National Council of Provinces - 21 June 2006
WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2006 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:07.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M A MZIZI: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on next sitting day of the House I shall move, on behalf of the IFP:
That the Council-
(1) notes with shock that the decomposing body of Ms Sibongile Rahlogo, who had been reported missing after not returning home from work, was found in the boot of her car in Westonaria on the West Rand; 2) further notes that a case of murder has been opened against Ms Rahlogo’s boyfriend, Mr Oupa Tsakane, who was using the car at the time and who only pointed out her dead body a few days later;
(3) acknowledges that a person capable of committing such a heinous crime has no place in society; and
(4) therefore calls upon the relevant authorities to do their utmost to get this monster locked up behind bars for as long as legally possible so that he will no longer pose any threat to society.
Mr A WATSON: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:
That the Council-
(1) notes with utter disgust the pathetic attempt by the hon Freddy Adams to defame the good name of Cape Town Mayor Helen Zille, when he alleged in this House last week that Ms Zille and the DA had tried to bribe the voters of Tafelsig to vote for the party by handing out loaves of bread and fish;
(2) further notes that these allegations are devoid of anything resembling the truth and that the true facts of the case are as follows-
(a) the NGO participated in a campaign visit which was funded and
organised by that NGO, and no ratepayers’ funds were involved;
(b) the visit in question was nonpolitical in nature and no mention
was made of any party-political issue;
(c) the NGO in question received donations of large amounts of
loaves of bread and fish, and these were handed out amongst the
poor as a symbolic Christian gesture; and
(d) several other celebrities accompanied Ms Zille on this visit,
including the mother of murdered toddler Jordan Lee Norton; and
(3) therefore demands that the hon member, Mr Adams, does the honourable thing for once and apologises to Ms Zille for falsely besmirching her name and also to the NGO in question for bringing into disrepute the good reputation of their tireless work to combat crime and abuse with his irresponsible statement. [Interjections.]
Mr E M SOGONI: Chairperson, on a point of order, hon Krumbock has just shown me an insulting finger.
An HON MEMBER: What did it look like?
Mr E M SOGONI: I don’t want to demonstrate the sign that he made because it is unparliamentary.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, please, let’s not use those signs in the House. Are we in order, Mr Krumbock? Please, let’s not do that because it’s insulting and unparliamentary.
Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on next sitting of the House I shall move, on behalf of the ANC:
That the Council-
(1) notes-
(a) with serious concern that the country loses over R2 billion of
revenue annually to the counterfeit industry and that, according
to Sars, the global counterfeit industry is valued at US$500
billion, which is equivalent to R3,4 trillion and has grown from
7% of the world trade in 2003 to 10% last year, 2005;
(b) with appreciation that Sars and the police have clamped down
heavily on the importation of counterfeit goods which,
unfortunately, results in the increase in production in the
local counterfeit industry, and that the counterfeit goods are
available on shelves of stores and in the streets across the
country at a reduced price in the form of, inter alia, CDs,
DVDs, cosmetics, washing powder, foodstuffs, etc;
(c) musicians and actors, under the leadership of the people’s poet,
Mzwakhe Mbuli, have responded by physically raiding the premises
of those selling their counterfeit CDs, DVDs and cassettes and
on Sunday alone counterfeit CDs, DVDs and cassettes worth R20
million were confiscated during a raid on a Johannesburg
warehouse;
(d) that several brands’ companies are approaching the courts to put
a stop to this crime and that the police are in the process of
restructuring and building capacity at police station level
whilst also retaining the commercial crime unit to deal with
organised syndicates;
(e) that first-time offenders, if found guilty, would receive a
sentence of a R3 000 fine per item and/or three years in prison;
and
(f) that an expert counterfeit lawyer, Marilyn Knige, from Adams and
Adams law firm said: “I know of no instances where a
counterfeiter has been imprisoned in this country.”;
(2) resolves that counterfeiting and piracy are crimes that should be combated by all patriotic South Africans who are prepared to die with their boots on for the good of the nation;
(3) supports all measures taken by all those who are at the forefront of this battle as long as they promote the rule of law;
(4) calls upon-
(a) the law enforcement agencies to increase their capacity to deal
with this crime and take the war to the enemy; and
(b) our courts to impose heavy sentences, including jail terms, so
that criminals and potential criminals may know that crime does
not pay.
JOB CREATION AND SERVICE DELIVERY
(Draft Resolution)
Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council –
(1) notes that the ANC in this Council has always maintained that the government’s policies and programmes provide the best framework for meeting the needs and aspirations of the people;
(2) further notes that in terms of the most recent General Household Survey –
(a) overall employment rose from 10,8 million in 2003 to 11,6
million in 2005;
(b) the percentage of people aged between 7 and 24 who were not
attending an educational institution because of a lack of money
to pay fees declined from 39,6% in 2002 to 35,4% in 2005;
(c) households living in informal structures declined to 11,7%; and
(d) the percentage of households that relied on bucket toilets or
had no toilet facility declined from 13,2% in 2002 to 10,2% in
2005;
(3) believes the increase in job creation and service delivery, as reflected in the survey, is as a result of the government’s policies, in particular its commitment to respond with the necessary seriousness and determination to implement its policies; and
(4) welcomes these encouraging revelations as yet another sign that our country has indeed entered its Age of Hope.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
POSTPONEMENT OF ORDER NO 11 ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That, after consultation with and with the consent of all parties, Order No 11 on the Order Paper not be dealt with today.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
REFERRAL OF REPORT OF THE JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS ON THE FILLING OF VACANCIES ON THE NATIONAL YOUTH COMMISSION BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the motion printed in the name of the Chief Whip of the Council on the Order Paper as follows:
That the Council, subject to the concurrence of the National Assembly, refer the Report of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons on the filling of vacancies on the National Youth Commission (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 5 June 2006, p 1152) back to the Committee for further consideration.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: As there is no speakers’ list I shall now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces votes. Are you all present?
HON MEMBERS: Yes.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declaration of votes if they so wish. Is there any province that wishes to do so? None. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I will do so in alphabetic order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour, against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape? Ms B N DLULANE: Chairperson, we are in favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mr S SHICEKA: In favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: IKwaZulu-Natali ithi elethu. [KwaZulu-Natal is in favour.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ke a rena. [Limpopo is in favour.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Steun. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [We support it.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Mr R DYANTYI: Sikhona, baba. [We are in favour, Chairperson.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Nine provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
PARLIAMENTARY MULTIPARTY DELEGATION PART OF OBSERVER MISSION TO THE
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO ELECTIONS
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in the name of the Chief Whip of the Council on the Order Paper as follows: That the Council, noting that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is holding its elections on 30 July 2006, resolves, subject to the concurrence of the National Assembly, that –
(1) the South African Parliament send a 30-member multiparty delegation to observe these elections;
(2) the delegation form part of the South African National Observer Mission;
(3) the delegation observes the campaign in the run-up to the elections, the casting of votes and the subsequent counting of the votes;
(4) the delegation complies with the attached Code of Conduct governing parliamentary observer missions;
(5) the delegation complies with the Code and Rules governing the conduct of the National Observer Mission and recognises the overall leadership of that Mission’s leader; and
6) the delegation tables for consideration and debate the report of the
National Observer Mission to Parliament on its return.
Principles and rules governing observer missions
1. General
(1) Observer missions must be conducted on the basis of the
highest standards of impartiality concerning political
processes in the host country and must be free from any
bilateral or multilateral consideration that could conflict
with impartiality.
(2) Observer missions must be conducted with respect for the
sovereignty of the host country, including adherence to
domestic laws, and with respect for the rights of the people
of the country.
(3) Observer missions must not interfere with, obstruct or
hamper the processes being observed.
(4) An observer mission must strive to gather information
systematically and comprehensively, to analyse the
information within the overall context of the event, even if
the observer mission focuses on only a sector of the event,
and to draw conclusions based on the highest standards of
accuracy of information and impartiality of analysis.
(5) Observer missions must submit a report to Parliament or
the House that mandated it within a reasonable time,
presenting their findings, conclusions and, where
appropriate, recommendations they determine could help
improve the observed processes.
(6) All statements of the observer Mission to the public or
the news media must be authorised by the Mission.
2. Conduct of members
Members of the observer mission must respect the integrity of
the mission, including:
(1) following any reasonable written or verbal instructions
from the observer mission’s leadership;
(2) attending all of the observer mission’s required
briefings, trainings and debriefings if reasonably possible;
(3) reporting to the leadership of the observer mission any
conflicts of interest they may have and any improper
behaviour they see conducted by other members of the
observer mission;
(4) maintaining strict impartiality at all times, including
leisure time in the host country, and not conducting any
activity that could be reasonably perceived as favouring or
providing partisan gain for any political competitor in the
host country, such as wearing or displaying partisan
symbols;
(5) maintaining proper personal behaviour and respect towards
others, including exhibiting sensitivity for host-country
cultures and customs, exercising sound judgment in personal
interactions and observing the highest level of professional
conduct at all times, including leisure time; and
(6) not making personal comments about the observations or
conclusions of the observer mission to the news media or
members of the public prior to the observer mission
reporting to Parliament or the House that mandated it unless
authorised by the observer mission.
3. Violations of the Code
If a member violates this Code the observer mission may, through
its leadership, suspend the participation of the member in the
observer mission and must in that event report the circumstances
to the relevant House.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: As there is no speakers’ list I shall now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province’s votes. Are you all present in the Chamber?
HON MEMBERS: Yes.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any province that wishes to do so? None. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetic order per province. Delegation heads will have to indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour, against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Ms B N DLULANE: Siyayixhasa. [We support it.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Steun. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: IGauteng iyayisekela. [Gauteng supports it.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: IKwaZulu Natali ithi elethu. [KwaZulu-Natal supports it.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo re a thega. [Limpopo supports it.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Ya hina. [We support it.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Steun. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: In favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Mr R DYANTYI: Siyaxhasa, Sihlalo. [We support it, Chairperson.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Nine provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. RATIFICATION OF DECISION OF JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JOINT PROGRAMME COMMITTEE REGARDING 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP BILLS
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in the name of the Chief Whip of the Council on the Order Paper as follows:
That the Council ratifies the decision of the Joint Subcommittee of the Joint Programming Committee, taken on 20 June 2006, namely:
That –
(1) noting South Africa’s international commitment to adopt special
legislative measures regarding the 2010 FIFA World Cup within
specified timeframes;
2) further noting that the 2010 World Cup South Africa Special
Measures Bill [B13-2006] which was introduced on 6 June 2006 is
to be split into separate Sec 75 and Sec 76 Bills;
(3) in accordance with Joint Rule 216(2), the two Bills upon receipt
be fast-tracked by shortening any period within which any step in
the legislative process relating to the Bills has to be
completed, but subject to public participation in the process of
the consideration of the Bills, in order for the Bills to be
passed by both Houses before 31 August 2006;
(4) for this purpose the relevant NA and NCOP committees confer on
the Bills; and
(5) the Assembly committee finalises its consideration of the Bills
by 31 July 2006 and the NCOP committee reports formally on both
Bills in time for the approved deadline to be met by Parliament.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: As there is no speakers’ list, I shall now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province’s vote. Are you all present in the Chamber?
HON MEMBERS: Yes.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: In accordance with Rule 71, I will then afford you an opportunity to make a declaration if you wish to do so. Is there any province that wishes to do so? There is none.
We now proceed to the voting. I shall do this in alphabetic order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour, against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Ms B N DLULANE: In favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Siyayixhasa, Sihlalo. [We support it, Chairperson.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: Ke a thega. [We support.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Rea e thega. [We support] The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Steun. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Eya hina. [In favour.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Mr R DYANTYI: Supports it.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
N2 GATEWAY HOUSING PROJECT
(Subject for discussion) Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): Mhlalingaphambili namalungu eNdlu ahloniphekileyo ... [Chairperson and hon members of the House ...]
… I rise to take part in this very important debate in this august House and to kick-start this important discussion on the N2 Gateway project.
I would want, upfront, to set the scene, raise some contextual issues and table some important facts so that the matter is laid to rest once and for all. In creating that context, I think it is important to make the point that I also rise to stand here representing the provincial government of the Western Cape, led by the ANC – a party that has saved this country from the brink of collapse.
We have turned this economy around, an economy that was inward-looking and was never competitive. Not only did we do that in the economic sphere, we also did so in the case of many other things, including the issue under discussion today.
In terms of the Western Cape itself, this is a province where black people, and Africans in particular, were never allowed to settle or to work, let alone have homes. When we speak about this issue today we have to bring that historical perspective into this kind of discussion, because it is likely that some of those people who might raise problems here today have a certain nostalgia and want to take us back. Therefore I do want to make that point.
From 1994, during the past 12 years of our democracy, it was essential for us to turn things around and deliver in numbers. It was necessary to do so. We moved from quantitative access to what we now call qualitative access. We had to build more than 1,8 million houses because they were needed. We have learned key lessons out of that, in terms of how we need to improve on quality issues.
The Western Cape is a province that has many challenges. When going around this province daily, I meet people who share their own space with animals. In the city of Cape Town, if you go to Site C in Khayelitsha, people live with rats as big as cats. Nobody makes a noise about that because to some of us it is acceptable that we must live under inhuman conditions.
If you go around this province to Bonteheuwel and other districts, you will find that our communities spend time in pigsties. That is not the history I want to dwell on today, but it is important to create that context.
It is in that context that the champion of the poor, Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, who is not with us today and is also dealing with these matters abroad in Canada, introduced to us the policy Breaking New Ground. In terms of its objectives, it is aimed at assisting us progressively to eradicate informal settlements, facilitate inter- and intra-settlement integration; enable urban renewal and restructuring of urban renewal; improve settlement designs; implement mechanisms that will assist with eradication of poverty; facilitate greater responsiveness to livelihood strategies; and also ensure that the active participation of all three spheres of government does achieve a common goal.
In terms of that context, we have a policy and the N2 Gateway project is a national pilot project of that policy. It is aimed at fast-tracking housing delivery. “Pilot” itself means that we needed to do things in a fast- tracking way and without going through the normal routes of red tape and bureaucracy. It is possible therefore, in terms of this N2 Gateway pilot project and the speed at which we move and the way we do things as pioneers in this field, that we will learn the lessons I am going to speak about at the end of this discussion.
I think it is important for me to make the point that the N2 Gateway pilot project was designed as an exercise in co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations, and was guided by a memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister of Housing, the MEC for local government and the Mayor of Cape Town.
The project has also sought an urgent but sensitive response to Cape Town’s housing needs that I have just outlined, particularly along the N2, between the airport and Langa. It is a pilot project of the Department of Housing’s Breaking New Ground Policy. It incorporates rental ownership units to accommodate 22 000 households.
The first element comprises Joe Slovo Phase 1, which borders Langa and consists of 705 units that have been completed, in terms of two- to three- storey blocks ranging in size from 27m² to 48m². This project’s units, as I have just said, are complete and ready for occupation. As the MEC for local government in this province, I will make that announcement with no pressure from anybody. [Applause.]
We are already in the process, as I speak here today. Tomorrow I will be addressing the entire community of Langa. We are excited about this project and looking forward to the occupation of this first phase. We are talking here about 705 units and family members in their thousands, because each family unit is going to bring many family members who never had this opportunity before.
We have heard a noise from people complaining about this and that, but the people of Langa and the surrounding areas are excited and looking forward to this. We will engage them tomorrow in a meeting. There are some of us who are saying there is going to be war and chaos and I stand here to say there is going to be none of those things. We are going to deliver houses to our people.
It is also important for me to make the point that, contrary to what the public, the print and other media have been reporting, the N2 Gateway project is not the only project in this province and city of Cape Town. This is a pilot project and there are other housing opportunities that people are going to access.
In terms of the N2, beyond Phase 1 there are other phases such as Joe Slovo Phase 2, which will be a mixture of bonded housing and what we call “Breaking New Ground” houses, and will involve banks. We are going beyond what was created in this province such as the houses at Delft and the matchbox houses that were created by some of the people who will be making a noise here today. [Interjections.]
Along that strip, we aim to build 1 000 units in the combination of GAP housing units and BNG houses. Alongside Gugulethu, in the New Rest area, we are already involved in upgrading an in situ project which will comprise 1 200 households. Work has already started on that project. In terms of Phase 2, planning has been finalised regarding Boys Town in Crossroads and it will go further down along there.
In Delft and Symphony the Greenfields project, which is aimed at accommodating 6 300 units, and will have 600 rental units, is already under way. There is another Greenfields project in Delft called Delft 729, in which about 4 500 housing units and 800 rental units are going to be built. That project as well as part of Phase 2 and other phases has already begun. We are already going beyond what you see with your naked eye. There is a lot of work being done.
It was also recently decided that Thubelisha Homes, as an agency of the Department of Housing, should be the developer of the N2 Gateway project and will be supported principally by the national and provincial governments. There has also been a commitment by the housing Minmec to contribute funds from all the provinces to help expedite the N2 Gateway project as a national pilot project.
I would also like to make the point that, as you are aware, the three spheres of government co-operated very well before the elections to take us to where we are. The process, with all of its challenges, ran smoothly.
It so happened that beyond the elections we had a problem in terms of how we address those intersphere relationships. The problem related to a new party that came and wanted to play petty politics, a party that does not care for the poor and leads a city that does not care.
As an MEC of local government, I am monitoring that situation and watching them quite carefully. All they have done so far has been to make noises about investigations; nothing else. Regarding all of the investigations they have talked about, we have had no results concerning all those kinds of issues. They have not put a brick in place or built a single house in about three or four months. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, howling should not be disorderly. Let’s allow the debate to continue. Continue, MEC.
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): Chairperson, perhaps, I can understand that kind of interjection because the truth sometimes bites. But I rise here to make these particular points. This is an ambitious project, which is a necessary intervention for us to make.
The Western Cape, as a province, salutes the national government. It salutes the national Minister for making this kind of intervention. Without this intervention, without this pilot project, the Western Cape remains a poorer province. We should all be grateful for the kind of intervention that the national government has made.
We have to face the challenges that we have, and these include the lessons that we learned in terms of the capacity of the city to do certain things, because this is a project that has to deliver 22 000 houses within a three- year period, and the city can only deliver less than 7 000 houses in that period. This will therefore help us to improve our capacity as a province and also as this city. As a government, there is a national programme that all of us have to follow.
It does not matter who runs the City of Cape Town, we are going to force them to do the kind of things that they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have to provide land and they have to ensure that services are put in place. I thank you, Chairperson.
Mr R J TAU: Chairperson, hon MEC, officials from the department and comrades, let me take the opportunity to thank, of course, the presiding officers for allowing us an opportunity to engage in this all-important debate. This must be viewed, once more, as a process in which we as the NCOP reaffirm our position as a strategic House where issues at the provincial and local level of government can get national profiling and expression.
This must also be viewed as a unique opportunity for provinces to bring matters of strategic importance to the public domain so that we do not rely only on the media or papers, which not many South Africans have an opportunity to buy or read.
The subject matter before us today is long overdue. It has made media headlines for a long time and in the process a lot of misconceptions, misleading statements and assertions, leading to absolute confusion among the beneficiaries, have been made. For the record, let me state that, as the ANC, we reaffirm our commitment to the principle of creating a South Africa that is nonracial, nonsexist and democratic. At the heart of it is a country with a caring society.
Consistent with that principle we have said in our world-renowned document, the Freedom Charter, that, “There shall be housing, security and comfort.” It was therefore no mistake that, having learnt from the challenges that presented themselves through the housing approach of our government since 1994, government, under the leadership of the ANC, developed a strategy to house our people much better and faster. We did this precisely because, as a caring organisation, we had to do away with apartheid planning and racial segregation.
It was therefore by no mistake that in 2004 the Cabinet then approved a comprehensive plan for the development of sustainable human settlement, commonly known as “Breaking New Ground”. It is through this plan that this caring government seeks to arrest the mushrooming of informal settlements, and to upgrade some, where possible, in order to realise the sustainable settlement development.
By so doing, government will then be addressing a very important pillar of shelter needs, restoration of dignity of people, reducing the vulnerability and ameliorating poverty and enhancing safety and security for our people. It is with this understanding that government will be reversing the trend of apartheid spatial planning and further spatial marginalisation of the workers and the poor, and achieve new modes of intergovernmental co- operation.
For this reason, all provinces developed pilot projects from which the department would have learned some lessons on the new approach for housing our people. It must be noted therefore that with this being a new experience, the Minmec - which is a forum of all our MECs - then took a decision that because of the challenges that are facing the country, it would be better to “test-case” this strategy in one province as opposed to having many pilot projects in all nine provinces. And because of that and the unique position of the Western Cape, the Western Cape was then chosen as a test-case province.
It must be further noted that because of the caring nature of our government and the unselfish nature of the ANC MECs, they even went as far as compromising their own provincial housing budgets in order to subsidise the project in the Western Cape.
It is for this reason that some, if not all of us, including the rest of Africa and the world, were quite shocked by the Mayor of Cape Town, Helen Zille, when she said that the N2 Gateway project was an election tool of the ANC. It is for this reason that, as the ANC, we supported the decision of the Minmec of 12 June 2006 to remove the City of Cape Town from the project’s responsibilities with immediate effect. [Applause.]
We did so because we found it very irresponsible for the leader of the city and the DA, as a party that purports to be acting in the best interests of our people, to go out in public and politicise the project along political lines instead of appreciating what is being done for the poor. [Interjections.] The ANC government has stood firm in reconstructing the lives of our people through its social transformation programme and, in this instance, housing.
While the ANC is working hard to build our society by developing nonracial policies, programmes and projects, Helen Zille, instead, appeared on the recent Special Assignment TV programme to propagate racial divides by saying that this project is for the people of Joe Slovo. She therefore meant that this project is for blacks, as opposed to other racial groups. [Interjections.]
It is for this reason one can once more conclude that, as we said previously, the DA has no interest in the reconstruction and development of our country. They have no interest in rebuilding our society. They have no intention of taking our people out of the squalid conditions under which they live. They have no intention of fighting poverty and underdevelopment. Lastly, they have no intention of building an integrated society.
Through her remarks on the programme, it is very clear that Helen Zille is very comfortable with being a movie star with a leading role as a stirrer. Perhaps being a movie star is not enough. She may as well apply to be registered as a freelance journalist. I say this because the Mayor of Cape Town enjoys being on television, giving media briefings and writing articles to the media about nothing other than the N2 Gateway. Perhaps the name of that movie should be “N2 Gate-Zille”. [Applause.]
It is important for the nation to know that when she had the opportunity to raise the issues, as the MEC explained, at a forum established by the Minister, she did not do so. She preferred to write to the press about things that were discussed where she was absent. She prefers to instil fear, uncertainty and racial hatred amongst our people.
Before I say the DA, and in particular Helen Zille, are lying to our people, I would like to pose a few questions; and society, of course, will decide as to whether they are lying or not regarding what she consistently does in her movie. [Interjections.] The questions are: Why, when Breaking New Ground was agreed to by Cabinet in 2004, when the N2 Gateway started in May 2005 and the elections were held in March 2006, does she say that the project was used as an election tool? Is it not true that because of the challenges that the Minister picked up, she went as far as informing Parliament that she had requested the Auditor-General to do an audit of the project? If the Auditor-General has started this work, what forensic audit is it that makes Helen Zille make such a lot of noise about investigations? Is it not true that the N2 Gateway will go a long way in deracialising our settlement patterns in this country?
Once more, is it not true that the nine waiting lists inherited from the City of Cape Town, previously governed by the DA, have been consolidated into one nonracial list by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Nkonki, following a request by the ANC Minister? Is it not true that PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Nkonki have validated these lists, through a public participation process, where our people played a central role? Is it not also true that in Boys Town 500 transitional housing areas have been completed and 500 families have been housed?
Why is Helen Zille therefore lying to our people and misleading our people? [Interjections.] Only the DA can give an answer to all the questions that I am putting, an answer that says: No. More importantly, it is important to note that our people in the Western Cape, our people in Langa and all other areas where they have been misled, will definitely stand up unashamedly …
Mr A WATSON: On a point of order, Chairperson: Is it parliamentary for a member of this House to call an hon mayor, elected by the people, a liar?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No. I have listened very carefully. He did not say that she was a liar. He did not say that. He said that she was telling lies. [Interjections.] If you insist, we will check the Hansard and we will rule on that. Continue, hon member.
Mnr R J TAU: Kan ek net weer sê dat as die ANC gaan ons voort; ons gaan lewer aan ons mense en ons gaan seker maak dat hulle nie luister na mense wat loop en lieg nie. Ons gaan seker maak dat ons mense waardeer wat ons regering vir hulle doen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr R J TAU: Can I just reiterate that as the ANC we will continue to deliver to our people; and we will make sure that they do not listen to people who walk around spreading lies. We shall see to it that our people appreciate what this government is doing for them.]
It is in that context that we will continue to close the gap between the first and second economies, through the programmes with which we will continue. We will continue with our programme of social transformation and the DA must stop misleading our people with lousy media statements through which they seek cheap media publicity. We also call on the media houses to verify some of these “facts” before they print unsubstantiated allegations. That also calls into question their unbiased and investigative journalism. [Time expired.][Applause.]
Ms D ROBINSON: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers, and hon members … uHelen Zille akaxoki, nam andixoki. [… Helen Zille is not lying and neither am I.]
This debate is a curious one. Never have I seen this House so eager to debate an issue and so determined to convey a sense of urgency. What has motivated the ANC to call for this debate? Not the desperate state of the N2 Gateway housing project, not the allegations of corruption and mismanagement under former ANC mayor, Nomaindia Mfeketo. [Interjections.] Rather, this debate has been called by the ANC with the sole intention of smearing the Mayor of Cape Town, Helen Zille.
These are the facts. In August 2004, the Minister of Housing, Lindiwe Sisulu, announced the N2 Gateway project. In May 2005, she said that 22 000 families would be able to move in by June. As of June 2006, only 705 housing units are almost ready – 3% of the target.
Furthermore, they are all rental units, and will not be owned by their occupants, as they are completely unaffordable to the people most in need of homes. The actual cost of the units has grown by more than half, beyond the reach of the poor.
Overall, the N2 …
Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Chairperson, is it right for Ms Robinson to mislead the House, because the N2 is not only near Langa. She is aware that there is another housing settlement … [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, sit down. That is not a point of order. Continue, hon Robinson. Ms D ROBINSON: In addition, work began before plans were finalised or contracts signed. This project is being built on a 50-year flood plain, adding to the city’s costs. Certain companies were appointed, even though they missed the tender deadlines, and some companies were given more than twice the money they tendered for.
Meanwhile, contractors who have worked on the project are still owed millions of rands. To cover the costs, money was diverted by the ANC administration from other priorities. These included the city’s capital budget as well as essential services such as fire-fighting; and still the ANC could not complete the N2 Gateway on time.
Now the ANC accuses Mayor Zille of making the N2 Gateway into a political issue! But the N2 Gateway was a political issue right from the start, as you said. It was used by the ANC to campaign for votes ahead of the local government elections.
Minister Sisulu and Mayor Mfeketo wanted the N2 Gateway to show that the ANC could fast-track delivery to its constituencies. But it has shown exactly the opposite. In fact, the N2 Gateway demonstrates everything wrong with the ANC governance. The project was aimed at some people, and not others. [Interjections.]
Mr R J TAU: On a point of order, Chairperson: I think it is only fair that Ms Robinson withdraws her statement that I said it was used as a tool for the elections. I never said that. I said it was wrong of Helen Zille to use it as an electioneering tool for elections, and to try to tell society that.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: That’s not a point of order. Continue, hon member.
Ms D ROBINSON: Planning was poor, and the costs were out of control. The new city administration has committed itself to finishing the N2 Gateway, but only as and when the national government makes funds available. The city has also opened a forensic audit to see where all the money was going.
That is why Minister Sisulu is upset, because the truth is coming out. She has accused Mayor Zille of going to the media instead of the set structures, of being unprofessional and unethical. The mayor did no such thing. What she did do, upon taking office, was to open mayoral committee meetings to the media, so that the public would know what was going on. [Interjections.]
The letter was read as matter of routine at a housing portfolio committee meeting. The media reported on an open meeting, as they should in a free and democratic state. If those meetings had been open to the public when the ANC was in power, perhaps the problems with the N2 Gateway would never have happened.
The problem is not that the ANC can’t deliver. The problem is that it won’t deliver, because it would rather do everything behind closed doors and reward its cronies in the name of empowerment. The ANC does not realise that the fight against corruption and service delivery to the poor are linked. You cannot deliver to the poor if you are busy giving corrupt contracts to the ANC elite.
Now the national government says that each of the provinces is going to give up 10% of its housing budget so that the N2 Gateway can be finished. What do your provinces say about that, hon members? If I were a resident in one of your provinces, I would be furious! Why must other people suffer because of former Mayor Nomaindia’s mismanagement?
The ANC and the Minister are pretending that Mayor Zille failed to attend a meeting on the N2 Gateway. They fail to mention that the mayor agreed to attend the meeting, but the Minister rescheduled it twice. Eventually, the meeting was moved to the very time that Mayor Zille had to be in a council chamber to prevent the ANC and ID from toppling the multiparty government. [Interjections.]
The meeting is just a red herring, a useful pretext for the Minister to throw a tantrum and kick the city off the N2 Gateway project. But the Minister has in fact scored an own goal.
The forensic audit will continue. The city will continue to expose the ANC’s corruption and mismanagement. Meanwhile, the ANC national and provincial governments will be solely responsible for the N2 Gateway’s failure. The city will set …
Mr M A SULLIMAN: On a point of order, Chairperson: The hon member just said that the ANC is corrupt. Could she just withdraw that remark?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, if you said that, it would be unparliamentary. Could you withdraw that?
Ms D ROBINSON: [Inaudible.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Pardon? You said it’s alleged? [Interjections.] Order, order! We will check the Hansard on that, and come and make a ruling.
Ms D ROBINSON: Cape Town will be able to focus on its own efforts to provide housing for the poor and it will, I am sure, provide more for the city than the national and provincial governments.
An opportunity has been lost, an opportunity to work together. It has been lost, because the ANC preferred secrecy to transparency. It has been lost, because the ANC preferred the spectacle of delivery to delivery itself. It has been lost because the ANC and not Mayor Zille has decided to cut ties.
The voters have already delivered their verdict. The ANC has been thrown out of the mayor’s office.
Members, I stand here as a proud DA member, proud of the multiparty coalition that is being led by Helen Zille, and which is rescuing the City of Cape Town from its poor administration. Enkosi. [Thank you.] [Applause.]
Ms B N DLULANE: Chair, Deputy Chair, hon MEC … Mphathiswa, namagosa eli sebe … [Minister and the officials of the department …] … apartheid has left the legacy that is the cause of us engaging in this debate today. We cannot rest until the dignity of our people has been restored. The binding principle of our movement is to deliver a better life for all. When millions of our people are still homeless and their dignity has not been restored, that poses a challenge and gives us sleepless nights.
Sihlalo, yinyani emsulwa le yokuba xa sasithabatha ilizwe ngowe-1994 salifumana lineengxaki ezininzi ezinje ngale sithetha ngayo namhlanje. Yiyo loo nto namhlanje ndime apha ndithetha ngale ngxaki ye-N2 Gateway. Andoyiki ukuthi nditsho ukuba kaloku lo N2 Gateway siphumeze imibono kaKhongolozi yoMqulu wamaLungelo, hayi ekaNomaindia. Ukuze abantu babenezindlu eziphucukileyo kuza kuba ngenxa yalo Mqulu wamaLungelo wethu. Nina DA anizi kukwazi ukuthi sithi sikhona, singayanga ndawo njengoKhongolozi nivukele izivumelwano zobuRhulumente bobuthathu.
Sele etshilo apha uMphathiswa, Mam’uRobinson ukuba, … lo mba awunanto yokwenza nesiqu somntu, uNomaidia. URhulumente kaZwelonke, wamaPhondo, kunye noweZekhaya kumabhunga bathatha isigqibo sokuvuma esi sivumelwano kodwa namhlanje xa sininika isandla niyasala, nisinqumle. Andazi ukuba niyenza njani loo nto. URhulumente kaZwelonke uthi nantsi indlela yokwenza, kumaphondo, abaPhathiswa, ooMasipala, ooSodolophu, nokuba ngowaliphina iqela, yile yokuba makuhlanganwe kuncediswane ngalo mba we-Gateway. Lowo ngumbono woMphathiswa okhokelayo kaKhongolozi, hayi okaNomaindia.
Nina ke DA, lo mkhuba wenu wokusoloko nifuna ukubuyisela emva izinto zabantu asinako ukuwuvumela. Abantu boMzantsi Afrika baye bazenza ezi zivumelwano koMasipala bonke, kodwa nina namhlanje nakuphatha, okwethutyana ke phofu nifika nimise inkqubo yokuphuhlisa izindlu. Niyamosha ngoba uMphathiswa wezeZindlu kazwelonke utshilo apha ePalamente ukuba ucele ukuba kuphengululwe iincwadi. Nto leyo enisoloko ningxola ngayo nathi esiyikhuthazayo ke phofu esingayigxekiyo. Sithi ke siyancoma nakuMphathiswa ngeli nyathelo alithethe kanye ekungeneni kwakhe kwilinge uthe wabona ukuba lihamba okonwabu.
Nathi siye sayibona loo nto, asiyivanga ngani, noMphathiswa uyinbonile yilaa nto athe makhe kuphengululwe iincwadi. Uphengululo-ziincwadi ke Mam’uRobinson phaya kuMgaqo-siseko lukwiCandelo le-188 apho uthi khona, umphengululi uyakwazi ukuba ayokujonga phaya kuRhumente kaZwelonke, abuye eze apha kwiphondo kuwe Mphathiswa, asuke aye kuSodolophu uMam’u Zille afike athi ndiyaphengulula ngoku. UMphathiswa ke kaKhongolozi umnikile imvume yokuba ayenze loo nto, akhange athi, “hayi ndiyamfihla lo Nomaindia enimtyhola ngokwenza oku noku ekunye nabaPhathiswa”, kodwa uthe, “ngena ngoba liyakuvumela icandelo l88 lo Mgaqo-siseko”.
Nina ke ningoobani xa sihambe ngokoMgaqosiseko, simfakile umphengululi, nithi nina nifuna olwenu uphengululo? Ngokwentetho ephandle kodwa niyadelela. Kaloku xa ningakwazi ukulandela okutshiwo nguMgaqosiseko, nifuna ukuzifunela owenu umntu, yenzani, asinangxaki, kodwa zeziyazi ukuba eli lizwe liphethwe nguKhongolozi, inkunzi ibanye esibayeni. Ndithi ke asiyonyani lento beniyithetha apha ngezi zindlu ze-N2 Gateway phaya kwaLanga. Niyazazi kaloku ukuba aninyanisekanga. Niyazi ukuba eza zindlu ziqala phi, emva kwesikhululo seenqwelomoya zizokuqhina nge-District Six, ngoko ke le beniyithetha apha asiyonyaniso, kufuneka sinilungise.
Yekani ukuthi sithi xa sizama ukulungiselela abantu bakuthi emva kweminyaka engama-48 yolawulo lwengcinezelo, abantu bakuthi bengenayo nendawo yokufihla intloko, niphazamise. Zonke ezi zinto noyaziphazamiso asingo-N2 Gateway esithetha ngaye apha. Naba abanye abantu sele behlala ezindlwini zabo, natsiya imihlaba ngaphaya kooDelft. Izolo bendimmamele uMphathiswa kunye naye uNksz Zille bethetha ebusuku, nabantu bephendula besithi bona babehlala emva kwezindlu zabantu iminyaka engama-30 ukuya kuma 40 bengezo ezabo. Abanye bathi i-Peoples’ Housing Project, PHP, ithe yancediswa ziimali zikaKhongolozi ukwakhela abantu. Abantu bonwabile bebesitsho apha eKapa ukuthi, “ngoku sineezindlu ezinamagumbi okutyela” besithi bebeqala nokuyibona into enjalo kuba beqhele oovezinyawo bezindlu.
Thina sibakhupha ematyotyombeni kuba ngexesha lenu nanilibele ngabo, ukuba nisakuna ukubalibala nangoku. Asoze sinivumele nenze lo nto. Xa ndiza kuhlala phantsi Sihlalo, mandithi, DA masiyiyekeni le nto bantakwethu, ingakumbi kule Ndlu yokuthi sithi xa kukho umba otya umzi siwenze owezopolitiko. Ndicela ukuba kubanjiswane kwakhelwe abantu izindlu. Yekani ukulwa ulwakhiwo lwezindlu. Yilwani ubuqhophololo kuleyo siyanivumela, kodwa kule yezindlu inkqubela niyibambile imile oko nithe nangena andiyazi esele niyenzile into. Nithanda amaphepha ngaphezulu kokwenza umsebenzi wenu. [Kwaqhwatya.]
La maphepha awasoze anincedise emsebenzini, ayesibulala kwakudala, yiloo nto abanye bethu side singakwazi nokuwamamela, ngoba amanye awo aye ezizixhobo zengcinezelo. Andiyazi ke nina ukuba kutheni niwathanda kangaka. Masike sakheleni abantu izindlu. Siyayamkela Mphathiswa, nomama ongekhoyo apha ukuba le nkqubo oze nayo uthe mayithi xha. Bona bayamosha, kufuneka uyithathele kuwe siza kukuncedisa thina siyikomiti enyonyuliweyo, namalungu ePalamente anyanisekileyo wonke. Siza kumane sisiya kujonga ukuba uyalwenza ulwabiwo lwezindlu ngokufanelekileyo. Uze uzisebenzise ke eza zixhobo zokusebenza ozinikwe nguRhulumente kazwelonke ezifana nee-database.
Siyazi ukuba asoze ibe yinto encinci ukufunela abantu ababaleka phaya eTranskei, eCofimvaba naseMthatha izindlu, besithi baze kufuna umsebenzi abangawufumaniyo, baphela sele besakha amatyotyombe ngoku sele bebaninzi kakhulu. Asazi ukuba uza kuyisombulula njani loo ngxaki kodwa sikhuthembile, kodwa ukuba ufuna uncedo ikhona le komiti ikhokelwe ngulaa mntana kaTau, ngamanye amazwi sikhona. Enkosi. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, it is the honest truth that when we took over the running of this country in 1994, we also inherited problems like the one that we are talking about today. That is why I am standing here today talking about the N2 Gateway problem. I am consequently not afraid to mention that it is through this Gateway project that we have successfully fulfilled the mission and vision enshrined in the ANC’s Human Rights Charter, and not Nomaindia Mfeketo’s vision. Included in this is that people shall have better houses. You, as DA members, will under no circumstances be allowed, as long as we the ANC is still in power, to revolt against an agreement that has been reached by the three spheres of government.
As the Minister and Ms Robinson have indicated, this is not about an individual, Nomaindia Mfeketo. This has nothing to do with Nomaindia Mfeketo. The three spheres of government reached this agreement. We are extending a hand of friendship to you, but you seem to be rejecting our gesture. I don’t know how you could do that. The national government has paved the way forward for the way in which the provinces should work together. Ministers, municipalities, mayors and all political parties should work together with regard to the N2 Gateway project. That’s the ANC national Minister’s vision and not Nomaindia’s.
You, the DA members, have this bad habit of undermining whatever rights our people have attained, and this will not be tolerated any longer. The people of South Africa have reached these agreements in all municipalities, but the day that you take over the running of the City of Cape Town for a little while you stop the progress of housing development.
You are causing problems because the national Minister made a request in Parliament for a financial audit - something that you have always been asking for and which we are supporting and not criticising. We commend the Minister for the steps she has taken, after taking over from her predecessor, of requesting an investigation into the project that was moving at a snail’s pace.
We have also seen that; we never got it from you. The Minister has also seen that, and consequently asked for an audit. This, Mrs Robinson, is contained in section 188 of the Constitution. This section gives the Auditor-General the right to audit the national departments, go back to provincial and local governments, and move on to the mayor, Mrs Zille, and say, “I am investigating now”.
The ANC’s national Minister has given her the go-ahead to do that. She did not say: “No, I am hiding away Nomaindia, whom you alleged has done this and that, together with the Minister.” She said: “Go ahead, because section 188 of the Constitution does allow you to.”
And who are you, after we have followed the Constitution and involved the Auditor-General, to say that you want your own investigation? I want to tell you that you are cheeky. And so, if you cannot follow what the Constitution says, and want to appoint your own person, carry on. We don’t have a problem, but you must know that this country is ruled by the ANC, and there is only one bull in the kraal. You are not telling the truth about the N2 Gateway houses in Langa; you know very well that you are not telling the truth. You know that these houses start just behind the Cape Town International Airport and stretch to District Six. You are not telling the truth here, on a point of correction. You need to stop interfering when we are trying to provide housing to destitute people who were subjected to apartheid for more than 48 years. You stick your nose into everything we do, and not only the N2 Gateway project that we are discussing here now.
Some people are already staying in their houses in Delft. Yesterday I was listening to the Minister and Mrs Zille’s phone-in programme, when people were saying that they had been living in shacks for about 30 to 40 years. Some indicated that the People’s Housing Project, PHP, has financially helped this ANC-led government to build houses for the people. They even said: “Now we have houses with kitchens and this is the first time that we have something like that, because we were used to small houses.”
When we built small houses for our people, we were taking them out of the shacks, because you forgot about them when you were in power. Even now you still want to forget about them. We will never allow you to do that.
In conclusion, Chairperson, let me sound a very strong word of warning to our DA colleagues, and that is that we should refrain, especially in this House, from politicising issues when answers are needed. I request that we work together in building houses for the people. Stop fighting housing development and instead channel your energies to fighting corruption; we allow you to do that. But in as far as the project concerning the construction of houses is concerned, you are retarding the progress, leaving it stationary. Since you took over, what have you done? You like the media publicity more than service delivery. These newspapers will never help you in executing your duties. We do not read some of them because they were used in the dark days of apartheid to suppress information. I don’t know why you like them so much.
Let us start building houses for the people. Minister, we welcome your programme. Let’s leave behind those who oppose it. Take it over and we’ll help you, the select committee and the honest Members of Parliament.
We will always monitor whether the distribution of houses is done in the correct manner. You must please use the information like the database that you get from the government.
We know that it’s not child’s play to provide houses to people who ran away from Transkei and places like Cofimvaba and Mthatha and relocated to Cape Town in pursuit of job opportunities, and ended up building shacks, of which the number has now increased. We don’t know how you will solve this problem, but we trust you and if you need assistance, don’t hesitate to consult this committee, led by hon Tau. In other words, we’ll always be there for you. I thank you. [Applause.]]
Mnu M A MZIZI: Sihlalo ohloniphekile, Ngqongqoshe wesifundazwe kanye nozakwethu, eqinisweni, thina be-IFP sikholelwa entweni eyodwa: ukusinisa amahleza nokunqakulisana akusiyisi ndawo ngoba kuthunuka imizwa yabantu. Lolu daba lwe-N2 Gateway, okunguhlelo lwezindlu, empeleni lungene ngesinxele ngoba abaningi bethu bebengazi ukuthi kuzokhulunywa ngani, ngoba kutheni, kusukephi, kukhale nyonini?
Ake sithi lapha, uma sikhuluma ngezindlu sikhuluma ngento eseyaba yinsakavukela umchilo wesidwaba, noma undabuzekwayo ngoba phela siqhamuka laphaya kudala, lapho kwakukhona ukuthi siyizifikanamthwalo endaweni yethu yokuzalwa, lapho singumnsinsi wokuzimilela khona. Sasibizwa phecelezi kuthiwe singama-temporary “sojourners”.
Sabe sakhelwa izindlu esasingazange sizikhethe ukuthi sifuna ukuhlala kuzo; sakhelwe amahostela okwakuthi uma uthi uyakhuluma uma ungumZulu kuthiwe, “Hamba uye KwaZulu.” Babethi, “Hamba uye eZululand.” Uma uthi, hhayi bo, angazi muntu ngoba ngazalelwa endaweni ethile, bona bathi “Uzothola okhokho bakho khona le KwaZulu.” Kwakuthiwa iya kuleyo ndawo ehambelana nolimi olukhulumayo.
Manje sesifikile-ke lapho sithi khona abantu abazikhethele izindlu abafuna ukuhlala kuzo. Iminyaka seyithe ukuqhela kancane ngoba manje sekuyi-12 leminyaka. Ingakho-ke i-IFP ithi ayifuni ukungena odabeni oluthinta imizwa yabantu. UNgqongqoshe ubekhuluma lapha ethi iGateway izobe ivulwa, inikezwa abantu. Senikhulume kakhulu abantu bengakafiki laphaya. AbeSuthu bathi: le tsosa dibata masene.
Abantu bayofika laphaya izinhliziyo nemimoya sekuphakeme ngoba senikhulumile lapha ePhalamende. Esikukhethayo thina njenge-IFP ukuthi kwakhiwe izindlu ezizonikeza abantu bakithi isithunzi nokuhlonipheka. Asingabe silokhu sikhuluma ukuthi iGateway yayitheni, kuphi nalaphi. Sizokhuluma thina siyi-IFP uma nje sekwakhiwe izindlu, sesibona nabantu bengena ezindlini, hhayi uma sisalokhu sinqakulisana lapha.
Ngike ngaxakeka nxa sinikezwa amabhola lapha kodwa sengiyabona ukuthi bekuluphawu lokukhahlela uhlelo lwezindlu i-Gateway, kusengathi kudlalwa ibhola likanobhutshuzwayo. IGateway asiyiyeke; nokuthi uMeya uZille noma uMfeketho utheni asikuyeke. Kuphela nje lezo zindlu ngoba zikhona, asizinikeze abantu. Asiyeke ukukhuluma kodwa abantu abathole izindlu.
Uma ningathi nabaya abantu bayongena ezindlini, ngingacela mina ngithi ngiyahamba ngiya kokwenanela lolo daba, ngithi ngiya kohalalisela abantu bengena ezindlini. Siqhamuka laphaya ezindlini zomxhaso. Mina ngihlala laphaya eThokoza. Maqondana nalezi zindlu zomxhaso, kukhona omunye umame oke washo ukuthi kwakukhona osuthakuname. Laphaya eThokoza kosuthakuname, phecelezi ama-single room, uma kudlula isitimela ngendlela iyanyikinyeka indlu, ungaze uphume ubaleke nawe.
Uhulumeni akakhe izindlu ezisezingeni lokuba zingakhonwa abantu. Uhulumeni akabonelele imindeni yethu ukuze sihlonipheke, singalali nezingane zethu - ubaba nomama nezingane. Kunendawo laphaya eThokoza ababeyibiza ngokuthi idunusa ngoba naniqulusa nje omunye adunuse abheke le nomunye alale abheke le.
Bakwethu, uhulumeni akalethe izindlu, alethe isithunzi kubantu. Maqondana neGateway, ngithi phambili, mfowethu! Vula izindlu lezo abantu bangene phakathi bese niyeka ukunqakulisana ngebhola lapha. (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)
[Mr M A MZIZI: The hon Chairperson, the MEC, and colleagues, in fact we, from the IFP, believe in one thing: playing childish political games and politicking will not take us anywhere, instead these things rub salt in the people’s wounds. The story of the N2 Gateway, which is a housing project, was wrongly put because many people did not know what we were going to talk about. No one bothered to explain why we have to discuss this topic in particular, what the reasoning behind it is.
Well, let us say here that if we discuss the issue of housing, we are discussing the daily issue, the daily bread, and a thorny issue for many people because we have come a long way as far as housing is concerned. Initially we were called settlers in our country of birth. We are the indigenous people here. We were even called temporary sojourners.
Those were the days when houses were simply built for us without us being asked what sort of houses we needed; we were put in hostels where, when you spoke and people realised you are talking isiZulu, you were unkindly told, “Go to KwaZulu.” They would say: “Go to Zululand.” If you tried to plead with them and explain that you did not know any person in that place because you were born in a certain place, you were told in no uncertain terms: “You will meet your ancestors there in KwaZulu.” You were told to go to the place that matches the language you speak.
And now we are in an era where we say: Let the people themselves choose the houses that they want to live in. We are now many years away from the old era; 12 years to be specific. It is for this very reason that the IFP says it does not want to get involved in a matter that hurts the people’s feelings. The Minister said the N2 Gateway project will be opened and people will be given houses. A lot has been said here regarding this housing project and the people have not yet even started occupying the houses. The Basotho would say: “Discretion is the better part of valour”.
When people start occupying these houses they will be very angry because a lot has been said here in Parliament. What we, as the IFP, are saying is that houses should be built for our people, which will give them the dignity and the respect they deserve. Let us stop talking and deliberating too much on the issue of the N2 Gateway Housing project or what was supposed to have happened to it, how and why. We, in the IFP, will only discuss the matter as soon as we see the houses being built and the people occupying those houses, not when we are still bickering here.
I was a little perplexed and surprised when we were given balls here, and at least I can now see that it was an introduction to the issue of the N2 Gateway Housing project. It looks as if we are playing football here. Let us leave the question of the N2 Gateway Housing project alone; and forget about what Mayor Zille said or the then mayor Mfeketo. What we should do, instead, is to give those houses to the people because they are already there. Let us stop talking and give houses to the people.
If, for instance, you can point them out to me and say to me those people are going to occupy their houses, I can ask permission to go and witness that and also congratulate those people who would be getting the houses. We are in subsidised houses. I, for instance, stay in Thokoza. Regarding these subsidised houses, there is one woman who called them single rooms. When a train in Thokoza goes past these houses, for instance, they wobble and shudder to such an extent that if you are inside you start thinking of getting out and running for dear life.
The government must build houses that are affordable to our people. The government must subsidise our families so that they can be respected, and give us houses in which we do not sleep together with our children – the mother, the father and the children, all in one room! There is a place in Thokoza that the residents call “Dunusa”. It was so named because people would stick out their buttocks when sleeping with other people, and each person slept facing a different direction.
Dear people, the government must bring houses to the people and restore the dignity of people. Regarding the issue of the N2 Gateway Housing project, I say: Forward, my brother! Open the houses and let the people occupy them and stop playing hide and seek.]
Ms B L MATLHOAHELA: Hon Chairperson …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Just a minute, hon member. I want to remind the members in this House about Rule 33 and Rule 32 which say that during the debate in the Council no member may converse aloud. Please, give the members a chance to put their case across. Thank you. You may continue, hon member.
Ms B L MATLHOAHELA: Chairperson, I greet the hon House, the chairperson, hon Ministers and MECs. Before I start my speech, I just want to say that something about this “bread and fish” thing that reminds me of Jesus Christ. So I don’t know who the new Jesus Christs are here in this country.
As an ID Member of Parliament, I need to make it clear to the House that the ID is neither for nor against any party. As the name states, we are independent. We will go against something where appropriate and support something where that is appropriate, according to the ID’s constitution, principles and policies, as issues emerge.
The N2 Gateway Housing project problems are extremely complicated. Firstly, the project is a pilot project, open to all sorts of error. By saying “it’s open to all sorts of error”, that means that if a thing is a pilot it’s like an experiment. Therefore all faults can come into it. Do you understand? That is not a criticism. When something is new, you learn. Therefore faults will creep in.
I quote the city’s most senior planner, Steven Boshoff, when he said the N2 Gateway project was “… the right kind for Cape Town”. However, questions have been raised, which need to be answered. There was R27 million outstanding for work done during the project’s first phase. If the project was planned properly, why has it been hampered by financial difficulties, since it was launched as an intergovernmental initiative? Why didn’t the city mayor raise the concerns in the forum of Ministers, MECs and mayors?
We have to be sympathetic towards the homeless and be less comfortable in our cosy homes or mansions. We are looking forward to seeing these problems solved. I thank you, hon Chair.
Mr N D HENDRICKSE: Hon Chairperson, hon members, hon MEC, welcome. Regarding the N2 Gateway project, the current tussle and political point- scoring …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order!
Mr N D HENDRICKSE: Members of the DA, be quiet so that you can hear.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Hon Hendrickse, I think I am still the Chairperson here.
Mr N D HENDRICKSE: Sorry, Madam Chair.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): You can continue now. Thank you.
Mr N D HENDRICKSE: This does not aid delivery, except to further delay deadlines. The nonpayment of contractors is totally unacceptable.
The Minister has been criticised for bypassing certain formalities before commencing with the project. I would hasten to say that if that route had not been taken, the first sod would not have been turned on this project. We need to fast-track things. I don’t know if a project like this was ever undertaken in the Western Cape for people of colour.
We cannot have a situation where the metro impedes progress. We cannot have a situation where finished homes stand empty or emotions are whipped up whilst trying to sort out the waiting list. I think the Minister was quite correct in taking this project back.
This is what I want to say to this House now: As we speak, Helen Zille and her police are busy tearing down structures in Parkwood and, in fact, they started on Saturday. I want to know: Where is the DA’s heart regarding those people who have no homes? These people are lying in the rain as we speak, right now. In fact, court orders are being delivered to them. [Interjections.] There are 81 persons. [Interjections.] This is the second time inasmuch as …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order!
Mr N D HENDRICKSE: I want to tell this House that I am not talking about something I heard, I am involved in this thing. Zille was there herself over the weekend telling people they must get out, with her police. There were six or seven trucks. [Interjections.] They talk about home. Where is the heart for the homeless? I thank you, Ma’am.
Mr F ADAMS: Chairperson, hon members, colleagues, on 8 May 2006 this Parliament celebrated the 10th anniversary of our democratic Constitution. Interestingly enough, this event took place within a period that we have defined as the Age of Hope. Indeed, the functioning of the different spheres of government and the state as a whole will prove and confirm the correctness of the fundamentals we have inserted in this most important document, which is the foundation of our democracy.
Our Constitution, amongst other things, has created a framework around which we have to redress the imbalances of our past while at the same time giving us a framework within which we have to build a functioning state. It is only through a partnership between all role-players in the housing value chain that we can hope successfully to find a comprehensive solution to our housing challenges.
The envisaged sharing of information between all spheres of government and the facilitation of processes to unlock impediments to delivery and joint home ownership through education programmes will encourage the provision of infrastructure and development funding to accelerate funding housing delivery, and will improve access to housing.
When the three spheres of government channel their energies, resources and commitment, we can change the fabric of our society for the better. The N2 Gateway was an excellent example of co-operation between the three levels of government - before the DA-led city council started showing its true colours. But the DA-led city council of Cape Town does not understand these principles set out in our Constitution.
I would like to refresh memories regarding the breaking of promises to the electorate, as in the previous local government elections where the DA had stated in their election manifesto: The DA will use the executive committee system not the executive mayoral system to govern cities. It was stated that this would ensure that power is not centralised in one person and that all residents are represented in the key decision-making bodies.
On 28 February 2006, Die Burger reported that the DA wanted to move away from the current system of municipal management where all the powers are vested in an executive mayor. The DA leader, Tony Leon, told reporters in Malmesbury: “We want to revert back to a system that is more democratic and transparent”.
On the same day, at the Fernkloof Nature Reserve in Hermanus - now you should see the gap … en die skeuring in ’n party soos wat die geval is in die DA. [… and the split in a party, as is the case in the DA.]
In Hermanus the DA provincial leader, Theuns Botha, told the media that the executive mayoral system “was the single biggest downfall of the ANC”. Despite these statements, Helen Zille told The Cape Times in an article that appeared on 8 March 2006, that she would “support any municipal system”.
Contrary to all these promises made during the election campaign and in their manifesto, the DA signed an agreement with smaller parties stipulating, according to The Cape Times of 16 March, that the mayoral system under an executive mayor and with 10 mayoral committee seats is to stay. Clearly, power and the position of mayor are more important than the … [Interjections.]
Mr A WATSON: On a point of order, Madam Chair, the hon member is not addressing the subject for discussion; he is talking about … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): No! I don’t know; you are out of order. Sit down.
Mr F ADAMS: I can see that the hon Watson is used to giving out orders, but the ANC won’t adhere to the DA’s orders … [Interjections.] Clearly power and the position of mayor is more important to the DA than their promises to the electorate.
Pink letters of demand were sent to residents of Tafelsig during the election campaign in Tafelsig. The mayor promised residents that these letters would be stopped, but again it shows that the promises were made just to get the votes. The people of Tafelsig and other areas, hon Watson, are still receiving these letters, which is another broken promise by the DA-led council.
The core message of the DA during the municipal election revolved around the notion of “Take back your city” which was directed at whipping up emotions amongst the white community particularly, and taking it to its logical and barely disguised conclusion “… from these inept Africans”. Also still focused on the white community, was the poster “Bly getrou” [Remain loyal], suggesting that whites should stand together against Africans.
These two slogans “Take back your city” and “Bly getrou” [Remain loyal.] are reminiscent of the slogans used by the Conservative Party in the 1980s to rally the white folk against the “verligtes” [liberals]. The Conservative Party’s version of “take back your city” was: “Klou aan wat joune is”. [Cling to what is yours].
The other version of the election campaign was targeted at the coloured community with slogans like, “Stop ANC’s racism”. The DA mayor, Helen Zille, was even more crude when she said in The Cape Times of 28 February 2006 that the ANC-led council was “applying rigid racial quotas for city contracts and employment”.
It was said:
It makes no sense, for example, for the ANC to apply national demographics to government appointments and contracts in this region, and individuals have been identified as a group on the basis of their skin colour and singled out for privileged access by government policy.
In the Cape Times of 2 February 2006, she said that, in order to meet employment equity target that reflect national instead of local demographics, municipal employees are pushed out for having the wrong skin colour. She went on to say that, in housing allocations, the decision to build the N2 Gateway in Langa - another lie - was an indication to many coloured residents that they were being left behind because of their race.
The theme of the incompetence of Africans was evident in the DA response to the electricity outages in the Western Cape … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order! I seem to think that the members of the House don’t know the difference between interjections and conversing aloud here. You are conversing with each other across the floor.
Mr F ADAMS: The theme of the incompetence of Africans was evident in the DA’s response to the electricity outages in the Western Cape, where they tacitly blamed highly-paid black managers for the outages the city was facing. A DA councillor, Ian Neilson, was quoted in The Cape Times of 22 February 2006 as saying:
There may be numerous competent people at mid-management and lower levels who knew something was needed and said so, but the problem is that in most cases the new managers no longer have the depth of technical understanding of the problems that Cape Town faces now – three years of ANC government with one year of low-tech senior managers have led to inadequate performance.
A “new manager” is a code for African managers, all of whom, according to Neilson, lack the competence to undertake the running of a city like Cape Town.
The DA used, in particular, the allocation of land at Big Bay and the issue of Jewellery City to claim the presence of corruption in the ANC-led metro council, yet it was the DA that sold the Big Bay land without tender to a specific company below its real value and in disregard of the black economic empowerment policy in 2001.
The DA used crude radio advertising and pamphlets in their last campaign to claim that coloureds were not white enough during apartheid and that now they are not black enough in the free and democratic South Africa. They mixed their message with a sustained attack on the ID in the last by- elections.
I want to pose three questions. As far as I understand, when the mayor wrote a letter to Minister Lindiwe Sisulu on 5 June, the letter was received by the Minister’s office at 10h00 or 10h03. But then between 12h00 and 12h07 the media had received the letter. Is this ethical? The Minister never had a chance to reply; where are the ethics of the DA? Instead, the mayor discussed these issues through the media.
The second thing is the issue of the consortium that did not meet the deadlines. The tender was opened publicly. Who is this consortium whose tender was accepted after the deadline? If the DA can just give us the names we would appreciate that, instead of misleading this House.
We have three types of units: Phase 1 has one bedroom and a bathroom; and Phase 2 has two bedrooms and a bathroom, and three bedrooms and a bathroom. The question that must be answered is: Did we get value for our money? Some of our backyard dwellers will be much better off financially by moving to the N2 Gateway than staying in the backyards and the slums.
I want to end my speech now and I want the hon Watson to listen. Employ the entire nation as if you are employing a single person. Employ them and give them actual tasks. Motivate them with benefits. Do not harm them. That’s what the ANC wants. Employ the nation like one person. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr S SHICEKA: Deputy Chairperson, today we will hear the truth about the issue of the N2 Gateway Project. One can start by saying that housing is a second-generation right as enshrined in our Constitution. The ANC-led government believes in the rule of law. Because South Africa is a constitutional state, the Constitution should be followed to the letter and the spirit.
Housing in South Africa was based on apartheid spatial planning, which meant that the poor were located far from the places of opportunities and economic activities. Whites were closer to the city, the Indians a bit further away and then the coloureds, with the Africans the furthest away. This is what you had in this country. That also ensured that our people spent a lot of money travelling from their places of work, coming from those ghettos that were established.
The ANC-led government was faced with a choice, whether to perpetuate the status quo or reverse the apartheid planning and build a nonracial, nonsexist society. The ANC-led government chose the latter, namely that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white. Cities and towns belong to all, including places of economic opportunities. Cape Town as a city cannot be exclusive. Cape Town cannot be in isolation and cannot be an enclave either; and definitely Cape Town cannot be a “Boerestad”.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa raised an issue in Chapter 3 that talks about co-operative governance; saying that all spheres of government are interdependent and also interrelated. We have passed a law here in this august House, which is called the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act of 2005. The provisions of this Act are taking co-operative governance further by ensuring that there must be co-operation at all levels of government in this country.
The Minister of Housing, Lindiwe Sisulu, established a structure called M3. This structure called M3 is a structure of the Minister, the MEC and the mayor. This structure had been working very well before we had the local elections. The intention of this structure was to ensure that decision- making is fast-tracked, and blockages and obstacles removed in order to ensure that delivery happens with speed.
In terms of facts, since the coming in of Mayor Zille, three meetings have been convened and she has not attended one of them. During the last one she sent an apology when the meeting had already started. On the same day, she leaked the information to the media about the letter that she had written to the Minister. This means she is undermining and violating the Constitution of this country and the laws of this country on co-operative governance, as stated in Chapter 3.
If she had an issue to raise, in terms of the laws of this country she was supposed to raise them at appropriate platforms, such as the intergovernmental structures. She should not use cheap publicity to outline her views. We are saying to Mayor Zille: Go back to the M3 structure because that is where you can raise your issues. You can’t raise your issues and be heard if you use the media as a form of communication.
Ms Robinson says that the city will build more houses than national and provincial government combined. [Interjections.] This is a fact: The city cannot build more houses, as you stated. It has no constitutional or legislative powers to do so. The building of houses is a national and provincial function and therefore it means you will actually be acting outside the law and the Constitution of this land. We are a constitutional state.
The metros in Gauteng contribute to the top-up of housing to improve quality. On average, they contribute R4 000 per home. The Durban metro contributes R10 000 as a top-up per home so as to improve quality. Lets hear about the City of Cape Town. What is your contribution? [Interjections.] During Mayor Zille’s reign, nothing has been budgeted for in terms of housing. During the reign of mayor Nomaindia Mfeketo, when the ANC ruled, they budgeted for housing. When Mayor Zille came into power, she took the last R50 million that was in the budget and shifted it somewhere else. These are the facts. How can she build more houses than the national and provincial governments combined?
I want to debunk another lie and myth. They say that there was no money, and that there was an overrun. A total of R900 million was budgeted for the N2 Gateway project. As we speak today, over R400 million has been spent. Can you say then that there was no money whilst in the budget there is the sum of R900 million and only R400 million has been spent? Can you talk about an overrun? That is not true. You are misleading the public and even yourselves; and you believe your own lies when you raise these issues. [Applause.]
All of us know that this project was an experiment that was saying, “Let us look at how can we ensure that the three spheres of government can work together at the highest level to ensure that they can take decisions faster at a policy level, and at the same time ensure that the officials can implement.” These were the objectives of the project.
I want to read that to you, Mrs Robinson, because it seems that you don’t know the truth …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Hon member, please address Mrs Robinson through the Chair.
Mr S SHICEKA: Thank you. Let me quote:
To facilitate inter- and intrasettlement integration; to enable urban restructuring and renewal; to design and deliver products that offer tenure diversification - rental, rent to own, mortgage homes and BNG homes etc; to improve settlement design; to implement mechanisms that will assist with the eradication of poverty; to facilitate the greater responsiveness to livelihood strategies; and to ensure active participation of all spheres of government to achieve a common goal.
Those were the objectives. I must tell you that as things unfold, these objectives are on track, save to say that the city is a stumbling block. The city is not assisting in this project. What is more important is that the ANC supports the dispute that has been declared by the Minmec against Mayor Zille.
We are following the prescripts of our Constitution and of our Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act. That is what we are doing. We are saying to Mayor Zille: Deliver to your people and that is what you must focus on. As the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Local Government, I am saying that I am watching the city with hawk-eyes. What I want to do is to get all reports around the forensic audit, which is my constitutional right as chairperson.
I am saying that if you continue to conduct a forensic audit on the N2 Gateway, that might be a fruitless expenditure. The Auditor-General, who is the highest authority in this country in terms of auditing the finances of government, is doing that on the purview of the Minister and through the initiative of the Minister. If you do any other thing, we will hold you accountable for that because there is a lot of laws that govern this country in that respect.
I want to conclude by requesting Mayor Zille to follow the Constitution, and not only the Constitution but also the laws of this country. The DA believes that it is an organisation that believes in a constitutional state. If you do so, you must act accordingly. You must not say that you are somebody and then you don’t act accordingly. Whatever you preach, you must practice. That is what we are requesting from you from this platform.
The N2 Gateway project is going to go ahead - with or without you. Our people are going to get quality service delivery. They will be better off than staying in the shacks and in those informal settlements that you see. They will be there in those flats and walk-ups. That is what we want to see with our people. Their dignity must be restored and therefore that’s what we will preach as a movement, the people’s movement and the glorious movement. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): Chairperson, in defence of Minmec, M3 and the provincial government, I want to respond to a few issues. Before I do that, let me assure this House, in marching forward, that the Western Cape provincial government is not going to be deterred by all the noise that is being made by people who don’t want us to march forward and take care of the poor and deliver the services we are supposed to be delivering.
We are already rolling out, beyond the N2, lots of pilot projects to demonstrate the human settlement programme the Minister has initiated. I also want to assure this House that, as an MEC for local government and housing, the City of Cape Town is under my jurisdiction. [Interjections.] [Applause.] I am happy, member Shiceka; I did not want to warn them.
Mr A WATSON: Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon member is misleading this House. The local government of Cape Town is not under his jurisdiction. The same Constitution says there are three spheres of government. He must withdraw. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Hon Watson, that is not a point of order. Thank you. You may continue, hon member.
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): Thank you, Chair. Whatever the member says, as an MEC I play an oversight role over all municipalities. [Interjections.]
I am therefore saying I am glad that member Shiceka raised the point. I did not want to warn them about issues of fruitless expenditure and all of that. All of those are monitored on a daily basis.
I quickly want to respond to some of the issues, because sometimes when issues are …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Hon member, are you raising a point of order?
Mr E M SOGONI: Yes, Deputy Chairperson. On a point of order, hon Watson said the MEC is misleading this House. The term “misleading” is not parliamentary.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Thank you, hon Sogoni. I have already informed the hon Watson that he is out of order. Thank you. You may continue.
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): Thank you, Chair. I want to thank all members who contributed to this debate. I sat here as a representative of the provincial government and listened to you regarding all the issues you raised.
However, I want to raise a few issues in relation to what the hon member Robinson raised in this House. Firstly, she spoke about the issue of mismanagement. Quite clearly, as Minmec, we did take the position that we had nothing to hide, hence the step taken by the Minister in asking the Auditor-General to investigate any issues. When that is tabled, we are going to make our own pronouncement on those issues. We have to move away from making allegations that are not substantiated.
She went further and spoke about announcements and targets not met, and I want to respond to that. I think the ID member raised the issue about the pilot project, and there is a lot to learn from that. Just to demonstrate, without being pressured and without being asked, one of the key lessons that we have learned from this relates to the issue of the capacity of municipalities.
The City of Cape Town proved not to have the kind of capacity to drive and implement housing delivery. That is the reason why the Minister appointed Thubelisha to drive this project, because, quite clearly, the City of Cape Town over all these years was only able to deliver, as I said, fewer than 7 000 houses. And here you had a project that wanted to deliver 22 000 houses.
Thubelisha has been appointed and this is part of a key lesson that we have learned. So, if you talk about issues that concern targets and the slow pace, I think you have to go back to see how you can help this city. These are not issues that come from the Minister or ourselves. We are putting things in place to improve that capacity. So I don’t think this can be an issue that you can raise here and score some points on.
I think you have also made the point that work began before contracts were signed. So what? [Laughter.] Clearly, I stood here and made the point that this is a pilot project. This is a pilot project in which we are testing a number of issues. We are testing the pace of what we want to do and deliver with speed. [Interjections.] We are testing many other things, so if it happened that we laid the first brick before a contract was signed, I again ask: so what, because today you have those houses standing there?
Everything else we did, we are very convinced we did within legal means. It is a pilot project. Every inspection was done. Everything was done. It is a pilot project and that we can attest to. We are saying that we are going to have people occupying those homes without any problems. [Interjections.] That’s important, therefore, that when you come …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Hon Krumbock! Hon Krumbock, will you please not converse with the member speaking. Thank you.
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): We were very clear from the very beginning that we were not going to follow the normal bureaucratic channels that were blocking housing delivery. Therefore you have to understand those issues in that particular context.
Member Robinson raised the issue of priorities being shifted, that those monies were taken away and then channelled into the N2. I want to put facts here categorically and make them very clear. The very first thing that Mayor Zille did - and please write this down - when she came in was to take money amounting to R31 million away from housing projects in terms of hostel development in Nyanga and other areas. She shifted that to fire services. Please write that down. [Interjections.]
The reason she did that was because, in her campaign – in the DA’s campaign
- fire services was their top priority. Therefore they had to take this money away from needy people and give it to fire services. [Interjections.] The DA must look at itself. Don’t come here and score points when you don’t have the facts.
Let me move further on. I think I do want to repeat this point, which I also made last night on Special Assignment. I take serious exception to anybody who would stand on any platform and say that the kind of efforts that this government is making are about vote-catching. Our work is about delivering to needy people and poor people. [Interjections.] They have nothing to do with the elections or vote-catching. I can understand that this can only be said by people who don’t care about the needy and the poor. [Interjections.]
Ms D ROBINSON: I beg to differ; I sincerely beg to differ!
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): The next point she raised, I think, relates to the issue of the availability of funds. Again, let me make the point categorically clear: The N2 project, and perhaps other mega projects, are not fund-driven. You don’t have a big pool of funds and then decide what you want to do. They are needs-driven. There are needs that we are responding to, and, in the process of that, getting funds becomes a worked- on process. We have to get that kind of thinking so that other members begin to understand that.
I think member Shiceka made the point that if there are any challenges with the N2 Gateway, it is not because we ran out of funds. This relates to issues of capacity, construction complexities and all of those issues. When members stand here, they must speak the truth.
In defence of Minister Sisulu who is not here today, I want to respond to member Robinson who also raised the point about a rescheduled meeting that she could not attend. I want to stand here and say that there is no truth in that statement. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: We are not surprised.
Ms D ROBINSON: It is the truth, it is the truth!
Mr R DYANTYI (Western Cape): We met on 1 June and the City of Cape Town, quite clearly, could not finish a budget meeting that it held on 31 May. It ran over and did not even send a representative to that meeting. They could not send a single person, because they needed those votes. That is the issue here on the table, not somebody not being informed. [Interjections.]
The other issue I want to raise in relation to them is that they claimed here that they are going to build houses. The reason why they claimed that they are going to build houses is because of that constitutional obligation.
The Mayor of Cape Town has gone around and has met with about three banks, promising that they are going to use those banks to build what we call GAP housing. They are not saying that they met with the banks as a result of the work that was done by Minister Sisulu. Minister Sisulu has met with all the banks, and the banks have committed themselves to providing R42 billion. What they did was to piggyback on the work done by Minister Sisulu. [Interjections.] It was not their own initiative, and we have to table those kinds of facts.
Quite clearly, in terms of their policies, we are monitoring that trend, because they are going to be focusing - you must watch this space – on skinning the poor. They are not going to be providing any services to the unemployed poor. They are going to be using the banks to build for those that can buy the houses. And we are going to stop that process, because it is not helping to build a home for all in this province.
I want to stand here and make the point quite categorically as well that when it comes to the N2 Gateway project that we have in the Western Cape, there has never been anything to compare it to in this province. You can go anywhere else: The quality and the type of flats that we have, have never been built before in this province in the way that they have been in terms of the N2 Gateway project. It is new to them – no wonder they are up in arms. This is something they could not do in 40 years, and we are doing it in less than a year. We have to understand this in that context. [Applause.] Please watch this space.
I want to continue to assure this House by saying that we are not going to break down intergovernmental relations simply because … sinoSodolophu ofuna ukudlala upuca sisebenza [… we have a mayor who wants to play games while we work].
We have built intergovernmental relations in this country and we have to utilise that platform. I support member Shiceka when he says that when they are done with playing marbles, the door will be open for them to come back. But we are not going to wait for the City of Cape Town to play these kinds of games. We have a programme and a vision here to build a home for all in this province, and we will do whatever it takes to get to that point.
The N2 Gateway project, for the information of this House, is part of our Asgisa contribution in this province and, therefore, it is not going to go away; nobody’s going to stop it. You will also be witnessing us handing over houses to new beneficiaries and we are not going to stop there. We will continue “kuze kuyovalwa” [up to the end]. Enkosi. [Thank you.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): I thank the hon MEC for local government and housing in the Western Cape. Thank you, hon Dyantyi. Order! I have been informed by the Whippery that there will be one speakers’ list for the First and Second Orders of the Day.
SMALL BUSINESS TAX AMNESTY AND AMENDMENT OF TAXATION LAWS BILL
SECOND SMALL BUSINESS TAX AMNESTY AND AMENDMENT OF TAXATION LAWS BILL
(Consideration of Bills and of Reports thereon)
Mnr D J BOTHA: Agb mev die Voorsitter … [Hon Madam Chairperson …]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): You may take the podium in front here, please. [Interjections.]
Mr D J BOTHA: I don’t use the podium. [Laughter.]
Agb Voorsitter, ek staan hier om die wet voor hierdie Huis te lê, en ek wil dit kategories stel dat hierdie wet nie daar is om punte te “score” nie, maar vir alle burgers van Suid-Afrika volgens die beleid van die ANC.
Belasting het die afgelope jare wesenlik verander. Die openbare profiel daarvan het meer sigbaar geword. Morele, etiese en sosiale dimensies is daaraan gegee wat nooit tevore sigbaar was nie.
Deur die Wetsontwerp op Kleinbesigheids belastingamnestie en Wysiging van Belastingwette voor die Parlement te lê, het die Nasionale Tesourie die nodige inisiatief geneem. Die oorblywende taak berus by die belastinggemeenskap.
In die poging om die belastingbasis te verbreed het “Sars” onlangs uitstappies in die informele besigheidsgebied onderneem. Baie kleinsakeondernemings wat so ontdek was dat hulle glad nie op die belastingregister is nie en wat tans nie hul bedrywighede ten volle aan Said geopenbaar het nie, het te kenne gegee dat hulle die geleentheid tot normalisasie en regulering sonder vrees vir hul belastingaanspreeklikhede voortspruitend uit nakoming van die verlede sou verwelkom. Hierby word ook ingesluit taxi-operateurs wat graag wil deelneem aan die taxi- herkapitalisasie program. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Hon Chairperson, I am standing here to present this law to this House, and I want to state categorically that this law is not there for scoring points, but for all citizens of South Africa according to the policy of the ANC.
Taxation has changed drastically over the past few years. Its public profile has become more visible. It was given moral, ethical and social dimensions that were not previously visible.
By bringing the Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill before this Parliament, the National Treasury has taken the necessary initiative. The remaining task rests with the tax community.
In an effort to broaden the tax base, Sars recently undertook excursions to the informal business area. Many small enterprises which were discovered in this way as not being on the tax register at all and are not at present disclosing their activities to Sars in full, have indicated that they would welcome the opportunity for normalisation and regulation without fear of their tax culpability as a result of compliance, like in the past. Included in this are taxi operators who would like to participate in the taxi recapitalisation programme.]
The Minister of Finance, therefore, announced during the 2006 Budget Speech that government would introduce a tax amnesty for small businesses.
The purpose and objective of this tax is therefore to broaden the tax base, facilitate the normalisation of the tax affairs of small businesses, increase and improve the tax compliance culture, and facilitate participation in the Taxi Recapitalisation Programme.
The business community has been looking for a comprehensive tax amnesty package for years, and the National Treasury has not only delivered a package, but has gone much further. The amnesty does not include income tax only, but a full range of small business taxes, such as secondary tax on companies and a skills development levy.
Our appeal to the business community is that they should go to Sars between 1 August 2006 and 31 May 2007, join the queue of amnesty applicants and use the generous opportunity provided by government. The amnesty from prosecution offered to South Africans with funds illegally held offshore and, more recently, to small businesses, is a reflection and application of the ANC-led government’s critical strategy in terms of conflict resolution.
The Select Committee on Finance recommends that this House approves the Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill of 2006 and the Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mrs M N Oliphant). Thank you, hon member. That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question in respect of the First Order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63 I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye.”
HON MEMBERS: Aye.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Those against say “No.” All parties voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution. [Applause.]
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question in respect of the Second Order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63 I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye.”
HON MEMBERS: Aye.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Those against say “No.” All members voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.
DEEDS REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Chairperson, hon members, the Bill before this House is a further example of how deep the system of oppression was entrenched in our society before 1994.
Under the Black Administration Act of 1927, certain citizens acquired registered or registrable land rights and continued to transact with these rights in terms of this Act up to this day. During 2004, 35 539 such transactions were effected by the Registrar of Deeds throughout the country. An example of such a right is the right arising out of the deed of grant issued under chapter 2 of the Black Areas Townships Regulations, Proclamation R 293 of 1962.
The remaining enabling statutory provisions under which these rights were obtained, namely the Black Administration Act of 1927, as members would recall, will be repealed by no later than 31 July this year, upon the coming into effect of the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Act, Act 28 of 2005, which was adopted by this House in November 2005.
Therefore the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill is a direct consequence of the effect of the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Act, Act 28 of 2005, and seeks to confer powers on the Registrar of Deeds to continue recognising and effecting the registration of these rights, and also to transfer these rights originally acquired in terms of the Black Administration Act of 1927.
These amendments are further examples of a caring government that seeks to facilitate a smooth transition from an unjust past to a just future. Therefore, the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs has agreed to the proposed amendments, as provided for by the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill and recommends that this House approves this Bill. I thank you.
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63 I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye.”
HON MEMBERS: Aye.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All members voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
SECTIONAL TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mnr C J VAN ROOYEN: Ek werk hard vandag. [I am working hard today.]
Members will recall that the Sectional Titles Act, Act 95 of 1986, is a piece of legislation governing apartments, flats, townhouses, office blocks, shopping centres and other developments where multiple owners hold property ownership known as a sectional title on common property.
A sectional title is made up of individual ownership of a defined section, such as an apartment or a flat held under a sectional mortgage bond, exclusive use areas, and shared ownership with other owners of areas such as parking and recreational areas, lobbies, etc.
Currently the definition of a sectional mortgage bond does not provide for the registration of a sectional mortgage bond over exclusive use areas, which are part of the common property and for the exclusive use of the owners of the relevant section of the scheme.
The proposed amendments provide for amending the definition of a sectional mortgage bond and for mortgage bonds to be also allowed to be registered over exclusive-use areas, and to eliminate the perception of a short-term lease for those areas, as under the current definition; secondly, to empower the body corporate to extend the common property of the body corporate, other than only through the purchase of land, but also through any other manner, for example by donations.
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs agreed to the proposed amendments and, therefore, requests this House to support the amendments as proposed in the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill.
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63 I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye.”
Hon MEMBERS: Aye.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Those against say “No.” All members voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.
REPEAL OF BLACK ADMINISTRATION ACT AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, we are dealing with the Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill. The committee invited the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, on 9 November 2005, to come and tell the committee as to what laws in the Statute Book still had to be repealed.
During the meeting it was realised that this affected not only the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, but also other departments, for example, the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs and the Department for Provincial and Local Government. Now, during that interaction with the department we discovered, when you look into the question of traditional courts, for example, that they are still using the old Acts that are contained in the Black Administration Act.
What we wanted was for them to repeal all those laws that are offensive, derogatory and are not in keeping with our Constitution. As a committee, we agreed that that must be done expeditiously.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development promised the committee that they were going to repeal all the laws that you can think of, on or before 31 July 2006, that are derogatory and offensive - you know them. Those are laws in which we were called names; were told where to stay or not to stay; in which it was outlined who you were supposed to marry; and in which it was stated at what time you had to go to bed with your partner.
Now, when the department continued to check all the laws, it was discovered that unfortunately some laws are such that if you repeal them they are going to leave a vacuum, and that would be suicidal and cause chaos.
When the three departments did their own investigations they discovered that it might not be possible for them to repeal all those laws on 31 July this year. They need some time because, for example, when you look at the traditional courts, some powers were conferred on traditional leaders to try cases. In some provinces some powers were conferred on the traditional courts, not the traditional leader, to hear cases. It differs from area to area.
Please remember that this Black Administration Act was only aimed at governing black people.
In order to enable all the departments to rectify or repeal al those laws or to come up with proper legislation to deal with what I am saying, they requested some time so that they could do a thorough job and come back to Parliament. When they reported this to us we said, “It’s fine. When can you do this?”
They said they could only do it if we gave them another period of grace of about six months or so. But because we are such a dynamic committee, we said, “It is fine, we are flexible. We allow you that, but please come back to us.” Instead of August, as they had requested, we told them to come back to us on 30 September 2007. For that to happen, you need legislation. That legislation I am talking about is the Bill before this House now.
Regarding what we are proposing here, the previous Bill mentioned 31 July 2006, but because of the request the department made, we are now changing this timeframe to say we are giving the department until 30 September 2007 to come back to Parliament. That is all the Bill is about.
Let me humbly submit to this House that we should enable the departments to go and do all these things that they promised us as Parliament – that is, to stagger the dates from 31 July this year to 30 September 2007.
On behalf of the committee, I request the House to agree to and pass this Bill as it is, without any amendments. I rest my case, Chair. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63 I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish.
We shall now proceed to voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye.”
HON MEMBERS: Aye.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Those against say “No.” All members voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Bill agreed to in accordance with Section 75 of the Constitution.
OLDER PERSONS BILL
(Consideration of Report of Mediation Committee)
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): As there is no speakers’ list, I shall put the question. The question is that the report be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all the delegation heads present?
HON MEMBERS: Yes.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Mr A T MANYOSI: Eastern Cape is in favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Siyayixhasa. [We support it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: IKwaZulu-Natali iyayixhasa. [KwaZulu-Natal supports it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo re a e thekga. [Limpopo supports it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West ke a rona. [North West supports it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): The report has been agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Order disposed of without debate.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with 65 of the Constitution.
OLDER PERSONS BILL
(Consideration of Bill)
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): As there is no speakers’ list I shall put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?
In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Mr A T MANYOSI: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Siyavuma, Sihlalo. [We support it, Chairperson.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: Siyayixhasa. [We support it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga ea seketela. [Mpumalanga supports it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Re ema nokeng. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [We support it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. Order disposed of without debate.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
- JOINT CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND ON THE SAFETY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Chairperson, the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs was briefed by the Department of Minerals and Energy and considered the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
The objective of the joint convention is to make sure that management and maintenance is achieved worldwide. It seeks to ensure that management of radioactive waste is effective and that there is defence against potential hazards. It encourages the prevention of accidents and the mitigation of their consequences, should they occur. It also reinforces the implementation of the basic safety criteria and standards currently used in the regulation of nuclear activities in South Africa, thus ensuring the continued protection of all South Africans as required by the Constitution.
The legal obligations of the convention are provided for in the Nuclear Act and through the National Nuclear Regulator, under the supervision of the Departments of Minerals and Energy, and Health. The two departments will be responsible for the implementation of all provisions of the incentive convention. If the House agrees to the accession, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will sign and South Africa will be party to the convention.
On behalf of the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs, I move that the House adopts the report. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?
In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Ms B N DLULANE: Iyaxhasa. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Siyavuma. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Siyayixhasa. [We support it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mrs M N Oliphant): North West?
Rev P MOATSHE: Re a dumela. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mrs M N Oliphant): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with Section 65 of the Constitution.
I have been informed by the Whippery that there will be one speakers’ list for the Ninth and Tenth Orders.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE - DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD QUARTERS OF 2005-06 FINANCIAL YEAR -
JULY TO DECEMBER 2005
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE - ANNUAL REPORT OF JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Chairperson, hon members, we feel very much honoured to present this report to you. The Reports of the Joint Budget Committee on the Departmental Expenditure for the Second and Third Quarters of 2005-06 financial year ended in March 2006 and the Annual Report of the Joint Budget Committee were published in the ATCs of 18 April 2006.
These reports are submitted to Parliament in line with the terms of reference of the Joint Budget Committee. In terms of this mandate, the Joint Budget Committee is required to monitor, on a regular basis, the actual monthly revenue and expenditure incurred by national departments. The purpose of this exercise is to ascertain whether the patterns of spending are consistent with the budget focus of these departments.
In as far as the annual report is concerned, we would like to report to this House that our work is in progress and I wish to thank the esteemed members of the committee, my forerunners in the committee, that is, the hon Mr Ralane and the hon Mr Nene who is in the National Assembly as well as the present co-chairperson, Ms Louisa Mabe - also in the National Assembly.
We also thank you very much, hon members on all our sister committees, for your prompt co-operation and understanding. On behalf of the Joint Budget Committee, I appeal to this hon House to consider this report positively. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question in respect of the Ninth Order. The question is that the report be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I need to ascertain very clearly whether delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?
HON MEMBERS: Yes.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Ms B N DLULANE: Iyaxhasa. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [We support it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mrs M N Oliphant): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: ILimpopo iyaxhasa. [Limpopo supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Re ema nokeng. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?
Rev P MOATSHE: Re a dumela. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mrs M N Oliphant): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with Section 65 of the Constitution.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question in respect of the Tenth Order. The question is that the report be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province’s votes. Are all delegation heads present?
HON MEMBERS: Yes.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Ms B N DLULANE: Iyaxhasa. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Siyavuma. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: Elethu. [We all support it.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo steun. [Limpopo supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?
Ms F NYANDA: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Re ema nokeng. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Steun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. Report accordingly adopted in accordance with Section 65 of the Constitution.
I have two announcements to make. Firstly, an hon member of this House, hon Joel Sibiya, was involved in a car accident on Monday. He is in hospital as we speak. Secondly, I have been requested by the co-chair of the ethics committee to remind you to submit your declaration forms before Friday, if you have not done so, because the deadline for submission is Friday.
The Council adjourned at 16:31. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
THURSDAY, 15 JUNE 2006
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
-
The Speaker and the Chairperson
1) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the Marine Living Resources Fund for 2001-2002. 2) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the Marine Living Resources Fund for 2002-2003. 3) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the Marine Living Resources Fund for 2003-2004. 4) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the Marine Living Resources Fund for 2004-2005.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Council of Provinces
CREDA PLEASE INSERT REPORT - Insert T060615E-insert PAGES 1442-1455
MONDAY, 19 JUNE 2006
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:
(1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism on 19 June 2006 in terms of Joint
Rule 160(6) classified the following Bill as a money Bill:
a) Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws
Bill [B 14 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 77).
(2) The Joint Tagging Mechanism on 19 June 2006 in terms of Joint
Rule 160(3) classified the following Bill as a section 75 Bill:
(a) Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of
Taxation Laws Bill [B 15 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec
75).
National Council of Provinces
- Referral to Committees of papers tabled
1. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Social Services for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 4 – Department of Home
Affairs for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 53-2006].
2. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
a) A report in terms of section 9(5)(b) of the Magistrates’ Courts
Act, 1944 (Act No 32 of 1944), a list containing information
with regard to vacancies in the offices of magistrates which
have remained unfilled for a continuous period exceeding three
months as on 31 March 2006.
3. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs and the Joint Standing
Committee on Intelligence:
a) Proclamation No R67 published in Government Gazette No 28282
dated 29 November 2006: Commencement of sections 40 and 62(6) of
the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision
of Communication-Related Information Act, 2002 (Act No 70 of
2002): Amendment of Proclamation.
4. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Education and Recreation for consideration:
a) The Corporate Strategy of the Department of Science and
Technology for (2006/7) 2005/6 to 2008/9.
5. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
(a) Report of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) for
January 2004 to December 2004, in terms of section 18(5)(c) of
the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No 115 of 1998) [RP 209-
2004].
a) Report of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) for
January 2005 to December 2005, in terms of section 18(5)(c) of
the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No 116 of 1998) [RP 56-
2006].
6. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on Land
and Environmental for consideration:
a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism for 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2010, 2006/07 Review.
7. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Local Government and Administration for consideration:
a) Medium Term Performance Plan of the Department of Provincial and
Local Government for 2006 to 2009.
8. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Labour and Public Enterprises for consideration:
(a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Public Enterprises for
2006.
9. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Mineral Technology (Mintek)
for 2004-2005, including the Report f the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 58-2005].
10. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Finance and the Select Committee on Local Government and
Administration:
a) Government Notice No 362 published in Government Gazette No
28740 dated 13 April 2006: Publication of Local Government
allocations and frameworks, in terms of the Division of Revenue
Act, 2006 (Act No 2 of 2006).
11. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance and the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises:
(a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Learnership Training System
Programme, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Project: Learnership Training System Programme.
(c) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Skills Development Strategy
Initiative (SDSI), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(d) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Project: Skills Development Strategy Initiative (SDSI).
12. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance, the Select Committee on Local Government and
Administration and the Select Committee on Security and
Constitutional Affairs:
a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Legislative Drafting Programme,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between the
Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the Project:
Legislative Drafting Programme.
13. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance, the Select Committee on Local Government and
Administration and the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign
Affairs:
(a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Mpumalanga Rural Development
Programme, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
a) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between the
Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the Project:
Mpumalanga Rural Development Programme.
14. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance, the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional
Affairs and the Select Committee on Education and Recreation:
(a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Technology Diffusion through
Technikons, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Project: Technology Diffusion through Technikons.
15. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance, the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs and
the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life
and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons:
a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Peace and Development Project,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Project: Peace and Development Project.
(c) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning Financial Cooperation in 2005, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(d) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
Financial Cooperation in 2005.
16. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance and the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs:
a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Project: Programme to Develop Markets for
Business Development Services, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between the
Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the Project:
Programme to Develop Markets for Business Development Services.
17. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on Land
and Environmental Affairs for consideration and report:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Commission on
Restitution of Land Rights for 2005-2006 [RP 54-2006].
18. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Finance:
(a) Activity Report of the Auditor-General for 2004-2005 [RP
231-2005].
19. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Education and Recreation:
a) Government Notice No 540 published in Government Gazette No
28719 dated 10 April 2006: Call for written submissions from
stakeholder bodies and members of the public on the draft policy
document: An addendum to the policy document, the National
Certificate: A qualification at Level 4 on the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF), regarding learners with special
needs, in terms of the National Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act
No 27 of 1996).
b) Government Notice No 603 published in Government Gazette No
28806 dated 8 May 2006: Call for comment on the Further
Education and Training Colleges Bill, 2006.
c) Government Notice No 265 published in Government Gazette No
28657 dated 24 March 2006: Calling for the nomination of persons
to serve as members on the Second Umalusi Council for General
and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance for the
period 8 June 2006 until 7 June 2010, in terms of the Act, 2001
(Act No 58 of 2001).
20. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Land and Environmental Affairs:
a) Government Notice No 385 published in Government Gazette No
28753 dated 21 April 2006: Regulations in terms of Chapter 5,
made in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998
(Act No 107 of 1998).
b) Government Notice No 597 published in Government Gazette No
28803 dated 5 May 2006: Draft Regulations relating to listed
threatened or protected species, made in terms of the National
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No 10 of
2004).
c) Government Notice No 598 published in Government Gazette No
28803 dated 5 May 2006: Draft national norms and standards for
the regulation of the hunting industry in South Africa, made in
terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act, 2004 (Act No 10 of 2004).
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Transport
1) Report and Financial Statements of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for
2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 34-2006].
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Council of Provinces
-
The Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, as the Chairperson of the Rules Committee of the Council, present the First Report of the Rules Committee of the National Council of Provinces, dated 19 June 2006, as follows:
To amend the definition of money bills to read as follows: “money Bill” means a Bill to which section 77 of the Constitution applies;
To amend rule 14A by insertion of the underlined words as follow.
Functions of the House Chairperson Committees
14A. (1) The House Chairperson Committees shall perform the following functions-
i) Consider and approve committees request for travel for purposes of
oversight.
To amend rule 46 by insertion of rule 46A, to read as follows:
Reference to member by name
46A. No member shall refer to any member by his or her first name or
names
only.
To amend rule 103 by insertion of the underlined words and deletion of
the words in bold as follows.
103. (1)…
(2) A committee may sit at a venue beyond the seat of
Parliament, or on a day that is not a working day, or at a
time the Council is sitting, or during a recess of the
Council, -
a) only with the permission of the House Chairperson Committees
[Chief Whip of the Council] after consultation with the
Chief Whip of the Council, provincial Whips and Whips
designated by parties; and
b) with the approval of the Chairperson of the Council.
To amend rule 232 by insertion of the underlined words as follows.
Notice
232.(1)…
(3)…
(6) Questions must be directed at the Ministry that is officially
tasked with the particular area of responsibility for which
information is requested.
To amend rule 172 by insertion of the underlined words as follows.
172. (1) The Council may not consider or pass a bill before at least
three working days have lapsed, since the committee’s report was
tabled;
i) unless it is a bill before the House in terms of rule 216 of the
Joint Rules; or ii) an urgent bill before the House.
(2)…
(3)…
To amend rule 196A by insertion of the underlined words as follows.
196A 1. All section 76 bills should be dealt with in a manner that
will ensure that provinces have sufficient time to consider
the bill and confer mandates.
2 Depending on the substance of the bill, the period may
not exceed four weeks.
3. In the event that the substance of the bill requires
sufficient time beyond the four-week period, the cycle may
be extended but may not exceed six weeks.
TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 2006
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
-
Assent by President in respect of Bill 1) Children’s Bill [B 70D – 2003] – Act No 38 of 2005 (assented to and signed by President on 8 June 2006).
-
Fast-tracking of Bill (1) The Joint Subcommittee of the Joint Programme Committee on 20 June 2006 took the following decision: That - (1) noting South Africa’s international commitment to adopt special legislative measures regarding the 2010 FIFA World Cup within specified timeframes; (2) further noting that the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B 13–2006] which was introduced on 6 June 2006 is to be split into separate section 75 and section 76 Bills; (3) in accordance with Joint Rule 216(2) the two Bills upon receipt be fast-tracked by shortening any period within which any step in the legislative process relating to the Bills has to be completed, but subject to public participation in the process of the consideration of the Bills, in order for the Bills to be passed by both Houses before 31 August 2006; (4) for this purpose the relevant NA and NCOP committees confer on the Bills; and (5) the National Assembly committee finalises its consideration of the Bills by 31 July 2006 and the NCOP committee reports formally on both Bills in time for the approved deadline to be met by parliament.
(2) In terms of Joint Rule 216(4) this decision must be tabled in both Houses for ratification.
-
Bill returned to Executive
(1) On 20 June 2006 the Speaker and the Deputy Chairperson, after
consultation, referred the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special
Measures Bill [B 13 – 2006], introduced in the National Assembly as
a section 75 Bill on 6 June 2006, back to the Minister of Sport and
Recreation, as it contains both section 75 and section 76
provisions.
- Reintroduction of Bill
(1) The Minister of Sport and Recreation
2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B 13 –
2006 (Reintroduced)] (National Assembly – sec 75) [Explanatory
summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
Government Gazette No 28593 of 10 March 2006.]
Reintroduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Sport and
Recreation of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the 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 Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) within three
parliamentary working days.
- Introduction of Bill
(1) The Minister of Sport and Recreation
a) Second 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill
[B 16 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 76) [Explanatory
summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published
in Government Gazette No 28593 of 10 March 2006.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Sport and
Recreation 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.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- Report of the Mediation Committee on the Older Persons Bill [B 68B and B68D – 2003] (National Council of Provinces – sec 76), dated 14 June 2006:
The Mediation Committee, having considered the Older Persons Bill [B68B and B68D – 2003] (National Council of Provinces – sec 76), as well as the papers referred to it, reports that it has agreed to a new version of the Bill [B68F – 2003 (Reprint)]. The Committee notes with concern the technical errors that occurred in the processing and preparation of the printed version of the Bill in the National Assembly. The Committee recommends that the Presiding Officers investigate the reasons for the technical errors, and report to the Joint Rules Committee on measures to be put in place to avoid similar errors in future.
National Council of Provinces
- Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on Hearings on the Implications and Approval of the Proposed New Salary Scales for the Magistracy, in particular the introduction of a New Motor Vehicle Allowance for Magistrates and Senior Magistrates, as recommended by the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers, dated 19 June 2006:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development (Portfolio Committee) and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs (Select Committee) having jointly held hearings to consider the implications of the proposed new salary scales for the magistracy, in particular the introduction of a new motor vehicle allowance for magistrates and senior magistrates, as recommended in Notice 46 of 2005 in the Government Gazette of 24 August 2005, and tabled in the House on 7 September 2005, report as follows:
A. INTRODUCTION
-
On 18 October 2005, the Portfolio Committee together with the Select Committee convened hearings with representatives from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ), National Treasury (Treasury) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to discuss and consider the implications of the proposed new salary scales for magistrates, as recommended by the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Office Bearers (The Commission). The Commission was asked to submit a written account of the factors, issues and conclusions arrived at, that gave rise to the salary proposals, in particular, the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates. The submissions of the institutions that appeared before the Committees, as well as the written submission of the Commission, are available for perusal in the office of the Committee Secretary. All documents sourced by the Committees are similarly available (marked Annexures 05 Mag Rem 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,12,13,14, 15, 16).
-
The aim of the hearings was threefold. Firstly, to inquire into the details of the proposed implementation plan and its consequences for government, in particular the availability of a budgetary allocation of approximately R157 million to defray the cost of such proposed allowance. Secondly, to determine the effects and implications of the proposed new salary scales for magistrates and senior magistrates in relation to the broader issue of disparate salaries for similarly qualified lawyers within the criminal justice system in particular, as well as within the public sector as a whole, including relevant Chapter 9 bodies. Thirdly, to identify problems that currently pertain in the implementation of the procedure for the determination of the remuneration of magistrates by the Commission, in an effort to make recommendations on steps needed to be taken at all levels to ensure that the process will in future take place in accordance with the legislation governing it.
B. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
- Prior to 1995, magistrates formed part of the public service and as such their salaries were determined through the collective bargaining process applicable to members of the public service. From 1995, they were de-linked from the collective bargaining process and together with judges the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development (the Minister) determined their salary increases after consultation with the Minister of Finance.
In 2003, the Judicial Officers Amendment Act (Act No 28 of 2003), was enacted as part of an ongoing process of judicial reform aimed, inter alia, at strengthening judicial independence in our young democracy. The Act amended the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office-Bearers Act (Act No 92 of 1997) (the Commission Act), so as to extend the definition of “office-bearer” to include judges and magistrates and to make further consequential amendments. The Act further amended the Magistrates Act (Act No 90 of 1993) (the Magistrates Act) to provide for this new system to regulate the remuneration determination for magistrates. The new system for the regulation of the remuneration of magistrates was aimed at ensuring that magistrates do not participate in activities associated with the collective bargaining system and as such gives effect to the views expressed by the Constitutional Court in the Van Rooyen judgment, where the Court held as follows:[1] “Judicial officers ought not to be put in a position of having to … engage in negotiations with the executive over their salaries. They are judicial officers, not employees, and cannot and should not resort to industrial action to advance their interests in their conditions of service. That makes them vulnerable to having less attention paid to their legitimate concerns in relation to such matters, than others who can advance their interests through normal bargaining processes open to them”.
-
When determining the remuneration of magistrates, the procedures set out in section 12 of the Magistrates Act must be read together with the provisions of the Commission Act that governs the composition and functioning of the Commission. The procedures that must be followed in determining the remuneration of magistrates can briefly be summarised into the following steps: • The Commission must in order to investigate and consider the remuneration of magistrates consult with the Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Chief Justice or a person designated by the Chief Justice (section 12(1)(c) of the Magistrates Act). • When the Commission is deliberating the matter of the remuneration of judges or magistrates and if the Chairperson of the Commission is a Constitutional Court judge or a judge, then he or she must refrain from participating in any of the Commission’s deliberations relating to such remuneration (section 8(3B)(a) read together with section 1(d)(i) and (ii) of the Commission Act).
-
[Publication of the Recommendations of the Commission]
• Section 8(6) of the Commission Act stipulates that in arriving at its
recommendations the Commission must take the following factors into
account:
“(6)(i) The role, status, duties, functions and
responsibilities of the office-bearers concerned;
ii) the affordability of different levels of remuneration of public
office bearers;
iii) current principles and levels of remuneration, particularly in
respect of organs of state, and in society generally;
iv) inflationary increases;
v) the availability of resources of the State; and
vi) any other factor which, in the opinion of the said Commission,
is relevant”.
• The recommendations of the Commission must be published in the Gazette
at least once a year in respect of each category of office-bearers and
must be submitted to Parliament before publication (section 8(5) of
the Commission Act).
• In this regard, the Commission’s annual recommendations must be
submitted to Parliament before the publication thereof in the Gazette.
In other words Parliament only needs to be informed about the
Commission’s recommendations and does not at this stage have to
approve or disapprove thereof. However, it is at this point that
Parliament has, through the Select Committee and the Portfolio
Committee, an opportunity to formulate a view on the Commission’s
recommendations, which in turn must be relayed to the Executive before
the President constructs the notice referred to in section 12(1)(a).
• In this regard it should be noted that while Parliament may have
received the Commission’s recommendations before they were published
in 2005 (and this we, to date, have not been able to establish), the
Commission’s proposals were not referred by the Presiding Officers to
the relevant Committees for consideration and report. This may be
simply because the Commission’s recommendations were not officially
relayed to Parliament.
• The publication of the Commission’s recommendations in the Gazette is
done in addition with the intention to publicise its findings as
widely as possible for public information. The publication of the
recommendations of the Commission in the Gazette should not be
confused with the publication of the President’s notice in the Gazette
to determine the salaries, allowances or benefits of magistrates.
• The Commission then makes recommendations to the President for his or
her consideration as to the salaries, allowances and benefits
magistrates are entitled to following the Commission’s investigation
(section 12(1)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Act).
- Publication of section 12(1)(a) notice • Section 12(1)(a)(i) and (ii) read together with subsection (3) of the Magistrates Act provide that the President determines the salaries, allowances or benefits that magistrates are entitled to from time to time by notice in the Gazette, after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Commission, and after such notice has been submitted to Parliament for approval ( i.e. before publication thereof in the Gazette). • Parliament must by resolution either approve the notice, whether in whole or in part, or disapprove the notice (section 12(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Magistrates Act). The notice has to be submitted to Parliament to afford Parliament an opportunity to comment before any determination may be published in the Gazette. • The President may determine different categories of salaries and salary scales in respect of different categories of magistrates (section 12(1)(b) of the Magistrates Act). • The remuneration payable to magistrates shall be paid out of the National Revenue Fund as contemplated in section 213 of the Constitution read with section 12(4) of the Magistrates Act.
C. Absence of budgetary allocation to defray proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates
-
Any reservations the Committees may have had, with the introduction of the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates, were outweighed by the individual and collective weight afforded three factors that are relevant in regard to the approval of such allowances. Firstly, the President of the Republic of South Africa indicated in Notice 46 of 2005 and the attached Schedule that he favoured the granting of such an allowance to magistrates and senior magistrates. Secondly, the Minister of Finance indicated his preparedness to appropriate the budget allocation of approximately R157million to defray the expenditure related to the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates, in terms of section 213(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, read with section 12(4) of the Magistrates Act. Thirdly, the relevant government departments are in the process of developing a remunerative structure based on parity and synergy to negate the adverse consequences of magistrates’ salaries and benefits being raised to disparate levels, with the consequent destabilising effects this has on other institutions of justice, especially the National Prosecuting Authority.
- All factors, especially the above three, having been considered, the Committees accordingly recommended that both Houses of Parliament approve the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates, as contained in Notice 46 of 2005, as it appears in the Government Gazette of 24 August 2005, and that the costs thereof be defrayed in terms of section 213(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, read with section 12(4) of the Magistrates Act .
-
All other proposals recommended in Notice 46 of 2002 have been properly budgeted for and the adoption thereof presented no problem, and was accordingly recommended.
-
On Wednesday, 7 September 2005, the National Assembly passed a resolution, which read: That the House approves the draft notice and the schedule received from the Presidency determining the rate at which salaries and allowances are payable to the magistrates annually, with effect from 1 April 2005, in terms of section 12(1)(a) of the Magistrates Act (act No 90 of 1993) as amended by section 3 of the Judicial Officers (Amendment of Conditions of Service) Act (Act No 28 of 2003).
Notice 46 of 2005 appeared in the Government Gazette dated 24 August 2005 and is attached hereto for ease of reference (Marked Annexure 05 Mag Rem 5).
- The National Council of Provinces however referred the matter to the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs for deliberation. Joint hearings were held on 18 October 2005, and interim reports were tabled in both houses on 16 November 2005. (Marked Annexture 05 Mag Rem 17 and 19). The Houses required that a final report be tabled detailing the outcomes and recommendations in relation to legislative and procedural matters relating to the determination of salary levels for magistrates; the absence of a budgetary allocation to defray the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for senior magistrates and magistrates; the development of policy measures to deal with the implications arising from the extension of motor vehicle allowances to senior magistrates and magistrates; and any other matter relevent to or emanating from the said hearings.
D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In making our recommendations the Committees have considered that the determination of recommendations relating to magistrates’ (and judges’) salaries is a relatively new exercise for the Commission. Like all new institutions and processes, there are opportunities to develop and learn collectively from short-comings and challenges. Most developing democracies have at some time or another faced such and sometimes worse institutional challenges, and it is out of corrective measures implemented within constitutional mechanisms that strong and enduring practices of good governance and institutions have developed. Consequently, after careful consideration of all the written and oral submissions placed before the Portfolio Committee and the Select Committee, on the recommendations contained in Notice 46 of 2005, including the implications of the proposed new motor vehicle allowance for magistrates and senior magistrates, as recommended by the Commission; and - (i) despite any procedural shortcomings that may have occurred in relation to the Commissions work; (ii) the absence of a budgetary allocation of R157 million to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, to defray the new proposed motor vehicle allowance to entry level magistrates, magistrates and senior magistrates; and (iii) because the relevant Government Departments are considering proposals to create a salary regime which ensures parity and synergy between the salary packages of legally qualified professionals working for the State, the Committees make the recommendations hereunder to ensure that the problems pertaining to the work of the Commission do not recur.
RECOMMENDATIONS
-
The Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers: 1.1 The Commission must strictly comply with the letter and spirit of the legislation and regulations applicable to it when considering recommendations relating to the remuneration of judges and magistrates. The following legal prescripts must strictly be complied with in future:
1.2 The letter and spirit of section 8(3B) (a) and (b) of the Commission Act replicated below, must be strictly adhered to and complied with by the Commission and its Chairperson: “If the Chairperson of the Commission is an office bearer as defined in para (d)(i) of the definition of “office-bearer” in section 1, that member must refrain from participating in any of the Commission’s deliberations relating to the remuneration of any office-bearer as defined in paragraph(d) of the said definition (b) Any member of the Commission who may directly or indirectly derive any benefit from the acceptance by the President of any recommendations by the Commission, must refrain from participating in any of the Commissions deliberations relating to such recommendations.”
1.3 When the Commission considers recommendations relating to the remuneration of: i) judges, it must have regard to the provisions of the Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act (Act no. 47 of 2001); and ii) magistrates, it must have regard to the provisions of the Magistrates Act and the Commission’s Act in particular section 8;
-
In formulating recommendations on the remuneration of magistrates, the Commission must have regard to the levels of remuneration of similarly qualified individuals in the public and private sectors in accordance with the provisions of the Commission Act, particularly the prescripts of section 8(6)(iii);
-
In terms of section 8(5) of the Commission Act, read with sections 12(1)(a)(ii) and 12(3) of the Magistrates Act, the recommendations of the Commission relating to the remuneration of magistrates must be submitted to Parliament before publication thereof.
1.6 The Commission must in future make recommendations bearing in the mind the availability of resources within the budget framework, as provided for in the Estimate of National Expenditure; (i.e: see section 8(6)(v) )
1.7 The Commission should receive a single submission on behalf of the magistracy from the Chief Justice or a person designated by the Chief Justice relating to recommendations in respect of the remuneration of magistrates, in accordance with section 12(1)(c)(ii), read with section 8(3)of the Magistrates Act, and should not consult with or receive submissions from individual or groups of magistrates relating to the remuneration of magistrates, as seems to have become the practice; considering the injunction of the Van Rooyen case that collective bargaining practices should be discouraged at this level;
1.8 The Commission must meaningfully consult with the Ministers of Finance and Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 12 (1)(c)(i) of the Magistrates Act, when considering recommendations in respect of the remuneration of magistrates. The process of consultation should be made more formal and all substantive interactions should be through written communications ;
1.9 When consulting the Ministers as referred to in paragraph 1.8 above, the Commission must do so with a view to reaching consensus on the recommendations relating to the determination of the remuneration of magistrates;
1.10 The Commission’s recommendations to the President should reflect all the relevant views/submissions received relating to the recommendations in respect of the remuneration of magistrates, especially when any or both of the above Ministers disagree with any aspect of the recommendations made by the Commission;
1.11 The Commission must construct a system for formulating recommendations on the remuneration of magistrates that is objectively understood within an overall matrix or framework of remuneration and benefits applicable to other members of the Judiciary and other similarly qualified professionals in the employ of the State.
- THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
It is recommended that the office of the Chief Justice must devise an internal forum within the Judiciary aimed at facilitating a single submission to the Commission relating to the remuneration of judges and magistrates, as indicated in paragraph 2 of the recommendations pertaining to the Commission, above.
- PARLIAMENT
It is also recommended that any proposal in terms of section 8(5) of the Commission Act and any notice referred to in Section 12(1)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Act, submitted to Parliament, must be referred by the Presiding Officers to the Portfolio Committee and the Select Committee jointly, for consideration and report. The report and recommendations of the Committees must thereafter be tabled for adoption in the relevant Houses. Thereafter, Parliament’s recommendations or comments must immediately be forwarded to the President. Only after these processes have been followed, and upon approval by both Houses of Parliament, should the final determination be published in the Government Gazette.
- GENERAL
Although not relevant to this enquiry, any of the procedural shortcomings that are pertinent to the development of recommendations relating to the remuneration of judges should be immediately reviewed by the relevant institutions.
- Policy Measures: The development or adoption of policy measures arising from the expansion of travel allowances to magistrates previously excluded
Magistrates are appointed generally at the point that they have acquired at least 5 years post-university experience. In their submission to the Committees the NPA pointed out that a prosecutor with at least five years post-university experience currently earned R139 383 compared to the R313 738 per annum for a similarly qualified magistrate (i.e. a trainee magistrate, without the present proposed salary packages having been taken into account). This amounts to a differential of R174 355, in salaries for lawyers who are equally qualified and experienced. The newly approved allowance for entry level magistrates will increase the already significant salary gap between entry level magistrates and senior prosecutors with five years and more years experience, by approximately R70 000.00. This will have the likely effect of further significantly exacerbating an already existing atmosphere of instability in institutions administering justice. In fact, according to the NPA, they lose between 30 and 40 such experienced prosecutors annually to the magistracy. Considering the further 40 new magistrates posts created in 2005, the prosecuting authority stands to loose a significant number of experienced prosecutors during this period.
The Commission in its written submission reported that “it is in the process of conducting a major review of public office bearer remuneration, and intends making recommendations for the implementation of an integrated fair and transparent total cost to employer remuneration structure for all office bearers” (page 2, paragraph 2). The Department of Justice reported that it has just completed a framework for an integrated remuneration dispensation for its legally qualified professionals. This process is aimed at addressing the historical inequities existing in the current system, and introducing parity and synergy. It was further reported that a similar exercise is currently being undertaken by the DPSA in regard to personnel performing legal functions throughout the public sector. While these developments are to be welcomed, it is clear that if these processes are not integrated or synergized, we will once again face a situation where disparate salary packages have to be implemented for similarly qualified legal professionals in the public domain.
The Committees thus recommend that:
5.1 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Treasury and Department of Public Service and Administration (and where necessary, the Commission) should work together to design a remuneration framework/ or matrix that will ensure parity and synergy between the salary packages of similarly qualified legal professionals working for the State. In this manner, eradicating or at the very least minimising the further destabilisation of institutions administering justice through personnel movements chasing after higher salaries, sometimes even in the same Department.
5.2 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Treasury having been engaged in a process that is aimed at developing a comprehensive remunerative structure based on parity for legal professionals in the Justice sector, must table their proposals and implementation plan, with Parliament, by 1 September 2006.
5.3 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development must, urgently, table in Parliament amendments to the regulations for the official travel of all magistrates operating within clusters, in order to prevent potential abuse of claims relating to S&T’s, accommodation and travel allowances of the nature that was disclosed to the Committees during the hearings. In particular, to examine the legality and amend the regulations, if necessary, of the further payments of allowances or benefits to magistrates, for travel purposes, after 1 April 2005, outside the motor vehicle allowances, which are now being approved for all magistrates, backdated to 1 April 2005. Such regulations must be tabled in Parliament, by 1 September 2006.
5.4 Review present legislation It is recommended that the relevant pieces of legislation considered in this report should be reviewed in accordance with the findings and recommendations of this report, with the objective of simplifying and clarifying the procedure. The review should include a mechanism allowing the proposals of the President to be revised and resubmitted to Parliament should Parliament disapprove the notice in terms of section 12(3)(b)(ii) of the Magistrates Act.
-
-
Engendering professionalism in the Magistracy
During the time that it has taken to convene the parliamentary hearings the Committees have been disturbed at the behaviour of some magistrates who have in written and oral form criticised Parliament’s processes and even questioned the constitutionality of Parliament’s role. Generally, Parliament should not be above reproach, but when these criticisms are voiced by magistrates in an effort to enhance their personal circumstances by advocating for higher salaries in stark contrast to the prescripts laid down by the Constitutional Court in the Van Rooyen judgment, these reproaches have the distinct flavour of unabashed avarice.
Taken to its extreme the media covered stories of certain magistrates absenting themselves from their courts during this time, on the pretext of being under stress due to the possibility of the new motor vehicle allowances not being approved. This, if true was a lightly veiled attempt to pressurise MPs to approve the new salary dispensation. The Committees were also made aware of meetings convened in court buildings ostensibly to organise in protest against any potential negative outcome of the Parliamentary process.
In matters concerning the Judiciary, the Committees remain guided by the principles and guidelines determined by the Constitutional Court, especially in the Van Rooyen case.
The actions of some magistrates, in contravention of the principles in the Van Rooyen judgment, are unbecoming of judicial officers and have brought the Judiciary into disrepute. The Committees accordingly recommend that the Magistrates’ Commission:
-
Conducts a full investigation into:
(i) absenteeism from work without valid reason; including absenteeism due to alleged stress (particularly in the area of the Eastern Cape) or any “go slow” or related action on the part of any affected magistrate or senior magistrate; and
(ii) any other type of conduct or action by any magistrate or senior magistrate, which ostensibly relates to the approval by Parliament of the new salary regime amounting to behaviour unbecoming of a judicial officer,
between the period 13 September 2005 and 17 November 2005.
- Submits a Report by 01 December 2006 on the individual magistrates concerned, identifying the disciplinary measures adopted or proposed to be adopted in each instance, including relevant medical certificates for each magistrate absent from work for stress or stress- related illnesses during the period 13 September to 17 November 2005.
Conclusion
The Committees express the hope that the report provides guidance and assistance to all the role-players concerned in our mutual efforts to develop and build our State Institutions. It is hoped that all criticism levelled are received in this spirit and that our democratic state continues to flourish in the wake of the constructive deliberations and engagement. Report to be considered.
WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2006
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
1. Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for
assent
(1) Bill passed by National Assembly and National Council of
Provinces on 21 June 2006:
a) Older Persons Bill [B 68F – 2003 (Reprint)] (National
Council of Provinces – sec 76).
(2) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 21 June
2006:
a) Deeds Registries Amendment Bill [B 5 – 2006] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
b) Sectional Titles Amendment Bill [B 8 – 2006] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
c) Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of
Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B 11B – 2006] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
d) Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws
Bill [B 14 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 77).
e) Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of
Taxation Laws Bill [B 15 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec
75).
National Council of Provinces
- Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces in respect of Bills passed by Assembly and transmitted to Council
(1) Bills passed on by National Assembly and transmitted for
concurrence on 20 June 2006:
a) Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill
[B 14 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 77)
b) Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation
Laws Bill [B 15 – 2006] (National Assembly – sec 75).
The Bills have been referred to the Select Committee on Finance of
the National Council of Provinces. TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
(a) Report of the South African delegation to the 114th Inter-
Parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya 7-14 May 2006.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
-
Report of the Constitutional Review Committee on Public Submission, dated 9 June 2006:
During the 2005 Constitutional review period, the Constitutional Review Committee received a submission concerning the convergence of the electronic media and its relevance to section 192 of the Constitution.
Section 192 of the Constitution states that legislation must establish an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest and to ensure fairness and a diversity of views broadly representing South African society. In pursuance of this instruction, the Independent Broadcasting Authority was established.
Due to technological developments, the differentiation within the electronic media has not only become blurred, but has in practice disappeared. This fact has been recognized and consequently, the Electronic Communication Act (36 of 2005) and the ICASA Bill (B32F of 2005) were introduced and approved by Parliament.
In its report to Parliament, the Committee acknowledged that the issue of electronic convergence and the implication thereof on the Constitution, was deserving and needed further investigation (ATC Report, 1 November 2005, pg 2418).
Having received submissions from both academics and the Department of Communication, the Committee recommends that:
(a) Section 192 of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) be amended.
(b) Possible consequential amendments be made to Section 181(1), Section 193(1), Section 193(4), Sections 194(1) and 194(2)(b)
(c) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development be requested to introduce the relevant Constitutional amendments.
Report to be considered.
National Council of Provinces
-
Report of the Select Committee on Public Services on the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, dated 20 June 2006:
The Select Committee on Public Services, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Public Services on the Protocol to Convention of International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment, dated 20 June 2006:
The Select Committee on Public Services, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Protocol to Convention of International Interests in Mobile Equipment on matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill [B14 - 2006] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 21 June 2006:
The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill Appropriation [B14 - 2006] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill Appr [B15 - 2006] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 21 June 2006:
The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Second Small Business Tax Amnesty and Amendment of Taxation Laws Bill Appropriation [B15 - 2006] (National Assembly - 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B 11B-2006] (National Assembly- sec 75), dated 21 June 2006:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the subject of the Bill Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B 11B-2006] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Provisional Suspension from Office and the withholding of remuneration: Mr M S Makamu, Senior Magistrate and Head of Office at Benoni, dated 21 June 2006:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the reports on the provisional suspension from office of Senior Magistrate M S Makamu, and the withholding of his remuneration, tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of sections 13(3)(b) and 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993), reports as follows:
1) The Select Committee noted from the reports that the Minister provisionally suspended Mr Makamu from office on 23 November 2005 in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 and that, on 31 March 2006, the Magistrates Commission, in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Act, determined to withhold his remuneration. The reports indicating the reasons for Mr Makamu’s provisional suspension and the withholding of his remuneration were tabled in Parliament on 24 November 2005 and 7 April 2006, respectively, in compliance with sections 13(3)(b) and 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.
2) The Select Committee invited Mr Makamu on 10 April 2006 to submit written representations to the Committee regarding the recommendation by the Magistrates Commission to provisionally suspend him from office and its determination to withhold his remuneration. The Committee did not receive any response from Mr Makamu by the due date, 26 April 2006.
3) The Select Committee noted that Mr Makamu had been convicted by the Johannesburg Regional Court on a charge of fraud on 21 June 2005 and that he was sentenced to a fine of R10 000 (ten thousand rand) or in default of payment to 6 (six) months imprisonment, all of which were suspended for a period of 4 (four) years on certain conditions. He was charged for inducing an Administration Officer at the Benoni Magistrate’s Court to sign an official letter stating that he was entitled to an official motor vehicle allowance which letter was presented to Bankfin for the purpose of an installment sale agreement.
4) The Select Committee noted that it has taken a considerable period of time to finalise the criminal case against Mr Makamu and to finalise his application for leave to appeal (which also has had a delaying effect in respect of the inquiry into his fitness to hold office as a Magistrate) and that the Magistrates’ Commission attributes this to an effort on the part of Mr. Makamu to delay the process.
5) In terms of section 13(3)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 Parliament must as soon as is reasonably possible pass a resolution as to whether or not the provisional suspension of a magistrate is confirmed. Parliament must also, in terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Act, as soon as is reasonably possible, consider a report and pass a resolution as to whether or not the determination by the Magistrates Commission to withhold a Magistrate’s remuneration is confirmed, either with or without amendment, or set aside.
6) The Select Committee considers the matter to be of such a serious nature so as to make it inappropriate for Mr Makamu to perform his functions as a magistrate, whilst the inquiry referred to in section 13(3)(e) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 is pending. Furthermore, the Committee is of the view that the Magistrates Commission’s determination to withhold Mr Makamu’s remuneration is appropriate in the circumstances 7) The Committee therefore recommends that the Council resolves to confirm -
(a) the provisional suspension of Mr Makamu in terms of section 13(3)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993; and (b) the determination by the Magistrates Commission to withhold Mr Makamu’s remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.
Report to be considered.
[1] VAN ROOYEN AND OTHERS v THE STATE AND OTHERS (GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR OF SOUTH AFRICA INTERVENING) 2002 (5) SA 246 (CC).