National Assembly - 05 September 2006
TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2006 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:04.
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
ARBOR WEEK
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) 1 to 7 September is Arbor Week; and
(b) this week is meant to deepen awareness about the importance of
trees in our lives and the environment;
(2) recalls that -
(a) trees contribute to our health in a number of ways: they
effectively muffle urban noise, a mature leafy tree produces as
much oxygen in a season as ten people inhale in a year and that
to produce its food, a tree absorbs and lock away carbon
dioxide, a major suspect in global warming; and
(b) the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is undertaking a
campaign from 2000 to 2015 to highlight two indigenous trees
every year, one tree common and the other rare and that the
common tree this year is the Wild Pomegranate and the rare one
is the Kosi Palm; and
(3) commends the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in raising awareness about the critical role of trees in our lives.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought the Chief Whip was going to tell us how many trees he himself planted this morning!
Agreed to. CONSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE
(Statement by Minister of Public Works)
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, and fellow South Africans, I wish to thank Madam Speaker for allowing me to address this august House on a matter of public importance, which relates to the policy on the privileges of public representatives, including the President, Deputy President, the former Presidents and the former Deputy Presidents.
I do so, but not because of the so-called question the DA, as they have stated in the paper, has raised. I do so, because as we speak and as I speak here, I have not received such a question, and neither has the office that deals with questions in Parliament.
I thought it was necessary to explain to our people and members of this National Assembly the policy guidelines and conventions that have been used with regard to the privileges of public representatives.
It is important for me to go back to the matter of the question that I have just started with. Hon Douglas Gibson, a Member of this Parliament, has been quoted – whether correctly or not – as saying that he has sent a question to myself with regard to the matter of the construction of the private residence of the President. During this previous weekend, an impression has indeed been created that government did not respond to the question that the hon Douglas Gibson has raised on this matter.
Clearly, I had to follow-up. I asked my office whether this was true or not; whether they had received a question or not, and when they said they had not, I asked them to go to the questions office in Parliament so that we could clarify what and where the question was that was being referred to.
Following this inquiry, I want to say to the hon member that I have here an e-mail which I received from Mr Michael Plaatjies today at 10:24, which confirms that there has not been any question on the President’s private residence that has been received by his office. [Interjections.] Clearly, hon members, it would be good if hon Douglas checks with his office what might have happened to his question, and after that, apologise to me and to the public for misleading them about the claim that he has made. [Applause.]
At the end of last week, we all witnessed unfortunate and strange behaviour indeed, where one of our hon members of this House led a contingent of journalists to the private residence of our head of state. [Interjections.] This visit follows – I hope hon members listen to this – an enquiry which was made by a person who claimed he was a researcher for the DA to the contractor, wanting to know the location of the house that they were building for Mr Mbeki. Clearly, the contractor, as an honest citizen, gave the address. Shortly, thereafter, the hon Gibson and the contingent of journalists were at the house.
It raises an interesting question that all of us must ask: What was of interest about this private residence? Clearly, as it emerged on Friday, and as it went on during the weekend, and this morning on SAfm on the eight o’clock debate, hon Gibson believed the state was building a private residence for Mr Mbeki, and had kept the house under wraps, as was stated in one of the Sunday papers over the past weekend.
Surely this indicates an underlying mistrust. Can the state be trusted? Can the state act in the interest of the public? Maybe, as again the Sunday papers – The Independent – stated, ``Can the state escape any controversy, particularly the African head of state?’’ [Interjections.]
I found it very convenient and interesting that when the Sunday Independent
wrote their article on this matter, they went on to say This former head
of state bought his private residence’’;This former head of state bought
his private residence’’. Instead of saying Mr Mbeki has also bought his
private residence’’, they left the public in the dark. They then said,
Well, this is the third African head of state matter which has caused
controversy after President Mugabe and President Chisano’’. I said: ``How
unfortunate that our own media can stoop so low, and not tell the facts.’’
Let’s come to the question that has brought me here, hon members, to clarify the policy with regard to public representatives. Chapter 4.1 in the Constitutional Handbook for Members of the Executive and presiding officers, particularly on the residences, clearly indicates how the state allocates official residences to these members. What is the state’s obligation and how should the state act through the Minister of Public Works and the department?
Chapter 4.2 further states how the state must provide security arrangements for private residences used for official purposes as it is covered in Chapter 2, paragraph 3, which states:
On assumption of office, members should approach the Minister of Intelligence Services and the Minister for Safety and Security for a security analysis and arrangements for provision of appropriate security. Members and their support staff should at all times adhere to the security arrangements and policies, and take precautions not to do anything that will compromise security.
The analysis referred to will include security of private residences occupied on a regular basis, state-owned residences, private residences, personal security and the offices utilised by members. The Minister of Public Works should be requested to implement, in conjunction with the SAPS, the recommended security arrangements at the privately owned residences in terms of this scheme approved by Cabinet for this purpose.
In addition to the Constitutional Handbook for Members of the Executive and presiding officers, there is a policy that relates to privileges of former Presidents, their spouses, widows and widowers, which spells out what these privileges are, what the responsibility of the state is in this regard.
In this policy, the state has the following obligations. I won’t mention all of them. I will mention the ones that relate to the residences: A former President and his or her family may, from the date of resignation from office, remain in the official residence of his or her choice for up to 60 days with retention of all existing privileges they previously enjoyed in the residence. On security, with regard particularly to the head of state and deputy head of state, security services rendered to a former President will continue after his or her departure from the official residence for as long as and at the level that the Minister of Safety and Security deems necessary. Security measures at the private residences of former Presidents will be dealt with in terms of the policy which I have already outlined, which was adopted by Cabinet on 20 August 2003.
In point 3.4 of this booklet that refers to policies of former Presidents and Deputy Presidents, it states that security measures that have been agreed to in terms of the processes, the SA Police Service personnel and related corps shall be provided and funded by the SAPS. Structural additions and amendments shall be provided and maintained and funded by the Department of Public Works. It also states that the security situation at the private properties owned and regularly used by the former Presidents and their immediate families shall, from time to time, be revisited by the SAPS.
Based on the findings of a threat analysis, the SAPS shall report its findings to the Minister of Safety and Security. This may, at any time, lead to upgrading, downgrading or termination of security services. If security measures are downgraded or terminated, any permanent structures shall become the property of the owner of the land on which the said structure shall become the property of the owner of the land on which the said structures were erected, who shall have to maintain them.
It also further states that the former presidents may request secure office accommodation with secure parking facilities. Such accommodation will be provided, and is limited to 120 square metres.
I also want to say, with regard to ourselves seated here, that in terms of the Parliamentary Villages Management Board Act No 96 of 1998, the state has to provide all of us with accommodation, furniture, maintain and also secure those premises and further transport us to work. If we choose to use our cars, that’s our own choice; it’s not because the state can’t provide. That is why hon members, through the board, have been very angry with us for not adjusting to the timeframe so that the busses can commute consistent with the schedule of Parliament. This we provide. Even the nominal rent that we pay in those houses is actually subsidized by the state.
I thought it was necessary for us to raise these issues because somehow in this matter we have lost the essence of what we seek to address. A question may be asked: Is the hon Mbeki the first person to whom this policy applies? I want to say that even before the democratic state there was a convention. There are some minutes, which indicate how the then government dealt with the serving of the former heads of state with regard to security in their official and private residences.
As I stand here, we still provide former Vice State President Schlebusch, who served a very short period of time, with security in his retirement home. The security personnel that looks after him is paid by all the taxpayers of this country. We still provide former President Marais Viljoen, who actually served less than five years - I think two to three years - in his retirement village with fulltime security personnel, paid by SAPS and this government. We provide security arrangements, including all features that are required in terms of personnel security to former President P W Botha, who chose, and correctly so, a house in one of our prime areas of this country, namely in George as residence of his choice. We never asked questions. The SAPS time and again, year on year, assesses all those security and say to us what we need to do. We offer the former President and Second Deputy President F W de Klerk the very same support consistent with this policy. Similarly, we provide the former President Nelson Mandela with those security and office space as is covered by policy. We provide the former Deputy President Jacob Zuma the very same security arrangement and privileges as is defined by the policy I have just stated. President Mbeki, as he will retire, we will as the state provide him in accordance with this policy. [Applause.]
Hon members, I think we must be ashamed that we can act on rumour because indeed the first medium that led with the story was the Noseweek. Neither did it ask the Minister of the facts in this matter … [Interjections.]
Mr M JELLIS: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is the second time during the debate that somebody from that side of the House said, I presume, that the hon Gibson is a liar. [Interjections.] I believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is out of order and the person should be asked to withdraw that remark. [Interjections.]
In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am reliably informed that it was the Deputy Minister of Housing who said that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, is there anyone who wants to own up, because they say someone from that end? [Interjections.]
Mr H P CHAUKE: Yes, on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am still dealing with this point of order, Mr Chauke. Please take your seat for now.
Mr M J ELLIS: I am reliably informed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was actually the Deputy Minister of Housing who shouted that out. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Minister of Housing? When was a Deputy Minister of Housing appointed? Hon members, I just need to be informed: When did we have an appointment of the Deputy Minister of Housing? [Laughter.] If we don’t, then your source is actually not reliable. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] [Applause.] Please take your seat, Sir.
Mr M J ELLIS: I can name the person, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no! We cannot keep on guessing the whole afternoon. Please take your seat, hon Ellis.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you rising on a point of order, hon Chauke?
Mr H P CHAUKE: Madam Deputy Speaker, in fact the person seated next to me was saying, Hamb’ uyolala [Go and sleep]. He did not say you are a liar. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please take your seat, because you are not helping us. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Prof A K ASMAL: On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker: How can the hon member of the DA raise a point of order when he is really denying a general sentiment held by the House at large? You can’t withdraw a general sentiment. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Asmal, that is not a point of order, please take your seat.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, are you saying that nobody is prepared to own up to the fact that they used the word ``liar’’?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, you said you are reliably informed. Which means that you have a reliable informant that there is a Deputy Minister of Housing. And we all know that we don’t have such a person in this House. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I have the right to correct my mistake because it’s not a point of order. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] There is nothing wrong. Even you make mistakes sometime, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of course, I do, lots of them too. Hon Ellis, will you please take your seat.
Mr M J ELLIS: Are you not going to rule on the fact that somebody said he is a liar?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. I said that we are not going to keep on guessing the whole afternoon and that there is no Deputy Minister of Housing. That is where we closed the matter. You can’t name the person. You said you had a reliable informant, which proved not to be reliable. Please take your seat.
I am not going to address this matter anymore. Please proceed, hon Minister.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the minutes that have been taken will not be taken away from my speaking time. Hon members, I think what has happened this weekend should not have happened and shouldn’t happen again. Unfortunately, for some of us who listened to the debates as they have been raging in the media, clearly such acts take us back in the history that we have travelled because the under- currents that emerge and views and feelings make people wonder, to what extent have we walked this road of reconciliation as a country? Has this question been asked because it happens to be an African President? It may be painful indeed … [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: You should be ashamed of yourself.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: I will not be ashamed, hon Douglas Gibson. You heard it yourself on the debate this morning, which I was listening to and you were part of. Such sentiments were indeed raised. [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Were they raised by me?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Not by you, surely. Neither did I say it was you. I am saying they were raised in that debate. They have been raised during the weekend. Because surely … [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: You should be ashamed of yourself.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: I won’t. You should be. [Interjections.] If you had an interest, as you stated, in transparency, you should have asked the question. You did not. You yourself once said in this Parliament that we must not ask issues of parliamentary nature in public before we ask them here. You have actually undermined your own statement in this regard. As I stated, I have evidence of the response … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you rising on a point of order, Chief Whip?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: we are addressing a matter …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are saying yes. I just want to know why are you interrupting the Minister?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we can … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order, Chief Whip?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: My point of order is the way the hon Mr Gibson is behaving. We are addressing a matter here … [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Mr Ellis, when you stood several times to give points of order, everybody gave you an opportunity. May I please address … [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: What sort of a point of order is it?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will make the ruling. Since when are you doing my work? [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am saying: protect the speaker. Mr Gibson will have an opportunity to respond. He is interrupting and harassing the speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party, please take your seat. Let me humbly request all of us to give the Minister an opportunity to address us, because some of us, who don’t have the privilege of the handbooks that the Minister is referring to, do not know most of the information that is being raised here. So, I think if it goes well with all of you, and I think it should, we should give the Minister the respect she deserves. Whether we are going to be participating later in the debate or not, let us all give the Minister the respect she deserves. Hon Minister, your time is still secured.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise this issue because all of us here, as Members of Parliament, have the utmost responsibility to ensure that we do not reverse the gains of this democracy by our actions or what we say.
I also want to say to hon members here that this democratic government acted very holily even where it could have acted meanly; it respected international protocols. Today we do not discriminate which president was serving who; we offer what is due to that former president. And I hope that we will do so continuously.
I’m raising this issue because we may not agree, but I think that we have a responsibility regarding the messages we are sending the electorate, as well as a responsibility to act holily and responsibly as public representatives.
I want to say, hon members, without any equivocation, that we, as members of this House, owe Mrs and Mr Mbeki an apology for the way in which one of us has acted. [Applause.] Indeed, it would be sad if one of us could one day ask who is staying where, take journalists to where we stay and start casting aspersions on us by asking: “I wonder where the money to build the house came from?”
None of us here have been asked which banks we went to, to apply for housing loans. None of us were ever asked about the history of the contractor who built or is building our houses. If we are going to stoop that low as Members of Parliament, I wonder what our people would think of us? I hope that in future we will not behave in the manner in which one of us has behaved in this instance.
Ukuba asazi, bantakwethu, masibuze. Ndiyayibona ke nale nto yenza ukuba bangakwazi nokuhlala ezitulweni ngoku, kaloku inyaniso iyahlaba. Kananjalo umenzi uyalibala; umenziwa akalibali. [If we do not know, we should ask. I can now see why they are so restless and uneasy. Remember the truth is painful. Furthermore, the one who inflicts pain forgets, and the victim does not.]
One thing that I’m happy about is that the movement that I serve helps me to reflect on and remember to treasure the times and mountains I’ve climbed for us to be here. That is why, with humility, we can still stand on this podium and try to explain what is fact, not what is fiction. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, there are three things wrong with the Minister’s statement: The first one is that it should have been made more than a year ago, because in democracies governments account to the taxpayers for the spending of their money before they spend it, not afterwards when they are forced to admit it. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Mr Gibson deserves some respect. [Interjections.] He must be heard in this House. And if there are any points of order, hon members will rise to raise them, but we must all be protected by the Chair. Continue, hon member.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you, Madam. The second thing wrong with the statement is that the Minister still fails to tell us how much public money is being spent on this property; just to offer it. [Interjections.]
The third thing is that questions officers confirmed to us that the question is there: it will be on the Order Paper at the end of this week, for a reply in two weeks’ time. So your information is outdated - as it so often is, Minister. You should apply to me and apologise to me now, instead of me apologising to you. Thank you very much.
The ANC would have saved itself a lot of hysteria if the Minister had opened her mouth earlier and made a statement, because what has happened is that Noseweek published an article, saying that a retirement house was being built and that it was gonna cost R22 million, and that the Department of Public Works was involved in it. The Minister said nothing.
On Friday morning the Beeld and Die Burger had huge stories about this retirement home and had interviews with the construction people. The Star newspaper published a photograph of the House on Friday morning. [Interjections.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr Gibson. There’s a point of order from Ms Vytjie Mentor.
Ms M P MENTOR: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the body language of Mr Gibson is unbecoming.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member! There’s nothing wrong with his body language. Continue, hon member.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I’ll look after my body, if you look after yours. [Interjections.] Helen Suzman taught us to “go and look for yourself”, because that Minister and the government kept quiet, and they don’t tell the people of South Africa anything. So I went there to “go and look”, and I advised the media that I was going, and they all turned up. Isn’t that strange? [Interjections.]
When I arrived at the house, outside the driveway, the security people asked me not to enter, and I didn’t enter. I invaded no one’s privacy. I didn’t put my foot on the driveway; I didn’t go in the garden; I didn’t go inside the house; I invaded no one’s privacy. [Interjections.]
Afterwards Motheo Construction came to talk to me on the pavement … The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Douglas Gibson, please address the House. When you provoke the House, I can’t protect you. But I don’t know what’s going on.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam, that’s a very weak excuse; you should be protecting me and you’re not.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, we can’t hear. Please continue, hon member.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I’m explaining what happened, and if they shout and scream, it’s because they don’t want to hear the truth. They want to give vent to their hysteria, and the specifics about reprehensibility are absolute nonsense.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Gibson, there’s a problem; there’s something that I don’t understand: what’s going on there, hon members?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Please add to my time, Madam.
An HON MEMBER: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of correction, Mr Gibson did not invade privacy, he transgressed …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no! No point of correction! Sit down. Chief Whip, I’m really appealing to you to give us the co-operation we need. The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m trying to calm down the ANC caucus. Please, let’s allow the speaker to finish.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Yes, and add some time to the time allotted me. Thank you, Chief Whip.
The points that I made outside the House – and it’s not me who went and climbed over the fence, it’s the media; it’s not me who charted aircraft and took aerial photographs of the property, that’s the media. I want to tell you that in a free democracy that’s how the media carries on. They might be irritating; they might be invasive; they might be hypocritical, but far rather that than have what happened in the sort of state that hon member wants in South Africa in future.
I said outside the House that all that the taxpayers wanted to know is how much of their money was being spent on this. I said that what the Mbekis paid for was their private business; what we paid for was our business …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member! Your speaking time has expired. [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam, with respect, the timer shows that it hasn’t expired. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired. The timer shows minus 12 minutes. That means it has expired.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Just take note of the fact that the Minister had 20 minutes; the ANC has got eight, and I’ve got about two minutes …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit down, Mr Douglas Gibson.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you. You don’t want to hear the truth; I’ll say it outside the House. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Gibson, we are not going to allow this kind of behaviour. When your time has expired and I say please take your seat, go and take your seat; and don’t address me on this matter.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I want to address you on another matter of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of order I wish to make is that …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: … I’m not taking any point of order; I’m addressing you on your behaviour here, and please take your seat. I’d like to continue with the debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Yes, and then may I address you on a point of order thereafter? Mr D V BLOEM: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to tell Mr Gibson …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no, the point of order! [Laughter.] There is no point of telling.
Mr W P DOMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to ask thus, as per custom, was time added to Mr Gibson’s speaking time in view of the many points of order that were raised whilst he was speaking, for future reference purposes?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, we know what we are doing here. If there is any problem, raise it with us later. We have monitored everybody’s time, and whenever we have any interruption or intervention we stop the timer for the duration of the interruption or intervention, and then restart it to make sure that everybody gets his or her full allotted time. So Mr Gibson got more time because he gave himself extra time, even after I had asked him to take his seat, which is unacceptable and should not happen, especially from a person of senior stature in this House.
Please lead by example. Don’t address me; I haven’t called you to address me. [Laughter.] You like the microphone. You are not going to address me, because I’m continuing with the debate now.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: May I raise another point of order?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No!
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: All right. How do I raise the fact that on the podium that clock showed that one still had time? How do I raise that, if I can’t do it by way of a point of order?
Ms M P MENTOR: You must stop pointing a finger at the Deputy Speaker!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, thank you for your assistance, but I’m sure I’ll be able to handle this matter on my own. Hon Gibson, the Chair gives a ruling. If you’re unhappy with the ruling of the Chair, you know what to do. And don’t waste time because there are four other people helping me to make sure that we keep time. [Interjections.]
Well, I’m the fourth one. At times we can’t count, you know. I also counted the person on the podium. Would you like to sit down?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam, I’d prefer just to say that on that clock, it showed that there were still nine seconds to go when all four of you wrongly said that my time was up.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The problem is that you did not see how much time there was before that, which means that you had more than your allotted time. I don’t know, I can’t be teaching mathematics now. I did that 15 years ago. I did that so many years ago. My former students are now doctors and so on. Will you please take this ruling? [Interjections.] Thank you.
Mr F BHENGU: Deputy Speaker, Minister, hon members, the Minister made reference to the Sunday Independent when she spoke earlier on. In fact, she wanted to refer to the Saturday Star. For the purposes of the record, we would request that that correction be made.
Kuwusizi nje bandla. Akukho esingakukhuluma. Ngqongqoshe, usukusho konke … [It is just a pity. There is nothing more we can say. The Minister has in fact, said it all …]
… save to say that, as the ANC, we want to then say it is immoral, perverse, unethical and un-African to invade and disrespect the dignity and privacy of another person, irrespective of whether he or she is a public figure or not.
The callous action by the DA and hordes of journalists who descended on the President’s residence last week reminds me of scavengers which, after gnawing every piece of rot on their way, turn to the living, mercilessly kill and feast on them to satiate the genetic abnormality of being destructive. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Listening to ordinary South Africans, Minister, and I think you have referred to this …
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member at the podium referred to Mr Gibson as a scavenger. [Interjections.] I believe that that is unparliamentary.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon member should continue because there is nothing wrong with making a reference to a party. Continue, hon Bhengu.
Mr M J ELLIS: But Madam Deputy Speaker …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear him call out Mr Gibson by name and I think I still have my listening skills very much in order.
Mr M J ELLIS: But the reference was very clear, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Why do you want us to swap roles?
Mr M J ELLIS: I think I’d do quite a good job.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down then, Sir. If you respect the Chair, you are going to sit down. Hon Bhengu, please continue.
Mr F BHENGU: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Listening to ordinary South Africans, you would find that they question the very freedom and rights that we fought for. They further ask: “In the history of this country, where have you ever heard of a situation, past and present, where you conclude without habitual truthfulness, and concoct unadulterated lies and mislead the nation with your delusions and hallucinations?”
Are there no sinister motives behind these activities? Is this not camouflaged racism that suggests that blacks in general are congenitally deficient and corrupt?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon Bhengu.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: It was quite clear this time and you will have to agree that the hon member at the podium indicated that Mr Gibson, in his opinion, was telling lies. He actually used that word. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Bhengu, please continue. Mr Ellis, please allow us to continue with the business of the House.
Mr M J ELLIS: I have been deadly serious, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am also serious.
Mr M J ELLIS: So, is there nothing wrong with what he said?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am very serious about it because there was no reference to Mr Douglas Gibson. Please take your seat.
Mr F BHENGU: Are there no sinister motives behind these activities? Is this not camouflaged racism that suggests that blacks in general are congenitally deficient and corrupt and that all African leaders are inherently not credit-worthy? Is this the kind of freedom that we fought for, where the venom of the perpetrators of the injustices of the past was never milked but hibernated to wreak vengeance on our democracy …
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is over the top. [Interjections.] This is hate speech and this is racism and everything all at once, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.] It can’t be allowed to carry on like this.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mnu Bhengu, ngicela uthi ukuhlala phansi kancane. [Hon Bhengu, can you please take your seat for the time being?]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Ellis, you have raised this point several times …
Mr M J ELLIS: But it gets worse and worse. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been listening to the hon member. There was no reference to Mr Gibson.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask you to please check the record afterwards.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: For your benefit, I will check the record thereafter. But from the beginning of his speech up until now, there has not been any reference to him. Please continue, hon Bhengu.
Mr F BHENGU: Aren’t they abusing our Constitution to advance their wicked and criminal resistance to reconciliation and transformation? Are standards of morality determined by the colour of one’s skin?
Was it a mistake to adopt our Constitution in 1996, which enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, quality and freedom? Is it a fallacy when our Constitution prescribes that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected? Is it absurdity when our Constitution stipulates that everyone has the right to privacy? Is it not written in our Constitution that freedom of expression does not extend to advocacy for hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Bhengu, please take your seat, once more. Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: He has gone right over the top. If he is not talking about Mr Gibson, who the heck is he talking about? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Why don’t you ask him? You have the right to ask him.
Mr M J ELLIS: May I ask the hon member a question?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. What you could do is to rise and ask a question to the hon member.
Mr M J ELLIS: But this is an affront to Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I just want to get the view of the Table but I think there is nothing wrong that the hon member is doing. [Interjections.] If you need to know whether he is referring to Mr Douglas Gibson, you have the right to ask a question.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, is the …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you asking it on his behalf?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: No. Is the hon Ellis prepared to take a breathalyser test this afternoon? [Laughter.] Mr M J ELLIS: With the greatest of pleasure. Shall we go now? Come, let’s go. I will take one with pleasure. I’d like that Minister to coach you …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister! [Interjections.] [Laughter.] No, no, no. We can’t allow this. I would like the hon Minister of Finance to please … I need to take a ruling on this matter. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] Minister of Correctional Services … Order, hon members! [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, is the hon Minister scared to take a breathalyser test?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Mr Gibson. Mr Trevor Manuel, I would like you to withdraw your last remarks unconditionally. Don’t speak to me. Don’t give me any speech, just withdraw that remark and take your seat.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I will withdraw …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are not going to withdraw in future, you must withdraw now.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I withdraw in the hope that that will generate better conduct on the part of hon Ellis. I thank you. Mr M J ELLIS: I am not sure that I understand what that means, Madam Speaker. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I am suggesting that your conduct is not suggestive of sobriety this afternoon. [Laughter.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I am more than prepared to go and take the breathalyser test. Let’s go. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister of Finance, the Chair would like to give you … I see the hon Chief Whip over there – sit down please.
Hon members, we are going to get the House in order. We can’t continue like this. Parliament is not a circus and I am not going to allow any points of order on any matter after the withdrawal by the Minister of Finance.
I will study the record to find out where the name of Mr Gibson was mentioned and we did not hear it. We will then come back to the House and make sure that we give a ruling accordingly. Mr Manuel, will you please withdraw?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I withdraw, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Bhengu, please continue.
Mr F BHENGU: Listening to SAfm’s Morning Live this morning, Mr Douglas Gibson was in pain defending the indefensible, as much as he has done in this podium this afternoon. You were challenged by ordinary South Africans who doubted your psychogenetic make-up when you exposed and made vulnerable the security of the house of the President. [Interjections.] In the past, you never invaded nor questioned the past Presidents of apartheid under whom you served. The question is: Why?
One white lady said during the SAfm programme, “The President and his wife are of high moral standing and what you did is despicable.” You purport to have submitted a question for a reply, as the Minister indicated, and you continued to say so in this House. At 12:15 I communicated with the Secretary, and they indicated, chief, that there was no such. [Interjections.] I say 12:15 … [Interjections.] They said so.
How could you wilfully tell the untruths when you knew that you did not submit anything to Parliament and the department?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mnu Bhengu, ake uphinde futhi uthi ukuma kancane baba. [Hon Bhengu, would you please again take your seat for the time being, sir.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, the hon Mr Bhengu was now referring to me. He can’t deny that and he asked why I wilfully misled the House. Is that what you said?
Mr F BHENGU: I withdraw.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you. That’s right. Withdraw all the other …
Mr F BHENGU: You were conscious of the procedures and platform to use as the Chief Whip of the Opposition when you wanted to interrogate what you called “public interest”, but you were very opportunistic and resorted to the media like a liberated ghost, casting malicious aspersions about the Deputy President and saying, “She was slow to apologise for squandering the taxpayer’s money on a jaunt …
Mr T M MASUTHA: Madam Deputy Speaker, can you spare us from the running commentary of the opposition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! What is your point?
Mr T M MASUTHA: On a point of order: I think that running commentary is not allowed in the House. I think there is continued running commentary. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. It’s not allowed - from all sides of the House it’s not allowed.
Mr F BHENGU: He went on to say, “the Deputy President was so slow to apologise for squandering the taxpayer’s money on a jaunt to the United Arab Emirates and London, and is now jumping in before the debate in Parliament and expects me to apologise for doing my job.” That’s what you said. You know that this was addressed by competent structures that exonerated that office.
“Are you suggesting by your actions that you have a disregard for these democratic institutions and that, in the name of democracy, you have the nerve, the audacity and sheer dastardly naked arrogance …” one reader moaned.
Hon Douglas Gibson continued and said, “I will never apologise for doing my duty as the member of the opposition, that is what the voters sent us to do in Parliament.” [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr F BHENGU: Today the listeners of SAfm, in your presence, negated your assertion …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bhengu, your time has now expired.
Mr F BHENGU: The clock still reflects some time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It reflects negative values.
Mr F BHENGU: I thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see a speaker at the podium, and I have not recognised anyone! [Laughter.] I’m just taking my time so that you respect the Chair. [Laughter.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I can’t believe it, it’s quiet. [Laughter.]
As today’s debate has already proved, this subject has become nothing less than a street fight between the ANC and the DA, and we in the IFP will stay out of that. It is our position that the President’s future residence is a private matter and as such his and his wife’s privacy should be respected. We can only hope that they will enjoy living in this house.
The IFP’s interest in the matter goes only as far as the use of public money is concerned. We have no problem that public money will be used to provide for the President’s future security, just as we have no problem with the fact that public money is used to protect former presidents Viljoen, P W Botha, F W de Klerk and Mr Mandela. [Interjections.] Schlebusch was a deputy … and Mr Jacob Zuma, the next president of South Africa, I hear. [Interjections.]
What would perhaps be of interest is if the hon Minister could give us an indication of how much public money is being used to protect the former presidents, and we wish President Mbeki and his wife a good retirement in that beautiful house of theirs. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr B H HOLOMISA: Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, the truth is that the hon Douglas Gibson has compromised the security of that house and it might now cost more to secure it. [Laughter.] By all means, investigate and expose the abuse of taxpayers’ money fearlessly. But we all know that there are numerous ways of doing that without resorting to this crass, self- promotion at the expense of national security. To what lows would they stoop for prime time and international media coverage? [Interjections.] They would ridicule their country without a shred of evidence, it seems.
It shows a lack of ownership and pride in this country and its institutions as much as it shows a complete disregard for the right to privacy of every citizen. It is quite apparent that this had little to do with concern for the taxpayer and everything to do with how much publicity the DA could get for itself. [Applause.] The DA was in pursuit of a photo opportunity, not a principle. Enkosi. [Thank you.] [Applause.] Mr A HARDING: Madam Deputy Speaker, this visit is clearly totally out of order, and nothing else but a clear act of naked racism. [Interjections.] The hon Gibson has publicly claimed never to have benefited from apartheid, but what he conveniently forgot to mention was the pension benefit that he draws from having been involved in a previously racist parliament. This visit with the press in tow is nothing but an act of political narrow- mindedness. [Interjections.] Claiming innocence is further confirmation of this narrow-mindedness.
If the DA is so dissatisfied with parliamentary processes, why do they, for example, occupy the position of a House Chairperson? Why do they, for instance, occupy positions on the parliamentary executive authority? [Interjections.] Why? If anything, the only thing that the DA has achieved this weekend is to have pushed up the security cost, because now every Tom, Dick and Harry knows where the President will be staying. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, the ACDP believes all state presidents have the right to a retirement home that they can afford. The question of how much such a home should cost is none of our business. It is a private matter that should be respected by all. The ACDP will obviously, not support the use of taxpayers’ money to fund private homes, including that of the President.
It is unfortunate that the DA chose to act in a manner, which, at the very least, is questionable especially considering that they didn’t even ask the Minister to answer the questions they have. This, we believe, is a disrespectful approach and it is unfortunate. It is the ACDP’s opinion that the DA should, at the very least, apologise to the President and his wife. [Applause.]
In view of the hon Minister’s response, it would seem that this project is being funded by the Mbeki family and therefore, a private matter. Mrs Mbeki deserves a comfortable home that befits the First Lady of our country as she will continue to host and entertain, not only first ladies from many parts of the world, but also…[Time expired.] [Applause.]
Dr C P MULDER: Voorsitter, ek kan verstaan dat hierdie onderwerp ʼn hewige debat afgee. Ek verstaan dit en ek dink dit maak sin. Maar ek dink as ons met onsself eerlik is, sal ons ook erken dat van die optredes vandag in die Huis nie die Parlement tot eer gestrek het, en ek dink ons almal besef dit en dit is nie reg so nie.
Die agb Minister het baie tyd in haar toespraak gespandeer aan die beleid van die regering ten opsigte van hoe voormalige staatshoofde gehanteer word. Ek dink nie daar is iemand in die Parlement wat ’n probleem het met spesifiek hoe daardie beleid toegepas word nie. Die beleid is regverdig en billik, en niemand het daarmee ’n probleem nie. Die probleem in hierdie situasie het gekom as gevolg van ’n berig wat die wêreld ingestuur is om te sê dat hier ’n huis gebou word teen ’n hoë bedrag geld en dat die suggestie was dat die staat daarby betrokke is. Miskien kan ons daaruit leer.
Ek wil met alle respek teenoor die Parlement en van die lede van die uitvoerende gesag sê dit sal help as ons partykeer nie tot drie maande wag om antwoorde te kry op parlementêre vrae nie. As dit in die praktyk nie gebeur nie, sal die Parlement sy rol volledig kan speel om hierdie goed na die Parlement toe te bring en op die regte manier te kan hanteer. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Die VF Plus gun mnr en mev Mbeki ’n rustige aftrede. Hulle is geregtig daarop. Ek dink ons kan almal leer om hierdie situasie vorentoe beter te hanteer. Dankie. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, I can understand that this subject leads to heated debate. I understand it and it makes sense. But I think that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that some of the behaviour in the House today has not been to the credit of Parliament, and I think all of us realise that that is not correct.
The hon Minister devoted a large part of her speech to the government’s policy with regard to how previous heads of state are treated. I do not think that there is anyone in Parliament who has a problem with the specific implementation of that policy. The policy is fair and equitable, and no-one has a problem with it.
The problem in this situation arose as a result of a report which was sent into the world saying that a house is being built here for a large amount of money, and that the suggestion was that the state was involved with it. Perhaps we can learn from that.
With all due respect, I want to say to Parliament and the members of the executive that it would help if we did not, on occasion, have to wait for three months to receive answers to parliamentary questions. If this does not happen in practice, Parliament will be able to play its role fully to bring these things to Parliament and to handle them in the appropriate manner. [Interjections.]
The FF wishes Mr and Mrs Mbeki a peaceful retirement. They have a right to it. I think we can all learn to deal with this situation better in future. Thank you. [Time expired.]]
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson, on a point of order: As I said, there was no question. I have written to the Deputy Speaker and I’m sure she’s given you the answers from the Questions Office, so no question about this was ever asked.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Sorry, hon Minister, I won’t take that as a point of order. Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members, we in the UCDP have never condoned the invasion of privacy of residencies, whether official or private, regardless of who is the perpetrator or the victim. It is humiliating to the victim. We condemned it when the ANC did it to the residence of our leader Kgosi Mangope 12 years ago. [Interjections.] Even today, we condemn it as it is done to the residence of the First Lady. We know the pain the family is going through.
The UCDP wishes to state this categorically that being a black head of this government does not make one the thief of state funds. No amount of chattering, by way of justifying the puerile action, will to us, the UCDP, make it good. We appeal to the DA to accept the responsibility of being the majority minority party in this Parliament with responsibility, modesty and circumspection while toning down their zeal with temperance. We as UCDP, feel strongly about this lack of respect for the privacy of the family of the President. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N T GODI: On behalf of the PAC, I wish to join those who are sufficiently sane in condemning the conduct of the DA on this matter before the House. This whole tragic episode is the intention of besmirching the standing of the country’s President. We condemn this callous lack of respect for leaders of the liberation movement by remnants and defenders of the old order. [Applause.]
Did we see this kind of activism under apartheid? Not by any stretch of imagination. They were quite happy to go along with the lack of transparency and accountability. Transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of the democratic order. We fought for it and we brought it about. However, it must not be misused by any body, least of all, those to whom it had been alien before 1994. We condemn! We rebuke! We censure! [Applause.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, speculation and assumption are the greatest of all disasters. The issue of the hon President’s private property made by the hon Gibson, of the DA, is purely speculatory. Any case is proved with the production of proper and circumstantial evidence, and the DA needs to educate themselves with the Administrative Justice Act of 2000 and ask for information.
The time for throwing stones at each other is over. It is now time to pick those stones and build our democracy, and a house for our hon President and respect his rights, dignity and integrity. The MF wishes the hon President and his wife a pleasant stay in their retirement home.
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Chairperson, the matter before us stretches democracy to its limits and it is very disturbing. It is not clear what the DA seeks to achieve by sensationalising and for that matter bothering on character assassination by implying that the President and his family are corrupt simply because they are building a beautiful house.
Azapo’s understanding of hon Gibson’s action and, by implication, that of the DA, is that apartheid Presidents can build beautiful houses and then there is nothing wrong about it, and then when black Presidents build beautiful houses, they are corrupt.
Azapo believes that this is a racist attitude and there is no question of it not being a racist attitude. This attitude must be wiped off from our democracy and we must work tirelessly to reform some of the members of this Parliament. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, although I accept that as public representatives we have a very important oversight role in ensuring that government accounts for the manner in which public funds are spent, I am of the view that the Chief Whip of the DA, the hon Douglas Gibson, has overstepped the boundaries of his oversight role, when he, with a group of journalists in tow, without any invitation, visited President Mbeki’s future retirement house.
I believe that the security of the President and the First Lady has been compromised. The President and the First Lady have their right to privacy and one’s house is one’s private domain. It is unbecoming of us as MPs, and especially senior members of Parliament, to snoop around the private homes of political leaders in order to establish whether the state’s funding has been spent correctly.
It is no secret that the Department of Public Works is supplying the security systems for all retiring Presidents, in line with clear Cabinet approved policy. I believe the hon Gibson owes the President and the First Lady an apology. [Applause.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, I do believe - and I do rise on a point of order
- that since the hon Mr Gibson has been severely attacked this afternoon he should be given the right to reply. I request that he be given an extra two minutes to do so. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Ellis, as far as my limited knowledge goes that is not a procedure when a statement is made by a Minister, but I will enquire on your behalf and I will inform you. Thank you.
NOTICE OF MOTION
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, in the light of the debates, I shall be giving notice of the following motion:
That the House –
1) noting the reprehensible actions of the hon D H M Gibson, Chief
Whip of the DA, and other members of the DA, accompanied by members
of news media, who attempted to enter a private property belonging
to President Thabo Mbeki and the First Lady Mrs Zanele Mbeki on
Friday 1 September 2006 in Johannesburg ... [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, the time for notices of motion this afternoon has come and gone. I wonder why the hon Goniwe did not do it then. I believe that he is out of order in doing it now.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Ellis, he is not out of order and I have that on the good advice of the Table. Will you please proceed?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: You need a workshop on the Rules:
(2) Recognising that the Constitution of the Republic provides that the Republic of South Africa is one democratic state founded on the following values: human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms;
(3) everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their personal homes searched; (4) further recognises that the Constitution, national legislation and the rules of Parliament provide for a variety of mechanisms to ensure openness, transparency and accountability with regard to use of public funds;
(5) believing that the conduct of the hon member exceeded all bounds of political maturity and human decency, was undignified and unbecoming that of a member of this House;
(6) had the hon Gibson, an MP, intended to conduct bona fide parliamentary oversight, he would have made use of the many mechanisms that exist for this purpose. His failure to do so is indicative of the calculated attempt to make cheap political capital;
(7) Parliament and its members have the duty at all times to be at the forefront of upholding the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms, and of good governance, transparency and accountability. [Time Expired.]
Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson, on a point of order: In 1994 I was serving on the ethics committee … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Mr Chauke, why this stretch of imagination? That cannot possibly be a point of order that you were here in 1994.
Mr H P CHAUKE: It is not about hon Gibson this time. Could you allow me to speak, please?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Then make your point of order, please.
Mr H P CHAUKE: We agreed that all the parliamentary bottle stores should close. The one in Marks building could remain open.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Chauke, please take your seat. [Laughter.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Chairperson, during her input, the Minister of Public Works … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Explain to me on what point you are rising?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: It is a point about whether a question on this matter was given to the Minister that was raised by the Minister.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Chief Whip, the Minister raised the question with me. It will be answered in writing and there is no procedure that allows for a correction now.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: No, I am not correcting, but submitting here proof for you, Madam, to follow up.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): I have absolutely accepted what the Minister said to me already. You don’t have to prove it. Thank you very much. That will be referred to the Speaker. Thank you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Chairperson, Mr Ellis moved a point of order earlier to ask whether I would have the simple right to reply to a number of attacks on me and you said you will rule on that. I am afraid I haven’t heard your ruling.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Regrettably, hon Chief Whip, no such allowance is made here.
SCIENTIFIC INTERVENTIONS IN STEMMING THE TIDE OF HIV/AIDS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr S L DITHEBE (ANC): Deputy Chair, the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology held a meeting on 29 August 2006 with the Medical Research Council regarding scientific interventions in stemming the tide of HIV and Aids.
In this meeting we reflected on the management of HIV and Aids and the requisite scientific interventions needed in improving the quality of life of South Africans, especially the future use of vaginal microbicides, which will give women greater power in protecting themselves against the HI virus, thereby helping significantly in reducing its transmission.
We urge all South Africans to choose a lifestyle that protects them from this virus, and thus they must abstain, be faithful and condomise. We similarly urge practitioners of modern and traditional medicine to collaborate in finding treatments to all diseases - curable and incurable. We remain confident that these linkages and synergies are possible and that they can lead to sustainable livelihoods among all South Africans, thereby creating a healthier and more prosperous society. I thank you. [Applause.]
ANC ELITE BECOMING RICHER
(Member’s Statement)
Mr G R MORGAN (DA): Chair, the ANC must surely have noticed the growing public outrage at the fact that the ANC elite is becoming even richer, while shack settlements expand on the fringes of our cities.
The President himself has acknowledged that the ANC is in danger of becoming an ignoble, bloodsucking and corrupt parasite. And has there been a more disgusting sight this year than the pictures of that Fabiani-clad failed revolutionary, Tony Yengeni, being carried into prison as a hero by senior members of the ANC?
Listen to Thobeka Mesalane, who wrote in the Cape Times this morning: “From what I see, all the new democracy has achieved is to swop one uncaring self- enriching elite for another.” Any sign of ostentatious wealth among the ANC elite has become a matter of enormous public interest, fairly or unfairly. Perhaps that is why 40 journalists fell over themselves and each other to catch a glimpse of the President’s retirement home, which reportedly cost between R8 million and R22 million. Presumably, they thought their consumers would be interested.
PUBLIC SPENDING ON CRIME
(Member’s Statement)
Mr V B NDLOVU (IFP): Madam Deputy Chair, it is shocking to learn that a total of R90 billion is spent every year on protecting our citizens from crime. Of this amount, the government spends about half on the Police Service, the courts, the prisons and other security services.
However, private citizens spend an equal amount - about R45 billion - on private security to protect themselves against crime. If one adds the additional cost to citizens, such as insurance against loss resulting from crime, it is clear that the public is spending much more on crime than the government. This forces us to ask the question: Is this situation normal; is it normal for any society in the world for the public to outspend the government in dealing with crime?
We also have to question whether the government is serious about crime if it is outspent by the public, which appear to be very serious about crime if one takes into account the amount of money they put into security. The sad fact is that although we spend such a massive amount on security, crime levels are not really coming down fast enough, but appear to just fluctuate between different types of crime.
When vehicle theft figures come down, vehicle hijacking increases. When housebreaking crimes decrease, armed robbery in residential areas increases. We therefore have to ask whether the government is doing enough about crime and whether its efforts are having an effect on reducing the crime level. Thank you.
UN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY ASSEMBLY
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs J CHALMERS (ANC): Chair, last week South Africa successfully hosted the third Global Environment Facility - the GEF - Assembly, in Cape Town. Not only did we demonstrate our ability to host major international events, but this event also contributed an estimated R16,3 million to the national economy. The international donor community have shown their continued support: 32 countries have pledged to contribute US$3,13 billion, which will be dedicated to environmental projects over the next four years.
The GEF was established 15 years ago and its projects address six complex environmental issues: biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.
South Africa is putting GEF funds to use in projects such as the Maluti- Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area, which is receiving US$15 million, and the Greater Addo Elephant National Park Project, which is receiving US$5,8 million. The ANC endorses the call made by delegates from developing countries for more resources to be dedicated to the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements, and that these are managed and allocated in a more equitable manner. [Applause.]
TRAGEDIES IN EASTERN CAPE HOSPITALS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr J BICI (UDM): Madam Chair, the UDM brings to the attention of this House the horrific incident that unfolded at the beginning of August at the Madwaleni Hospital in the Eastern Cape. Olwethu Mabelane, a nine-month- pregnant teenager, was admitted on 2 August. Apparently a nurse placed a heater close to her bed and her blanket must have fallen down. The resultant flames engulfed the bed and the young woman and her unborn baby were burnt to death. Apparently the nursing staff didn’t even hear the screams of this lady.
We cannot help but compare this to the recent tragedy that unfolded at another Eastern Cape hospital, the Cecilia Makiwane Hospital, where four babies died. What is happening in our hospitals, especially in the Eastern Cape? When is the national government going to intervene? Exactly how many people must die before serious interventions are undertaken? It is unacceptable that in this day and age our expectant mothers and newborn babies should be exposed to danger and death in government facilities. Thank you.
YOUTH BRANCH OF FF PLUS AT TSHWANE UNIVERSITY
(Member’s Statement)
Mnr W D SPIES (VF PLUS): Mev die Voorsitter, verlede maand het die VF Plus daarin geslaag om 87% van die studenteraadsetels by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat te wen. Sedertdien het die party ook gepoog om ’n tak te stig op die kampus van die Tshwane-universiteit van Tegnologie. Die ANC-Sasco- beheerde studenteraad by die betrokke kampus weier egter om die VF Plus se tak te erken, en dit ten spyte van eindelose pogings vanaf ons jeuglede om die ewig verskuiwende doelpale te haal.
Waarom word hierdie pogings gedwarsboom? Wat het van die grondwetlike reg geword van alle Suid-Afrikaners om te organiseer en te assosieer? Dit sal jammer wees as gebeure soos hierdie ’n voorbeeld begin raak van ANC-optrede wanneer sy magsposisie bedreig word. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr W D SPIES (FF PLUS): Madam Speaker, last month the FF Plus succeeded in winning 87% of the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) seats at the University of the Free State. Since then the party has also attempted to open a branch at the campus of the Tshwane University of Technology. However, the ANC/Sasco-controlled SRC at the campus concerned refuses to recognize the FF Plus branch despite endless attempts by our youth members to comply with the constantly shifting goal posts.
Why are these attempts being stymied? What has become of the constitutional right of all South Africans to organise and to associate? It would be deplorable if events like these were to become an example of how the ANC reacts when its power is under threat. Thank you.]
CONSUMER EDUCATION IN TSHWANE
(Member’s Statement)
Mr D C MABENA (ANC): Chairperson, from 1 April 2006 to 30 June 2006 consumer education workshops were conducted at Mabopane Unit R, Olievenhoutbosch, Eesterus and Soshanguve Extension 2.
The consumer education programme was facilitated by the City of Tshwane Sales Administration and Housing Transfer Section. Beneficiaries were informed about the value of title deeds as part of the effort to protect the public from unscrupulous operators in the market. The workshop also dealt with the importance of the safekeeping of title deeds, and the implications of illegal occupations.
We commend the ANC-led government on its broad-ranging efforts to improve the quality of life of all our people. I thank you. [Applause.]
SERVICE DELIVERY BY MUNICIPALITIES
(Member’s Statement)
Mr N T GODI (PAC): Chair, the PAC recognises the critical role of local government in service delivery to the people. The PAC, however, wishes to raise its concern about the slow pace of capacitation or response to rescue measures. Too many of our municipalities are not running their affairs properly, to say the least. The Auditor-General is reported in today’s media as having slammed the lack of key attributes of good governance, that is accountability and transparency, in an unacceptably high number of municipalities.
The PAC would like to make a call on the Department of Provincial and Local Government as well as on Salga to intensify their programmes to capacitate municipalities, so that they can be equal to their enormous responsibilities. We also make a call on both elected councillors and council employees to be conscientious and patriotic in their work. Service delivery to the people is a political imperative that should not be compromised. Thank you.
PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT
(Member’s Statement)
Mr S E OPPERMAN (DA): Madam Chair, oversight by parliamentarians is not optional. Die bewerings wat in Noseweek gemaak is omtrent die President se aftreehuis was nie die enigste bewering wat in die uitgawe gemaak is nie. Oor ’n ander bewering in dieselfde uitgawe wat handel oor ongemagtigde grondverkope deur dieselfde departement sal ook vrae gestel word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The allegations made in Noseweek concerning the President’s retirement home were not the only allegations made in that issue. Questions will also be asked about an allegation in the same issue that deals with the unauthorised sale of land by the same department.]
During the Budget Vote debate on Public Works on 29 March 2006, I said:
The wake-up call by the Minister of Finance during the Appropriation Bill debate that Members of Parliament must take up their oversight role was, although long overdue, a challenge that cannot be ignored.
“We must not be afraid,” he said, “to ask the necessary questions”.
Reguit vrae waarop reguit antwoorde verwag word. [Straight questions to which straight answers are expected.]
There is another debate this afternoon in this House on Satyagraha: insistence on truth.
Dit is presies wat ons sal doen, nou en in die toekoms. [That is exactly what we’ll do, now and in the future.]
We will perform our oversight role now as we did in the past, and we will do in the future without fear or favour. Thank you. [Applause.]
SMUGGLING OF CIGARETTES IN SOUTH AFRICA
(Member’s Statement)
Ms A VAN WYK (ANC): Madam Chairperson, recently the SA Revenue Service, the SA Police Service and the National Intelligence Service mounted a joint operation aimed at crushing a cigarette smuggling syndicate in Tshwane. The suspects used two trucks to smuggle in R15 million worth of cigarettes from Botswana to South Africa. The consignment was off-loaded into a warehouse near Tshwane and, in the process, the authorities pounced and busted 10 alleged members of an international syndicate and charged them with smuggling. Most of the suspects were caught red-handed late on the Sunday evening.
This success came after months of monitoring and investigations, and finally, on 24 August information was received indicating when the consignment would be delivered in the country. The success of this operation demonstrates the ANC government’s commitment to eradicating organised crime. [Applause.]
WATER SUPPLY CUT OFF IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M W SIBUYANA (IFP): Madam Chair, hon members, water is a basic need and without it we cannot function effectively. I was shocked therefore to read that residents of the Chris Hani section of Soshanguve had the water supply to their communal taps cut off for three weeks. Apparently, this was done without warning or support from the local council. About 1 000 households were affected and people had to walk long distances to use the communal taps in other sections of the informal settlement.
We in the IFP think that it is totally unacceptable that these people were forced to suffer without water for such a long period of time. The council should have given the residents prior notice of their water supply being cut off and also should have made alternative arrangements for water to be supplied to the affected community. [Time expired.]
ENERGY POLICY FOCUSED ON PROVISION OF ENERGY SERVICES
(Member’s Statement) Ms N F MATHIBELA (ANC): Madam Chairperson, the ANC-led government’s energy policy concentrates on the provision of energy services to meet the basic needs associated with community services, such as schools and clinics.
Eskom plans to build a new power station in Lephalale in Limpopo’s Waterberg District, which contains 50% of South Africa’s coal deposits. This investment is set to change the economic face of the district. The electricity utility is set to invest an amount of R26 million. Eskom, in its projection, expects that electricity demand will surge as a result of the government’s Asgisa – the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa - target of above 6% economic growth between 2010 and 2014.
This and other initiatives demonstrate the commitment of the ANC to putting the final nail in the coffin of the practice of using the countryside as a dumping ground, where rural people are subjected to poverty and abuse and denied their citizenship and dignity. I thank you.
PROGRAMMING OF DEBATE ON ZIMBABWE
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M J ELLIS (DA): Madam Chair, this Parliament sent an observation team to monitor the last general election in our neighbouring Zimbabwe. The team, upon their return, drew up a report on their findings, which was supposed to have been debated in the National Assembly.
But two years later there is still no sign of this debate, a debate which, quite frankly, is a matter of regional and national importance. One can only guess why that debate did not take place, but then, again, it is not too difficult, I am sure, to find the answer.
However, it took this Parliament less than four days to clear space in the programme for a debate on the DA’s visit to the President’s retirement home in Johannesburg. Let me make it clear: the DA visited the house because the taxpayer has a right to know how and how much of its money is being spent for state purposes. So the question has to be asked: How is it that we can find time to slam the DA, but no time to debate issues which really affect South Africa? Thank you.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
(Member’s Statement)
Ms B T NGCOBO (ANC): Chairperson, the ANC is committed to addressing the historical distortions in our human resources in science and technology to support innovations in the context of economic growth. Over the past weekend the Presidential International Advisory Council on Information Society and Development met in Mpumalanga. Amongst other things, the council noted that the country was still short of ICT skills and that we needed a development programme that took into account local and global imperatives. It further recognised that there were still many untapped opportunities in rural and densely populated urban areas.
The council recommended to government, service providers and operators that there was a need to look at innovative and cost-effective approaches to expand connectivity in rural areas. The ANC urges all role-players in this field of ICT to join forces with the government in implementing ICT development programmes. I thank you. [Applause.]
AID FOR FLOOD VICTIMS IN PORT ELIZABETH
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M JOHNSON (ANC): Chair, the ANC welcomes the joint announcement by the Housing Minister, Lindiwe Sisulu; the Eastern Cape MEC for Housing, Local Government and Traditional Affairs, Sam Kwelita; and the Mayor of Nelson Mandela Bay, Nondumiso Maphazi; that funds had been stretched far to provide relief to communities affected by the recent floods. An amount of R74 million has been set aside to fast-track the accommodation of families affected by the flooding, who are living under stressful conditions. The funds will be used for the relocation of flood victims and the provision of new infrastructure.
An audit of the storm-damaged and defective houses has been completed, and business plans have been submitted to the provincial housing department for consideration and subsequent approval. This announcement comes as a big relief to the affected communities in the Veeplaas and Soweto-on-Sea areas who suffered major setbacks as a result of extensive damage to their properties. Thank you, Chair.
OVERSIGHT ROLE OF MEMBERS
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PRESIDENT’S RESIDENCE
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Deputy Chair, I would like to respond to three of the statements by members of the DA, starting with the one by the hon Opperman. Let me re-state the responsibility of Parliament to its oversight responsibilities. But that oversight responsibility, I believe, fundamentally carries with it the responsibility for members or their committees to be informed of circumstances. And as with everything, more than one source of information is vital to be informed in the process.
The unfortunate rag you quote as your source has no intention of informing the populist or people who are silly enough to buy it. It wants to stir trouble. If that is your only source of information, you are misleading yourself and consequently run the risk of misleading Parliament. That is not an oversight responsibility. That is being the puppet in the hands of somebody pulling the strings.
So, I want to encourage you and every member of this House to take seriously your oversight responsibility, not merely to mouth off what others have written without any intention to tell the truth. But you have paid for the untruths. You’ve paid for the untruths. Now, use your intelligence to filter between that and what needs to happen in the course of oversight. Don’t do yourself or your party or those who elected you a disservice. That is the fundamental problem with what has transpired here.
This goes also to the hon Morgan. Of course, he doesn’t want this House to discuss the issues because part of the problem here is that the DA have just taken “’n groot klap” from every party in this House who are saying to them you’ve acted wrongly, you’ve been singly out of order and the hon Gibson should be censured for his poor conduct.
That is the issue before us. The DA thought that they would generate support, but there is no support for that because there is respect for the President and government and a general view in this country that you’ve acted out of order. So, no matter how many times you conjure up that source of information, every time you do it, you will do truth and honesty a disservice.
On the other point, if he were interested – I’m not sure if he were interested - I can provide hon Morgan with a series of references that deal with societies and transition where inequality happens. In a country like South Africa, where black aspirations were suppressed in the way that they were, where black people were prevented from owning businesses in an early democracy, those effects of suppression would be marked by inequality. But unequal societies are all over the world and probably one of the most unequal societies presently is a country like China. But you need to be informed about this, and not use it merely to try cheap politic because you saw what happened to the hon Gibson this afternoon.
Turning to the hon Ellis: unfortunately, he got into the ring, jaw first and with hands behind the back – no defence, no cover. He thought that somebody would suddenly feel sorry for him because everybody was pummelling him, because he’s behaved like a complete oath and a buffoon. That’s the issue at hand. There is no R22 million. What that despicable rag did was a lie. It did disservice to you and by merely following it unquestioningly you’ve done all of your supporters a disservice. Thank you very much.
SPENDING ON SECURITY BY GOVERNMENT TO FIGHT CRIME
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Madam Chair, let me just say that you can flog a dead horse and flog it again and again, that dead horse will remain dead. I just hope that the DA understands that.
I want to respond to the hon member from the IFP on the issue of crime. We are all agreed that all of us have to do something about dealing with the issue of crime. So, my only appeal to the hon member is that it won’t help to party politic over this issue. What is clear is that the executive, the legislatures, local municipalities, civil society structures, business, religious organisations and all of us have an equal responsibility to work and act in partnership so that we can deal with the issues of crime, and deal with them in a way in which all of our people, wherever they are living, feel safe. So, I invite the hon member to come and join all of us so that we act together to deal with the issue of crime. Thank very much.
FIREARMS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading Debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you, Madam Chair and hon members. One of the debates that has been polarised in South Africa is the matter of gun ownership and the prerequisites to control such possessions, hence today we are dealing with the second amendment of the Firearms Control Bill.
Whatever the arguments are, there are certain truths that should be obvious to anyone, irrespective of the side they occupy in the debate. The first is that many of our people die from gunshots and figures of such deaths stand in the thousands every year. In fact, firearms account for more than 50% of murders in South Africa. It is also a fact that some of the firearms that are used in the murders and other violent crimes were once upon a time legally owned, but that they slipped from the hands of the legal owners into those of criminals, either because the owners were robbed or they lost their firearms.
Every year, an average of 20 000 legal guns fall into wrong hands and become illegal in South Africa, when the owners lose them. Of course, one is not suggesting that it is only those guns that constitute the pool of illegal weapons in circulation in South Africa. There are other sources that feed into the illegal pool, including guns that are smuggled into the country from other territories.
The link between the easy accessibility of firearms and the gun violence and death has been proved by many studies that have been conducted on the matter.
Our country is among a number of other international countries that are defining regulations to impose strict gun control laws as a means to curb gun violence. In fact, firearms regulations are becoming the order of the day rather than exceptions in many corners of the world, including on the African continent.
There are stricter gun laws across the globe than is the case in South Africa. I suppose that this has to do with the fact that ours is a new democracy and for many decades in the past we were at war with ourselves and firearms had a place in that war. But, the matter of firearms is very complicated and even older democracies keep on reviewing the laws for better gun control.
Self-contained air cartridge guns were banned as recently as the beginning of 2004 in the United Kingdom because such weapons can be easily converted to shoot live ammunition. Anyone needing to possess such guns needs a licence to do so. Handguns and revolvers are classified as restricted weapons in countries like Canada.
The Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation drafted a firearms protocol for SADC that was adopted in 2001 by the SADC heads of state in August last year. That protocol on firearms raised the following, among others: strengthening the nations’ gun control measures, registering firearms in proper books of accounts, collection and destruction of surplus or confiscated firearms and stricter law enforcement. The South African Police Service’s police chiefs are members of Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation Organisation and were part of the deliberations that produced the draft protocol on firearms.
It is instructive, of course, to understand the feeling of the Sapcco conference on the matter of gun ownership as enunciated in the Nadi Legal Framework for Common Approach to Weapons Control; which was signed in Nadi, Fiji, on 10 March 2000. The following was recorded: “The possession and use of firearms, ammunition and related material is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and improving public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, ammunition and other related materials and prohibited materials.”
We are also influenced in our approach to gun ownership by the overriding need to ensure public safety. Irresponsible gun ownership does not guarantee safety at home or in public, hence the desire for responsible gun ownership. It goes without saying that illegal guns are a primary target and any programme to ensure public safety, hence the many raids the police have conducted in the past looking for, and confiscating such illegal weapons.
The Firearms Control Amendment Bill of 2006, which we are tabling today, is the response to the experience many police officials, gun owners and other stakeholders in the firearms industry have amassed in the context of the implementation of the Firearms Control Act of 2000.
We initiated consultation with the stakeholders and exercised leniency in many respects when it was necessary to enforce certain aspects of the law.
That consultation will continue to be a feature of our gun control exercise and suggestions that are cogent and relevant, will always be accommodated in the work that we are doing, including any necessary amendments to the laws in future.
On behalf of the Minister, the Ministry and the South African Police Service, we would like to register appreciation to all those who participated in the public hearings that were held in respect of these Bills. We appreciate the role played by Parliament in this, particularly the role played by other relevant parliamentary committees.
Our teams from the South African Police Service and the Ministry that were involved in the drafting of the Bill, together with personnel from Justice and Constitutional Development, played a pivotal role in bringing the Bill to Parliament. We want to say to everybody: well done! We hope this will be accepted by everybody. Thank you.
Ms M M SOTYU: Chairperson, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa states that the NA must provide for mechanisms to maintain oversight of the exercise of national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation and any organ of state. The firearm control legislation intends to vigorously address the proliferation of illegal firearms, as well as to control legally owned firearms in South Africa.
Chairperson, let me take this opportunity and pay tribute to those police officers who were brutally murdered through the barrel of a gun while protecting you, myself, your property, as well as the state. Legal firearms can be very dangerous in the hands of an incompetent individual. It is of utmost importance to note that although the South African Police Services already achieved various successes in the implementation of the Firearms Control Act in the short term, the aim of the successful implementation of the legislation, including the control of legally owned firearms, is focused on the long term.
Sihlalo, sithe siyikomiti xa besisenza ukhenketho kumaphondo onke saphawula ukuba ubunzima busekhona kwamanye amaphondo malunga nendlela ekuhanjiswa ngayo lo Mthetho. [Chairperson, when the committee visited all the provinces, we noticed that there were still problems that other provinces were encountering with regard to the implementation of legislation.]
This was identified, among other things, by the slow processing of applications for licenses, competency certificates, etc. We commend the Ministry and the Minister for initiating these amendments to the Act. These amendments came as a result of consultation between the Minister and the stakeholders, as the Deputy Minister has highlighted. This is an indication, contrary to sensational views, that the ANC wants workable and implementable legislation resulting in responsible firearm owners.
Sithanda ukubulela yonke imibutho nabantu abathe xa besiva ikhwelo basabela ngendlela engumangaliso. Nto leyo ebonisa ukuba uluntu ngokubanzi lulukhathalele ukhuselo lommi ngamnye welizwe lethu loMzantsi Afrika. Sikwa mema wonke ubani ukuba eze kule komiti size kuva olwakhe uluvo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[We would like to thank all the parties and people who demonstrated tremendous interest in this legislation. This illustrates that everyone in this country cares about the security of every citizen of South Africa. We invite everybody to come and attend the committee meetings in order to air their views on this matter.]
Chairperson, the committee received more than 160 submissions from individuals, churches, organisations and institutions. As a result we invited oral representation by groups that in general represent the different views. I notice that some of them are here, and Gun Free South Africa is among those that did very well in the public hearings. Enough time was given to committee members to deliberate on the submissions, both written and oral.
Kuzo zonke ezo ntsuku zine siye saphulaphula ngomdla okhulu xa le mibutho izama ukusibonisa indlela emasiwuphicothe ngayo lo mba. Kunjalo nje siyabathembisa ukuba zonke ezo zinto siya kuzithabathela ingqalelo. Sisabacenga abo bantu basahleli nemipu engekho mthethweni Tat’uNdlovu, kunye nabo abanesemthethweni kodwa bengayisebenzisi ukuba bayibuyisele emapoliseni ukuze itshatyalaliswe. Abantu abaninzi ababulawa ngokudutyulwa babulawa ngemipu esemthethweni, akakho urhulumente ophilileyo onokuthi ebona ukuba abemi belizwe abakwazi ukuphatha imipu ngendlela eyiyo asonge izandla, ibe ngathi akukho nto yenzekayo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[In all those four days we listened with interest when the parties were giving advice on how to deal with this issue. We promise that whatever was raised will be considerred accordingly. We still plead with those people who possess illegal guns, hon Ndlovu, including those who own them legally but are not using them, to return the guns to the police in order for them to be destroyed. Legal guns are used to murder many people who die of gunshots. There is no government in any good state that can fold its arms while its citizens do not handle guns responsibly –as if everything is well, when in fact it is not.]
The ANC is of the opinion that the final amendment Bill is balanced in its approach. It is in no way weakening the original objective of the Act. If implemented properly it will streamline the implementation of the Act considerably. And it also goes a long way to disperse of the notion that the ANC government wants to disarm legal firearm owners. Through interaction with the department, the role of the safety and security Seta was revisited with regards to the issuing of competency certificates. This Seta will no longer issue the actual certificate, but will merely accredit training institutions, which will issue the certificates themselves. This will shorten the process by as much as six months.
Kule mibutho ingafuni kuxhasa eli nyathelo sithi, khake nicinge kwakhona bantu bakuthi, sithetha ngemipu apha, asithethi ngezikhwebu zombona. Kunjalo nje njengokuba senditshilo asizami kuxutha imipu ebantwini abanayo ngokusemthethweni nabayisebenzisa ngengqiqo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[We say to those parties that do not support this measure, please think again. We are talking about guns here and not mieliecobs. Furthermore, we are not trying to confiscate legally owned guns that are used with conscience.]
Chairperson, in conclusion I would like to thank the department’s legal team led by Dr Philip Jacobs, the Ministry led by Divisional Commissioner Makhubela, and the members of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security. Thank you for the amazing commitment and the support that you gave me. I want to thank you Mr Ndlovu and Mr Mfundisi. I appreciate it. [Applause.]
Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Chairperson, among all countries not currently in a state of war, South Africa records the second highest number of gun deaths per year. The ANC’s response to this situation was to replace the Arms and Ammunition Act with the Firearms Control Act of 2000. Such was the uproar caused that it was only implemented in 2004 with the stated objectives of regulating the possession, use and trade in firearms. The truth is that it was finessed through Parliament in a manner not seen since National Party days with little or no regard to the Constitution in relation to discrimination or property rights or indeed the right or ability of the police to administer the gun laws, to conduct warrantless searches or to arbitrarily declare an existing license to be invalid.
The Act, which introduced strict screening and licensing procedures for all current and potential gun owners, drew widespread criticism from many sectors of society who, quite rightly, saw it as a draconian piece of legislation aimed at disarming legal gun owners. It achieved little but ran up multimillion rand bills, as with similar experiments conducted unsuccessfully in Canada. It failed to reduce gun deaths, proved to be unworkable, overly complex, and has to date put legal gun owners on the verge of being declared criminals.
On the other hand, as far as the criminals are concerned, not one of them stood in the endless queues to obtain one of the endless certificates needed before applying for the license. They continue to shoot their way to wealth. Police were pulled off the beat to tackle the enormous paperwork backlog. The criminals with their guns were no longer the focus, but indeed legal gun owners, dealers, collectors and hunters became their prime target. So shoddy and unworkable was the legislation that the Safety and Security Portfolio Committee had a go at amending it, but with the best will in the world, it still cannot be implemented.
There are several reasons why the Firearm Control Act, in its original form, met then with such heavy criticism, and why the proposed amendments still do. Firstly, the Act targeted legal firearm owners but did not address the millions of illegal firearms that remain in the hands of the criminals. The weapons most commonly used in robberies and cash heists are AK 47s, R4 and R5 assault rifles - none of which ordinary members of the public own. It smacks of the absurd. If one can’t catch the criminals, then turn the law-abiding citizens into criminals, catch them and boost your conviction rate just in time for the annual crime statistics release fest.
The Act did what many believe it is set out to do, and that is to disarm law-abiding citizens. Many were terrified by a threatening radio advertisement campaign and rushed to give police family heirlooms for which they received zero compensation. Coupled with a disbandment of the commando system, our rural citizenry have consequently never been as vulnerable to attack by criminals. Dozens of brutal farm killings and assaults all over the past two months, many on elderly rural dwellers, illustrate this dire problem.
The cost of training and licensing make keeping a gun unaffordable for many people, especially pensioners who are the ones most vulnerable to attack. Secondly, the Act, in its previous incarnation and certainly in this one, had and will continue to have a negative impact on important business activities, which contribute significantly to South Africa’s economy.
It is unbelievable that the Minister did not bother to carry out an assessment of the possible economic impact of the Act before implementing it. Hundreds of firearm dealers and gunsmiths went bankrupt, and the film industry, professional hunting and the private security industries suffered with business closures and job losses experienced across the board. In the tourism and trophy hunting industry this country is now losing out to Botswana and Zambia, as hunters are finding the endless bureaucracy just too irritating to have to deal with.
Finally, the Act gave the SAPS a huge administrative burden, which diverted them from the real work of crime prevention. An average of 625 000 individuals were expected to renew 900 000 firearm licenses every year between 2005 and 2008. By the end of last year it was clear that not even a fraction of the targeted renewals had been met, largely because the Minister launched the Act before anyone was ready to deal with its convoluted provisions.
Today such is the administrative burden that thousands of applications are rejected with the flimsiest of excuses. Our Olympic shotists were refused licenses; women are refused licences and told that their husbands must protect them; nonhunters refused because they do not hunt, nonbusiness owners refused because they do not give details of their businesses. Indeed, the excuses given for refusing to renew or grant licences belong in a Monty Python skit.
The portfolio committee has attempted to speed up the process -although there are no explanations given as to why so many thousands of people are being rejected for licences. Yes, we had one member ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and informing us that all silencers were used in assassinations and must be banned, but on the whole, a huge effort was made to stay away from James Bond plots and attempt to unravel, and then re-knit basically unworkable legislation. One Police Commissioner actually came before the portfolio committee and stated that it took six to eight weeks for a gun licence to be processed. That is utter rot, because there is a gaping credibility between that claim and the presentations that stated that it takes over a year - if it is approved at all.
The Black Gun Owners Association says it is preparing to take the Minister to court, because its members are being refused licences en masse. They suggest, quite correctly I think, that this country is merely bowing to UN pressure to totally disarm civilians with zero acknowledgement of this country’s rampant crime, coupled with an ineffective police force. Now valid gun licences will cease to be so on 30 June 2009.
Meanwhile the criminals continue to terrorise us at every turn, our police force is hamstrung by ineffective management and once again law-abiding citizens are having draconian legislation foist upon them in order to control yet another facet of their law-abiding lives. No, the DA will certainly not support this legislation. [Applause.]
Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Chairperson, the amending Bill before the House today will, in all probability, be the first of numerous amending Bills to the principal Firearms Control Act of 2000, in order to correct oversight mistakes and general problems picked up during the first period of operation of the Act. The track record of implementing this Act must be one of the most controversial on record. Herein lie two important lessons for this honourable House. The first one is that you don’t create legislation that cannot be implemented practically, considering the resources and the capacity of the state. The second one is that you have to be aware of passing legislation before a thorough investigation into its consequences and implementability has been conducted.
The IFP welcomes the fact that silencers will henceforth be considered as a “firearm part” and as such may be declared unlawful. A silencer is an assassin’s tool, and free access to and use of such devices will be outlawed to the fullest extent allowed by the law.
The IFP welcomes the fact that the Bill provides for shorter time periods applicable to the processing of licenses and renewals. The fact that a window of a maximum of 30 days is now built into the process for representation to the Registrar will, in our opinion, lead to a quicker process and will help to clear the logjam and backlog.
Most of all, the IFP welcomes the new provision that the applications for competency certificates and licences to possess firearms will be suspended when the applicant is the subject of a temporary protection order in terms of the Domestic Violence Act of 1998. It is a fact that women and children bear the brunt of domestic violence in South Africa, and the inclusion of this provision will add to measures to protect them from domestic violence. It is also an example of how legislation must be co-ordinated and integrated in closely related facets of society, as has been done with firearms and domestic violence. We applaud the forward-looking and the anticipatory nature of this new Bill.
Sicabanga ukuthi kufuneka kuqashelwe ukuthi izithulisamsimdo akufuneki zinikezwe noma ubani. Siyakuncoma futhi ukuthi uMthethosivivinywa lo ophambi kwethu uthi izithulisamsindo yizona okufanele zihambisane nezibhamu. Ngamanye amazwi umuntu ongenaso isibhamu esincane esifaka isithulisamsindo akazukunikezwa isithulisamsindo leso uma esithenga.
Umuntu kufuneka aveze isithulisamsindo abuye aveze iphepha elimgunyaza ukuba nesibhamu ukuze akwazi ukucosha isithulisamsindo esifanele. Phela siyakugcizelela thina beNkatha Yenkululeko ukuthi isithulisamsindo siyingozi kakhulu ngoba uma sike sawela ezandleni zomuntu odakwa ngehora le- 10 ekuseni, kungaba yingozi uma sekushaya ihora lesithupha ntambama ngoba angabulala abantu abaningi ngesithulisamsindo.
Isithulisamsindo siyingozi ikakhulukazi emindenini ngoba abantu abaningi bavikelwa ukuthi uma omakhelwane beke bezwa isibhamu sikhala baye baphume bayolekelela lapho bezwe kukhala khona isibhamu. Kodwa uma ngabe kukhona isithulisamsindo kuzoba yingozi ngoba ngeke kuzwakale lutho, kobonakala umndeni nje usuphele wonke kulowo muzi kanti kwenziwa ukuthi kukhona isithulisamsindo. Ngakho kuyoba ngcono uma isithulisamsindo sihambelana nokuthi kunesibhamu esifanele esisemthethweni, ukuze kuvinjwe ukuthi kungabi khona abantu abanezithulisamsindo ngokungafanele.
Ngiphakamisa ukuncoma usihlalo ngoba ngicabanga ukuthi uwanikile amalungu ekomiti lonke ukuthi akhulume aze aphelelwe amathe, ekhuluma ngalo Mthethosivivinywa. Umuntu ukhuluma aze aphelelwe amathe, aze aswele nokuthi yini okunye angakusho ngoba isikhathi sisuke sikhona.
Ngicabanga ukuthi konke bakwenze njengoba kufanele. Futhi ngicabanga ukuthi uma lo Mthethosivivinywa ususemthethweni uyosebenza ngokuthi ukwazi ukusiza abantu, kuthi nalabo abahluphekayo abaye babone sengathi bathathelwa izibhamu masinyane bakwazi ukuthi basheshe bathole amaphepha abagunyazayo ukuze bakwazi ukuphila.
Sibonga kakhulu-ke kusihlalo. Naye ungibongile, nami sengithi-ke angimbonge ukuze ngikwazi ukuphindela esihlalweni sami sokuba ilungu laleli komiti, ngokubonga usihlalo. Ngiyathokoza. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[We believe that it is necessary that great care is taken in the issuing of silencers because they are not supposed to be given to anyone. We also welcome that the Bill tabled before us, states that a silencer should be licensed together with a firearm. In other words a person who does not possess a firearm cannot be sold a silencer.
A person should present a silencer as well as his gun licence to be able to choose an appropriate silencer. We, the Inkatha Freedom Party emphasize that a silencer is a dangerous thing and it should not fall into the wrong hands. And you can imagine what would happen if such a thing is at the reach of someone who gets drunk as early as 10h00 in the morning. And surely that person would have already passed out by 18h00 and might even massacre the people with a silencer.
A silencer is dangerous, especially within families because most people are saved by neighbours who, on hearing gun shots, would normally come out and head towards where shots had been fired in order to assist. Whereas with a silencer, it is difficult as shots cannot be heard. With a silencer the only wake-up call is when the whole family has been massacred. Therefore, it would be better if a silencer is issued on the availability of a lawful firearm so as to stop the unlawful possession of silencers.
I commend the chairperson of the committee because I think enough platform was given to all the members of the committee to deliberate fully on this Bill. Each member was given a fair chance and some members would even run out of words because there was abundant time.
I think they have done everything as expected. I also think that should this Bill be passed and be made a law, it will help the people a great deal, and those who feel intimidated when guns get confiscated can quickly get licences then they can be able to live.
We are very grateful to the chairperson of the portfolio committee. He thanked me first and that is why I now return the favour and I hope my thanking of the chairperson secures my position as a member of this committee. Thank you.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, the fact that the ACDP voted against the Firearms Control Act of 2000 does not necessitate the rejection of the amendments we are debating today. Our support for these amendments should not in any way be seen as a contradiction of our firm belief that citizens have a God-given right to defend themselves against criminals in whatever way they choose, including by using a licensed firearm.
Having said that, we don’t believe that citizens need silencers to defend themselves. A serious problem we had, and which was raised in the committee, was what amounted to giving firearm-licensed owners an automatic right to be in possession of a silencer. Now that our concern has been addressed by limiting the acquisition and use of silencers to mainly that of hunting, and that silencers may only be sold by a dealer who would report the sale and purchase of a silencer to the Registrar on a monthly basis, the ACDP will support this amending Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M S MOATSHE: Deputy Chairperson, Deputy Minister and Members of Parliament, the Bill amends the Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000. The Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security received approximately 160 written submissions from the public on the amendment of the Bill.
The committee approved the amendment of the definition of muzzle-loaders to correctly reflect the characteristics of these firearms, and the continued exclusion of cap and ball revolvers from this definition. This will entail that owners of cap and ball revolvers must now obtain a competency certificate and a licence for these firearms. Owners of muzzle-loaders will only need to apply for a competency certificate and not a licence for these firearms.
A separate competency certificate is required for muzzle-loaders. In other words, because a muzzle-loading firearm works differently from a normal firearm, a firearm owner cannot use a general firearm competency certificate for this purpose, and he or she will need to be tested for competency in using a muzzle-loader.
It was decided not to partially deregulate cap and ball revolvers, mainly because in contrast to muzzle-loaders which can only fire one shot at a time, cap and ball revolvers can fire six shots in succession, which makes them extremely dangerous weapons in the wrong hands.
A number of amendments were made to the Act that disposed of the notion that the aim was to discuss legal firearm owners. Some of the specific amendments were adopted exactly to accommodate the needs of collectors, professional hunters and businesses that deal with firearms. Amongst these is a new category of competency certificates for private collectors of firearms. This makes provision in the Act for a special category of competency certificate for private collectors.
In addition, the committee, in the light of various public submissions, decided to amend the provision, which required the SA Heritage Resources Agency to certify all firearms in private collections. Instead, this agency will now only be required to approve heritage firearms, and all other firearms in collections can be approved by accredited collectors associations who will make this approval based on a number of criteria, such as historical technology, and cultural or artistic value.
The committee also inserted a definition of calibre applicable only to collectors, which will enable them to collect cartridges of a variety of types and makes. An amendment was effected that will extend the validity of the following licences: Business as a game rancher in hunting, and business other than game ranching and hunting, e.g. private security companies, dealers, manufacturers and gunsmiths.
In the case of restricted and prohibited firearms in the possession of collectors, provision is made for these weapons to be made inoperative with the least damage possible to the value of the firearm. The restriction on the number of shots that a semiautomatic shotgun may fire in succession in respect of a dedicated hunter and sportsperson was removed. The need for professional hunters to be accommodated was also taken on board and a special category of licences was introduced.
In the principal Act, silencers were not regulated at all. But now, making it part of the definition of silencer defined it as a firearm part. There is a variety of functional uses for silencers such as hunting, culling and training, and by defining it as a firearm part, it means that people can continue to use silencers for these legitimate purposes, but no one can possess a silencer on its own without a licensed firearm. Furthermore, dealers will have to report on a monthly basis on the silencers that they have sold to the Firearms Control Register.
Moreover, there is the insertion of a definition for “dispossession”, as requested by a number of organisations during public hearings to clarify the term “dispossession”. The term means to lose the firearm by means other than theft, such as selling it or giving it away to another person. Other issues debated by the committee included audit versus relicensing. It was proposed by some submissions that, instead of a relicensing process for existing firearms, an audit should be conducted, which included the provision of competency testing. All firearms licensed under the repealed Act should be retained. Notwithstanding problems in implementation, the committee will not approve an audit rather than a relicensing process for existing firearm owners. It would in a way reduce the administrative burden, while weakening the principal Act.
Regarding domestic violence, many submissions argued that applications for a competency certificate must be suspended when the applicant is the subject of a temporary protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, Act 116 of 1998.
The department has agreed that this is important, and even though provision is made for this in the Domestic Violence Act, the firearms regulations will be amended to ensure that the station commissioner must refer any protection order or warrant of arrest related to domestic violence to the designated firearms officer to check whether it relates to any pending licence competency certificate permit.
People who failed in the past, and are still failing now because of being immune to failure, said no to democracy and failed to stop democracy. They said no to nonsexism and failed to stop affirmative action. They also said no to a nonracial society and failed to stop a united nonracial society.
They will now say no to the Firearms Control Amendment Act, and will again fail to stop what the President has said in the state of the nation address, when he said strategies should be developed to reduce the number of illegal firearms and improve the process of applications for firearm licences. The ANC supports the Firearms Control Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Mev die Voorsitter, ek wil begin om te sê dat as die agb Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit dieselfde passie en fokus aan die dag lê soos met wettige vuurwapeneienaars en dit toepas op die misdadigers, dan gaan misdaad verseker afneem in hierdie land. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Deel van die konsepwysigingsvoorstelle was dat wettige vuurwapeneienaars hulle vuurwapenlisensies kon behou. Dit is jammer dat dit nie deurgevoer is in die komitee nie, en ek sal by die agb Adjunkminister wil weet hoekom die Kabinet besluit het om nie dié wysigings te aanvaar nie, want ek is van mening dat as ons hierdie wysiging sou behou het dat wettige vuurwapeneienaars hulle lisensie behou, ons verder in die toekoms baie pyne sou kan uithaal ten opsigte van belastingbetalersgeld wat betaal sal moet word as mense hulle vuurwapens gaan verloor as gevolg van die nuwe wetgewing oor vuurwapens. Die huidige lisensies is geldig tot 30 Junie 2009 en daar is nog tyd om aan hierdie saak aandag te gee, en ons hoop ons sal. Dankie, Voorsitter. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Madam Chairperson, I want to start by saying that if the Minister of Safety and Security demonstrates the same passion and focus as now with legal firearm owners and applies it to the criminals, then crime will most certainly decrease in this country. [Interjections.]
A part of these draft amendment resolutions was that legal firearm owners would retain their firearm licences. It is a pity that the committee did not go through with it, and I would like to know from the hon Deputy Minister why the Cabinet has decided not to accept these amendments, because I am of the opinion that if we were to keep this amendment then legal firearm owners would retain their licences, and we would have eliminated many future problems pertaining to taxpayers’ money that would have to be paid if people are going to lose their firearms as a result of the new firearm legislation. The existing licences are valid until 30 June 2009 and there is still time to pay attention to this matter, and we hope that we will. Thank you, Chairperson.]
Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson, in view of the horrific crime rate in South Africa and the hundreds of lives lost through gun violence, the MF strongly voices its support of a gun-free South Africa. However, reality is set in that gun usage extends far beyond committing crime.
The Bill serves to address a number of concerns that hopefully will serve to address and control gun usage, registration and responsibility. The MF also supports the qualification of gun usage at the age of 25, in light of maturity and control.
The clear definition that the Bill serves to address is important to ensure that there are no loopholes for the abuse of gun usage. The MF calls on the public at large to educate themselves on the usage of guns and to realise the danger and the death in its use. We hope that this will end, that this Bill shall not fall victim to corruption and that instead, its serious application will assist in the plight against crime. The MF supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S SIMMONS: Madam Chairperson, judging from the crimes statistics it is clear that the firearms control legislation has not achieved its goal of eradicating firearms related crimes. This is because of the fact that the rational behind the firearms control legislation is based on distorted premises.
This government has the habit of formulating polices on populist notions, and little regard for sound empirical investigation. Government has developed the ability, as this legislation illustrates, to set up investigations into such matters and then produce it as empirical after the process of factual manipulation has been completed.
The recent Constitutional court judgement underlines this counter productive modus operandi of government. Because of its refusal to give genuine and serious consideration to the merits of submissions from the other stakeholder, we will constantly produce legislation from this House that is the product of a one party enforcement. I thank you, Madam Chair. [Time expired.]
Ms A VAN WYK: Chairperson, firstly, I need to deal with statements that were made by the hon Kohler-Barnard when she came to the podium. I think in a way we need to be sympathetic as well, she is a new member on the committee and she might not be up to date with what exactly happened. The fact of the matter is that for years the implementation of the principal Act was delayed. The reason why it was delayed was to give time for the police to get the systems in place in order to deal with this. [Interjections.] That is a fact and you know it!
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: They are still not in place.
Ms A VAN WYK: I also suggest that she look at the budget of the past few years to see how much money was allocated in the budget for the implementation of the Firearms Control Act. She stands here and tells us that the economy has suffered because of this Act. Professional hunters during the deliberation told us how much money they are generating for the economy and not once complained that they are losing money.
It is also interesting to note that members of the SA Gunowners’ Association indicated to us that they believe that, prior to the Act, South Africa had far too many firearm dealers in comparison to the number of owners of firearms in this country and the population.
I would also like to know whether the hon member ever tried to calculate what the cost to the country is when treating firearm wounds.
Hon Deputy Minister and members of the House, there are few pieces of legislation that have gone through this House, that raised such varied emotions when they were passed, as the Firearms Control Act. So, as it can be expected, this situation will repeat itself yet again with the deliberation of the amendment Bill. For many it is part of their culture and heritage and they would like to see it protected. To others it is a livelihood, either as dealers or professional hunters. On the other side of the spectrum we find doctors who deal on a daily basis with children who became the innocent victims of gun wounds, women who live in violent communities and who have lost loved ones through the use of firearms, and those who would simply like to see all firearms removed from society. In all of these, we needed to balance the right of every citizen to self- protection. The protection of culture and heritage and the livelihood of a few with the bigger strategy of reducing the number of firearms available in our society and ensuring that those within our community, who are in possession of firearms are responsible citizens, fit and proper to own and use a firearm.
Fighting crime, and specifically violent crime, is a priority to the ANC. It is for that reason that no single piece of legislation that deals with crime can be seen in isolation … [Interjections.]
They removed you from the committee. Just keep quiet. It is for that reason that no single piece of legislation that deals with crime can be seen in isolation, but needs to be measured against the overall strategy implemented to address crime. We can therefore not think that it is not possible to address violent crime effectively without also addressing the responsibility of firearm owners and the credibility of the firearm register. This is what the original Act set out to do. The amendments that we are introducing today are a further step in ensuring that the problems that were there in the principal Act are properly addressed. The amendments are strengthening the Act and will assist in the smoother implementation thereof.
The amendment Bill is further balanced by various amendments that were made to accommodate private collectors, professional hunters and the period of validity for specifically businesses. The hon Moatshe has already highlighted these. These specific amendments clearly are not the kind of amendments that a government, as the opposition claims, that would want to disarm its citizens with support. It is important to note that the authors of this urban legend that the ANC government would like to disarm its citizens could bring themselves to support these amendments. Amendments are made to address the concerns of legal firearm owners.
The fight against crime will however require from all of us some form of commitment and sacrifices. It cannot be argued away that many legal firearms end up as murder weapons either through the process of being stolen or negligence on the side of the owner. This remains the main motivation for the re-licensing process so that we can ensure that the firearms are still in the possession of their owner and that the circumstances of that individual did not change to such an extent that they are no longer fit to own a firearm. [Interjections.] It seems to me like the hon member who has been removed from this committee has got the blues today. He wants to participate in this committee. [Laughter.]
The circumstances of the individual that determines whether he or she is fit to be a firearm owner need to be evaluated with the re-licensing of a firearm. A person who previously might have been fit to own a firearm and to receive a competency certificate, such a person’s circumstances might have changed to such an extent that they can no longer be seen as fit to own a firearm. Such a person might have lost his or her job, got divorced or threatened someone with violence. It is the duty of the designated firearms officer to ensure that they are comfortable with the circumstances of the individual before they re-issue his or her competency certificate. We cannot ignore the fact that legal firearm owners also in some instances become the perpetrators of violent crimes and use their licence firearms to commit murders. More often than not, it is innocent women and children that fall victim to these kinds of crimes.
In June last year, a grandmother in Milnerton shot and killed her daughter, injured her granddaughter and then killed herself with her licensed firearm. In the same month, a man who six years previously shot and killed his ex-wife, described himself in court as being in ``the grip of a mental storm when he committed the murder.’’ It is these kinds of incidents that can be prevented if the SAPS implement the Act to its fullest.
In February this year, the Cape Argus reported on a three-year-old who shot dead two seven-year-old girls with a gun that he found lying around. Negligence of this nature cannot be accepted and the owner of that firearm needs to be held responsible for the death of the two young girls. This is what the Act, and now its amendments set out to do. The DA does not support this.
There are numerous other examples that can be made of where a licensed firearm became the weapon of choice for a legitimate firearm owner and resulted in the murder of innocent victims. The legislation as a whole will assist that we limit these kinds of occurrences.
Statistics indicate that between 1995 and July 2003, on average 66 firearms were reported lost or stolen in South Africa each day. This is the reported figure, not the actual figure, and as such is likely to be an under- estimate. Only a proportion of these – 63% - are recovered. The remainder flow into the illegal pool. It is estimated by the SAPS that up to 70% of all illegal guns in South Africa began as licensed firearms.
Furthermore, research conducted in the US and Canada indicates that the move from a firearm in the legal market into the illegal market is a rapid movement. About 70% of illegal guns that are found there are new and as much as 40% of guns found at crime scenes were sold legally less than three years ago. Taking into consideration the under reporting of theft and loss of firearms in South Africa, it then simply makes sense that firearm owners and theft firearms need to be re-licensed every five years. Balancing the effort of re-licensing with the affect reduction in firearm related deaths and crimes is where we as legislators need to find the balance, while not forgetting the overall role that this Act plays in the crime prevention strategy. One of the strongest arguments in support of the amendments to the Act lies within an article published on 19 August 2006 in the Cape Argus, while we were busy deliberating on the Bill. In the front page of the Cape Argus it was reported that research had indicated that gun-related deaths in South Africa have virtually halved over the past five years. The Institute for Security Studies, an independent research institution, not related to the government or the ANC government, believes that the drop is the result of the implementation of the Firearms Control Act. Yet the hon Kohler-Barnard claims that the Act has little effect. Tell this to the people who have lost loved ones due to firearm crimes. [Interjections.]
Mr P J GROENEWALD: Voorsitter, is die agbare lid bereid om ‘n vraag te beantwoord? [Chairperson, is the hon member prepared to take a question?]
Ms A VAN WYK: No. I don’t have time.
The research looks at mortuaries rather than police records and it is done independent of the SAPS and government. The research collated the number of unnatural deaths in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. This research has been conducted since 1999 and in 2004 it was found that 6 000 died by gun. This includes suicides, murders and accidents. Despite the fact that we believe that the figure was still too high, it is slightly just more than half of the deaths in 2001. It founded that in the Western Cape deaths by gun was down by almost 50%. Researchers attribute this decline directly to the implementation of the Firearms Act. Not only is the pool of guns becoming smaller, but individuals who now own firearms also realise that they have to act more responsibly with these firearms. They know that there will be consequences if they lose their firearms, that they will not get licenses if they cannot keep the firearms safe and that they must proof a need for those firearms.
Voting against these amendments is effectively voting against the decline in gun related deaths. It is simply making a big noise about violence and crime, but lacking the commitment to decisively act when the opportunity arises. I cannot see how any person or any political party who is serious about fighting violent crime in our society can vote against this amendment Bill.
With this in mind, the ANC supports the amendments before the House. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the chair of the portfolio committee, Maggie Sotyu for the efforts and the processes driven through these amendments but also welcome the amendments made by the portfolio committee. We hope that this is the process in the right direction in South Africa. We also hope this particular amendment to this principal Act will assist our country in minimising and reducing the violence we are facing as a country.
May I also take this opportunity to thank all hon members who contributed towards the success, namely the IFP, MF, the ACDP – thanks, Mfundisi; although he is not here …
Mr M C LOWE: DA?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: How can you thank the DA when they are so negative and they are so full of doom and gloom, as if they don’t belong to this country. May I also advise the largest minority party in this country that we have run Operation Sethunya and it has been successful? So far we have succeeded in retrieving 25 623 illegal firearms. These were guns that were once legal in our country. [Interjections.] This amendment improves and makes sure that you are more efficient in strengthening our administration and making sure that illegal guns are removed from society.
One also needs to bring to your attention that this amendment also helps us to go beyond South Africa. We are able to assist our neighbouring countries through Operation Rachel in retrieving the various illegal firearms found all over and used for killing our women and children. We welcome the support but also the amnesty granted. We have seen the results and it is only the DA that cannot see the results. They have got eyes but they are not prepared to see.
As we are sitting here today, those who benefit and become happy by generating economic wellbeing through guns should be ashamed, because this country has a lot of blood that was spilled by guns. You should be ashamed as a woman, who supports such a move. It is embarrassing. [Interjections.] Our children, our women are the victims of guns. You sound like a woman. Your womanhood is questionable. [Interjections.]
We must also bring to the attention of this House the silencers used on these guns …
Ms S V KALYAN: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the hon member at the podium questioned the gender of the member, hon Diane Kohler- Barnard.
The SPEAKER: Gender is not a point of order.
Ms S V KALYAN: It is unparliamentary to question whether she is a woman or not. It is sexist.
The SPEAKER: No, hon member that is not a point of order.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, but may I also bring to this House that the reason for us having licensed the silencers is precisely to make sure …
… njengoba kade kusho ubaba uNdlovu ukuthi uma isibhamu sidubula kufuneka sizwiwe yiwo wonke umuntu. Uma sizoqhubeka nokuba nama-silencer, angazi ukuthi ubani ozosizakala ngalokho. Kusho ukuthi imindeni izophela. Yilabo abangenalo uzwelo abazothi makuqhubeke lokho, bevuma ukuthi makufe abantu futhi isizwe sonke singezwa lutho uma kwenzeka lokho. Sithi thina sikhathele yikho konke lokho. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[… as hon Ndlovu correctly observed – that if a gun goes off, everybody must hear it. If we can carry on having silencers, I do not know who is going to benefit from that. This means that families will be obliterated. It is only the heartless people who can agree that this should happen. It is callous people who can allow the illegal use of silencers to continue destroying our people. We say we are tired of that.]
As we stand here today, we support and we welcome the work done by the police and we must indicate, as this Ministry, that we are going to continue in all our efforts in making sure that we remove any illegal gun. Those who are irresponsible, we will indeed take away their guns. Every individual who applies for a gun must make sure that he becomes responsible. We can no longer afford a country where we have irresponsible individuals who, when they see young children, they turn them into dogs and say: “I saw a dog.” And then they shoot at young children. It is a shame to support such individuals. Regarding the sickness certificate we will continue to make sure that you are ready.
Mr P J GROENEWALD: Mevrou die Speaker, op ’n punt van orde: Is dit toelaatbaar dat die agb Adjunkminister verwys na ’n saak wat tans nog sub judice is en dat sy daaroor ’n uitspraak maak? [Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon Deputy Minister to refer to a case that is still sub judice and to pass a judgement on it?]
The SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that part. Is it allowed to do what?
Mr P J GROENEWALD: Is it in order for the Deputy Minister to refer a case that is still sub judice and before the courts?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: It is public knowledge.
The SPEAKER: I would need to look at that in terms of what it is that was referred to and that is still sub judice. There are circumstances under which we have to be very careful on matters that are sub judice. But I will have to look into that. Proceed.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: May I also indicate that we can no longer afford to have children killed in this fashion. We as the police will continue to remove any illegal guns and continue, through our administration, to make sure that those who are not competent are not going to get any licences. We need people who are fit and who are sober and able to apply their minds but not people who can shoot and be driven by emotions when they utilise their guns. We welcome the support by this House, especially the portfolio committee. We thank the chairperson and we thank all those who are outside there and who have supported us. [Interjections.] You, hon Jankielsohn, I don’t know what you are trying to do and trying to say. The ship is moving ahead. We will continue to govern. We will continue to make sure that this country is governed responsibly by everybody and that is what the police is going to do. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 210: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bekker, H J; Beukman, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Burgess, C V; Buthelezi, M G; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cupido, H B ; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C ; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Green, L M; Greyling, L W; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hanekom, D A ; Hendrickse, P A C; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kekana, C D; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lekgoro, M M S; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madella, A F; Maduma, L D; Madumise, M M; Magubane, N E ; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlaba, T L; Mahlangu-Nkabinde, G L; Mahlawe, N M; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Mars, I; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathibela, N F; Matsemela, M L; Matsomela, M J J ; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbili, M E; Mbombo, N D; Meruti, M V; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Molefe, C T; Moleketi, P J ; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Nawa, Z N; Ndlovu, V B; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, N W; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Njobe, M A A; Nkem- Abonta, E; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N ; Nyambi, A J; Nzimande, L P M; Oliphant, G G; Pandor, G N M; Phadagi, M G; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Rabinowitz, R; Rajbally, S ; Ramakaba- Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Roopnarain, U; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Seadimo, M D; Sekgobela, P S; Shabangu, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S ; Sibuyana, M W; Sikakane, M R; Skhosana, W M; Smith, P F; Smith, V G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tsenoli, S L; Tshivhase, T J; Vadi, I; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Woods, G G; Zikalala, C N Z; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 30: Botha, C-S; Davidson, I O; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gibson, D H M; Groenewald, P J; Jankielsohn, R; Julies, I F; Kalyan, S V; King, R J; Lowe, C M; Minnie, K J; Morgan, G R; Mulder, P W A; Nel, A H; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Spies, W D; Steyn, A C; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Trent, E W; Van der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Van Niekerk, A I; Waters, M; Weber, H. Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
THE CONTRIBUTION AND RELEVANCE OF SATYAGRAHA TO OUR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUES
(Subject for Discussion)
Mr M RAMGOBIN: Madam Speaker, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I am privileged to participate in this historic debate on Satyagraha, which has been our country’s gift to all humanity. When President Thabo Mbeki, from this very podium, declared earlier this year that South Africa would officially celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Satyagraha, it was indeed a joyous moment.
The announcement reinforced a decision taken by the Phoenix Settlement Trust in 2005, that the centennial celebrations of Satyagraha would not merely be an event, but had to be directed towards our aspirations of the African Renaissance and global peaceful co-existence. Whilst this was the process of making the festival one of the 2006 celebrations coinciding with our national days, there is also a call and commitment to have an ongoing celebration of Satyagraha in our day-to-day activities. This is especially so in full recognition of our constitutional obligations and also the declaration of the United Nations that every human being on this planet is entitled to have and must enjoy human rights as equals with other human beings.
In most ways we have succeeded in defeating slavery, colonialism and racism, but a debate on Satyagraha in the Parliament of our country has to be seized with the question whether we have succeeded in defeating the consequences of slavery, colonialism and racism.
I believe that it is common cause amongst us that we have not, and therefore, we are united in our resolve to guarantee to ensure, in whatever we do, that every human being leads a life of self-respect, a life of dignity.
We are inflexible in our commitment that nobody should be a victim of insults or of being despised by any other because of one’s race, colour, origin or religion. The questions that we have to constantly ask ourselves are: What are we doing to end the plight of the hungry on our continent? What are we doing to prevent untimely deaths from preventable diseases? What are we doing to prevent systemic violence against human beings and our environment?
Do all of us accept the fundamental challenge and demonstrate through a call to action our collective will to end poverty and underdevelopment, to end conflict, to deepen democratic practice, to end communal, ethnic, tribal and religious violence?
These are major components required for the regeneration, the renaissance of the African continent. But along with this, we need to anchor the vision of the renaissance of our continent in the renewal and the calling forth of the moral values of Ubuntu, yet another gift to humanity.
It is against this background that the Satyagraha celebrations become so pertinent. Satyagraha cannot and must not be viewed in isolation with the Gandhian Trinity: The welfare of all - called Sarvodaya, by Gandhi- and in the ANC’s language, a better life for all.
In the context of current-day realities, we cannot sit on the sidelines and expect a better life for all to fall from, what I would like to call paw- paw trees or fall from heaven as a sequel to our prayers for such a life. We need to struggle, at times with ourselves, to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of all. We have to call ourselves into actions, into deeds, into projects and programmes on the basis of truth and love.
This call to action on the basis of truth and love is Gandhi’s Satyagraha for us in our politically liberated continent, and more emphatically, on the basis of action without violence, which is rooted in the principal of reference and respect for life, which in turn, is Gandhi’s Ahimsa.
In celebrating the 100th anniversary of Satyagraha, conceived and applied on our soil, we are indeed claiming our right to declare that whilst it comes from the African continent, it belongs to all humanity.
We need to go further in claiming our rights to declare that the African value system at the heart of Ubuntu also comes from our continent and also belongs to all humanity. In essence, these are spiritual values on which the African Renaissance will stand, alongside the material and political reconstruction of our continent.
In evoking these values, and in celebrating Satyagraha, we will also be paying tribute, I believe, to the memory of Pixley Seme who pioneered the call for the African Renaissance and also to our visionaries, politicians, businesspersons, trade unionists, professional persons, workers, believers and atheists who gathered at Kliptown to give to South Africa the Freedom Charter.
This Charter became for us, who are engaged in the politics of liberation under the leadership of the ANC, a guiding instrument. It embraces the values of the Gandhian Trinity and Ubuntu.
In seeking our liberation from the yoke of apartheid, the constant assaults on our dignity and oppression, we are guided by the thought that in pursuit of liberation, we also had a duty to liberate our oppressors and to restore to them their own lost humanity.
This might not sit comfortably with some of us, but in essence it was and continues to be the tenets of Satyagraha at work. Satyagraha cannot just be a part of our historical memory; we need to use it creatively, aggressively and without apology to strengthen our present day choices to make the African Renaissance a reality. This must be our poise and the dignity we need to set the pattern and pace for our global co-existence. Our closeness to each other in our global village, our common achievements in science and technology have built for us a great civilisation and our common achievements are remarkable, but we need to ask ourselves: What is it that we as common villagers in this common global village are slipping and sliding away from? It is the very essentials of this civilisation, leading to a civilisational crisis and away from global co-existence.
With all the progress we have made, why is it that in many ways we are on the brink of a barbarous phase? This phase characterised in our global village by, among other things, the demand for globalisation with scant regard for the elimination of poverty, disease, hunger and homelessness for the vast majority in our global village.
All of these combined with hatred, vengeance, bitterness and wanton disregard for life are for me more dreadful and dangerous than actual war. Terrorism respects no boundaries. In our village and at our very humanity, all of us are potential targets of cold-blooded murder. And, if we share this danger, ward off our inability to share the responsibility to promote our common safety and security, without which there can be no global co- existence.
In the assault on our environment with total and rude disregard for the opinion of fellow villagers, the disregard and abuse of multilateral institutions in the quest for world dominance and global dominance whether this be on the basis of ideology, power or religion, there emerges what is called ``the clash of civilisations’’.
What is worse is that those who sought to impose on us their imperial domination, using race as an excuse, believe that we as Africans contributed nothing to the civilising processes of humanity. It is our duty to prove them wrong.
Equally, with acknowledging our subjective weaknesses, we are willing and able to rebel against all those forces, dictators, criminals, rapists, murderers and robbers, poverty and disease, these forces and more that militate against our continent renewal. For me, this is rebellion.
But Satyagraha, in concert with the Ahimsa and Sarvodaya, is again non- violent rebellion and, until we succeed, global co-existence will be a formidable distance away.
This crusade, which I choose to call a crusade, is a historic challenge not only for Africa, but all humanity on the basis of the Gandhian Trinity. It is only when reinforced with this moral force that we will be able to succeed in challenging and changing global institutions like the United Nations Security Council to the real and authentic custodians of the values of Ubuntu and the Gandhian Trinity; that you will be able to succeed and ensure that globalisation and the restructuring programmes of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank do not ignore our common responsibility to extend the frontiers of human dignity of all humanity; that the disparate and unfair practices of the World Trade Organisation, with regard to subsidies, are challenged and won because Africa constitutes the pre-eminent development challenge, and for global non-violent transformation.
We, in our renewal programme, assume the moral duty to reach out by example to the international institutions of the different faith systems to relook, I repeat, to the international institutions of the different faith systems, to relook the evangelical and conversion programmes in preference to contributing and creating the conditions for the peaceful, respectful global co-existence of all and all faith systems. As a proud and confident African, who has believed and believes that we only receive in giving, it is our duty to give. I repeat: It is our duty to give all that we can and perhaps more to ensure that our continent’s renaissance is effected on the basis of the Gandhian Trinity and Ubuntu.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, for us in South Africa, our triumphal march to
democracy and to co-existence, which indeed had never been painless, was
described by the rest of the world as a miracle. Based on the Gandhian
Trinity and Ubuntu, I believe that it is within our reach to make the
African Renaissance a live reality, another miracle so that, some day,
soon, not only a Roman, but others too will proudly say, Ex Africa semper
aliquid novi.’’Something new always comes from Africa.’’ I thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Speaker, in 1906, the Black Act was introduced by Mr Lionel Curtis. He wanted restrictions to be placed upon Indians:
Every Indian man, woman or child of eight years upwards entitled to reside in the Transvaal must register his or her name with the Registrar of Asiatics and take out a certificate of registration.
Gandhi translated this ordinance into Gujarati, and called a meeting of all the Indians in Transvaal to explain the implications. It was appalling, and while the business of the meeting was conducted in Hindi and Gujarati, in the case of the Tamils and Telegus who did not know the language, everything was explained fully to them. It was decided that a meeting would be held on 11 September 1906. And it was at this meeting that the famous Fourth Resolution was adopted which saw the advent of Satyagraha.
Now the foundations of Satyagraha are beyond religious and political ideology. It works on the principle of truth. Gandhi was able to mobilise and galvanise more people in his lifetime than any other person in the history of this world using love, understanding, goodwill and the refusal to co-operate with evil law. He was able to break the backbone of the British Empire.
One of the most significant things that ever happened in the history of the world is that more than 390 million people achieved their freedom nonviolently. Gandhi objected when people called him a saint trying to be a politician. Instead, he said, he was a politician trying to be a saint. Gandhi and Martin Luther King fought oppression and injustice non- violently, using the weapons of truth, harmlessness and self-sacrifice.
They sought social change against the seemingly unconquerable adversaries of state power and prejudice. Their campaign successfully exposed the ultimate weaknesses of falsehood and injustice upon which the dominant oppressive forces were based.
Given the vitriol that dominated an earlier debate in the House today, perhaps we should consider embracing the principle of Satyagraha. It can become the foundation of a new political culture and the result will be goodwill, integrity and pragmatic problem solving. Gandhi said, and I quote:
I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the co- operation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their co-operation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.
Satyagraha was not a way for one group to seize what it wanted from another; it was not a weapon of class struggle or of any kind of division. Instead, it was an instrument of unity. It was a way to remove injustice and restore social harmony to the benefit of both sides.
Governments worldwide should embrace the principle of Satyagraha - starting with our own. Our own government should acknowledge that opposition parties do indeed have a role to play in our new democracy. Perhaps then, there will be less bloodshed, crime and vitriol, and peace and harmony will prevail. [Applause.]
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: Hon Chairperson, hon Members of Parliament, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the great Mahatma Gandhi. The whole of humanity owe so much to the inspirational life of one of the undisputed towering figures of the 20th century. He belonged to the dazzling 20th century class of the likes of Martin Luther King junior and Mother Theresa, who upheld the inalienable principle of human dignity.
I think that the entire House will agree with me that it is fitting and right that the husband of Mahatma Gandhi’s grandchild, Ella Gandhi, Mr Mewa Ramgobin, has led this debate about the relevance of Satyagraha.
It is appropriate that we commemorate the centenary of the birth of the great Mahatma in a liberated South Africa. We, South Africans, were inspired by his example when he led the non-violent struggle, and in the process founded the Natal Indian Congress.
With humility he taught us about this soul force, Satyagraha. I believe it is probably the influence of this philosophy, which guided the founding fathers of the ANC to structure Africa’s oldest liberation movement upon the ideals on nonviolence and passive resistance. These principles are of course embedded in the Judeo-Christian ethic and in most of the major faiths.
Although the intransigence of the apartheid regime compelled some of the liberation movements to pursue the armed struggle, which was a point of departure from the strategy of nonviolence, there were some in the ranks of our liberation movements that staunchly maintained that South Africa’s problems would be resolved through non-violent means.
I have never wavered from the belief that jaw-jaw is far better than war- war, to quote the twentieth century British lion, Sir Wilson Churchill. Gandhi elaborated on the idea splendidly when he remarked that, “an eye for an eye makes us all blind”.
In the end he was right, it did come to pass in South Africa that the negotiation process won the day. Humanity prevailed. This vindicated Mahatma’s commitment to nonviolence and passive resistance.
I remember so vividly the post-war years of the 1946 campaign of passive resistance in Durban, which was the product of Satyagraha. The defiance campaign, which was espoused by the ANC, was an effort to bring the oppressive regime to the conference table. It was my privilege to know the son of Mahatma Gandhi, who was the father-in-law of Mr Mewa Ramgobin, who has led us in this discussion during the defiance campaign, Manilal Gandhi.
I cherish my closeness to Prof Fatima Meer, Mewa Ramgobin and other stalwarts of the struggle during those days. This was why I had the privilege of delivering the Gandhi Memorial Lecture at Gandhi’s home in Phoenix during the lifetime of his daughter-in-law, Mrs Manilal Gandhi. It is for this very reason that one feels privileged to take advantage of these few minutes to pay tribute to this great man of our time. His message is of such relevance that he will always be a man of our time. It is also appropriate to pay tribute to the Mahatma, as we celebrate the Bambatha Uprising of 1906, because it was during this uprising that Gandhi took the stand to work with the Red Cross during the uprising in KwaZulu-Natal, which is known as the Bambatha Uprising.
Until the end of my days, Gandhiji will remain one of the greatest influences upon my own political career. It is a great privilege to pay this tribute as we celebrate Satyagraha and celebrate Gandhi’s life, an imperishable example. His life gave content to the famous teaching of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, who said in the Beatitudes, as recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew 5:9, “blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall see God.” I am sure that Mahatma today beholds the glory of God. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs J CHALMERS: Chairperson, comrades and colleagues, when I was asked to speak on this topic, I felt somewhat daunted by the challenge it presented. I also feel quite strongly that moral values should also be added to the political, economic and social values in this Resolution, because, surely, that should underpin all our decisions as, so clearly, it underpinned the life of Gandhi.
It would be a hundred years on September 11, since Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, later to be known as Mahatma, which means, “Great Soul”, met in the Old Empire Theatre in Johannesburg in 1906, with hundreds of Indian delegates from all over the Transvaal. The theatre was packed from floor to ceiling with people. They met to discuss and decide on the action to be taken in response to a new ordinance to be introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Council.
The Ordinance was aimed at controlling and limiting the number of Indians - man, woman and child over the age of eight years, currently living and working in the Transvaal. As Gandhi said on reading the ordinance: “I have never known the legislation of this nature being directed against free men in any part of the world”. Of course, the reason behind it was pure and simple: greed. Local officials stated: “If the Indians could enter the Transvaal at will, and trade wherever they choose, British traders should suffer a great loss”. It was as simple as that, even though Gen Smuts and others argued that the problem was simply to preserve their own civilisation of enjoying the supreme right of self-preservation and discharging the corresponding duty.
Gandhi wrote off that statement as hypocrisy, pure and simple. Every Indian would, by law, have to register and carry a certificate that would bear his or her fingerprints. Every Indian who failed to apply for a certificate would forfeit his right to remain in the Transvaal. Failure could mean a fine, prison sentence or deportation. That meeting passed a number of resolutions. The most important being the famous fourth resolution whereby the Indians solemnly determined not to submit to the Ordinance, should it become law in the teeth of their opposition, and to suffer all the penalties attached to such nonsubmission. This was crucial.
They committed themselves by way of making a pledge, both as a body and also each independently, with the understanding that he must be true to his pledge even unto death, no matter what others may do. So it began. But what was he to call the new movement? It was Gandhi himself who finally settled on the word the “Satyagraha”. “Saty”, meaning truth, which implies love and “agraha” which serves as a synonym of force. Ghandi writes: “The force which is born of truth and love or nonviolence”, preferring that to the phrase “passive resistance”.
I had not realised before reading Gandhi’s book, how he quite clearly differentiates between “Satyagraha” and “passive resistance”. He stated that the former is not “passive resistance”, but it is based on the idea of strength that grows day by day and becomes even more effective fostering as it does patience, self-understanding, self-discipline, love of the truth, a desire for justice and the certainty that a thing acquired by violence can be retained by violence alone, while one acquired by the truth, can only be retained by the truth.
Power acquired in this way, and this is so clearly spelt out, has no need of force to retain its strength. Our own Truth and Reconciliation Commission too, has its basis in the seeking not after revenge, but the truth and the belief that the truth will set you free. So, what have we learnt from Mahatma, the Great Soul, his life and his beliefs as well as the example that he set for our country that have impacted on our own struggle for a just society, and what lessons can we still learn?
I was deeply shocked, last weekend to read the headline in our Saturday paper in Port Elizabeth, “War-torn Somalia is better than this hell”. Media drama? I asked myself. I don’t think so. I am told ten small shop owners in Port Elizabeth have been killed there in the past month; many more throughout the rest of the country. The police spokesman stated that the Somalis are regularly under threat. Is this xenophobia? Maybe. It is also because they are targeted as easy prey. They don’t want to report these attacks to the police. What, I wonder, would Gandhi have made of this?
He was a man who defended to the hilt the rights of the persecuted and those discriminated against. His long campaign for and the defence of the untouchables, in India, is well-documented. He renamed those poor outcasts, “Harijan”, which means the sons of God. Daughters too, I imagine. Surely, these fellow Africans, many of them refugees from their homeland, because of the political situation there, have the right to be secure and raise their children and earn an honest living here. I may say that they make a worthwhile contribution to our society. Would Gandhi have taken their part against this lawlessness? I think so. I would hope that both the police and our civil society play a greater role in protecting them.
The past month has featured some historical events. On 9 August, I was so thrilled to be part of the 50th Anniversary of the women’s march in Pretoria. At the National Gallery here, at the moment, the film of the original march of 1956, is shown daily. I watched it with great emotion as those women in huge numbers marched, singing in unified solidarity, protesting against the carrying of passes. So too, did the Indian women, part of the Satyagraha Association, protest in 1913, against the appalling judgement given in the Cape Supreme Court that: “Only marriages celebrated according to Christian rights and registered by the Registrar of Marriages, would be recognised”. That rendered the majority of Indian marriages illegal in South Africa, while their children were deprived of their rights to inherit their parents’ property. A decision was taken that a group of sixteen women would allow themselves to be arrested, for moving between Natal and Transvaal without permits. This happened.
They were then sentenced to three months in prison in Maritzburg, in appalling conditions. Indeed, one of them died as a result of her incarceration. From then on, women played an active part in the Satyagraha Movement. Their imprisonment inspired local mineworkers in Newcastle, to strike against the appalling conditions, ending in the long march from Newcastle down to the Transvaal border. Two thousand one hundred men, women and children marched with Gandhi as their head. They marched for eight days, eating only bread and sugar along the way. Gandhi was arrested and released on bail a number of times, but the march went on. Gen Smuts was at a loss as to what to do, for he said: “How can you harass a peaceful man?” As Gandhi writes of the march, “our victory was implicit in our combination of nonviolence and determination.” It didn’t end there, of course.
Eventually, the Indian Relief Bill was passed which validated marriages held legally in India, abolishing the three-pound licence for indentured labourers and improving other restrictive legislation.
In July 1914, Gandhi set sail for India, leaving behind him a permanent legacy that continues to be part of the human rights foundation to our Constitution and way of life in this country. I believe, however, that as far as we have come along the road to a just society in the past twelve years, we still have lessons to learn from Mahatma Gandhi and the universality of the Satyagraha way. He constantly tested himself and was never afraid to stand up and be counted when he believed a cause was true and just and needed his support. He believed in self-purification and self- reliance. He refused to stigmatise members of society, spending days and weeks ministering to the sick, even during an outbreak of plague. Can we learn from this? Do we do enough for the disabled, for HIV-sufferers and those living on the fringes of society? He tried constantly, to promote unity amongst people, saying that for him to find a way to settle differences even within his organisation was when he made the largest gains in things of the spirit. Surely, now, we can learn from this example. He had an absolute abhorrence of violence and the use of force, saying mankind had been reaping a bitter harvest from its use throughout history.
Let me say that for me, reading his book has been a huge learning experience. He spent 21 years in this country. It was a period when his strength of character, his passionate love for truth and justice, his courage and extraordinary intellect had an indelible and lasting effect on the history of our country. It has been an honour for me to take part in this motion. I would hope that the principles of Satyagraha could remain integral to the value system that we use in striving to establish a just society in South Africa. [Applause.]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, South Africa is a country that is in the process of transition from the most unjust system of the past. It is grappling with the challenges of building a society that embraces and respects the human rights principles. We have in reality, a polarised society. The polarisation cuts across race. In addition to the race challenges, the emerging trend is the class differentiation factor. This is because of others being privileged to prevailing economic opportunities that the poor majority are unable to access. What can we do to unite our people across the African Botho? The answer to this challenge lies in ourselves as South Africans.
We can learn a lot from the Mahatma Gandhi Movement. The movement’s aims and objectives, and especially its programme of action as to how to deal with the injustices in society, that is, being intolerant of other political views or ideology, has made this movement a model for others to learn from in terms of how to fight peacefully when pursuing one’s human rights goals. The significance and relevance of this movement to our situation, reminds all of us to be sensitive to the needs of other poor people. As people’s representatives, we are further challenged to lead selflessly and to pursue a common goal as opposed to individual glory.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Chairperson, in the same way as the word “ubuntu”, the word “satyagraha” has a meaning that is difficult to describe in a few words. These are powerful philosophies of life which we need to invoke in the present times more than ever before. The spirit of compassion and love are God-given gifts which are often forgotten by man in his quest for power and resources.
On 11 September 2006 South Africa in particular and the world in general will be observing the centenary of the birth of Satyagraha. Satyagraha is about truth and firmness. It all started at the Empire Theatre in Johannesburg, as the hon Chalmers said just now, in a meeting convened by Mahatma Gandhi, who lived in South Africa for 21 years, and during this period transformed from a young lawyer to a great soul, the mahatma. That’s how Satyagraha or nonviolent action was born.
Therefore South Africa has a claim to this important legacy, whose importance must be understood in the context of our quest for peace in the world. Since then, the use of Satyagraha as a mode of opposition to oppression has been utilised by many leaders throughout the length and breadth of the world. Satyagraha has been recognised as the most formidable but also the best way of dealing with conflict whether in the home, in society or in international affairs.
This is important, as we would like to see a situation where more and more people opt for non-violent solutions rather than the wanton destruction of violent action. We need to take some systematic action to curb increasing violence. As Gandhi maintained, you cannot fight terrorism with terrorism. The cycle of violence would just continue if we use violent methods.
The Mahatma once said, and I quote:
I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy.
Satyagraha, like ubuntu, is about compassion and love through which hatred and anger can be transformed into friendship and love. Satyagraha is a powerful tool which can be used in the home, in schools, in the community, in the country and internationally. It provides the most significant and viable alternative to violence. Violence is destructive and satyagraha is constructive.
While we have set a trend at national level to embrace these philosophies by enacting the abolition of corporal punishment, capital punishment and harsh conditions of sentence in prison, at the societal level, this has not taken root. We need the message of non-violence now more than ever before.
The critical challenges facing us today around the world are the rising incidences of aggression, violence, war and destruction. Our schools are no longer safe; schoolchildren carry guns to school; our homes have to be fenced and barricaded; our streets are dangerous; our countries are at war.
Mankind today is moving on a collision course - in this context I use the term as meaning “man” and not as a neutral or gender-sensitive term. Because even though most women are against war and violence, wars or violence of various kinds at macro and micro levels are thrust on women. Women are at the suffering end of violence in most cases. Statisticians have shown that in most wars and violent situations, fewer women actually participate in direct combat or even in roles as accessories, yet women and children are amongst the most affected by wars and violence.
A large majority of women continue to play a servile role both in their homes and in society, with few if any rights. Within society women are treated as subordinates and, in many subtle ways, women continue to live under an oppressive patriarchal society. Women are the major sufferers of abuse in the home, in society, and in wartime the abuse of women takes on an even more bizarre spectre.
The kind of violence we are seeing today is an indication that we have failed to leave a legacy of compassion and love for our youth. The present generation has become more violent and more destructive. Anger, competition, vengeance, envy and power are at the base of the violent reactions we are daily witnessing. Car rage, taxi wars, revenge killings and elimination of a formidable opponent through violent means are being seen more and more. Safety and security is becoming a major issue.
In this situation, therefore, it becomes even more imperative for us to discuss the need for invoking our humanistic philosophies, not only for discussion but also to imbibe the teachings into our lives and encourage the youth of today to embrace these important philosophies into their lives.
We must take it as our challenge to build a society that believes in peace, a society that espouses the notion of satyagraha as we embrace the century that we call ours. Whether we view violence at a macro level or at a micro level, whether we view it in the home, or in the community, or internationally, the dynamics are the same. Violence occurs as a direct result of power relations.
When violence is confronted by violence it has the effect of raging on until a stage is reached when there has to be a forced surrender or annihilation. On the other hand, when violence is confronted with peace the scenario is totally different and we find that former enemies can embrace each other and live side by side, in friendship and harmony.
We have seen the effects of the atom bomb and, while we hope that such weapons are never again used, can we guarantee that that will never happen? We have also seen the peaceful transition in our country and the efforts that are being made to reconcile and live together, united in our diversity.
We have the historic legacy and the responsibility to lead the world into accepting the power of our heritage. Our peaceful transition is referred to by many as a miracle. But it is indeed a reality, as the hon Ramgobin said earlier on, that where people are committed to peace, nothing is impossible.
Man’s inhumanity has reached such heights since the beginning of this millennium that one wonders where it will stop, unless we can intervene and lead them to a more constructive path. War tactics are so destructive that the idea is no longer to scare people but to destroy them. At the end of the last millennium many religious heads warned that we are walking a tight rope. But the warning remains unheeded by many. Let’s take our rightful place, hon members, and intervene.
Most wars bring out the worst in human beings. And rape, torture and murder of women and children is a common feature of all violent conflicts. Yet we do not and are often reluctant to accept that there is another way, a non- violent way of dealing with conflict. We salute our President and all our leaders who are committed to bringing peace in the world through negotiations.
The involvement of our peace-loving citizens in giving hope and dignity to the downtrodden goes to show how this philosophy of satyagraha, almost a century later, is alive. The philosophy of satyagraha and ubuntu has paved the way for us to learn to be more compassionate, understanding and loving when faced with issues. As a country, we have also shown maturity in dealing with conflict.
In our age of hope, surely, we must pursue philosophies that must assist us in healing our nation - a nation that was torn apart by state oppression but survived. Let us wish all the people of the world peaceful celebrations of the Satyagraha.
In conclusion, we revisit Mahatma Ghandi’s words again, and I quote:
I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy.
I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF takes this opportunity to extend its immense respect, love and admiration for the inspiring Ghandiji, who brought to the people the policy of Satyagraha. Ghandiji’s work in passive resistance and ideologies extends to and is beneficially practiced in this day and age.
Today’s democracy, freedom, equality and upliftment of our people were born from the vision shared with great people such as Ghandiji. He saw the benefits of an equal opportunity for all and warned of the dangers of its neglect. Similarly, South Africa today attempts to redress the horrors of its past, by creating an equal opportunity for all.
The MF shares in the belief that the nation needs to address its disparities holistically, and that the masses need to acknowledge that the government alone cannot institute change and that we all need to play an active role in embracing this democracy and instilling its values. We can all see the benefits in adopting Ghandiji’s principle but the greatest challenge in inculcating these principles into action concerns teaching and nourishing our increasingly multicultural society to work together and continue to build South Africa as a united nation, because it indeed belongs to all who live in it – black and white.
Once again, I extend our admiration and find it valuable in adopting the ideology of Satyagraha. Om shaanti shaanti shaanti! Peace, peace, peace may prevail to all! I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S E OPPERMAN: Hon Chair, introducing the subject of Satyagraha in any given situation speaks of boldness, especially in the world of shadows and mirrors where the art of deception - which I believe is the greatest threat to “satya” – has been mastered, and where the most valued people are those with a doctorate in spinning.
The hon Ramgobin has brought honour to the legacy of a man for whom Satyagraha was not a slogan but a lifestyle. Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian spiritual and political leader, was deeply inspired by Rama’s strict adherence to satya truth and dharma.
On 25 June this year I had the privilege of meeting the High Commissioner of India, Mr Satyabhrata Pal, and his wife, Sri Pal. In the early hours of the morning we watched a very rare phenomenon – a synodic solstice, from the observatory in the Moordenaars Karoo. It is a phenomenon that happens once in about 100 years and speaks to us of a new cycle, a new beginning.
Satyabhrata means return to truth. I therefore believe the subject of Satyagraha is timely and absolutely important to all of us and for the realisation of the African Renaissance. The willingness to detest hardship and personal travails, and to shoulder any sacrifice for truth can only come from those who have a strong and stable relationship with the truth. It is the privilege of those who have received the revelation from a higher source than themselves, who can see and perceive, and who have knowledge and understanding.
Hindus often chant: “Ram Nam Satya Hai.” - Rama’s name is truth. For the Christians, the words of Jesus Christ: “I am the truth,” are supposed to be an inspiration to search after truth with a passion.
I agree with the hon Mewa Ramgobin and the message of Satyagraha. Let us all insist on the truth, even to the point of denying oneself because it is only the truth that can really set us free. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M RAMGOBIN: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for all the inputs made by the different speakers. Yes, hon Sandy Kalyan, you are right. Satyagraha admits into its equation, co-operation and working with everybody. But it also requires, and demands, an offering from the opposition: what is it that can I do? I want to call myself into action to do those things that can make today better than yesterday. The admission of the role of the opposition in the equation of the Satyagraha doesn’t mean to become a professional critic but means ‘a call to action’. But, you are right. You have a role.
Do I call you Shenge or do I call you Dr Buthelezi? Can I call you Shenge?
Prince M G BUTHELEZI: [Inaudible.]
Mr M RAMGOBIN: Okay, I take the privilege of that. Yes, you excite beautiful memories, but you forgot one major thing - and I am bold enough to say it from this podium - that it was you, Shenge, who in 1970 launched the Gandhi Work Camp at Phoenix Settlement. It was you with whom I had a fight because of your children. We had different approaches to them. But, it was you who said to me that the Gandhi Work Camp is a vital and important institution that you are setting up at Phoenix Settlement. I can assure you that when I look around here today, there are many of us who are products of that work camp. Thank you very much for that. [Applause.]
Mention has been made about a protest to the Gandhi’s satyagrahic approaches to making options. I think one of the most forceful methods, which I would like to interpret as a dialogic one that Gandhi introduced in making options to make choices for the future, is best seen in his daily prayer service as a major component of Satyagraha. He never had a prayer meeting, he never prayed in a temple, he never prayed in a church and he never prayed in a mosque. He prayed under the open skies with people belonging to all faiths. The highest form of co-existence and tolerance was seen then.
Yes, Mr Opperman. Where is he? You are absolutely correct. Intrigue and deception are not admissible in the processes or what I would like to call the dialogue of Satyagraha – there should be a dialogue and they are deliberately excluded. Intrigue and deception are as sinful as many other things are, but in human relationships it is absolutely disastrous. I think one of the major aspects of Satyagraha is that in its vocabulary, there is no place for it.
Comrade Gwen and Comrade Judy, thank you, for constantly reminding me that in 1994, we saw the highest manifestation of a revolutionary ethic in our land South Africa. The most profound option for human relationships. I call a revolutionary choice or option, was here. It is against this background, comrades, that I would like you to know that almost 80 years ago, it was Mahatma Gandhi who was ordained as the Mahathma by Rabindranath Tagore in those days. Perhaps it is important for us as Africans to know this that if Satyagraha is going to work, it will work in Africa. I have no faith that it is going to work in India … [Interjections.] … and therefore I plead to us here that we must resist the temptation of ``Indianising’’ Satyagraha. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
It is against this background, Chair, that I apologise for having skipped my time, but I’m sure you would forgive me for this. I have had the historical privilege to motivate this debate and today I have the historical privilege to do something else.
Sir, I move this motion without notice:
That the House –
(1) notes that on 11 September 2006 marks the centenary of the introduction, by the Mahatma Gandhi, of Satyagraha in South Africa;
(2) believes that Satyagraha belongs to the historical heritage of South Africa and that the principles of Satyagraha can play a meaningful role in the renewal and regeneration of our country and our continent; and
(3) therefore resolves to request the Minister of Education to give consideration to incorporating the underlying values of Satyagraha in the philosophy of our school syllabus. Thank you very much.
Debate concluded.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 17:43. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
FRIDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2006
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159
1) Further Education and Training Colleges Bill, 2006, submitted by
the Minister of Education. Referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Education and the Select Committee on Education and Recreation. 2. Translations of Bills submitted
1) Die Minister van Onderwys
a) Wysigingswetsontwerp op Voedingsmiddels, Skoonheidsmiddels en
Ontsmettingsmiddels [W 35 – 2005] (Nasionale Vergadering – art
76)
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the
Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Amendment Bill [B 35 –
2005] (National Assembly – sec 76).
National Assembly
- Referral to Committees of papers tabled
1. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Finance for consideration and
report. The Reports of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements are referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Insurance Sector
Education and Training Authority (Inseta) for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 77-2006].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Banking Sector Education
and Training Authority (Bank-Seta) for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2005-2006 [RP 67-2006].
2. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour, the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and
Tourism and the Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation for
consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Tourism, Hospitality and
Sport Education and Training Authority (Theta) for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 87-2006].
3. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry:
a) Government Notice No R853 published in Government Gazette No
27946 dated 2 September 2005: Standards Matters in terms of the
Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
b) Government Notice No R854 published in Government Gazette No
27947 dated 2 September 2005: Withdrawal and replacement of the
compulsory specification for motor vehicles of category N2/3,
in terms of the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
c) Government Notice No R855 published in Government Gazette No
27947 dated 2 September 2005: Withdrawal and replacement of the
compulsory specification for motor vehicles of category M2/3,
in terms of the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
d) Government Notice No R856 published in Government Gazette No
27947 dated 2 September 2005: Withdrawal and replacement of the
compulsory specification for motor vehicles of category M1, in
terms of the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
e) Government Notice No R857 published in Government Gazette No
27947 dated 2 September 2005: Withdrawal and replacement of the
compulsory specification for motor vehicles of category N1, in
terms of the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
f) Government Notice No R915 published in Government Gazette No
28039 dated 23 September 2005: Incorporation of an external
company as a company in the Republic of South Africa:
Paddington Limited, in terms of the Companies Act, 1973 (Act No
61 of 1973).
g) Government Notice No R916 published in Government Gazette No
28039 dated 23 September 2005: Incorporation of an external
company as a company in the Republic of South Africa: Kasvel
Limited, in terms of the Companies Act, 1973 (Act No 61 of
1973).
h) Government Notice No R.397 published in Government Gazette No
28767 dated 28 April 2006: International Trade and
Administration Commission of South Africa: Tariff
investigations: Regulations, in terms of the International
Trade Administration Act, 2002 (Act No 71 of 2002).
i) Proclamation No 22 published in Government Gazette No 28824
dated 11 May 2006: Commencement of the National Credit Act,
2005 (Act No 34 of 2005).
j) Government Notice No R.489 published in Government Gazette No
28864 dated 31 May 2006: Regulations made in terms of the
National Credit Act, 2005 (Act No 34 of 2005).
k) Government Notice No R.517 published in Government Gazette No
28894 dated 1 June 2006: Establishments of Collecting Societies
in the Music Industry, in terms of the Copyright Act, 1978 (Act
No 98 of 1978).
l) Government Notice No R.477 published in Government Gazette No
28848 dated 2 June 2006: Regulations: Payment of levy and the
issue of sales permits with regard to compulsory
specifications: Amendment, in terms of the Standards Act, 1993
(Act No 29 of 1993).
m) Government Notice No R.478 published in Government Gazette No
28848 dated 2 June 2006: Regulations: Payment of levy and the
issue of sales permits with regard to compulsory
specifications: Amendment, in terms of the Standards Act, 1993
(Act No 29 of 1993).
n) Government Notice No R.479 published in Government Gazette No
28848 dated 2 June 2006: Regulations: Payment of levy and the
issue of sales permits with regard to compulsory
specifications: Amendment, in terms of the Standards Act, 1993
(Act No 29 of 1993).
o) Government Notice No R.599 published in Government Gazette No
28924 dated 15 June 2006: Exemption from the provisions of
sections 143(2): WPP Group PLC, in terms of the Companies Act,
1973 (Act No 61 of 1973).
p) Government Notice No R.654 published in Government Gazette No
28976 dated 7 July 2006: International Trade Administration
Commission of South Africa, in terms of the International Trade
Administration Act, 2002 (Act No 71 of 2002).
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Financial and Fiscal
Commission (FFC) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 105-2006].
- The Minister of Finance
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Financial Intelligence
Centre for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 132-2006].
- The Minister of Labour
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 17 – Department of Labour
for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements of Vote 17 for 2005-2006 [RP 59-2006].
- The Minister of Safety and Security
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 22 – Independent Complaints
Directorate (ICD) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 22 for 2005-
2006 [RP 113-2006].
- The Minister of Arts and Culture
a) Report and Financial Statements of The Freedom Park Trust for 2005-
2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the William Humphreys Art
Gallery for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 121-2006].
c) Report and Financial Statements of the National Film and Video
Foundation (NFVF) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 111-
2006].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the South African State Theatre
for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 152-2006].
e) Report and Financial Statements of the National English Literary
Museum for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
f) Report and Financial Statements of the Windybrow Centre for the
Arts for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
g) Report and Financial Statements of the War Museum of the Boer
Republics for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
h) Report and Financial Statements of Blind S A for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006.
i) Report and Financial Statements of the National Library of South
Africa for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 158-2006].
j) Report and Financial Statements of Business and Arts South Africa
(BASA) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 135-2006].
k) Report and Financial Statements of the Voortrekker Museum –
Isigcinamagugu for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [PR 107-2006].
l) Report and Financial Statements of the Iziko Museums of Cape Town
for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 89-2006].
m) Report and Financial Statements of the National Museum –
Bloemfontein for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 152-2006].
n) Report and Financial Statements of the South African State Theatre
for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
o) Report and Financial Statements of the National Arts Council of
South Africa (NAC) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
p) Report and Financial Statements of the Performing Arts Centre of
Free State (PACOFS) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
q) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Library for
the Blind for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
r) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Heritage
Resources Agency (SAHRA) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 131-
2006].
- The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Greater St Lucia Wetland
Park Authority for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
National Assembly
- The Speaker
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Special Investigating Unit
(SIU) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 130-2006].
MONDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2006
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly
The Speaker
- Referral to Committees of papers tabled
1. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry for
consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Clothing, Textiles,
Footwear and Leather Sector Education and Training Authority
(CTFL-Seta) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 70-2006].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Services Sector
Education and Training Authority (Services Seta) for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 85-2006].
(c) Report and Financial Statements of the Wholesale and
Retail Sector Education and Training Authority (W&R-Seta) for
2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 88-2006].
2. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
Committee on Public Enterprises. The Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements is referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Transnet Limited for 2005-
2006, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
3. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Education for consideration
and report. The Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Education, Training
and Development Practices Sector Education and Training
Authority (ETDP-Seta) for 2005-2006, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006
[RP 72-2006].
4. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality
of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons for
consideration and report. The Report of the Independent Auditors on
the Financial Statements is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Umsobomvu Youth Fund
(UYF) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
5. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report. The Reports of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements is referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Economic
Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the National
Productivity Institute (NPI) for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2005-2006.
6. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for consideration and report. The
Reports of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements are
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 27 – Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
Vote 27 for 2005-2006 [RP 175-2006].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African National
Parks (SANparks) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
c) Report and Financial Statements of South African Tourism for
2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the South African National
Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2005-2006.
7. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Home Affairs for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements is referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Electoral
Commission (IEC) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP
97-2006].
8. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Home Affairs and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and
Constitutional Development for consideration and report. The Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements is referred to
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Electoral Commission
(IEC) on the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties
Fund for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 137-2006].
9. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Enterprises for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General and the Independent Auditors on the Financial
Statements are referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 9 – Department of
Public Enterprises for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 9 for 2005-
2006 [RP 154-2006].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Airways
(Proprietary) Limited (SAA) for 2005-2006, including the Report
of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for
2005-2006.
10. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Enterprises for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry. The Report of
the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements is referred to
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Forestry
Company Limited (SAFCOL) for 2005-2006, including the Report of
the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2005-
2006.
11. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Education for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
are referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Council on Higher
Education (CHE) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Council for Quality
Assurance in General and Further Education and Training –
Umalusi for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the National Student
Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2005-2006 [RP 150-2006].
12. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Arts and Culture for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Artscape for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006.
13. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour, the Portfolio Committee on Health and the Portfolio
Committee on Social Development for consideration and report. The
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Health and Welfare
Sector Education and Training Authority (HW-Seta) for 2005-
2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 76-2006].
14. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy for
consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Chemical Industries
Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 69-2006].
15. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and
Administration for consideration and report:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Public Service
Sector Education and Training Authority (PSeta) for 2005-2006
[RP 83-2006].
16. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Communications for
consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Media, Advertising,
Publishing, Printing and Packaging Sector Education and
Training Authority (MAPPP-Seta) for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2005-2006 [RP 80-2006].
17. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour, the Portfolio Committee on Communications and the Portfolio
Committee on Science and Technology for consideration and report.
The Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Information Systems,
Electronics and Telecommunications Technologies Sector
Education and Training Authority (ISETT-Seta) for 2005-2006,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 78-2006].
18. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour and the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy for
consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Energy Sector Education
and Training Authority (Eseta) for 2005-2006, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2005-2006 [RP 71-2006].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Mining Qualifications
Authority (MQA) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP
82-2006].
19. The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communications for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements is referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Media Development and
Diversity Agency (MDDA) for 2005-2006, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006.
20. The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and
report. The Reports of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements are referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Legal Aid Board for
2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 44-2006].
(b) Report of the Auditor-General on the unsigned summary of
statements of monies kept in trust in the Guardian’s Fund for
2004-2005.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
a) Quarterly Report of the Auditor-General on the submission of
financial statements by municipalities and the status of audit
reports as at 30 June 2006 for the financial year ended 30 June
2005 [RP 153-2006].
- The Minister of Education
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African
Qualifications Authority (SAQA) for 2005-2006, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006
[RP 189-2006].
TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2006
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker
- Introduction of Bills
(1) The Minister of Minerals and Energy
(a) Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill [B 20 – 2006]
(National Assembly – proposed sec 76) [Explanatory summary of
Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
Government Gazette No 29192 of 4 September 2006.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals
and Energy of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the
Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint
Rule 160.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three parliamentary
working days.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Defence
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Armaments Corporation of
South Africa Limited (ARMSCOR) for 2005-2006, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006
[RP 139-2006].
- The Minister of Public Works
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Construction Industry
Development Board (CIDB) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 198-
2006].
- The Minister of Labour
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Unemployment Insurance Fund
(UIF) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 89-2006].
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
- Report of ad hoc Committee on operational problems in the office of the Public Protector, dated 5 September 2006:
The Committee, having concluded its inquiry, reports as follows:
- Introduction
The Speaker of the National Assembly established the ad hoc Committee on operational problems in the office of the Public Protector on 31 July 2006 in terms of Rule 214 of the National Assembly Rules. The Speaker established the Committee at the request of the Public Protector. The main function of the Committee was to inquire into the operational problems being experienced by the office of the Public Protector, as reported to the Speaker by the Public Protector. The National Assembly ratified the Speaker’s decision on 15 August 2006.
The Members of the Committee are:
• Prof AK Asmal, Chairperson (ANC) • Ms CB Johnson (ANC) • Ms MAA Njobe (ANC) • Ms SM Camerer (DA) • Mr LK Joubert (DA) • Mr JH van der Merwe (IFP) • Mr A Harding (ID).
- Mandate
(i) The Committee’s mandate is outlined in the announcement by the Speaker, informing Parliament of her decision, after direct and indirect consultation with the Chief Whips and party representatives, to establish an ad hoc committee to inquire into operational problems being experienced by the office of the Public Protector.
(ii) In terms of this notice, the Committee was required to:
• investigate the operational problems experienced in the office of
the Public Protector;
• consist of members of the Assembly as follows: African National
Congress 3, Democratic Alliance 2, Inkatha Freedom Party 1, and
other parties 1;
• exercise those powers in Rule 138 of the National Assembly Rules
that may assist it in carrying out its functions; and
• submit a report with its findings and recommendations to the
House by 25 August 2006.
(iii) The notice outlining the scope of the Committee’s terms of reference was supplemented by the Speaker in writing to Prof Asmal on 4 August 2006, stating that the Committee’s mandate was limited to inquiring into the operational problems being experienced by the office of the Public Protector, as reported to the Speaker by the Public Protector, Adv M L Mushwana, and that the intention was that the inquiry be confined to the contents of the documents which should guide the Committee’s work.
(iv) In carrying out its task, the Committee consequently focused on its terms of reference, which did not require it to investigate or express itself on the allegations and counter-allegations that have been aired by the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, Adv M T Shai. The Committee was tasked to inquire into the impact of operational difficulties on the functioning of the office. However, the terms of reference did not inhibit the Committee from identifying wider issues that affected the operation of the office.
(v) We draw the attention of the National Assembly to a rather important dimension to the Committee’s work. This is the first time that a committee of Parliament had been requested to deal with a matter of this nature relating to a Chapter 9 institution.
(vi) Furthermore, the Committee was mindful of the provisions of Rule 66 of the National Assembly Rules, which prohibits Members from reflecting on the competence or honour of the holder of an office, whose removal from office is dependent on a decision of the National Assembly. However, the Committee was satisfied that the Public Protector’s request for the National Assembly to intervene accommodated this concern.
- Methodology
3.1 Closed meetings
(i) The Committee was mindful of the provisions of section 59 of the Constitution, which states that, except where exclusion of the public is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, the National Assembly must conduct its business in an open manner and hold its sittings and those of its committees in public.
(ii) However, as the inquiry related to private information that could be prejudicial to particular persons and, further, that it affected the status of the office of the Public Protector, the Committee was persuaded to invoke Rule 157 of the National Assembly Rules and conduct its inquiry in closed session. Under section 181(3) of the Constitution, Parliament also has a duty to protect the dignity of the office. The Committee, therefore, agreed that its sessions would assume the form of closed meetings. Press statements were, however, released on progress with its work and the need for closed meetings was continually reviewed as it proceeded.
3.2 Confidential documentation
(i) The Committee held its first meeting on Thursday, 10 August 2006, during which the supporting documents that the Public Protector had submitted to the Speaker, together with material from the Deputy Public Protector submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, were distributed to the Members as confidential documents, on the grounds that they contained private information that could be prejudicial to particular individuals and in order to protect the dignity of the office.
(ii) At a subsequent meeting, held on 14 August 2006, the Committee perused the set of documents that constituted the basis of its inquiry and declared them to be confidential documents in accordance with Rule 157. At this meeting, the Committee also agreed to invite the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector to make any further submissions, additional to the written submissions already received from them.
3.3 Interviews
(i) At the meeting on 14 August 2006, the Committee agreed that it would invite the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector to appear before it on Monday, 21 August 2006, and Tuesday, 22 August 2006, respectively. The main objective of these meetings was to clarify matters contained in the documents submitted to the Speaker and the Committee, as well as to provide the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector with the opportunity to elucidate on the matters before the Committee.
(ii) The Committee agreed that the interviews would be structured in a manner that would enable it to gather information around specific themes, which relate to the key issues that the Committee would have to explore in the execution of its mandate. The main themes identified by the Committee included:
• the legal framework regulating the relationship between the
parties;
• the powers delegated to the Deputy Public Protector upon her
appointment in terms of the Public Protector Act, as amended;
• the role of Parliament in the appointment of the Deputy Public
Protector and the drafting of the terms of reference outlining
her functions;
• the functioning of the Public Protector’s office in terms of its
staff complement, current vacancies, lines of accountability,
etc; and
• the main factors or issues that may have led to the breakdown in
the relationship between the parties and the extent to which
these could be resolved or remedied.
(iii) Subsequent to the separate interviews, the Committee agreed to conduct a joint interview with the Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector on 23 August 2006. The reason for this was to enable Members to clarify certain issues arising from the separate interviews, as well as those issues that were in dispute in terms of the information presented by both parties, and to assess the extent to which these could be resolved or remedied.
-
Timeframes
In terms of the Committee’s mandate, the Committee was required to complete its work and submit a report to the National Assembly by Friday, 25 August 2006. However, the Committee, through no fault of its own, could only convene its first session on Thursday, 10 August
- Given the nature of the Committee’s mandate, and the volume of documentation that the Committee was required to process in order to arrive at its findings and formulate recommendations, the Committee was not in a position to meet this deadline. Although the Committee had completed its formal work by the envisaged deadline, it was obliged to request an extension from the Speaker for the submission of its report which it did on 24 August. The Committee’s deadline was extended to Friday, 8 September 2006, by resolution of the National Assembly on 29 August 2006.
-
Legal framework
5.1 Background
(i) Governments worldwide are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the rights of their citizens. However, governments are only as trustworthy and infallible as the human beings that constitute them. In order to promote and ensure effective government, different forms of supervision and oversight of state functionaries have been identified.
(ii) Most constitutions provide citizens with the right to litigate to obtain redress for administrative improprieties. However, litigation tends to be formal, expensive and dilatory to the point where the ordinary person is deterred from using it to assert or enforce his or her rights. As such, an institution such as the Public Protector is an important addition to the armoury of mechanisms that are employed to create the substance of fair and stable constitutional government. In furtherance of this ideal, an experienced, high-level public officer normally heads such an office to monitor the implementation of the exercise of policy and the provision of services, in order to ensure administrative justice and fair treatment of all the people. Such an office is described as the Ombudsman or the Ombud in many countries. South Africa has chosen a more meaningful, descriptive name.
5.2 Establishment of the office of Public Protector in South Africa
(i) As a result of a unanimous decision of the multi-party negotiating forum that recognised the need for citizens to have a means of redress that is separate from the courts, section 110 of the Interim Constitution of 1993 established the office of the Public Protector in South Africa. Section 181 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provides for the office’s continued existence. The operational requirements of the office are provided for under the Public Protector Act, 1994. These three instruments provide the regulatory framework for the office of Public Protector.
(ii) It is important to note that neither the Interim Constitution nor the Constitution made provision for the position of Deputy Public Protector. This position was created in terms of the Public Protector Act, 1994, as amended by the Public Protector Amendment Act, 2003.
5.3 Appointment and removal from office of the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector
(i) The President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, appoints the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector through separate processes. In terms of section 193(4) of the Constitution, the President appoints the Public Protector, on the recommendation of the National Assembly. The Public Protector is appointed for a non- renewable term of seven years. The National Assembly must recommend persons nominated by a committee of the Assembly and approved by the Assembly by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least 60 per cent of the Members of the Assembly. This process makes the selection process of the Public Protector (along with that of the Auditor-General) more stringent than that for any other Chapter 9 institution.
(ii) Prior to 2003, section 6 of the Public Protector Amendment Act, 1998, empowered the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to appoint one or more Deputy Public Protectors after consulting the Public Protector. No appointments were made under this provision. In 2003, the Act was amended to provide for the appointment of the Deputy Public Protector by the President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly. No other Chapter 9 institution has a similar provision for a deputy, apart from the office of the Auditor-General.
(iii) Section 194 of the Constitution sets out the grounds and procedure for the removal from office of the Public Protector. In terms of this section, the President must remove the Public Protector from office where the National Assembly, by resolution, calls for his or her removal from office on the grounds of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.
(iv) Section 2A(9) of the Public Protector Act, 1994, as amended by the Public Protector Amendment Act, 2003, contains similar provisions regarding the removal from office of the Deputy Public Protector. However, in respect of the Public Protector, the resolution for his or her dismissal must be adopted with a supporting vote of at least two- thirds of the Members of the National Assembly, while the removal of the Deputy Public Protector requires a simple majority.
(v) In respect of suspension, section 194(3) of the Constitution provides that the President may suspend a Public Protector from office at any time after the start of proceedings of a committee of the National Assembly for the removal of that person.
(vi) In respect of the Deputy Public Protector, section 2A(11) of the Public Protector Act states that the President may suspend the Deputy Public Protector at any time after the National Assembly has received any complaint relating to the grounds referred to in section 2A(9), if the President deems the complaint to be of such a serious nature as to make it inappropriate for the Deputy to continue to perform his or her functions while the complaint is being investigated.
5.4 Powers and functions of the Public Protector
(i) Section 182(1) of the Constitution empowers the Public Protector to investigate any conduct in state affairs or in the public administration in any sphere of government that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice, to report on that conduct and to take appropriate remedial action.
(ii) Furthermore, section 6(4)(a) of the Public Protector Act, 1994, provides the Public Protector with additional powers to investigate any alleged -
• maladministration in connection with the affairs of government
and any alleged abuse of power or other improper conduct by a
person performing a public function;
• improper or dishonest act or omission or offences referred to in
specified provisions of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt
Activities Act, 2004; and
• improper or unlawful enrichment or receipt of any advantage or
promise of such enrichment or advantage by a person as a result
of an act or omission in the public administration or in
connection with the affairs of government at any level or of a
person performing a public function.
5.5 Independence and impartiality
(i) The Constitution contains the following provisions that aim to protect the independence and impartiality of the office of the Public Protector:
• Section 181(2) declares the office of the Public Protector as
independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law. It
also requires the office to be impartial, and to exercise its
powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or
prejudice.
• In terms of section 181(5), the Public Protector is accountable
to the National Assembly, and must report to the Assembly at
least once a year on its activities and the performance of its
functions. In addition, section 11(a) of the Public Protector
Amendment Act, 1998, requires the Public Protector to submit
yearly reports to Parliament, with the added authority of
submitting special reports when required.
• Section 181(3) directs other organs of state, through legislative
and other measures, to assist and protect the office of the
Public Protector to ensure its independence, impartiality,
dignity and effectiveness.
• Section 181(4) prohibits any person or organ of state from
interfering with the functioning of the Public Protector.
(ii) In addition, section 5(3) of the Public Protector Act, 1994, indemnifies the Public Protector and any member of his or her office against liability in respect of anything reflected in any report, finding, point of view or recommendation made or expressed in good faith and submitted to Parliament in terms of the Act or the Constitution.
(iii) The extent of activity relating to the work of the office of the Public Protector is reflected in the statistics published by the office. In 2003/2004 the office of the Public Protector received 17 295 new complaints, while 7 520 cases were brought forward from previous years. The office reported that it had disposed of a total of 15 946 cases for the 2003/2004 financial year. In 2004/2005, the office received 22 350 complaints, while 9 292 cases were carried over from previous years. The office reported that it had disposed of 17 539 cases in the 2004/2005 financial year. The Public Protector has, therefore, investigated and disposed of a total of 33 485 cases in these two financial years. The Committee considers that these statistics provide an important insight into the public’s recourse to the office for remedies of one kind or another.
(iv) The Public Protector has also established offices in all the nine provinces to make the office more readily accessible to all persons and communities in South Africa, and to enable it to exercise its complaints-handling and oversight function at the provincial level.
- Stature of the office-holders
6.1 Criteria of office
(i) The holders of the offices of Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector are required by sections 1A and 2A of the Public Protector Act to have practised as an advocate or attorney for a cumulative period of at least 10 years; or to be so qualified and to have lectured in law at a university for such period; or to have specialised knowledge of or experience in the administration of justice, public administration or public finance for such period; or to have been a member of Parliament for such period; or to possess a combination of these requirements.
6.2 The Public Protector
(i) Adv Mushwana was recommended by the National Assembly for appointment as Public Protector from amongst 15 shortlisted candidates and was appointed to the office by the President with effect from 15 October 2002.
6.3 The Deputy Public Protector
(i) Adv Mamiki Shai, one of 10 candidates shortlisted for appointment as Deputy Public Protector, was recommended for appointment by the National Assembly on 27 October 2005 and was appointed by the President with effect from 1 December 2005.
- The nature of the operational problems
7.1 Based on a careful assessment of the documents before the Committee and the inputs made to it in person by the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, the Committee found that a range of operational problems existed in the office of the Public Protector, which negatively impacted, and continue to impact, on its ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities optimally. Some of these problems existed prior to the appointment of the Deputy Public Protector on 1 December 2005 and partly contributed to the tensions that subsequently developed between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, whereas others arose directly from the strained relations between them as these progressively deteriorated.
7.2 (i) The Committee found that initially there was a measure of constructive engagement and co-operation between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector. However, as from mid-April 2006, tensions surfaced between the parties. Remarkably these tensions, by all accounts, arose from relatively insignificant administrative issues, including the drafting of a strategic plan for the office by the Deputy Public Protector. When the Public Protector indicated his dissatisfaction with the outcome, this culminated in a serious rift in relations between the parties.
ii) This rapidly led to a discord that entered the public domain when the Deputy Public Protector made serious allegations of various kinds that directly reflected on the character of the Public Protector. These allegations arose from a radio interview with the Deputy Public Protector on 14 July 2006. That the Deputy Public Protector should grant a radio interview on such matters was in itself surprising to the Committee. When the Committee questioned the Deputy Public Protector about the allegations, she was unable to substantiate them.
(iii) On 16 July 2006 a story appeared in the Sunday Times implying
that the Public Protector had sexually harassed the Deputy Public
Protector. The Public Protector responded to this in a radio interview
on 17 July 2006, in order to “defend his honour”, as he informed the
Committee. In spite of the provocation, the Committee views it as
inappropriate for the holder of such a high public office to respond
in this way.
(iv) Subsequently, the Public Protector issued a civil summons for
defamation against the Deputy Public Protector and others, and the
Deputy Public Protector informed the Committee that in response she
had instructed her attorneys to prepare a counterclaim. The Committee
noted that the matter is still pending.
(v) The Deputy Public Protector also informed the Committee that she
had prepared a letter of complaint, dated 13 August 2006, to the
Commission for Gender Equality relating to what she described as
certain “gender-based concerns” of hers, but this letter had not yet
been delivered to the Commission as of 23 August 2006.
(vi) The Committee views it as unusual in such an institution for the
head and the deputy head to embark on such actions, which by
definition must result in operational problems in the institution.
(vii) The Committee also finds it inconceivable and lacking in any
sense of proportion for a statutory office-holder to attack the
character of a superior in a radio interview.
7.3 The most important operational problems identified by the Committee are the following:
7.3.1 Lack of clarity regarding the ambit of powers and functions to be exercised by the Deputy Public Protector
(i) The Deputy Public Protector has no inherent powers, except for the powers delegated by the Public Protector. The Public Protector Act is silent regarding the extent of delegated powers, except that it provides that the Deputy Public Protector shall have such powers as the Public Protector may delegate to him or her and that the Deputy Public Protector will perform the functions of the Public Protector if he or she is unable to do so (sections 2A(6) and (7), Public Protector Act, 1994).
(ii) The Committee considered whether the Public Protector Act obliges the Public Protector to delegate powers and functions to the Deputy Public Protector. Based on legal opinion obtained, the Committee accepts that the Public Protector is indeed obliged to delegate powers to the Deputy Public Protector. The Committee’s position on this matter is supported by the high level of skills and qualifications required of the person to be appointed as Deputy Public Protector, the provisions of the Public Protector Act read as a whole, as well as legal precedent. The Committee agreed, therefore, that in respect of delegation:
• The Public Protector may withdraw the delegation at any time and
perform the function personally. He or she may also prescribe
certain conditions relating to the exercise of the function by the
Deputy Public Protector.
• When the Deputy Public Protector performs a function on behalf of
the Public Protector, he or she acts in the place of the Public
Protector and the function is regarded as having been performed by
the Public Protector.
• The Public Protector may exercise various types of control over
the Deputy Public Protector. He or she may require reports to be
furnished and if the task is not correctly exercised, may relieve
the Deputy Public Protector of his or her function. However, once
a task is completed, the Public Protector is bound by the decision
or performance. He or she may only repeal or alter the delegation
in respect of future acts and may not undo completed matters.
(iii) Notwithstanding the obligation on the Public Protector to delegate powers to the Deputy Public Protector, he or she retains ultimate responsibility for the operation of the office and, as such, is accountable to the National Assembly. Moreover, the Public Protector retains ultimate responsibility for all external communications, and in this regard should never delegate powers to the extent where the Deputy Public Protector exercises exclusive discretion.
(iv) The Committee found that certain functions had been assigned to the Deputy Public Protector, as reflected in the minutes of a management meeting on 13 January 2006. However, this did not constitute a formal and distinct delegation of powers as contemplated in the Act. Indeed, the Committee found a total lack of precision regarding the powers vested in the Deputy Public Protector. It was not clear to the Committee what exactly she was expected to do and on what basis of authority.
(v) It appears that functions were assigned to her in an ad hoc way and that they were largely of an administrative nature. More specifically, in the absence of a chief executive officer, the Deputy Public Protector performed duties that can be performed by senior staff, although she did not fulfil the function of accounting officer. In terms of the organisational structure of the office of the Public Protector, all but two managers at the national office, as well as all regional managers, are required to report to the Deputy Public Protector. However, the Deputy Public Protector complained that she did not have sufficient authority to exercise effective managerial control. Furthermore, the Deputy Public Protector voiced dissatisfaction at her lack of direct involvement in the core business of the office, namely investigations.
(vi) The Committee found that despite the Act’s silence regarding the ambit of the powers and functions to be delegated to the Deputy Public Protector, any powers delegated to the Deputy Public Protector should befit her status as an appointed office-holder.
7.3.2 Lines of authority and accountability between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector as statutory office-holders
(i) It appears to the Committee that neither the Public Protector nor his Deputy has understood or grappled with the issue of the legal relationship between the two of them. This is reflected in the request by the Public Protector to various bodies for assistance towards ”reconciliation” between them, and in the Deputy Public Protector seeking “mediation”. In following this course, these office-holders have misinterpreted the law. (ii) Yet, the Act is very clear as section 3 unambiguously states that “The Public Protector shall, subject to his or her directions and control, … be assisted (our emphasis) by the Deputy Public Protector”. This envisaged that the Public Protector would manage the Deputy. In other words, insubordination could be regarded as misconduct for the purposes of section 2A(9) of the Act.
(iii) The Committee therefore considered the matter of accountability and affirmed that the Public Protector is the head of the office and is the person who is accountable to the National Assembly for its functioning. Accordingly, despite the statutory nature of the appointment, and the similarity in the rules pertaining to their appointment to and removal from office, they are not equals. The Deputy Public Protector reports to the Public Protector and is accountable to the Public Protector for the exercise of her powers and functions. The Deputy Public Protector has accepted before the Committee that this is the correct interpretation of the nature of the legal relationship between the two office-holders.
7.3.3 Cessation of regular meetings between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector
(i) The Committee found that before the office of the Public Protector started to experience operational problems, there was a measure of co- operation between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector. This is evident from the fact that the parties held weekly meetings to discuss operational issues in the office, as well as the fact that management meetings were held on a regular basis. However, since May 2006, their weekly meetings to discuss operational issues in the office had ceased as relations between them became increasingly strained. The Committee noted that communication between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector became more distant as time progressed, and that they resorted to a flood of short message services (SMSs) and electronic mail (E-mail) rather than speaking to each other directly.
7.3.4 Failure to observe protocol in communication between the parties, communication between the parties and staff, as well as communication with external role-players, such as Parliament and the media
(i) The Committee noted with concern that the progressively strained relations between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector had unfortunately culminated in a public dispute between them. It is not for the Committee to determine exactly who took the initiative, but both parties interacted with and provided information to the media. Furthermore, both parties separately submitted representations to the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for intervention. The Portfolio Committee does not appear to have addressed the representations made to it in this regard.
(ii) Section 2(5) of the Public Protector Act provides that the Public Protector may at any time approach the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development with regard to any matter pertaining to the office of the Public Protector. It was, therefore, not improper for the Public Protector to approach the Portfolio Committee. However, it was improper for the Deputy Public Protector to do so. Nevertheless, the Committee was of the view that the Public Protector should have known, regardless of information received from a third party, that the appropriate protocol when approaching the National Assembly on issues pertaining to the office of the Public Protector is through the Speaker of the National Assembly, who must refer such issues to the relevant committee.
(iii) The Committee expressed its dismay at the apparent inability of the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, who are appointed to these high ranking offices in a process determined by statute, to solve minor internal problems, and to resort to seeking a political resolution to what are largely administrative matters.
(iv) Furthermore, both the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector displayed a lack of discretion in placing their personal differences in the public domain. This lack of discretion is also evident in their lack of prudence in directing appeals to a number of government structures simultaneously, including the Minister and Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. There was internal evidence that even the Presidency had been approached by the Deputy Public Protector. This was totally out of order and inconsistent with their constitutional status. In the process they allowed their dispute to escalate into a public row that degenerated into a débâcle.
(v) Given that both the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector have sufficient authority to resolve administrative matters internally, as well as responsibility to protect the dignity of the office, the Committee found their behaviour to be regrettable in the extreme. A public argument of this nature undermines the dignity of the office, which could adversely affect the level of confidence the public has in this vital office.
7.3.5 Withdrawal of the powers and functions of the Deputy Public Protector, which have not yet been restored
(i) As noted above, the Committee was informed that before the deterioration in relations between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, all but two managers at the national office, as well as all regional managers, in principle reported to the Deputy Public Protector in terms of the organisational structure of the office. However, the Committee was informed that on 17 July 2006 the Public Protector had, by means of a memorandum, instructed all managers that from that date they should report to him directly, and not to the Deputy Public Protector. The Committee was informed that this instruction is still in effect. Hence, since mid-July 2006, the work undertaken by the Deputy Public Protector has been significantly reduced.
7.3.6 Delays in filling senior positions and staff turnover
(i) The Committee found that the staff turnover in the office of the Public Protector is a matter of serious concern. This may not necessarily be attributable to the strained relations between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, but rather to the absence of an effective staff retention strategy, particularly with regard to senior staff. In addition, the Committee noted the long delays in filling posts in the office, especially at senior management level. Of particular concern to the Committee is the tardiness in filling the position of chief executive officer, which has been vacant since the Deputy Public Protector assumed office in December 2005. The Committee was informed that the delay in filling this position could be attributed, in the opinion of the Public Protector, to difficulties in determining the appropriate remuneration for this position. Consequently, some of the functions of the chief executive officer were effectively devolved to the Deputy Public Protector in the interim.
7.3.7 Terms and conditions of service
(i) The National Assembly is tasked with determining the remuneration and other terms and conditions of service applicable to the Deputy Public Protector upon the advice of the relevant committee (section 2A(5) of the Public Protector Act, 1994). The Committee found that, pursuant to this mandate, the National Assembly had indeed approved the terms and conditions of service applicable to the Deputy Public Protector as early as October 2005, and those had been sent to the Public Protector. However, it appears that such terms and conditions have not been communicated to the Deputy Public Protector and that the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector were not applying them.
(ii) Confusion around leave applications by the Deputy Public Protector also contributed to the strained relationship. The Committee established that the Deputy Public Protector should apply to the Public Protector for leave.
(iii) The Committee also clarified that the Public Protector is responsible for his own ordinary leave requirements and that the chief administrative officer should keep records for auditing purposes.
(iv) Both the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector agreed to adopt this new approach to leave applications.
7.3.8 Allegations of sexual harassment
(i) The Committee noted that no charge of sexual harassment had been laid and that no complaints on those grounds or on the grounds of other inappropriate behaviour had been submitted to any public authority as of 23 August 2006. The allegations, as published in the media, were therefore unsubstantiated and required no further response from the Committee.
7.4 The Committee found that the deterioration in relations and the resultant aggravated behaviour in public between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector had resulted in tension among staff members, leading to poor staff morale. The Public Protector informed the Committee that there were “camps” in his office, built around the Deputy Public Protector. The Deputy Public Protector informed the Committee that there were “tensions” in the office. This has contributed to the current operational problems being experienced by the office.
7.5 The Committee also noted that prior to the Deputy Public Protector assuming office on 1 December 2005, there had been no complaint regarding the operations in the office of the Public Protector, particularly relating to issues of authority and jurisdiction. Although the Committee is reluctant to attribute the current operational problems being experienced by the office of the Public Protector exclusively to either party, it noted that a contributing factor might have been the lack of a proper mentoring programme for the Deputy Public Protector on assuming office, and the fact that the Public Protector was unavailable at the time to provide personal guidance as he was away on leave.
7.6 The Committee noted that the Public Protector Act, 1994, is silent regarding the powers to be accorded to the Deputy Public Protector. With regard to the content of the powers and functions to be assigned to the Deputy Public Protector, the Act simply states that the Public Protector may delegate powers to the Deputy Public Protector. The Committee found that the lack of legislative clarity had contributed to the operational problems being experienced in the office of the Public Protector. However, the legislation concerning the authority of the Public Protector is quite clear: the Deputy Public Protector is subordinated to the Public Protector. Be that as it may, the Committee noted that the inexperience of the Deputy Public Protector in the work and activities of the office of the Public Protector did not create an impediment for her to intervene, sometimes in a very sharp and abrupt fashion.
- Recommendations
(i) The Committee’s recommendations to the National Assembly aim to strengthen the office of the Public Protector and to resolve the operational problems affecting its optimal functioning. These recommendations take into account the fact that some of the differences and misunderstanding between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector may have been clarified at a meeting of the Committee at which both parties were present. These include issues relating to the overall authority of the Public Protector; the urgent need for the formal written delegation of functions to the Deputy Public Protector; the need for the involvement of both the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector in interviews for senior appointments; the clarification of leave applications and the applicable terms and conditions of service; as well as the need for proper communication of the powers delegated to the Deputy Public Protector, as under the organisational structure of the office.
(ii) The Committee submits that its recommendations should be implemented as a matter of urgency, as they include confidence-building measures to assist in removing the potential sources of tension between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector.
The Committee’s recommendations are as follows:
8.1 The lines of authority and accountability between the office of the Public Protector and other organs of state, more particularly with Parliament, the Presidency and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, need to be observed so as to protect the independence of the office of the Public Protector. The Committee is concerned that the Minister and Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development were approached, although neither of these authorities has any competence relating to the functioning of the Chapter 9 institutions.
8.2 The lines of authority and accountability between the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, as statutory office- holders, have been clarified by the Committee. Both the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector accepted the authority of the Public Protector as head of the institution. As such, the Deputy Public Protector reports to the Public Protector. The Committee recommends that the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector apply this clarification of the lines of authority and accountability in the daily operations of the office. In other words, the Public Protector should exercise his undoubted authority henceforth.
8.3 The Deputy Public Protector should be delegated powers that are appropriate to the statutory nature of the office. Such delegation of powers and functions should be related to the core competencies of the office, should be communicated clearly to the Deputy Public Protector and should be documented.
8.4 The Public Protector should, in person and without delay, ensure that the Deputy Public Protector is adequately mentored regarding the powers to be delegated to her and the general running of the office.
8.5 The Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector should resume their regular meetings regarding operational issues in the office. Similarly, meetings with managers should continue to be held on a regular basis.
8.6 All communication with Parliament must be by the Public Protector in person. Other public communication should in principle be directed by the Public Protector, or should be performed with his authority by the communications manager.
8.7 The posts of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as well as other senior staff vacancies, should be filled without delay. Concerning the determination of an appropriate salary level for the chief executive officer, the Committee was surprised to learn that this was regarded as an impediment to the filling of the post. This matter must be settled in the appropriate fashion in accordance with Public Service requirements.
8.8 The Public Protector should ensure that clear written procedures for the appointment of staff members, as well as for internal horizontal transfers of staff, are developed to the extent that these are not already formally documented, and should further ensure that they are adhered to at all times.
8.9 The Public Protector needs to develop a staff retention strategy to address staff turnover, particularly at a senior level.
8.10 When the Public Protector acts in accordance with the provision of the Public Protector Act that empowers him to approach the National Assembly with regard to any matter pertaining to his office, he should direct such communication to the Speaker of the National Assembly for referral to an ad hoc or standing committee. Equally, the committee, in responding to the issues raised by the Public Protector, should communicate its response through the Speaker’s office.
8.11 The Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector are expected immediately to implement, and function in accordance with, the terms and conditions of service as approved by the National Assembly.
8.12 The National Assembly should allow a period of not more than six months for the corrective and confidence-building measures referred to above to be implemented and to take effect.
8.13 The Speaker should consider reconvening this Committee before the end of March 2007 to assess progress made and to determine any further action that may be required to ensure that the office is able to fulfil its constitutional and legislative mandate.
- Conclusion
9.1 In conclusion, the Committee trusts that the Public Protector will urgently take steps to ensure that the office achieves optimal operational levels in the shortest possible time, and towards that end will observe and enforce the decisions of the National Assembly resulting from the Committee’s recommendations.
9.2 The Committee is of the view that it is undesirable that current legal action and a possible related formal complaint remain in the public domain and unresolved. For as long as these continue, they will unavoidably impede the optimal functioning of the office.
9.3 The Committee is under the impression that the Public Protector and his Deputy have responded in a largely positive fashion to the recommendations contained in this Report during the Committee’s discussions with them.
9.4 The Committee believes that the adoption by the National Assembly of these recommendations with a view to their urgent implementation will assist in strengthening the office of the Public Protector and the removal of the identified obstacles to its operational efficiency.
- Acknowledgement of support to Committee
The Committee was supported by the following parliamentary officials: Mr K Hahndiek, Secretary to the National Assembly; Adv Z Adhikarie, Senior Legal Adviser; Mr M Philander, Control Committee Secretary; Adv T Molukanele, Procedural Officer at the National Assembly Table; Ms E Saptoe and Ms C Silkstone, Researchers; and Ms S Lovember, Administrative Assistant.
These officials have worked long hours. The Committee wishes to record its appreciation for the exceptional commitment to the work of the Committee by them, and their unstinting service and professionalism.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Standing Committee on Private Members` Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the proposed Magistrates’ Court Amendment Bill, dated 29 August 2006:
The Standing Committee on Private Members` Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, having considered the proposed Magistrates’ Court Amendment Bill submitted by Mr. L K Joubert, and having consulted the PC: Justice and Constitutional Development, the Committee recommends that the permission be given to the member to proceed with the proposed legislation.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works on the Government Immovable Asset Management Bill [B 1-2006] (National Assembly), dated 30 August 2006:
The Portfolio Committee on Public Works having considered the subject
of the Government Immovable Asset Management Bill [B1-2006] (National
Assembly – sec 75) referred to it, wishes to report as follows:
1. During the meeting of the Portfolio Committee held on 3 May 2006,
the Committee was informed by the Department of Public Works of the
existence of complexities on the extension of the scope of the Bill
to local government. The Department was directed to revisit and do
extensive consultation on those complexities and also include a
chapter on local government, which the Department undertook to do.
2. At the meeting of the Committee held on 24 May 2006, pursuant to
and in response to the meeting of 3 May 2006, the Department
reported to the Committee on the outcome of their consultation with
the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG). The
Department proposed that the Bill be passed in its current form and
a future amended Bill incorporating a local government chapter be
considered at a later stage. Further that the Committee recommends
to the House that the extension of the scope of the Bill to local
government be referred to the Departments of Public Works and
Provincial and Local Government for further consultation and
consideration.
3. The Committee noted the proposals by the Department but referred
the Department back to consider the Bill, as reasons advanced for
not incorporating a local government chapter were unconvincing and
unacceptable.
4. At the meeting of the Committee held on 31 May 2006 the Department
informed the Committee that it did not sufficiently consult with
DPLG and South African Local Government Association (SALGA) and
proposed that the Bill could either be withdrawn from the current
parliamentary session or be passed in its current form, and
thereafter an amendment to be incorporated into the Bill be fast
tracked.
RECOMMENDATIONS
❖ The Committee considered the Bill and recommends to the House to
reject the Bill.
Report to be considered.