National Assembly - 21 June 2006
WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2006
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 15:02.
House Chairperson Ms C-S Botha took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY
PEACE AND SECURITY
Cluster 1 MINISTERS:
Impact of restructuring of specialised SAPS units on combating of crime
-
Ms M M Sotyu (ANC) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
What impact will the restructuring of specialised units within the SA Police Service have on the effectiveness of the combating of crime at station level, with specific reference to the crimes focused on by these units? N655E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you very much, Chairperson and the hon members of the House. The strategic thrust of the reconstruction is to ensure that we shift better resources to the stations, meaning that we are empowering the stations to ensure that they deliver better services to the people; but more than that, that they form a foundation to act as a springboard in order for them to prevent and combat crime.
There are a number of specialised units of the police. However, those units are not deployed at the local police stations but in areas far away at times from the relevant police stations and serve up to 20 stations per unit.
In these circumstances, what we are trying to do is to ensure that we shift those human resources closer to where the crime is happening - right at the coalface of crime combating and prevention and therefore the specialised units will be deployed to service four to five police stations. This means that the response time is obviously going to be quicker than the case has been and, more than that, those specialised units working together with other police at local stations are going therefore to transfer the experience that they have to a broader contingent of members of the South African Police Service. Members of the crime combating units will therefore be placed at the police stations, in other words, out of four or five police stations a unit from the crime combating forces will be placed in one of those stations. But it is going to be easier for them to deal with matters of crime. In the end, what we are doing is, to ensure that our police officers are best placed to prevent or combat crime, they are brought directly in close proximity to where crime is happening, which is at the local level.
Ms M M SOTYU: Thank you Chairperson, Ndi ya vulela Mphathiswa. Mphathiswa, can you indicate how the restructuring will impact especially on management at station level and what service delivery improvement can the public expect after these changes?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: It was important for us to prepare the human resources that we have for them to be able to fulfil this new command that they have. Those human resources are placed at the senior level, in other words, they are the commanders there and they therefore will assist the foot soldiers at a given station. What we are doing is to train the very commanders in order for them to be able to give command and control over the forces that they have. In the end we will see the entire spectrum of commanders or station commissioners receiving that training in order for them to be able provide proper command and control. We have already given that training to a number of them, but in the end at least 1 136 of them will undergo this training. This is not the only training that we are giving to ensure that in the end we have people who will know what to do to command the forces that they will have. But there is training that is also happening vis-à-vis the foot soldiers, and this training is concentrating specially on our investigative capacity. As a result the detectives are undergoing new and improved training so as to do their investigative work better.
Mr M WATERS: Thank you, Chair. A violent crime against a child is reported every six minutes in South Africa. Between 2002-03 and 2004-05 the number of crimes committed against children increased by over 26 000 to 85 000 per annum. It is an increase of 45%. In contrast to this, an Institute for Security Studies briefing document recommended that in the light of the budget constraints within SAPS the majority of the 2 800 bodyguards who are placed at the disposal of politicians by the police’s VIP Protection Unit should be redeployed to high crime areas.
The same suggestion is made in a document on rural safety on the SAPS’s website currently. Despite this, the VIP Protection Unit has constantly slipped out of the Minister’s view in his search for targets for restructuring. How do you justify the closing of the FCS unit while you continue to pour more resources into the VIP Protection unit to protect, amongst others, you and your family?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you very much. We have an unfortunate situation here, where some of the hon members are becoming very personal and we will also respond in those ways. I do not know what is going to happen to this House. What is unfortunate is that there is no way it would seem that there is some control that is exercised with respect to this. He is addressing my family here and I don’t take kindly to that. In any event, the fact of the matter is - and we have been saying this over and over again - that we are not closing down the Family Violence, Child Protection or Sexual Offences Units. We are not doing that.
Of course, he is asking about bodyguards and there is a question that I have to relate to these matters. I am going to come back to that, but I want to repeat, if this House is going to indulge in a slanging match where people become personal, it is not going to serve the interests of the people who have brought us to this House. I think that an intervention must be made so that we do not have that kind of situation in this honourable House.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, there are still two slots for supplementary questions. Is there now a speaker from the IFP?
Mr T E VEZI: Yes, Madam Chair, it is just a question to the hon Minister. Is the hon Minister aware of any complaints of lack of co-operation between the members of the intelligence section and the police when it comes to matters of organised crime?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Vezi, a supplementary question should be linked to the response from the Minister. So I would consider that this isn’t the opportune moment to ask that particular question. Thank you.
Mr M WATERS: Thank you, Chair. It won’t help if the Minister whinges and whines until he is blue in the face; maybe he should leave the country.
In its 1999 election manifesto the ANC stated that the combating of violent against women and children would be priority number one and in it is 2004 manifesto the ANC resurfaces with the series of promises to improve the services that deal with abused women and children. [Interjections.]
There are currently – listen for once instead of shouting and heckling – 1 185 filled posts in the FCSs, of which only 729 of these officers have actually passed a specialised training course. Given the fact that the ANC government has failed to ensure that all FCS officers received specialised training, which would have cost the taxpayer R797 000, the ANC’s repeated promises of making …
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, please ask your question. I am giving you five seconds extra because you were interrupted.
Mr M WATERS: What assurance can the Minister give us before any FCS officers are redeployed that they will all receive specialised training?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, I think that it is very unfair to the Minister and you have drowned out the question. How is he to respond? So please give him the opportunity of hearing the question and then the opportunity of answering without being interrupting. Thank you.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you very much, Chairperson. I have given a response about this matter already. I am going to repeat it. What we are doing is that we are taking people who have the necessary training to the local police stations in order for them to respond quickly to cries for help. That includes the Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences Units. We are taking them, because redeployment is in the interest of fighting against the scourge of abuse of women and children. That is why we are taking them to the coalface of the fight against criminals who indulge in such a scourge. These are people who continue to receive specialised training in order for them to be able to do that work. We are therefore doing exactly what hon Mr Waters is talking about: ensuring that those men and women who are deployed in that particular category of crime-fighting do that work better than was the case in the past; and have better training. Then they will be right at the spot where this happens, so that their response is immediate.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: And you are not leaving the country?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Members, it is my view that since the question from the IFP did not relate to this particular question on the table that we have another slot. Is there any other party who would like to ask a question?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I would like to find out from the Minister - according to the replies he gave, it has become so common - now that racists of the past are establishing track records of accusing revolutionaries of racism, what threat does this pose to the security in this country?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Order! Hon Chief Whip, order! Please, just one moment, I am dealing with this one hon member. The question does not relate to the answer by the Minister and there cannot be two questions put in a supplementary. Thank you.
Prisons: public-private partnership; gender equality; and vetting of
officials 82. Mr D V Bloem (ANC) asked the Minister of Correctional Services:
(a) At what stage is the review on the public-private partnership
prison contract (b) what progress has been made regarding gender
equality at senior management level in his department and (c) what is
the current status in respect of the vetting of officials of his
department? N819E
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Hon Chairperson, Chairperson of the portfolio committee, the Department of Correctional Services decided not to proceed with the review or renegotiations of the two existing public- private partnership prisons contracts. This was after due consideration of the report and the recommendations of the transaction adviser who was appointed to assist the department to examine all possible options for refinancing and renegotiating with the contractors in charge of managing the two public-private partnership correctional centres. National Treasury was also informed accordingly on 17 January 2006.
With regard to the second part of the question, the department’s employment equity target for women was 30% out of a total of 168 departmental senior management level members, but has currently been reviewed to 50%. The percentage of women employed currently stands at 23% at the female senior management level. These are members who are at the following levels: three directors-general – we call them CDCs in Correctional Services - Chief Deputy Commissioners; two CDCs – Chief Deputy Commissioners - at head office and the Eastern Cape Regional Commissioner; eight DCs – Deputy Commissioners - that is, at chief director level; 28 directors.
Women empowerment programmes the objectives of which are to assist women with gender and health issues and gender-based violence are currently being presented in our department. Dialogues are conducted at all levels for both males and females to address stereotypes and provide a platform for debating gender issues and how well this can be integrated in the department.
With regard to the third part of the question, the correctional officials covered so far with the vetting are those working at C-Max, Pretoria, Kokstad and Durban-Westville. Their forms have been forwarded to the NIA for further handling. The process of vetting was put on hold due to the new regulations, which NIA has developed. The said regulations provide for the establishment of vetting fieldwork units in various departments. This is due to the capacity challenges that NIA was faced with.
Currently, the Department of Correctional Services has forwarded written communication to NIA, requesting approval to establish a vetting fieldwork unit within the department. This unit, once established, will carry on with the task of vetting all senior managers and officials employed in critical positions and at maximum security centres. Thank you, Chairperson. Mr D V BLOEM: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. Minister, on the first part of the question I am very much sure that you will agree with me that the current two contracts, namely Bloemfontein and Louis Trichardt, are really counterproductive to the budget of the Correctional Services. It is R559 million only for these two.
On the second part of the question, I want to congratulate you, Minister, with the promotion of females in our senior management structure.
With regard to the third part of the question you are also doing well, Minister, thank you very much. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Bloem, did I miss the question? [Laughter.]
Mr D V BLOEM: Yes, the Minister has responded very, very positively to all two questions. The last one was I agree fully … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Bloem, you are abusing question time. You are abusing question time!
Mr J SELFE: Madam Chair, I’m sure we all want prisons where there are no escapes and where there is no corruption. We all want prisons that rehabilitate offenders rather than warehouse criminals. I’m sure the Minister wants the same things, but one of the single biggest problems that we have in our correctional centres is the large number of prison officials who get involved in corruption. I’m very worried, unlike the hon Bloem, at the progress that is been made towards the vetting of officials because it’s through the process of vetting officials that we might be able to weed out those people who are connected to the gangs and who are involved in corruption.
When is it anticipated that the field vetting unit would be established and when is it anticipated that the Minister would be able to get everybody who works in our correctional centres properly vetted?
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Chairperson, just a bit on the comments made by Mr Bloem first. Hon Mr Bloem, thank you very much for leading that portfolio committee quite well. [Laughter.]
Mr Selfe, here you come to Hollywood, and Hollywood will welcome you. You did very well. I wish I had a camera and could give your picture to your sons and daughters and they can watch you when you really are doing a wave in the House.
Yes, it’s quite a lot of money that we’re spending on those two contracts you spoke about. But as you well know and the portfolio committee members know, we have come back with a hybrid project that we want to look at and see whether we can save some money. But it doesn’t mean that we will change whatever is there, we’ll keep on talking to Mangaung and to Makhado.
The promotion of women is something that is pivotal to the department, that women are promoted and given their rightful positions within the department. It’s something that my government and my political organisation is pushing for and it’s something that we will do as well.
In terms of the vetting, I’m not worried, Mr Selfe, because work has been going on and it’s not only unvetted officials who will be involved in escapes, even the vetted ones will. But we are busy working on that and we do hope that once NIA comes back to us, we’ll be able then to have that field unit working within Correctional Services. So, do not worry that much, hon member, nothing is going to happen yet.
Mr S N SWART: Hon Minister, arising from your response, we as the ACDP also share concerns about the costs of R595 million as pointed out by the hon Bloem. However, setting aside the financial implications, does the decision that has been taken by the department also mean that the public-private prisons will not be able to accept prisoners other than the categories agreed upon? Can that aspect not be negotiated, as well as the issue of overcrowding? We are aware those prisons cannot be overcrowded at all as opposed to other prisons that are overcrowded. Thank you.
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: In terms of the costs, same as you, we are all worried about the costs, but they say we’re busy talking about some of those issues. In terms of accepting other prisoners, we do have a contractual obligation on what categories of prisoners or offenders they have to accept. But again we’re human beings, we are all working towards one goal – that of rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders. So, we’ll keep on talking to the two about that.
In terms of overcrowding, remember, contractually we’ve got to give them a certain number of offenders; we can’t go beyond that. If we do, we would have to pay penalties for that. So, again we are in quite a dilemma on that one. But again with the help, as I said yesterday, of you hon members when you participate in this kind of debate within Correctional Services, you’re actually assisting us to look at the gaps and to promote project Masibambisane.
Government fund for victims of crime
- Mr R Jankielsohn (DA) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
Whether he will support a government fund for victims of crime; if not,
why not; if so, what are the relevant details? N806E The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, the South African Law Reform Commission in its report on sentencing, in other words, their Project 82, reported on its research regarding the issue of a victim’s fund. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is in the process of studying that report. Therefore, I am sure that when that department is ready to recommend to government the way forward regarding such a fund, those recommendations will be promoted through the justice, crime prevention and security cluster of Cabinet. That being so I am not in a position, at this time, to express an opinion on the matter. Thank you very much.
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Chairperson, during the budget debate in this House, Minister, you made a statement that whingers can complain about crime until they are blue in the face or they can just leave the country. Your explanation that the comments were targeting specific MPs is a weak attempt to try and spin your way out of this predicament. Not since Jimmy Kruger has a Minister for police made such comments and has a Minister in this portfolio done such damage to his department.
Minister, MPs in this House represent constituencies, many of whom are victims of crime and no matter how you try to explain your way out of this predicament, the fact remains that many victims of crime were deeply offended and hurt by your comments. Minister, whether you meant to be unsympathetic or not, will you pocket your pride and use this opportunity now to apologise, unconditionally, to victims of crime who were offended by those comments? [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, I don’t know if what the member has said is part of what we are talking about. Of course, I don’t know the Jimmy Kruger he is referring to. I only know a Jimmy Kruger’s signature on a banning order that was given to me. I don’t know if the hon member also had a banning order that prevented him from doing work for an income for his children and his family. I don’t know if that was the question with the hon member as well. The fact of the matter is … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Order!
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you very much for protecting me, Chairperson. The point I was making is that I remember a Jimmy Kruger as the person who signed a banning order that stopped me from earning a salary. I was a senior journalist at the time but he stopped me from earning a salary. [Interjections.] I don’t know if he did the same with the hon member and, if he did, therefore it means … [Interjections.] Shall I be protected, Chairperson?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Order! Hon Minister, can I take just one minute of your time. Hon members, you asked a question and if you want the answer to be heard, please keep your voices down.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, Jimmy Kruger did that because I was part and parcel of the forces for change in this country that brought about this dispensation that we are enjoying now; so that people like the hon Jankielsohn can say whatever they like to without a Jimmy Kruger banning them for the things that they say. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, can we continue? We have another supplementary question by the hon Nogumla.
Mr R Z NOGUMLA: Chairperson, a fund for victims of crime is just one aspect of restorative justice. Can the hon Minister indicate whether any further measures for restorative justice are being looked at for possible implementation by the justice, crime prevention and security cluster?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is our lead department with respect to matters of restorative justice and indeed in regard to our strategic thrust, there are issues that we are addressing in terms of the justice, crime prevention and security cluster of Cabinet to ensure that we do address the matters relevant to the matter of victims of crime. Of course, with respect to the broader suggestion that we are looking at regarding this matter we are going to come back and indicate to the House what we intend doing to address the matter of the victims of crime. Thank you.
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, thank you, Minister, for your reply; it is very encouraging to know that something will be done with regard to giving funding to victims. Hon Minister, will you be able to tell the House what type of crime would make a victim a potential recipient of such funding?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, I really do not want to talk about a matter that, in the first instance, does not fall under my department, and secondly, a matter that has not been discussed. However, all victims of crime are indeed victims of crime. It does not matter whether it’s a person who was walking in the street and has his cellphone taken away from him. It does not matter whether it is the little child who was assaulted in the street by whoever. It does not matter what type of crime: Crime is crime.
It is the responsibility of members of the SA Police Service to ensure that the rule of law is supreme in this country. Therefore whatever crime you commit, we do not distinguish between big or small crimes. I am not suggesting that our law enforcement must target people who are involved on what is generally defined as petty crimes - I am not saying that. But there are ways in which, after people have been apprehended for committing a crime, our courts look at the gravity of that crime and make a decision. But, the mandate of the police is to ensure that those who commit crime are arrested and therefore they must answer in courts of law for their actions. Thank you.
Mrs P DE LILLE: Hon Minister, I know that the report was submitted to the Minister of Justice in March of 2004, two years ago, maybe in consultation with the Minister. Can we find out when are we going to see the report as Parliament? Two years is a long time but Parliament should also have a view of the report that has been out there for two years.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, well, I am not really competent to respond to that question. Thank you.
Case backlog in criminal appeal matters
-
Mr G B Magwanishe (ANC) asked the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether she has been informed of the backlog in criminal appeal matters arising from the Steyn judgement; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) (a) what is the number of appeal case backlogs in each high court and (b) what steps are being taken in this regard in each case? N658E
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Yes, we are aware of the backlogs in criminal appeals. The Constitutional Court in Steyn 2000 found that the provisions of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 are unconstitutional.
These provisions had sought to require an accused person to obtain leave to appeal before appealing against his or her conviction and/or sentence to a High Court.
I have, since the publication of the member’s question, called for detailed statistics to show the trend of the increase or the fluctuation, for that matter, since 1996, when the Constitutional Court for the first time in State vs Ntuli 1996 considered the constitutionality of the appeal system as it was then.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to provide the member with the statistics yet. I will table them in the House as soon as possible. In the meantime, the member may be interested to know what the position is with some courts. Even this is not quite comprehensive. I would rather bring a fuller report to the House.
Let me say that, on the assumption that since the Steyn judgment the workload of the High Courts had increased, Parliament did enact the Criminal Procedure Act of 2003, which came into operation in January 2004.
The main objective of the amending Act was to introduce a sifting mechanism that is intended to prevent the High Courts from being overburdened by unmeritorious appeals from the lower courts. The amending Act was intended to achieve this object whilst at the same time taking care of the constitutional pitfalls that invalidated the leave-to-appeal procedure, which applied before the Steyn judgment.
The amending Act introduced leave to appeal and petition procedures in the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, the once Act 51 of 1977. This was done so as to regulate appeals against decisions of the lower courts; to provide that certain appeals against decisions by the lower courts and the High Courts relating to children may be noted without having to apply for leave to appeal; and to provide that certain appeals must be considered on the written argument of the parties.
I think the next point I am making is very important and this is that the various Judge Presidents have instituted measures to assist in dealing with the backlogs in their respective divisions. In this regard, especially in some of the larger centres such as Durban, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and Cape Town, members of both the Bar and Side Bar have provided pro bono services to hear criminal appeals.
It is also important for me to point out that we actually have had Judge Presidents appointing acting judges from time to time. [Time expired.]
Mr G B MAGWANISHE: I would like to thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I would like to know whether you are considering any other measures to assist courts, like Pretoria and Johannesburg, where appeal backlogs are too high, with measures like Saturday courts?
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: We are seized with the whole issue of backlogs. In fact, it is not only a matter for the Department of Justice alone, but it is one that we continuously discuss and strategise around within the JCPS cluster.
Having said so, the Saturday courts are not necessarily the best response, but we are looking at all measures that have worked in the past. We are also looking at innovative ways of addressing backlogs.
I must say that we will soon bring to the public’s attention our efforts at modernising courts and introducing information technology precisely to help us, as one of the measures to address the whole question of backlogs in courts. In other words, this is to increase the efficiency of courts.
Mrs S M CAMERER: Chairperson, the Minister has indicated that she is well aware of the problems being experienced in the busier courts in our country when dealing with these criminal appeals and how they clog up the courts.
I am advised that the backlogs in Johannesburg are perhaps ten times what they are in other centres that she has mentioned. The figure of 2 000 cases hanging around and waiting to be dealt with has been indicated, compared with 200 in other large centres. It is truly a problem, and it would seem that the 2004 amendments that we dealt with have had minimal effect on these backlogs.
I was wondering whether the Minister has considered the proposals that have been repeatedly made by the Judge President of the Transvaal, Bernard Ngoepe, that the courts in Pretoria and Johannesburg need more judges.
He has indicated a figure of 18, and that the TPD is 18 judges short at some point. Has that not been considered in order to deal with, not only these backlogs, but also others? [Time expired.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I must correct the hon member. I do not think you are correct when you say that Johannesburg has a backlog of around 2 000. Be that as it may, it is true that the metropolis has larger backlogs. I think we all know the procedures, hon members, that it is at the instance of the Judge President that the Minister of Justice appoints acting judges or judges at all.
I am mindful of the challenge. I do know. I have interacted with the Heads of Courts around this particular matter, and I am aware that they are concerned. Until I am asked to appoint acting judges, there is not much that I can do, but we will continue talking.
Mr T E VEZI: Madam Chair, I think this time around my question will be considered relevant, if I may be educated by the hon Minister. I belong to the old school, hon Minister, if you will bear with me.
Is the old system of automatic review in criminal cases still in existence? If it is, does it in any way assist with the backlogs? Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I think we should be careful. The reason why, at a policy level, a decision was taken, endorsed by all persons within this sector, that there should be a review of the criminal justice system is precisely to make it more modern, efficient and also to deal with the challenges, the most important of which are backlogs.
I am wary and very careful not to respond in a very narrow sense and to say that the backlogs are as a result of one factor. As I have said, there are multiplicities of factors that result in backlogs. I can say that there is a lot of innovation that is coming up, and I just want you to trust that the judges are as concerned as we politicians are about the challenge of backlogs in courts.
Mr S N SWART: Deputy Chair, arising from your response, some time ago, we spoke in the portfolio committee - in fact, it was a number of years ago - on the possibility of binding, interdepartmental protocols relating to the police, prosecutors, correctional services, social welfare and the judiciary to assist alleviating the backlogs.
Yesterday, in Parliament, we heard that some positive developments had been made with the communication in these various sectors. But obviously, as the Chief Justice pointed out some time ago, each one of those forms a domino. If one of the dominos falls over, the whole system falls, and of course, one can have a backlog of cases.
Is there a possibility looking at such interdepartmental protocols that would assist in dealing and preventing backlogs of cases? Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: More than protocols. I am pleased to announce that where pilot programmes were established of an integrated approach, indications are that the workload has diminished. Now, with our e-scheduling put into the equation, we should be able to know which court at what particular time has a backlog, and feed into this cluster working groups which, by the way, as you say, is the whole chain of the police. It is the cluster, in fact, the JCPS cluster.
I am certain that in the course of this year, we will be able to put before Parliament a working progress report that shows significant improvements in addressing the challenge of work backlogs.
Steps taken to prevent child rape victims from secondary trauma
- Rev K R J Meshoe (ACDP) asked the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether she has taken any steps to protect child rape victims
from the secondary trauma experienced when they have to face
their perpetrators in court; if not, why not; if so, what are
the relevant details;
(2) whether she has put any measures in place to allow child rape
victims the automatic right to testify in camera; if not, why
not; if so, what measures? N816E
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Yes, steps are being taken to protect child rape victims from secondary trauma. The Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, specifically the sections mentioned here, namely 170(a), 153, 158(2), have provisions that can be utilised to protect child rape victims from secondary trauma.
I would like to highlight a number of initiatives in this regard. One of the initiatives that the department has introduced to minimise the trauma experienced by the child rape victim who is testifying, is the introduction of court preparation officers in the sexual offences court. There are currently 66 court preparation officials providing support to abused children by preparing them for their court proceedings. To date, 50 000 victims have been assisted by the court preparation officers. The existence of court preparation officers is but one of the measures that have been introduced to assist child rape victims who are going to testify in court in order to ensure that there isn’t any secondary victimisation.
The other matter is that of specialised training for prosecutors handling sexual offences cases. You also know about the close-circuit television. I will give more details later on, if I should be asked about it. There is also the issue of intermediaries.
I think I must talk a bit about the National Project Oversight Committee. This is an initiative that was introduced by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to ensure the effective functioning of dedicated courts, such as the sexual offences court. The NPOC is the formal mechanism to deliberate and make decisions on strategic issues relating to dedicated courts and the main-streaming process.
The NPOC was initiated through consultations between the departments, the Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit and we all know - and are all proud of - the good work of this unit. The NPOC is currently composed of representatives from courts services, from Soca, the NPS and the lower courts’ magistrates committee. I think this is an indication of how we are beginning to cohere and we are having a cluster formation working together on resolving problems.
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Minister, the Criminal Procedure Act does provide for children up to 18 years, automatic access to the CCTV system, as well as a trained person in order to prevent them from having to be in the courtroom. Child rights activists, however, have expressed concern at the courts’ reluctance to afford these rights to children, particularly when they are over 12 years old.
Of course, we have seen time and again that children fail to testify in front of the perpetrator. What will be done to enforce the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act so as to prevent children from being subjected to a secondary trauma by having to give testimony in front of the perpetrator? Can the hon Minister tell us why was the category of vulnerable witness removed from the Sexual Offences Bill, in the face of overwhelming requests by victims and concerned groups?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, you may only ask one supplementary question. I presume that you want an answer to the first one.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I am not quite aware that there are courts that exclude young people who should actually be allowed to testify in private so as to avoid secondary victimisation. You have, however, just shared that information with me and I will go and follow up the matter. In fact, that should not be the case because it’s all about protecting the victim and it is in the victim’s interest.
Well, the other question that you asked me refers to the Bill that is before Parliament. [Interjections.] Yes, it’s before Parliament. Go and look at it and interact with the Bill before you. Make your input. This is a democratic country. Parliament invites submissions and I am sure that we have a very efficient portfolio committee where people would be allowed to make their inputs, comment and criticise what’s before them.
Ms N M MAHLAWE: Chairperson, the Minister has comprehensively responded to the questions that I would have asked her.
Uvele wayitya yonke, Sihlalo. [She has replied to all my questions, Chair.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Chairperson, arising out of the Minister’s reply, if the Minister and her department are so committed to assisting women and child victims of sexual abuse, why did the Cabinet decide to water down the provisions in the Sexual Offences Bill, dealing with special protection and intermediaries for vulnerable witnesses, like child rape victims giving evidence in court?
The 2004 version of the Bill, which she took over, contained much more detailed protections, but we were briefed by her department this week that the Cabinet omitted the provision dealing with this support because of fears of a lack of funding. In fact, I could read to the Minister the section that says the department was concerned that it would not be in a position to fund such a service dealing with the appointment of support persons, and Cabinet approved that the provision dealing with the appointment of support persons should be omitted from the Bill. Surely we should get our priorities right. We must put our money where are mouth is when it comes to protecting the vulnerable.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I can’t match your tone, hon member, since I am not a street fighter. [Laughter.] I think it is disingenuous to suggest in your question that we don’t care about children and women - because you know that that is not true. That’s why I say I can’t fight. I am not a street fighter.
Look, I have answered this question. It’s before Parliament. Engage with the Bill. That is your job as a member of the portfolio committee.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Thank you, Minister. I would like to proceed to Question 84. But before I proceed to that question, there is an opportunity for another supplementary question and I have omitted to mention that it was in the name of the hon Oliphant. Is that a mistake or did he actually want to ask a follow-up question? [Interjections.] Yes, it’s the hon G G, but I imagine that it is that particular microphone that is giving problems, that all these buttons are pressed inadvertently. However, there is a space, hon Camerer, you may continue.
Mrs S M CAMERER: It was just a follow-up with the Minister. I was not trying to be a street fighter. It’s a question I have often asked her. If the problem is funding, and here we are looking at child victims of abuse, we have the criminal assets recovery account, Car, which I gather has about R100 million in it at this point. The Minister herself chairs the committee that decides what to do with that account. Would it not be possible to use the funds from this account to fund such a worthy exercise as providing proper support for child victims in court?
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: You know, hon member, you were on the executive once, you should know. Maybe you didn’t do that. May be you were very ad hoc in your executive, but we cost our legislation. If indeed the portfolio committee … [Interjections.] … you don’t have to shout! What’s your problem, Mr Waters? Give me an opportunity to talk. [Interjections.]
I see that on the other side of the bench we have very dedicated and very child-conscious persons … Don’t point a finger at me, young man. You are so arrogant. Thirty years ago, children in this country had no rights. They were killed for refusing to be forced to use Afrikaans. So, you shouldn’t talk like that. You cannot sit there and be moralistic. You have baggage. [Applause.]
Issuing of firearms to SAPS members suffering from psychological illnesses
-
Mr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
(1) What is the policy of the SA Police Service with regard to the issuing of service revolvers to members who are suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disturbance (PTSD);
(2) whether such members are placed in posts where they can work without firearms; if not, why not; if so, in what type of posts? N821E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you Chairperson. The South African Police Service has adopted a policy … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Order! Hon members, please give the Minister an opportunity to respond.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: The South African Police Service has adopted a policy, with regard to members who suffer from psychological illnesses, to place them in low-stress environments in the police system. Their firearms are withdrawn until such time as they are declared medically fit. The rearrangement is conveyed in a letter addressed to the employee concerned when he or she is advised of the new duties in the alternative post – and those posts are usually administrative posts.
Mr S MAHOTE: Minister, the implementation of the Firearms Control Act has come under huge criticism, specifically from the opposition and the pro-gun lobby. Can the Minister indicate whether the Firearms Control Act contributed in any way to ensure a greater sensitivity in the management structures within the South African Police Services in relation to the issuing and controlling of service firearms; and if so, in what way?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, we are very cautious every time we have to deal with an application for a license for the possession of a firearm. This caution is influenced, among other things, by at least two cases, High Court cases, that happened during my tenure of office.
One of them is a case that came before the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001 and was finalised in 2002. That is the case when Mr Van Duivenboden litigated against the Minister of Safety and Security. The issue of the fitness of a person to possess a firearm was raised in that case. The hon judge, among other things, then went on to say the following:
Had the police officials attested to an affidavit and launched an enquiry, the Court believes that Brooks, who was the person who was given a firearm’s licence, would have ultimately been declared unfit to possess a firearm. If Brooks had been deprived of his firearms, then the respondent who is the person he shot, would not have been shot.
The Court concluded that there was a direct, causal link between the police officials’ failure to initiate an enquiry into Brooks’ fitness to possess a firearm and therefore the shooting of the respondent.
It is the only case that is one of the decided cases of this nature. The other one is the case involving Hamilton. That case is well known to people because it was among cases where the police were rapped over the knuckles. Again, the question related to the possession of a firearm licence and in this case, the question that the honourable judge was asking was whether the police authorities charged with considering, recommending and issuing firearm licences are under a legal duty to investigate information furnished to them by the applicant in order properly to assess such applicants’ suitability and fitness to possess a firearm.
All the time, therefore, when we have to consider an application for a firearm, we must follow the advice we got from judgements like these to ensure that the person who is applying has the necessary temperament to properly control the firearm that they will subsequently have and to exercise such responsibility in terms of that ownership - that they will not do anything that will amount to them using that firearm to kill. Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Chairperson, it’s a pity that the Minister has refused to use this opportunity that we have given him to get out of his “whinge” throw-away-line predicament. Arising from the Minister’s reply, it is clear that stress is a huge problem within the SA Police Service. Many police officers are afraid to go for counselling because they do not want this reflected on their records. Minister, we know that there is a shortage of psychiatrists in the police service. Is it not perhaps time to employ more psychiatrists and make regular counselling mandatory for all active police members?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you very much. I am sure that the hon Jankielsohn knows that we have a democratic country. You cannot force anyone to do anything in this country that they themselves have not initiated. You cannot force people to go on mandatory counselling. You cannot do that. Counselling, in any event, works better when the persons concerned themselves come forward and indicate that they require counselling.
The fact of the matter indeed is that we are strengthening the section of the police that deals with those matters. We have a programme, an Employee Assistance Programme, that deals with all those matters, including the traumas and the stresses under which our members function in terms of the work and the experiences they have. But, there is no way in which we can force anyone to make use of those services. However, we engage with our workers. There are sessions where we sit and talk to our people we have in our employ. We use people who have religious training – they are therefore religious leaders; we have social workers and psychologists that work within the realm of the Employee Assistance Programme. And they therefore do interact with and tell our members of the advantages of going for counselling and the advantages of interacting with other people and learning what their own experiences are in order for them to adapt to particular positions in their lives.
Increase in SAPS budget for Protection and Security Services programme
-
Ms A van Wyk (ANC) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
(a) What is the justification for the substantial increase in the SA Police Service’s budget for the protection services programme and (b) what do the responsibilities of the protection services entail? N657E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, the division: Protection and Security Services is broader than just the VIP Protection Services. The division is responsible for the security of, among other things, South Africa’s national key points. Those include the Beit Bridge Border Post, Johannesburg International Airport, all High Courts, Durban Harbour and Cape Town’s Metrorail. The division’s personnel numbers have grown from 3 302 members during the 2003-04 financial year to 11 480 members by the end of the current financial year. Of those members, 8 504 - or 74% - secure the national key points and that is where, in the main, the increases have been, and not on bodyguards.
As indicated in my Budget Vote speech, there is going to be an expansion within the railway and port of entry environments. In the port of entry environment, additional resources were allocated for all land ports, seaports and airports. The Protection and Security Services division is responsible for VIP protection in transit and static; railway police, which includes Metrorail services and main-line services; port of entry security, which includes land ports, seaports and airports; and the division also serves as a governance security regulator that provides a physical security advisory service. It also administers the National Key Points Act. Thank you very much.
Ms A VAN WYK: Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, sometimes one needs to use this opportunity also to educate members who seem not to understand, as the hon Waters clearly demonstrated when he confused, in the first question, the issue of the VIP Protection Unit and this protection unit.
In the light of South Africa hosting the 2010 Soccer World Cup, does the Minister foresee the SAPS Protection Services’ duty extending to include aspects of this event; and, if so, what planning, if any, has already taken place regarding the security of the event?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Minister, please decide whether you think this is linked to your original response.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: It is, yes. The Protection and Security Services division has always participated in the big events that we have held in South Africa, from the summits of the Commonwealth to the United Nations ones. It will be involved in this big sporting event as we were in the Rugby World Cup played in our country, the African soccer championships played in our country, the international cricket championship which took place in our country, and the same will apply to the 2010 Fifa Soccer World Cup.
What we do in those circumstances is exactly what I’ve indicated - that there will be members of the division that will provide static protection. Those will be bodyguards to all the VIPs. The term “VIP” does not only refer to South African Cabinet members. It refers to everybody who is a VIP – heads of state - and many of the VIPs that come to South Africa as the guests of this government and this country. It will be equal with respect to the Soccer World Cup as well. All those who come will receive the protection that they deserve in terms of the work of this division. Thank you.
Mnr R J KING: Minister, ons verstaan dit sluit natuurlik vir Jean-Bertrand Aristide ook in. Ek verstaan die vraag van die agb lid Van Wyk, aangesien beskermingsdienste opvallend, persentasiegewys, die grootste styging toon, en toegewys is aan –
... for the protection of local and foreign prominent people as
well as the provision of security at key government
installations and, among others, ministerial homes.
In die lig van u uitsprake tydens die begrotingsdebat, Minister, val dit u nie op as absoluut hiper-onsensitief nie? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr R J KING: Minister, we understand that that includes Jean-Bertrand Aristide, of course. I understand the question by the hon Van Wyk, because protection services conspicuously show the sharpest increase percentage wise, and these have been allocated –
... for the protection of local and foreign prominent people as
well as the provision of security at key government
installations and, among others, ministerial homes.
In the light of your statements in the course of the budget debate, Minister, doesn’t this strike you as absolutely hyperinsensitive?]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: I missed that. What is not particularly sensitive or insensitive? I’m sorry, I could not understand. Could he repeat the question for me, please?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Yes, please, and for my edification, just tell me how it links to the original question. Thank you.
Mnr R J KING: Ek het gesê ek verstaan die agb lid se vraag dat hierdie betrokke program hierdie groot styging toon en dan waarvoor die program gebruik word – en het vir u gelees waarvoor dit gebruik word – “among others, ministerial homes”. Ek het toe vir die Minister gevra of dit reeds hiervoor gebruik word en of sy opmerkings oor misdaad tydens die Begrotingsdebat nie onsettend onsensitief was die vermeerdering van geld vir die oppas van ministeriële huise was nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr R J KING: I said that I understand the hon member’s question that this particular programme shows such a great increase, and then what this programme is being used for – and I read out to you what it is being used for – “among others, ministerial homes”. I then asked the Minister whether it was already being used for this purpose, and whether his remarks about crime in the budget debate weren’t terribly insensitive, whilst the increased allocation was for guarding ministerial homes.] The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Minister, I am sorry that I am also battling. I am trying to see whether I must justify this question on the basis of relating to the previous one and I find it difficult; but sometimes when I’m in that position, I leave the choice to the Minister to respond.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: I am going to respond, Chairperson. Thank you very much. I want to repeat that this division has a number of projects that it handles. It protects people of all kinds who have been in the past members of this House, presidents and vice presidents. We are protecting people like the hon Schlebusch, former President P W Botha, former President F W de Klerk - all those people. We protect some justices – judges, in other words - in this country. Those are people who provide protection and necessarily so. Some of them will do static duties at the homes of those VIPs. We also transfer that service to hotels that have been indicated and defined – as we do our work - as venues for the accommodation of people, which is what we will do when the 2010 Soccer World Cup championship is played in South Africa.
There will be designated areas. This particular hotel is a venue that accommodates these VIPs. There will be static protection for those people. That is how it is; that’s how it has been for years in South Africa. This is not a new thing. It’s just that we are improving on what has been happening. Thank you very much.
Search of home of former PAC President
-
Dr S E M Pheko (PAC) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
(1) Whether he has investigated why the home of the former PAC President, Mr Clarence Mlamli Makwetu, at Cofimvaba in the Eastern Cape was raided and searched by 20 armed police members; if not, why not; if so, what did the police find;
(2) whether an apology has been made to Mr Makwetu; if not, why not? N415E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, on 13 April this year members of SAPS followed up an attempted cash-in-transit robbery in the Cofimvaba area. Information was received that the perpetrators were planning to rob small businesses in and around Cofimvaba and indicated that their vehicles were spotted travelling in the direction of Mr Makwetu’s farm.
On arrival at Mr Makwetu’s farm, Superintendent Maqashalala, the officer who was leading the operation, introduced himself to Mr Makwetu and explained the police’s presence on his farm and requested that they be allowed to search the premises. Mr Makwetu consented and the search started, but it only concentrated on one outside room. Property was not damaged and no person was treated in any disrespectful manner. Mr Makwetu, the farm owner, did not logdge complaints after that. The reason for the search, as I indicated, was explained to him and he co-operated fully.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Thank you very much, Minister, but your version of events is not the same as the one we had from Mr Makwetu. I want, however, to remind the Minister that it is the second time that the PAC has been raided. In 2002 the PAC’s constituency office in Botshabelo, in the Free State, was raided without any search warrant by heavily armed police. They opened the ceiling and searched it and found nothing illegal.
As you, yourself, Minister, have admitted, equally, a number of police searched Mr Makwetu and they found nothing wrong. Minister, I want to point out that about the time the police raided the PAC’s constituency office in the Free State, the Boeremag was dropping bombs on Soweto undetected.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Your question please, hon member, time is expiring.
Dr S E M PHEKO: I am not sure, but I have two questions. I have two minutes here.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): No, hon member, I regret not.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Anyway, we want to know why the PAC is always a target.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, the only thing I can offer Mr Makwetu is that I will write a letter to him to indicate exactly what happened, because I can’t imagine any members of the SAPS, at this time of the development of our democracy, wanting to chase up any of our political organisations with the intention to cause harm to those political organisations. It would be completely unlawful and illegal to do that. But I am going to communicate with Dr Pheko on this matter.
Ms J E SOSIBO: Minister, do you believe that members of SAPS, in pursuit of suspects in a crime, should interrupt such a pursuit because the chase might lead to damage to the property of a person of public stature, or should they pursue such suspects without fear or favour? And, do you encourage South Africans to co-operate with SAPS and provide them with the necessary assistance in circumstances like these?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, let me put it this way, that in the first instance, we expect members of SAPS to do their work within the parameters of the law in South Africa. That is the first thing we expect from them.
Secondly, all investigations they conduct must be conducted in a manner where no fear or favour is thrown into the equation. They must do their work irrespective of who might be the suspect in any investigation. But, as I say, the operative phrase is that they must do that within the ambit of the law.
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Chair, irrespective of the PAC’s paranoia, Minister, excess does appear to be a growing problem in the SAPS. Over the weekend five police officers arrived at the home of a journalist in Cape Town, handcuffed her, threw her into their van and jailed her for 18 hours - this for a minor traffic offence.
There are many other examples of such excesses, which come down to the abuse of power and resources. Minister, would you inquire into the frequency of such instances and take action to prevent them from continuing, and can we get a firm commitment in this regard?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, as the hon member would know, we have safety valves for these sorts of things. We have the Independent Complaints Directorate and when any member of the public feels that he or she has been treated in ways that are contrary to our law, he or she can then lodge a complaint with the Independent Complaints Directorate so that that matter is investigated.
There is a system, therefore, that allows for the lodging of complaints, such as the one hon Jankielsohn has referred to.
Amount paid annually to Chief Director-General: Communications of
department
-
Mr M Diko (UIF) asked the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) What amount is paid annually to the Chief Director-General: Communications (name furnished) of her department;
(2) whether this payment is in line with what other chief director- generals are paid; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,
(3) whether there is any justification for such high payment; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,
(4) whether such unjustified high payment is contributing to the low morale of personnel within the Ministry; if so, (a) what remedies will she employ to rectify the situation and (b) when? N734E The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chair, the salary package for the Chief Director: Communications of my department is at R740 583 per month, and chief directors usually earn about R558 601 per annum. The official referred to, by the hon member, was offered a remuneration package outside of band (c) as an incentive to ensure that he accepts the justice department and constitutional department’s offer. This was due to the fact that he had received a counter-offer from the Department of Home Affairs to work overseas on a five-year renewable contract.
The official has extensive experience and rare skills that are needed by the department. He is employed at the Justice Department on a three-year contract that ends in October 2008. He is on probation for a period of one year after which his contract will be assessed. It is not correct that this salary package is unjustified. It is not uncommon for some officials to be remunerated at levels different to their counterparts where justified. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you, Minister. I don’t see hon Diko, I am not sure if there is anybody from the UIF to make a follow up. Hon Mlangeni, is it a point of order?
Mr A MLANGENI: Chairperson, on a point of correction, the Minister said the salary was R740 583 per month; I think she wanted to say per annum.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Ok, I don’t see anybody from the UIF, hon Diko is not here. Hon Solomons from the ANC: Hon Solomons is on the list to make a follow up. Not? Any other supplementary follow up?
Mrs S M CAMERER: Thank you, Chairperson. Madam Minister, it appears as though your department makes a habit of these exceptions. I understand that your chief operations officer receives a remuneration compared to that of a director-general or the same as that of the director-general. How many other officers receive such exceptional salaries? Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: It is not an exception to the Department of Justice. The level of an operational officer is a new level that has been approved by Cabinet and it is intended to bring greater efficiency, especially to large departments or departments that have special challenges. Justice is not the only department in government that has a COO.
United Kingdom: Assistance to African Development Agenda; and strategy for Middle-Eastern region
-
Ms F Hajaig (ANC) asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs:
In view of the bilateral talks between President Mbeki and Prime Minister Tony Blair, what (a) assistance is the United Kingdom prepared to offer Africa’s Development Agenda and (b) strategy is the UK prepared to bring to the whole Middle-Eastern region? N659E
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Chair, the reply to the question is as follows: Yes, indeed, one of the principal objectives of our President’s meeting with Prime Minister Blair was to advance the African agenda. Support for development in Africa is a major foreign policy theme of the government of the United Kingdom, and in 2004 the United Kingdom established the Commission for Africa, of which our Minister Finance, Minister Manuel, was a member.
The commission published its report in March last year, and set out a comprehensive plan to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. In 2005 the United Kingdom, as we all know, hosted the G8 summit at Gleneagles and also held the presidency of the European Union.
The government of Prime Minister Blair emphasised the importance of Africa’s development agenda by designating 2005 as the year of Africa. African development, therefore, was a primary item on the agenda of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, and many of the recommendations of the Commission for Africa were taken up by the Gleneagles summit, building on the G8 Africa action plan that was launched at Kananaskis in Canada in 2002. And a lot of this was incorporated into an agreed, detailed set of commitments by the G8 to tackle areas of poverty, covering aspects such as peace and security, good governance, human development and growth.
These commitments include the doubling of aid by 2010, an extra US$50 billion globally, including, in that amount, $25 billion for Africa, and providing 100% debt cancellation for up to 38 of the so-called Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, HIPC, countries, mostly in Africa, worth US$50 billion.
The United Kingdom announced a number of programmes in support of Africa’s development agenda since the publication of the Commission for Africa, and these are too detailed for me to mention here, but will be printed in the reply.
In response to point (b) of the hon member’s question, I think I could just say that certainly, in our understanding, the UK’s stated policy objective is that it supports a peaceful and negotiated resolution of the various conflicts in the Middle East. Thank you, Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Before I call on hon Hajaig, may I remind hon members that there is too much noise in the House, and I thought that question time is an oversight instrument, there to educate us and the voters out there. However, the level of noise, unfortunately, is now drowning out the people who are responding or asking follow-up questions.
Ms F HAJAIG: Thank you for your comprehensive reply, Deputy Minister Van Der Merwe. The chaired meeting, the Commission for Africa and the bilateral talks, recently, have consistently promised various measures to assist in the Renaissance of Africa, as you have mentioned. However, we have yet to see the promises come to fruition.
Could the Deputy Minister kindly tell the House what concrete assistance is being made available to African states to eradicate poverty and to assist in the sustainable development of African states? Thank you.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Thank you very much for that follow-up question. Yes, indeed, it is of concern that the implementation of those decisions should in fact take place. I think that we, in the Department of Foreign Affairs, could agree with the questioner in this regard.
In that regard, there is something called the Africa Partnership Forum, which has been established. It consists of representatives of the G8 countries, representatives from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, countries and from African countries. The purpose of such a forum is to provide for the implementation of those decisions.
Their last meeting was in Maputo in May this year, where a detailed set of programmes identifying priority areas was set out, including such matters as infrastructure development and support for programmes with regard to HIV/Aids. So there is some progress that is being achieved.
I might just add that the next G8 summit, to be held next month in Russia, is what is called a review year in terms of the implementation of the African agenda issues. It was decided by the G8 parties that they would in fact take a two-year period to ensure that the full implementation of the decisions of Gleneagles happened.
So the way they have approached it is to look at a two-year period for implementation. But we will continue to watch and monitor those decisions to the extent that we can, and ensure their full implementation. Thank you.
Mr L B LABUSCHAGNE: Thank you for your reply, Deputy Minister. You know, in the same context of the bilateral talks between President Mbeki and Prime Minister Blair, (a) what expectations, in terms of assistance, does Africa have for her development agenda; and (b) what mechanisms are in place in the Middle Eastern region to utilise and/or respond to whatever strategies the UK will bring to this region, that is the Middle East? Thank you.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Chair, yes, in response to the question, I think that Africa has quite high expectations of the outcomes of the Gleneagles deliberations. Chief among these is the point I mentioned about the cancellation of debt.
As hon members would know, debt remains a very grinding issue for many countries on the African continent, and the undertaking, on the British government’s side, to cancel debt to 100% was certainly well-received, and it is something the implementation of which we will pursue.
Of course, one of all the other things that I have mentioned, namely the raising of assistance in terms of AODA to the 0,7% of GDP, which has been promised by the G8 countries, is a further expectation of the African countries. I think, once again, that we need to reiterate that the devil will be in the details of the implementation of some of what we regarded as very positive decisions at Gleneagles.
In terms of the mechanisms that exist in the Middle East, I think there’s a range of opportunities, not least of which, of course, would be the partnership of the quartet that is designed to look at the issues in the Middle East, particularly between Palestine and Israel.
I think that there are a number of multilateral mechanisms that can be used by the international community to work on diplomatic solutions to what are clearly dire and difficult problems in a very volatile area. So I believe that as long as we continue to use those multilateral instruments, we should be able to work towards a solution. Thank you.
Policy review iro claims for post-traumatic stress disorder among members of SAPS
-
Dr J T Delport (DA) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
(1) Whether his Ministry, department or the Compensation Commissioner is currently reviewing the policies which are used in the adjudication of claims for post-traumatic stress disorder amongst members of the SA Police Service; if not, why not; if so, (a) when did the review commence, (b) what is the current status of the review and (c) what is the expected date of completion;
(2) whether a moratorium has been placed on claims; if so, (a) until what date, (b) when are claims expected to be finalised and (c) what number of claims are currently affected or pending;
(3) whether he will make a statement on the matter? N807E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, policies which are used in the adjudication of claims are not being reviewed. There is no moratorium on claims. There are currently 1 808 claims, which include a small number of post-traumatic stress disorder claims, which are currently before the compensation commissioner. Thank you.
Dr J T DELPORT: I am now really at a loss, hon Minister. I have a letter written by the chief of staff that says:
Kindly note that the office of the compensation commissioner is currently reviewing the policies which are used in the adjudication of claims for post-traumatic stress disorder, and therefore has put a moratorium on all PTSD claims until 31 March 2006.
So, I do not understand the hon Minister’s reply. But, in any event, sir, here is the story of a captain. There is no doubt about it. Look at all the reports. The man has been off for post-traumatic stress disorder. He was traumatised, and he is now, at this point in time, forced to come back to do office work. This man is going to land up in an institution if the hon Minister does not show any compassion for his own staff and personnel who were traumatised during and in the course of their work. There is no doubt at all. I ask the Minister at least to show compassion to his own people, if he has no compassion for victims of crime.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon Minister, there was no question, but if you want to comment, you can.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: These are very, very strange observations that member has made. They are very, very strange. The Minister acts on the basis of information that the Minister has. There is nothing that relates … I don’t even know the case he is talking about. How I become … I don’t know about it. You say I must be compassionate. I don’t even know the case.
Will you do the most reasonable thing, hon Delport, that any reasonable person would do, and make that information available to the Minister, and test the Minister on the basis of the Minister’s response. If the Minister has not responded, then you can show me all those sheets of paper that you have.
The Minister does not know what you are raising. Please place that information at my disposal, and I will respond to it. Then, judge me on the basis of the response that I will give you, not on anybody else’s response. If you want to judge the Minister, judge the Minister on the basis of the Minister’s actions, not on anybody else’s actions. Please do that, hon Delport. You want to assist, and I also want to assist. Let’s come together and unite so that we can change the circumstances of the people who work with us in developing our country. Thank you. [Applause.]
Steps taken by SAPS to address farming community conflicts
-
Mr M S Booi (ANC) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
Whether the SA Police Service has taken any steps to address the conflicts among and within farming communities in the policing area of Utrecht and Utugela; if not, why not; if so, what steps? N660E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, the South African Police Service has established a provincial task team reporting to a senior officer with the rank of a director, to address conflicts among and within farming communities. The task team functions directly under the command of a senior superintendent. This task team’s initiatives, as well as progress in the investigations, are being closely monitored at national level by an assistant commissioner.
All case dockets related to the conflicts were reinvestigated by the task team. Case dockets, in this regard, with finalised investigations, have been submitted to the KwaZulu-Natal Director of Public Prosecutions for a decision. The task team is still in the area, continuing with investigations as they are reported. Thank you.
Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, could the Minister just highlight for the House the nature of the source of conflict in this particular area? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: The problem in Utrecht, and a number of other areas in those parts of KwaZulu-Natal, relate to the matter of land. The question, which has seen previous conflicts being exacerbated, has to do with the passing of the Land Tenure Act and the extension of the security of Tenure Act. The white farmers in those areas remain highly suspicious of the intentions of those Acts and therefore strenuously oppose their implementation.
The Acts, of course, are designed to advance the matter of land restitution to people whose land was taken away from them, and to provide security to labour tenants who are working on those farms. There have been interactions by some of my colleagues, the Ministers, for instance, of Agriculture and Land Affairs as well as Labour to try to mediate the conflict in the area. There have been others who were also engaged in doing exactly the same. I was in the area last year, accompanied by other Ministers, including the Minister of Health. We went into the area. The other problem that has come into the picture is to do with investigations of the conflicts. Both sides allege that the police are tardy in their investigations and our courts of law are not applying the law favourably and, of course, within the ambit of the government’s intentions.
What we are trying to do in that area, because it does not help to try to force any of the parties with regard to the matter, is to try to continue to negotiate an understanding, in the first instance, of the law as it stands and therefore to get all parties concerned to accept the bona fides of government, in order for us to address that tricky issue of land. Thank you.
Mnr R J KING: Minister, volgens die antwoord wat u departement aan die agb Jankielsohn op sy vraag aan u verskaf het, het die spesiale taakmag opdrag om alle sake en klagtes van beide die boere en die plaaswerkers te ondersoek. Hulle het ’n lang lys klagtes ondersoek en in alle gevalle was die boere in die beskuldigdebank.
Die Utrecht Boerevereniging ontken dat die taakmag enige kontak met hulle gehad het. Ek wil van u weet, Minister, watter kriteria is gebruik om te besluit wie die slagoffer en wie die verdagte sou wees? Of het u, soos die gebruik blykbaar nou is, maar net op die vanne geoordeel? Hoekom is net die boere as verdagtes ondersoek? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr R J KING: Minister, according to the answer supplied by your department to the hon Jankielsohn regarding the question he put to you, the special task team has instructions to investigate all cases and complaints reported by both the farmers and the farm workers. They investigated a long list of complaints, and in all cases the farmers found themselves in the dock.
The Utrecht Farmers Association denies that the task team had any contact with them whatsoever. I would like to hear from you, Minister, what criteria were used to determine who would be the victims, and who the suspects? Or did you, as seems to be the practice nowadays, simply judge on the basis of surnames? Why have only the farmers been investigated as suspects?]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: That is precisely the point in regard to the conflict in that area. When we were there, together with the Minister of Health and others, we were taken to places, where among other things, there was a homestead of an African farmer that had been burnt down. That person sustained serious injuries. There was a black farmer who showed us a small dam where his cattle had to drink. He alleged that his cattle were killed because that water was poisoned and he pointed a finger at the farmers.
There are white farmers who complained about their land being taken by some of the blacks who live around the area. There are complaints from both sides. What the police are doing, which is the work of this task team, is to collect all the evidence and in the end that evidence goes before court. It is the courts of law that will therefore apportion culpability. It is not the police. It is not the Minister. It is not anyone else. That matter goes to court and this is the information I have laid before this House. There are investigations, there are dockets and those dockets have been submitted to the prosecuting authorities in the country.
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, the farmers in that area informed me that they were not even consulted by this task team. I would just like to ask you: Will you instruct this task team to go back and make sure that the allegations of hate speech that were made by the farmers are investigated and that they, at least, consult the farmers concerned and the farmers’ union in that area?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: An investigation was mounted and that investigation produced dockets. Those dockets are going to be before the court. The allegations are huge from both sides, including the fact that there are farmers who allege that hate speech was made on the part of some of the black dwellers in that area.
There are also black people who also allege that those farmers perpetrated atrocities against them. The best adjudicator with regards to this matter is the court of law, where all these dockets will be taken. It is not going to help us within the confines of this House to try and apportion blame on anyone. Let us not apportion blame on the black dwellers in those areas. Let us not apportion blame on the white farmers in those areas. Let us allow the law to take its course.
Consequences of nonrecognition of Hamas government and withholding of
monies due to Palestinians
-
Dr A N Luthuli (ANC) asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs:
(a) What is the situation in the Palestinian territories and (b) what will be the consequences of (i) the European Union, the United States of America and Israel not recognising the democratically-elected Hamas government and (ii) withholding monies due to Palestinians from Israel? N662E
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Thank you, Chair. The response to the question is as follows: On part one of the question regarding the situation in the Palestinian territories, the South African government is of course extremely concerned about the continuing deterioration of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, especially in the Gaza Strip, as a result of the escalation of violence and the unfolding humanitarian crisis in the area. The unprecedented military attacks on Palestinians by Israel, which is the stronger party, including its continued campaign of extra-judicial assassination, has resulted in extensive human casualties and the destruction of much-needed infrastructure.
In response to parts two and three of the question, there have been a number of developments since the outcome of the democratic election that took place in Palestine on 25 January this year that have contributed to this dire situation. Key among these are that the outcome of the elections has resulted in a cessation of aid, from the key donor countries within the international community, upon which the Palestinian government and society are heavily reliant. This has led to the near collapse of the Palestinian economy and infrastructure.
Secondly, the decision of the quartet, that is, the European Union, Russia, the United States and the United Nations, not to provide financial assistance to the Palestinian people through the new Hamas-led government till the latter complies with the quartet’s conditions, has contributed substantially, we believe, to the hardship of the Palestinian people.
Thirdly, the withholding of monies also due to the Palestinians from Israel has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is already dire, and it is imminent in the rest of the occupied territories. This measure has a potential to seriously damage all economic and social infrastructure that the Palestinian people have been able to maintain in difficult circumstances over the past years. Such a collapse is not in the interests, we believe, of any party and could contribute to further violence resulting from a feeling of despair.
South Africa as a proponent of democracy could not and would not challenge the consequences of a democratic process. The South African government therefore welcomes the democratic process that took place in Palestine in January, as it was a clear expression of the will of the people of Palestine.
The South African government is furthermore of the opinion that the elections in Palestine and Israel offer a new opportunity for the leadership of both sides to take forward the Middle East process, and we have and will continue to urge all interested parties in turn to recognise the democratically elected government of Palestine.
Dr A N LUTHULI: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister, for your comprehensive answer. You have answered comprehensively, but it is just the last bit perhaps where I would like further clarification. The question I will put forward is that you mentioned, which is what happened there, that there is a result of a democratic election. And, we know very well that the US and the Western allies have the idea of spreading democracy all round the world. What therefore will be the consequences of what is happening in the Middle East, where a democratically elected government does not seem to be recognised?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Yes indeed, it is a very worrying situation and we believe that the reaction of the international community has further exacerbated the problem - because what has occurred is, there has been a dramatic increase in the rivalry between the Hamas and the Fatah parties. This has caused an escalation in clashes and indeed these clashes have been exacerbated, we think, by the lack of payments of salaries of the people. So, we do not think that it is in anybody’s interests to place conditions on the government of Hamas seeing that the election was properly observed even by the Americans and was declared to have been free and fair. The conditionality, as you might be aware, involves the recognition of Israel as a country and various other conditions that the quartet has placed on people. But the situation now is that all the negative activities that are going on in the region have been exacerbated and made worse by the withdrawal of the donor funding by the international community.
Mr L B LABUSCHAGNE: Thank you, Minister. Minister, you have made much about the aspect of free elections and democracy. And the test of democracy is, of course, when a free and open election is won, for the losing party, particularly if it had previously been ruling, to accept electoral defeat. I must compliment you on that. Of course, I am not referring to the Cape Town Metro where this does not seem to be the case. Fatah did accept defeat. Now, Hamas’ track record does cause concern, particularly in refusing to recognise the existence of Israel, which South Africa, of course, does recognise. Now, what therefore, Minister, will be the consequences for the Middle Eastern region of this stance of Hamas and the consequences for South Africa’s relations with both Israel and Palestine?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Thank you very much. Yes, indeed we do recognise the democracy that took place there, the democracy that exists and the fact that the elections were free and fair. But we still maintain that the two-states solution is the way in which the two countries should go. We will therefore bring to bear on the situation all our diplomatic efforts in an attempt to persuade both parties that the road-map that was established through a very long and complex process is a process that we should go back to - to get people back to the peace tables to talk about a solution in the area.
The consequences of what is happening now are very evident on the streets of Gaza and in the Middle East generally. We do not think that it is a sustainable situation and we believe that we should return to the multilaterally agreed road-map process that was conceived and finalised in Oslo.
Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Deputy Chair. Hon Deputy Minister, you did point out that it is the South African government’s policy to recognise the right of Israel to exist within secure boundaries as well as to support the road- map to peace; and you did point out that the Hamas-led government has refused to even accept the right of Israel to exist and that this has been a condition that has been placed on it by the international community. This appears to be the reason for the withholding of funds. Must we share your concerns about the humanitarian crisis that this results in? What steps do you think the South African government can take to persuade the Hamas government to recognise this right of the state of Israel to exist within secure borders? Whilst we appreciate your belief that it should not be a condition, surely in diplomatic terms one should try to move this process forward because, clearly, it is a severe threat to peace in the Middle East.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Thank you, Chair. Yes indeed, we do believe that the diplomatic solution is the one. We believe that we should talk to all parties, both the government of Palestine as well as the government of Israel to move forward and try and find a solution to these problems. As I have stated in our position on the matter, we are often criticised for talking to all sorts of people. But our belief is, unless you talk to people you can never persuade them of your point of view. So, our diplomatic efforts will be levelled at attempting to persuade the parties that exist there that the road to peace there must be found through dialogue and must be achieved through dialogue and must follow the path, as I have mentioned, that the road-map sets out.
Mr M B SKOSANA: Thank you, Chairperson, I think I am very much covered because I was going to say that we agree with the Minister that the sanctions really do not help because they generate some kind of radicalism in the Middle East. And this also relates to what is happening in Iran. My question was going to be on the final position of Hamas on the Oslo Accords, but I hear the Minister has already answered that.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C van der Merwe): Thank you very much. I am glad that I have answered the question. [Laughter.]
Remuneration of serving judges for extrajudicial work
-
Ms V Meruti (ANC) asked the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether she has been informed of any serving Judge who is currently receiving remuneration other than a judge’s salary; if so, (a) who are the judges and (b) what is the nature of their extrajudicial work? N661E
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Allow me, by way of introduction, to make some general remarks. The issue of judges receiving additional remuneration for performing functions outside the framework of their office is a matter of grave concern.
Since the legislature has entrusted the function to decide whether judges may engage in other work for remuneration to me in my capacity as Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, I am in the process of developing guidelines and criteria in this regard. By the way, here I am referring both to serving judges and judges discharged from active service.
The principle, in my view, is quite clear. The judges, whether active or discharged from active service, remain judges and as such they are remunerated by the state. To allow judges to occupy other offices of profit or to receive remuneration for services rendered outside the scope of their office as judges, should, in my view, be limited to exceptional cases. I have already raised this matter with heads of court.
I have, so far, refrained from giving judges applying for permission under the particular provision open-ended authority. Instead, I have limited my consent to those applications submitted on a case-by-case basis.
Having looked at the scenario since 1994, there are cases in which judges have been allowed in terms of this provision to retain or enter directorships in companies and to involve themselves in other similar kinds of activities. Accordingly, as I have indicated, I am in the process of interacting with the Chief Justice to really look at the details of the guidelines that I am referring to.
However, let me come back to the actual question that has been posed by the hon member. I have not been informed of any serving judge currently receiving remuneration other than a judge’s salary, except for those serving judges who have applied for and obtained permission to perform outside work in terms of section 26 of the Act. As you all know, hon members, we are also preparing legislation that will, inter alia, include a section on financial disclosures. Thank you.
Ms V MERUTI: Thank you, Deputy Chair, Minister …
Potso ya ka e ke neng ke tlile go e botsa, o setse o e arabile. Ka jalo ke a go leboga. [The question which I was going to ask, you have already answered. Therefore, I thank you.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Thank you, Chair. Yes, what the Minister has told the House really corresponds with what she indicated to me when I posed the question. I think she once, last year, indicated that she had given permission to eight retired judges to do remunerative work and she has now reiterated her main criteria, although she apparently is going to deal with further criteria that this must be under exceptional circumstances, which makes sense.
But could the Minister tell us what the actual method of applying is? Does the application have to be in writing from the judge concerned? What is the method the Minister uses to convey her decision, yes or no? And this has become relevant, as a certain Judge President has claimed that he actually had verbal permission to take on remunerative work from one of the Minister’s predecessors. Would this be possible in terms of this system? Thank you, Chair. [Time expired.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: What I did when I took office was to actually, through the heads of courts, communicate to the judiciary that I would want them to justify the request that they put across. This is because what would happen is that the judges would just give a line and say, “I have been approached for this and that, and I would like to do it.” So, I can say that my sense is that there has been a level of ad hoc-ism. I’m not sure whether, in all cases, there has been written requests, but I have made it clear that I would want them even to give rational reasons why they would want to do certain work.
Let me say that there is an indication also that some of the judges were allowed as serving judges - and I think it is good practice - to go on lectureships. But I actually think that we do need to formalise the system beyond what the Act provides, to make sure that, in fact, we do have the correct procedures. That is why I have asked for that.
You asked: What then? It is very difficult. I think one would be guided by principles of administrative fairness in making the decision, but I actually think it is not enough. So, we need to open up the discussion, and I am hoping that when Parliament deals with the complaints mechanism, it will engage this matter thoroughly. But, on my part, I do need to have interim measures, because many retired judges ask to do arbitrations.
Foreign commitment of Minister of Safety and Security
-
Mr R Jankielsohn (DA) asked the Minister of Safety and Security:
Whether he will request to be relieved from his foreign commitment to concentrate on local issues; if not (a) why not and (b) for how long does he envisage this foreign commitment to continue; if so, when? N805E
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, the answer is: I will not ask to be released from any task that the President allocates to me. I will continue to work at such tasks until they are concluded or the President withdraws the given mandate. [Applause.]
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Minister, a total of 51 people in South Africa is murdered every day. Violence has become a norm in South Africa. Peace in Burundi is important, but for South Africa preventing murder, rape, robbery and even torture by criminals is more important. South Africans are living in constant fear. Will you commit to us that you will put the safety and security of all South Africans before any other commitments, including foreign commitments?
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: In South Africa we have a huge contingent of members of the SA Police Service. They have detectives who do investigative work. They have people who deal with all types of crime in South Africa. That is their operational function. They do the actual work. I have confidence that they discharge those obligations in terms of the principles defined, as well as strategies and tactics, in which the police have been trained. The Minister heads the Ministry and therefore is the executing officer in that establishment. The police do policing and the Minister is in charge of the Ministry. The Minister is not a police person who goes and does police work on the ground. The hon members know this, otherwise we would have a situation where all the executives in politics and business would have to sit down and do the work that those who are under them are supposed to do. See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr L J MODISENYANE: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House should debate the importance of strengthening the progressive movement for peace, democracy and development on the African continent.
Mr G G OLIPHANT: Chairperson, this year being the 60th anniversary of the African Mineworkers’ Strike of 1946, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House debates the significance and the role of the working class movement in the transformation of our country.
Ms F HAJAIG: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House debates the contribution we can make as a country in the effort for a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mr M RAMGOBIN: Chairperson, recalling that 100 years ago here in our country, Mahatma Gandhi launched Satyagraha, which is now not only the heritage of our country but the entire world, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House debates the contributions and relevance of Satyagrah to our political, economic and social values.
[Applause.]
Mr A MLANGENI: Noting the fact that this year marks the 45th anniversary of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Chief Albert John Mvumbi Luthuli, Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House debates the progress that we have made in the struggle to eradicate the demon of racism in our country.
[Applause.]
NATIONAL EPILEPSY WEEK
(Draft Resolution)
Mr H J BEKKER (IFP): Chairperson, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the IFP, I move without notice: That the House-
1) takes cognisance that –
(a) this week is National Epilepsy Week; and
(b) epilepsy is a silent illness that is suffered by at least one
person per every 100 of our population;
2) recognises the importance of this week, which is dedicated to raising
awareness of the illness;
3) commends the important role being played by the South African
National Epilepsy League, Sanel, and all affiliated and associated
epilepsy organisations;
4) in particular salutes the outstanding achievements of epilepsy
sufferers in the professional world of employment and even in sport;
5) remembers that people like Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh and
even Napoleon and our own cricketer Jonty Rhodes are among the
epilepsy sufferers;
6) believes that epilepsy should be recognised as a disability and that
it indeed presents obstacles to employment; and
7) also firmly believes that epilepsy sufferers need to receive similar
protection of their rights and recognition for employment as our
citizens with general disabilities and handicaps.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF ORDERS
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the House, after dealing with the Business on the Order Paper today, considers Orders No 2 and 3 under Further Business.
Agreed to.
STANDING OVER OF ORDER
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That Order No 6 on the Order Paper stand over.
Agreed to.
BILL REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice the first motion on the Order Paper:
That the House, subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, refer the Report of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons on the filling of vacancies on the National Youth Commission (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 5 June 2006, p 1152) back to the Committee for further consideration.
Agreed to.
EXTENSION OF DEADLINE OF AD HOC COMMITTEE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice the second motion on the Order Paper: That the House extend the deadline by which the Ad Hoc Committee on appointment of the Auditor General must report to House from 21 June 2006 to 28 July 2006.
Agreed to.
MONITORING OF ELECTIONS IN THE DRC
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice the third motion on the Order Paper:
That the House, noting that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is holding elections on 30 July 2006, resolves, subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, that –
(1) the South African Parliament send a 30-member multiparty delegation to observe these elections;
(2) the delegation form part of the South African National Observer Mission;
(3) the delegation observe the campaign in the run-up to the elections, the casting of votes and subsequently the counting of the votes; (4) the delegation comply with the attached Code of Conduct governing Parliamentary Observer Missions;
(5) the delegation comply with the Code and Rules governing the conduct of the National Observer Mission and recognise the overall leadership of that Mission’s leader; and
(6) the delegation table for consideration and debate the report of the National Observer Mission to Parliament on its return.
Principles and rules governing observer missions
-
General
(1) Observer missions must be conducted on the basis of the highest standards of impartiality concerning political processes in the host country and must be free from any bilateral or multilateral consideration that could conflict with impartiality. (2) Observer missions must be conducted with respect for the sovereignty of the host country, including adherence to domestic laws, and with respect for the rights of the people of the country.
(3) Observer missions must not interfere with, obstruct or hamper the processes being observed. (4) An observer mission must strive to gather information systematically and comprehensively, to analyse the information within the overall context of the event, even if the observer mission focuses on only a sector of the event, and to draw conclusions based on the highest standards of accuracy of information and impartiality of analysis.
(5) Observer missions must submit a report to Parliament or the House that mandated it within a reasonable time, presenting their findings, conclusions and, where appropriate, recommendations they determine could help improve the observed processes.
(6) All statements of the observer Mission to the public or the news media must be authorised by the Mission.
-
Conduct of members
Members of the observer mission must respect the integrity of the mission, including:
(1) following any reasonable written or verbal instructions from the observer mission’s leadership;
(2) attending all of the observer mission’s required briefings, trainings and debriefings if reasonably possible;
(3) reporting to the leadership of the observer mission any conflicts of interest they may have and any improper behaviour they see conducted by other members of the observer mission;
(4) maintaining strict impartiality at all times, including leisure time in the host country, and not conducting any activity that could be reasonably perceived as favouring or providing partisan gain for any political competitor in the host country, such as wearing or displaying partisan symbols;
(5) maintaining proper personal behaviour and respect towards others, including exhibiting sensitivity for host-country cultures and customs, exercising sound judgment in personal interactions and observe the highest level of professional conduct at all times, including leisure time; and
(6) not making personal comments about the observations or conclusions of the observer mission to the news media or members of the public prior to the observer mission reporting to Parliament or the House that mandated it, unless authorised by the observer mission.
-
Violations of the Code
If a member violates this Code the observer mission may, through its leadership, suspend the participation of the member in the observer mission and must in that event report the circumstances to the relevant House.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday the Chief Whip of the Majority Party went to great trouble to pat the Chief Whips’ Forum on the back on two occasions, talking about the great sense of co- operation that exists in that forum. He did this at the Chief Whips’ Forum itself; he did it again yesterday when the forum met with the Deputy President.
Yet, today, sir, unfortunately we have a situation where the draft rules for this observer mission have been brought before the House without any opportunity whatsoever for the Chief Whips’ Forum, the Joint Rules Committee or any other body whatsoever, to debate them, to look at them and study them and to come to a consensus conclusion on them – if that was possible. I think quite frankly that this is a complete breach of good faith that exists in the Chief Whips’ Forum and consequently I would urge that the ANC withdraw this resolution today and give the House a complete and proper opportunity to debate this matter properly.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you, Chairperson. This matter was raised and we didn’t seek any consensus about it. I want really to table it so that we will not be blackmailed into consensus, when the issues that we are raising are crystal clear. Parliament cannot pay for people to go under its name, when such people will abuse … [Interjections.] Can you keep quiet, Mr Leon?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O BAPELA): Order, hon members. Hon Chief Whip, just a minute. Hon members, can we please be orderly. A request was put before the House. There is a response to it. Let us listen to the response. We still don’t know what the response is going to be, whether you like it or not.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chair, I want to rise on a point of order against what the hon Chief Whip of the ANC has said. He is referring to the fact that the DA – and he used the word – is blackmailing them. He will not be brow-beaten in any way by blackmail. I believe that that is unparliamentary and I ask you to rule on that matter.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Well, I didn’t hear the word. Hon Chief Whip, did you use the word? If not, we will then refer the matter to a later ruling.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I did not call them by name. If the shoe fits, it is unfortunate.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O BAPELA): Can we leave the matter and I will give a ruling at a later stage. Please continue, hon Chief Whip, in terms of the request.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I said, Chairperson, that we would expect the so-called watchdogs of the taxpayers’ money to show the same passion. What we are asking here is reasonable. Observer missions of Parliament must be governed by a particular code of conduct. Mr Leon, can you please keep quiet. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O BAPELA): Order, Hon members! Hon Chief Whip, please shorten your response.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: We are tabling the motion for consideration. The people must respond according to their conscience.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, honestly, the Rules that have been produced here have not been passed by anybody, any group or any organisation or any committee within Parliament. It is a total breach of the general convention that exists in this Parliament. I urge the ANC to accept this. This is going to be a very bad precedent for the future. It is unacceptable. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, as you know, if there is no agreement then we will just have to follow the guidelines in terms of parliamentary procedures. Your request has been given to them and they have received it.
Mr M J ELLIS: These guidelines that are before the House are far more restrictive than SADC and they are for one reason only and that is to try and muffle the voice of the opposition in any way whatsoever. They are absolutely unreasonable.
Mr D K MALULEKE: On a point of order: The issue is that those Rules have to do with Parliament. If political parties feel that they want to have minority reports, then they need to send their own delegation at their own expense. Thank you. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): It was not a point of order. I won’t rule on that. There was an objection noted from the DA. I will now put the question.
Question put: That the motion be agreed to.
Mr M J ELLIS: This is actually the point I was making. We have no option but to call for a division on this matter.
Division demanded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): A division being called, the bells will be rung for five minutes.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, order please! Hon members, please take your seats. There has been a request for declarations of vote, which I will allow. Each member will have three minutes to use for the declaration of vote, if he or she wishes to use it. Members must use the floor mikes, to save time.
Declarations of vote:
The LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION: Madam Chair, I would like to address you on this motion that we have to vote on, which, with great diffidence and disappointment, the DA has to vote against. We are very much in favour of free democratic elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We’re very much in favour of South Africa having the highest-level multiparty delegation to attend during those elections and to help guide that country to democracy; that’s not in contest. What is in contest is the unilateral imposition of a set of rules to gag and bind our observer members in a way that falls completely outside, from the documents that we were provided with, of the SADC principles and guidelines governing democratic elections.
There are a few provisions in here that have been added in, and I draw your attention, Madam Chair, to paragraph 3(5), that the delegation has to comply with a code of rules governing the conduct of the national observer mission and recognise the overall leadership of that mission’s leader.
Paragraph 1(6) states that “all statements by the observer mission, to the public or the news media, must be authorised by the mission”; and 2(6) states, “… not making personal comments about the observations or conclusions of the observer mission to the news media, etc.”
These have been added in at the express instruction, we believe, of the Chief Whip of the ANC, because what he wants to avoid is a situation similar to what happened in Zimbabwe, where he had a predetermined view that those elections were free and fair, when they weren’t. [Interjections.]
When members of the opposition, from several opposition parties, came to a different conclusion, he tried to gag and bind them to something that he couldn’t do. So what he’s done now is to add in these additional provisions, which, frankly, are an abuse, Madam Chair, and they completely go against the good work being done by the government to try and get a democratic process on the road in the DRC, which we would like to be part of.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If there’s nothing to hide; if there’s no one to be muzzled, why put those provisions in? Putting them in unilaterally, as he has done – because they weren’t discussed at the Chief Whips’ Forum, they weren’t the product of any discussion or negotiation – can only mean that there are some ulterior motives at play here, Madam Chair.
Unfortunately, if this thing goes through as it is now, the DA will have no choice except not to be part of this mission. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, the IFP is, on principle, concerned about the fact that we have not had the opportunity as a party to discuss these issues before they were brought onto the Order Paper.
We were given to understand, at the Chief Whips’ Forum yesterday, that the matter would be placed before the Joint Rules Committee, which it was this morning. However, there was a decision taken at the Joint Rules Committee that the matter would go before the parties and, therefore, we would have the opportunity to discuss the issue.
The IFP will not be opposing the motion. However, we want our concerns to be taken note of. We do not believe that this is the way members should be treated. We do believe that an opportunity should have been given to parties to debate the issue, and on that basis we are going to abstain. Thank you.
Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, the fact of the matter is that what we are doing at this moment is bad and it is wrong. The fact of the matter is, and it’s not uncommon and it’s not in dispute, that unlike all other procedures in the past, this is suddenly thrust upon the House.
We’ve never done it in this fashion; we’ve always tried to reach consensus among the parties. This is due, specifically, to the very important issue, namely the mandate of the delegation that we are sending on behalf of South Africa to the DRC to monitor those elections.
What we are doing in this process, basically, is that we are placing the delegation under suspicion even before it leaves. How do we expect the public out there to have sufficient confidence in and respect for what this mission is going to do? We are really trying to force something through here today - I don’t know why – in a completely wrong manner. Never mind the procedure that was not, technically speaking, correctly followed; as far as I’m concerned, the principle underlying this is completely wrong. We are sending a wrong signal.
I’m appealing to the ANC to rethink what they are doing now and to withdraw this motion in the interest of what we have been doing for the past 12 years in Parliament. The FF Plus cannot vote for this. We oppose this very strongly.
Mr V C GORE: Madam Chair, the ID believes that when we go to a foreign country we should respect the cultures and the processes involved there. However, we have serious concerns about the current process in the passing of this motion, and we believe that there should have been more consultation.
In addition, we have some serious concerns about some of the clauses within the motion, and therefore we are not in a position to support this motion. Thank you.
Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Chair, the hon member there says that the IFP has no guts. I want him to withdraw that, please.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, that is really not a point of order; it was a private exchange. Please allow us to proceed.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Chair, we have not had a chance to go through the document. The only time we came to know about it as the UCDP was during the Joint Programme Committee meeting and as such, we shall be hard put to find ourselves supporting a document on which we have not had a very strong influence. Thank you very much.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Chair, I’m not involved with the document and I don’t want to prejudice anything. So I’m afraid the PAC will have to abstain because we don’t have information on this matter. Izwe lethu! [Our country!]
Mr M V NGEMA: House Chair, Nadeco has not had any information on this matter. As has been indicated, we were hoping that the matter would serve before us, so that we could be well-informed and take a decision. In view of the fact that this matter deals with promoting democracy in Africa, Nadeco pleads with the ANC to stick to this principle and ensure that all parties are taken on board on this matter.
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, I cannot see how we can promote democracy on the African continent and then try to undermine it at home. [Interjections.] And I think this is exactly what the motion is doing. There wasn’t sufficient time for us to study the motion.
There are issues in this motion that are of concern to us, and for this reason the FD will not support the motion. Ms N M MDAKA: Chairperson, although the UIF received the information very late, we do not oppose this motion. We are with the ANC. [interjections.] Mr G T MADIKIZA: Madam Chair, the UDM is concerned about the procedural principle of not consulting the other parties. However, for the sake of the bigger picture, we will go along with it. But then the ANC must put its house in order. Thank you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I think we are persuaded by this request from Nadeco because there are these parties that don’t attend the Chief Whips’ Forum. For the sake of the record, we have placed this matter before the Chief Whips’ Forum on two occasions. Clearly, the Chief Whips’ Forum cannot punch above its weight. There is no prerequisite for any rules here that says there should be an agreement of the Chief Whips’ Forum. Such a structure is not there. But we did table this matter and we were clear that it’s not a matter that we would agree on.
However, having said that, we think that we have to maintain the unity of the House. We have to provide an opportunity for us as parties to discuss this matter in a mature manner and withdraw the motion now for consideration later. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Thank you, hon Chief Whip. There is thus no need for us to continue with the question. There will be no voting and we will proceed to the fourth motion on the Order Paper.
Motion, with leave, withdrawn. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BHAMBATHA UPRISING IN LAND RESTITUTION AND DISTRIBUTION AND IN THE ECONOMIC EMANCIPATION OF THE AFRICAN PEOPLE
(Subject for Discussion)
Mr S L TSENOLI: Thank you, Chairperson. A hundred years on the spirit of Bhambatha is at large in our country, thanks to the undying commitment of the ANC to the struggles of the people of our country for democratic and legitimate governance, for land, economic and social wellbeing.
The centenary celebration occurs properly under the auspices of a legitimate government that is actively engaged in initiatives to restore the dignity of the people of our country. The respect accorded traditional leaders in our Constitution, in legislation and in practices of co- operative governance today, is a far cry from the insulting, whimsical and downright oppressive manner the colonisers and their local collaborators visited upon them.
The posthumous reinstatement of Bhambatha to his chieftainship is not just significant symbolically, but it conveys a message of respect to our people’s traditional institutions of governance.
In the broad struggle against subjugation and colonisation, the Bhambatha Rebellion stands at the boundary of what became empty victory on the one hand and a beginning of reassessment of strategies for resistance in the country by the oppressed.
The rebellion signified a resistance to imposition of measures that caused further economic, political and social pain, especially through the systematic alienation of people from their land and what they considered arbitrary taxation.
The brutality of the repression of that rebellion paradoxically motivated the subsequent ANC’s revolutionary commitment to higher human values than was displayed by those who, gloating with triumph, beheaded Bhambatha in an act of despicable barbarism.
Summary execution of the rebels by hastily convened martial courts approved explicitly by Britain, the coloniser, remains a big stain on the history of our country. The crushing of this rebellion never meant any acceptance of defeat by our people. The resistance instead served to inspire many that no sacrifice could be big enough to bring a just, legitimate and democratic government into being.
The ANC, which emerged in 1912, was a crowning step for united action against oppression. The Bhambatha Rebellion and other brave acts by other groups in the country served as important lessons to unite, mobilise and organise for success against unjust rule.
The formation of the ANC was itself a sign of the firm rejection by those who gathered there of isolated, fragmented, tribally based battles - Zulu, Xhosa. Mosotho hlanganani became the founding song of the congress, a clear indication of lessons learnt from previous battles.
No one then was surprised when in the 90s, 800 wars later, with the Bhambatha Rebellion one of the principal battles, sense finally prevailed and the people chose their own representatives, thereby dramatically ending imposed rule on the majority of the population.
This victory, this breakthrough in 1994, was a telling tribute to those who, like Bhambatha, heroically resisted unjust rule. This victory’s key values remain encoded in our world-class Constitution.
Earlier in the mid-50s delegates at a people’s congress approved a clause in the Freedom Charter that said it even more eloquently and in so doing restated in words what many felt - that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people.
In these words the Freedom Charter was echoing a perspective that drove the rebellion and the struggle for liberation in general. As we commemorate 50 years of the adoption of the Freedom Charter by the ANC, and the centenary of the Bhambatha Rebellion, let us recognise the huge progress made in 12 years to build legitimate state institutions and to lay the foundation for a better life for all in our country who are poor.
The many successful claims for land forcefully taken from people, including continuing efforts to speed up further land restitution, are key elements to the economic wellbeing of the majority. The Bhambatha Rebellion therefore stands as a beacon for continuing struggles in the decade ahead. [Applause.]
Mr W J SEREMANE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Much has been said and written by way of paying homage, deservedly so, to Nkosi Bhambatha kaMancinza on the occasion of the centenary anniversary of the historical Bhambatha Rebellion in the then Natal in 1906.
The Bhambatha Rebellion has, I strongly believe, very pertinent lessons for South Africa and perhaps the world at large. It should be so because when nations do not take note of historic events then they – these nations - are prone to repeat mistakes and injustices of the past.
To name a few of the factors or mistakes that gave rise to the Bhambatha Rebellion I cite the following: the imposition of taxation without representation and consultation by British rule. There was an additional one pound poll tax added to the existing unjust hut tax.
You will note that these taxes were designed to subtly coerce the menfolk to enter the labour market resulting in forcing people off the land that they relied on for subsistence and sustenance. Dispossessing a people of their land is indeed tantamount to disempowerment of a people.
Another factor is that Bhambatha was deposed as chief or nkosi by the Natal government thus committing the gross injustice of interference in the right of tribes to run their own affairs – to appoint, or even to anoint if needs be, leaders according to their custom and culture.
Yet another point is the arbitrary decision to charge King Dinizulu with treason and sentencing him to four years’ imprisonment, as he was accused of giving Bhambatha tacit support and asylum. This showed disregard for their affinity and even flouted the communal responsibilities of members to be each others’ keepers, so to say, especially in times of trouble and need.
The worst atrocity that could have been committed was to behead Bhambatha after he was killed during the battle – the worst insult one can hurl at a warrior.
These actions, amongst many, do point to the age-old practice of the abuse of power and a disregard for human rights; and such injustices are still perhaps prevalent in contemporary society. Consultation, taxation with representation, citizens’ participation and consent are valuable and cardinal beacons of justice and democracy. The question of land dispossession in this sad episode of our history also points directly to the issues of land restitution and distribution in the emancipation of the African people, as the title of this debate states.
I do believe that we are aware of the critical and emotive nature of matters relating to land ownership. We in South Africa should give ourselves a little pat on the back for having come up with our land reform programme, albeit not 100% perfect. We are aware of its shortcomings but great emphasis is placed on dialogue, participation and consultation to deal with the programme’s shortcomings.
What is also of cardinal importance is the fact that, underpinning the implementation of this programme, in general, and land restitution, is the notion of equity or justice, consultation and interaction of the landowners and the dispossessed, landless people. Whether or not it is done to the letter is another debate.
Furthermore, I am of the firm belief that restitution was never intended to be retribution, that is, settling old scores rather than redressing imbalances and fair and equitable distribution of this scarce resource called land, within the parameters of our Constitution.
In a diverse society espousing nonracialism we cannot but be very careful of falling into the trap of disregarding part of the population as though they are not citizens. The Constitution of our country, South Africa, makes no provision for people to be willy-nilly stripped of their rights and property. It does not even give any space for people to be swept into the sea or sending them away to some unknown Siberian destination when they seek to interact and engage in dialogue. That was the folly of British rule, apartheid and all authoritarian systems through the ages.
The significance of the Bhambatha Rebellion is firstly that in implementing whatever sociopolitical and economic development programme, consent, participation, consultation, equity or fairness and justice must be taken note of and be uppermost in the mind lest we repeat these very mistakes perpetrated by British rule in the era of Bhambatha.
Our former President Mandela – to paraphrase him - teaches us that we have to be very careful not to be tainted by the evil we fight; in short, unjust systems must not leave imprints on the minds of those who fight such systems.
Last but not least, economic emancipation cannot be solely linked to land restitution and the distribution of land even though land is a factor of economic activity. In the light of global economic activity much has still to be done to realise economic emancipation not only of Africans but also of all South African citizens in our diversity and splendour.
Lest we forget, national heroes are national heroes. Therefore, they should not be depicted as sectarian or sectional leaders because we would be degrading them and removing the honour that they deserve.
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: Hon Chairperson, hon Members of the national Parliament, I think it’s really wonderful for members of this House to pay tribute to the freedom fighters who blazed the trail of the liberation struggle – especially those of us who waged the struggle more recently.
On 11 June, our President, President Mbeki, addressed iNkosi Bhambatha’s centenary function at KwaMpanza, in the Greytown district, where it all began. This was in the presence of His Majesty, King Goodwill Zwelithini, kaBhekuzulu, kaSolomoni, kaDinuzulu. Both His Majesty the King and I were privileged to address the function as descendants of King Dinuzulu before President Mbeki delivered the keynote address at the function.
We all paid tribute to iNkosi Bhambatha Zondi and other amakhosi who participated in the uprising against the colonial Natal government in 1906 such as the following amakhosi: Sigananda Shezi, Meseni Qwabe, Ndlovu kaThimuni Zulu and several others. I, however, raised the point, in my address, of the important role that King Dinuzulu played in the uprising. He was the grandfather of Prince Nhlanhla kaNojombo kaDinuzulu, a Member of this Parliament. And he was also my maternal grandfather, the father of Princess Magogo kaDinuzulu, my mother.
King Dinuzulu was the very kingpin of the uprising. In fact, when iNkosi Bhambatha revolted against the imposition of poll tax, his very first port of call was Osuthu, King Dinuzulu’s royal residence. Inkosi Bhambatha approached the king with the request to give sanctuary to his better half, Siyekiwe – uMaZuma, and his daughter, Kholekile. My late mother often told me of the times when she and her siblings played with iNkosi Bhambatha’s daughter, Kholekile, at the Osuthu royal residence.
It was King Dinuzulu’s giving of sanctuary to iNkosi Bhambatha’s family which resulted in my grandfather being charged and convicted of high treason. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. It was only in 1910, after the political marriage of convenience when the British and Boers formed the Union of South Africa, after the Anglo-Boer war, that the first Prime Minister of South Africa, General Louis Botha - who had also been King Dinuzulu’s friend - released King Dinuzulu from prison in Newcastle.
I remember, as a former member of Cabinet, that I explained to my then colleague, the late hon Steve Tshwete, when he suggested that the statute of General Louis Botha which is at the gates of Parliament be removed, that General Botha was also a friend of King Dinuzulu. I was not canonising General Botha by my observation, I was merely making the point that he was also part of our history.
General Botha, however, did not allow the king to return to his home. He, instead, exiled him to Uitkyk farm in Middleburg, where King Dinuzulu died in the year 1913. This was not the first time that King Dinuzulu had been banished from his kingdom. In 1888 he had been exiled to the island of St Helena - where Napoleon had been banished to - after the civil war between the uSuthu and Mandlakazi sections of the Zulu nation.
It was on the island of St Helena where my mother’s two brothers, King Solomon KaDinuzulu and Prince Mshiyeni kaDinuzulu were born. My mother was born after King Dinuzulu’s return, during the Anglo-Boer war. The king returned in 1897. Less than 10 years after returning he was then implicated in the uprising of 1906, known as the Bhambatha Rebellion.
I think it is important to state on record that King Dinuzulu’s eldest daughter, Princess Phikisile Harriet kaDinuzulu married Dr Pixley kaIsaka Seme. As most of you know, Dr Pixley Seme was the founder of the African Native Congress in 1912, which later became the ANC. Dr Seme was not a legend to me as I knew him very closely as my uncle.
It was in fact Dr Seme, my uncle, who wrote a letter in September 1950 to Prof Zachariah Keodireleng Mathews, “ZK” - the father of Mr Joe Mathews, our former Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, and grandfather of our Minister of Education, Ms Naledi Pandor - when I was rusticated from the University of Fort Hare, after being involved in a student demonstration against the Governor-General, the hon G Brand van Zyl. This demonstration was organised by those of us who were members then of the ANC Youth League at the University of Fort Hare.
INkosi Bhambatha was indeed a great hero in starting the uprising. But even he realised that he could not hope to be successful in that venture without getting the king’s support. One of the great heroes of that uprising was Shiyanja, uSukabekhuluma Sithole, popularly known as Chakijana. He acted as a go-between between the King, iNkosi Bhambatha and other amakhosi. This was further used as evidence against the king in the treason trial.
In honouring iNkosi Bhambatha, we humbly acknowledge those who waged the liberation struggle many decades before the present generation. Indeed, they laid the foundation on which our generation - and the generations before us – made our contributions to the liberation of South Africa.
I think that it is very unfortunate that in the areas where iNkosi Bhambatha started the uprising the communal land has not been restored to the various traditional authorities. It will be recalled that, in this very Parliament, we debated the ingonyama Act which was amended, and which I actually piloted through KwaZulu as the then chief Minister to protect traditional areas.
These areas were surveyed with the intention of passing them on to the various traditional authorities by giving titles. But, after 10 years, those titles have not been given to the various traditional authorities. So on this day, on which we pay tribute to iNkosi Bhambatha, I felt it was important to put that on record.
UShiyanja wayeyindoda enesibindi. Ngiyakhumbula ukuthi, suku lumbe, ngenkathi amasotsha emfuna emzini lapho ayesezwile ukuthi ukhona futhi esewukakile lowo muzi, kwathiwa bonke abantu abaphume ezindlini. UChakijana, njengoba yena wayengenaso isilevu, wadumela ingane eyayilele lapho, washuqula ekhanda. Wayibeletha emhlane ingane, wabe eseyincweba.
Amasotsha abe esethi, “Phuma! Phuma wena mfazi!” Waphuma nempela nayo ingane. Wathi uma esengaphandle wayithi dinsi wabaleka. Ngisho uSukabekhuluma:
USigilamkhuba zonke izigila mikhuba Ziyivuma imikhuba yazo, Othetha yedwa njengenina Ovungama njengophiyano. Imbedle eyabhedla eSithwishili izalwa nguMnqandi …
AMALUNGU AHLONIPHEKILE: Musho!
UMntwana M G BUTHELEZI: Uzibongo zindawonye nezikaNkulunkulu! [Ubuwelewele.] Usuthu!
AMALUNGU AHLONIPHEKILE: Usuthu!
UMntwana M G BUTHELEZI: Hebe!
AMALUNGU AHLONIPHEKILE: Usuthu!
UMntwana M G BUTHELEZI: Hebe!
AMALUNGU AHLONIPHEKILE: Usuthu!
UMntwana M G BUTHELEZI: Heeebe!
AMALUNGU AHLONIPHEKILE: Usuuuthu! [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Shiyanja was a brave man. I recall that at one stage when the British soldiers were looking for him, they surrounded the kraal in which they were told he was staying, and they ordered everyone to come out of each hut. Since Chakijana did not have a beard, he simply grabbed a baby that was asleep inside that hut and put a kerchief on his heard like a woman. He then carried the baby on his back and went out.
The soldiers saw him and thinking that he was a woman, they shouted at him, saying: “You, woman, come out! Come out of there! He indeed came out with the baby. And when he was outside, he dropped the baby and ran away. I am talking here about Sukabekhuluma:
USigilamkhuba zonke izigila mikhuba Ziyivuma imikhuba yazo, Othetha yedwa njengenina Ovungama njengophiyano. Imbedle eyabhedla eSithwishili izalwa nguMnqandi …
HON MEMBERS: Praise him!
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: Whose praises share the same status as those of God! [Interjections.] Usuthu!
HON MEMBERS: Usuthu!
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: Hebe!
HON MEMBERS: Usuthu!
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: Hebe!
HON MEMBERS: Usuthu!
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: Heeebe!
HON MEMBERS: Usuuuthu! [Applause.]]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, the following member is going to make his maiden speech.
Mnu J P PHUNGULA: Ngiyabonga, Sihlalo. Ngiyabonga naseNdlini yonke, ngize ngibheke nangapha kulolu hlangothi. Kodwa ngiyahlupheka ngoba seyihambile le genge engapha, iyona obekufunakala izwe kakhulu ukuthi uBhambatha lo asinaye nje kwenziwa yini.
UBhambatha wafa egameni layo le genge engalapha. Iyona le eyabulala uBhambatha. [Ubuwelewele.] Cha, uBhambatha ufele lapha. Nakhu lapha kufele khona uBambatha. Ufele kunina madoda njengoba nihleli nje lapha. Kufuneka nikwazi lokho ukuthi uSomtsewu uyena owathi akufe uBambatha, imikhuba yakhe.
UBhambatha akekho nje, uyena uSomtsewu owenza ukuba uBhambatha angabi bikho ngoba kwakuliwa nokuthi kukhishwe abantu emizini yabo. Lokho kufana nendoda uma isizihambela nje, kuthiwa ayigaqe njengengane. Sagaqiswa thina. Ngenkathi kuthiwa asikhokhe le mali yamakhanda kwakwenziwela ukuthi siphume emizini yethu siye kosebenza, khona sizofunda ukusebenza komunye umuntu hhayi lokho esikwenza emizini yethu. Yilokho-ke okwasenza saba yile nto esiyiyona kuze kube manje.
Njengamanje uye uthole abantu bemasha bethi, “sifuna umsebenzi” ube ukhona umsebenzi okungabe bayawenza emakhaya. Basuke bemasha ngoba bafundiswa yile ngqondo yamaNgisi ukuthi bangazisebenzeli bona. [Uhleko.] [Ihlombe.] Bayaphuma-ke manje bemashe bethi “Siyayigxoba, sifuna umsebenzi. Lo hulumeni akasinikezi imisebenzi.” Abasho ukuthi “Lo hulumeni akasinikezi indawo yokuthi thina silime, siziphilise, sibe nezinkomo nemfuyo yethu.” Kodwa baye bathi bafuna umsebenzi lapha konkosana.
Indaba yonkosana-ke ibuchithile ubendle. UBhambatha walwiswa yilokho ngoba kwathiwa akuthelelwe amakhanda kade kuthelelwa izindlu. Kwathi uma sekuthiwa akuthelwe ukhandampondo, futhi uthelwe yinoma ubani – ngoba kwakuthelelwa izindlu futhi iyinye indoda ethelela umuzi - kwabe sekubonakala ukuthi hhayi, la madoda amaningi ahlezi lapha endlini awatheli, kufuneka indoda ngayinye ithelele inhloko yayo. Kwafika lapho kugcina khona-ke kulo wakaZondi, kaNondaba. Kwafika lapho kugcina khona kuMsongi wensimbi ize ibe yinkatha, ayibeke ekhanda agijime nayo.
Sithi-ke siyakhuleka kuBhambatha namhlanje. Sithi into ayenzile siyayibonga. [Ihlombe.] Sithi mukhulu u-ANC ngoba uke wenza lolu suku lukaBhambatha, uyisigonyagonya. [Ihlombe.] Siyayibonga into eyenziwe u-ANC. Mhlawumbe usazozenza ezinye futhi esizozibonga. Siyazibona-ke nje lezi ezinye ezincane kodwa le ayenzile yokubuyisa ubukhosi bakwaZondi obathathwa uSomtsewu ngobuqili bokusigqilaza, siyibonga kakhulu.
Masikusho-ke ukuthi uBhambatha waba yisosha laKwaZulu elinenhlonipho, phecelezi: discipline. Wathi uma esebona ukuthi izinto sezizimbi kakhulu, wahamba waya kokwembula ingubo enkosini uDinuzulu. Wafike wathi, “Hhayi, angisaboni kahle, isiyangena.” Wambheka wambheka uDinuzulu, asizwa ukuthi wamphendula wathini kodwa wabe esethi kwenye indoda ayehlala nayo, “Ake uthathe le ndoda yakwaZondi uyise kuChakijana, iye kokhuluma noChakijana lezi zindaba ezikhulumayo.”
Yamthatha leyo ndoda yamusa kuChakijana. Babengazani emehlweni, kodwa kwaba yilo wezwa ukuthi kukhona “uphas’fo” ngale nomunye wezwa ukuthi kukhona “uphas’fo” ngala. [Ubuwelewele.] Kwathi uma leyo ndoda ifika laphaya kuChakijana yafike yathi, “Inkosi ithe angize lapha kuwena ngilethe le ndoda. Niyazana?” Hhayi, uChakijana akayazanga leyo ndoda. Akamazanga lowo “phas’fo”. Wabe esethi lowo mnumzane, “UBhambatha kaMancinza lo.”
Bathi yasukuma leya nto ewuChakijana. Yabe seyithi le ndoda eyayibahlanganisa “uChakijana-ke lo, Bhambatha.” Bathi zabambana leziya zinto zathula zabukana emehlweni. Yathi enye, “Uwena wethu?” Yathi nenye, “Uwena wethu?” Zabhekana emehlweni. Yabe seyithi leyo ndoda, “Sengiwuqedile umsebenzi wami.” Yabe seyiphuma yahamba. Zasala zombili leziya zinsizwa. Kwakuyizinsizwa zangempela lezo, hhayi njengani esenidla amabhiya nje; zazingawadli amabhiya. [Uhleko.] [Ihlombe.]
Zama zabukana lezo zinsizwa. Wathi uChakijana, “Woza nendaba noNdaba.” Wayibeka-ke indaba uNondaba wathi, “La madoda asedelele kakhulu. Sengike ngafika ngakhuluma nawo. Awezwa la madoda.” Phela bafika amahlandla amabili emzini wakhe. Kwathi ngaleli lesithathu ihlandla kade befikile bangamthola, waqonda khona esiteshini samaphoyisa. Wafike wathi, “Ngizwa kuthiwa niyangifuna laphaya emzini wami?” Bathi kuye, “Hhayi, manje uma sibheka lapha, Nondaba, asilitholi igama lakho kulabo asebethelile.” Wathi uBhambatha, “Heyi, we belungu, umuntu omnyama yinhlobo elunge ngempela kodwa uma ulokhu umfaka umunwe ehlweni, ngelinye ilanga uzokuvuna okade ukutshalile.” Bathi watsaka amathe, waphuma wahamba. Bambona ukuthi, hawu, uyalwa.
Bebethi-ke uma bezobopha umuntu bafike ebusuku. Wazi-ke ukuthi bayeza ebusuku bazombopha, wabe eselungisa isigejana samabutho akhe. Nangempela beza ngamahhashi. Bazithela. Wafike wathi ukuyaluyaluzisa nje. Oyihlomkhulu abafika lapho balimala. Kwakungalunganga lapho. [Ubuwelewele.]
Wasuka wahamba-ke uBhambatha waya kotshela inkosi ukuthi, cha ngeke, sekuyaliwa. Inkosi yamusa kuChakijana. UChakijana wafike wathi, “Hheyi we Bhambatha, uthi akushaywe laba bantu?” Waphendula wathi, “Abashaywe beqedwe. Abantu benkathazo laba; abantu ongeke wahlala ngokuthula nabo.” Nangempela kwaleli Phalamende alinakuthula ngendaba yenu madoda. [Uhleko.] Ngiyamangala nje ukubona sekukhona nabantu bakaBhambatha abahleli lapho. [Ubuwelewele.]
Ake nilalele kahle-ke manje. Wathi uChakijana, “Bhambatha, izibhamu sezikhona ngoba laba bantu baqhoshe ngezibhamu.” UBhambatha wathi, “Hhayi izibhamu. Bazohlatshwa ngalo iklwa leli.” Wathi uChakijana, “Hheyi we Bhambatha, wawukhona yini mhla uSomtsewu eyibiza ngegama inkosi yaKwaZulu, uCetshwayo, eze ayibize amahlandla amathathu?”
Phela wake wathi ngelinye ilanga uSomtsewu: We Cetshwayo! We Cetshwayo! We Cetshwayo, uzongibulala mina kodwa ziyofika izimbila ezimhlophe zifuna ithambo le mbila emhlophe! Ziyolifuna zize zilithole. Into eyashiwo uChakijana leyo kuBhambatha. Kwabonakala ukuthi uBhambatha wayengasezwa makhambi, ethi ayihlasele. Yahlasela-ke.
Naye okaMancinza base bemphoxile laba bantu. Bayaphoxa. We madoda, ake niyeke ukuphoxa! Noma nenza izinto ezimbi kangaka, sinibekezelele, asizibali, siyaziyeka kodwa nisenathi qho. Hhayi bo! Yini kanti umthetho wenu? UJesu nambulala; uVerwoed nambulala lapha ePhalamende. UMacmillan wathi: “winds of change” kodwa nina anizwanga. Namhlanje nihlezi nathi, singama-gentlemen. Anibufuni ubu-gentleman? [Ubuwewele.] Sifuna ukuthula, anifuni ukuthula kuleli lizwe?
Ake nibasize nibatshele laba abangangizwa ukuthi ngithini. Sifuna ukuthula kuleli lizwe. Into esiyifuna kuleli lizwe ukuthula nokuhlalisana kahle.
ILUNGU ELIHLONIPHEKILE: Nina anifuni.
Mnu J P PHUNGULA: Nina anifuni. Kwamanje nafika nabulala obabamkhulu lapha nathatha ilizwe. Anikhulumi ngendaba yalelo lizwe. Sisanibuka nje. Anikhulumi ngalo, elenu nje, zonke lezi zintaba. Siyanibuka nje. Kanti nina nifuna kube njani?
Sithi-ke kinina, leli lizwe sifuna libe nokuthula. Leli lizwe sifuna libe noxolo. Lezi zingane esizizele nalezi zingane enizizele sifuna zibe umuntu oyedwa. Uma nizobe nilokhu nikhombisa ukuthi nina ningenye inhlobo, anibona abalapha, nizovuma enikutshalile. Ngiyanitshela … (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)
[Mr J P PHUNGULA: Thank you, Chairperson. I greet the entire House as well as the opposition. However, I am a bit worried that the people from this side of the House have already left. They are the ones who should have heard clearly why Bhambatha is no longer with us. The demise of Bhambatha was as a result of the people on this side of the House. These are the very people who killed Bhambatha. [Interjections.] In fact, Bhambatha was killed right here. This is where Bhambatha died. To you fellow countrymen seated over there, Bhambatha died in your hands. You should know that it was through Sir Theophilus Shepstone’s sinister instructions that Bhambatha was killed.
Sir Theophilus Shepstone caused Bhambatha to die in the fight to evict people from their homes. That eviction can be associated with a situation in which an adult man who knows how to walk around on his own, gets ordered to crawl like a child. We were made to crawl. When they told us to pay poll tax, they were just using that strategy to force us to look for employment so that we could learn to serve another person instead of working in our own households. That was the cause of what we are today.
Nowadays we see people marching and saying, “We want jobs,” when there are many jobs which they can do in their homes. They march because they have adopted the British mentality which discouraged people from working for themselves. [Laughter.] [Applause.] They go outside, to march and say, “We are marching. We want jobs. This government is not providing jobs for us.” They do not say, “This government is not giving us land to work on and earn a living, to practice cattle farming and have other livestock farming.” Instead, they say they want jobs from the white bosses. The question of white bosses has spoilt many things. Bhambatha revolted because it was ordered that people had to pay poll tax and they were by then already paying hut tax. When people were then ordered to pay poll tax, Bhambatha could no longer stomach it. Initially, only hut tax was imposed and this was paid by one man per household. When the authorities later realised that only one man paid hut tax for a household with many men staying together, they immediately ordered that all men had to pay poll tax. And that was the last straw for the son of Zondi, who was the son of Nondaba. That meant a dead end to the man whose praises say he is as the folder of a strong iron rod, who makes it into a load-supporting strut, and caries it on his head and runs with it.
We therefore say we salute Bhambatha today. We say, we thank him for what he did. [Applause.] We praise the ANC for organising today’s debate about Bhambatha; the ANC is a giant organisation. [Applause.] We are very grateful to the ANC for what it did. I hope the ANC is still going to do more things that we shall appreciate. The ANC has done many things, but this one of reviving the Zondi chieftainship, which was taken away by Sir Theophilus Shepstone through the trickeries of the colonial system, is highly appreciated.
We must also indicate that Bhambatha was a disciplined Zulu warrior. When he realised that things were getting worse, he went to hide at King Dinuzulu’s Royal house. When he arrived there, he said, “I sense that the war is imminent.” King Dinuzulu looked at him again and again. We are not told how the king responded to Bhambatha’s statement, but he then turned to a man he was with and said to him: “Take this Zondi man to Chakijana, and he will then tell Chakijana the news that he has told me.”
This man took Bhambatha to Chakijana. Both Bhambatha and Chakijana did not know each other personally, although one of them had heard that there was a valiant warrior on that side and another had heard that there was also a valiant warrior from that other side. [Interjections.] When they reached Chakijana’s place, the king’s messenger then said: “The king instructed me to bring this man to you. Do you know each other?” Chakijana did not know Bhambatha. He did not know that valiant warrior in front of him. The king’s messenger then said, “By the way, this is Bhambatha the son of Mancinza.”
Legend has it that Chakijana stood up. The king’s messenger then said: “Bhambatha, this is Chakijana.” And the word goes that the two valiant warriors firmly shook hands and stared into each other’s eyes. The one asked, “Is it you, my pal?” And the other responded questioningly, “Is it really you, my pal?” They stared into each other’s eyes again. The king’s messenger then immediately said: “My job is done.” He got out and left. The two valiant warriors were left alone. Those were the true warriors, who did not drink beer, as you do these days. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The two warriors firmly stood and looked at each other. Then Chakijana said, “Nondaba, tell me the tale.” Bhambatha then told his story and said, “These men have shown too much scorn and disrespect towards us. I have since spoken to them and they do not want to listen.” You will remember that these men had come to Bhambatha’s kraal twice. And on the third occasion when they came, he was again, not at home but once he learnt that they had come looking for him, he immediately rushed to the police station. When he got there, he said, “I hear that you came to my home looking for me.” They then said to him, “No, man, look here, Nondaba, in fact, when we look at our records we do not see your name on the list of those who have paid their taxes.” Bhambatha then said to them, “Hey, you white men, you must know that a black man is a very kind human being, but if you continually poke your finger into his or her eye, you will then reap what you sow.” The word goes that he spat and left. The white men immediately realised that he was in a fighting mood.
The white men’s modus operandi when they had to arrest someone was that they would come at night. Bhambatha therefore was aware that they would come at night to arrest him. He then summoned a few of his regiments. Indeed the white men came on horseback to his house. They found Bhambatha and his regiments waiting for them. Bhambatha and his warriors simply made a few moves. I am telling you that your great-grandparents who were there were severely injured. It was not a walk in the park for them. [Interjections.]
Bhambatha then immediately left and went to the king to report. He told the king that the war had started. The king sent him to Chakijana again. Chakijana then asked him, “Hey Bhambatha, are you sure you want us to fight these people?” Bhambatha answered and said, “You heard me well, let them be finished off. These people are troublesome; one cannot live in harmony with them.” And there is nothing more truthful. Even this very Parliament too is not peaceful because of you gentlemen. [Laughter.] I am shocked to see that there are Bhambatha’s people sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.]
Just lend me your ears for the time being. And then Chakijana quizzed him, “Bhambatha, do you have the guns ready because these people always have theirs ready?” Bhambatha then said, “Forget about guns. We will sort them out with these spears and assegais.” And then Chakijana immediately asked, “Hey, Bhambatha, tell me, by the way, were you present when Sir Theophilus Shepstone called the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, by his first name three times?”
Sir Theophilus Shepstone had one day simply called out, “Cetshwayo! Cetshwayo! Cetshwayo! You will kill me but I can assure you that one day the white coneys will come looking for the bones of another white coney! They will look for them until they find them! All this was narrated to Bhambatha by Chakijana. It was clear by then that Bhambatha did not want to waste time. He wanted to go on the offensive. And the war started. These people had disappointed Mancinza’s son. It’s typical of them, they are fond of disappointing people. You people on that side of the House, please stop disappointing us! You did very dreadful things, and we forgave you. We do not mention all these, but you still bay for our blood. What is it with you? You killed Jesus; and you also killed Verwoerd here in Parliament. Macmillan spoke about the winds of change and you did not want to listen. Today you are with us here, you are with gentlemen. Don’t you want to be gentlemen? [Interjections.] We want peace. Don’t you want peace in this country?
Please interpret for those who do not understand what I am saying. We want peace in this country. The only thing we want in this country is peace. Peace and stability.
An HON MEMBER: And they do not want that.
Mr J P PHUNGULA: And you really do not want that. You came to this country and killed our great-grandfathers and took their land. You no longer talk about that land anymore. We are just watching you. You no longer talk about it anymore; it is now yours, all these mountains are now yours. We are watching you. How do you really want things to be?
We say to you we want peace in this country. We want our country to have harmony. We want unity between our children and your children. But if you keep on showing us that you are another type and that you were not born and bred here, you will reap what you sow. I am telling you …]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Mhlonishwa, [Hon member] your time has expired.
Mr J P PHUNGULA: Bathi angiyeke, madoda. Sengiyekile. [Ihlombe.] [Ubuwelewele.] [They say I must stop. I have stopped.] [Interjections.] [Applause.]]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Thank you.
Mr J BICI: Madam Chair, hon members, the Bhambatha uprising is one of several historical examples of South Africans resisting oppression and dispossession. The history of South Africa over the past three centuries is one of conflict and resistance in which the possession and dispossession of land was a constant outcome and often the motivation for future conflicts.
The value of land for the individual and the group cannot be underestimated. Losing land meant losing economic, social and political control. Thus we have examples, such as the Bambatha uprising and others, in which South Africans rose up, despite overwhelming odds, against those who were dispossessing them of land. But the questions are: Are we doing justice to these heroes and heroines if we do not at least start restitution and land claims as far back as 1913? Are we doing justice to these heroines if, in events of this nature, we give some parties only one minute to speak? [Time expired.] Thank you, Chair. [Laughter.]
Ms J L FUBBS: Hon Speaker, hon members of this House, comrades and compatriots …
Bayede, Bhambatha! [Hail to the king, Bhambatha!]
Your famous call “usuthu” as you and your people fought for social and economic justice continues to echo throughout our land, South Africa.
Namanje, sisathi usuthu! [Even now we still say, “usuthu”!]
The SA Revenue Service has reaffirmed this cry for social and economic justice in its rolling reform initiatives. We have benefited from more than a decade of comprehensive economic and institutional reform, sound financial management, solid credit ratings and cuts in capital costs. Even the IMF had to concede that South Africa was doing so well. It commended South Africa on its relatively rapid economic growth compared to previous decades.
We had cut the budget deficit from more than 5% to just over 1% of GDP, largely due to the SA Revenue Service’s collection. May I remind members that the source of revenue windfall was not simply more efficient collection of taxes, but was also due to the economic performance of the country as a whole.
Today we recall the centenary of one of South Africa’s greatest heroes, Bambatha, and we are very fortunate in this House that we have people like Comrade Phungula and also the great-grandson of King Cetshwayo, the hon Chief Buthelezi.
At a time when it seemed that so many black Africans would succumb to colonial oppression, there rose up a man, a chief of conviction and courage, whose name is forever carved in the hearts of South African compatriots - yes, Bhambatha, the people’s chief.
INkosi yabantu yatshala imbewu yombuso wentando yeningi … [The people’s chief ploughed seeds of democracy …]
… and paved the way for the democratisation of the taxation system in South Africa. Bhambatha will be forever remembered for paving that route. Bhambatha will be remembered as the person who refused to comply with his designated colonial duties to suppress his people by digging their economic donga even deeper because of an unjust poll tax. Such a tax was not the result of a mere whim, but rather designed to ensure that in the absence of revenue from many men who travelled to the goldfields of now Gauteng, the remaining men over the age of 18 would carry the full burden of a poll tax over and above the hut tax.
Yes, it was a tax designed to rob the poor, to pave the way for the generation of wealth for the rich. It is this that is the genesis of the structural poverty that pervades our country. The poverty that challenges South Africa today had its origin in a policy designed to remove people from the land and force them to work in the towns so that, through their earnings, they could pay the £1 sterling poll tax. This paved the way for the even greater penetration of poverty. It changed our structural relations, the structural relations of Africans from a land-owning people to a landless people dependent on urban earnings and the occasional generosity of the white men.
Ubuhlobo bethu nomhlaba wonke. [It is our relationship with the whole world.]
In this way, our humanity - our kinship with the world, the soil, the streams and the sky - was sorely split asunder. Daughters and sons of the soil …
… madodakazi namadodana … [… daughters and sons …]
The ANC government, through the democratisation of tax, has persistently pursued reconciliation, reconstruction and redistribution. As part of this paradigm shift in taxation, Sars embarked on a revolutionary journey, which would ensure that no longer would tax be used to abuse people. Instead, it would be used as an instrument to overcome poverty and to develop the potential of our people.
Indeed, tax seeks to harness the economic energies of our people so that together we can generate an accelerated increase in the gross domestic product. Many factors called for tax reform but, perhaps, more than anything, the most important was the socioeconomic policies of the ANC government. It was also globalisation, governance and the Constitution.
Some of us may recall that in 1994 we faced not only a fiscal deficit but, more importantly, a socioeconomic deficit that manifested itself in the chasm between the haves, with an asset base, and the have-nots, whose physical assets had been systematically eroded so that it was almost impossible for the black man to leverage and to acquire assets, notwithstanding so-called new earnings. The measures were to eradicate poverty, fast-track skills development within a fledgling democracy and newfound peace form the backbone of the Reconstruction and Development Programme.
In 1997 the ANC government recognised the need to ensure a sound macroeconomic platform from which to launch and create sustainable jobs. The tax system has played an important role in government’s fiscal stabilisation programme. Therefore, efficient and equitable tax collection has assisted us in closing the tax gap but, more importantly, Sars has generated a culture of compliance.
The economic isolation of South Africa, prior to the democratically elected government in 1994, led to what can only be described as a closed economy of a special nature. This called for far fewer exchange controls, because the previous regime only taxed institutions within our own geographical boundaries. But when South Africa rejoined the international community, it actually had to compete for investment. So, this called for tax reforms to be acceptable, accessible, equitable and competitive.
South Africa has been a constitutional democracy since 1994, which was ushered in with the interim constitution and then our Constitution under which we have been working and celebrating since 1996. But what some of us may forget is that there are a number of fiscal provisions in the Constitution and, indeed, a clause also insists that all legislation must comply with the Bill of Rights. Had Bhambatha enjoyed our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, it would have been the British colonial masters who would be standing trial.
As an organ of state, Sars is also bound by the Bill of Rights, rights that Bhambatha never enjoyed, rights that generations of black South Africans did not enjoy. Good fiscal governance is at the heart of democracy. Ibambe ngakho kwezomnotho. [Our economy is on the right track.]
Our ANC government has implemented a phalanx of legislation. To mention a few that we are familiar with: there is the Public Finance Management Act, the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act and the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act. Tax measures, contrary to what my hon colleague Seremane was saying, are designed not just to relieve distress but also to democratise the economy and develop the potential of our people in this developmental state of ours.
In fact, the latest development happened only yesterday with the small business amnesty, which is designed to democratise the tax regime even further. We will also come to the issue of what we know as long-term retirement savings, which is going to benefit so many people in South Africa. Currently, we are also listening to hearings of bulking, again a further step in the direction of the democratisation of the financial regime. These are but a few of the tax reform initiatives that have been undertaken.
In 2002 Sars published its client charter that sets out the rights and service levels taxpayers can expect - very much along the lines of Batho Pele. Tax reform has taken place in two phases. The first phase was an audit of tax legislation to ensure that there were no areas such as the poll tax, and to ensure that through amendments and the necessary repeals the tax laws complied with the Constitution.
The second phase involved reforms that would broaden the tax base and also ensure it complied with international norms. There has been an expansion of trade treaties, from 10 before 1994 to more than 50 today, and this is all the result of an open economy and a relationship that we enjoy with both the grass roots and the international community.
Bhambatha’s resistance forced by his rejected attempts at dialogue with the colonists marks not only a fight for land, but a fight for economic freedom.
Wayelwela inkululeko yezomnotho. [He was fighting for economic freedom.]
The Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa, Asgisa, has launched a new battalion for economic freedom and human dignity.
Bayede! Vukuzenzele! [I salute the Vukuzenzele project!]
Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M V NGEMA: Thank you Chairperson, the current legislation on land restitution in South Africa completely contradicts and undermines the legacy of Nkosi Bhambatha, who bravely staged an uprising for land in 1906.
Although he left behind an honourable legacy, he would not have been entitled to his land today, because the current Restitution Act only gives people rights to restitution if they were dispossessed of a right to land after June 1913. This definitely does not honour the legacy of Nkosi Bhambatha and completely disregards a critical part of our history, upon which our democracy is built.
The government departments concerned need urgently to fast-track the distribution of land, which will ease the burden of poverty and create jobs for land beneficiaries. Beneficiaries have received currently only 4% of the 30% of the land that has to be redistributed. The snail’s pace of land … Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Chair, our heroic kings were the first to wage wars of national resistance against colonialism, but the significance of the Bhambatha war against colonialism is that it was the last war of national resistance against colonialism until the Poqo uprising in 1962.
The Azanian People Liberation Army of the PAC was deeply inspired by the bravery and patriotism of iNkosi Bhambatha. The interesting thing about Bhambatha today, of course, is that he fought for the same thing, which is today ridiculed because it comes from the PAC, and that is the equitable redistribution of land.
There will never be economic liberation and social emancipation for as long as land is claimed from 1913, according to this present Constitution. Because of my limited time let me simply, in honour of iNkosi Bhambatha, invoke the spirit of the architect of iSandlwana:
UPhaqa njengelanga, Inyathi yasenhlakanhlakeni, UNokuzul’ukudla kwamagwala, Ulanga phuma endlini yendlovu, Nyankambe liyophuma kweyengonyama. Inkunzi kaNdaba!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon member, your time has expired.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Izwe lethu! [Our land!]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Thank you Chairperson, the MF honours leaders such as iNkosi Bhambatha Zondi who fearlessly fought for his people. Colonialism left Africa ruined and the wrath of the apartheid regime’s impact continues to echo in our people’s suffering, poverty and starvation. Both eras raped South African land and coerced its people into hardship.
Our people need to remember our past in order to understand our present. Today’s democracy did not plant the seeds of inequality and poverty; it has planted the seeds of equality, unity, poverty alleviation, development and growth. It is our action now that shall nourish this growth into a stronger South Africa.
Land restitution and redistribution is the means to give back and to offer opportunity. Today we are sure Nkosi Bhambatha is proud of our achievements and as we move South Africa into the light, may our success always be remembered in the tradition of great people like Bhambatha.
The MF pays respect to all African traditional leaders and their ancestors whose strength has outlived the evils of colonialism and apartheid. Bayete iNkosi Bhambatha. [Hail, iNkosi Bhambatha!]
Mr L J MODISENYANE: This is my second maiden address since I came to this parliament. Why do I say so? It is because I stopped speaking in January
- Many people think I am a modified clerk of this Parliament but I am actually a politician.
May I start by expressing my appreciation to the iNkosi Bhambatha Centenary Committee, especially my friend Mr Oscar Zondi, for having invited my spouse and I, to attend the public launch of the iNkosi Bhambatha Centenary Commemoration held on the 8 April 2006 at Greytown. I wish that most members could have attended to enrich their knowledge of the culture of the amaZulu.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms S-C Botha): Hon Modisenyane, there is a … Is it a point of order or a question?
Mr D V BLOEM: It is not a question but a point of order. Is it parliamentary to ask the hon Modisenyane to which spouse he is referring?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms S-C Botha): I will not rule on that one; hon Modisenyane proceed. Hon Bloem, is it a point of order?
Mr D V BLOEM: Yes, Chairperson. It was Cindy Chikunga who asked: “Which one of his spouses?”
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms S-C Botha): I did not rule on the matter so I will allow Mr Modisenyane to continue. Thank you. If you want to answer, you may do it in your speech, Mr Modisenyane.
Mr L J MODISENYANE: No, that shows that I have been listened to and I am happy. I say that the rich amaZulu culture is an inspiring culture indeed. It is worth fighting and even dying for in order to preserve it, if it is tampered with. It is the pride of the nation. One could therefore understand why our hero, iNkosi Bhambatha kaMancinza, acted in the manner in which he did:
UMagaduzela owabonela empunzini,
Umhlane obelethe amagwala!
The iNkosi Bhambatha uprising cannot be treated in isolation because similar uprisings took place in many parts of KwaZulu-Natal and even elsewhere in the country. The hon iNkosi Buthelezi mentioned a number of the heroes who participated in this uprising.
The main reason for the uprising according to me, as a history student, was the land question. That is the main reason. No nation can fold its arms when dispossessed of its land. Land rights and ownership are symbols of self-determination.
We can therefore not cite poll tax as the sole reason for the Bhambatha uprising. It was but the final straw that led to the uprising. This distortion also manifested itself in the student uprising against the system of Bantu education when it was said students were against the usage of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction whereas it was merely a trigger for the uprising.
Kgweletso e ipetsang hangata ho tloha ho ba hananang le ditholwana tsa tokoloho ke hore re se phele mehleng e fetileng. Ho hanana le taba eo, ke tshwantsha ka kaho ya ntlo e hlokang motheo. O keke wa rulela moyeng ho sena se tsheheditseng marulelo. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[A frequent call from those who are against the outcomes of freedom is that we should not live in the past. To oppose that, I would compare it with building a house without a foundation. No one can do the roofing without supporting structures.]
There is a strong link between the wars of resistance and the struggle waged by liberation movements in this country. In the past, the aim was to defend freedom and fight for freedom in the future.
Our policies on land are answering the quest of our elders to own their land again. Our citizens owe their allegiance to the congress of the people, the ANC in particular, for saying: South Africa belongs to those who live in it, both black and white.
Ntjhafatso ya mobu eo kajeno re e latetseng pusong ena ya rona, hare hopola, re re ke ho kgutlisetsa mobu o nkilweng ka mahahapa ho beng ba ona. Hape ke ho batla botsitso bodulong, hape ke kabo ya mobu ho abela ba hlokang.
Ho ntshetsa mananeo ana pele, ke karabelo ho tseo baholo ba rona ba neng ba di tseka. Ba ile ba mpa ba ruthuthwa ka dithunya ho kwalwa melomo. Kaha naha le moruo ke bophelo ba mpa ba ile ba tjhetjhella morao ho ya nka matla. Ditabatabelo tsa rona re le setjhaba ke hore seo Molaotheo wa rona o leng sona, se phethahatswe ka bohohlehohle. Ke kahoo, ho latela puo ya Mopresidente, leano lena la mobu la ha o tshwanelwa ho rekisetsanwa - hothwe thato ya moreki le thato ya morekisi - le tshwanelwa hore le fetolwe.
Tshepo ya rona ke hore leano lena le tla fediswa ntle le ho qeaqea. Ho fetolwa ha leano lena ho tla hlahisa kgotso le botsitso, ebang kutlwisiso e ka ba teng lehlakoreng la borapolasi ba nang le dipolas i tse ngata tseo ba sitwang le ho di sebetsa.
Ke rata ho hopotsa Ntlo ena ya rona seo Lengolo la Tokoloho le se bolelang ka tsa naha. Lere naha e tla arolelwa ba e sebetsang, ho phael la taba ena tjama ke re, borapolasi hare sebetseng hammoho ho fedisa pharela ena. Kabo ya mobu e tshwanela ho potlakiswa haholo, etswe tiehiso ya yona e ka baka hore setjhaba se be nkgwana tsa madi.
Ke tshepa hore ntate Pheko o tla dumelana le nna mona. Ke rata ho hopotsa ntlo ena hore ba lemang, ba hlaolang, ba kotulang, ba thotang, ke basebetsi ba mapolasi. Empa ba latang chelete ke borapolasi. Tokoloho hae dumellane le hore ha elale makwala re none empa setjhaba se otla nta ka koto. Dimpa tsa rona di le putswa ha ba bang ba ntse ba tshwehlela. (Translation of Sesotho paragraphs follows.)
[The land reform policy that we follow in this Government includes giving back the land that was taken from the owners by force. We also want to have stability and to give a share of land to those who are the have-nots.
Land redistribution is a solution to what our elders fought for. It is unfortunate that they were attacked by machine guns in order to be silenced. As the land and economy are the source of food, they had to go back and strategise. Our wish, as a nation, is to see our Constitution’s stipulations completely adhered to. According to the speech made by the President, the policy that is used when selling and purchasing land, called the willing buyer, willing seller principle, should be amended.
We hope that it will be stopped without any hesitation. A change in this programme will bring peace and stability, only if farmers with unused pieces of land can have an understanding on the matter.
I would like to remind the House about what the Freedom Charter says about the land. It says that the land will be shared among those who make use of it. To add more to this I would like to say to all farmers: “Let us work together to overcome this problem.” Land redistribution should be speeded up because any delay can lead to bloodshed. I hope Mr Pheko will agree with me on this.
I would like to remind this House that people who are ploughing, eradicating weeds, harvesting and transporting products, are farmworkers; but people who collect the money are farm owners. Freedom does not mean let it be, so that we can live in peace. As long as there are people who are starving, while others are enjoying the wealth, the nation will stand up and fight.]
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the KwaZulu Natal government for restoring the dignity of our heroes, iNkosi Bhambatha and Mahatma Gandhi, because we will always regard them as dignified freedom fighters.
Ka ha kgomo ha enye bolokwe kaofela, ke re ha di be mohatla wa kgwiti. [As you should not wear your heart on your sleeve, I will therefore cut a long story short.] [Applause.]
Ms N M MDAKA: Chairperson, there are moments in time when we as South Africans should ponder and reflect on where we were and where we are today. When we do so we discover that systematic and critical research on our past reveals an unusual wealth of information; as we do so we discover knowledge and deep revolutionary heroism that inspires us to do more.
The year 2006 provides us with an opportunity to commemorate a number of significant anniversaries. Even after 100 years the Bhambatha uprising against politics springs back to our memory. The UIF recently observed with great delight the posthumous reinstatement of iNkosi Bhambatha Zondi to the chieftainship of the Zondi clan 100 years after he had been deposed by the then Natal government. The 1906 ambush of British security forces by Chief Bhambatha and his group of 150 warriors proves that the culture of voluntary service and defiance of unjust laws is not new in South Africa.
Mr S L TSENOLI: Chairperson, thank you very much. Hon members, the message that rings through our debate and discussion today is the spirit of courage, bravery and commitment to just rule, which is signified by the Bhambatha Rebellion. The refrain that, “… uBhambata kaMacinza ayiyeke isesokeni umhalane wokubeletha amagwala ..” is a powerful reminder of what is required of us going ahead in the decade ahead.
The challenges of land reform, land transformation, is a powerful one and requires people who are not cowards especially to acknowledge the wrongs of the past but, also most importantly, Ntate Pheko, not to keep looking back because you will keep falling down. Keep your eyes ahead of you because this is where the country wants to go, Ntate. And so we appreciate the significant historical linkages and continuity pointed out by other speakers because our struggle continues apace, inspired by heroes such as Bhambatha.
We also need to remind Ntate Seremane that our Constitution that was stewarded through the Constitutional Assembly is what makes us stand out amongst many in the world today. When we speak about the things we need to do today we must not also want to rewrite history. The inspiration that Bhambatha gave to the many cadres who ended up in the ranks of the ANC in fact, including its founding inspirations, comes from the ranks of Bhambatha. To stage the platform appropriately, it is correct that these anniversaries must convey an important message to us that we will not forget the brutality of the past. We are committed to undoing the effects of that progressively as we are required to, and the commitment of all of us in this House is required in those areas.
When material conditions are appropriate, a man and a woman will rise and the people around them that usually form the backdrop depend on them for the success of his or her pursuits. In the struggle for liberation of this country we have seen such men and women, including Bhambatha. So in going ahead, let’s remember that our linkages with the people and land are the crucial task that we must never forget.
Debate concluded
DELEGATION TO THE DRC
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. With the leave of the House I move without notice:
That the House, noting that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is
holding elections on 30 July 2006, resolves, subject to the concurrence
of the National Council of Provinces, that –
(1) the South African Parliament send a 30-member, multiparty
delegation to observe these elections;
(2) the delegation form part of the South African National Observer
Mission;
(3) the delegation observe the campaign in the run-up to the
elections, the casting of votes and subsequently the counting of
the votes; and
4) the delegation table for consideration and debate the report of
the National Observer Mission to Parliament on its return.
Agreed to. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF THE MEDIATION COMMITTEE - OLDER PERSONS BILL
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I was distracted and strong-armed by Mike Ellis.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I am sitting here quietly minding my own business. If I am so fearsome to him that is not my fault.
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
OLDER PERSONS BILL
(Consideration of Bill)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I hereby move that the Bill be passed.
Motion agreed to. Bill accordingly passed.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE AND WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR M S MAKAMU, SENIOR MAGISTRATE AND HEAD OF
THE OFFICE AT BENONI
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PRACTICAL GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF SECTION 10
OF THE PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to. Report accordingly adopted.
BUDGET VOTE 30: MINERALS AND ENERGY
(Consideration of Report of Portfolio Committee)
Mr E N MTHETHWA: Thank you, Speaker. Well, having received the Department of Minerals and Energy’s presented strategic plan and budget for the financial year 2006-07, the committee acknowledges the open manner in which this was done by the department. The presentation highlighted both the strengths and challenges. The committee then resolved to follow up on issues it raised and those raised by the department. It is against this backdrop that we present our report to Parliament today. It is imperative to locate Budget Votes within the context of the transformation and developmental agenda advanced by our democratic Parliament.
Consistent with the constitutional mandate of Parliament, Budget Vote hearings are a tool that is utilised, firstly, to establish how allocated funds were to be spent. Secondly, it is to monitor the achievement of targets and thirdly, to check whether funds allocated meet those targets and monitor progress made. It serves to determine whether policy development takes place in accordance with the government’s priorities of poverty eradication, job creation, black economic empowerment, human resource development and our growing economy. In the fulfilment of our mandate, we have identified a number of areas that need attention. These areas relates to issues pertaining to universal access to electricity by 2012.
Regarding the establishment of the seventh national electricity distributor and the location of the pebble bed modular reactor in connection with universal access to electricity by 2012, we are unhappy as the programme is behind schedule due to alleged inadequate financial allocation. The Integrated National Electricity Programme, Inep, which is premised on the roll-out of 500 000 households per annum for electrification is compromised by inadequate budget allocation. The current budget of 2006/07 caters for only 89 525 households per annum for electrification.
We seek to engage with the National Treasury in order to get clarity on whether we will at this current pace reach the target as set out by the President. The other area relates to the lack of a consultative process regarding the establishment of a seventh national electricity distributor. As the committee we then resolved to invite the relevant stakeholders to be part of a public participatory process, which is a public hearing, and it started today. It will also be held on 23 June 2006.
Furthermore, we have resolved to seek clarity on the PBMR projects locations and, in particular, the role of Minerals and Energy. We are inviting both the Minister of Minerals and Energy and the Minister of Public Enterprises in order to start a process of discussions on this matter. The committee is also concerned about the minimal role of the state utility on nuclear issues, namely the the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa, Necsa, and the role it has to play in the PBMR process.
The committee recommends that the executive gives a much more meaningful role to Necsa in the PBMR. This emanates from our belief that such role clarification is necessary to ensure accountability.
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
RATIFICATION OF DECISION TAKEN BY SUBCOMMITTEE OF JOINT PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ON 20 JUNE 2006 - 2010 WORLD CUP SOUTH AFRICA SPECIAL MEASURES BILL
That -
(1) noting South Africa’s international commitment to adopt special legislative measures regarding the 2010 FIFA World Cup within specified timeframes;
(2) further noting that the 2010 World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006] which was introduced on 6 June 2006 is to be split into separate section 75 and section 76 Bills;
(3) in accordance with Joint Rule 216 (2), the two Bills upon receipt be fast-tracked by shortening any period within which any step in the legislative process relating to the Bills has to be completed, but subject to public participation in the process of the consideration of the Bills, in order for the Bills to be passed by both Houses before 31 August 2006;
(4) for this purpose the relevant NA and NCOP committees confer on the Bills; and
(5) the Assembly committee finalises its consideration of the Bills by 31 July 2006 and the NCOP committee reports formally on both Bills in time for the approved deadline to be met by Parliament.
There was no debate.
Decision taken by the Subcommittee of the Joint Programme Committee to fast- track the section and section 76, 2010 World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bills ratified.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND SECURITY - PROCLAMATIONS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 25 OF THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AGAINST TERRORIST AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ACT NO 33 OF 2004
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move that the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF FINAL ACTS OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARY CONFERENCE IN MARRAKESH, MOROCCO IN 2002 OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS UNION IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION
There was no debate.
Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco in 2002 of the International Telecommunications Union approved.
The SPEAKER: That concludes the business of the day and the business of the session. I would like to wish hon members some good times during the break. Do take some time to rest, because we do have a very heavy schedule. Good luck!
I know that some of the hon members have to come back and have meetings because there’s the Fifa Bill; there are also the steering committees preparing for us hosting certain international conferences. However, even those members will be coming for just a day and going back.
So, I really hope that political parties won’t be too harsh on the hon members until we see you.
The House adjourned at 18:56. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bill passed by National Assembly and National Council of
Provinces on 21 June 2006:
a) Older Persons Bill [B 68F – 2003 (Reprint)] (National
Council of Provinces – sec 76).
(2) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 21 June 2006:
a) Deeds Registries Amendment Bill [B 5 – 2006] (National
Assembly – sec 75)
b) Sectional Titles Amendment Bill [B 8 – 2006] (National
Assembly – sec 75)
c) Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain
Laws Amendment Bill [B 11B – 2006] (National Assembly – sec
75)
d) Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws
Bill [B 14 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 77)
e) Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation
Laws Bill [B 15 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 75)
National Assembly
The Speaker
-
Membership of Committees
(1) The following members have been appointed to serve on the Standing Committee on Auditor-General, viz:
African National Congress Asiya, Mr S E Fubbs, Mr J L Gumede, Mr D M Hogan, Ms B A Johnson, Mr M Smith, Mr V G Zitha, Mr L Democratic Alliance Stephens, Mr M Trent, Mr E W Inkatha Freedom Party Vezi, Mr E T United Party of South Africa Simmons, Mr S National Democratic Convention Woods, Dr G G
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
(1) Report of the South African delegation to the 114th Inter-
Parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya 7-14 May 2006.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
-
Report of the Constitutional Review Committee on Public Submission, dated 9 June 2006:
During the 2005 Constitutional review period, the Constitutional Review Committee received a submission concerning the convergence of the electronic media and its relevance to section 192 of the Constitution.
Section 192 of the Constitution states that legislation must establish an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest and to ensure fairness and a diversity of views broadly representing South African society. In pursuance of this instruction, the Independent Broadcasting Authority was established.
Due to technological developments, the differentiation within the electronic media has not only become blurred, but has in practice disappeared. This fact has been recognized and consequently, the Electronic Communication Act (36 of 2005) and the ICASA Bill (B32F of 2005) were introduced and approved by Parliament.
In its report to Parliament, the Committee acknowledged that the issue of electronic convergence and the implication thereof on the Constitution, was deserving and needed further investigation (ATC Report, 1 November 2005, pg 2418).
Having received submissions from both academics and the Department of Communication, the Committee recommends that:
a) Section 192 of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) be amended.
b) Possible consequential amendments be made to Section 181(1), Section 193(1), Section 193(4), Sections 194(1) and 194(2)(b)
c) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development be requested to introduce the relevant Constitutional amendments.
Report to be considered.
National Assembly
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works (National Assembly) on the study tour to Manila and London, dated 28 March 2006:
The Portfolio Committee on Public Works (National Assembly) having undertaken a study tour to Manila in Philippines and London and Wales in Britain on 21-27 November 2005, reports as follows:
(i) The structure of the Report
Glossary Introduction Background Findings Social responsibilities of M&J Comparative analysis Recommendations Conclusions(ii) Glossary
BMSF Bevil Mabey Study Foundation C100 Compact 100 C200 Compact 200 EPWP Expanded Public Works Programme M&J Mabey and Johnson PBP Presidential Bridging Programme UK United Kingdom -
Introduction
The Committee concerned by the disaster caused by floods in the country and an analysis of inhibiting factors and distances travelled by people of all ages to visit socio and economic centres to access services and benefits rendered to them by government, invited Eagles Ring, a South African Partner of the Mabey Group of Companies for a presentation. Eagles Ring, had an interaction with the now disbanded Disaster Management Section of the Department of Defence and the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG). The briefing as requested by the Committee was on investigation done and concepts that would address the challenge. It must be noted that the Committee at this initial stage did not invite other stakeholders.
-
The Committee wanted to establish how the Mabey Bridge Programme could be integrated in the Expanded Public Works Programme. ie:
• Infrastructure development (cost effective) • Learnership and skills transfer, • Job creation and • Poverty alleviation
-
The Committee further wanted to investigate the social responsibilities that are imparted to benefit communities as beneficiaries.
-
The report provides an analysis of each country and the lessons learned in the countries visited and recommends adoption thereof by parliament. Pursuant to the briefing, the Committee undertook a study tour on a fact-finding quest to the Philippines, London and Wales from the 19 to 29 November 2005, mission. The delegation was comprised of the following committee members:-
- Mr. F Bhengu (ANC), Chairperson of the Committee - Ms CMP Kotsi (ANC) - Mr. L Maduma (ANC) - Mr. JPI Blanche (DA) and - Mr. J Leburu - Committee Secretary -
-
Background
The briefing to the joint Portfolio Committees on Public Works, Environmental Affairs and Tourism as well as Provincial and Local Government took place on 26 October 2005. The presenters were Mr. Buys from the Department of Provincial and Local Government and the Mabey Group of Companies and South African partners. -Report attached as annexure A.
• The briefing further encompassed the Rural Bridging Programme in Philippines and how the Mabey Bridging programme is assisting the Filipino government with the installations of bridges.
• The briefing also included the benefits of the Mabey bridging to the developing countries.
-
Findings
3.1 Visit to Philippines, Manila on 21-22 November 2005
3.1.1 Briefing about the Presidential Bridging Programme in Philippines The Committee met with Mr. D Mabey, Chairperson of the Mabey Group in UK; Mr. David Watson, General Manager of the Special Project Management of the Philippines President’s Bridge Program and Project Manager; Mr. Ben Power, an Engineer. The briefing by the Chairperson of Mabey included the Philippines Presidential Bridging Programme. The programme has been in progress for the past eight (8) years. The Tsunami disaster occurred whilst the programme was in its implementation stage and was therefore easy to rehabilitate the damage infrastructure and bridges. The Presidential Bridging Programme (PBP) was meant to improve the infrastructure of the country and access of the rural communities to the main economic centres. The Mabey bridges have provided the following economic and social benefits to communities: • Lowering of environmental impact when construction is undertaken. • Poverty alleviation programmes. • Access of rural communities to economic centres. • Access to health and educational facilities, especially in rural areas. • Short and long-term base job opportunities. • Skills transfer. 3.1.2 Briefing about the Mabey and Johnson Company in Philippines 3.1.2.1 Background The Mabey and Johnson Company designs and manufacture a range of pre-fabricated modular steel bridges. The steel manufactured by this company is used to build bridges in rural areas as well as in any other area that requires emergency bridges. These bridges have unique features unlike the usual steel bridges, for example: • The bridges are easy to construct or install and this could be done within a week. • The bridges could be used as permanent and versatile in most remote areas or for immediate provision of emergency bridges. • Due to its galvanisation the bridges are sustainable and need less maintenance. • The size of the bridge varies from one way to multiple ways including footbridges. • The substructure of the bridge can be built quickly with less expense on consultation fees. • The construction of the bridges is labour intensive. • The special grade steel used for building the bridges is fully galvanised and designed to carry in excess of normal highway loading. • The bridge could be constructed for up to 60 metres without a pier. M&J Bridges evolves from the Bailey bridges in 1942 to Mabey bridges Compact 200 (C200), which was introduced in 1986 and is continuously developed through intensive research. The M&J put the C200 on an on-going test for fatigue, deck and anti-slid tests. ISO 9001 certifies the bridges for quality assurance. M&J is supplying the C200 bridges to both the developed and developing countries. These bridges have been installed in areas that have been hit by the natural disasters. 3.1.3 Site visits 3.1.3.1 Visit to Coviten Province • A 45,720-metre bridge has been constructed for the past 18 months in Magellan Municipality, which is a rural municipality. • Adjacent to this bridge was another 30-metre bridge built four years ago. • There was also 30 metre bridge constructed within the same locality and has been there for the past five years. 3.1.3.2 Visit to Queson Aliaga multi-span Delta Bridge on 22 November 2005 • A 65-metre bridge was in a construction at Queson Aliaga using labour intensive methods. • Women are involved in the construction of the bridge. • 12 people are employed to construct the bridge using a crane to lift the piers and the other work was done manually. • The cranes that are used for the lifting piers belonged to the Department of Public Works, which is responsible for the implementation of the PBP. • The bridge joins the two municipalities and serves as a shortcut to the urban centres. • A community member has attested to the fact that these bridges have not only provided them with jobs but they have also shortened the distance and hours of travelling. It has also provided access to main social services.3.2 Visit to London and Wales 24-25 November 2005
1. Briefing at the Mabey and Johnson Head Office in Twyford - London: • Mabey Group of Companies was established in 1923 and has built bridges in 80 countries. • The company specialises in the design and manufacturing of steel panel bridges. • The main factory is located in the United Kingdom, which produces up to 60,000 tones of steel per annum. • The company let out bridges for temporary work. • The company supply spares to support its building programme. • The Mabey group keeps its close working relationship with its customers. • The company observe the environmental impacts when doing feasibility study prior to the construction of the bridges. • It specialises in shipping and transportation of galvanised steel. • The company has 24 locations with over 1000 engineering personnel. • The Mabey and Johnson have received six Queens’ awards. 3.2.2 Site visit 3.2.2.1 Visit to Fairfield Factory • The Fairfield Mabey plant was established in 1849 and is based in Chepstow in Wales. • It produces high quality plated steelwork for highway bridges. • It is plate girder specialist. • The Mabey and Johnson share the technological expertise at this plant. • The factory is fitted with advanced automated fabrication techniques, which includes robots operated machines. 3.2.2.2 Visit to Lydney Factory • This factory is responsible for the manufacturing of C200 steel. • The ISO 9001 quality assurance and testing is done at the factory. • The quality system includes welding, inspection and trace ability of personnel involved on the final inspection and date of production. 3.2.2.3 Galvanising factory • Final steel work produced is galvanised at a factory that is separate from the M&J. • The galvanising assists the steel to be rust resistive and result in low maintenance of the M&J bridges.3.3 Social responsibilities of Mabey and Johnson • As part of its social responsibility a Bevil Mabey Study Foundation (BMSF) was established in 2000. • The foundation provides books to selected schools in the Philippines. • The chosen schools are provided with the books depending on their needs and proximity to Mabey bridges. • The BMSF has successfully implemented a book- giving programme and provided some of the impoverished and neglected schools in Philippines with education materials.
-
Recommendations
It is recommended that: -
• That this bridging program be established as a subprogram of
infrastructure development and be located in the office of the
Deputy President in line with ASGISA, as it will:
a. Expedite infrastructure development
b. Contribute to improved universal access to basic services
c. Contribute to improved service delivery
d. Improve local economic development, job creation and skills
development
• A committee be established constituted from the Departments of
Transport, Public Works, Defence, Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, Provincial and Local Government and National Treasury,
to:
• Investigate and report on the progress made by the disbanded
Disaster Management Section of the Department of Defense
about the bridges (see annexure A attached.)
• Investigate and report on the progress made thus far by the
Department of Provincial and Local Government, regarding the
bridge infrastructure program.
• Conduct a feasibility study and needs and cost analysis
nationally in relation to the various incidences of floods
and other disaster related occurrences and their impact in
Taung, North West as well as other areas in the country.
• Call for inputs and written submissions from key bridge
constructors, engineers, civil society and other related
professionals and expects.
• Ensuring that every infrastructure development programme meet
our procurement policies, transfer of skills, job creation,
poverty alleviation and social responsibilities.
- Conclusions
The Committee recognises all organisations, institutions and
individuals who have made an input in this report.
Report to be considered.