters that affected me as the Minister who must oversee. That is the only time that I do that. This Bill now very clearly establishes what is possible. What is important is that there is a public process and I hope you read the Bill properly. There is a public process for the appointment. It is not just the Minister who goes around and says . . .

O, dié een is my vriend. Van der Merwe, kom jy. Ek sien ek sal op jou kop kan dans. Miskien mevrou So-en-So; jy is ’n vrou en ek het ’n vrou nodig. Ek hou van jou of ek hou nie van jou nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Oh, this one is my friend. Van der Merwe, you come. I can see that I will be able to lead you by the nose. Maybe Mrs So and So; you are a woman and I need a woman. I like you or I don’t like you.]

It sets up a public process, which everybody would follow and a recommendation would be made to the Minister. The Bill says clearly what kinds of people must be appointed; people who are in the legal field; people who know the electronic communications area and people from the industry. They know what it is that is needed. People from the community, as well as people from Parliament, so that Parliament can also say: We were there. We sat down and we saw how this was done. The Minister cannot currently sack but the Minister cannot evaluate the performance either. What has happened is that when the performance of a councillor is not very good, it is the chairperson and not the Minister who sets up an independent panel to evaluate the lack of performance or behaviour of that particular councillor and then makes recommendations to the Minister. What more do we want as South Africans for the sake of transparency?

“Om te hoor dat ons nie soos ander lande op die kontinent is nie . . .” [To hear that we are not like other countries on the continent . . .] I was shocked. I said:

Ek sit dan in al hierdie konferensies en het almal se wette gelees. Gaan na enige plek toe. Gaan Nigerië toe. Gaan Algerië toe. Gaan Ghana toe. Ons wette is steeds die beste. [Applous.] Ons land is nog steeds die beste land. Gaan Amerika toe. Gaan Engeland toe. Gaan Frankryk toe en dan sal ons regtig sien. Vergeet wat hulle sê, maar as jy so oopmaak, dan sien jy hoe kom die wurms uit. Ons wet is die beste. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[I go to all these conferences and read everyone’s laws. Go to any place. Go to Nigeria. Go to Algeria. Go to Ghana. Our laws are still the best. [Applause.] This is still the best country. Go to America. Go to England. Go to France and then we will really see. Forget about what they are saying, because if you open it up like this you will see the worms crawling out. Our law is the best.]

Let the Minister not have the powers to just do what she wants. These powers are such that even you can actually nominate now. You could not do that before. Now you can nominate your party members if you so wish. I wouldn’t mind but when the list comes to me, I must make sure that it follows the procedures that were put in place.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, may I request that you make a ruling in terms of Rule 33 of this House, which says that a member may not be interrupted while speaking. In particular, I think it is not in terms of African culture for a young girl to shout at an elderly person, and that just after 16 days of activism; it is not good. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon Chief Whip. Hon members, could you please behave? Hon Terblanche, could you please listen to the Minister? Hon Krumbock, could you please keep quiet and listen to what the Minister is saying?

Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Why is it that the Chief Whip says that in terms of African culture a young girl can’t do what the member is doing. I thought we were all equal in this House, and I thought the Constitution actually guaranteed that? The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The Chief Whip was referring to African culture, and he didn’t say specifically that Ms Terblanche is a girl. Continue, hon Minister. [Interjections.] Hon Watson?

Mr A WATSON: If your House would give me a chance, I would address you, Madam Chair.

The Chief Whip, apart from being out of order himself, specifically said, “ . . . especially as Ms Terblanche is a young girl she should know that in the African culture . . . ” and that is a sexist remark and he must withdraw it, please.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Watson, I will check the Hansard on that matter and rule on it later. Continue, hon Minister.

It is quite clear from what I have said, that we must move away from the fear that we have about those who govern. Yes, we must have oversight and not let them have anything easily. Oversight is extremely important and we made sure that in the Bill oversight can be exercised by Parliament. The second thing is that when we look at some of the issues, we realised they did not belong in this Bill and that we had to go back and say what it is that we would have to do with regard to the SABC in order to have what is called “an SABC Act” and not a broad thing called the Broadcasting Act. Broadcasting in its very nature has now changed. It comes into our house in numerous ways, which the Minister certainly does not want to control. She would never be able to control it. On the content of that, the regulator must be the one that has control. It is stated very clearly in the Act and therefore makes it possible to say it conforms to the constitutional provision of the independence of the regulator regarding broadcasting content.

With regard to Internet governance, members will recall how a year or two ago, we were scolded in the media on the issue of dot-za, namely that it belongs to us. Today the world says that Internet governance cannot be placed in one country only, but according to the laws of one specific state in that particular country. Today those very people who had said it is not possible . . . “Ons sal dit doen soos ons dit moet doen.” [We will do it like we are supposed to do it.]

We had found people who had objected to that Bill working with us and for the last 18 months you haven’t heard a thing about a problem with the dot- za domain name. They are monitoring it. They are doing what they should do, despite the fact that we are going ahead. Can we take lessons from own experiences to say: That “gogga” [bug] that we were afraid of was actually just a “gogga” that did not exist. I think, in this particular case, that the “gogga” the DA is presenting does not exist. Internet governance is something that we have to do in the manner that suits our values, our cultures and our religions. These are complicated matters. We want to make sure of how can we entrench Icasa’s independence. The directions to the continent are given by us. The continent looks at us, as was shown at the WSIS. It was South Africa that saved the summit, so that it was success, and the Tunisians have to thank us for that. A lot of what we were putting into the world summit on information process is part of the things that we were discussing here and what we are now saying, we will entrench.

Thank you to the members who have actually been able to read this law. My first statement was really just an overview, allowing for members of this House so that I could actually hear what they had to say. I have been enlightened about how well they understood and therefore were not rubber stamps of the committee, took back what they thought was a good proposal to the committee, and I am sure that the committee, when it meets, should be able to say: Members of the NCOP exercised their minds on both Bills, making sure that whatever amendments they had suggested could be carried.

There are a number of things that we did with regard to this Bill. We live in a society that has not completely outlived the ravages of apartheid, particularly having first and second economies. The IT sector is still squarely located in the first economy. It is time that we say: What happens to the people, particularly the ones in the rural areas, matters. We are making sure that this sector will not be a preserve for those that already have. We must make sure that it is not only a question of access, but also of making sure that people participate, whether as network people, as owners of telecommunications, or broadcasting services, so that it can be enhanced by this Bill. This Bill makes that possible. What we have also done is to make sure that the role of women, particularly women in the second economy, are clearly supported by what we do. As the ANC in particular, we have said that South Africa belongs to all of us and not only to some of us. I’d hope that you would support the two Bills, the second one with the amendments that have been suggested here, because we truly want to create a South Africa that belongs to all of us and not only to some of us. Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put.

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

                        PRECIOUS METALS BILL


                      (Consideration of Report)

Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, I am speaking on behalf of the hon Nosipo, the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs. Hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister and hon members, on 1 December 2005 the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs met to discuss the Precious Metals Bill, a Section 75 Bill, as referred to it by the NA for concurrence. All the issues in this Bill are currently regulated through Chapter 16 of the Mining Rights Act and the changes brought to us in the form of this Bill have been necessitated by the realisation that less beneficiation has taken place in the past in the sectors governed by this Bill, namely the gold and platinum metal sectors, regardless of the fact that South Africa is well endowed with both these minerals. South Africa has a reserve base of approximately 87% of platinum group metals and 40,7% of gold and we are the number one producers of both these commodities, and at approximately 59% and 14% respectively on the supply side.

During a time when jobs in the mining sector, and especially in the gold sector, are diminishing, it should be a priority for us to support this Bill as it will help us in the development of the downstream industry, thus creating more new jobs. This will enable us to compete and to do much better than the other manufacturing countries that do not even mine these resources. These countries have used our resources to create much-needed jobs in their countries and we end up buying those end products from them. It is high time that the reverse happens, as these are our resources, given to us by mother nature.

The object of the Bill is to provide for the acquisition, possession, smelting, beneficiation, use and disposal of precious metals. The Bill therefore seeks to bring about clarity on the definition of unwrought precious metals as contained in the Mining Rights Act of 1967, as the previous definition had shortcomings. There is now a clear distinction between unwrought precious metals and semi-fabricated precious metals. This allows for legislation that is less stringent regarding semi-fabricated precious metals, as well as less stringent control measures, which will lead to increased beneficiation.

The Bill deregulates the position of silver as it is mined in minute quantities in South Africa, mainly as a by-product and its value is in the order of $10, whilst precious metals and gold are in the order of hundreds of dollars. Therefore the Bill makes silver easily accessible for use in the jewellery manufacturing industry by deregulating it.

Every applicant will be required to comply with the objectives of this Bill, such as broad-based socioeconomic empowerment. Local beneficiation is not to be compromised by international demand so as to ensure broad participation throughout the value chain.

The introduction of the beneficiation licence is based on the recognition of industries other than the jewellery manufacturing industry that use unwrought as well as semi-fabricated precious metals. Industries that will derive benefit from this licence will be IT, avionics and electronics industries which do not hold a refining license, but may work with those unwrought precious metals as semi-fabricated precious metals. The licence will be issued for a period of ten years, with a possibility of renewals.

In conclusion, the above are the critical issues that are addressed by this Bill, as supported by the select committee. However, I think it is worth reminding you that about the minor consequential changes, as suggested by the Department of Minerals and Energy and the state law advisors, contained in the B-part of the Bill, we concurred, and we referred the Bill to the NA for ratification of those amendments.

I would therefore like to ask the House to confirm our concurrence with the Precious Metals Bill, with those consequential amendments and refer the Bill to the NA for endorsement.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Department of Minerals and Energy, the Minister, Mr Mkomezulu and Mr Mnonela. We wish you all the best. Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

We support the Precious Metals Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

Declaration of vote:

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Although the intent expressed in the Bill to make South Africa a major international minerals beneficiation country, in order to develop the local beneficiation industry in South Africa this Bill, with the accompanying Diamond Amendment Bill, will not ensure this. Nor will it ensure the offset in the loss of jobs expected in the production sector which is currently believed to provide 417 000 workers with employment.

The wide and unfettered discretion the Minister is furnished with is arguably unconstitutional in the light of the lack of guidance and criteria set in the Bill, in terms of which the Minister is expected to exercise her discretion. The Bill is therefore likely to be counterproductive and to affect beneficiation negatively. The DA will therefore be opposing the Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                       DIAMONDS AMENDMENT BILL

                   DIAMONDS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

                     (Consideration of Reports)

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMMITTEES: Order, hon members. I’ve been informed that there will be one speakers’ list for both the fifth and sixth Orders of the Day.

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Hon Chairperson, colleagues, hon members, hon Deputy Minister, I table before you today the most important Bills that my department has introduced in the mining sector since the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 was passed. Those two Bills are the Diamonds Amendment Bill and the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill.

We are aware of the important role mining has played in South Africa in every respect: politically, socially and economically. Diamond mining as the pioneer of organised mining in South Africa was the forerunner of the other forms of mining. And its role in our country has, therefore, been very significant.

Through these Bills, we are intending to increase the contribution that diamonds will make to our economy by increasing downstream activity. The problem of being overreliant on resource mining is typified by what we see in Kimberley today. Kimberley is internationally recognised for its contribution to diamond production. Yet we see how the community suffers when the once lucrative mines are decommissioned because of low resources and inaccessible deposits.

No meaningful development took place in Kimberley whilst mining was happening, when, by all accounts, Kimberley had the potential to become one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Whilst we still have resources in the ground, we need to ensure that we maximise the benefits that they can bring, particularly to towns that are located close to these mining operations.

This piece of legislation seeks to create the framework for downstream value addition and investment in the diamond-manufacturing sector. It also forms part of the broader efforts of the government to bring development opportunities to provincial economies and to promote a more equitable spread of economic activity.

It is clear from my interaction with Ministers from other African countries that we are not alone in our frustrations with the divorce of diamond mining from the other more lucrative aspects of the industry. The positive changes taking place on the African continent allow us to find ways of exploring the downstream side of the diamond industry.

There are many synergies to be gained from co-operation with other African diamond-producers in areas such as aggregation, developing a unique regional brand, style specialisation and marketing, amongst other things.

It is necessary for these countries also to look at transforming this industry by passing the relevant legislation that will enable them not only to thrive on cutting and polishing African diamonds in Africa, but also to see diamonds moving from the mines to the fingers of consumers.

Chairperson, I would like to touch briefly on the responses that we got from the public hearings that were held subsequent to the tabling of this Bill. During the public hearings in the parliamentary portfolio committee, and through the media, there were a number of concerns with regard to this Bill. Some of these include concerns that South Africans do not have the ability to cut, polish and manufacture jewellery from the diamonds that we mine.

We have heard that it is not economically viable to cut and polish small diamonds in South Africa, and that diamond-producing countries should not become polishers and manufacturers, but should rather concentrate on the mining activities as such, which produce the diamonds.

We have listened to these concerns, and some of them have been dealt with in the amendments that followed the tabling of this Bill. But I think we should rather see these concerns as challenges for both government and the private sector that need to be overcome as the dangers of pursuing an approach that does not encompass the entire value chain would ultimately lead to underdevelopment of our economy.

On the issue of skills and the ability of South Africans to engage effectively in the downstream side of this industry, we recognise where we come from and we know that training will need to take place, and greater levels of investment are going to be required. We are committed to ensuring that our people receive the required training and skills development so that the necessary competences can be acquired.

Fortunately, we have been in discussions with major players from the major diamond centres to support our skills development programme, and as we speak some of our people who are interested - I think most of them were women - have gone overseas. They have gone to Antwerp to acquire the skills relating to how to manage a diamond-manufacturing factory.

We are also fortunate that some major players in the diamond industry have been watching our developments with interest, with a view to investing in downstream processing. Such investments, be they from India, Israel, New York or Antwerp, will bring the latest technology and will be supported by our own skills development framework.

Indeed, some companies are already making representations to my department, indicating that they have the latest technology for cutting the smallest of diamonds. We’ve been told that we don’t have the capacity to cut small diamonds. Now these companies’ representatives are saying: “Minister, don’t panic, the capacity is there, as well as the technology.”

We were also told, during the hearings, about the possible loss of thousands of jobs on the production site should beneficiation be encouraged. When this was said, members of Parliament questioned this position and asked whether assurances could be given by the industry that those jobs would be sustained, if this Bill was not passed.

The response, hon members, was: “No, there are no guarantees on this front.” What we can guarantee is that through the successful implementation of this piece of legislation, there will be job gains downstream.

Some of the concerns raised are nothing but myths that are created by people who do not wish to see the status quo change. One such view, which we would like to challenge, is the distinction between cuttables and noncuttables, as we believe that this is a nonissue for now.

We have yet to be convinced that certain categories of rough diamonds cannot be cut in South Africa. We would like to allow ourselves to compete with Antwerp, and even the Indian centres. With investors bringing their technology and expertise, I believe that in time we will be able to compete successfully with established players in the industry.

We have seen that the Indian companies in the sector have followed diamonds where they are, and I do not think there is anything stopping them from following diamonds to South Africa, to cut and polish our diamonds here, which will also see them bringing their technology. Therefore, until we have proof that some diamonds are uncuttable in South Africa, we will not discriminate.

The objectives of the Diamonds Amendment Bill are: To drive the beneficiation of diamonds; to provide for local supply of diamonds to ensure that diamonds are beneficiated here; and to ensure that cutters and tool-makers can obtain regular supply of unpolished diamonds and thereby create more jobs in the beneficiation industry.

With regards to this Bill, it establishes the State Diamond Trader, which will acquire and supply unpolished diamonds to local diamond beneficiators and promote the industry through the necessary research, support and development, as deemed necessary from time to time.

I have to emphasise that the State Diamond Trader will set whatever portion of the production cycle deemed to support local beneficiation at a competitive market price. Because we are confident that we will not compromise the producers, we have built in mechanisms to resolve disputes.

This Bill also establishes what we call a diamond export and exchange centre, from where all rough diamonds are going to be exported. For control purposes, they will be channelled so as to allow local producers to buy them if they can utilise them. Here foreigners will also be allowed to purchase the goods they want for export purposes. Under certain conditions, such as when we have an oversupply in the country, rough diamonds could be exported directly without being offered for purchase at the diamond export and exchange centre.

The regulator has a right to declare any place a diamond export and exchange centre, as it deems fit. Therefore, this is not a fixed place or premises in Johannesburg, but could be anywhere in the country. We have allowed this flexibility in order not to stifle the industry.

The regulatory function accompanying the aforementioned structures will be conducted by the Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator. This structure will replace the existing diamond board. In the principal Act an export duty was proposed, which will operate as a deterrent against exporting unpolished diamonds. This matter falls within the jurisdiction of the National Treasury, which we are engaging with regard to the money Bill that they are busy preparing. We were promised that this Bill would be ready to be tabled in Parliament early next year.

When we come to the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill – I’m sure hon members are aware that we are debating these two Bills at the same time - I would like to say that . . .

. . . ufakelo lwezilungiso lwesibini kulo Mthetho uYilwayo beluyinxalenye yezilungiso esithe sazenza ngempumelelo kwantlandlolo. Kambe ngelixa le nkqubo yokubonisana noluntu, sacetyiswa ukuba yonke imiba ephathelene norhwebo ngedayimane kufuneka isuswe kulo Mthetho uYilwayo owaziwa njengeDiamonds Amendment Bill. Kwaye kufuneka ithatyathwe njengoMthetho oYilwayo wecandelo 76.

Izilungiso ezikhoyo apha kulo Mthetho uYilwayo owaziwa njengeDiamonds Second Amendment Bill neenguqu ezikhoyo ziya kwenza ukuba lo Mthetho uYilwayo uhloniphe abantu ngokwesini, njengoko ngaphambili ubuthetha ngamadoda odwa.

Ukudibanisa umsiki kunye nomenzi wezixhobo zokusika idayimane ukuba abe ngumxhamli kwezeedayimane kwenzelwa ukuthintela abo bangenazo iilayisenisi ekuncediseni abanazo ngexesha bethengisa iidayimane ezingamenyezeliswanga nakuyiphi na indawo ezithengiswa kuyo. Oku sikwenzela ukunciphisa ubuqhophololo bokumelwa kwabantu . . . “what we call fronting in English”.

Ukumiselwa kwexesha lokuba semthethweni kweelayisenisi kunye neziqinisekiso kuyashukuxwa nako. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo umisela umlawuli weedayimane nezinyithi zexabiso ukuba athathe indawo yebhodi yedayimane yeloMzantsi Afrika ebikade isebenza. Umlawuli lowo uya kuphatha aphinde alawule yonke imiba ephathelene nokuthengiswa nokungeniswa kwedayimane apha elizweni kwakunye nokuthunyelwa kwayo phesheya.

Kananjalo, lo mlawuli uya kumisela amaziko okuthumela idayimane ngaphandle, ajongane nomsebenzi wokutshintshwa kwemali yamanye amazwe ukulungiselela ukuthengwa, ukuthengiswa, ukuthunyelwa ngaphandle nokungeniswa elizweni kwedayimane yethu.

UMrhwebi weDayimani woMbuso uya kuba nelungelo lokuba abonelele ngeedayimane ezingekamenyezeliswa kumsiki weedayimani, ze aphinde akhuthaze ishishini leedayimane. Umba wokugqibela esiwufumana kolu lungiso lwesibini ngowokuba uMphathiswa uya kumisela, ngamaxesha awahlukeneyo, ngokwazisa kwiPhephandaba likaRhulumente ubungakanani ekhulwini beedayimani ezivelisiweyo kumjikelo wemveliso ngokwemfuneko yosetyenziso lwayo ekhaya, ubungakanani bokuthengwa kwayo ngumrhwebi karhulumente weedayimane.

Nanjengoko amalungu ezibonela, ezi nguqu ziinguqu ezimbalwa nezincinci kakhulu ezenziwe nje ukufezekisa iinguqu eziya kwenza ukuba uphuhliso lwedayimane yethu lube yimpumelelo. Ndiyazi kananjalo ukuba amalungu aza kuzixhasa ezi nguqu siza nazo ngokubhekisele kulo mba. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)

[ . . . the second set of amendments to this Bill was part of the amendments which we successfully made earlier. During the constituency period we were advised that all matters relating to the diamond trade should be removed from this Bill, which is known as the Diamonds Amendment Bill. It has been classified as a section 76 Bill.

The amendments in the current Bill, which is known as the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill, and the changes we are now making, recognise people in terms of their gender, as before it only referred to men.

The integration of the cutter and the constructor of the diamond-cutting equipment to be beneficiaries in the diamond industry is intended to prevent those who do not have licences from assisting those who do have them when selling unpolished diamonds to anyone anywhere that diamonds are sold. We do this to minimise what we call “fronting”.

The duration of the validity of licences and permits is also under discussion. This Bill gives the regulator of diamonds and precious metals the authority to replace the Diamond Board of South Africa, which was in operation. The regulator will control and manage all matters relating to the trade in and importation of diamonds in the country, and also its exportation overseas.

At the same time, the regulator will establish centres for exporting diamonds to overseas countries, and will also monitor foreign exchange to facilitate buying, selling, exporting and importing of our diamonds.

The State Diamond Trader will have the responsibility to provide unpolished diamonds to the diamond cutter, and encourage the diamond industry. The last issue which we find concerning this second amendment is that the Minister will announce from time to time in the Government Gazette the percentage of diamonds involved in the production circle, according to the requirements for their use in the country, and the number bought by the State Diamond Trader.

As members can see, these changes are very few and minor, and are just to effect the changes that will make our diamond development a success. And I know that members are going to support the changes we have come up with in relation to this matter.]

In conclusion, let me say that our mining sector still has enormous possibilities, and through Bills such as the Diamonds Amendment Bill and the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill, we will achieve increased integration of this sector with other facets of our economy. We will contribute towards economic growth, equitable spread of economic activity and job creation. Ndiyabulela. [I thank you.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Siyabula Mphathiswa ohloniphekileyo kuzakulandela ibambela lika sihlalo wekomoti yezoqoqosho, ohloniphekileyo u- MP Themba. [We thank you, hon Minister. Hon member Themba, who is the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs will speak next.]

Ms M P THEMBA: Hon chairperson, hon Minister and hon Deputy Minister, I will focus my debate on the Diamonds Amendment Bill and other members on the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill. The Diamonds Amendment Bill is celebrated within the context of the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter. The Bill owes its basis to the Freedom Charter.

This piece of legislation is contextualised within the clause “The people shall share in the country’s wealth”. Central to the Bill are issues of accountability, transparency, economic growth, black economic empowerment and development of the local diamond industry through beneficiation and skills development.

The Diamonds Amendment Bill is a logical response to challenges faced by industry players and those intending to enter into the industry. The fundamental problem for industry players has been and still is the lack of access to rough diamonds. As a result, many companies had to shut up shop and jobs were lost. This scenario should be attributed to the cartels that determine who accesses rough diamonds. These cartels have been dominating the industry since the discovery of diamonds in the country.

The Bill has the potential to spread wealth within the industry, thus avoiding unnecessary advantage by the already existing diamond cartels. The State Diamond Trader advocated in the Bill will enable those that do not access to freely access rough diamonds. This will, to some extent, allow new entrants from the historically disadvantaged background to gain access into the industry, especially women - and black women in particular.

As the ANC-led government we refuse to be told that there are cuttable and noncuttable diamonds. We view this as a ploy to discourage the development of a local beneficiation industry. We believe that in the interest of developing a local beneficiation industry, the market should be left to decide which diamonds are cuttable and which ones are noncuttable.

It is imperative to note that the Diamonds Amendment Bill intends to serve as an impetus for job creation. This Bill will, to some extent, assist government in achieving its one million new jobs target. Through this Bill there is the potential for the youth to be skilled and trained to work in the cutting and polishing industry.

As the ANC government we endorse the objectives of the Diamonds Amendment Bill. We believe that as one of the largest diamond producers in the world we should stimulate the development of a local beneficiation industry and ensure that cartels and tool-makers obtain regular supplies of unpolished diamonds. This will, to some extent, cushion the impact of job losses anticipated in the upstream.

As the ANC-led government, we are committed to changing the lives of the masses of our people and we believe that legislative developments of this character will stimulate socio-economic development as espoused in our policies.

The Diamonds Second Amendment Bill is a section 76 version of the Diamonds Amendment Bill, hence I said that other members would talk on the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill section 76. We support the Bill.

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Hon Chairperson, my colleagues . . . “nam mandithi chatha.” [ . . . I would like to add a few things to what the previous member has said.]

Indeed, as the Minister has correctly said, and history informs us, diamond mining was the first type of organised mining to take place in South Africa. We are further reminded that Kimberley was the forerunner of formal mining.

The discovery of this little precious stone transformed what was then an agrarian economy to a dual economy with the development of the mechanised industries. History has again taught us that in order to get value from the mineral resources mined in the country, we must develop the downstream in the mining value chain.

The diamond industry has failed to develop the beneficiation capacity. As the ANC, we believe that the promulgation of the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill will, to some extent, redress past imbalances, develop local beneficiation industry and transform the diamond industry.

The Diamonds Second Amendment Bill is a section 76 version of the Diamonds Amendment Bill. This Bill seeks to revolutionise the mining industry, especially the components of doing business. This Bill repeals section 59 of the Diamond Act. It should be noted that this legislative development is in the interest of ensuring equitable access to the mineral resources of the country. The application of this Bill will ensure equitable access to rough diamonds to those who wish to trade.

This legislative development intends to increase the contribution of diamonds to the country’s economy by increasing the downstream activity. This Bill empowers the regulator to implement, administer and control all matters related to the sale, beneficiation, import and export of diamonds.

The Bill empowers the regulator to establish a diamond exchange and export centre. In fact, this centre will be responsible for facilitating the buying, selling, export and import of diamonds. The regulator empowers the State Diamond Trader to acquire and supply unpolished diamonds to local beneficiators, whereas the trader will promote the industry through the necessary research and support.

As the ANC, we believe that the economic potential of this industry will be unleashed, as skills development programmes will build the capacity that was previously nonexistent. We believe that this Bill will serve as an impetus to job creation. The beneficiation industry in South Africa will develop if there is a commitment and determination from local diamond houses and this will go a long way towards creating a substantial number of jobs. [Applause.]

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Chairperson, this Bill will create a State Diamond Trader to buy diamonds in a volume or at a value to be determined by the Minister. It will also replace the SA Diamond Board, which is largely made up of industry representatives and funded with levies, with the state- funded and government-dominated SA Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once gave a resounding warning to politicians, once adhered to by her successor Tony Blair, namely that: “You can’t buck the market.” The ANC government, unfortunately, seems to think otherwise, as can be seen in the Diamonds Amendment Bill.

The DA will oppose the Diamonds Amendment Bill because of the fact that it is highly interventionist and puts the state at the centre of the diamond business. It has been rushed, an issue which should be very alarming.

As I said in the committee meeting, the Bill was published in the Government Gazette on 30 August 2005, and the government only allowed 21 days for public comment, a deadline that the industry complained was far too short for such a major piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the ANC has used such tactics. Before the Education Laws Amendment Bill went to vote, the ANC hastily rewrote it, doing the amendments that were introduced painstakingly in the Portfolio Committee on Education over several weeks by the DA’s education spokesperson, Helen Zille. [Interjections.]

By bulldozing this Bill through Parliament, there will be jobs lost.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member. Could you debate the subject matter under consideration? We are not debating the Education Laws Amendment Bill.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: I am explaining that the tactics used in both pieces of legislation are the same.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Can you focus on . . .

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: By bulldozing this Bill through Parliament, there will be jobs lost, and the economy will be harmed as a result of that. In short, what the Bill is doing is to bring about nationalisation through the back door – and this does not come from me, but from McDonald Themane, the chairperson of the Master Diamond Cutters Association.

Fifteen years ago he became the first black South African to obtain a diamond cutting licence and he also noted that all over the world governments have recognised that it is better for them to take tax and privatise, objecting to the overinvolvement of the state. I’d like to pose a question: Will the restructuring of the diamond industry in future benefit those with close links to the ruling party? Only time will tell. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, . . .

. . . andizi kuchitha ixesha ngabantu abaze kumela oohlohl’esakhe. Siyayazi into yokuba eli lixesha elandulela uvoto, ngoko ke kufuneka siqalise amaphulo okunyusa iingxowa-mali ngokuthi sixhase kakhulu abo sibaziyo ukuba bahlohla phi na, kunye nabo basixhasayo ngezimali kulo mzabalazo wethu. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[I am not going to waste time on people who have come to represent the fat cats. We know that we will be voting soon, therefore we must start fundraising campaigns, and obtain the support of those whose pockets we know and those who supported us with finances in our struggle.]

Allow me to support my Minister, on both the Diamonds Amendment Bill and the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill.

Simvile uMam’uThemba xa ebethetha apha, echaza ngokuba uthini na uMqulu weNkululeko. Ndifuna ukwaleka umsundulu, ndinabe ngokuthi nam ndicaphule phaya kuMqulu weNkululeko: (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[We heard Mrs Themba when she spoke here, explaining what the Freedom Charter says. I want to add something, and further expatiate by quoting from the Freedom Charter:] “The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole.”

We don’t have just one race or class in this country; we are talking here about billionaires who own South African minerals. The question is: Who owns the means of production? Who owns the mines in South Africa? How many black people own mines in South Africa? When we talk transformation, we want transformation of this economy. Those that control this economy are those that control the means of production.

We cannot just talk superficially, because we are not the iron ladies of South Africa. We care about the people of South Africa. We care about the women of South Africa. It’s not just about me. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Excuse me, hon Deputy Minister. Hon Terblanche, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that you must allow the person on the podium to speak uninterrupted, and that your disruptive behaviour is unacceptable. Continue, hon Minister.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: I was saying, hon Chair, that the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act was passed in this country to ensure that the government becomes the custodian of the mineral rights of the people of South Africa, in keeping with the vision of the Freedom Charter.

We started with our White Paper and proceeded to transformatory legislation, and now we are really ensuring that the minerals do not just leave the country; we are making sure that we add value to them. We are making sure that they grow the economy of South Africa. That is the reason we also want to beneficiate them in this country.

We want to transfer skills to our people and stop exporting jobs to other countries. We instead want to create jobs for the people of South Africa in South Africa.

Hon members might, therefore, be aware that this second amending Bill forms part of our overall amendment of the Diamond Act, but only deals with issues that pertain to the diamond trade. We are amending the Diamond Act in order to protect and enhance the diamond trade by making diamonds accessible to those South Africans who were denied the opportunity to participate in this industry even though they had the financial capacity to do so. We are also continuing to protect the legitimate trade as per the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

Our amendments to the Diamond Act introduce a new era in the regulation of the diamond trade in South Africa by combining the diamond trade with the precious metals trade through the Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator. We will be creating an enabling environment for new players to enter the sector. This regulator will, in essence, replace the current, toothless SA Diamond Board, which had both the promotion and regulation function.

Unfortunately, this structure proved to be ineffectual in transforming and growing this industry. We have seen this board being controlled by industry players, who perpetrated their agendas and had no interest in changing the status quo. Thus, hon members, we had to ensure that we change the situation where all the players were also referees.

Through this Bill, the promotion and regulation functions are now to be split, where the regulator will now focus only on the administration of the law and the newly established State Diamond Trader will focus on promotion.

The board of the regulator will consist of four members from the business sector, unlike now, where the SADB has become a mass meeting of businesspersons who make laws favourable for serving their interests.

It is contrary to good governance principles for players in the industry to make their own laws, as well as police themselves. I’m sure we’ve never heard of such a practice anywhere in the world.

Given the strategic importance of this industry and the critical role that it will play in beneficiation, as the Minister has already indicated, this self-regulation is a misnomer and we have to stop it. To reinforce this separation, the regulator will be funded through the fiscus, and not from levies paid by diamond-mining companies.

The second amending Bill stipulates the functions of the regulator with regard to diamonds, and outlines the role of the regulator, which will be to implement, administer and control all matters relating to purchase, import and export of diamonds. This regulator will be a key component of our strategy to better manage the sector and ensure improved access to rough diamonds. The regulator will, therefore, also be responsible for the establishment of the diamond export and exchange centres.

The functions of the State Diamond Trader are also stipulated in the second amending Bill. The trader shall purchase unpolished diamonds from producers, supply local diamond beneficiators and also promote the diamond industry.

The state has to intervene in this matter in order to address a market failure, which is evident in the statistics on amounts of rough diamonds exported from our country, in the closure of the factories that we see in different provinces and also in the number of people who are not site holders, the majority of whom are black players - including women - who are unable to get access to unpolished diamonds.

We therefore want to see blacks in general, and women in particular, involved, because as women we are the ones who buy and wear jewellery. It is, therefore, only natural that we should also participate in the industry, that we should be owners of the industry and that we should create our own designs because we know what we want to wear. We should also be able to benefit from the industry, and not just be consumers who support other people.

Local access to rough diamonds and the active promotion of the diamond trade will provide Africa with the opportunities for country-of-origin branding. We know that we get rings Swiss-made or American-made, but we don’t know exactly where the gold and diamonds come from.

As we have already committed ourselves, in the section 75 Bill, the State Diamond Trader will monitor its clients to ensure that the beneficiaries’ access to diamonds translates unpolished diamonds that have been bought into polished diamonds and diamond jewellery. The State Diamond Trader will have the duty to monitor the market, both locally and internationally, by benchmarking to ensure that South Africa remains competitive.

We have ensured that the State Diamond Trader will have the capacity to support our broader objectives as the Bill makes provision for the Minister to determine the percentage of the diamonds required for local beneficiation. The conditions under which diamond producers will offer unpolished diamonds to the trader are stipulated clearly in this Bill. This is not about unfettered powers; this also comes from the Freedom Charter, which says: “The people shall govern.”

It is the market and the people on the ground that will determine what quantity of rough diamonds they want, and the Minister will be guided by that principle.

Furthermore, we have never had unfettered powers in the ANC government. Our Ministers’ powers and mandates originate from the 70% mandate that we received from the people of South Africa. [Applause.] They have never abused that power; they have never given orders for children to be killed in Soweto or Langa, as the previous government did in 1976.

Chairperson, let me thank the members for supporting the Bill. The longer we are in government, the more we have been able to recognise the importance of using legislative mechanisms effectively to create an enabling environment and economic opportunities for our people. And if we have to drag along some people kicking and screaming to ensure transformation in this country, we will do so.

This piece of legislation and the institutions created are an important step towards transforming our economy and creating a better life for all. I look forward to the implementation of this Bill, because I am sure that members of this House support it. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr D D GAMEDE: Hon Chairperson, once more I notice that, as usual, the hon Terblanche has left the House. [Interjection.]

An HON MEMBER: Sy is ‘n bangbroek! [She is a coward!]

Mr D D GAMEDE: In addition, she is very conservative with the truth. She has become one of the best performers’’ andactors’’ in this House.

The last meeting of the committee was held in V454 a few weeks ago. And the hon Terblanche was not present. But she says she was present and that we should study the Hansard. Honestly, she does not know when she is attending meetings or not. [Interjections.] They are just misleading the public. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: O gola mahala. [She is earning money for doing nothing.]

Mr D D GAMEDE: Chairperson, the imminent promulgation of the Diamonds Amendment Bill is celebrated within the context of the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter. The public hearings on this Bill were characterised by negative sentiments from the minerals industry, as was shown by one member. These negative sentiments can be attributed to the fear of the imminent change that is going to engulf this industry.

It should be noted that this industry has long been operating under the shrouded rules of secrecy it designed for itself. This piece of legislation seeks to transform that, as it advocates accountability and transparency. The Diamonds Amendment Bill provides the correct framework for the acquisition, possession, beneficiation and use of this mineral resource.

December is a well-celebrated month, and only good things are supposed to be said, be it statements or greetings. The ANC-led government gives the people of South Africa this Bill because it is for beneficiation. And, the people of South Africa are aware that other parties like the DA are saying black people must not benefit. [Interjections.] The Diamonds Amendment Bill will unleash the potential of local beneficiation industry. Consequently, the growth of the local beneficiation industry will create jobs.

The Bill provides for the establishment of the State Diamond Trader to ensure increased accountability. The essence of the trader will be to promote equitable access to and local beneficiation of South Africa’s rough diamonds. Others would want us believe that the majority of the people of South Africa must look at diamonds being mined, smell them and let them go to London without even participating in the industry. At the same time, in a few months’ time, they would want these people to vote them in.

The Bill provides for the licensing of local trading hours. The portion of diamonds that will be purchased from local producers - the State Diamond Trader - will be sold to local beneficiators at fair market prices and will be based on the requirements of local beneficiations.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for the establishment of a diamond exchange and export centre, which shall act as a ``one-stop shop’’ where temporary permit holders may purchase and export rough diamonds as well as pay 15% export duty. It is imperative to note that any producer who intends exporting unpolished diamonds will export from this centre and pay the relevant export duty and not as is happening presently, where only one big company produces, makes the rules and decides the price. [Interjections.] Yes, indeed, acting referee and a player at the same time.

On that note, it should be noted that the ANC-led government continues to advance progressive legislation that is to the benefit of all South Africans.

As the Freedom Charter says: “The People shall share in the country’s wealth!” I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr M GUNGUBELE (Gauteng): Hon Chairperson, I think a lot of things have been said about the Bill. I want to start off by saying that as the Gauteng province we support the Bill, with a dissenting view from a predictable source.

Because a lot has been said about the objectives of the Bill, which we already support, there are however just a few things that we would like to share. One writer in the Business Report of The Star on 6 December 2005 said the biggest challenge facing developing countries with vibrant private sectors, such as India, South Africa and Brazil, is how to manage the accumulation of wealth with the objective of creating a more equitable society.

Also, the latest report by the UN is on the increasing gap in income between those who are at a low level and those who are at a high level and the reckless way in which top professionals or top bosses are putting money into their pockets. That report also reflects a very critical area as one of the key areas that need to be looked at, namely the issues of skills base and infrastructure capacity.

When you look at these issues, the key one is clear when you look at what the Minister is doing. She is responding by ensuring that she puts together a management strategy in a regulatory format to ensure that our economy responds to the historic challenges of our country - a country where the poor who are historically marginalized are unskilled and dislocated in terms of infrastructure and many other require resources in order to compete in the mainstream economy. Now, we are that country that this writer refers to as “developing” and having a vibrant private sector, but that does not respond to the historic challenges of the country.

Another business writer, Sikhakhane, on the same date, wrote about ubuntu being weaved into capitalism. Quoting the Tata Group in India, which has R110 billion sales a year and how interestingly the Tata family only owns 2% shares in that company - 65,8% are owned by a trust whose purpose is to deploy that to community projects and also demonstrate how they deploy R25 million every year to the public service on issues such as education, infrastructure support and it also supports a 740-bed hospital and shows the kind of harmony that has emanated from a private institution that between 1992 and 2001 retrenched from 78 000 to 48 800 without a strike and offered to pay the retrenched earnings equivalent to their earnings at their retrenchment time until they retire - the very company having hired no less than 39 000 people this year. This is the weaving of ubuntu into capitalism.

Now the question is: Why would a government intervene in such a situation? There would be no basis because the other rewards of harmony in this kind of system is that in the 1970s the workers in this very company defended that company against nationalisation by government.

It sounds very unusual, but it has occurred. It is because of the humanity that prevailed in this company. Again, the question you would ask is: Why would the government intervene in such a situation?

Yet another writer, Segone, says regulation is an incessant step in South Africa’s growth. He demonstrates how the self-regulation in South Africa, especially in the credit area, has actually excluded five million consumers from having access to credit facilities and how that impacts on the economic activities in this country. Because one of the things we have agreed upon in South Africa is that you need to open resources to as many small upcoming businesses as possible to spur economic growth and create jobs.

The Credit Bill is one of the regulatory interventions. There is a complaint from the business community that compliance cost it R79 billion. What is not being calculated however is the benefit of that intervention for the broader economy of the country. They also reflect the contradiction that it is logically correct to say that if the majority who are disadvantaged and marginalised were consumers, they would have made a bigger cry for state intervention. But when that is happening, we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that the business community also at times calls for government intervention when the stream revenue is actually affected. For example, very recently manufacturing and mining industries called on the Governor of the Reserve Bank or the state to intervene in the value of the rand. It was not about the poor people; it was about the stream revenue.

What this writer is saying is that it is correct if the state regulates heavily. That can stifle the growth. Yet it is correct, when self- regulation is inefficient, that the state should do something.

What we are trying to speak about here is that the ANC government’s approach in driving the South African economy is informed on an ongoing basis by its impact on improving the lives of the majority who have been excluded for centuries. Therefore, anyone who questions it must actually put it to the following test: to what extent is it contributing to the advancement and betterment of the people who own less than 17% of the wealth of the country, yet they are more than 75% of the population? This is the test that the ANC government must be challenged on.

If you look at this Bill quickly – I don’t want to repeat things that have been said because repetitions do actually multiply boredom - what is key here is that there is beneficiation, cutting and other multiplying effects downstream. The fact is that South Africans must be given a chance to participate in the economy – the chance they have not been allowed before.

The current board has been heavily structured in favour of the private sector management. These are problems that the Minister is trying to correct. This board has never attempted to correct them. In other words, businesspeople were given a chance to sort out this situation. However, they have not done so in many years. The government is now saying allow us a chance to play a role so that we can find a balance. We are not going to be heavy-handed, we are just removing inefficiencies that undermine the participation of many who are poor who have no access.

In that context we think, as Gauteng, that it makes logical sense to support this Bill, because one must belong somewhere else in the world not to understand the situation in this country. It’s only a Bill of this nature ensures the logic. Based on that economic logic, Minister, Gauteng supports you on this. We think it’s actually an interesting thing that we have leaders who are able to understand where we live and act in accordance with the manner and the required situation in the place where we live. In that context, we, as Gauteng, support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M J SIBIYA: Hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, comrades, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I am reminded of the words spoken by one of our greatest literary giants in Africa, a revolutionary, a son of the soil, Amilcar Cabral, in 1974 when he addressed a conference of all Portuguese colonies on the continent in Brazzaville, Congo.

One field commander stood up in that conference and enunciated the list of all the problems he himself, with the units, encountered in Guinea Bissau in terms of executing the struggle. He suggested that a special conference be called to overhaul the leadership of the then PAIGC, and that stands for the African Party for the Independence of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde.

Now when President Amilcar Cabral stood up to sum up all the things that went on in that conference, amongst other things he said, and I quote: “It is foolish to lament and try to take advantage of our difficulties, but it is intelligent to make an effort at overcoming these.”

We have been hearing a lot of noise about the complaint laid against this amending Bill. Some of the noise suggests, as the comrade put it eloquently and very brilliantly, that our people and the government should leave the market forces to determine the course of events in that industry. Comrades, to me, this is tantamount to suggesting that someone must think of organising a celebration party in hell, where there is no room for laughter, smiles or anything outside of agony and pain, and I find it very upsetting.

Now, when the government acts on behalf of our people in the footsteps of the Freedom Charter, one of whose clauses reads, as Comrade Gamede said, ``The people shall share in the country’s wealth’’, we were told that that is an intervention, which is an intervention indeed, but it is meant to redirect the trajectory of the diamond industry towards benefiting our people who have never benefited before. It is just as when our people, with the ANC as the political organisation and leader, intervened all along to redirect the trajectory of the apartheid regime towards the dustbin of history, which we have succeeded in doing.

I remember that, at some stage, I had the opportunity to watch TV, although I don’t usually do that. My son came to tell me to look at what was going on. I went there. I saw a number of people, some of whom I recognised, as this was in Khayelitsha, as I was told. They were talking about things they would like to see our people getting in order to improve their lives. When I looked, I saw some panties and underwear hanging on the washing line. If there could have been the delivery of a half an ounce diamond, I think those people would be far better off now than they have been since that incident. Who did it, I don’t know. I still need to research it and settle that.

Let me bring, together with this House, the revolutionary greetings in the clause of the year of the mobilisation for the realisation of the Freedom Charter.

The ANC-led government continues to distinguish itself as the champion of the interests of the masses of our people. It is not something we are doing today. We have done it from the very beginning of our existence. Those who know can tell the story better.

The Diamonds Amendment Bill seeks to play a meaningful role in transforming the diamond industry that is currently characterised by skewed ownership patterns that are not reflective of the demographic make-up of the country.

This legislative development seeks to stimulate processes regarding the promotion of equitable access and the development of local beneficiation in the industry. The tabling of this Bill has been preceded by complaints from the industry, blaming the government for so-called back-door nationalisation’’. Sometimes it becomes a problem to understand words superficially without knowing the philosophical content of such words. I am saying this because of the misuse of the wordnationalisation’’ in this regard. I will perhaps come back to that later.

As the ANC-led government, we do not subscribe to the notion of so-called back-door nationalisation’’, as bandied about by the captains of industry, accompanied by the DA. If the DA regards the promotion of equitable access to diamonds and development of the local beneficiation industry asback-door nationalisation’’, then logic forces us to say that logical thinking should, from now on, become a commodity to be sold to those who cannot think. [Laughter.]

The current scenario in the diamond industry does not augur well. I thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Chairperson, I would like to thank all hon members for supporting the legislation. I want to thank hon Gamede, really, for exposing the hon member Terblanche for what she is. She is an actor, standing here, reading a script prepared for her by her leader, Tony Leon. What she said here is exactly what the DA member said in the NA and it is exactly what their leader said in the papers. [Interjections.]

Oh no, sisi, I gave you a chance; I listened to you. Nyamezela kaloku. Nyamezela xa ndikuphendula. [If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Minister, I think I am making this point for the last time: Whoever wants to be listened to when he or she speaks, irrespective of how he or she feels about what is being said by another person, must expect the same. I am saying this to you, hon Terblanche. [Interjections.] What is your point of order, hon Watson?

Mr A WATSON: My point of order is, Chair: Why are you continually picking on the DA members when it comes to heckling but you allow the rest of the House to do what they like? Could you please explain that?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: No, you are out of order.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order, and according to the Rules of the House you are supposed to listen to a point of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I have ruled on that point of order.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: I am making another point of order and you don’t know what my point of order is.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I have made a ruling on that point of order. Please take your seat.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: I am making another point of order. It is allowed by the Rules of this House.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Could you take your seat? Proceed, hon Minister.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: I rise on a point of order, which is allowed by the Rules of this House.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Minister, you can continue.

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Ek gaan nie sit nie. Dit is ‘n Reël. Hy mag nie, nie met ‘n punt van orde nie. [I will not sit down. It is a Rule. He is not allowed to do this, not with a point of order.]

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: This hon member is beginning to sound like a record with a scratch. If you remember the old LPs; when it had a scratch it kept on making the same sound. [Interjections.]

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: You don’t seem to listen.

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: That is what it sounds like to me, on this issue of nationalising through the backdoor. This is an issue that we have responded to publicly, to say that we are not nationalising through the backdoor; we are intervening because there has been a market failure. This government has a right to intervene when the markets fail and in this case, as hon members … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Could you give me two minutes? The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Could they stop the clock, please?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: With the powers vested in me, on procedure, I am going to apply Rule 37, to order hon Terblanche to leave the House until further notice. That is a ruling. [Applause.] Hon member, could you please go, unless you want to be ordered out? [Interjections.] “Ja, dis reg.” [Yes, that’s right.] [Interjections.]

Mr A WASTON: You see how you are allowing the House to heckle. You don’t recognise me. I am rising on a point of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: What is your point of order?

Mr A WATSON: You must ask me. How would you know if you don’t ask me, Chair? You refused the point of order from the previous member without asking what the point of order was. I am now asking you: On what point did you chase my member out?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: It is not your member. In this House I treat everybody equally.

Mr A WATSON: No, you have just allowed heckling here.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I know that you are one of the senior members of this House, but in my position here, I am not your son. Secondly, there is a difference between heckling and interruption of a member speaking. I think can produce evidence to that effect and on that basis I order you to sit down and allow the Minister to proceed. Take your seat. I am not going to entertain your question. Minister, please proceed.

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: As I was saying, the DA is repeatedly accusing us of nationalising through the backdoor when what we are actually doing is to ensure equity and equitable access to the resources of this country by our people, which have been denied them by the former governments for all those years.

We are thus correcting an imbalance here, and as the government we cannot sit and watch when our people are suffering and dying in the mines, and yet they can’t enjoy the fruits of their labour. This is a decisive intervention by a government where the markets have failed.

For years and years the government has been calling on the industry to help us beneficiate our products, and they have done zilch. In India there are a million cutters and polishers; they have no diamonds. In South Africa there are fewer than 2 000, or about 2 500 – I am subject to correction – cutters and polishers, and yet we are the third, sometimes said to be the fourth, largest producer of diamonds in the world. I think it is something that we must be shameful about and the DA should drop their heads in shame for objecting to a measure that seeks to correct an imbalance created by themselves.

It is wrong information by hon member Terblanche that this regulator, which is being proposed in the legislation, is going to be dominated by government. Government only has four people there; four more people will be coming from the producers; two will be from the union. So I don’t know if somebody here has offered to sell her commodity, which is called thinking or logical thinking. Now, if you put those numbers together, I don’t know how government is the majority in this case.

Finally, it is incorrect that the diamond Bill was rushed through Parliament. This Bill followed all the processes since the time that it was approved by Cabinet; all the parliamentary timeframes were adhered to, and went through all the legal advisors, from our own to the parliamentary advisors I mean. How they could not see that this is unconstitutional and only the DA can see the unconstitutionality of this legislation is mind- boggling.

Having said that, I must say to the member over there who was saying to the people of South Africa that they must take this seriously, the ANC government intervening, ensuring that we want to make their lives better, that this is a serious statement by the member. And as for us, I must say we feel that these two pieces of legislation are going to change the landscape of South Africa.

I’ve already said that approaches are being made. I am not going to give details, but we are going to see factories going up; we are going to see jobs being created; we are going to see our people getting skills in cutting, polishing and jewellery manufacturing, which will see their being able to actually export their skills and their expertise to other countries in Africa as we believe this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mining the mineral resources that Africa has. Africa is endowed with these resources; we haven’t exploited them sufficiently. South Africans are in the forefront of being able to get this technology, this expertise, and then share it with our sisters in other countries in Africa.

With those words, thank you very much, Chairperson, Chairperson of the NCOP, members from all provinces. This is our last piece of legislation in this House and both the Deputy Minister and I would like to thank you for you co-operation during this year. We had very testing times with our legislation, but we always found support from the hon members. Thank you very much and may you please go home and have some rest with your families. [Interjections.] As for the Deputy Minister and me, it looks like there is not going to be a Christmas this year. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.

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

Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bills be agreed to. 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. Yes. In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any province that intends to make a declaration? None. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Ipuma-Kolonia iyaxhasa. [Eastern Cape supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

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

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

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

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

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

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo re e amogela ka atla tše pedi. [Limpopo supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Kapa Bokone ya amogela. [Northern Cape supports.] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West ke a rona. [North West supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITEES: All nine provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

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

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Before I call on the Secretary to read the seventh Order of the Day, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members of the NCOP to thank the Minister and the Deputy Minister for their efforts in leading this debate on this critical Bill, which is about the lives of our people, and we hope that the relations between the House and department, broadly, will grow and improve on an ongoing basis. Thank you very much, Minister and Deputy Minister. [Applause.]

                            NURSING BILL





            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, I know it is very late in the afternoon and I will not be long. I can see all of us are very tired.

The Nursing Bill before this House today reflects the commitment of our ANC- led government not only to transform, but also to ensure accountability in the manner in which statutory councils operate, and the SA Nursing Council is no exception.

Statutory councils in general play a role in the governance of the health sector in our country, in particular in regard to health professionals, medical schemes, medicines control and medical research.

In respect of the SA Nursing Council and in terms of the way it is presently constituted, there is clearly a need to strengthen its contribution to the transformation of the health sector, the membership, the operational procedures and communication.

As we all should know, the Minister appointed a task team four years ago to look into this matter and to make recommendations to her. This task team comprised of experts from government, council members, council officials and academics. The Bill is therefore a product of these extensive and wide- ranging consultations.

The purpose of this Bill is in line with the fundamentals and the spirit of every Act our government has passed, namely, to transform the SA Nursing Council so as to increase the protection of the public at large and to promote greater accountability.

This, in our view, should not just be cosmetic but also involve a fundamental change in the culture and focus of the council to reflect the needs and aspirations of our transforming society. Moreover, membership of the council should reflect the demographic composition of our country, and strengthen the empowerment of those historically disadvantaged, women and the disabled.

In this regard, members of the council should undergo continuing education and development to reflect these values. The Bill provides for expertise, namely in the financial, legal, community and academic fields to serve on the council, so as to strengthen its capacity.

Furthermore, it seeks to promote the constitutional imperative of access to health care, the right to basic health care and ensuring the dignity of all health care users. It also seeks to make consequential amendments in order to update outdated references.

In terms of the objectives of this Bill, it aims to uphold the objectives of the National Health Act by, inter alia, ensuring that nurses provide quality health care services. This must be achieved through the delivery of these services in a dignified and respectable manner. In this regard, it is critical that we create a kind of consciousness around these issues because, in many respects, the rights of patients are trampled upon, either through acts of negligence, or ignorance.

Moreover, the Bill seeks to regulate the nursing profession so as to ensure appropriate and acceptable conduct in the profession, and in accordance with the National Health Policy. The introduction of good co-operative governance in terms of the powers and the responsibilities of the council are especially pleasing. We have no doubt that this is in the best interest of the public.

While the select committee is satisfied with the overall purpose and objectives of the Bill, it nevertheless proposes two amendments. We propose the omission of such further period as the Minister finds appropriate’’ on page 11, from line 30, and to substitute it withone further term not exceeding five years’’. This, we believe, will ensure the kind of responsiveness by the Minister that both the public and the patients desire.

Secondly, we propose, on page 20, from line 10 to omit subsection 1, and to replace it with ``a person who is a citizen of South Africa intending to register for the first time to practice a profession in the prescribed category must perform remunerated community services for a period of one year at a public health facility’’.

In conclusion, the Bill is raising the bar on a wide range of pertinent issues, inter alia, issues such as discipline, registration, education, financial aspects, appointment to the council and so on. But, ultimately, the responsibility and the political accountability is that of the Minister.

We therefore wish to commend the Minister and her department for having raised the bar to ensure the credibility of the overall governance of the SA Nursing Council. We in the ANC support this Bill. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill, subject to the proposed amendments, be agreed to.

In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties to make their declarations of vote if they so wish.

Declaration of vote:

Ms H LAMOELA: Hon Chair, the function of a democratic government is to represent the wishes of the people. Its function is not to set up a series of committees to rubberstamp the wishes of a few individuals who hold views counter to those of the majority, nor to treat the country’s professional adult citizens like children incapable of managing their own affairs.

The strong reservations of nursing organisations about this Bill centred largely around two issues. Firstly, the Minister proposes to seize complete control of the SA Nursing Council, an independent statutory body that is supposed to represent the nursing profession.

This council will now become an organ of government which is accountable only to the Minister of Health, not to the nurses, and which is fundamentally undemocratic and unrepresentative. No longer will council members who are professional nurses have the right to vote for the professionals they feel best suited to represent them. Indeed they have been thoroughly disenfranchised.

The autonomy and independence of the council is hereby severely compromised, now placing the Minister of Health in full control of the council that is in fact created to regulate the nursing profession and its affairs. Moreover, unlike the existing Bill, which requires that a wide range of interest groups be represented on the council . . .

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Please take your seat. Can I take a point of order?

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, can you take a question?

Ms H LAMOELA: No, hon Chair.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The hon member is not prepared to take a question. Can you proceed?

Ms H LAMOELA: The new law places new constraints on the Minister’s decision- making. For example, three persons must represent communities. I would like to know which communities will be represented and which communities not.

The introduction of legislation legalising compulsory community service for nurses, even those who were trained privately without government funding, was fraught with conflict, but the Minister refused to grant any concessions to nurses, despite the fact that they already give a considerable amount of time during their training serving in public hospitals.

Nurses should be governed by nurses, and should be allowed to vote for their own representatives on the SA Nursing Council. The DA will most definitely not support the Bill. I thank you.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, we shall now proceed to voting on the question. Those in favour, say Aye’’. Those against, say No’’. [Interjections.] I think the ``ayes’’ have it.

Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

The Council adjourned at 17:26. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS



                     THURSDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2005

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Finance

   a) Report and Financial Statements of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 45-2005].

                  WEDNESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2005
   

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Draft Bill submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159

(1)     Road Traffic Amendment Bill, 2005, submitted by the Minister of
     Transport on 29 October 2005. Referred to the Portfolio Committee
     on Transport and the Select Committee on Public Services.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women on Office on the Status of Women contained in the Report and Financial Statements of Vote 1 – The Presidency for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 1 for 2004-2005 [RP 191-2005], dated 11 November 2005:

   The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women, having considered Office on the Status of Women contained in the Report and Financial Statements of Vote 1 – The Presidency for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor- General on the Financial Statements of Vote 1 for 2004-2005 [RP 191-2005]: referred to it, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.

   The following points were considered:

   The Beijing + 10 Report referred to was not sent out for discussion to the relevant stakeholders prior to its presentation to the meeting in New York. The Committee was not given the opportunity to discuss, comment on and/or adopt the Report. To its knowledge, the Committee is not aware that there has been a report back by the Office of the Status of Women to stakeholders.

   In the spirit of consultation and participation, that the government is committed to, the Committee would like to recommend that the 10- year National Action Plan for Gender Mainstreaming, be opened up for broad discussion, in all the provinces, before Cabinet/the government adopts it.

   The National Policy Framework on Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality, adopted in 2000, sets out both short-term and long-term indicators for the achievement of gender equality. The Committee, as part of its monitoring role, would like the Office of the Status of Women to undertake research that responds directly to the indicators, to determine what progress has been made, five years after the policy has become operational.

   The National Gender Machinery, of which the Committee is one of the co- chairs, holds most of its meetings in Pretoria. The Committee would like to recommend the rotational holding of the meetings in different provinces, as a way of broadening the participation of provincial stakeholders, and giving a broader base of civil society organisations access to the National Gender Machinery deliberations.

   Report to be considered.

2. Annual Report of Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women, dated 11 November 2005:

SCAN AND INSERT PAGES 2972 – 2985 OF ATCs

National Council of Provinces

  1.    Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public  Enterprises
  on the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa  Amendment
  Bill [B 32B-2005], dated 16 November 2005:


    The Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises, having
    considered the subject of the Independent Communications Authority
    of South Africa Amendment Bill [B 32B- 2005] (National Assembly –
    sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging
    Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with proposed
    amendments, as follows:


    CLAUSE 7


    Clause rejected.


    NEW CLAUSE


    1. That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 6:


    Amendment of section 5 of Act 13 of 2000


       7.     Section 5 of the principal Act is hereby amended—
    (a)      by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following
    subsection:
             "(1)  [The Council consists of seven councillors appointed
    by the President on the recommendation of the National Assembly
    according to the following principles, namely—
    (a)      participation by the public in the nomination process;
    (b)      transparency and openness;  and
    (c)      the publication of a shortlist of candidates for
    appointment, with due regard to subsection (3) and section 6.]  The
    Council consists of a chairperson and eight other councillors
    appointed by the Minister, by notice in the Gazette.";
    (b)      by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following
    subsections:
             "(1A) (a)  Whenever it is necessary to appoint a
    chairperson or other councillor, the Minister must appoint an
    independent and impartial selection panel consisting of seven
    persons who have an understanding of issues relating to the
    electronic communications and postal sectors.
                   (b)  The panel must consist of—
    (i)      a person with knowledge and experience from the industry;
    (ii)     a person with a legal background and  knowledge of  the
    ICT sector;
    (iii)    an academic in the field of electronic communications;
    (iv)     a representative from the labour sector;
    (v)      a representative of consumer interests; and
    (vi)     two representatives from Parliament.
                   (c)  The names and terms of reference of persons on
    the selection panel must be published by the Minister by notice in
    the Gazette.
             (1B)  The selection panel contemplated in subsection (1A)
    must—
    (a)      at least 60 days prior to the last day of service of a
    councillor, invite the public to nominate candidates for
    appointment to the Council in not less than two newspapers
    circulating nationally;
    (b)      submit to the Minister a list of suitable candidates at
    least one and a half times the number of councillors to be
    appointed;
    (c)      recommend and motivate to the Minister, from the list
    contemplated in paragraph (b), persons who would be most suited to
    serve on the Council.
             (1C)  If the Minister is not satisfied that the persons
    recommended by the panel do not comply with subsection (3), the
    Minister may request the panel to review its recommendations.
             (1D)  The selection panel will be automatically dissolved
    when the appointment is published in the Gazette in terms of
    subsection (1).";
    (c)       by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following
    subsections:
             "(2)  (a)  [The President must appoint one of the
    councillors as chairperson of the Council.]  The chairperson must,
    in writing, appoint a councillor as acting chairperson to perform
    the functions of the chairperson in his or her absence.
                   (b)  [In the absence of the chairperson, the
    remaining councillors must from their number elect an acting
    chairperson, who, while he or she so acts, may perform all the
    functions of the chairperson.]  Where the chairperson is unable to
    make an appointment, the remaining councillors must from their
    number elect an acting chairperson.";  and
    (d)      by the substitution for subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b)
    of subsection (3) of the following subparagraph:
    "(ii)    possess suitable qualifications, expertise and experience
    in the fields of, amongst others, broadcasting, [and
    telecommunications policy] electronic communications and postal
    policy or operations, public policy development, electronic
    engineering, [technology, frequency band planning,] law, marketing,
    journalism, entertainment, education, economics, [business practice
    and] finance or any other related expertise or qualifications.".


    CLAUSE 11


    1. On page 9, from line 22, to omit subsection (2) and to
    substitute:
             (2)   A councillor may be removed from office only [on]—
    (a)      [a finding to that effect by the National Assembly] on
    recommendation by the panel contemplated in section 6A(4) to the
    Minister; and
    (b)      [the adoption by the National Assembly of a resolution
    calling for that councillor’s removal from office] upon approval by
    the Minister of the recommendation contemplated in paragraph (a).
             (3)   The [President] Minister—
    (a)      may suspend a councillor from office at any time after the
    start of the proceedings  of  [the  National  Assembly]  the  panel
    contemplated in section 6A (4) for the removal of that councillor;
    (b)      [must] may remove a councillor from office upon [adoption]
    approval by [the National Assembly] the Minister of the [resolution
    calling] recommendation for that councillor’s removal.”.


    CLAUSE 12


    1. On page 9, in line 40 to omit ",following approval by the
    National Assembly," and to substitute " ,on recommendation by the
    panel contemplated in section 6A (4),".


    CLAUSE 19


    1. On page 14, in line 40, to omit "serviced" and to substitute
    "service".


    2. On page 17, in line 53, to omit all the words after "in" up to
    and including "(1)(b)" in line 54 and to substitute "subsection
    (3)(b)".


    3. On page 17, in line 58, after "must" to insert "not".


    CLAUSE 21


    On page 18, in line 5, to omit "17" and to substitute "21".


                     THURSDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2005

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Transport (a) The South African National Roads Agency Limited Declaration of Intent for 2005-2008.

2. The Minister of Arts and Culture

   a) Report and Financial Statements of the Robben Island Museum for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 194-2005].

3. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

   a) Prosecutorial Policy and Directives relating to Prosecution of Criminal Matters Arising from Conflicts of the Past and which were committed before 11 May 1994, in terms of sections 21(2), 35(1) and 35(2)(b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, (Act No 32 of 1998).

   b) Report on the provisional suspension from office with remuneration: Mr R Ameer, an additional magistrate at Pinetown Magistrates Court.

   c) Report on the provisional suspension from office with remuneration: Mr M S Makamu, a senior magistrate at the Benoni Magistrates Court.

   d) Report of the South African Law Reform Commission for 2004-2005.

4. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry

   a) Government Notice No 1038 published in Government Gazette No 28143 dated 21 October 2005: Restrictions on the use of water for Agricultural, Domestic and Industrial purposes in the Luvuvhu/Letaba Water Management Area, in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).

   b) Government Notice No 1057 published in Government Gazette No 28167 dated 28 October 2005: Invitation to submit written comments on the proposed construction of Phase-2 of the Olifants River Water Resource Development Project and Environmental Impact Assessment relating thereto, in terms of section 110 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).

                   TUESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2005
   

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Housing

 (a)    Report and Financial Statements of the National Home Builders
     Registration Council for 2004-2005, including the Report of the
     Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 185-
     2005].


                     WEDNESDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2005

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on the Electronic Communications Bill [B 9B-2005] (introduced as Convergence Bill [B 9 - 2005]), dated 30 November 2005:

   The Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises, having considered the subject of the Electronic Communications Bill [B 9B- 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Nursing Bill [B 26B – 2005 (Reprint)] (National Assembly) – sec 75), dated 30 November 2005:

   The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Nursing Bill [B 26B – 2003], referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75, reports the Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:

   CLAUSE 18

   1. On page 11, from line 38, to omit “such further period as the Minister finds appropriate” and to substitute “one further term not exceeding five years”.

   CLAUSE 40

   1. On page 20, from line 10, to omit subsection (1) and to substitute:

      1) A person who is a citizen of South Africa intending to register for the first time to practise a profession in a prescribed category must perform remunerated community service for a period of one year at a public health facility.

3. Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Children’s Bill [B 70B – 2003] (National Assembly) – sec 75), dated 30 November 2005:

   The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Children’s Bill [B 70B – 2003], referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75, reports the Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:

   PREAMBLE

 1. On page 2, to omit the second paragraph and to substitute:
        AND WHEREAS every child has the rights set out in section 28 of
   the Constitution;


    2.  On page 2, from the sixth line of the preamble, to omit all  the
       words after “and” up to and including “Rights”  in  the  seventh
       line and to substitute “fulfil those rights”.


    3.  On page 2,  in  the  twelfth  line  of  the  preamble,  to  omit
       “childhood is” and to substitute “children are”.


       4.    On page 2, in the fourteenth line of the preamble, to omit
       the first “of” and to substitute “on”.


    5.  On page 2, in the fifteenth line of the preamble,  to  omit  the
       first “and” and to substitute “,”.


    6.  On page 2, in the fifteenth line  of  the  preamble,  after  the
       second “Child” to insert “and in  the  African  Charter  on  the
       Rights and Welfare of the Child”.


    TABLE OF CONTENTS


    1.  On page 3, in line 35, to omit  “parental  responsibilities  and
       rights” and to substitute “contact and care”.


    2.  On page 3, in line 40, to omit  “parental  responsibilities  and
       rights” and to substitute “guardianship and care”.


    3.  On page 5, in line 1, to omit “Part 3”.


    4.  On page 5, in line 2, to omit “Clerks of children’s courts”.


    5.  On page 5, in line 3, to omit “Appointment  and  designation  of
       clerks of children’s courts” and to substitute “Clerk of court”.


    6.  On page 5, after line 4, to insert:

       Part 3



       Pre-hearing conferences, family  group  conferences,  other  lay
       forums and settling of matters out of court


    7.  On page 7, from line 18, to omit  “Accreditation  of  designated
       child protection organisation for inter-country adoption” and to
       substitute  “Accreditation  to  provide  inter-country  adoption
       services”.


    8.  On page 7, in line 20, to omit “agreements”  and  to  substitute
    “agreement”.


    9.  On page 7, in line  21,  to  omit  “Adoption  of  children  from
       Republic by persons in convention countries” and  to  substitute
       “Adoption  of  child  from  Republic  by  person  in  convention
       country”.


    10. On page 7, in line  22,  to  omit  “Adoption  of  children  from
       Republic  by  persons  in  non-convention  countries”   and   to
       substitute “Adoption of child from Republic by  person  in  non-
       convention country”.


    11. On page 7, in line  24,  to  omit  “Adoption  of  children  from
       convention countries by persons in Republic” and  to  substitute
       “Adoption  of  child  from  convention  country  by  person   in
       Republic”.


    12. On page 7, in line 25, to omit “Adoption of children  from  non-
       convention countries by persons in Republic” and  to  substitute
       Adoption of child  from  non-convention  country  by  person  in
       Republic.


    13. On page 7, in line 26, to  omit  “Recognition  of  inter-country
       adoption  of  children  from  convention   countries”   and   to
       substitute “Recognition of inter-country adoption of child  from
       convention country”.


    14. On page 7, in line 28, to  omit  “Recognition  of  inter-country
       adoption of  children  from  non-convention  countries”  and  to
       substitute “Recognition of inter-country adoption of child  from
       non-convention country”.


    15. On page 7, in line 32, to  omit  “children”  and  to  substitute
    “child”.


    16. On page 7, in line 51, to omit “a”.


    17. On page 7, in line 52, to  omit  “children”  and  to  substitute
    “child”.


    18. On page 7, in line 54, to omit “Report of child who is a  victim
       of trafficking” and to substitute “Reporting  of  child  who  is
       victim of trafficking”.


    19. On page 8, in line 1, to omit “a”.


    20. On page 8, in line 2, to omit “a”.


    CLAUSE 1


    1.  On page 9, in line 40, to omit “designated”.


    2.  On page 9, in line 43, to omit “designated”.


    3.  On page 10, in line 30, to omit paragraph (b).


    4.  On page 10, in line 31, to omit “(c)” and to substitute “(b)”.


    5.  On page 10, in line 33, to omit “(d)” and to substitute “(c)”.


    6.  On page 10, in line 34, to omit “(e)” and to substitute “(d)”.


    7.  On page 10, in line 36, to omit “(f)” and to substitute “(e)”.


    8.  On page 10, in line 37, to omit “(g)” and to substitute “(f)”.


    9.  On page 10, in line 39, to omit “(h)” and to substitute “(g)”.


10. On page 10, after line 49, to insert:


       “circumcision”, in relation to a female child, means the removal
       of the clitoris by any means;


    11. On page 10, from line 50, to omit the definition  of  "clerk  of
       the children's court" and to substitute:


       “clerk of the court” means clerk of the court  of  the  relevant
       magistrate's court;


    12. On page 11, in line 17, to omit “*****”.


    13. On page 11, in line 23, to omit “or”.


    14. On page 11, in line 24, after "organisation;" to insert “or”.


    15. On page 11, after line 24, to insert:
       (c)   a municipality;


16. On page 11, after line 52, to insert:


       “genital mutilation”, in relation to a female child,  means  the
       partial or complete removal of any part  of  the  genitals,  and
       includes circumcision of female children;


    17. On page 12, in line 13, to omit “*****”.


    18. On page 12, from line 30, to omit all the words after  "the"  up
       to and including "(Act No. 18 of  1973);”  in  line  31  and  to
       substitute “Mental Health Care Act, 2002 (Act No. 17 of 2002);”.


19. On page 12, after line 34, to insert:


       “Municipal Systems Act” means the  Local  Government:  Municipal
       Systems Act, 2000 (Act No. 32 of 2000);”


    20. On page 12, in line 42, to omit “*****”.


    21. On page 12, in line 58, to omit “or kinship care-giver”.


22. On page 13, from line  7,  to  omit  the  definition  of  “presiding
    officer” and to substitute:


       “presiding officer” means a presiding  officer  contemplated  in
       section 42;


    23. On page 13, after line 16, to insert:


       “Public  Service  Act”  means  the  Public  Service  Act,   1994
       (Proclamation No. 103 of 1994);


    24. On page 13, after line 22, to insert “*****”.


    25. On page 13, in line 49, after “youth worker” to insert “, social
    auxiliary worker”.


    26. On page 13, in line 61, to omit “*****”.


    27. On page 14, in line 9, to omit all the words after “place” up to
       and including "prescribed," in line 10.


    28. On page 14, in line 30, to omit “*****”.


    29. On page 14, in line 38, to omit " 'contact' and 'care' " and  to
    insert " 'care' and 'contact' ".


30. On page 14, after line 41, to insert:


         (4) Any proceedings arising out  of  the  application  of  the
         Administration Amendment Act, 1929 (Act No. 9  of  1929),  the
         Divorce Act, the Maintenance Act, the Domestic  Violence  Act,
         1998 (Act No. 116 of 1998), and the Recognition  of  Customary
         Marriages Act, 1998 (Act No. 120 of 1998), in so far as  these
         Acts relate to children, may not be dealt with in a children's
         court.


    CLAUSE 12


    Clause rejected.


    NEW CLAUSE


    1.  That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 11:


       Social, cultural and religious practices


             12.   (1)  Every child has the right not to  be  subjected
       to  social,  cultural  and   religious   practices   which   are
       detrimental to his or her well-being.
                   (2)  A child—
       (a)   below the minimum age set by law for a valid marriage  may
       not be given out in marriage or engagement;  and
       (b)   above that minimum age may not be given out in marriage or
       engagement without his or her consent.
                   (3)  Genital mutilation or the circumcision of
       female children is prohibited.
                   (4)  Virginity testing of children under the age of
       16 is prohibited.
                   (5)  Virginity testing of children older than 16 may
       only be performed―
       (a)   if the child has given consent to the testing in the
       prescribed manner;
       (b)   after proper counselling of the child;  and
       (c)   in the manner prescribed.
                   (6)  The results of a virginity test may not be
       disclosed without the consent of the child.
                   (7)  The body of a child who has undergone virginity
       testing may not be marked.
                   (8)  Circumcision of male children under the age of
       16 is prohibited, except when―
  (a)   circumcision is performed for religious purposes in accordance
       with the practices of the religion concerned and in the manner
       prescribed;  or
  (b)   circumcision is performed for medical reasons on the
       recommendation of a medical practitioner.
                   (9)  Circumcision of male children older than 16 may
       only be performed―
       (a)   if the child has given consent to the circumcision in the
       prescribed manner;
       (b)   after proper counselling of the child;  and
       (c)   in the manner prescribed.
                   (10)  Taking into consideration the child's age,
       maturity and stage of development, every male child has the
       right to refuse circumcision.


    CLAUSE 21


    1.  On page 20, in line 9, after “father” to insert “or pays damages
       in terms of customary law;”


    CLAUSE 23


    1.  On page 21, in line 3, to omit “parental responsibilities and
       rights” and to substitute “contact and care”.


    CLAUSE 27


    1.  On page 22, in line 12, to omit “parental responsibilities and
       rights” and to substitute “guardianship and care”.


    CLAUSE 28


    1.  On page 22, in line 35, to omit "parental responsibilities and
       rights" and to substitute "contact and care".


    CLAUSE 29

    1.  On page 23, in line 17, after “may”  to  insert  “,  subject  to
    section 55”.


    CLAUSE 34


    1.  On page 25, after line 19, to insert the following subsections:
         (4) A parenting plan registered with a family advocate may  be
         amended or terminated by the family advocate on application by
         the co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights who are
         parties to the plan.
         (5) A parenting plan that was made an order of  court  may  be
         amended  or  terminated  only  by  an  order   of   court   on
         application—
         (a) by the co-holders of parental responsibilities and  rights
         who are parties to the plan;
         (b) by the child, acting with leave of the court;  or
         (c) in the child’s interest, by any other person  acting  with
         leave of the court.
         (6)  Section  29  applies  to  an  application  in  terms   of
    subsection (2).


    CLAUSE 35


    Clause rejected.


    NEW CLAUSE


    1.  That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 34:


       Refusal   of   access   or   refusal   to   exercise    parental
       responsibilities and rights


       35.   (1)   Any person having care or custody of  a  child  who,
       contrary  to  an  order  of  any  court   or   to   a   parental
       responsibilities and rights agreement that has taken  effect  as
       contemplated in section 22(4), refuses another  person  who  has
       access to that child or who holds parental responsibilities  and
       rights in respect of that  child  in  terms  of  that  order  or
       agreement to exercise such access or such  responsibilities  and
       rights or who prevents that person from exercising  such  access
       or such responsibilities and rights is guilty of an offence  and
       liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for  a  period
       not exceeding one year.
       (2)   (a)   A person having care or custody of a  child  whereby
       another person has  access  to  that  child  or  holds  parental
       responsibilities and rights in respect of that child in terms of
       an order of any court or a parental responsibilities and  rights
       agreement as contemplated in subsection (1) must upon any change
       in his or her residential address forthwith  in  writing  notify
       such other person of such change.
       (b)   A person who fails to comply with paragraph (a) is  guilty
       of an  offence  and  liable  on  conviction  to  a  fine  or  to
       imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.


    CLAUSE 42

    1.  Clause rejected.
    NEW CLAUSE

    1.  That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 41:


       Children's courts and presiding officers


         42. (1)   Every court which is established in terms of section
         2(1)(f) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1944 (Act  No.  32  of
         1944), is a children's  court  and  has  jurisdiction  on  any
         matter arising from the application of this Act for  the  area
         of its jurisdiction.
             (2)   Every –
         (a) magistrate is the  presiding  officer  of  the  children's
         court;  and
         (b) additional magistrate is an assistant presiding officer of
         the children's court,
         for  the  district  of  which  he  or  she  is  magistrate  or
         additional magistrate, as the case may be.
             (3)   The presiding officer of the children's court  or  an
         assistant  presiding  officer  thereof   must   perform   such
         functions as may be assigned to him or her under this  Act  or
         any other law.


    CLAUSE 45


    1.  On page 28, from line 4, to omit “Except  where  this  Act,  the
       Divorce Act or the Maintenance Act expressly provides otherwise”
       and to substitute “Subject to section 1(4)”.


    CLAUSE 46


    1.  On page 28, from line 48, to omit subparagraph (ii).


    2.  On page 28, in line  50,  to  omit  “(iii)”  and  to  substitute
    “(ii)”.


    3.  On page 28, in  line  51,  to  omit  “(iv)”  and  to  substitute
    “(iii)”.


    CLAUSE 47


    1.  On page 29, in line 52, after the second “of”,  to  insert  “the
       Administration Amendment Act, 1929 (Act No. 9 of 1929),”


    2.  On page 29, in line 53, to omit “or” and to substitute “,”.


    3.  On page 29, in line 54, after “(Act No. 116 of 1998),” to insert
       “or the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act,  1998  (Act  No.
       120 of 1998),”.



    CLAUSE 53



    1.  On page 31, in line 45, to omit the first “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 56


    1.  On page 32, in line 19, to omit “children’s”.
    CLAUSE 57


    1.  On page 32, in line 25, to omit “children’s”.


    2.  On page 32, in line 30, to omit “the  clerk  of  the  children's
    court or”.


    CLAUSE 59


    1.  On page 33, in line 2, to omit “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 63


    1.  On page 34, in line 30, to omit “professional” and to substitute
    “suitably qualified”.


    CLAUSE 65


    1.  On page 35, in line 23, to omit “children’s”.


    Part 3 of CHAPTER 4


    1.  On page 35, in line 34, to omit “Part 3”.


    2.  On page 35, in line 35, to omit “Clerks of Children's Courts”.


    CLAUSE 67
    1.  Clause rejected.

    NEW CLAUSE

    1.  That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 66:


    Clerks of court


     67.      (1)    Every  clerk  of  the  court   at   the   relevant
    magistrate’s court must assist the children's court in  question  in
    performing its functions as provided for in this Act or in any other
    law or as may be prescribed.
    (2) If a clerk of the court is, for any reason, unable to assist the
    children's court or if no clerk of the court has been appointed  for
    a court, the presiding officer concerned may designate any competent
    officer employed in terms of the Public Service Act to act as  clerk
    of the court for purposes of assisting that children's court for  as
    long as the clerk of the court is unable to so  assist  or  until  a
    clerk of the court has been appointed, as the case may be.

    CLAUSE 68


    1.  On page 36, in line 1, to omit “children’s”.


    2.  On page 36, in line 2, to omit “children’s”.


    NEW HEADING

    1.  On page 36, after line 4, to insert:

       Part 3

       Pre-hearing conferences, family group  conferences,  other  lay-
       forums and settling matters out of court

    CLAUSE 72

    1.  On page 36, in line 49, to omit “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 73


    1.  Clause rejected.


    NEW CLAUSE


    1.  That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 72:


    Other functions


      73.    The clerk of the court may attend every  children’s  court
      hearing.


    CLAUSE 75


    1.  On page 37, in line  19,  after  “courts”  to  insert  “and  the
       powers, duties and functions of clerks of the court in as far as
       they relate to the proceedings of children’s courts;”.



    CLAUSE 119



    1.  On page  40,  in  line  19,  after  “person”  to  insert  “,  if
    available”.


    CLAUSE 120


    1.  On page 40, in line  31,  to  omit  “either  as  a  party  or  a
    witness”.


    2.  On page 40, in line 43, to omit “sexual abuse” and to substitute
    “indecent assault”.


    3.  On page 40, in line 50, to omit “sexual abuse” and to substitute
    “indecent assault”.


    4.  On page 40, in line 52, to omit all the words after  “rape,”  up
       to and including “abuse” in line 53 and to substitute  “indecent
       assault”.



    CLAUSE 122



    1.  On page 41,  from  line  19,  to  omit  subsection  (2)  and  to
    substitute:
         (2) The Director-General must enter the name of a person found
       unsuitable to work with children as contemplated in section  120
       in  Part  B  of  the  Register  regardless  of  whether   appeal
       proceedings have been instituted or not.
         (3)  If,  after  appeal  or  review  proceedings   have   been
       concluded, a finding in terms of section 120 that  a  person  is
       unsuitable to work with  children  is  reversed,  the  Director-
       General must forthwith remove the name of the  person  from  the
       Register.


    CLAUSE 123


    1.  On page 41, in line 34, to omit “, kinship care-giver”.


    2.  On page 41, in line 37, to omit “or”.


    3.  On page 41, after line 37, to insert:
       (e)   be employed in terms  of  the  Public  Service  Act  in  a
       position where that person works with or has access to children;
       (f)   be employed in terms of the Municipal  Systems  Act  in  a
       position where that person works with or has access to children;
        or


    4.  On page 41, in line 38, to omit “(e)” and to substitute “(g)”.


    5.  On page 41, after line 49, to insert:
       (5)   The head of a state department  may  not  allow  a  person
       whose name appears in Part B of the Register to be employed in a
       position where that person works with or has access to children.
       (6)   The municipal council of a municipality may  not  allow  a
       person whose name appears in  Part  B  of  the  Register  to  be
       employed in a position where  that  person  works  with  or  has
       access to children.
    CLAUSE 124


    1.  On page 42, in line 10, to omit “or”.


    2.  On page 42, in line 13, to omit “.” and to substitute “;”.


    3.  On page 42, after line 13, to insert:
       (d)   is employed in terms  of  the  Public  Service  Act  in  a
       position where he or she works with or has access  to  children,
       that person must disclose that fact to the  head  of  the  state
       department in which he or she is employed;  or
       (e)   is employed in terms of the Municipal  Systems  Act  in  a
       position where he or she works with or has access  to  children,
       that person must disclose that fact to the municipal council  of
       the municipality concerned.


    CLAUSE 126


    1.  On page 42, in line 39, to omit “or”.


    2.  On page 42, in line 42, to omit “.” and to substitute “;”.


    3.  On page 42, after line 42, to insert:
       (d)   to be employed in terms of the Public  Service  Act  in  a
       position where he or she works with or has access  to  children,
       the head of the state department in which he or  she  is  to  be
       employed must  establish  whether  or  not  that  person’s  name
       appears in Part B of the Register;  or
       (e)   to be employed in terms of the Municipal Systems Act in  a
       position where he or she works with or has access  to  children,
       the  municipal  council  of  that  municipality  must  establish
       whether or not that person’s name  appears  in  Part  B  of  the
       Register.


    4.  On page 42, in line 50, to omit “and”.


    5.  On page 42, in line 53, to omit “.” and to substitute “;”.


    6.  On page 42, after line 53, to add:
       (d)   the head of every state department must establish  whether
       the name of any person employed in terms of the  Public  Service
       Act in a position where he or she works with or  has  access  to
       children appears in Part B of the Register;  and
       (e)   the municipal council of every municipality must establish
       whether the  name  of  any  person  employed  in  terms  of  the
       Municipal Systems Act in a position where he or she  works  with
       or has access to children appears in Part B of the Register.


    CLAUSE 128


    1.  On page 43,  from  line  40,  to  omit  subsection  (4)  and  to
    substitute:
        (4)  The name and particulars of a person convicted  more  than
        once of an offence with regard to a child may  not  be  removed
        from Part B of the Register.


    CLAUSE 129


    1.  On page 44, after line 29, to insert:
       (8)   The Minister may consent to the medical  treatment  of  or
       surgical operation on a child if the child unreasonably  refuses
       to give consent.


    2.  On page 44, in line 30, to omit “(8)” and to substitute “(9)”.


    3.  On page 44, in line 33, to omit “(9)” and to substitute “(10)”.


    CLAUSE 150


    1.  On page 47, in line 8, to omit all the words after  "worker"  up
       to and including "155(2)" in line 9.


    2.  On page 47, in line 10, after "labour;" to insert "and".


    3.  On page 47, in line11 to omit  “(b)   an  unaccompanied  foreign
    child”.


    4.  On page 47, in line 12, to omit “(c)  a child who is a victim of
    trafficking”.


    5.  On page 47, in line 13, to omit "(e)  a street child;  and".


    6.  On page 47, in line 14, to omit “(f)” and to substitute “(b)”.


    7.  On page 47, after line 14, to insert:
       (3)   If after investigation a social worker finds that a  child
       referred to in subsection (2) is not a child in need of care and
       protection as contemplated in subsection (1), the social  worker
       must  where  necessary  take  measures  to  assist  the   child,
       including   counselling,   mediation,   prevention   and   early
       intervention services, family reconstruction and rehabilitation,
       behaviour modification, problem solving and referral to  another
       suitably qualified person or organisation.


    CLAUSE 151


    1.  On page 47, in line 17, to omit "that presiding officer" and  to
       substitute "the children's court concerned".


    2.  On page 47, in line 22, to omit "to the court".


    CLAUSE 152


    1.  On page 48, in line 7, to omit “children’s”.


    2.  On page 48, in line 19, to omit “children’s”.

    3.  On page 48, after line 33, to insert:
       (6)   Misuse of a power referred to in subsection (1) by a
       designated social worker employed in terms of the Public Service
       Act or the Municipal Systems Act constitutes unprofessional or
       improper conduct as is contemplated in section 27(1)(b) of the
       Social Service Professions Act, 1978 (Act No. 110 of 1978) by
       that social worker.


    4.  On page 48, in line 34, to omit “(6)” and to substitute “(7)”.
    5.  On page 48, in line 37, to omit “(7)” and to substitute “(8)”.

    CLAUSE 153

    1.  On page 48, in line 57, to omit “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 156


    1.  On page 50, from line 35, to omit subparagraph (i).


    2.  On page 50, in line 37, to omit “(ii)” and to substitute “(i)”.


    3.  On page 50, in line  38,  to  omit  “(iii)”  and  to  substitute
    “(ii)”.


    4.  On page 50, in  line  40,  to  omit  “(iv)”  and  to  substitute
    “(iii)”.


    5.  On page 50, in line 42, to omit “(v)” and to substitute “(iv)”.


    6.  On page 50, in line 44, to omit “(vi)” and to substitute “(v)”.




    CLAUSE 158


    1.  On page 52, in line 16, to omit "or programmes".


    2.  On page 52, in line 19, to omit "or programmes".


    3.  On page 52, in line 21, to omit all the words after  "programme"
       up to and including "programmes" in line 22.



    CLAUSE 164



    1.  On page 53, in line 46, to omit all the words  after  the  first
       "to" up to and including "other" and to substitute "such".


    2.   On  page  53,  in  line  46,  after  "person"  to  insert   "or
    institution".


    CLAUSE 165


    1.  On page 54, in line 3, to omit all the  words  after  the  first
       "to" up to and including "other" and to substitute "such".


    2.   On  page  54,  in  line  3,  after  "person"  to   insert   "or
    institution".


    3.  On page 54, in line 8, to omit all the  words  after  the  first
       "to" up to and including "other" and to substitute "such".


    4.   On  page  54,  in  line  8,  after  "person"  to   insert   "or
    institution".


    CLAUSE 166
    1.  On page 54, in line 12, to omit “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 231

    1.  On page 55, in line 3, after “wedlock;” to add “or”.


    2.  On page 55, in line 4, to omit “;  or” and to substitute “.”.


    3.  On page 55, in line 5, to omit paragraph (f).


    4.  On page 55, in line 24, to omit “,” and to substitute “or”.


    5.  On page 55, from line 24, to omit all the words after the second
       “child” up to and including the first “child” in line 25.


    6.  On page 55, in line 30, to omit “the  clerk  of  the  children's
    court or”.


    7.  On page 55, in line 31, to omit all the words after  “child”  up
       to and including “care-giver”.


    8.  On page 55, in line 32, to omit “children’s”.

    CLAUSE 232

    1.  On page 56, in line 9, to omit “designated”.
    2.  On page 56, in line 11, to omit “designated”.

    CLAUSE 233


    1.  On page 56, in line  16,  to  omit  "minor"  and  to  substitute
    "child".

    2.  On page 56, in line 41, to omit “children’s”.


    3.  On page 56, in line 46, to omit “children’s”.

    CLAUSE 235


    1.  On page 57, in line 22, to omit "designated".


    2.   On  page  57,  in  line  22,  after  "organisation"  to  insert
       "accredited  in  terms  of  section  251  to  provide   adoption
       services".


    3.  On page 57, in line 28, to omit "designated".


    4.   On  page  57,  in  line  28,  after  "organisation"  to  insert
       "accredited  in  terms  of  section  251  to  provide   adoption
       services".



    CLAUSE 236


    1.  On page 58, in line 16, to omit “children’s”.
    CLAUSE 237


    1.   On page 58, in line 27, to omit “children’s”.


    2.  On page 58, in line 36, to omit “children’s”.


    3.  On page 58, in line 37, to omit “children’s”.


    4.  On page 58, in line 44, to omit “children’s”.

    CLAUSE 238

    1.  On page 58, in line 46, to omit “clerk of the children's  court”
       and to substitute “presiding officer”.

    2.  On page 58, in line 47,  after  “delay”  to  insert  “cause  the
    sheriff to”.

    CLAUSE 239

    1.  On page 59, in line 16, to omit “children’s”.


    2.  On page 59, in line 17, to omit “children’s”.


    3.  On page 59, in line 19, to omit “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 240


    1.  On page 59, in line 43, to omit “or kinship care”.


    2.  On page 59, in line 44, to omit “or kinship care-giver”.


    CLAUSE 243


    1.  On page 60, in line 31, after "time" to insert "but".


    CLAUSE 244


    1.  On page 60, in line  54,  to  omit  the  second  "that"  and  to
    substitute "the".


    CLAUSE 247

    1.  On page 61, in line 35, to omit “children’s”.


    CLAUSE 249


    1.  On page 62, in line 31, to omit “*****” and to substitute:
        (d)  a child protection organisation  accredited  in  terms  of
       section  251  to  provide  adoption  services,   receiving   the
       prescribed fees;


    2.  On page 62, in line 32, to omit "designated".
    CLAUSE 250


    1.  On page 62, in line 38, to omit "designated".


    2.  On page 62, in line 42, to omit "designated".


    CLAUSE 251


    1.  On page 62, in line 52, to omit "designated".


    2.  On page 62, in line 54, to omit "designated".


    CLAUSE 252


    1.  On page 63, in line 6, to omit "designated".


    CLAUSE 253


    1.  On page 63, after line 21, to insert:


       (e)    prescribing  the  requirements  that  a   child   welfare
       organisation  has  to   comply   with   for   accreditation   as
       contemplated in section 251 to provide adoption services;
       (f)    prescribing  the  requirements  that  a   child   welfare
       organisation  has  to   comply   with   for   accreditation   as
       contemplated in section 259 to  provide  inter-country  adoption
       services;
    2.  On page 63, in line 22, to omit "(e)" and to substitute "(g)".


    3.  On page 63, in line 23, to omit "(f)" and to substitute "(h)".


    CLAUSE 258


    1.  On page 64, in line 25, to omit "designated".


    CLAUSE 259


    1.  On page 64, from line 27, to omit “Accreditation  of  designated
       child protection organisation for inter-country adoption” and to
       substitute  “Accreditation  to  provide  inter-country  adoption
       services”.


    2.  On page 64, in line 29, to omit "designated".


    3.  On page 64, in line 34, to omit "designated".


    4.  On page 64, in line 37, to omit "designated".


    CLAUSE 260


    1.  On page 64, in line 46, to omit “agreements” and  to  substitute
    “agreement”.


    2.  On page 64, in line 47, to omit "designated".
    3.  On page 64, in line 50, to omit "designated".


    CLAUSE 261


    1.  On page 65, in line  1,  to  omit  “Adoption  of  children  from
       Republic by persons in convention countries” and  to  substitute
       “Adoption  of  child  from  Republic  by  person  in  convention
       country“.


    CLAUSE 262


    1.  On page 65, in line 48,  to  omit  “Adoption  of  children  from
       Republic  by  persons  in  non-convention  countries”   and   to
       substitute “Adoption of child from Republic by  person  in  non-
       convention country“.



    CLAUSE 264



    1.  On page 66, in line 38,  to  omit  “Adoption  of  children  from
       convention countries by persons in Republic” and  to  substitute
       “Adoption  of  child  from  convention  country  by  person   in
       Republic“.


    2.  On page 66, in line 50, to omit "for" and to substitute "to".


    CLAUSE 265


    1.  On page 66, in line 52, to omit “Adoption of children from  non-
       convention countries by persons in Republic” and  to  substitute
       “Adoption of child from  non-convention  country  by  person  in
       Republic“.



    CLAUSE 266



    1.  On page 67, in line 11, to omit  “Recognition  of  inter-country
       adoption  of  children  from  convention   countries”   and   to
       substitute “Recognition of inter-country adoption of child  from
       convention country”.


    CLAUSE 268


    1.  On page 67, in line 35, to omit  “Recognition  of  inter-country
       adoption of  children  from  non-convention  countries”  and  to
       substitute “Recognition of inter-country adoption of child  from
       non-convention country”.



    CLAUSE 271



    1.  On page 68, in line 1, to  omit  “children”  and  to  substitute
    “child”.


    CLAUSE 283


    1.  On page 69, in line 48, after "to" to insert "or".


    CLAUSE 84
    1.  On page 70, in line 2, to omit "84" and to substitute "284".


    CLAUSE 286


    1.  On page 70, in line 34, to omit "a".


    CLAUSE 287


    1.  On page 71, in line 1, to  omit  “children”  and  to  substitute
    “child”.


    CLAUSE 288


    1.  On page 71, in line 15, to omit "a".


    2.  On page 71, in line 16, to omit "288" and to substitute "289".


    CLAUSE 290


    1.  On page 71, in line 26, to omit "a".
    2.  On page 71, in line 27,  to  omit  "288(2)"  and  to  substitute
    "289(2)".


    CLAUSE 304


    1.  On page 75, in line 41, to  omit  “officer”  and  to  substitute
    “person”.


    CLAUSE 305


    1.  On page 76, in line 3, to omit everything after “12” up to and
       including “(6)” in line 4 and to insert “(2), (3), (4), (6), (7)
       or (8)”.


    2.  On page 76, in line 7, to omit everything after “section” up to
       and including “134(1)” and to insert “12(5), 12(9), 57(2), 124,
       126(1), 134(1) or 232(6)”.


    3.  On page 76, in line 19, to omit "*****".


    4.  On page 76, in line 29, to omit "or".


    5.  On page 76, in line 39, to omit “, kinship care”.


    6.  On page 76, in line 40, to omit “kinship care,”.


                      THURSDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2005

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Referrals to Committees of papers tabled

1.     The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
     Finance and the Select Committee on Local Government and
     Administration:


     (a)     Report of the Auditor-General on the Information Systems
         Audits performed at the National Treasury and the State
         Information Technology Agency for the financial year 2004-2005
         [RP 209-2005].

2.     The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on Local
     Government and Administration for consideration:

      a) Report of the Auditor-General on a performance audit of the
         Management of Sick Leave Benefits at certain National and
         Provincial Departments [RP 215-2005].

3.     The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
     Finance:
      a) Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of
         the Special Pensions Board for the year ended 31 March 2005
         [RP 217-2005].

4.     The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts for consideration:
      a) Special Report of the Auditor-General on the Status of the
         Delays in tabling of Annual Reports and consolidated financial
         statements of National Government for the financial year ended
         2004-2005 (as at 31 October 2005) [RP 225-2005].


5.     The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
     Education and Recreation and the Select Committee on Labour and
     Public Enterprises for consideration and report:


      a) Report and Financial Statements of the Education Labour
         Relations Council for 2004-2005, including the Report of the
         Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP
         222-2005].

6.     The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on Land
     and Environmental Affairs for consideration and report:

      a) Report and Financial Statements of the Forest Industries
         Sector Education and Training Authority (FIETA) for 2004-2005,
         including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
         Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 90-2005].

    7. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
       Economic and Foreign Affairs and the Select Committee on Labour
       and Public Enterprises for consideration and report:


          a) Report and Financial Statements of the Mine Health and
             Safety Inspectorate for 2004-2005 [RP 125-2005].
8.     The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
     Land and Environmental Affairs:

      a) Notice No 925 published in Government Gazette No  28058  dated
         23 September 2005: Release of State land at De  Mond,  Western
         Cape Province,  which  is  no  longer  required  for  forestry
         purposes, made in terms  of  section  50(4)  of  the  National
         Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of 1998).


      b) Notice No 926 published in Government Gazette No  28060  dated
         23 September 2005: Water Tribunals  Rules  made  in  terms  of
         section 148(5) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No  36  of
         1998).

      c) Notice No 945 published in Government Gazette No  28053  dated
         30 September 2005:  Proposal  for  the  establishment  of  the
         Gouritz Catchment Management Agency, made in terms of  section
         78(3) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).


      d) Notice No 944 published in Government Gazette No  28053  dated
         30 September 2005:  Proposal  for  the  establishment  of  the
         Olifants-Doorn Catchment Management Agency, made in  terms  of
         section 78(3) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act  No  36  of
         1998).


      e) Notice No 939 published in Government Gazette No  28053  dated
         30 September 2005:  Establishment  of  the  Crocodile  (West)-
         Marico Catchment Management Agency (Water Management  Area  No
         3) which covers the Northern part of the North-West  Province,
         North-Eastern part  of  Gauteng,  the  South-West  portion  of
         Limpopo Province and a small portion of Western Mpumalanga and
         is bordered by Botswana on its  North-Western  side,  made  in
         terms of section 78(1) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No
         36 of 1998).


      f) Government Notice No 1038 published in Government  Gazette  No
         28143 dated 21 October 2005: Restrictions on the use of  water
         for Agricultural, Domestic  and  Industrial  purposes  in  the
         Luvuvhu/Letaba Water Management Area, in terms of the National
         Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).


9.     The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on  Land
     and Environmental Affairs for consideration:

      a) Government Notice No 1057 published in Government Gazette No
         28167 dated 28 October 2005: Invitation to submit written
         comments on the proposed construction of Phase-2 of the
         Olifants River Water Resource Development Project and
         Environmental Impact Assessment relating thereto, in terms of
         section 110 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of
         1998)

10.    The following paper is  referred  to  the  Select  Committee  on
     Finance  and  the  Select  Committee  on   Local   Government   and
     Administration for consideration and report:

      a) Report and Financial Statements of the Government Employees
         Pension Fund (GEPF) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the
         Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005
         [RP 45-2005].

11.    The following paper is  referred  to  the  Select  Committee  on
     Public Services for consideration:

      a) The South African National Roads Agency Limited Declaration of
         Intent for 2005-2008.


12.    The following paper is  referred  to  the  Select  Committee  on
     Education and Recreation for consideration and report:


    a) Report and Financial Statements of the Robben Island Museum for
       2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
       Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 194-2005].


13.    The following paper is  referred  to  the  Select  Committee  on
     Security and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and report:


    a) Prosecutorial Policy and Directives relating to Prosecution of
       Criminal Matters Arising from Conflicts of the Past and which
       were committed before 11 May 1994, in terms of sections 21(2),
       35(1) and 35(2)(b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act,
       (Act No 32 of 1998).

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Finance

   a) Government Notice No 1040 published in Government Gazette No 28150 dated 28 October 2005: Borrowing powers of water boards listed under Schedule 3 Part B of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999).

2. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

   a) Progress reports in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993) on magistrates (M S E Khumalo; K Sulliman and M F Mathe) suspended for alleged misconduct.

                   MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2005
   

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Assent by President in respect of Bills

   1) Patents Amendment Bill [B17B – 2005] – Act No 20 of 2005 (assented to and signed by President on 8 December 2005); and 2) Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B37 – 2005] – Act No 21 of 2005 (assented to and signed by President on 29 November 2005).

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs on the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2005] (National Assembly – sec 76), dated 12 December 2005:

The Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs, having considered
the subject of the Diamonds Second Amendment Bill  [B 39B – 2005]
(National Assembly – sec 76), referred to it and classified by the
Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 76 Bill, reports the Bill without
amendment.

1. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill [B 33B -2005] (National Assembly- sec 74), dated 12 December 2005:

The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having
considered the subject of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill [B
33B-2005] (National Assembly – sec 74), referred to it, reports that it
has agreed to the Bill.


                      TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2005

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

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

 (1)    Bills passed by National Assembly on 13 December 2005:


        i) National Credit Bill [B 18D – 2005] (National Assembly – sec
           76)
       ii) Education Laws Amendment Bill [B 23D – 2005] (National
           Assembly – sec 76).

 (2)    Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 13 December
     2005:


        i) Electronic Communications Bill [B 9B – 2005] (introduced as
           Convergence Bill [B 9 – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)
       ii) Diamonds Amendment Bill [B 27B – 2005] (Reintroduced)]
           (National Assembly – sec 75)
      iii) Diamonds Second Amendment Bill [B 39B – 2005] (National
           Assembly – sec 76)

National Council of Provinces

The Chairperson

1. Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces in respect of Bills passed by Assembly and transmitted to Council 1) Bill passed by National Assembly on 13 December 2005 and transmitted for concurrence:

      i) Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related
         Matters Bill [B 36B – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)
   
   
   The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Local
   Government and Administration of the National Council of
   Provinces.
   

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson

 (a)    Report and Financial Statements of Vote 2 – Parliament of the
    Republic of South Africa for 2004-2005, including the Report of the
    Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 2 for 2004-
    2005.

1. The Minister of Trade and Industry

   a) Report and Financial Statements of the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office (CIPRO) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004- 2005.

The Minister for Public Enterprises

  a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Forestry
     Company Limited (SAFCOL) for the year ended 30 June 2005, including
     the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
     for the year ended 30 June 2005.


  b) Report and Financial Statements of Alexkor Limited for the 9 months
     period ended 31 March 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the 9 months period ended
     31 March 2005.

1. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry

 (a)    Report and Financial Statements of Botshelo Water for the year
    ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
    Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June
    2005.


  b) Report and Financial Statements of Bushbuck Ridge Water for the
     year ended 30 June 2005.


  c) Report and Financial Statements of Albany Coast Water for the year
     ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 2005.


  d) Report and Financial Statements of Amatola Water for the year ended
     30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on
     the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005.


  e) Report and Financial Statements of Lepelle Northern Water for the
     year ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June
     2005.
  f) Report and Financial Statements of Mhlathuze Water for the year
     ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June
     2005.


  g) Report and Financial Statements of Namaqua Water Board for the year
     ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 2005.


  h) Report and Financial Statements of Overberg Water for the year
     ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June
     2005.


  i) Report and Financial Statements of the Pelladrift Water Board for
     the year ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the
     Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended
     30 June 2005.

  j) Report and Financial Statements of Rand Water for the year ended 30
     June 2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
     Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2005.
  k) Report and Financial Statements of Sedibeng Water for the year
     ended 30 June 2005, including the Report of the Independent
     Auditors on the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June
     2005.

(l)     Report and Financial Statements of Umgeni  Water  for  the  year
    ended 30  June  2005,  including  the  Report  of  the  Independent
    Auditors on the Financial Statements for the  year  ended  30  June
    2005.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration on the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill [B 36B - 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 13 December 2005:

   The Select Committee on Local Government and Administration, having considered the subject of the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill [B 36B - 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Provisional Suspension from Office of Mr I W O M Morake, a Magistrate at Lichtenburg Magistrate Court, dated 12 December 2005:

   The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the report on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate Mr I W O M Morake, tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993), reports as follows:

   1. The Select Committee noted from the report that the Minister provisionally suspended Mr Morake from office on 16 September 2005 in terms of the section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993. The report of the Minister which indicates reasons for the provisional suspension was tabled in Parliament on 16 September 2005, in compliance with section 13 (3) (b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.

   2. The Select Committee invited Mr Morake on the 3 October 2005 to submit written representations to the Committee regarding the recommendation of the Magistrates Commission. The Committee received a response from Mr. Morake. In his presentation, Mr Morake denied the allegations and requested the committee hold in abeyance a decision to confirm or not to confirm his provisional suspension, pending the outcome of an application in terms of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was to be held on 27 October 2005.

   3. The Committee was informed that the Section 174 application was unsuccessful.

   4. The Select Committee noted that Mr Morake is accused of stealing monies which were handed to him in his official capacity on two occasions at the office by members of the public. These monies were to be paid over to other members of the public during the period between 27 June 2003 and 1 July 2003 and again between 23 April 2004 and 14 March 2005. The amounts involved are R500,00 and R5 000,00.

   5. In terms of section 13(4)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, Parliament must, as soon as reasonably possible, pass a resolution as to whether or not the provisional suspension of the magistrate is confirmed. The Select Committee considered the allegation to be of such a serious nature as to make it inappropriate for Mr Morake to perform the functions while the inquiry referred to in section 13(3)(e) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, is being held and therefore recommends that the Council resolves to confirm the provisional suspension of Mr Morake in terms of section 13(3)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.

   6. The Committee further recommends that a progress report in respect of the inquiry of the Magistrates Commission be tabled in accordance with the provisions of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.

Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Provisional Suspension from Office of Mr K Suliman, an additional Magistrate at Durban Magistrate Court, dated 12 December 2005:

   The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the report on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate Mr K Suliman, tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993), reports as follows:

     1. The Select Committee noted from the report that the  Minister
        provisionally suspended Mr Suliman from office on  22  August
        2005 in terms of the section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act,
        1993. The report of the Minister which indicates reasons  for
        the provisional suspension was tabled  in  Parliament  on  23
        August 2005, in  compliance  with  section  13(3)(b)  of  the
        Magistrates Act, 1993.
   
   
     2. The Select Committee invited Mr Suliman on 29 August 2005  to
        submit written representations to the Committee regarding the
        recommendation of the Magistrates Commission.  The  Committee
        did not receive a response to the invitation.
   
     3. The Select Committee noted that  Mr  Suliman  is  accused  of
        indecent assault/crimen injuria in that he allegedly sexually
        assaulted his colleague, Ms N V Khumalo.
   
     4. In terms  of  section  13(4)(c)  of  Magistrates  Act,  1993,
        Parliament must, as  soon  as  reasonably  possible,  pass  a
        resolution as to whether or not the provisional suspension of
        the magistrate is confirmed. The Select Committee  considered
        the allegation to be of such a serious nature as to  make  it
        inappropriate for Mr Suliman to perform the  functions  while
        the  inquiry  referred  to  in  section   13(3)(e)   of   the
        Magistrates Act, 1993, is being held and therefore recommends
        that  the  Counicil  resolves  to  confirm  the   provisional
        suspension of Mr. Suliman in terms of section 13(3)(c) of the
        Magistrates Act, 1993.
   
   
   
     5. The Committee further recommends that a  progress  report  in
        respect of the  inquiry  of  the  Magistrates  Commission  be
        tabled in accordance with the provisions of section  13(3)(f)
        of the Magistrates Act, 1993.
   
   Report to be considered.
   

2. Report of the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration on Visit to Abaqulusi Local Municipality, dated 13 December 2005:

   Delegates of the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration, i.e. Mr S Shiceka, Mr C Ntuli and Mr M Mzizi, conducted a visit to the Abaqulusi Local Municipality in KwaZulu- Natal on 21 November 2005. The delegation was guided by section 139(3)(b) of the Constitution, which states that if a municipal council is dissolved, the dissolution takes effect 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the council unless set aside by that Cabinet member of the council before the expiry of those 14 days. The delegates conducted meetings with relevant stakeholders, including the Strategic Support Team, SALGA, the Ward Committees, the business community and organised labour. The political parties were represented and these representatives were requested to make an input:

   IFP 5 ANC 3 DA 2 ACDP 2

   The Committee, having conducted such a review, will report to the House and forward such recommendations to the KwaZulu-Natal provincial government.

   ISSUES ARISING FROM THE BRIEFING BY THE MEC - 17 NOVEMBER 2005

   There were factions and infighting amongst councillors of the majority party, the Inkatha Freedom Party, which paralysed the functioning of Council.

   The Provincial Exco received reports on these matters since May 2005, and thereafter periodically.

   Minister Mufamadi also visited Abaqulusi in October 2005.

   Item 4(2) of the Code of Conduct for Councillors provides that a councillor who fails to attend 3 or more consecutive meetings must be removed from office. This is a peremptory provision.

   On 2 November the MEC dissolved the Council, following a resolution of the Executive Council.

   On 2 November the notification of the intervention in terms of Section 139(3) was served on the NCOP, by means of a fax.

   This notice of dissolution is required by Section 139(3)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, from the MEC for Local Government, Housing and Traditional Affairs (KwaZulu-Natal).

   On 17 November MEC Mabuyakhulu briefed the Select Committee on the background to the intervention.

   AN OVERVIEW OF THE MUNICIPALITY

   The province has 61 Municipalities, of which 29 are being assisted under Project Consolidate. The province has one Metropolitan Municipality (Ethekwini), 10 District Municipalities and 50 Local Municipalities.

   Abaqulusi Local Municipality falls under the Zululand District Municipality.

   The Abaqulusi Local Municipality is located on the western boundary and comprises approximately 30% of the District Municipality area.

   Abaqulusi was constituted from the former entities:

   Vryheid Transitional Local Council (TLC); Louwsburg Local Council; Part of the Abaqulusi and Usuthu Sub-regions, administered by the Zululand Regional Council (ZRC); and eMondlo Town Committee, administered by Umsekele (Provincial Department).

   Abaqulusi comprises of an urban and rural component. The urban sector includes the towns of Vryheid, Bhekuzulu, Louwsburg, Lakeside, Hlobane and eMondlo. The latter was administered by the Vryheid TLC, whereas the rural areas were administered by the Zululand Regional Council (ZRC).

   The Vryheid TLC allocated its capital budget to address the total spectrum of development required within these urban areas as follows:

   Allocate 30% of the capital budget for the development of economic and social infrastructure; and Allocate 70% of the capital budget for new infrastructure.

   In the case of the ZRC the allocation was based on an equal distribution throughout its area of jurisdiction.

   Abaqulusi consists of 20 wards with 17 councillors and falls under the Zululand District Municipality, located in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. Its area is now roughly 200 times the size of the original area administered by the former Vryheid TLC, the largest part of which is rural and underdeveloped.

   The municipality is an executive committee and ward committee type. The Council consists of a total of 39 councillors, 20 of whom are ward councillors and the remainder are PR councillors 11 Councillors are females. There is a staff compliment of 452.

   Abaqulusi includes the former Vryheid TLC, Louwsburg Local Council, eMondlo Town Committee and parts of the Abaqulusi and Usuthu Sub- regions. The Abaqulusi Municipal area is approximately 3 960 km² in extent and includes the following main settlement concentrations:

   Vryheid with its central business district and surrounding residential area together with its former black township Bhekuzulu; Louwsburg, an independent settlement area some 67 km north-east of Vryheid and at the entrance to the Ithala Game Reserve; Hlobane, Coronation and other similar mining settlements 25 km to the north of Vryheid; eMondlo and the surrounding Tribal Area to the south-west of Vryheid; Khambi Tribal Area and surrounding settlements in the north-eastern part of the Municipal area; Glückstadt and surrounding settlements in the eastern part of the Municipal area; Boschhoek and surrounding settlements in the central part of the Municipal area; and A number of rural settlement areas around Brakfontein.

   VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE MEETING

   FIVE IFP COUNCILLORS

   The 5 IFP councillors did not support the MEC ‘s intervention based on the following reasons:

   ➢ They believe that the MEC should have  applied  other  ways  of
     intervention like Municipal Assistance programmes
   ➢ The Council was operating well
   ➢ The intervention by the MEC was politically driven
   ➢ The Council budget  2005/2006  was  passed  within  the  MFMA’s
     specified period although after the intervention by the MEC
   ➢ The Municipality was listed among  those  Councils  which  were
     under the Municipal Assistance Program
   ➢ The records of Council reflects one  Mayor  who  was  paid  and
     that the problem was caused by the Court which ordered  that  a
     councillor who was no more a Mayor to be reinstated
   ➢ The unauthorized use of Council vehicle by  former  Mayor,  Mrs
     E. J .S Moolman, was considered by Council and  finalised.  Her
     report was  accepted  because  she  was  attending  to  Council
     business to hand over a cheque for  development  to  the  needy
     community and the only problem was that it was assumed that she
     knew that the other meeting at KwaGwebu was an IFP meeting
   ➢ The  non-attendance  of  meeting  by  certain  councillors  was
     considered by the Council and it was reported to  the  MEC  who
     did not respond to that effect
   ➢  Why  the  Council  was  dissolved  if  it   was   faced   with
     administrative problems because there is a Municipal Assistance
     Program to cater for such problems
   ➢ The MEC’s intervention had crippled development in rural areas
     because councillors are no more assisting needy communities
   ➢ The Municipal Manager wanted to be the Mayor
   ➢ The Municipal Manager was  supposed  to  communicate  with  the
     councillors about its non-delivery of services,  but  that  was
     not done by the Municipal Manager
   ➢  The  MEC  ignored  the  Commission’s  recommendation  not   to
     dissolve the Council
   ➢ The MEC did not give the dismissed councillors the  opportunity
     to appeal for not attending three consecutive meetings
   ➢ The Municipal Manager did not accept  the  recommendation  that
     the election of the Speaker should take place
   

   COUNCILLORS FROM THE OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES

   The representative councillors from the other political parties all supported the intervention. Their reasons for supporting the intervention are as follow:

     ➢ Council could not operate as a  result  of  the  in  fighting
       between IFP councillors
     ➢  Opposition  councillors  were   out-voted   where   unlawful
       decisions were taken
     ➢ Letters were written to the MEC, requesting his  intervention
   

   ➢ The DA was in favour of the Administrator taking over responsibilities and functions of the Speaker and EXCO, including that of the Mayor, but advised that the Administrator work with the remaining councillors in an advisory capacity ➢ The Municipal Manager reported all the unlawful activities which took place at the Council to the MEC ➢ The Bhekuzulu, Vryheid and eMondlo communities hosted several marches with regard to the dissatisfaction with the non- delivery of services, but these were covered up by the ruling party ➢ The unauthorized use of the Council vehicle, unauthorized opening of water at Hlobane and the use of Council resources to fund the IFP activities ➢ The indigent support was not utilised accordingly as applications were filled by the applicants but Council did not process them ➢ There is no development in rural communities, no water and sanitation ➢ Councillors did not understand their roles in their communities ➢ Few ward committees were fully established

   WARD COMMITTEES

   There were 7 properly constituted committees represented in the meeting. These 7 ward committees were in favour of the intervention. Of the 13 wards, representatives were appointed in the meeting. Two ward representatives abstained from presenting their views about the intervention.

    Those ward committees in favour of the intervention  felt
    so because:
   
   
         ▪ Communities were not consulted during  the  budget
           process
         ▪  There  are  no  development  programmes  in  some
           wards
         ▪ Contractors use poor material  where  construction
           occurred
         ▪  People  are  not  benefiting  from  the  indigent
           policy
         ▪ Councillors use resources  for  themselves,  their
           friends and their families
         ▪ Politics played a role when  deciding  who  should
           get services
   
   
    Those ward representatives not favouring the intervention,  felt
    so because:
   
   
        ▪ The MEC did not allow the communities to  vote  on  whether
          or not councillors should be dismissed
        ▪ Councillors were working hard
        ▪  National  government  was  suppose  to  give   funds   for
          development
        ▪ Community projects are happening  in  certain  areas,  e.g.
          bricklaying, dressmaking etc.
        ▪ Council was operating effectively
   

   BUSINESS

   There were 6 representatives who spoke on behalf of business. Of the 6 representatives, 4 representatives were in favour of the intervention by the MEC and 2 representatives were not in favour. The business representatives argued that they pay tariffs but do not receive services and small businesses do not get tenders. The two representatives indicated that nothing has improved since the intervention.

   CIVIC STRUCTURES

   There were 4 representatives that spoke on behalf of the Civic Structures, with 3 representatives supporting the intervention and 1 representative not supporting the intervention. The representative not supporting the intervention felt that the MEC should have interviewed each councillor before making a decision. The three representatives indicated that several marches were held to complain about poor service delivery. There are service delivery backlogs, but councillors do not report back to communities. There is no service delivery, roads, water and old people’s electricity’s accounts are cut off. The MEC delayed to take decision to dissolve the Council.

   SANCO

   SANCO supported the intervention. SANCO made the following presentation. SANCO has since 2000 indicated that they were against the tariffs of 120% charged by the Council but got no response from Council. Signatures of members of eMondlo and Bhekuzulu communities complaining about the failure by AbaQulusi Municipality to deliver services were submitted

   1. THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER

   He supported the intervention by the MEC.

   The Municipal Manager reported that it was difficult to operate with the Council and that he recommended to the MEC to either consider a general intervention or a specific intervention. He referred to the irregular expenditure referred to by the MEC and the aspect of councillors giving instructions to officials against the Municipal Manager’s instructions. The Municipal Manager felt that it was not necessary for him to report those issues that were already submitted to the MEC.

3. IRREGULAR EXPENDITURE BY COUNCILLOR E J S MOOLMAN

   The matter served three times before EXCO. The then EXCO, when they considered the matter in her absence, resolved that she be held responsible for the cost expenditure as a result of her instruction to the official. She did not deny giving such instructions. The expenditure had accumulated over a period of years and the MFMA only makes provisions for an unauthorized expenditure falling within the financial year. The issue could not be addressed by an adjustment budget because it was related to many financial years. EXCO resolved that the money be recovered from Councillor Moolman.

   When the matter was considered they had two options, i.e. either to condone the expense or she be given a chance to pay back the money. EXCO opted for the second option. The expenditure was ±R11 000,00 and she was given a chance to negotiate payment options, but she did not respond. The Municipal Manager then instructed the CFO to deduct money from her. It was during the time of different Mayors and by then she was the Deputy Mayor.

   The new EXCO chaired by Councillor G M Nxele confronted the CFO to refund Councillor Moolman the money deducted from her salary. CFO requested that the instruction be in writing, which never happened. The Mayor, Councillor G M Nxele, asked the CFO whether he was disobeying their instruction. The CFO reported the matter to the Municipal Manager. The Municipal Manager advised the Mayor that the matter required the decision of Council and that in terms of section 32 of the MFMA, which gives guidelines on how to deal with irregular and unauthorized expenditure.

   Before the matter was reported to the Council, a motion from members of EXCO was submitted to refund Councillor Moolman the R2 000,00 deducted from her salary. It was proposed by Councillor M B Khumalo and seconded by Councillor B L Zwane, whose husband was involved in the incident that resulted in the cost. Council was made aware that Councillor B L Zwane should be regarded as having an interest on the matter because the persons responsible for the costs, which Councillor Moolman was being made to pay, included Councillor Zwane’s husband. This advice was disregarded. When Council considered the matter, it was resolved that because Councillor Moolman was delivering water to the poor, it would overlook the unauthorized expenditure. The recommendations by the Municipal Manager were not accepted.

4. THE PURCHASE OF TRACKSUITS

  On 14 September 2005 the Mayor, Councillor G M Nxele,  requested  EXCO
  to take an urgent decision for the purchasing of tracksuits to be used
  by all participants during the Mayoral Games to be held on Saturday 16
  September 2005.


  The Municipal  Manager  felt  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  such
  expenditure because Council has the necessary sports kits for all  the
  sports  codes  and  he  indicated  that  the  procurement  policy  and
  procedures could only be bypassed on matters of emergency and  in  his
  view there was no emergency in that  regard.   The  Municipal  Manager
  felt that the purchase of tracksuits was more  of  a  luxury  in  that
  regard as opposed to a basic  necessity  for  a  sport.  Moreover  the
  project was for another municipality’s project  (ZDM).  The  Municipal
  Manager  advised  against  this  expenditure.   EXCO  went  ahead  and
  purchased the tracksuits without taking the concerns of the  Municipal
  Manager in consideration.

1. YOUTH CONFERENCE FOR ABAQULUSI YOUTH COUNCIL

  The  Abaqulusi  Youth  Council  requested  financial  assistance  from
  Council for a Conference, which was to be held on 26-27 June  2005  at
  Stillwater Hotel. EXCO at its ordinary meeting held  on  7  June  2005
  approved a grant-in-aid of R30 000,00  as  Council’s  support  to  the
  Youth Summit.  Afterwards the Youth Council did not agree  to  certain
  things requested by EXCO and EXCO then decided to withdraw the funding
  on its special meeting held on Friday 24 June 2005.


  The cheque was issued, but was still with finance  department  because
  the Youth Council wanted it to be paid directly to  Stillwater  Hotel,
  where the conference was supposed  to  be  held.  EXCO  cancelled  the
  conference by withholding the finance.


  The Municipal Manager felt that this was not a  meeting  of  EXCO  and
  that they had no authority to authorize the expenditure. The Municipal
  Manager felt that EXCO misused the office. The money budgeted for  the
  conference was not spent by year ended on 30th June 2005 and the money
  was rolled over.


  COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS


  The Municipal Manager referred  to  the  reports  by  the  Speaker  to
  Council addressing complaints against certain councillors. The Speaker
  did not invite any witnesses during his investigation.


  The Municipal Manager referred the matter of Councillor  M  B  Khumalo
  who attacked the journalist in the Council Chamber to the Speaker. The
  Speaker, in his report, agreed that Councillor M  B  Khumalo  attacked
  the journalist in the Council Chamber, but indicated that  it  was  an
  isolated  incident,  not  misconduct.  They  created  a  cover-up   by
  negotiating with the journalist to pay  for  the  maintenance  of  the
  camera to the value of R 5 000,00 to finalise the matter.

MEETING WITH THE UNIONS

   1. IMATU

IMATU supported the intervention by MEC even though IMATU felt that it was long overdue. Section 57 Managers were never given a chance to utilise their leadership skills and councillors influenced their decision-making. This situation had destroyed the good relationship between the managers and their subordinates. Councillors interfered in administrative duties by:

  ✓ Giving direct instructions to employees


  ✓ Those  employees  were  faced  with  disciplinary  enquiries  as  a
    result of those instructions, e.g. one employee was involved in  an
    accident while driving for  a  councillor  and  that  employee  was
    forced to pay for the damages.

  ✓ A councillor attacked an employee and the Speaker’s  findings  were
    that that councillor was not guilty and given a warning

  ✓ Unions wrote  several  letters  requesting  a  meeting  to  resolve
    employees’ problems and training needs of employees

  ✓ Employees were not treated well and politics  played  an  important
    role on decision-making

  ✓  Some  employees  were  employed  without   following   the   right
    procedures

  ✓  Expelled  councillors  were  invited  to  a  meeting  to   resolve
    problems but they did not attend

  ✓ Employees did not have job descriptions

  ✓ Political appointments were made

  ✓  Councillors  who  had  an  interest  in  certain   posts   recused
    themselves as Union representatives on the panels

1. SAMWU

SAMWU supported the intervention by the MEC.


    ✓ Several marches were held by  SAMWU  employees  complaining  about
      their  problems  within  the  Council,  including  employment   of
      employees which they were not happy with
    ✓ People from outside  the  Vryheid  area  was  employed  in  vacant
      positions
    ✓ Unions are not involved in the IDP process
    ✓ The Local Labour Forum was operating before the chaos started
    ✓  The  Corporate  Services  Manager  is  part  of  the   employment
      corruption
    ✓ Nepotism played an important role when employing people

OBSERVATIONS

The team did not have much time to sufficiently deal with the issue due to some internal weaknesses of the National Council of Provinces and this affected the organization of meetings in the municipality. Only 7 ward committees were operating and were properly constituted, therefore the evidence presented by the ward representatives (appointed in the meeting), cannot be taken as evidence against the wards that were properly constituted. The views of the ward committees should be disregarded as the properly constituted structures in the area are in the minority, i.e. 7 out of the 20 wards. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders met by the delegation supports the intervention with the exception of the ruling party in that Council and a civic movement. The administration was interfered with, thereby undermining it from doing its duties. Some public representatives assaulted some Council employees with impunity. Councillors instructed officials without due regard to the protocol of communicating with the administration through the Municipal Manager. The laws of Council were disregarded when EXCO wanted to take decisions in conflict with stipulated legislation, thereby undermining the pledge that Council will uphold the Constitution of the Republic and the law of the Constitution at all times. The irregular expenditure was undertaken by EXCO without due regard to the MFMA. The in-fighting within the local ruling party affected the function of the administration and caused serious problems. The payment of more councillors than required by Council lead to fruitless expenditure. The ruling party showed no remorse during the discussions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The NCOP supports the intervention and dissolution. However, there are certain areas that must be addressed by the Province:

       1) The development of human resource policies which can build
          the municipality
       2) Establish structures envisaged by the MFMA
       3) Develop a guide on the delegation of powers and functions of
          the Mayor, Speaker, Municipal Manager and councillors
       4) The recovery of money that were unduly paid to councillors
          and for the damage done to the official vehicle
       5) Develop programmes for service delivery
       6) Establish a program to develop ward committees that should be
          unleashed after the election in all wards
       7) Develop systems to ensure that IDP’s get full community
          participation when being drawn up
       8) Establishing a properly constituted local labour forum
       9) In the absence of ward committees, the Administrator should
          brief the community through ward representatives or alternate
          means
      10) The Administrator and the MEC should report to the NCOP about
          progress on these issues on a bi-monthly basis

Report to be considered.