National Assembly - 29 August 2007
WEDNESDAY, 29 AUGUST 2007 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:05.
The Acting Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
OPENING OF FLOOR-CROSSING PERIOD
(Announcement)
The ACTING SPEAKER: Hon members, I have to announce that the window period for members to change party membership or parties to change their status in terms of the Constitution commences on 1 September 2007 and ends at midnight on 15 September 2007. Members [Interjections.] … Hon Holomisa, you are out of order! [Laughter.] You have to wait for me for any action. Let me finish dealing with the announcement.
Members or parties who wish to use this window period to change their status should only do so within the window period, and may do so only once. A member or members may only change membership of a party without losing their seats in the National Assembly if he, she or they constitute at least 10% of the total number of seats held by the party that nominated them to the National Assembly. The 10% is calculated at the time immediately prior to the commencement of the floor-crossing period.
Any member or party wishing to make any change during this period should complete a special form which has been prepared for this purpose. These forms are the only valid forms and will be available from the offices of the Secretary to the National Assembly. Members should note that for purposes of informing the Speaker of any intended changes, they should personally submit the completed form to either Mr M K Mansura, room EG 33, National Assembly Wing, or Mr M Xaso, room SG 18, Link Building, whom the Speaker has authorised as the only officials to receive such forms. The form includes covering notes containing details which members and parties will need to comply with in order for the change to be valid. I thank you.
Makube nokuthula Mnumzane Holomisa. Ngabe lokhona ilungu elifisa ukwenza isaziso sesiphakamiso? Ngabe zikhona iziphakamiso ngaphandle kwesaziso? [Order, Hon Holomisa. Is there a member who wishes to give a notice of motion? Are there any motions without notice?] BEST WISHES TO PARLIAMENTARY RUGBY WORLD CUP TEAM
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move without notice:
That the House –
1) notes that members of Parliament and staff of the parliamentary
support services have left for France to participate in the
Parliamentary Rugby World Cup;
2) notes that the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup will take place from 1
to 10 September 2007; and
3) wishes the South African Parliamentary Rugby World Cup team well in
their efforts.
Motion agreed to.
Dr P J RABIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move:
That this House resolves to debate the effect of the restrictions on Chinese clothing and textile imports on the local clothing and textile manufacturing industries.
Thank you.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I don’t know whether the interpretation might have been slow or what, because we dealt with the notices.
Dr P J RABIE: The interpretation was wrong, and we thought it was time for the reading of notices.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I didn’t hear what the hon member is saying. Ms Kalyan, do you want to say something?
Mrs S V KALYAN: We missed your call because we weren’t quick enough to catch the interpretation when you called for notices of motion. May I ask you to please reconsider?
The ACTING SPEAKER: I don’t mind really, but we have already passed that and there is no harm in the member giving us the notice. Do you have a problem? No.
We have made an announcement, which I think was two weeks or three weeks ago in the programming committee, that we are going to use all 11 languages and, therefore, in the same way in which a person would say they missed the English because they don’t understand it, it will be unacceptable. I think we need to respect all the languages. [Applause.] As you come into the Chamber, just make sure you are ready. We did announce which languages we are going to use but maybe we will send reminders for people because the main thing is that we need everybody to participate. Hon member, I think there is a lot of motivation, even from myself, that you can take this opportunity and give us your notice.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: While I accept completely your ruling, what we have to ensure in that context is that the translation is effective and efficient. I have raised this in the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, or POA, and it is apparently being seen to. There are problems there, and one accepts the problems, but likewise, I think you need to have a little bit of leniency and latitude as far as that is concerned.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Hon Chief Whip of the DA, thank you for addressing me but that is not a point of order at all because if you raise problems about the languages, everybody did raise those at some point. If anyone can say that since we started using other languages, there are still problems, I would rather entertain that because I know for a fact that there are no problems at all. [Interjections.] I know that it was raised in the POA but it does not mean that it is still like that. There is a resolution. Just take your earphones now and tell me if you can’t get the right language that you want of the 11 languages that we have. The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: But Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can address you on this …
The ACTING SPEAKER: Will you please take your seat, sir?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Dr P J RABIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that I at the next sitting of the House I shall move:
That this House resolves to debate the effect of the restrictions on Chinese clothing and textile imports on the local clothing and textile manufacturing industry.
I thank you.
The ACTING SPEAKER: We dealt with notices and we also dealt with motions.
Mr D H M GIBSON: There are further notices; mine is one of them, if I may. May I proceed?
The ACTING SPEAKER: Go ahead.
Mr D H M GIBSON: I hereby give notice that I shall move: That this House resolves to debate strategies to increase investment in greenfield manufacturing concerns.
The ACTING SPEAKER: There was an afternoon when you had 29, you know, Mr Gibson. [Interjections.] I said there was an afternoon when we had 29 such notices some time last year. So I just wanted to say that I do have the energy for as many notices as possible.
Mr D H M GIBSON: I am sure the new Chief Whip will exceed that and do 30 one of these afternoons! [Laughter.]
Mr G G BOINAMO: I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That this House resolves to debate the negative effects of the massive disruptions to many schools across the country during the Public Service strike earlier this year, and ongoing disruption to schools in Khutsong on the upcoming end-of-year exams, and possible solutions to resolve this current crisis.
Thank you.
Mr T D LEE: Madam Acting Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That this House resolves to debate substance abuse in South Africa and our national response to this crisis. I thank you.
APPOINTMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE TO FILL VACANCY ON COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Speaker, we move the motion as it stands on the Order Paper:
That the House appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to nominate a person to fill the vacancy on the Commission for Gender Equality that will arise when the term of office of the chairperson expires on 30 September 2007, the Committee to –
1) consist of the following members, in terms of Rule 215:
ANC
Ms P Tshwete,
Ms J Chalmers,
Ms M R Morutoa,
Ms B N Gxowa,
Mr L P M Nzimande,
Mr P M Mathebe,
Mr T J Louw,
Ms L N Moss,
DA
Ms J A Semple,
Dr J T Delport,
IFP
Mr E Lucas,
Smaller Parties
Ms S Rajbally;
2) consider the nominations when they are submitted to the Assembly;
3) exercise those powers in Rule 138 that may assist it in carrying
out its task; and
4) report to the House by no later than 30 October 2007.
Motion agreed to. SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1)
(Draft Resolution)
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Speaker, we move the motion as it stands on the Order Paper:
That Rule 253(1), which provides inter alia that the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate on the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill [B 7B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) today.
Motion agreed to.
HERITAGE MONTH
(Member’s Statement)
Ms P TSHWETE (ANC): Acting Speaker, the ANC would like to thank the South African government for ensuring that the month of September is set aside as a month to celebrate our heritage, and also for ensuring that all diverse cultures take part in the whole initiative.
The ANC will be joining hands, together with the Department of Arts and Culture and other stakeholders, in highlighting heritage month in September. The launch will take place in Kwalanga, in the Eastern Cape, on 8 September. National Heritage Day will be held on 24 September in Mangaung, in the Free State province.
This year the focus theme will be on celebrating South African poetry, with a special emphasis on indigenous languages. As the ANC we acknowledge the importance of heritage in this democratic South Africa, because heritage is what we receive from the past, and it shapes our present identity, and provides insight into our future.
It is for this reason that the present government supports efforts to encourage the promotion and support of all cultural activities that celebrate the rich and diverse cultural heritage of all South Africans. South Africa is proud to have poets like Mazisi Kunene, Lebo Mashile, Prof Willie Kgotsitsile, Don Matera and others.
Our indigenous languages are crucial for this democracy. They should be regarded as our heritage since they are a resource to the nation, and carry the notion of instrumental use of languages. Thank you. [Applause.]
NEED FOR CLARITY ON RENAMING OF PRETORIA
(Member’s Statement)
Mev D VAN DER WALT (DA): Agb Adjunkspeaker, die Minister van Kuns en Kultuur moet sonder verdere ontduiking duidelikheid gee en ophou om verkleurmannetjie te speel oor die naam van die stad Pretoria.
Meer as twee jaar het reeds verloop nadat die stadsraad die aansoek vir ’n naamsverandering na die Minister gebring het. Die Wet op die Raad vir Suid- Afrikaanse Geografiese Name bepaal in artikel 10(1) dat slegs die Minister die bevoegdheid het om die naam van ’n stad goed te keur of af te keur nadat ’n aanbeveling van die raad ontvang is.
Die Premier van Gauteng se stelling dat Pretoria se naam reeds verander is, is dus ongegrond en onwaar. Nie die Premier of ’n LUR het die mag om Pretoria se naam te verander nie, en die Staatskoerant van 4 Desember 2000 is duidelik dat die naam Tshwane slegs na die metropolitaanse munisipaliteit verwys. Slegs die Minister kan nou uitsluitsel gee oor of daar in der waarheid steeds ’n aansoek op sy tafel is of nie, en hoekom hy nie in die afgelope twee jaar aan die Suid-Afrikaanse publiek ’n antwoord kon gee oor Pretoria se naam nie. Hy moet dit dringend doen.
Die DA glo dat die naam van die stad Pretoria binne die groter metrogebied van Tshwane behoue moet bly. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.) [Mrs D VAN DER WALT (DA): Hon Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Arts and Culture must, without any further evasion, stop playing the chameleon and give clarity on the name of the city of Pretoria.
More than two years have already passed since the city council brought the application before the Minister for a change of name. The South African Geographical Names Council Act, section 10(1) stipulates that only the Minister has the power to approve or not approve the name of a town after a recommendation has been received from the council.
The Premier of Gauteng’s statement that Pretoria’s name has already changed is therefore unfounded and untrue. Neither the Premier nor an MEC has the power to change Pretoria’s name, and the Government Gazette of 4 December 2000 is clear that the name Tshwane only refers to the metropolitan municipality. Only the Minister can now give a decisive answer on if there is in truth still an application on his desk or not, and why he has not been able to give an answer to the South African public on the name of Pretoria in the past two years. He has to do this as a matter of urgency.
The DA believes that the name of the city of Pretoria should be retained within the greater metropolitan area of Tshwane. Thank you.]
CONCERNS ABOUT MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISES’ COMMENTS RELATING TO
ESKOM’S CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROGRAMME
(Member’s Statement)
Mr H J BEKKER (IFP): The IFP has noted with some concern comments attributed to the Minister for Public Enterprises to the effect that electricity prices should be increased by about 18% to fund Eskom’s capital expenditure programme that would secure more supply in the future.
The IFP has two major concerns with the Minister’s statement. First, it appears that he has forgotten that the National Energy Regulator is an independent regulator, created by law with the mandate, amongst others, of setting annual electricity tariff increases for Eskom. Is the Minister therefore proposing to interfere in the independence of the regulator?
Secondly, the IFP is opposed to electricity consumers funding Eskom’s massive expansion plans by way of tariffs that are increased by such large amounts as proposed. Ideally, annual increases should remain within the government’s inflation target range. Eskom is a very large company with a healthy balance sheet, and it should therefore have no problems with raising the necessary funding on the foreign and domestic capital markets, especially not if government were to issue the required guarantees to lenders. Any shortfalls in funding requirements would have to be met from public funds, as government is Eskom’s sole shareholder. The consumer cannot be expected to fund a parastatal’s expansion plans, even if they are in the national interest. Thank you.
MUSIC CONCERTS IN QWAQWA
(Member’s Statement)
Mong L J MODISENYANE (ANC): Mme Motlatsa-Spikara, ANC e motlotlo ka dihlopha tse ileng tsa nka karolo ditlhodisanong tsa mmino tse neng di tshwaretswe Yunivesithing ya Foreistata, lekaleng la Qwaqwa ka la 12 Phato, monongwaha. Re thoholetsa haholo sehlopha sa mmino sa Dolce Piacevole Choristers, se tswang Maokeng, tlasa tsamaiso ya Mofumahadi Malerole Rabaloi. Sehlopha sena, se ile sa itlhoma maemong a pele hara dihlopha tse 19 tsa Foreistata. Hona ke bopaki ba hore bomme ba na le bokgoni, ha se ka bomo hore ebe kgwedi ena ya Phato e hlwahilwe e le kgwedi ya bomme.
Jwale Dolce e tla qothisana lehlokwa le dihlopha tse itlhommeng pele ho ya ka diprofensi ka ho fapana ha tsona mane Thekong-Durban ka la 8 le 9 Tshitwe 2007. Tang-tang e tla kgangwa ke lerole, ya se nang sekaja mmae a tele. Re ya le wena Dolce. Kgutlang le sekola sa naha, le bontshe hore le tswa Maokeng ha bo mmino. (Translation of Sesotho member’s statement follows.)
[Mr L J MODISENYANE (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the ANC is proud of all the choirs that took part in the choral competitions that were held at the University of the Free State in the Qwaqwa Municipality on 12 August this year. We particularly applaud the choral group, Dolce Piacevole Choristers, from Maokeng, under the leadership of Mrs Malerole Rabaloi. This group earned first position among 19 groups from the Free State. This is proof that women do have the capability, and it is no coincidence that the month of August has been earmarked as women’s month.
Dolce will now be competing against other leading groups from different provinces in Durban on 8 and 9 December 2007. The competition will be very tough, and may the best choir win. We will be supporting you all the way, Dolce, bring back the national championship, and show them that you are from Maokeng – home of choral music.]
FIGHT AGAINST DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
(Member’s Statement)
Nksz S N SIGCAU (UDM): Sekela-Somlomo, singumbutho we-UDM siyithathele ingqalelo sikhathazekile ingxelo ye-Central Drug Authority yonyaka ka-2005- 06 njengoko sihlala sifumanisa ukuba ukusetyenziswa gwenxa kweziyobisi notywala kungunobangela wezixholoxholo, ubugebenga neengozi zeendlela. I-CDA isilumkisa ngelithi kufuneka utyalo-mali olukhulu ekucutshweni nasekugonyweni kokuxhomekeka kwabantu kwiziyobisi. Ngokucacileyo, kufuneka kuqwalaselwe umthetho oza kujongana nale nyewe.
Kuqikelelwa ukuba eli lizwe lilahlekelwa zizigidi-gidi zeerandi ngenxa yokusetyenziswa kweenyembezi zikaVitoliya. Ngoko ke, kubalulekile ukuba urhulumente ayinike ingqalelo le nyewe njengenye yemiba efuna ingqwalasela ekhawulezileyo. Oku kuya kusinceda sikwazi ukunqanda imivuka yalo mkhuba unegalelo elikhulu ekutshabalaliseni ikamva loMzantsi Afrika. Ndiyabulela, Sekela-Somlomo. (Translation of isiXhosa member’s statement follows.)
[Ms S N SIGCAU (UDM): Deputy Speaker, the UDM takes the report of the Central Drug Authority of 2005-06 very seriously, as it states clearly that drug and alcohol abuse are the causes of violence, crime and road accidents.
To alleviate drug dependency, the CDA advises us to invest more money in the fight against substance abuse. It is estimated that this country loses millions of rand because of alcohol abuse. Clearly, there must be a law which is going to deal with this problem.
Government must take this problem seriously and act against it. This could help us prevent the consequences of this bad behaviour which threatens to destroy the future of South Africa. I thank you, Deputy Speaker.]
SRC ELECTION RESULTS AT FREE STATE UNIVERSITY
(Member’s Statement)
Dr P W A MULDER (VF Plus): Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, die VF Plus wens die studente van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat geluk met die uitslag van die pas afgelope studenteraadsverkiesing. Die studenteraadsverkiesing is op ’n politieke grondslag gehou, met partye soos Sasco, die DA en die VF Plus wat daaraan deelgeneem het.
Stemdag is voorafgegaan deur ’n intensiewe plakaat- en propagandaveldtog. Van die nege portefeuljesetels waarvoor gestem is, het die VF Plus al nege gewen. Die ander nege setels word proporsioneel verdeel. Die finale uitslag was dat die VF Plus van die agtien studenteraadsetels veertien setels gewen het. Sasco het drie setels gewen en die DA het een setel gewen.
Hierdie oorweldigende uitslag ten gunste van die VF Plus stuur ’n baie sterk boodskap aan die rektor van die universiteit en bevestig die tendens die afgelope tyd, waarvolgens die VF Plus byvoorbeeld die afgelope nege jaar die studenteraadsverkiesing by die Universiteit van Pretoria gewen het. Die jeug, en spesifiek die Afrikanerjeug, is moeg dat daar teen hulle op rassegrondslag in Suid-Afrika gediskrimineer word en reageer op hierdie wyse. Hierdie Huis moet ernstig hiervan kennis neem. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER (FF Plus): Madam Deputy Speaker, the FF Plus congratulates the students of the University of the Free State on the results of the recent students’ representative council election. The students’ representative council election was held on a political basis, with parties such as Sasco, the DA and the FF Plus participating in it.
Voting day was preceded by an intensive poster and propaganda campaign. Of the nine portfolio seats that were voted for, the FF Plus won all nine. The other nine seats are divided proportionately. The final result was that the FF Plus won 14 seats of the 18 students’ representative council seats. Sasco won three seats and the DA one seat.
This overwhelming result in favour of the FF Plus sends a very strong message to the rector of the university and confirms the recent trend, according to which, for example, the FF Plus have won the students’ representative council elections at Pretoria University for the past nine years. The youth, and in particular the Afrikaner youth, are tired of being discriminated against on the basis of race in South Africa and respond in this manner. This House should seriously take this into consideration. I thank you.] MORE TEACHERS TO BE EMPLOYED IN WESTERN CAPE
(Member’s Statement)
Mnu M R SONTO (ANC): Sekela-Somlomo, urhulumente kaKhongolose ebambisene nabemi beli lizwe, uxakekile eqinisekisa ukumiliselwa kwesindululo esamkelwa ngabantu baseMzantsi Afrika kwiminyaka engama-30 eyadlulayo. Abantu beli batsho ngazwinye ukuba imfundo eya kuthi inikwe abantwana babo kuMzantsi Afrika okhululekileyo kuya kufuneka iqinisekise ukuba ulutsha lufundiswa ukuxabisa isizwe, ukuzingca ngenkcubeko, ukuxabisa ubuntu, inkululeko kunye noxolo.
Ukukhawulelana nalo mbono, isebe lezemfundo eNtshona Koloni liza kuqesha abafundisi-ntsapho abangaphaya kwe-1 300. Aba bafundisi-ntsapho baza kutyalwa kulo lonke eli le Ntshona Koloni. Ezona zikolo ziza kuxhamla zezikwiindawo zabantu abahlelelekileyo. Eli nyathelo liza kukhokelela ekuncitshisweni kwamanani abantwana emagumbini okufundela.
Lo mbono ubonakalisa ukuzinikela nokuzimisela kukarhulumente ophetheyo ekwakhweni nasekuziseni ubomi obungcono kubantu bakuthi. Ndiyabulela. (Translation of isiXhosa member’s statement follows.)
[Mr M R SONTO (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the ANC-led government, together with the people of this country, is trying to make sure that the resolution adopted by the people of South Africa 30 years ago is implemented. The people of South Africa agreed with one voice that the type of education that would be given to their children in a free South Africa should teach the youth to respect the nation, to be proud of their culture and respect the values of ubuntu, freedom and peace.
In order to support this idea, the Department of Education in the Western Cape will employ more than 1 300 teachers. These teachers will work all over the Western Cape. Underprivileged schools will benefit from this. This step will help to reduce the number of learners in a classroom.
This decision shows the seriousness of the government of the day about improving the lives of our people. I thank you.]
STUDY TIME LOST BY STUDENTS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr I S MFUNDISI (UCDP): Acting Speaker, we believe that all reasonable people realise that students lost much time for study during the Public Service strike. The Department of Education has come up with measures to catch up for the time lost, yet it is unfortunate that there are instances of disapproval, even from some teachers’ organisations.
The proverbial caveat to the general is demonstrated by some students in whose interests these arrangements are made. Instead of taking advantage of the recovery plans, the Congress of South African Students displays a defeatist attitude. They already feel that they will not do well in the examinations.
This student organisation wants the department to disclose the contents of the final matriculation examinations to the prospective candidates. The demand is ludicrous, to say the least. Students have to learn that quality education and qualifications are obtained through hard work. No amount of disclosing question papers will make them men and women of substance.
The UCDP calls on all teachers to take pride in their teaching and demand excellence through hard work from their students. Similarly, students should brace themselves to achieve better results and not look forward to being ascribed the status of having passed when in fact they have not.
Those threatening to use their brawn to disrupt examinations should rather use their brains in tackling books and refrain from blackmailing the department. I thank you.
NEED TO INTENSIFY CAMPAIGN AGAINST HIV/AIDS
(Member’s Statement) Ms S RAJBALLY (MF): Madam Acting Speaker, it is horrific to learn that Aids victims are being buried alive in Papua New Guinea by relatives who cannot look after them and who fear becoming infected. It has been estimated by Sapa that HIV diagnosis has increased by about 30% a year since 1997, leaving an estimated 60 000 people in the area living with the disease in 2005.
South African statistics are just as horrendous. While statistics indicate that infection has increased, they also show that people are having themselves tested. We need to realise the possibility that people in many rural areas of South Africa might be just as ignorant as the people in Papua New Guinea.
The Aids campaign needs to be universal. We need to be factual about this disease and take as much information as possible back to the people. Good food is not a substitute for ARVs. This is the finding of an exhaustive study undertaken by top South African scientists on the links between improved nutrition and the treatment for HIV/Aids and TB. However, a balanced, healthy diet is important for optimum health.
We want to intensify education on the disease and steer victims away from the fallacy that they may omit ARV treatment in favour of beetroot and garlic. Thank you very much.
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN KHUTSONG DISRUPTED
(Member’s Statement)
Mr G G BOINAMO (DA): Ke a leboga Motlatsa-Sebui [Thank you, Deputy Speaker].
Intimidation, coercion and the complete disruption of schooling has been a fact of life for learners in Khutsong since December 2005. This means that, for almost two years, schooling for learners in the area has been virtually nonexistent. Despite this dire situation, Cosas continues to intimidate learners into staying away from schools. The SA Democratic Teachers’ Union, Sadtu, continues to refuse to co-operate with the recovery plan.
Moreover, it must be recognised that the schooling problem in Khutsong cannot be solved by unilateral decisions by the Department of Education, or by using the police to beat the people of Khutsong into submission.
The opportunity that all South African children should have to lift themselves out of poverty through their education is being denied to the children of Khutsong because of the narrow, partisan, selfish interests of a few individuals. The DA calls on the parties involved in creating and perpetuating these disruptions to devote themselves to restoring order and commit themselves to devolving a culture of learning and teaching as the most important priority for Khutsong. Thank you. RAILWAY LINE REOPENED AT ALICEDALE
(Member’s Statement)
Nkskz B N DAMBUZA (ANC): Sekela-Somlomo, urhulumente osezintanjeni okhokelwa ngumbutho wesizwe i-ANC, uya kuthi gqolo ukhuthaza intsebenziswano phakathi kukarhulumente, amashishini abucala kunye noluntu ngokubanzi.
Kwidolophana eyaziwa ngokuba yiQhorha, okanye i-Alicedale, kwathi ngonyaka ka-1996 kwavalwa umzila kaloliwe owawudibanisa iQhorha, iRhini kunye neBhayi. Ukuvalwa kwalo mzila kwabangela intlupheko engathethekiyo kuluntu lwale dolophu, yaza intswela-ngqesho yaya kuma kumyinge wama-95 ekhulwini.
Kwiminyaka emine edlulileyo urhulumente, ebambisene namashishini abucala, weza nezicwangciso zokuvuselela lo mmandla. Sithetha nje, ezo zicwangciso zizele amathokazi ngoba ingqesho iya inyuka. Ngoku imi kumyinge wama-60 ekhulwini.
Phakathi kwabantu abathi batyelela le dolophana yaba nguMomgameli, uQabane uThabo Mbeki, owathumela kule dolophana iqumrhu elicebisa uMongameli ngotyalo-mali, elaziwa ngesilungu ngokuba yi-International Investors Council. Le mpumelelo izuzwe yile dolophu ikudandalazisa ngokuphandle ukubaluleka kwentsebenziswano phakathi koluntu jikelele. Umanyano ngamandla! Ndiyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa member’s statement follows.)
[Ms B N DAMBUZA (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the ANC-led government will make sure that there is a healthy working relationship between government, private businesses and the people in general.
In 1996 in a small town called Qhorha or Alicedale, a railway line connecting Alicedale, Grahamstown and Port Elizabeth was shut down. The closure of this railway line affected the people of this town negatively and the unemployment rate went up to 95%.
In the last four years, government and private businesses came up with some proposals to rejuvenate this area. As we speak, those proposals are starting to bear fruit because jobs are being created. And this has reduced the unemployment rate by 60%.
The hon President, Comrade Thabo Mbeki was one of the people who visited this small town and also sent the council that advises the Presidency on economic issues, known as the International Investors Council. This resounding success in this small town shows the importance of co-operation. Unity is strength! I thank you. [Applause.]]
IMPACT OF DIET ON HIV/AIDS
(Member’s Statement)
Dr R RABINOWITZ (IFP): Deputy Speaker, in view of the report released under the auspices of the National Academy of Scientists, stating that there is as yet no convincing research to indicate that nutrition affects the course of Aids or offers an alternative to treatment with antiretrovirals, the IFP calls for a new phase in the government’s approach to HIV.
It should include the following elements: one, unequivocal clarity from the Minister about the fact that HIV causes Aids and that antiretrovirals are the best route to treat the condition; two, there should be increased commitment of government finances to the SA Institute for Medical Research, SAIMR, the Medicines Control Council, MCC and, in partnership with universities, to do nutritional research and to find out the impact of foods, vitamins, minerals, nutriceuticals and traditional medicines on HIV.
Thirdly, there should be urgent publication of regulations dealing with traditional medicines and complementary alternative health products; and fourthly, there should be measures introduced to ensure that the public has access to research results from research that has been undertaken either in South Africa or in partnership with overseas universities, on herbs such as Hoodia and Sutherlandia or food such as garlic and the African potato. Thank you.
SAFETY OF WORKERS AT ANGLO AMERICAN
(Member’s Statement)
Ms J L FUBBS (ANC): Hon Deputy Speaker, the ANC welcomes the statements by the recently appointed Chief Executive Officer of Anglo American, Ms Cynthia Carroll that all companies within that group will, with immediate effect, put the safety of miners before profits.
We support all companies that make the safety of their workers a fundamental part of their operations, and are thus heartened by the statement of the CEO of Anglo that effective management of safety will be a requirement for those management members who wish to make progress in that company.
The ANC recognises that this is the first time that a large mining conglomerate has directly linked its fortunes to the transformation of reality in our country, South Africa.
The mining industry, as we all know, is a particularly hazardous and gruelling industry and there have been many and notable instances where greater adherence to safety standards could have saved hundreds of lives. Fatal and other accidents continue to occur on the mines, despite the fact that the ANC has sought to improve conditions of employment through rigorous health and safety legislation and other measures. Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker.
COLLAPSE OF SEWERAGE SYSTEM IN LANGKLOOF
(Member’s Statement)
Dr J T DELPORT (DA): Agb Adjunkspeaker, die Langkloof voer jaarliks meer as R400 miljoen se vrugte na Europa uit. Dié uitvoere onderhou sowat 1 500 werkers. Die Koukamma-munisipaliteit in die gebied het funksioneel en finansieel in duie gestort, en daarmee saam onder andere die instandhouding van die rioolstelsels in die gebied.
Ek was gister daar. Rou riool loop langs huise verby, loop in strate af en vorm poele waar kinders speel. Die riool syfer nou af na die boere se besproeiingsdamme en sal uiteindelik ook die Nelson Mandela-metropool se waterbronne besmet.
Die boere kan hulle uitvoersertifisering, die GATT, na Europa verloor. As dit gebeur, stort die hele ekonomie in die Langkloof in duie.
Tot dusver reageer die Oos-Kaapse regering net eenvoudig nie, ook nie die Kantoor van die Premier, met wie ek direk geskakel het nie. Die Minister vir Provinsiale en Plaaslike Regering gooi ’n dowe oor en die Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerisme was, lyk dit my, sy hande in onskuld. Ek moedig nou die gemeenskap aan om regstappe teen die regering te doen.
Agb lede, help red hierdie mense in die Langkloof van ondergang, want u regering doen dit nié. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Dr J T DELPORT (DA): Hon Deputy Speaker, the Langkloof annually exports fruit to the value of more than R400 million to Europe. The Koukamma Municipality in the area has collapsed functionally and financially, bringing about, amongst other things, the breakdown of the maintenance of the sewerage systems in the area.
I was there yesterday. Untreated sewerage runs past houses, runs down into the streets and forms pools where children play. The sewerage is now trickling down to the farmers’ irrigation dams and will eventually also pollute the water reservoirs of the Nelson Mandela Metropole.
The farmers can lose their export certification, the GATT, to Europe. If that happens, the entire Langkloof economy will collapse.
Up to now the Eastern Cape government has simply not responded, and neither has the Office of the Premier, whom I have contacted directly. The Minister for Provincial and Local Government turns a deaf ear and, it seems to me, the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism washes his hands of the matter. I am now encouraging the community to institute legal proceedings against the government.
Hon members, help to save these people of the Langkloof from ruin, because your government is not doing it. [Interjections.]]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order! Hon members, please lower your voices. Order!
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CONCLUDED IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
(Member’s Statement)
Ms O R KASIENYANE (ANC): Chairperson, the ANC welcomes the collective bargaining agreement concluded between employers and workers in the automotive industry. This agreement includes a multiyear wage agreement for the next three years, as well as improved pension, maternity and severance benefits.
It also makes provision for the establishment of an industry policy forum which will consider the issue of black economic empowerment and benefits to members. The policy forum will also consider the issues of HIV and Aids, a social plan to deal with issues of retrenchment and closures, and the establishment of the bargaining council. We congratulate all parties that were involved in the negotiations on this seminal agreement, which will make a difference in the lives of workers.
Further, the ANC urges all employers and workers to develop wage demands and offers with broader regard to the prevailing objective socioeconomic circumstances. In this way it is hoped that earlier positive experiences of worker-employer social compacts can be sustained. I thank you.
CONCERNS ABOUT MINISTERS FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISES’ COMMENTS RELATING TO
ESKOM’S CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROGRAMME
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, I would like to respond to the issues raised by the hon Bekker in relation to electricity prices. I’m not quite sure how he thinks Eskom will be able to raise the money. To say that it will use the balance sheet is a trite statement. Having used the balance sheet to borrow, somebody has got to pay to amortise what has been borrowed, and the only way to deal with that is actually to ensure that the pricing of energy costs in this country would be more reflective both of that as well as a consciousness about the CO2 emissions that arise from energy consumption and therefore act as a break on the overuse of electricity. [Interjections.]
Sorry, Chair, I ask for protection. I listened carefully when the hon Bekker was speaking. Eskom has to do it over its balance sheet and that is the bottom line. We will not raise taxes in order to finance this in order to then provide a hidden subsidy to industry. There will be price changes; this signal has been communicated and has emanated from a big business working group. There is an acceptance across the South African economy that there will be new realities in respect of the pricing. In one of the newspapers today there is a very detailed comment by Prof Anton Eberhard supporting this and he does it from the perspective of energy sustainability, so I think the hon Bekker is way out of line with his submission here today. Thank you.
FF PLUS WINNING SRC ELECTIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
EDUCATION RECOVERY PLAN
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN KHUTSONG DISRUPTED
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I hope you will allow that I could respond to more than one of the matters raised. I’ll try to be brief with respect to them. Perhaps to begin one would say that …
… re dumelana le Rre Modisenyane gore bomme ba na le bokgoni. Ke ne ke sa itse gore fa a bua a o amogela bokgoni ba setlhopha sa mmino sa Dolce kgotsa bokgoni ba mmaMoloi, mme re dumelana le ena gore bomme ba na le bokgoni tota.
Fa re tla mo go tsa thuto ke a utlwa gore FF Plus e dumela thata fa e bona FF Plus ya baša e tsaya ditlhopho mo Yunibesithing ya Foreisitata. Se re se tshephang le se re se batlang ke gore FF Plus e dire gore bana ba rona ba ba mo unibesiting eo, ba tsamaisane e le bana ba Aforika Borwa botlhe. Re seka ra bua gore bana ba basweu ba tshaba se, ba bantsho ba tshaba sele. Rona re le baeteledipele a re leke gore yunibesithi eo, e nne ya Aforika Borwa e seng ya ngwana wa mmala o, kgotsa wa mmala ole. [Legofi.]
Fa re tla mo puong ya UCDP ke batla gore, go fa ngwana pampiri ya ditlhatlhobo pele ga tlhatlhobo ga go mo molaong. Ke dumalana le wena gore ke selo se re ka keng ra se dira. A re kopeng bana ba rona go ithuta. A re kopeng barutabana go ruta bana ba rona.
Re dumetse gore re tlile go fa barutabana madi fa ba ruta ka malatsi a boikhutso a kgwedi ya Lwetse. Diporofense tse dingwe di setse di dira sentle ka tsamaiso ya tsona ya go ruta bana go oketsa nako ya go ithuta. Re itumelela selo seo. Go fa bana pampiri ya ditlhatlhobo go tota go se mo molaong. Ga se selo se re ka se dirang. Ga nkitla ke dumelela seo go diragala.
Kwa bofelong, ke batla go bua ka Khutsong. Ga ke itse gore ke re ke dumela gore ke Cosas le Sadtu di dirang gore bana ba seka ba tsena sekolo. Ga ke na kitso eo. Ke ne ke ka rata gore Rre Boinamo a mphe dilo tse a di boneng tse di supang gore ke batho bao ba dirang dilo tseo. Nna se ke se boneng ke batho ba le bantsi; ga ba mo mokgatlhong o kgotsa ole.
Ke itumelela tiro e Mokhuduthamaga wa Thuto, Rre Tselapedi, a e dirileng go leka go thusa bana ba ba iponang ba le mo matshwenyegong a go ithuta kwa Khutsong. Se nka se dirang ke go kopa batsadi ba bana ba rona kwa Khutsong gore ba rotloetse bana go boela sekolong. Re le batsadi ga re a tshwanela go letla bana go nna kwa ntle ga sekolo.
Fa re buisa dikuranta, di re bana ga ba tsene sekolo, re se ka ra tsaya gore ke dikolo tsotlhe tse di sa direng. Tse dingwe di a dira, di tsamaya sentle. Mo re bonang go na le sekolo se se sa tseneng, ke le moeteledipele jaaka wena, ke ile kwa sekolong seo ka bona gore bana ga bayo mo go sona. Re kopa gore le re bolelele, re tla ya mo sekolong seo, gore re thuse bana ba rona. Ke a leboga, Modulasetilo. [Nako e fedile.] [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[… we agree with hon Modisenyane that women have talent. When he spoke I was not sure whether he was acknowledging the talent shown by the Dolce music choir or Mrs Moloi’s talent, but we agree with him that indeed women have talent.
With regard to education, I learned that the FF Plus bought into the idea when they noticed that their youth wing had won the student elections at the University of the Free State. What we expect and hope for from the FF Plus is for them to make it a point that all our students in that university work together as South African students. We, as leaders, should try to make that university a proudly South African institution and not a racially divided one that doesn’t belong to all students. [Applause].
With regard to the UCDP speech I would like to pronounce that it is illegal to give a learner an examination paper before examinations start. I would like to assure you that it is something that we would not do. We should encourage learners to study and remind educators to teach our learners.
We have agreed to remunerate the educators for teaching during the September holidays. Other provinces are already doing well in their education recovery plan in order to catch up. We really appreciate that. Indeed, giving the learners an examination paper beforehand is illegal. It is something that we will not do and I won’t allow that to happen.
Lastly, I would like to talk about Khutsong. I don’t know whether it is true to say that Cosas and Sadtu are the ones that influence the learners not to attend school. I don’t have substantive evidence to support that view. I would appreciate it if Mr Boinamo could give me that evidence to prove that they are the ones responsible. What I saw was a group of people that I could not associate with a particular party.
I appreciate what the MEC for Education Mr Tselapedi has done in helping those affected learners in Khutsong who have shown a keen interest in learning. What I can do is to request the parents of these learners to encourage their children to go back to school.
When we read in newspaper reports that there is no schooling, we should not regard all schools as being dysfunctional because some schools are doing very well. When we discovered that there was no schooling, as a leader like you, I visited the school and discovered that there were no learners. We therefore make a request to you to inform us, so that we can visit such schools to help our learners. Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
FF PLUS WINNING ELECTIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
IMPACT OF DIET ON HIV/AIDS
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, a suggestion to the FF Plus, the elections are only in 2009, so don’t peak too early, otherwise you will find that by the time you come to 2009 you’ve lost what you gained today. [Laughter.] With respect to Ms Rabinowitz, let me say that I think all of us can agree that whatever experiments research has done with regard to any medical or health issue, should always be made public. We shouldn’t allow people to experiment on our people in secret or in private. I think that is an important area.
The second point is that if you actually look at the comprehensive HIV and Aids plan of this government, which, incidentally, the Secretary of Health from the United States of America has publicly said in a press conference he thinks is a tremendous plan, most people regard it as one of the most comprehensive and best plans to deal with the issues of HIV and Aids. The issues you have raised are addressed in this comprehensive plan that we have. Let me assure you that this government is absolutely determined and committed to implementing that plan together with all of our partners who constitute Sanac. Thank you.
COLLAPSE OR SEWERAGE SYSTEM IN LANGKLOOF
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, I’m rising in respect of the matter which was raised by the hon Delport about the problems in Port Elizabeth. I want to thank him very much for bringing this particular problem to my attention and for again drawing to my attention the fact that he has raised this matter with local government and the province.
I am perplexed by the allegation that the Department of Provincial and Local Government is playing deaf, suggesting that there has been no responsiveness, presumably to an approach that was made. I’m not aware of such an approach having been made. However …
…ngeletshedzo ine nda nga vha fha yone ndi ya uri vha songo ḓi ita mmboneni nga tshutshedzo dza u ya khothe ngauri a hu na zwine dza ḓo vha thusa ngazwo. Arali vha tshi khou ṱoḓa thuso vha kwama nne na Muhasho wa Muvhuso wa Madzingu na Mivhusoyapo. Vha ḓo wana vha tshi thusalea. (Translation of Tshivenda paragraph follows.)
[…the advice that I can give you is that you must not make a show of yourself by making legal action threats because that is not going to help you. If you need help, you contact me and the Department of Provincial and Local Government. In that way you will surely get help.]
And please leave the theatrics out of this. Thank you.
FIGHT AGAINST DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
(Minister’s Response) The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I want to thank the member who raised the issue about the need to support the Central Drug Authority. The National Drug Master Plan was passed last year by Cabinet for the period 2006-2011. This National Drug Master Plan is at present being implemented by the Central Drug Authority, CDA, and is supported by the Minister of Social Development.
The administrative wing of the Central Drug Authority resides within the Department of Social Development and in terms of the implementation thereof provincial drug forums have been established in every province, and at the moment local drug action committees are being established in every municipality.
So far, 182 municipalities have established local drug action committees. These local drug action committees are a co-ordinating mechanism for all stakeholders at local level, which includes government and the other stakeholders.
The Western Cape is the front runner in this regard in implementing the National Drug Master Plan, and I want to commend the Premier’s Office and the Department of Social Development in the Western Cape and all the organisations in the community who are active in the struggle to achieve a drug-free South Africa. Thank you.
NEED TO INTENSIFY CAMPAIGN AGAINST HIV/AIDS
IMPACT OF DIET ON HIV/AIDS
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Chairperson, I’d like to respond to two statements: The one made by the hon Rajbally and the one by hon Rabinowitz – but I think that was partly covered by the Minister in the Presidency as well.
Firstly, at no point did this government say that nutrition is the substitute for antiretroviral treatment. I think as any good doctor – and there are some good doctors here in the House with us – would tell us, even if you take a Panado for a headache, you must have something in your stomach. That is all the government is saying: You need good nutrition if you want to go on ARVs. It’s a very potent drug and the medical doctors here will tell us that it is a potent drug, and you cannot have it on an empty stomach. We’ve been emphasising the importance of good nutrition for antiretroviral treatment as well.
Secondly, we also support the hon member Rajbally and would like to encourage all South Africans to know their status by having themselves tested because only if government has accurate statistics will we be able to respond appropriately.
REGULATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AND PROVISION OF COMMUNICATION- RELATED INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson and hon members, allow me to commence by taking you for a short walk down memory lane. The Act being amended by the Bill was put on the Statute Book as a measure to combat serious crime - that was as far back as
- The aim of this legislation was, and still is to regulate, once and for all, the interception and monitoring of all forms of communication in a single statute – something that was lacking in our law. When I say all forms of communication I refer, for instance, to communications facilitated by advances in communication technologies such as cellphones and other electronic forms of communication, which were not covered by the existing and rather outdated legislation in this regard, namely the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992.
The aim of this 2002 Act is twofold: Firstly, it is on the Statute Book to ensure that the interception and monitoring of communications takes place in accordance with very strict criteria after a judge has considered an application placed before him or her by any of our law-enforcement agencies for such an interception order. The interception of communications is only permissible where a serious crime has been or is likely to be committed. In other words, the interception of communications is directed at the criminal element.
Secondly, this Act is there to protect our law-abiding citizens. It prohibits the interception and the monitoring of their private communications. Any attempt to do so is illegal and indeed punishable. This Act therefore regulates very carefully the manner in which private communications of persons may be intercepted and monitored. It does so in a way which does not offend the Constitution in any manner. The infringement of a person’s right to privacy, which this Act permits in very limited and circumscribed conditions, is justified on the grounds, among others, that the interception and monitoring of communications is necessary in order to detect, prevent and investigate serious crime.
The Bill before us relates only to the interception of cellular phone calls. It was promoted at the instigation of the three mobile cellular operators jointly – that is Vodacom, MTN and Cell C. These service providers approached government when the implementation of the principal Act was receiving attention. They requested government not to implement sections 40 and 62(6) of the Act. These sections require persons who sell SIM cards and cellphones to record and store certain information of their clients as well as the particulars of the SIM cards and the cellphones themselves.
These provisions, as they read at present, call for a paper-based registration process – section 40 dealing with the registration of clients after the commencement of that section, and section 62(6) dealing with the registration of persons who are clients at the time this provision is implemented.
The service providers proposed that this paper-based process be replaced by an electronic solution. That in essence is what the Bill is about. It provides for the electronic capturing of certain information to ensure that the principal Act is fully effective and to ensure the achievement of its objects. I know that the Bill has been the subject of lengthy deliberations in and outside Parliament. It has been adapted by the committee in numerous respects. I do not intend to deal with all aspects of the Bill but would rather make a few general observations.
Hon members, since the Bill is aimed mainly at the registration and the verification of certain particulars of owners of cellular phones and SIM cards - addresses and identity numbers for instance - such persons who fail to verify such particulars will not be able to gain access to cellular phone services. Some of the proposed new definitions in clause 1 indicate the portfolio committee’s endeavour to ensure that the objective of universal access to electronic communication services, including cellular services, is not compromised – particularly that of the poor who live in outlying areas and who rely very heavily on cellphone communication. It is clear to me that every effort has been made to ensure that the distribution and the availability of cellphone services are not affected negatively.
I am aware that there are still a number of aspects in the Bill with regard to which the service providers have reservations: the requirement of whether to register the handset number and the IMEI number or not; the implications that the Bill will have on visitors to the country who wish to roam on our networks; and the timeframes within which the registration of the existing cellphone clients must be finalised. These are some of the issues that have been raised by the service providers.
I must, however, make my view known, namely that there can be no room for any gaps in this legislation. As I see it, the information that is specified in the Bill and required to be captured is essential – not only for investigation purposes, but also as evidence in our courts. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Hon Minister, I regret having to interrupt you, but the noise levels in the House are unacceptable. I can actually hear your conversations from the Chair. I want to appeal to the Whips to exercise some management over this particular issue. We have to raise it several times from the Chair. This transmission is broadcast – I don’t know whether you want that to be broadcast to the nation. If the Whips can certainly assist in trying to bring some order in the House. Thank you, Minister.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Well, let me then continue by saying that we have had long deliberations around this Bill and the issues involved. I appeal that we now concentrate on how to implement. We must put emphasis on implementation. I am convinced that solutions can be found. I do agree with the approach adopted by the Justice portfolio committee regarding these matters, namely that the registration of cellphone handsets and the requirement for visitors to the country to provide verified personal particulars to our local service providers before they can roam on our networks are essential. Without these requirements, there would be loopholes in the legislation, which criminals could and would exploit, making the legislation meaningless.
Before concluding, I need to emphasise that the Bill, as adapted by the portfolio committee to date, has not deviated from the principles contained in the Bill as approved by the Cabinet and introduced to Parliament. The original principles have in essence all been retained – most notably the registration and the capturing of vital information such as the cellphone handset number, the MSISDN number of the SIM card and an address of the customer.
The implications of the Bill in relation to roaming have also remained unchanged during the parliamentary process. I was heartened to hear that the provisions of the adapted Bill were not opposed by any of the members of the portfolio committee. That is obviously an indication of a pragmatic approach to ensure that this legislation goes forward. I trust that the attitude will prevail when we vote on the Bill shortly.
The adaptations that have been made by the committee, after hearing the views of stakeholders during the public hearings, are positive changes that I think will enhance the application of these provisions. I refer for instance to the new definitions which, as I have already indicated, are intended to ensure that as many people as possible are able to comply with the registration requirements and are not denied the enormous benefits of cellular services.
Mention should also be made of the fact that the introduced Bill required the residential, business and postal addresses of customers to be registered. After hearing the views of stakeholders, the committee changed the Bill to require only one address and the change indicated willingness. I am sure members of the portfolio committee will talk to this.
I would want to conclude by really thanking the officials in my department who have been working with this Bill since 1992. I am here also referring to the principal Bill. I would like to say thank you to Adv Bassett, in particular, and Adv Roberts. I wish to express my appreciation also to Comrade Fatima Chohan-Khota and her portfolio committee members for their inputs and for their unanimous support of the Bill. It is clear that they have spared no effort in trying to ensure that the final product does not detract from the objectives of the principal Act – with as little disruption as possible to the service providers on the one hand and the users of mobile cellular services on the other. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms F I CHOHAN: Chairperson, hon members, the Bill before us will entail some inconveniences to most of us but it is an important crime-fighting and regulatory measure.
In terms of the regulation of interception of communications Act of 2002, interception of communications is prohibited except under the following circumstances: interception of communications by a party to that communication and interception made in terms of an interception order granted by a designated judge in terms of this legislation, and in instances where there is imminent harm to the lives of persons involved.
Any interception of any communication in any other manner or form is illegal. I want to repeat that. Any interception of any communication in any other manner or form is illegal. This is an important principle to bear in mind when considering the Bill before us. The amendment Bill before us pertains to sections 40 and 62(6) of the regulation of interception of communications Act of 2002, which, as the Minister has said, relates to the requirements pertaining to mobile cellular service operators, or cellular phones as we call them.
The Minister has indicated the history of this and the involvement of the mobile cellular operators in calling for the amendment in question, and I won’t be going into that in any detail at the moment.
The Bill, as introduced, requires the registration and verification of certain particulars of customers of mobile cellular services – the addresses and identity numbers of potential customers are required to be recorded, failing which such persons will not be able to gain access to mobile cellular services.
The committee, having been seized with the question of these requirements and having the unintended consequence of restricting the access of mobile telephones into certain sectors, has been at pains to ensure that an adequate balance is found between the matter of access without compromising the overall objective of this legislation by ensuring that there is adequate data on record for the purposes of crime prevention, detection and, more importantly, prosecution.
The definitions of “address”, “identity number” and “identity document” were therefore broadened from their usual meaning so that addresses, for example, would include a residential or business address in the normal sense but would also include an address in an informal settlement.
Identity documents, as defined, would include your normal green identity book but also a temporary identity certificate, the proposed new-style identity card, passports, as well as an identity document issued in terms of the Refugees Act of 1998.
It should also be borne in mind that any person may transfer ownership to a family member without the requirement of registering the details of the transferee with the mobile cellular operator.
Conversely, it must be borne in mind that anyone who owns a cellular phone and a SIM card that is activated and who wishes to transfer ownership to somebody other than a family member, as defined, is under obligation to present himself or herself together with the transferee to the relevant service provider to register the details of the new owner prior to handing over the phone to the new user.
In terms of the Act, the mobile cellular operators are obliged to inform customers of their rights and obligations under this legislation, and the various sources of information that have to be captured – and the Minister has dealt with much of that – and ultimately these details will have to be recorded against a natural person, as well as a juristic person.
Cellular phone rental companies are also under similar obligations as mobile cellular operators regarding registration and verification of customers. Section 62 deals essentially with the matter of existing customers of mobile cellular operators and requires the registration of personal and phone details of existing customers within a specified period of 12 months from implementation. Initially, the mobile cellular operators approached the committee to extend this period to four years. The committee responded by requesting a motivation and the provision of accurate data around the number of subscribers that are required to be registered, bearing in mind that all contract customer details had already been captured.
The committee further requested the three mobile cellular operators to provide details of the number of registration points, which would put the committee in a position to rationally ascertain how long the mobile cellular phone operators would require for the completion of this process. They unfortunately declined to offer this information but suggested a period of 36 months. In effect, as we had been poised to pass this legislation already in June 2006, we have, in terms of this law, effectively afforded an extra 12 months to them, and depending on the implementation of the relevant section into law, we are convinced that sufficient time has been afforded the mobile cellular operators in this respect, particularly when considering the experiences of other countries in this regard. Should a customer not register his or her details within the contemplated period such service will be terminated.
The Bill has two very important consequences. The first of these means that both the handset and the SIM card must be recorded prior to a customer getting access to a network. Cellular phones not registered on a network will not be able to work on that network. We are of the view that the registration of phone handsets is necessary in order to put the identity of the owner of the phone beyond doubt. This will assist in proving ownership of cellular phone handsets in certain investigations and, more particularly, enable the preferment of prima facie evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence in subsequent court proceedings.
Secondly, a foreigner who comes to our shores will be required to register his or her personal details before they are able to roam. The law therefore doesn’t prohibit roaming but will require registration by foreigners prior to roaming. It has been argued, inter alia, that this is an unnecessarily heavy-handed provision designed to inconvenience foreign visitors to our shores. The mobile cellular operators suggest that the current method of obtaining foreign customer information through the co-operation of foreign mobile cellular operators is a viable and workable method of securing information for crime fighting. It has been a matter of intense deliberation, and the problems identified with the so-called solution are that, firstly, it has not been indicated to what extent these co-operation agreements with foreign mobile cellular operators are legal in the foreign countries concerned, given the extensive privacy laws that exist in many jurisdictions. Accordingly, their admissibility in court in this country is questionable.
Secondly, there are inherent limitations in the data stored by certain countries that do regulate the storage of customer information, as many jurisdictions do not require the registration of pre-paid SIM cards. This creates a potential loophole in the legislative framework we are spending millions and millions to implement.
Lastly, not all countries even require this minimal storage of data as many countries do not have legislation in this regard at all.
I wish to remind members at this stage that criminals, particularly organised syndicates, use increasingly sophisticated methods to stay a step ahead of law-enforcement agencies. And yes, there is the potential of enormous inconvenience to all of us who own cellular phones.
I would like to quote an extract from the Sunday Times of 1 September 2002 – at that time I still read that paper. That quotation I find particularly apt in this context, and it goes as follows:
South Africans are notorious for loving strong-arm tactics to fight crime, but they are frequently unwilling to be inconvenienced by the actions that are required of them in this fight. This attitude must change if we are rolling back this scourge.
This, members, is a matter for some contemplation on our part.
Lastly, let me please thank the members of the portfolio committee firstly; secondly, Mr Sarel Roberts, Ms Ina Botha and Mr Lawrence Bassett for their invaluable and very, very hard work in this regard. They provided expertise and direction that was enormously valuable to us, and we do thank them very much. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr L K JOUBERT: Sihlalo ngibingelela iNdlu. [Chairperson, I greet the House].
This is the fourth time that we amend Act 70 of 2002 even though the whole Act has not yet come into force.
We supported the principal Act in 2002 as well as all three later amendments and we will also support this amendment today. You are not surprised. You know why? Because you know the DA will always support crime fighting.
However, it is not without reservation that we give our support to this amendment. In the first place, we are concerned about the effect that these amendments may have on bona fide foreign visitors to our country. We definitely do not want a situation where visitors to this country have to fall into a queue to have their cellphones activated whereas roaming is automatic in other countries.
In the second place, we are also concerned about the effective implementation of the amendments. The cellphone market is one of the fastest growing markets in the country and the additional administrational load of service providers will be tremendous. Will they be able to cope? I have serious doubts.
In die derde plek ontstaan die vraag of ons ons prioriteite reg het. Ons het hier te doen met uiters gesofistikeerde programme om misdaad te beveg, waarvan die koste baie hoog is, maar die basiese dinge, soos byvoorbeeld om gewone misdaad alledaags te bekamp – plaasaanvalle, huisbrake, voertuigdiefstal, roof, ensovoorts – bly agterweë.
In die vierde plek, reeds met die aanvaarding van die hoofwet in 2002, het dr Delport daarop gewys dat dit nie billik is om die koste van staatsveiligheid deur diensverskaffers te laat betaal nie. Hierdie wysiging gaan vir seker nog addisionele koste vir selfoonmaatskappye teweeg bring en uiteraard gaan die selfoonverbruiker hiervoor betaal. Dit beteken dat Suid-Afrika se reeds buitensporige hoë selfoonkoste nog hoër gaan word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In the third place the question arises whether we have our priorities straight. We are dealing here with extremely sophisticated crime-fighting programmes, of which the costs are very high, but the basics, like, for example, combating ordinary crime daily – farm attacks, housebreakings, vehicle thefts, robberies, etc – remain neglected.
In the fourth place, already with the acceptance of the principal Act in 2002, Dr Delport pointed out that it is not reasonable to have service providers pay the cost of state security.
This amendment will most certainly cause further additional costs for cellphone companies and naturally the cellphone user will have to pay for it. This means that South Africa’s already excessively high cellphone costs will become even higher.]
This is a very short piece of legislation. It consists of only seven sections, but the committee nevertheless spent many hours deliberating and the final product is very different from the first reading draft. From the opposition’s side I wish to thank the chairperson of the committee for all her efforts in this regard. It is very much her Bill, although some members of the committee refer to it as the Bassett Bill. However, Chairperson, allow me a prediction. This is not the last amendment to Act 70 of 2002. I thank you.
Prof E S CHANG: Chairperson, Minister and honourable guests, I am reading this speech on behalf of my colleague, hon Suzanne Vos.
The IFP was unfortunately unable to attend to this Bill in the Justice committee. We must, nevertheless, place on record various concerns. The state’s intention with the Bill is the national quest to combat crime and I support it.
It would, therefore, help if various provisions of this Bill could be implemented which, at present, cannot be implemented. The IFP, however, questions the authority and the constitutionality of attempting to employ the Minister to revoke licences. We can only hope that the President will apply his mind to these issues before appending his signature to this Bill.
Other matters relating to the deactivation of handsets prior to registration and international roaming are hugely problematical. The fact that this Bill allows for its own provisions to be suspended for a maximum of three months clearly, with the World Cup 2010 period in mind, is proof enough that various injunctions are neither practical nor viable. The IFP asks that its objection to this Bill be noted. Thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, this Bill seeks to amend the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organisations Act which, members will recall, was enacted to provide a further weapon in the fight against serious crime.
Many of the amendments are of a technical nature and are to be supported. A new section was introduced to cater for the 2010 World Cup where there will be an influx of foreigners with cellphones into the country. In this regard the ACDP appreciates the concern surrounding restrictions on the use of roaming facilities by foreigners visiting South Africa.
However, the global reach of international syndicates outweighs the inconvenience of foreigners having to register their cellphones on arrival. We can possibly consider technology that exists in other countries, which we can make use of to ease registration requirements; mindful, however, of what the portfolio chairperson said in this regard. We cannot allow loopholes that will compromise the laudable objectives of this Act in fighting crime.
The ACDP will consequently support this Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Voorsitter, die doel van die wetsontwerp mag baie edel klink, want ek glo nie daar is een politieke party of enige individu in Suid-Afrika wat nie wil sê dat ons misdaad moet beveg en bekamp nie.
Die problem, Voorsitter, is egter dat ons wel die tegnologie het. Ons kan sekere dinge doen om misdaad te bekamp, maar die vraag bly altyd: wie doen dit? Ons kan maar ook sê watter maatreëls daar is. So mag byvoorbeeld net ’n regter toestemming gee dat daar meeluistering mag wees, maar die feit van die saak is: die publiek het nie vertroue in die regering en die amptenare van vandag om te sê dat hulle privaatheid nie geskend gaan word nie.
’n Mens moet te veel verneem van amptenare wat die wet verbreek, wat verkeerdelik optree. In die intelligensiedienste is dit reeds bewys, waar amptenare misbruik gemaak het hiervan en daar nie opgetree is nie. As die agb Minister vertroue wil skep, sal hy moet optree teen daardie lede. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chairperson, the purpose of the Bill might sound very noble, because I don’t believe there is one political party or any individual in South Africa who does not want to say that we should fight and combat crime.
However, the problem, Chairperson, is that we do have the technology. We are able to do certain things to combat crime, but the question always remains: Who does it? We might as well say what measures exist. In this way, for example, only a judge may give permission for telephone tapping, but the fact of the matter is: The public does not have confidence in the government and the officials of today to say that their privacy will not be violated.
One has to learn too often of officials who break the law, who act improperly. In the intelligence services this has been proven already, where officials have made use of this and no action was taken. If the hon Minister wants to create trust, he will have to act against those members. Thank you.]
Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson, criminals have such intricate and intelligent methods to commit crime. We only need to observe the horrific statistics of crime in South Africa to realise that we have a duty incumbent upon ourselves to venture all means to securing a safe South Africa.
In view of the cellphone communications of criminals, the MF finds this Bill extremely favourable in tracing crime and assisting the South African Police Service in having a handle on criminals.
With regard to a person needing to inform the service provider when he or she sells his or her Subscriber Information Module - or SIM - a question remains as to the efficiency of this actually being carried out. Also, in view of tourists and the big Fifa games to be hosted in 2010, how will government and the service providers manage this? We do believe that this is a brilliant idea of having a database of users. However, the MF feels that a registry body needs to be put in place that will manage the entire use.
We also feel that clarity needs to be provided as to what communications qualify as electronic communications. The MF will support the Bill.
Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, throughout the world where citizens of democratic societies, such as ours, are faced with threats to life, public order and their property, and where the security of the state is under threat, the interception of communications remains an important tool to be used by law-enforcement agencies so that they can effectively protect those rights. This is done under strict conditions that are set out in the law.
The regulation of interception of communications Act, that is the principal Act, was signed into law by our President in 2002. We are now in 2007, debating the amendments contained in the Bill that serve before this House. Yet, there are many provisions of the principal Act which have yet to be implemented.
What this means is that our law-enforcement agencies are still intercepting communications in terms of Act 127 of 1992 – that is, the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act. Indeed, the directing judge who is responsible for considering applications for directives to intercept communications was appointed in terms of Act 127. This is made possible by section 62 of the principal Act, which provides for transitional arrangements.
The point being made here is that, in my view, too much time has lapsed between the signing into law of the Act and the implementation of its various sections.
One of the important measures contained in the principal Act is the creation of the office of interception centres. This office was only established in June/July 2006. Yet, it has taken these past 12 months to get this office up and running efficiently and effectively and in a manner that gains the confidence of our law-enforcement agencies.
As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence I have been privileged to be able to interact with all the role-players that deal with the interception of communications. My experiences lead me to one conclusion, Chairperson: The sooner all the provisions of the principal Act are implemented, including the repeal of Act 127 of 1992, the better it will be for all of us, except, of course, for the criminals. Delays may also, heaven forbid, encourage our law-enforcement agencies to abuse the system.
The amendments before this House go a long way towards helping to speed up the implementation of the principal Act and hopefully will bring about legal and operational certainty.
Very briefly, Chairperson, let me respond to some of the issues raised by previous speakers. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon Minister when she says the emphasis must now be placed on implementation. The hon Chohan, in her speech, made note of the fact that we were poised to pass this legislation in June 2006 and that we are now in August 2007.
The point raised by the hon Joubert bears consideration, that is that the transfer of costs by the state to the cellphone service providers is perhaps unfair and should not be followed by the state. We want to say that this method is not unique to South Africa. All countries with similar legislative provisions as ours have followed the same route.
With regard to the hon Groenewald: His pessimism with regard to this Bill and this Act is regrettable. We take note of his concerns. It is all about crime prevention, crime investigation and the protection of the properties and rights of the citizens of this wonderful country.
Chairperson, a significant feature of our committee’s consideration of this Bill has been the presence of a battery of lobbyists or employees representing the cellphone service providers. Lobbyists are a natural and welcome development within our democratic state; some would say a very necessary development.
In this case, the lobbyists representing cellphone service providers have proved to be a formidable and powerful group of individuals. Of course they participated in the process in order to protect and promote the interests of their respective companies and their shareholders.
However, given our experiences with these lobbyists, it is important to sound a note of warning. Whilst the existence of lobbyists within the parliamentary process is an important part of our democracy, such lobbyists should not be allowed to control that process or to impose their will upon it to such a degree that the process is abused and manipulated for the benefit of the wealthy few or to the detriment of Parliament’s democratic process or to the detriment of the public order and the security of the state. Before this happens serious consideration would need to be given to regulating the activities of such lobbyists in this honourable House. I thank you.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, firstly I want to thank all the parties that have supported the Bill and all the hard work you put into this Bill, once again. It’s really important because the hon Groenewald and others pointed it out. This Bill is not a simple Bill; it is about allowing people to intercept our communications.
This is a serious matter. A matter like this you cannot deal with politically. What you have to do is a necessary evil, even what we need in our society, and this party here, the ANC, knows that better than anyone. We were the ones who suffered under the previous regime by people tapping our phone calls and so on.
So, we fully understand the difficulties and the invasion in one’s life and one’s privacy. And therefore, this Bill, driven by the ANC, must never become a vehicle similarly to use for political undermining of any person or meddling in their private life and so on.
So, it is very important with legislation like this that we get the right balance, that we get the right checks and balances. Therefore, to those people who worry about this legislation, I take you very seriously because I take myself seriously on this piece of legislation.
This is not a Bill that we just want to have lying around and falling into the wrong hands and being utilised by the wrong people.
I also think that the hon Landers has really covered the issue of the length of time that it has taken for us to pass this Bill. You know that this Bill was started at the end of the 1990s. We then started consulting on this Bill. It went to the SA Law Reform Commission.
The Bill reached us for the first time in 2002. We took a whole year to pass the original Act. It took another three years before we implemented the legislation. It then took another intervention from the mobile cellular operators to stop us for nearly another year to implement this amendment.
I really think that we must take the issues raised by Mr Landers very seriously. With regard to the issue of lobbying, we cannot become like the United States of America. You cannot have people in this House on both sides being the direct spokespersons and the mouthpieces of lobbyists on these issues. [Applause.] The effect of that is that we take almost a year to pass a piece of legislation like this.
We must be careful: This legislation does not just allow us to intercept, it also protects us. The first part of this legislation says that we totally prohibit any form of interception which is not approved in this legislation. So, all these private investigators, you talk about, hon Groenewald, are acting illegally. They have no authority at all to tap or intercept anyone’s communications.
In terms of this Act - I want the public out there to listen - if these private investigators or anyone else intercepts your information and uses it to pressurise you in negotiations or in business, lay a charge against them. It is illegal, they have committed a crime.
Should any law-enforcement agency – and Mr Groenewald has mentioned some of those examples – in this country say they have intercepted information, where they never went to a judge to get an order to intercept that information, you must go and lay a charge against them. They are acting illegally and this law protects you.
This law has the balance – on the one hand it says to you that you are protected from being intercepted. Any law-abiding citizen hasn’t got a problem. Anyone else who wants to intercept must go to the judge and convince the judge. A law-enforcement agency must convince the judge that there is a proper case to have an order issued against them. Now, some of the amendments today are exactly to make that law work properly.
If someone wants to get an order from the judge they can’t just go to the judge and say, well, whatever communications Ms Mentor makes we want to intercept it. They must give specifics to the judge, and that explains why we need a registration process.
During the registration process you need to activate these phones. Now, the principal Act we passed originally contained a registration process, but it was a paper-based registration process and quite rightly, on this issue the mobile cellular operators wanted to correct it by arguing that it is too cumbersome; that’s the only issue they have been correcting.
On this issue they came to us as government and said that they wanted to create an electronic solution and therefore the issue of cost, hon Joubert, doesn’t come into it because it is their suggestion to do that, it is not ours. They came to government and asked us to change this paper-based system.
If we want to make sure that the law-enforcement agencies can do their work, then every person, when they go and buy a SIM card, must go to one of the outlets of MTN, Vodacom or Cell C and activate it. You activate it by giving them your ID number, the number of your phone, the number of your SIM card and your address. It takes one or two minutes.
They just punch the information into it. It is a little gadget like when you activate your credit card. You put the information in and it takes you one or two minutes. I don’t know about the suggestion of long queues. It will depend on how many gadgets MTN and Vodacom have. If they have hundreds of them all over the place, everyone will just go and activate. That is why, of course, you need to allow people to register their phones when coming into the country. Otherwise foreigners will not have to register their phones but citizens will have to register their phones. All I do is to drive across the border to Lesotho or Swaziland and go and buy a SIM card and come back, and the police can never catch me. They can never intercept my calls because I can go everywhere in or outside the country and buy the SIM card and I will be free from the registration system.
All we say is that when you are at a port of entry, there will be cubicles and all you have to do is to go and register just like we South Africans do to register our phones. Give your ID or your passport, put in the number and from there on you are registered.
If you don’t do that at the airport you can go to any cubicle and do it there. It is such a simple thing. But if you don’t do it, then we can scrap the Bill. We can scrap the Bill because all the big criminals will just go outside the country and get the SIM card and come in from outside and evade the registration system. We will never be able to intercept any of their calls. So, who will ever pass a law like that? No country that has some common sense could pass a law like that.
We have got a bit more than half a brain, as is the case with the IFP and that is why we passed the Bill. You, the IFP, you guys are making yourselves meaningless. You can’t come to Parliament at this podium and say we have got a whole lot of members in the committee and we have never attended the committee meetings and therefore we are going to oppose the Bill.
Why are the taxpayers paying you? Why do you come to work? This Bill is so important that you wanted to reject it and not use it as a tool against crime. Why do you not attend these meetings? Why do you come to Parliament to reject the Bill?
At least I can take the hon Joubert’s criticism about the Bill and deal with it now because he was part of the committee. He knows what he is talking about. I don’t have to agree with him, but at least I am arguing with someone who knows something. But, guys, you come here and you have got the temerity to tell us: “We didn’t attend the meetings, yet we are not going to deal with this, we are going to reject the Bill.” What kind of craziness is that? You will become completely meaningless in the next election. You will only get 1% of the vote, even less than you are getting now. I don’t want to take the last money that you have; save that for when you haven’t got jobs.
I think we also have to look at the other issues that have been raised. With regard to the 12 months that we have given for people to register their phones, once this Act kicks in and people start registering, you and I register when we buy new phones, we register and we activate them. But now, people who have already got the SIM cards haven’t been registered and we have to register them. The longer period we give for people to register their old cards, the longer the system becomes meaningless because I just use the old card if I am a criminal. I don’t buy a new card.
So if you start extending this period to 18 months and 36 months, it means for the next three years this Bill will be useless and you won’t be able to use the Bill.
So, that is why we have given a one-year period. Obviously, these mobile cellular operators want to make money so they are going to make sure that everybody who wants to use their phones is going to come and register their SIM cards.
I don’t know what the fear is or what the problem is. They are going to put up enough kiosks because otherwise they won’t make money. They like making money, like any other business. They are going to put up the kiosks and people are going to register. A 12-month period is more than enough time for doing so.
This means that for 12 months there is a loophole in this Act. For 12 months criminals can use the old SIM card. I am telling them now, and they know it. Sometimes the people that are talking on their behalf not to register their SIM cards are actually the only ones making suggestions advantageous to the criminals. The problem is that we will have problems for 12 months, even when we get the system going.
I thank all who supported this legislation. As I said, we try and get that delicate balance in trying to intercept criminals’ calls. They are the people who are not doing the right things. But then, the Act protects all the citizens who are good, law-abiding citizens.
We must remember this. When I saw the newspaper article written about this, they never wrote about the part where the Act is protecting us. For the first time in the history of this country it creates that protection for people’s communications not to be intercepted arbitrarily. So, once again, thanks to everyone who played a role in preparing this Bill and I unconditionally support it on behalf of the ANC.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Thank you hon, Deputy Minister. That concludes the debate.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Chairperson, Members of Parliament, South Africa’s quest for peace and stability in the region and on the continent, to a large extent, drives the agenda of the Department of Defence. An important part of the quest is our adherence to international humanitarian law, particularly the law on armed conflict.
Whilst we are committed to resolving armed conflict through peaceful means, we must also be realistic and recognise that sometimes armed interaction might take place. That being the case, it becomes necessary to regulate the use of weapons so that human suffering would be limited as far as possible.
The Bill on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects must be seen in this context.
We live in a world where, unfortunately, we have to use our technological and scientific knowledge to create weapons that maximise human suffering over and above anything that could be deemed necessary to defeat the force opposing us. We therefore have to place a limit on what human beings can use to fight one another. In war or armed conflict it is always the case that innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire. The innocent civilians I am referring to are, more often than not, women and children, the disabled and the elderly.
The civilian population affected by hostilities thus must be protected as far as humanly possible. We must therefore regulate the use of weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be eExcessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects seeks to implement the international humanitarian law principle that the right of parties to an armed conflict does not extend to them having an unlimited choice of methods or means of warfare.
South Africa has signed and ratified this convention. The convention identifies specific categories of conventional weapons and places prohibitions or restrictions on their use. The convention further provides that each state party should take all appropriate steps, including legislative and other measures, to prevent and suppress violations of this convention on any territory under its jurisdiction or control. South Africa is therefore obliged to promulgate enabling legislation.
The main object of this Bill is to place the necessary restrictions or prohibitions on specific categories of conventional weapons, thus fulfilling South Africa’s obligation under the convention. The convention requires that the restrictions or prohibitions be placed on specifically identified categories of conventional weapons. The Bill ensures that a distinction is drawn between categories of conventional weapons that are prohibited and those that are restricted.
The following conventional weapons are prohibited: nondetectable fragments and blinding laser weapons.
Use of the following weapons is restricted: mines, booby-traps and devices, as well as incendiary weapons.
The Bill includes penal sanctions to discourage violations of the convention. Any contravention of the Bill will be punishable by either a fine or imprisonment, or both. So, chaps waiting there are ready for that because they keep prisoners.
The Bill also seeks to address transgressions by South Africans acting outside the borders of our country. South African citizens who contravene the provisions of the Bill outside our borders will be deemed to have acted on South African territory. The Bill was drawn up after consultation with both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the SA Police Service. The International Committee of the Red Cross was also consulted.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will report annually to the Secretary- General of the UN on South Africa’s compliance with the obligations of the convention. I place this Bill before this House for you to consider and approve. I thank you, Chairperson.
Ms T V TOBIAS: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers, and hon members, the passing of the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill, the CCW, by Parliament today confirms that South Africa as a state party adheres to the international humanitarian laws and it also confirms that the ANC is indeed an organisation with an international outlook.
In the same vein, the agenda of our government to have a peaceful country, continent and world, is slowly coming into being and South Africa is a force to be reckoned with as a progressive pace setter, by being an example in taking decisions that other countries, especially the G77 countries are hesitant to take. Therefore, we hereby salute our country for its bravery and consistency in maintaining world peace and stability.
Hon members, today we are legislating on a convention which came into being in 1980 and South Africa, through a democratic ANC–led government, became a state party in 1995. The CCW seeks to limit the effects of armed conflicts on both combatants and noncombatants. Therefore, this legislation today will give full effect to the convention as per the requirements of Article 14 of Protocol 2. The portfolio committee underwent a trying time during the discussion of this Bill. It had to consider the research and development that the country acquired over time. We also had to consider the views of South African defence-related industries and all stakeholders. In general we are maturing and the impact of this legislation on these industries will be seen over time.
The committee also did extensive research to look at how many state parties that are signatories to the convention have legislated on this convention. We discovered that South Africa is the first to legislate and the majority of G77 countries had made both reservations and declarations to empower their defence industries to remain in the economic nest.
Countries of the north continue to participate in activities that seek to undermine world peace; an example is that of the role of America in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no more, but we are still looking forward to the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, because all we observe at this juncture is the flexing of muscles and a display by the American fleet of their defence material in Iraq.
In my view, this suggests that America avoids participating in exercises with other countries in case they learn their defence strategies, and rather engage in violence and bullying of the weaker nations who do not toe the American line in the United Nations Security Council. If I may ask: At which point are we as citizens of the world going to respect countries’ sovereignty? What lessons have we learnt from the Cold War? Israel, for instance, used cluster bombs, cluster munitions and phosphorus on Palestinian civilians who were not necessarily a military objective and was against rules of engagement in a war situation where civilian vicinities were not respected. One expects us to respect civilian vicinities and not use cluster and explosive ordnance in an engagement of war.
Much as we want to protect civilians and civilian objects, we also need to protect our military objectives from grievous bodily harm. Therefore, we need to protect our soldiers deployed in the Comoros, Darfur, Sudan and elsewhere in peacekeeping missions so that they are not in any way hit by these incendiary weapons, because they are holding the peace flag high and help the destitute.
We also welcome deployment of the Nato warship to participate in Exercise Amazolo with the South African Navy to maintain peace in the African continent and in our waters in particular, to show that nations of the world are indeed serious about keeping peace.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank colleagues in the defence portfolio committee for displaying maturity and unity when dealing with this legislation. This is a collective of individuals who are responsible for national security. Our colleagues on the other side of the floor also showed maturity. I really appreciate their participation.
Thanks to those members who sacrificed other responsibilities and sat in all meetings that carefully crafted this piece of legislation, and also to those officials who provided legal advice.
I therefore ensure that the ANC at all times supports Bills of this nature. The ANC supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Moulana M R SAYEDALI-SHAH: Chairperson, it is not uncommon to see the barbaric use of certain types of conventional weapons exacerbating conflicts, causing so-called collateral civilian deaths.
Furthermore, some types of conventional weapons which are often left behind long after the conflicts have been resolved continue to be of great harm to the communities, causing them pain and injury. Places like Afghanistan and others closer to home like Angola and Mozambique are typical examples of such cases.
The Bill before the House, the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill, is designed to prevent the use and/or abuse of such weapons. As a signatory to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, referred to as CCW, South Africa is, in terms of Article 14 of Protocol 2 of this Convention, obliged to enact enabling legislation in order to give full effect to this convention.
Moreover, this Bill is in line with our Constitution, which seeks the protection of life, property and the dignity of each person. The parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence conducted public hearings on the Bill on 7 and 8 August.
Various stakeholders, including the International Red Cross, the AMD, which is the Aerospace, Maritime and Defence Industries Association – which protects the interests of our local defence industry – the ceasefire campaign, the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Institute for Security Studies, as well as state organs such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and SA Police Service, amongst others, made submissions and inputs. They all supported the Bill in principle. However, some of them had certain reservations in terms of some of the definitions, whilst others had objections to some clauses or certain clauses which they felt might negatively impact on their activities. For example, the AMD felt that some aspects of the legislated prohibition and restriction of certain conventional weapons would unduly limit their research and development capacity and the scope of some of South Africa’s defence industries, especially work done on dual use technologies.
The International Committee of the Red Cross commented that although the regulation of harmful conventional weapons was important, the non- compliance of state parties to the convention was a cause for concern and argued for the need for both a domestic and an international body to ensure the implementation of legislation.
The Institute of Security Studies, while supporting the Bill, raised some very key issues, such as the lack of a proper definition of what exactly a blinding laser weapons system was. They also felt that the Bill was not so clear on how South African citizens serving in foreign militaries that are participating in giant peacekeeping operations with elements of the armed forces of other non-signatory states may be affected by this Bill.
So, the members of the committee took serious note of the impact that the extraterritorial implications of the Bill would have on the protection of intellectual rights, as well as the rights of foreign nationals who may be involved with such prohibited conventional weapons and who may enter the jurisdiction of South Africa in terms of air, sea and land and whose respective countries are not signatories to this convention.
Time does not permit me to provide in detail the various issues that were raised by various stakeholders in relation to the Bill – they are too many. However, I assure the House that the committee took into account all the concerns of the relevant stakeholders and, to the best of our ability, effected necessary and possible legal changes or amendments to the Bill. That was done, I must add, at very short notice.
I would like to thank the Department of Defence, especially the people from the legal services department, and the legal services of Parliament and the research unit for their expertise, the various institutions which made submissions during the public hearings as well as the chairperson of our committee and my colleagues – members of the committee – for their diligence and their co-operation. This is a good piece of legislation. Therefore, the DA will support the Bill. [Applause.] Thank you.
Mr H J BEKKER: Chairperson, I will gladly speak on behalf of the hon Sibuyana and we have duly notified you thereof. Nevertheless, the core objective of this Bill is to incorporate the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects into domestic law, as our country signed and ratified the convention.
Passing this Bill will therefore mean that we have executed our obligations in terms of the convention. Conventional weapons of war have in recent years developed to the point where they are more destructive and lethal than in the past.
Furthermore, despite sophisticated targeting systems conventional weapons still take a disproportionate toll on noncombatants such as civilians, especially when deployed indiscriminately. In terms of this law and in terms of international humanitarian law, it is therefore appropriate that the use of certain conventional weapons should be prohibited or restricted.
When the Bill was first tabled, the IFP was concerned about two major issues. The first was the effects the original Bill would have on South African forces which were deployed in international peacekeeping forces that included foreign forces that had not signed the convention and had all of the relevant weapons in their arsenals. We asked whether this meant that our force could not be deployed with such foreign forces or whether it meant that we would be breaking our own laws if they were so deployed.
Civil society has also raised this practical problem, and we are satisfied that during the consideration of this Bill the portfolio committee and the department took our concern seriously and decided that the UN or AU mandate for any peacekeeping mission would take into account the convention and the prohibitions or restrictions on certain weapons. We need therefore not fear that our forces will break our own laws.
The second concern was the extraterritorial application of the Act and jurisdiction. The IFP felt that domestic law should apply to South Africans but that it would be very difficult practically to claim jurisdiction over foreigners who committed offences in terms of the Act outside the territory of the Republic. In the end, a compromise was reached, to our satisfaction, that such persons would be tried if the offence could be tied to an intention to affect a public body, business or any other person inside South Africa.
Finally, the IFP would like to thank the chairperson and the portfolio committee, the department and civil society for continuing to contribute to a more polished and practical final Bill. The IFP will support the Bill. Thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, the ACDP notes that the Portfolio Committee on Defence initially expressed concerns about the impact of the Bill on the ability of SANDF members to protect themselves in conflict situations. We appreciate, however, that the department itself motivated the Bill to comply with our international obligations and that the public submissions were broadly supportive of the Bill.
Antipersonnel mines have a devastating impact on civilian populations, so one must support provisions that prohibit the use of such mines. The problem, however, arises in the fact that enemy forces will, in all likelihood, not adhere to these international obligations, particularly rebel forces in countries where the SANDF is carrying out peacekeeping roles. The security of our SANDF members could then be compromised.
Nevertheless, when balancing that with the good that will come in restricting the use of such weapons, one cannot but support the Bill. The ACDP trusts that member states will follow the South African example in enacting similar legislation. We will support this Bill. I thank you.
Rre M S MOATSHE: Modulasetilo le Ntlo e e tlotlegang, go tswa mo lekokong la ANC le le eteletseng puso e pele, re dira boikuelo mo Ntlong e, gore e amogele Molaotlhomo o wa Kiletso le Kganelo ya Tiriso ya Ditlhabano, Marumo, Dithuthupi le dingwe tse di ka dirang gore motho a foufale, le fa e ka nna go golafala, mme e se lesole e bile a sa amege ka gope mo dintweng.
Maikaelelo a Molaotlhomo o, ke go sireletsa ka kakaretso batho botlhe kgatlhanong le ditlamorago tsa ntwa, e bile re le Repaboliki ya Aforika Borwa, ka re dirisana mmogo le mafatshe a boditšhaba, re pateletsega go tlotla melawana ya boditšhaba e e saenetsweng. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[Mr M S MOATSHE: Chairperson and august House, as government led by the ANC, we appeal to this House to adopt the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill, and prohibit other explosives and weapons which can cause blindness or disability of a person even though that person has not been a soldier or was not involved in any war activities.
The aim of this Bill is to protect all people in general against the consequences of war, and as the Republic of South Africa we have to live up to our diplomatic obligation as international relations laws dictate.]
The Republic is committed to accede to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.
The South African citizens who may be found to have committed an offence in terms of this Act may be tried by a court of the Republic of South Africa. Again, a person who is a permanent resident, as contemplated in the Immigration Act of 2002, may be tried by a court of the Republic.
Motho mang kapa mang yo a nang le kgolagano e bile a ikwadisitse jaaka moagi wa Aforika Borwa o tla otlhaiwa ke kgotlatshekelo ya Aforika Borwa fa a ka fitlhelwa a dirisitse gongwe a tshotse dithuthupi tse di kailweng di le kotsi go batho ba e seng masole, go sa kgatheletsege gore o dirisa dibetsa tse a le kwa mafatsheng a kwa ntle ka go ithaopa le fa e le ka ditaelo tsa mafatshe ao.
Re lemoga gore go mafatshe mangwe a dibetsa tse re buang ka tsona tse di sa ilediwang, e bile di bonwa jaaka tse di se nang kgoreletso kgotsa molato – mafatshe ao e bile a sena kgolagano epe le Repaboliki ya Aforika Borwa – fela fa o le moagi wa Aforika Borwa o fitlhelwa o tshwere dibetsa tseo kwa mafatsheng ao, ga o kitla o falola. O tla di gama o sa di tlhapela.
Fa moagi wa kwa ntle ga Aforika Borwa a ka fitlhelwa a tshotse ditlhabano tse di ileditsweng, e ka nna kwa mawatleng, boemafofane gongwe mo gare ga naga ya Aforika Borwa, kgotlatshekelo ya Repaboliki e tla tsaya kgato kgatlhanonong le motho o o ntseng jalo.
Fela fa motho wa kwa ntle ga Aforika Borwa a ka etela Repaboliki a dirisitse dithuthupi gongwe dibetsa tse di ileditsweng ke Repaboliki kwa nageng ya gaabo, mme lefatshe la gaabo le sena kamano le Aforika Borwa gongwe e se karolo ya maikano a go fedisa ditlhabano tse di ntseng jalo, gona Repaboliki e tla tshwanelwa ke go busetsa motho yo o kwa nageng ya gaabo.
Re bone ka 28 Phatwe 2007 dithuthupi tse di setlhogo tseo, di gaila baagi ba ba se nang molato kwa Hyderabad, borwa jwa India. Go kailwe fa go dirisitswe sediriswa sa khemikhale se se bidiwang neogel. Ke dingwe tsa dilo tse re buang ka tsona. Go tlhokafetse batho ba e seng masole ba le 40, mme ba le 80 ba tswa dikgobalo tse di siisang mmele. Ke ka fao ANC e itirelang boikuelo gore go amogelwe Molaotlhomo o, gore go nne le kagiso mo lefatsheng ka bophara. ANC e amogela Molaotlhomo. Ke a leboga. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[South African courts will take punitive action against anybody who has diplomatic relations and has registered as a South African citizen if they are found with explosives classified as dangerous to people who are not soldiers, regardless of whether he or she used these weapons voluntarily in a foreign country or used them with instructions from that country.
We are aware that there are countries where these weapons are not illegal and are not seen as dangerous or injurious, and some of these countries that do not even have diplomatic relations with the Republic of South Africa. But if you are a South African citizen and you are found in possession of these weapons in those countries, you will face the might of the law.
If a foreign citizen is found in possession of illegal weapons, be it at the beach or an airport, or inside South Africa, a South African court will lay a charge against the said person. But if a foreign citizen visits the Republic and is found to have illegally used explosives or weapons prohibited in South Africa, and his country of origin has no diplomatic relations with South Africa or his country is not a part of the declaration to eradicate such weapons, South Africa will have no choice but to extradite such person. On 28 August 2007, we saw these dangerous explosives killing innocent people in Hyderabad, south of India. It is said that a chemical called neogel was used. These are some of the things that we are talking about. About 40 civilians died, and 80 were seriously injured. We as the ANC therefore make an appeal that this Bill be passed, so that there can be peace in the whole world. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Mr J SCHIPPERS: Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to focus on the prohibited and restricted conventional weapons, as contained in sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. The Bill ensures that a distinction is drawn between categories of conventional weapons that are prohibited on the one hand and restricted on the other. Prohibited conventional weapons refer to nondetectable fragments and blinding laser weapons. Let us deal with this category.
Protocol I of the convention deals solely with the nondetectable fragments. It briefly states that the use of any weapon of which the primary effect is to injure by fragments which cannot be detected in the human body by X-rays is prohibited.
Protocol IV of the convention deals with the use of blinding laser weapons. Article 1 prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the naked eye. It is clear that no country that ratifies the protocol shall transfer such weapons to any state or nonstate entity. Article 2 specifies that in the event of the use of such weapons, countries should take feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness. Article 3 refers to blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment. Article 4 spells out what is meant by permanent blindness, namely the irreversible or uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery.
The second category is restricted conventional weapons, which include mines, booby-traps or other devices and incendiary weapons. This Bill describes the former as weapons which employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate ammunition. It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct these weapons either in offence, defence or reprisal against the civilian population. The indiscriminate use of such weapons also includes the indiscriminate placement of those weapons. Feasible precautions must be taken to protect civilians from the effects of these weapons.
With regard to antipersonnel mines this Bill is not applicable, because they are prohibited in terms of the Antipersonnel Mines Prohibition Act, Act 36 of 2003.
Section 7 of the Bill refers to the incendiary weapons, which means weapons or munitions which are primarily designed to set fire to objects or cause burn injury to civilians through the action of flame, heat or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
In terms of section 10 of the Bill any person in possession of any prohibited weapon or component part immediately after the commencement of the Act, must within six months notify a police official of such possession and hand it over to the South African Police Service. All weapons and component parts collected shall be forfeited to the state. In closing, the ANC supports the Bill.
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the apartheid regime ventured into nuclear, biological and chemical weapons research in the 1980s with six nuclear weapons being assembled. However, when we were predicted to become a democracy in the 1990s these weapons were dismantled. Either way, we were the first nation to voluntarily give up the development of nuclear arms.
The MF applauds the fact that the democratic South Africa is a peace-loving nation. South Africa has a history of international agreement on weapons as a signatory to the biological weapons convention since 1975, the chemical weapons convention since 1995 and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty since 1991. This Bill is set to bring the legislation in line with the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. As a strong advocate for human rights the MF supports the Bill. Thank you
Mr S B NTULI: Chairperson, in my speech, I want to clarify one thing. The extraterritoriality of this Bill suggests that if you are an outsider from a different country, and you have committed those actions that are outlawed in terms of this legislation, we are not necessarily going to try you with this legislation, because it is meant for South Africans. So, the territorial question must also be clarified.
We do not want to assume to be the police of the world. What we want is that, as a country, we also do what the Geneva Convention asked us to do as a country. We also expect other countries to endorse and adopt and ratify this convention. That is the first thing I wanted to say.
I also want to stress that, in our preamble, we say that we as the Republic commit ourselves to this international humanitarian law, and particularly the law on armed conflict. We further recognise the general principle of protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. We further recognise the principle of international law, that the right of the parties in an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. In other words, the Geneva Convention actually places a restriction, through this Article, that certain elements cannot be applied in this regard, even if you are using them in conventional warfare.
For us particularly, this Bill should also add or go a long way in making sure that we reduce the number of victims, since this is the month of women. We need to reduce the number of victims where we see women, because in a conflict you see them carrying babies and so on, roaming about, because they have to run away from the war-torn situations. This convention is then also an attempt to make sure that we cleanse the world of such barbaric acts.
I then also want to just highlight the issues that we are covering when we talk about these restricted weapons. We are talking here of antipersonnel mines, nondetectable fragments, mines, booby-traps and other devices and blind lasers and so on. I want to agree with the comrade who said that one of the things that we have to try to do since the definition of these terms in a material situation tends to be different, is see to it that this doesn’t delay us in implementing this legislation. The only thing we have to do is to make sure that the definitions are internationally agreed to.
I then want to read an excerpt from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Report. It has to do with the disappearance of one of South Africa’s citizens:
In May 1990 De Kock went to see Du Toit to discuss an order he had received to manufacture a parcel bomb which would be posted to Coetzee to kill him. De Kock required assistance and expertise of his branch and he agreed to help. De Kock’s visit was to him in his personal capacity, thereafter Bosch visited J F Kok and they came to see Du Toit. He agreed they could continue working on the project. J F Kok began working on a design for the bomb but when he had to leave the office his brother J Kok took over. The bomb they made had explosives inserted into the earphones of a Walkman unit which played audio cassettes. This had been chosen for two reasons, the first being that it would not cause damage or injury to anyone else in the vicinity of the person listening, the second being that cassettes could be chosen which would attract Coetzee’s interest. One was his favourite musician Neil Diamond, the other one labelled “Evidence – Hit Squads”. After the first device had been completed and tried out successfully a second one was built which, according to J Kok was fetched by Bosch and Bellingan who helped with packing. Both the Kok brothers knew Coetzee was the target.
But listen:
The parcel arrived in Johannesburg and was delivered to Mlangeni on 15 February 1991. He opened the parcel in his office and left the packaging there. He took the Walkman home and when he tried it out it exploded causing fatal massive head injuries.
That was what brought to an end the life of Comrade Bheki Mlangeni.
Therefore, one of the objectives of the Bill is to rid our society of such antipersonnel devices. The convention on warfare is governed through the Geneva Protocol, which cautions us against the use of excessive force against your enemy.
As we look back at the period during which the aforementioned incident took place, it was really an unnecessary force used, bearing in mind the historical and political developments at the time on the eve of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. Similar mine devices cost us the life of Ruth First in Mozambique and many more. Thus this Bill is in line with the ANC policy to opt for nonviolence, which means that it came as a result of the banning of the ANC in the early eighties.
As we are now part of government, and we are in power, we are also integrating into the international community. We also have to comply with the international community’s law by signing, ratifying and passing this Bill into law in compliance with Article 14.
I therefore recommend that the House agrees with the ANC, as it has already indicated, to pass the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.] The DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Chairperson, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, members of the portfolio committee and all parties who supported this Bill. I agree with them that some of these weapons kill people long after the conflict has ended. That is how dangerous some of them are.
I’m happy that the concerns of the defence industry were taken into account. Of course it would be impossible to satisfy the defence industry because as far as they are concerned, this Bill, to a certain extent, affects their businesses. But, unfortunately we have committed ourselves as the government and especially as the Department of Defence to peace, and we want to make sure that there is peace in the world. The only unfortunate thing that we know is that there will not always be peace in the world. When there is war we must be able to know how we limit our effort to make sure that there is peace.
I want to assure members that this convention does not affect in any way our ability to fight wars. We can fight wars and we are capable of defending our country. Many of us had agreed that this conference deals with the injurious and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.
I again want to thank everybody and I am also very happy, as a man of God, to hear and see that South Africans are committed to peace. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(First Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson and hon members, our country’s Constitution charges local government with the responsibility of delivering specified sets of services to the people. The institutional context in which this task is being undertaken has proved to have some unintended ineptness, which restricts the ability of the system to meet our expectations.
The particular issues of concern which are the subject of the Local Government Laws Amendment Bill of 2007 are embedded in the core local government legislation such as the Municipal Demarcation Act, the Municipal Structures Act, the Municipal Systems Act and the Municipal Property Rates Act.
Shortcomings in the implementation of these laws have been identified and it is our considered view that there is an urgent need to take legislative steps in order to stabilise the system and to optimise its functional efficiency.
We came to this view after consultation with various stakeholders who generously shared with us insights that were gained in the crucible of practice. These stakeholders include national government departments and provincial departments responsible for local government affairs, as well as the SA Local Government Association.
In addition to enhancing local government’s underlying systems and processes, we are also proposing to encourage utilisation of the ward committees as the primary institutional modality of rooting democracy amongst the people and for generating mass participation in matters of government.
The adoption of core local government legislation, as well as related legislation which falls under the functional domain of other departments, has rendered some existing legislation redundant. Such legislation will have to be repealed. At the same time, there is a need to ensure proper alignment between various pieces of legislation and therefore this is one of the objects of this legislation.
All these issues will exercise the collective mind of members of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government who, in turn, will set the stage for us to meet again on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish to thank them in advance and to express a hope that we will interact on the Bill soon. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr M M SWATHE: Chairperson, the DA welcomes the Bill. These changes have been long overdue and we feel that it is still not comprehensive enough. The DA will support all measures to hold councillors and officials more accountable and make this sphere of government perform better.
The effort to change the Municipal Systems Act and to allow for clearer differences between officials and political activists, by forcing municipal officials to resign when they become official candidates for national and provincial elections, is welcomed.
Too many officials do political work during office hours or behave as political activists in their work situation. We further caution whether it is constitutional to force officials to resign or rather to be forced to leave. This is a matter that will have to be debated within the committee.
We welcome section 106(4)(a) of the Municipal Systems Act that provides that the Minister may request the MEC to investigate maladministration, fraud, corruption or any other serious malpractice that, in his or her opinion, has occurred or is occurring in a municipality in the province. The MEC must provide the Minister and the Minister of Finance with a report on the investigation, detailing the outcome of the investigation. We need more investigations and discipline. Thank you very much.
Mr H B CUPIDO: Chairperson, the ACDP welcomes the Local Government Laws Amendment Bill as tabled here today. Since 1994, many changes have come into effect as local government progressed through its different stages of development. New municipalities and metros were formed and new directives on how to manage these local authorities were put in place in order for them to fulfil their commitments. Governance in local government is intimately connected with the people we serve, thus it must not stagnate. There needs to be constant change to all legislation pertaining to local government management and the participating role that communities play to determine their own future. It is very important to have an active and a well-empowered ward committee system in every ward as a matter of urgency, thus we need a fresh look at new ward committees, their functioning and their empowerment of participating role- players.
The ACDP therefore supports this First Reading debate on the Local Government Laws Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S A MSHUDULU: Chairperson, I would like to commend the Minister for the amendment. I think one has to go directly to the DA that is making a big noise here: The main reason this Bill is to be amended is to make sure that there is a specific section – clause 6 – that provides for compulsory establishment of ward committees by municipalities, whereas in those municipalities where the DA is in power such a process was not allowed. The same applies to the IFP in KwaZulu-Natal.
This Bill is intended to make provision for the out-of-pocket expenses of ward committee members. As you would know, during our last visit to the municipalities in 2003, this was an issue of concern.
The Bill is also intended to make sure that the duties and powers of ward committees, the inclusion of the deputy executive mayor, as well as the participation of municipal staff members in the national, provincial and municipal elections are all looked into.
The other reason is to make sure that all the apartheid laws whose legislative process the very DA was party to, are to be dealt with and to be changed, together with the by-laws that were undermining the developmental agenda of the ANC. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr M SWART: Chair, I don’t know what the previous speaker has listened to and where – I can’t work it out. But I will stick to what I wanted to say.
I have said that in the existing legislation governing local authorities amendments are required other than what is currently contained in the Bill now before Parliament. There are many clauses in this Bill, however, which should be welcomed. Examples of such improvements are the curtailment of the term of office of municipal managers and the compulsory provision of municipal accounts to both landlords and tenants.
Unfortunately there are also disconcerting amendments. One of these is that municipal managers will in future have the sole right to decide on investments of the council. You can rest assured that entities seeking investments from municipalities will be wining and dining municipal managers. Therefore, the door could be opened for corruption. The provision which is made for members of ward committees to be reimbursed for out-of- pocket expenses equally leaves the door open for corruption and mismanagement as there is no definition in the Bill to clarify the meaning of out-of-pocket expenses.
The fact that the formation of ward committees will become compulsory is not as worrying as the fact that municipalities are once more saddled with unfunded mandates. This Bill does not provide for reimbursement to municipalities of the increased expenditure to be incurred by having to pay not only for the out-of-pocket expenses of thousands of ward committee members, but also for secretarial services. In the case of Cape Town, for instance, 105 ward committees must be formed and minutes of all their monthly meetings must be kept.
The capacity certainly does not exist within municipalities to carry the extra workload with the current staff. Additional staff will have to be appointed at great cost. The usage of IDP committees by municipalities would have been more to the point and would have served the interests of the community just as well as ward committees. Out-of-pocket expenses will have to be paid, as I said, to thousands and thousands of ward committee members in South Africa, and I am sure that the municipalities have not budgeted for this.
There are flaws in the Bill, but we will nevertheless support it. Thank you.
Mr S L TSENOLI: Chairperson, the Department of Provincial and Local Government took a step even before the committee did so. We welcome this exercise because it represents an important aspect of the work that we are doing in the field of governance, namely monitoring and evaluating legislation and the impact it has on what it was intended to do, and therefore identifying things that urgently require cleaning up – so to speak. This Bill seeks to do that and does it in an interesting way.
This Bill also represents an important political opportunity for us to reflect on what we must do to address current problems that relate to municipal governance and so on. So, the four Acts that are the subjects of the Bill are an important aspect. The Bill provides the community and the stakeholders that work in this area an opportunity to point out to us those areas that we must attend to, so that we can speed up and accelerate service delivery and ensure that the law does not itself become a hindrance to that provision.
Most importantly, the Bill is an exciting one because it says to us that in those areas where we have provided legislation such as the Municipal Finance Act, some of the aspects of the previous legislation that came before it must then be made to comply with it so that you have a better alignment of broad legislative issues with financial and intergovernmental financial flows, as the Bill suggests.
I am amazed at the remarks that are being made about corruption that relates to ward committees when in fact what we are doing is saying that there is a positive view about these issues. There’s important work that is being done without anybody saying anything about the free contribution of people’s time, their energy, and their own money. There is no acknowledgment of that contribution that is useful to deepening democracy in this country. All we are doing is going for isolated incidences of corruption that have not even taken place. This is how negative some people can be.
I would have thought that we would appreciate the opportunity for deepening democracy – and nobody ever said that it’s going to be a cheap exercise. It’s an absolutely important issue to recognise that in deepening democracy we are not going to have it free and it’s not going to be available to us in any other cheaper way. It is important to acknowledge the contribution that people are making and, in fact, support them in establishing a deeper, more dynamic interaction between people.
This Bill also provides an opportunity for us to look at other legislation and the relationship between this one piece of legislation and other pieces, so that we have a more coherent system that does not conflict with other pieces of legislation. We therefore welcome this opportunity and those stakeholders that may have missed the bus during the introduction of this Bill in the Government Gazette. The committee is opening up that space. We have already invited submissions. So, members must tell their constituencies to come and contribute. [Time expired.]
The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: I take your advice that I am under no obligation to respond. But I just want to thank all the hon members for their participation in this First Reading. I think that they gave us a good flavour of what to expect when the discussions take place in earnest in the portfolio committee itself.
I thought I should also respond quickly to what the hon member Swart was saying about the ward committees – the concern that this is going to be an unfunded mandate. I think it’s important that we all take note of the fact that government has been consistent in ensuring a massive increase in the year-on-year equitable share allocation to local government. We have emphasised the need for local government to make sure that some of our important activities are indeed prioritised when allocations are made to individual programmes of municipalities.
Public participation, at least in the post-1994 dispensation in matters of government, is not an optional extra. It goes to the heart of our own conception of a democracy. If this is the basis on which we are going to approach our work, then we expect municipalities not to see these increases in the equitable share allocation as something that has nothing to do with generating and improving levels of public participation in matters of government. So, we would expect them to make use of this resource to ensure that ward committees are formed throughout the country. By the way, the establishment rate today stands at over 96%. We want to see them being established everywhere in the country, including in Cape Town. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(First Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Chairperson of the portfolio committee, Members of Parliament, it is absolutely crucial that before delving into the actual amendments proposed I outline a critical context to these developments which will help everyone understanding the foundation of the changes we are proposing.
One of the defining characteristics of South Africa’s transition from a repressive apartheid regime to a country whose prowess in constitutional changes is celebrated the world over, is the transformation of the country’s prison system. The adoption of the South African Constitution in 1996 marked a pivotal point in the history of prisons in South Africa, as it instructs us to ensure a detention system that is based on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights outlines human rights as one of the inalienable rights human beings should be entitled to, with significant implications for the country’s prison system.
The White Paper passed by our Cabinet in February 2005, therefore, was a milestone that placed correction of the offending behaviour and rehabilitation of offenders at the centre of our mandate. With this new strategic direction we seek not only to tighten security and protect the victims and the public from thousands of offenders, but to protect the next victim of any offenders when they finish their sentences while still very energetic with capacity to further maim or injure society.
We therefore seek to address a very complex social phenomenon whose elements include addressing deep-rooted causes of the drive to commit crime, limiting the social stigmatisation which becomes a hurdle in social reintegration, intervening in a manner that empowers offenders to lead socially responsible and productive lives after release, and mobilising families, communities and various role-players to take up a more proactive and constructive role in ensuring the efficacy of the country’s correctional system.
This new approach, which is also informed by the extensive experience and the best practices we have accumulated over years, is not accommodated in the existing Correctional Services Act. It therefore became imperative to initiate and to drive this process leading up to today’s First Reading of the Correctional Services Amendment Bill.
I shall endeavour to outline the rationale more comprehensively, to unpack the suggested changes and the envisaged scenario and social impact, before giving some details on the exact changes proposed.
Besides the basic alignment of the Act with the new language framework and some technical changes to some names and words, there are six key issues on which the suggested amendments are based, which include: firstly, the enhancement of societal participation in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders; secondly, modifying the conditions for the incarceration of sentenced mothers with babies; thirdly, providing a legislative framework for the new model for rehabilitation; fourthly, improving humane treatment of inmates; fifthly, improving the administration of the parole and correctional supervision system and lastly, streamlining of the functions of the judicial inspectorate to enhance its capacity to deliver on its mandate.
Community participation is regarded as the epitome of an effectively functioning correctional system, which the White Paper alludes to with absolute clarity in chapters 3 and 13. These chapters elaborately unpack how families, communities and various stakeholders need to contribute in advancing the cause of corrections. The current scenario is such that there is no legal framework for realising the ideal outlined in these chapters other than mere familial contacts.
I have for a number of years received numerous requests from people who are aware of the challenges we are faced with and who had volunteered to get into our centres to make a contribution – doctors, social workers and other ordinary members of society. With the amendments being approved, in particular clause 13, the National Commissioner of Correctional Services can and may allow community organisations, nongovernmental organisations and religious formations to interact with offenders for rehabilitation service delivery and even engage them where required to deliver the services on behalf of Correctional Services. Clauses 50 and 68 also seek to give the national commissioner powers to mobilise or accept volunteers in community corrections.
With regard to the sentenced mothers with children, the issue of the length of time children can spend with their sentenced mothers is also being addressed, with the reduction of the legally permissible period from five years to two years. This is informed by extensive research conducted, which demonstrates that the requisite child-mother bonding and stimulation can be achieved within the first two years of the birth of a child.
Various developed countries have provisions for children to stay with their mothers for a period of between 12 and 18 months. We took cognisance of the fact that the environment in a correctional facility is not conducive for the overall development of children, in particular during the first five years of their lives.
We understand the requirement for effective early childhood development and the resources we have can better assist those younger than two years. As we strengthen family and community participation in correctional centres, we will also be able to engage better with families to take responsibility for closing the gaps – assisted, of course, by departments like Social Development and Education.
With regard to the Offender Rehabilitation Path, we have also sought to provide a legal framework for our new model that is captured in the Offender Rehabilitation Path – ORP – adopted for guiding the management of an offender life cycle from admission to social reintegration. The department is now implementing the unit management system through which correctional sentence plans that address personal development needs are developed. So, clauses 37, 38, 40 and 41 of the proposed Bill are helping to close the gaps identified in the current Act, including the provision of care to offenders.
The other crucial element is the promotion of humane treatment of offenders. Although this is clearly spelt out in the Constitution, the scope for abuse of power and authority existed with our single cells used for punishment for transgressions committed during incarceration. The Bill seeks to outlaw the punitive use of the single cells for solitary confinement. And this lot here will never know what solitary confinement is all about.
The Bill introduces oversight mechanisms for the use of these single cells, which include the compulsory reporting of such a decision to the judicial inspectorate and to the Commissioner of Correctional Services with an intervention plan for correcting the offending behaviour and a need for the supervision of the implementation of such decisions. These provisions outlined in clauses 24, 30 and 31 will equally apply in cases where further restraints are required while an offender is in a single cell.
With regard to the correctional supervision and parole boards, the other crucial element is the improvement of the administration of the parole system. The White Paper is premised on a need for the restoration of harmed human relations and the creation of an interactive process at every stage of the delivery of correctional services. Offenders will be provided with a platform for oral representation in the parole system, while also empowering the correctional supervision and parole boards to compel the offender to participate in correction, development and social reintegration programmes within the prison, in communities – as you saw in Khayelitsha – and in society at large.
The provision of parole is the sole responsibility of the executive arm of government. It is a contract between the government and the offenders to continue serving a portion of their court sentence in the community, subject to specific conditions. The current Act prescribes minimum non- parole periods and thus erodes the government’s responsibility to rehabilitate an offender and thus grant parole when and where the offender has demonstrated acceptance of responsibility and commitment to avoid reoffending.
In prescribing minimum non-parole periods, the Act invariably creates an expectation - that’s the principal Act - and a culture of entitlement to parole. The Bill seeks to address this through the executive authority prescribing an incarceration framework on the advice of the National Council on Correctional Services. The application of these provisions is based on the assessment of the impact of various corrections and rehabilitation interventions on the offender.
The introduction of the incarceration framework in clause 73A will ensure consistency in the application of the Minister’s powers in this regard. It is also important to note that in terms of section 73A(3) “the incarceration framework may not be applied in a manner that would be in conflict with any other law or any direction given or decision made by a court of law”.
The whole parole system has been enhanced alongside the improvement of rehabilitation interventions and therefore there is unprecedented capacity for effective management of the system.
Last, but not least, the Bill seeks to relieve the inspecting judge of the administrative burden through the appointment and seconding of a chief executive officer to the judicial inspectorate to manage the day-to-day operations. The intervention will enhance the inspecting judge’s focus on mainstream issues of ensuring effective oversight and adherence to the constitutional and legal provisions aimed at ensuring detention of offenders under conditions that are consistent with human dignity.
I am quite confident, Madam Speaker, that these changes will indeed place the delivery of correctional services on a new pedestal and affirm our position as a key player in the transformation of the prison system not only in South Africa, but also in the continent.
I am also very sure that these fundamental issues I have raised will need a fundamental shift in the mental framework of many people in order to understand that they are key to reducing reoffending and therefore to the safety and security of the South African public. I wish to make a call to you as public representatives and to the public at large to join in building a national partnership to correct, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders for a safer and a more secure South Africa. Thank you, Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you, hon Minister. Before I recognise those who have indicated to speak, I want to remind all that the nature of the debates, as envisaged by the programming committee, was to provide for the Ministers to respond or reply to concerns raised by members during the debate or clarify issues. However, Minister, you said that you have waived because you wanted to go into the introduction; otherwise that is what was envisaged.
Mr H B CUPIDO: Chairperson, I don’t know what happened but the Minister seems to be upset today. But, I don’t think one should just generalise in what you were saying, Minister. The ACDP, in fact, welcomes the amendments to the Correctional Services Act. For us it is of paramount importance that the correctional and rehabilitation services succeed in our country, with most correctional centres overcrowded with far more inmates than they were actually created for.
The ACDP acknowledges that inmates should be treated in a humane manner at all times. They must be protected against one another and against gangsterism and against some Correctional Services staff members. On the parole system the Bill intends to improve the administration of the system by streamlining communications and allowing better representation for inmates coming up for parole.
The Bill also seeks to create better opportunities with caregiving, NGOs and religious organisations. The Correctional Services Amendment Bill intends to broaden the relationship with communities and NGOs involved in a process of reintegrating offenders into society. Public participation is of outmost importance in an effort to ensure that when inmates return to society they do not choose behaviours which are unlawful and find themselves back in jail, either willingly or unwillingly.
The ACDP, therefore, supports the First Reading of the Correctional Services Amendment Bill.
Mr J SELFE: Chairperson, much in this particular Bill is unobjectionable. It changes the terms and in some respects brings the Act in line with the concepts that were articulated in the White Paper to which the Minister referred.
The Minister made a number of comments about the Bill, some of which I would like to respond to. The first issue was that concerning mothers and children. I quite understand where the Minister comes from in terms of making sure that wherever possible children should not grow up in a prison environment. But, the fact of the matter is that each child is different and has different circumstances, and we are certainly not a developed country in the same sense as many countries in Europe.
It is a fact that the crèche that is in the women’s prison in Pretoria is much better than crèches in many of the communities from which many of the inmates come. It might actually be preferable for those children to grow up in that environment rather than being put in foster care, which might destroy the family relationship.
This Bill is already before the committee and the committee has started dealing with some of the more controversial aspects of it. These include the fact – which the Minister referred to – that the Minister, in consultation with the National Council for Correctional Services, may determine minimum periods of sentences before inmates may be considered for parole. At the moment inmates must serve a minimum period of between one sixth of their sentence and 25 years in the case of life sentences. I think this is one of the things that the committee has to grapple with because it is controversial that the executive can now, as it were, determine the minimum periods of sentences.
The real problem is that it is one thing to legislate and it is another thing to bring about changes in the correctional system. I will just give you one example: The current principal Act contains in section 7 a provision that prisoners must be held in cells which meet the requirements prescribed by regulation in respect of floor space, cubic capacity, lighting, ventilation, sanitary installations and general health conditions.
Now, we all know that prisons throughout South Africa are grossly overcrowded. These regulations were promulgated in 2004 and they provide certain minimum standards for building and accommodation. In two replies to me, the Minister admitted that only 22 facilities of the 241 that DCS manages actually conform to the regulations. So, the plea that I would make is that we look very carefully at what we put in the Act to make sure that the state itself can comply with the conditions that are contained in the Act. It is hopeless if we have an Act in place and the state itself is unable to comply with those provisions.
That is why I am very pleased that the Bill contains a provision requiring the national commissioner to provide a compliance report … Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, we from the ANC want to welcome this amendment and we think it is long overdue. I think the Bill is dealing with very fundamental issues and amendments. The most important thing that the Bill wants to address is the issue of children in prison.
We are busy, as a portfolio committee, talking about this Bill and holding public hearings, so that we may hear from the public and we will come back to this House and debate it.
For now I want to welcome the introduction of this Bill. Thank you very much.
Ms M P MENTOR: Chairperson, I am not speaking because the Minister used my name, I was going to speak anyway. In fact, I thought that he read my mind.
The ANC agrees with this amendment – I do as a member of the ANC. I would, however, still raise two issues that I would like the Minister to go and address, even if he has already forfeited his right to reply here, and I would also ask the committee to consider these two aspects.
The one issue is the promotion of human rights, as well as human dignity for prisoners, which I do not squabble with – my organisation and our government also support it. In fact, our struggle was based on the quest for human rights principally.
However, there is a perception in the South African citizenry that the human rights of inmates are better than the human rights of those whom they have offended in breaking the law. I think that is an issue that we have to address. For instance, if a rapist has been found guilty of rape, the rape act itself is dehumanising and it is degrading and it affects one’s human dignity. But in terms of international law and protocol you have to secure the human rights of a prisoner who has diminished and violated the human rights of a woman in raping and dehumanising her. So, I think these are the issues that we will have to go and look into.
The second issue is that of an inspecting judge not having the right to deal with issues of corruption and maladministration, in that this responsibility will be given to the investigating unit, which will be appointed by the national commissioner. Now, what happens if it is the national commissioner that is corrupt? Will the investigation unit that he or she appoints be impartial when it has to investigate and report on maladministration or corruption on the part of the person that appointed them?
These are the two critical issues that I would request be looked at. If the Minister had not forfeited his right to reply, I would sit here and wait for his response. But, because he has already forfeited his right to reply, I would hope that he would reply to me in writing at least, and that the committee would consider these two issues. I thank you.
Debate concluded.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRCA AND THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC
Ms F I CHOHAN: Chairperson, the first treaty is the extradition treaty before us today, which is a fairly standard treaty that we tend to deal with from time to time in the justice committee and, having considered the request for the approval of the extradition treaty between the Republic of South Africa and the Argentine Republic, the committee recommends the approval of the extradition treaty in terms of 231(2) of the Constitution.
We also want to put on record that should the House want us to embark on a study tour to Argentina to ensure that this extradition treaty is fully implemented we will have no objections as a committee and we will fully comply with such a request.
I am not sure if you want me to deal with the next one as well? [Interjections.] To where? Iran? We are waiting for that extradition treaty with bated breath and we volunteer fully. [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Are there any objections to the approval of the extradition treaty as it appears on the Order Paper? No objections.
Extradition Treaty between the Republic of South Africa and the Argentine Republic approved.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
Ms F I CHOHAN: This treaty is also a standard treaty that we deal with and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the request for approval of the treaty, recommends that the House approves it in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Are there any objections to the approval of the treaty between the Republic of South Africa and the Argentine Republic as it appears on the Order Paper? No objections.
Treaty between the Republic of South Africa and the Argentine Republic on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters approved.
Consideration of request for approval by parliament of convention between the government of the republic of south Africa and the swiss confederation for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF Convention between the government of the republic of south Africa and the government of the Portuguese republic for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF Convention between the government of the republic of south Africa and the government of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income
Mr N M NENE: Chairperson, I had not decided on the country where we would want to take our study tour. [Interjections.] That is a very good suggestion. We have these three conventions here which, on behalf of the committee, I would like to also implore this House to adopt.
These conventions before the House today are an important feature of our democratic order as we relate to other countries outside of our borders in relation to taxes. The main purpose of these agreements is to remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment. We have three of them; the first one is between our country and the Swiss Confederation, the next one is with the Portuguese Republic and then with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The double taxation agreements between South Africa and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Portuguese Republic are new agreements, and the one with Switzerland is a renegotiation of an existing agreement.
The convention with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia comes shortly after the visit by our President to Saudi Arabia in March this year, and it is South Africa’s commitment to the relationship of the two countries. This agreement takes into account the unique nature of the two countries’ regimes and provides for tax certainty in the treatment of our professionals who work there. An exemption from tax in the host state is provided for two years in respect of teachers and researchers.
Article 20 of the agreement with the Portuguese Republic differs in that it refers to the exemption in respect of professors and researchers only. The chairperson of the committee was fully briefed by the department on these conventions both prior to the ratification and after, and we are satisfied that they are in line with our country’s policy and don’t undermine any of our macroeconomic imperatives.
Therefore, on behalf of the committee I wish to implore this Parliament to ratify these agreements. Thank you, Chairperson.
There was no debate.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Are there any objections to the approval by Parliament of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income as it appears on the Order Paper? There is no objection.
Convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income approved.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Are there any objections to the approval by Parliament of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Portuguese Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income as it appears on the Order Paper? No objections.
Convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Portuguese Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income approved.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Are there any objections to the approval by Parliament of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income as it appears on the Order Paper? No objection.
Convention between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income approved.
The House adjourned at 17:12. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
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, in terms of Joint Rule 160(6),
classified the following Bill as a section 76 Bill:
(a) Education Laws Amendment Bill [B 33 – 2007] (National
Assembly – sec 76).
(2) The Joint Tagging Mechanism, in terms of Joint Rule 160(6),
classified the following Bill as a section 75 Bill:
(a) Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of
Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B 34 – 2007] (National Assembly –
sec 75).
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Defence
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Armaments Corporation of
South Africa Limited (ARMSCOR) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 101-2007].
- The Minister for Public Enterprises
(a) Report and Financial Statements of Alexkor Limited for 2006-
2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007. 3. The Minister in The Presidency
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the International Marketing
Council of South Africa (IMC) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 144-2007].
- The Minister of Education
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African
Qualifications Authority (SAQA) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 168-2007].
- The Minister of Arts and Culture
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Natal Museum for 2006-
2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007.
(b) Report and Financial Statements of Blind SA for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007.
(c) Report and Financial Statements of the Voortrekker Museum –
Isigcinamagugu for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [PR 107-2007].