THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2007 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY


                                ____

The House met at 14:02.

The 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.

The SPEAKER: Order! The only item on today’s Order Paper is questions addressed to the President. Question 17 has been asked by the hon Tsenoli, and I call upon the hon the President. [Applause.]

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I have that question as question 19. I don’t know whether I should answer it. You called it number 17.

The SPEAKER: That question according to the “bottle” is number 19. Progress made by government regarding Sustainable Rural Development Programme and Urban Renewal Programme

1. Mr S L Tsenoli (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:

   What progress has the Government made in the past six years regarding the (a) Sustainable Rural Development Programme and (b) Urban Renewal Programme? N53ENG

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, that’s much better. So we are talking about the same thing. With regard to this question relating to sustainable rural development and the urban renewal programme, when we announced these programmes in 2001, government committed itself to focus its support for a period of 10 years on the 8 urban and 13 rural nodes in an effort to address the neglect of the past, so as to bring a better life to our people.

At the time of the announcement of the two programmes, the local government system as we know it today was only two months old. It was anticipated that the challenge for the next 10 years would be to get the three spheres of government to work together in a coherent manner, to use their combined resources to make a visible difference in the lives of both the rural and poor.

This requires special interventions with regard to resource allocations and support, while ensuring integration, co-ordination and sustainability of the programmes. Indeed, we have made progress with regard to both the integrated and sustainable rural development and the urban renewal programme.

In terms of intergovernmental co-operation, these urban and rural nodes are the sites where many national and provincial sector governments received their first experience of what it means to support local government. These have now used those experiences they gained in the nodes to improve the way in which they support local government in general.

In terms of delivery of basic services, good results have indeed been achieved. I can site many of these – the Kalahari district, Ugu in KwaZulu- Natal, O R Tambo, Alexandra Township, Chris Hani and Bushbuckridge. Let me just say about Bushbuckridge, just as an example, that today 74 000 households now have access to clean water and 12 000 households which have water meters now receive free basic water.

Rural villages where no reticulation systems are in place receive free basic water, extracted from boreholes and delivered by means of water trucks on a daily basis. Diesel and electricity are supplied free of charge to communities to pump the water from the boreholes. Free basic electricity is currently supplied to 64 000 households, while a further 1 200 households make use of alternative energy such as solar power. At the same time, access to land and the slow rate of the resolution of land claims has continuously been a problem in all the nodes. This has a negative effect on the pace of both social and economic development. Even where development has taken place, the looming land claims hinder further development and progress. The Mbizana local municipality, for example, indicates that the town is subject to land claims, making it difficult for them to develop further.

Successes have not only been in terms of basic services, but in some of the nodes, especially the urban townships, the co-ordinated presence of the whole of government has succeeded in building a platform for the first significant private sector investment in large townships in almost 20 years. The approach we followed was to cluster public sector investment in the nodes.

This resulted in the creation of government public services nodes in these townships with different sector departments investing together in new facilities close to communities, as well as resulting in attracting the first new private sector investment in these townships; and I have said, in last 20 years.

Examples of these you can find in Khayelitsha CBD; public services; retail; public transport interchange; and recreational facilities in KwaMashu town centre; the Bridge City – Inanda, which is currently under construction; and in the Pan-African Square development in Alexandra township - also currently under construction. The neighbourhood development partnership grant, which we announced in 2006, builds on these early successes and will allow us to significantly accelerate the pace of development in townships across the country. It is also clear that these achievements that have focused on improving the quality of life in the nodes cannot be sustained without giving attention to this particular matter of economic activity.

In July this year we launched the Thembokwezi Development in the Khayelitsha urban node. This development is the product of a partnership between the three spheres of government and Old Mutual. This impressive development seeks to establish an attractive residential and commercial precinct centrally located in the medium and high-density area of Site C in Khayelitsha, and will incorporate core social needs of the community as well as a viable and sustainable commercial development.

When completed, the development will comprise 564 middle-income housing units, 15 000 square metres of retail space, 5 000 square meters of office space, and 5 000 square metres of maintained public open space. Of greatest significance with this R350 million development is the fact that a determination has been made that there is sufficient economic capacity in this urban poverty node to sustain such a development. Further, an undertaking has been made to source the majority of the labour required during the construction period, as well as beyond, from within the same node. There are other examples that I can or maybe will give, but that is certainly our first response. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S L TSENOLI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr President, the response you have given points to important progress. Would you agree, sir, that we could improve the quality by pooling especially public sector resources to speed up the kind of progress that you have already referred to?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, certainly, hon member, a matter that we have been trying to tackle from the very beginning of these programmes is the need to ensure an integrated approach by all spheres of government, and within each sphere, all departments, to act together to pool the resources in that way. Therefore, to ensure that as departments plan their work on a yearly, or three-yearly basis or whatever, the plans they put in place must relate to those of other spheres and other departments and sectors in government, so that all of these things are co- ordinated.

It is a complex process and we earlier agreed on a protocol that would govern this particular matter. The intergovernmental relations framework legislation also assists in this regard, but I would indeed agree with you that we probably need to do more work to achieve the outcome of a co- ordinated response by all these spheres of government. I thank you.

Mr M M SWATHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker and the hon President. The concept of this programme is a very good one. There was progress, especially in the urban areas, but as the portfolio committee we visited number of rural nodes where the progress is only on paper. I want to take Sekhukhune district as an example, where despite promises, after six years, people are still without running water and electricity in some villages. When will this programme start to deliver in these areas? I thank you, hon President. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I would agree with the hon member. He said so himself - that you will go some villages in Sekhukhune and find that there is no electricity. That statement also means that you will go to some villages in Sekhukhune and find that they do have electricity. [Applause.]

It is quite correct that indeed we cannot say that we have responded to all of the service needs in these nodes, as indeed elsewhere in the country. There is work that needs to be done, but the fact that there is more work that needs to be done does not mean that no work has been done.

I am very glad that the portfolio committee visits these nodes and makes the observations it does. I would be very happy, indeed, if the committee could feed into government, its own observations, as to what we need to do with regard to this. I don’t think we can proceed from the position that nothing has been done. We can say that about the nodes as with the rest of our country, whether in the nodes or outside of the nodes, that more needs to be done. On that we would agree, absolutely and entirely. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs S A SEATON: Thank you, hon President. I here what you are saying and I agree that a great deal has been done. I come from Ugu and I have seen what has been done. Alexandra township is an area where one can see that a lot has been done. Despite the fact that you said that a lot has been done in some places and not in others, there is also a tremendous amount not having been done at all. There are areas that have not really been tackled at all. Hon President, at what stage will all the nodes be worked in the way those at Alexandra and Ugu are? We would like to know, when will that progress be seen?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I would imagine that all of us here can understand that, given the problems that we are trying to address, we are not going to get 100% results overnight. I would imagine that we all accept that. With regard to the question that the hon Seaton has just asked, part of the problem relates to the matter that the hon Tsenoli raised.

You would have to look at, for instance, the capacity of the government structures in particular areas. Take Alexandra township, for instance. Part of the reason that it has made the progress that it has, is because it is situated in Gauteng and near Johannesburg. Therefore, it has the benefit of the Johannesburg Metro and the Gauteng provincial government. These are very important material factors in terms of making an impact with regard to this.

You may very well get to another part of the country, Ugu or Kalagadi or whatever, and find that the structures of government over there don’t have the same capacity. That is the actuality of the situation that you have to deal with, whereas Johannesburg Metro would have better capacity to impact on development in the Alexandra township.

It may very well be that another municipality wouldn’t have the same capacity to impact on the node that falls within that municipality. I wouldn’t imagine that you can answer that question in a general way. You can say: How do we accelerate progress in Ugu? What has made it impossible for us to move faster in Ugu? Then we can look at that and say, what are the factors that would impact on Ugu but not on Khayelitsha? They won’t impact on Alexandra township, KwaMashu or Inanda. [Interjections.]

Indeed, yes. So, I am saying, hon Seaton, we will have to look at the question differently and make it specific to each locality because that’s what would impact on the rate, speed and the pace of development in each of these localities. I hope the hon Seaton agrees. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr W P DOMAN: Madam Speaker and Mr President, I have a report here about the nodes, especially in the rural areas. The achievements that are claimed are about the students in the school, the increase in social grants, access to water, and so on. Those are also the things that you have alluded to. But, Mr President, what we really need is sustainable economic development in these areas, and especially in the rural areas. That is not forthcoming.

The second problem is that not all the departments seem to have bought into delivering those services to the people that they should. That was one of the main aims of these two programmes – that all departments should work together to address the backlog. Will you agree with me that we need economic development in these areas, and not only basic services? [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, indeed, absolutely. The hon member is perfectly correct. We do need that. Indeed this is a central part of these two programmes – local economic development. That is why I cited just the one example of Khayelitsha in this regard.

There are other examples that we can give with regard to this. For instance, Maruleng and the Bushbuckridge rural nodes. A particular economic development programme has been set up there, with finances committed to investment in agriculture, agri-processing and tourism. Some jobs have been created. Support has been given to small, medium and micro enterprises, or SMMEs. But I would agree very much with the hon member with regard to this.

In that context, I must say that as we do the municipal izimbizo - this is indeed one of the areas on which we focus on, because in many instances you find that the local councils do not have the capacity to elaborate meaningful local economic development programmes. They don’t have it. Many of them hire consultants to work out a local economic development programme for their locality. These consultants them come and dream up all sorts of marvellous things that are completely impracticable. But that is because of a lack of capacity in the municipality to do this.

So, this is one of the matters that we try to attend to. With regard to this we need better co-ordination between the Departments for Provincial and Local Government and of Trade and Industry, to be able to lend the capacity to these localities, to be able to elaborate on these economic development programmes. That is one of the problems.

In the end you have something which is presented as a local economic development, LED, programme, but which actually has no meaning. As a consequence, you can’t commit any resources to it. You have to go back to the beginning, and say what is real and possible.

The hon member would also have noticed that I mentioned a problem that has still not been solved – the resolution of the issue of land claims. It affects many rural areas. There can be a great deal of uncertainty as to what is going to happen to a particular piece of land. As a consequence, of course, whoever might have wanted to invest doesn’t, because they don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow. But I fully agree with you, hon member, that central to the success of these programmes must be the economic development in these areas so as to produce development that creates jobs and all of that.

In the meantime, we have to attend to the matter of ensuring that the poor in these areas - and one of the criteria that we have chosen was precisely the level of poverty - that the poorest in these areas receive this support by way of grants, this, that and the other, because they are poor. It is an important intervention, although it is not enough.

As the hon member is saying, we need to act on the issue of ensuring local economic development. I thank you.

South Africa’s role in upholding peace accord in Democratic Republic of the Congo

1. Mr P H K Ditshetelo (UCDP) asked the President of the Republic:

   Whether South Africa can play a role to keep the peace accord in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from collapsing, in view of the current conflicts; if not, why not; if so, what role?

           N57ENG
   

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, not so long ago, all of us joined the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in celebrating the achievement of peace, holding of elections and the establishment of a government after many decades – a government based on the will of the people. Indeed, immediately after that, one of the central tasks became the consolidation of and the defence of peace, and therefore the creation of the conditions necessary for the reconstruction of the country. As a government and as a country, we have indeed made a commitment to assist the DRC with regard to all of these matters.

Co-operation between us and the government of the DRC is governed by a general co-operation agreement, whose aim is to provide a broad framework for the promotion of political, social, economic and security co-operation between our countries. In the context of that agreement, we also undertook to render assistance in the DRC in the areas of politics and governance; defence and security; economy, finance and infrastructure; and social and humanitarian affairs.

Many of our departments are involved in a whole range of projects in the DRC, intended to achieve these goals. We are engaged in a programme of helping the DRC to develop the necessary capacity to defend itself, to strengthen peace and security in the country and to consolidate democracy. In this regard, we have concluded a memorandum of understanding with the DRC, in terms of which a South African detachment assisting with integration and training has been assigned the task of assisting the armed forces of the DRC with integration, demobilisation and training of former combatants. We are also assisting in the training of units of the national police force, the Police Nationale Congolaise.

Related to this is the work we are doing on security sector reform, the primary purpose of which is the translation of political control over the security mechanisms. This entails, among other things, the entrenchment of civilian-military relations and the rightsizing, capacitating and improvement of the level of skills and professionalism of the Congolese security forces.

In addition, we are party to a tripartite agreement between the DRC, Belgium and ourselves in terms of which we trained brigades that have been integrated into the DRC national army. At the recent meeting of the binational commission, we identified the development of a rapid reaction force and the establishment of about 33 battalions as another crucial element of help that we should provide to the DRC national army. South Africa has been assigned the task of training 3 of the 33 battalions immediately. The rapid reaction force would be used among other things to address the security situation in the eastern Congo.

We are indeed perturbed by the apparent escalation of armed conflict in the eastern part of the country and its consequences on the civilian population.

But, hon members will recall that the National Defence Force contingent is part of Monuc UN forces which are also deployed in the eastern part of the Congo, known as North Kivu among other things to render advice and assistance to the DRC’s national army and to support it with air reconnaissance; air transport for munitions, troops and the evacuation of the wounded; escorting humanitarian convoys; ensuring the security of the local population; as well as protecting the towns of Goma and Sake.

We are in contact with the governments of the DRC and Rwanda to address the security situation in the eastern Congo, and to find a peaceful solution to the challenges posed by the Nkunda forces and the Rwandan ex-FAR and Interahamwe armed groups that are still in eastern Congo, called the FDLR.

The reasons for the conflict in the DRC, both past and present, are numerous and complex. It is not unexpected that a country with such a past would take time to reach conditions of peace and stability. We are confident that the DRC government is attending to this matter with the necessary urgency and resolve, and we will continue to work with them in that regard. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker, we are grateful for the way that the President has addressed this question. Regarding the involvement of South Africa in the tripartite situation with Belgium, the DRC and ourselves, one would just go on to ask the President this question: Is there any possibility that South Africa could lend a hand in seeing to it that the dissident Gen Laurent Nkunda’s international warrant of arrest that was issued in 2005 is withdrawn so that, perhaps, he can be drawn to the discussion table and, perhaps, then see to it that we restore peace in the area?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: No, Madam Speaker, I do not imagine that it would be possible for us to intervene with regard to the processes of the International Criminal Court and such warrants that it may have issued. But what I can say is that the government of the DRC is interested in resolving this matter peacefully. Indeed, they have given that indication to Gen Nkunda, that they would prefer this matter to be resolved peacefully.

The government of Rwanda is not involved in this conflict but is interested in the eastern Congo because the people who committed the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 are still in eastern Congo, still armed and still, therefore, pose a threat to Rwanda. So, Rwanda is interested in this matter because of that. The Rwandan government is also not asking for war, but is asking for a resolution of the matter of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe in a peaceful manner. So, we are in discussion, as I indicated. We have been engaged in discussion and continue to be engaged in discussion with both the government of the DRC and of Rwanda to see what can be done to produce this peaceful solution.

I was pleased to hear in the media, last week, that Nkunda had said he is willing to have 500 of his people integrated into the Congolese armed forces, because that is part of the solution that has been proposed. All of these armed people who are with Nkunda would be integrated into the Congolese armed forces.

There would be a general amnesty that would be declared, affecting also Gen Nkunda, so that within the Congo, at least, they would not face the threat of arrest and all of that, so that we can indeed take this armed group, integrate it into the national army and give the task of protecting the population in the east, including the Banyamulenge, to the national army rather than to the militia that constitute themselves and are claiming that they have the task and responsibility to protect this minority population.

No, hon member, we would not want to intervene with regard to the procedures of the International Criminal Court. But, certainly, what we have to do, acting together with the Congolese and the Rwandan governments to the extent that they are concerned with this matter, is to see what can be done to find a peaceful solution to this matter. If it’s not solved, indeed it will complicate not only the security situation in the Congo, but also the relations among the countries in the Great Lakes region. I am confident that we will move this matter forward. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

Mr L K JOUBERT: Madam Speaker, Mr President, one of the requirements in public international law regarding the recognition of the state is that it should have the capacity to enforce its laws throughout its territory. Now, it appears that in the DRC they don’t have that capacity. Given the size and population of the DRC, has at any stage consideration been given to solving the problem by dividing the DRC into more than one state? If not, why not? I thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, the hon member knows that our government and the country have been working with the Congolese on the matter of this transition and the restoration of democracy and all of this for some years now. In all of the years that we have been interacting with the Congolese, from all parts of the Congo, all different political organisations, civil society and the religious community and so on, I have never ever come across any Congolese who has suggested that the DRC should be divided into different states. If there is such a view, I do not imagine that it comes from the Congolese people. It might come from somewhere else.

I think that even if you see the manner in which the elections took place last year for the national legislature, provincial legislatures, national government and for the president, there was a response from the Congolese population from all parts of the Congo to elect a government and parliament representing the entirety of the people of the Congo. I really do not have a sense that there is any feeling for secession.

Now, it is true that there are indeed challenges with regard to the matter the hon member has raised, concerning the capacity of the state to enforce its laws. Indeed, that is true. But one, of course, has to understand where the DRC comes from and understand what happened to the country during all of those years when Mobutu was head of state, which included the virtual collapse of the state system and the disappearance of the capacity to govern in the Congo. That’s indeed part of what we are helping the Congolese to address.

Yes, indeed, this matter will be a feature of the present-day Congo regarding that capacity of the government to enforce the laws everywhere in the Congo. That will happen. But I think that’s a consequence of that past. I do not think it should lead to a conclusion that, because there is a process of recovery, therefore we should in any sense encourage any notion of the fragmentation of Congo. Certainly, I haven’t come across this sentiment anywhere in the Congo and we have been dealing with the Congolese in this transition for 10 years now. In any case, I don’t think it would be good, also for the continent, to contemplate such an outcome. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, hon President, last month Gen Laurent Nkunda called for another ceasefire between his soldiers and government troops and said he was then ready to start integrating his fighters, once again, into the national army. On the other hand, it was reported that the DRC government ruled out further negotiations with Laurent Nkunda, as they saw him as a criminal. They chose rather to send reinforcements to the areas of conflict.

Now, will the President support the DRC’s President Kabila who is determined to stamp out rebel violence in the eastern North Kivu province, or will the President try to persuade President Kabila to continue trying to negotiate a peaceful political settlement with the rebel leader in spite of the fact that he seems to be refusing to reintegrate his forces into the national army?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, the government of the DRC did enter into discussions with Laurent Nkunda, seeking a peaceful resolution of this matter. Some elements of the agreement that the Congolese sought were that a general amnesty would be given to everybody involved with Nkunda, preferably starting with Nkunda, so that nobody would face the possibility of an arrest for mutiny and so on. Secondly, all of these forces would then be integrated into the Congolese national army. Gen Nkunda argues that he and his friends have taken this position to form this militia in order to protect the Banyamulenge population in the eastern Congo, which he feels is threatened, for instance, by the people who came from Rwanda who had committed the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994, in Rwanda, and who have been in the eastern Congo since then and are still armed. He claims that that group is threatening the Congolese Tutsi population in the eastern Congo, and therefore would need this armed force in order to protect them. The Congolese government then says, quite correctly, “But that’s the responsibility of the Congolese government. These are Congolese nationals and every citizen of the Congo is entitled to be protected by the government of Congo.”

Therefore amnesty and integration were put forward to solve this matter; and the protection of everybody in the Congo, including the Banyamulenge in the east, is the responsibility of the Congolese army and the Congolese government. That’s the offer the government made. Well, in the end, Gen Nkunda did not accept that. That’s what led to the violent confrontation because, obviously, the Congolese government could not accept a situation where, for instance, Thabo Mbeki decides to set up his own army and plants himself somewhere in Cape Town. Lekota would have to instruct his armed forces to attack me, naturally. So, that is what happened.

Then the Congolese government, after that first attack this year, stopped the attack and made the offer again. There was no response from Gen Nkunda. Then there was a second attack that pushed the Nkunda forces closer to the border of Rwanda. Again, the Congolese government stopped and gave a deadline saying, “By this date, let’s act on this thing. If we don’t act by that date, then of course we will resume the military offensive.” Nkunda then said he was ready for 500 of his people to be integrated.

The Congolese government has extended the ultimatum to give more time to Nkunda and his people to respond to this. So, the essential point, hon Meshoe, is that the Congolese government seeks a peaceful resolution of this matter and all of us seek a peaceful resolution of this matter. We can only hope that Gen Nkunda will understand that, because it is not possible for the Congolese government to allow some sovereign military force in the Congo and not act against it.

However, they would rather not do that and instead resolve the matter via this route of integration and reconciliation. Indeed, this would include steps that would be taken to make sure that the population in the east, which Gen Nkunda says he is representing and protecting, is properly represented in all structures of government so that you don’t just integrate the armed forces but that the population itself must also feel that it has a voice in all of these systems of government.

That’s the framework for the resolution of this matter, including the resolution of the matter of the people in eastern Congo, who committed the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. That has to be dealt with, because as long as those people are there, as long as the Tutsi population in the eastern Congo feels threatened, so long will Rwanda feel threatened. So, that’s another matter which the Congolese government is very interested to resolve, so that we don’t have that situation as a point of tension.

So, all of us, all the time, appeal to Gen Nkunda to listen to what in reality is a voice of reason. In the end, he also must know that there is absolutely no possibility for that armed group of his to survive forever in the eastern Congo. It will get destroyed if it doesn’t come into this process and take the preferred route, which is a peaceful resolution of this question. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr R S NTULI: Chairperson, we in the ANC still believe that South Africa can and should play a facilitating role. Why do we say so? Because our experience in the negotiation process of Codesa, that is Codesa 1 and Codesa 2, and among different groupings in our country taught us that a permanent solution can only be facilitated if all role-players or interested parties come on board at the negotiating table. Learning from our past experience, we recall that some political parties wanted a Boerestaat, others wanted a federal state, some even wanted to take us to the Republic of Azania. The dissolved New NP, as a brainchild of the now defunct NP, which was under the stewardship of a credible man like Mr F W de Klerk, on 30 June 1996 walked out of the government of national unity. Thus the facilitating role of South Africa can be to mediate between the rebel militias and the government of President Joseph Kabila. Therefore, Comrade President, what is your comment on this view? [Laughter.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon member, I want to agree very much - I thought that’s what I was trying to explain. [Laughter.] Yes, indeed, we are working on this matter and we are in very good and regular contact with the government of the Congo to see in what way we can assist in that mediation process so that the eastern Congo becomes, like the rest of the Congo, peaceful. Thanks for the encouragement, hon member. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Government assistance to apartheid victims permitted by US Appellate Court to proceed with class-action suit

1. Mr L M Green (FD) asked the President of the Republic:

   Whether the Government will assist the victims of apartheid who were recently given permission by the US Appellate Court to proceed with a class action against 23 multinational corporations that supported the apartheid government; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? N58ENG

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, when a class-action suit was instituted in 2003 against multinational corporations that had not disinvested from South Africa during the years of apartheid and others that had dealt with the apartheid regime, government stated that it would not be party to such litigation then and in the future.

When government presented, for the attention of Parliament, its response to the recommendations of the TRC in April 2003, we stated that it was completely unacceptable that matters that were central to the future of our country should be adjudicated in foreign courts which bore no responsibility for the wellbeing of our country and the observance of the perspective contained in our Constitution on the promotion of national reconciliation.

Now, with regard to the particular matter that the hon member refers to – this decision taken by the US Appellate Court – when that decision was handed down, there was a dissenting judge, Judge Korman. Judge Korman eloquently explained why the case should be dismissed based on deference to the views of the governments of the United States and of South Africa as to the effect of these cases on US international relations and particularly because these matters should be properly addressed within South Africa’s political and legal processes.

According to Judge Korman, and I quote: “A decision to hear these cases would reflect the worst sort of judicial imperialism … and send the message that the United States does not respect the ability of South African society to administer justice by implying that US courts are better placed to judge the pace and degree of South Africa’s national reconciliation.”

We took the same position, knowing full well the appalling ravages of colonialism and apartheid. Our stance is primarily informed by a desire to ensure that as South Africans we remain fully responsible for our own programmes to rebuild our country.

We appreciate that our people understood and accepted that what reparations were disbursed consequent to the recommendations of the TRC, could only be symbolic as they could never comprehensively and adequately recompense any single person.

The impact of white-minority domination, implemented so systematically and thoroughly over many years and throughout our country, spanning virtually every facet of our lives, affected virtually all black people, and in various respects some individuals from the white community.

The freedom and democracy that we attained in 1994, therefore, represent the most fitting and profound reparation for those of us fortunate to have survived the nightmare. Freedom and democracy and the programmes of social reconstruction and development constitute the most comprehensive response to the crime of apartheid.

We also, of course, do recognise that individuals and communities affected by specific acts of gross human rights violations deserve specific reparations. This is precisely what the TRC process sought to achieve – and much more still needs to be done to ensure that its recommendations, as accepted by government and by Parliament, are indeed implemented.

The variety of programmes in this regard includes individual reparations in respect of which the overwhelming majority of individuals identified by the TRC, and/or their relatives, have been traced. Efforts are still under way to identify the rest of the TRC-designated “victims”.

The programmes include assistance in areas of education, health, housing and other services; and, while joint and individual projects are being implemented by various departments, our programmes in this regard may indeed need to be improved. There are also community reparations, and we are working with the business community for them to make a contribution to the programmes that government is implementing in the selected nodes. With regard to monuments and name changes, hon members should be familiar with the work being done in this area.

As government, of course, we also recognise the right of individuals or communities to pursue their specific grievances through the courts, within and outside South Africa. However, for reasons that we have advanced, government has not deigned in the past, and does not intend in future to form part of such class actions.

Indeed, we wish to call on the business community in our country, both domestic and foreign, to work with us to implement the programmes of reconstruction and development, as well as the specific projects proposed by the TRC, the better to ensure comprehensive redress arising from the consequences of the apartheid years. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, Mr President, thank you for your response. I can understand why the US government should come to the defence of multinational companies, because most of these multinational companies are based in America and, of course, the US benefits the most from these companies. But I actually fail to understand why our own government, which has been elected by the majority of the people who are victims of apartheid and who are bearing the brunt of the legacy of apartheid, should come to the defence of these multinationals in a US court at the expense of our own people.

These multinationals have the best legal resources because they can afford them and they do not need our government to defend them. It is improper and morally inexcusable for our government to prop up the defence of these multinationals which aided and abetted the apartheid regime and which had the opportunity to make full disclosure before the TRC in order to receive amnesty.

Now, the opportunity being lost and given, the fact that the US Appellate Court has ruled in favour of Khulumani, my question to the President is: Does our government have any intention to further support these multinationals in court at the expense of the victims of apartheid when Khulumani argues the merits of the case, and what progress has been made with the disaster relief fund to assist these victims in terms of the TRC Act of 1995? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, it is clear that the hon Green and myself have been following different cases, because he is talking about the South African government supporting multinationals, acting in a US court in defence of the multinationals. The South African government has done no such thing at all. Now, I don’t know where he gets this. That is why I am saying that he is following a different case from the one that I’m following. [Applause.]

What we are defending, hon Green, is not multinationals. What we are defending is the sovereign right of the people of South Africa to decide their future. That is what we are defending. [Applause.] We are saying, in terms of all these matters that have to do with the past, what do we do with the past? How do we change things? How do we deal with reparations – whatever it is that arises from the past?

The best-placed people to answer those questions are we, not a judge in a US court. Now, if you think a judge in a US court should address that; that’s your view. I don’t agree. That’s why I was quoting the American judge, Judge Korman, who was quite right: “A decision to hear these cases in a US court would reflect the worst sort of judicial imperialism … and send the message that the United States does not respect the ability of South African society to administer justice by implying that US courts are better placed to judge the pace and degree of South Africa’s national reconciliation.” Judge Korman is right.

Now, what you are doing, hon Green, is to invite what Judge Korman calls “US judicial imperialism”. I can’t understand why any South African would want to be brought under such judicial imperialism. Why do you find it attractive? It can’t be. [Applause.]

This is a matter that we must resolve, hon Green. If the hon Green and anybody else should feel that they are aggrieved about something that happened during the apartheid days, don’t take it to New York, bring it to Cape Town. [Applause.] Then we’ll deal with it here. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, Mr President, in this instance I rise – and I repeat – I rise to support the President. [Applause.] In fact, I was going to say that I will rise in his defence against the hon Green, but he has so eloquently dealt with Green … [Laughter.] … therefore my defence is superfluous.

However, Mr President, I would like to invite you to comment on two further considerations. The one is that surely we must not support an action which is not found in our own law, because I doubt most sincerely that our South African law will allow that type of action.

Secondly, on a matter of practicality, and you have alluded to history: where do you draw the line - at the concentration camps in South Africa? Then, do I have a claim against the Roman Catholic Church for having forced Jacques Delport out of France during the persecution of the Huguenots? You cannot deal with history in that manner, and think that by all sorts of class actions you can come to wipe out what happened in the past. You are fully correct, Mr President, and I invite your comment. So my question is: Do you agree that it lies within our hearts to make the necessary reparations against one another?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: This is a good day, because I stand here fully in agreement with the hon Delport. [Laughter.] [Applause.] I do indeed, hon Delport, agree. The first thing we need to do with regard to matters of this kind, in my view, is say, “What do we want to achieve?” And we have made this point very, very clear here that we want to achieve national reconciliation. We want to ensure that the past does not continue to dictate our future. Therefore we have to deal with all of these things in a particular way. This is where we want to go. Indeed, if the Delport family decided to sue the Catholic Church for what they did to Jacques Delport, I would really discourage that, because it wouldn’t help us. [Laughter.]

Of course, I have no doubt at all that the hon Green was speaking honestly in posing this question and arguing in the manner that he did. There does need to be reparation with regard to those that were harmed by apartheid. I am sure that he was speaking honestly and genuinely, and all of us would agree with him.

The question, hon Green, is how best to do that; how to achieve that reparation within the context of what the country has agreed is the direction that we need to take in order to achieve that national reconciliation. That is the question to ask, and I would agree, hon Delport

• you are a lawyer, I’m not – that you are probably right about matters that relate to law, but that really in all respects it cannot be that there is somebody outside South Africa who is wiser about what should happen to us as a people than we ourselves. It cannot be. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Ms C B JOHNSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr President, flowing from what you have just said about national reconciliation, at the time of the TRC process you said: “There is a need for understanding but not for vengeance; a need for reparation but not for retaliation; a need for ubuntu but not for victimisation.”

Now, Mr President, flowing from the recent prosecution of apartheid-era crimes in terms of the National Prosecuting Authority, there are people who are saying that it would be in the interest of national reconciliation to have a second TRC. What would your comment be on that and do you not think that it could undermine the outcome of the first TRC? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: No, I wouldn’t agree personally, Madam Speaker. Certainly, in government we have not at all discussed any possibility of a second TRC. I think we would have to respect all the circumstances that led all of us to agree to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to respect the decisions that were taken, for instance, by the Constitutional Court, with regard to the TRC processes, and so on.

I think it is important that we do that. I do not believe that it would be correct that we have a second TRC. It is true that there are people – as President of the Republic I have many requests for pardon of people - who are serving jail sentences, having been convicted for what they believe to be the sort of offences that would have been indemnified in terms of the TRC process.

The hon members would remember that the cut-off date, in terms of the offences that could be considered by the TRC and its amnesty committee, was 10 May 1994. But all of us know very well that the violence that had been afflicting our country did not stop on 10 May 1994, when Nelson Mandela was installed as President of the Republic, and that conflict continued beyond 10 May.

Many of the people who have asked that we should consider pardoning them are people who were involved in actions after 10 May 1994, and, as I say, who then claim that those actions can be defined in the same way as the actions that were considered by the amnesty committee with regard to offences that took place before 10 May. That’s what they say.

So there is a challenge: what do we do about that? This is because the practicality of life goes beyond the law. The law said, “These are the cut- off dates and this is what the TRC should do from this date to that date”, but the evolution of our country wasn’t bound by those processes. So I am only saying that there is a problem. I do not believe that it requires a second TRC, but we can’t pretend there are not requests sitting with the President that say, “Can you please deal with this matter?”

We have to deal with it and it does indeed involve a large number of people. Quite how we are going to deal with it is a big challenge. Whatever happens with regard to this matter, we would certainly have to bring it back to Parliament and say together, “What do we do to respond to this challenge?”

The hon Koos van der Merwe once brought a cake into the House to try to sweeten our tongues so that we could respond to a request that he had tabled which concerned this kind of person. We are trying to deal with this matter. We are really reflecting deeply on it – but it is difficult. It’s challenging because we do not want, in any way, to undermine or act in a way that would in effect undermine the TRC process. But, certainly, there has been no consideration of the establishment of a second TRC. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Mrs P DE LILLE: Madam Speaker, in the whole debate around reconciliation, hon President, I can recall that at one stage we were talking about a community reparation policy. I just want to find out whether we do have such a policy and where we can get hold of it.

The Khulumani support group, I think, requested it, from what I read in the papers, from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, but it has not been forthcoming. I just want to know whether such a policy does exist. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon member, as I tried to indicate in my first response to this question, of course the challenge with all of this is that there is no community in our country that does not require reparation. There is not any black community in South Africa that would not say, even in the context of what was defined as gross violations of human rights in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, that these are the gross human rights violations we suffered – urban and rural. So, what is the response to this?

It is not as though it’s possible to say, “Here is what happened at Crossroads; let’s do a community reparation programme specific to Crossroads”. Then you would need 10 000 of them – each specific to the 10 000 communities that were affected in different ways, but affected nevertheless.

So, the response to it, as I was trying to indicate, is that we have to deal as vigorously and in as sustained a manner as possible to the fundamental issue of the legacy of the past. So, all of these issues about development, water and electricity, and roads, and houses, and health, and jobs, and education, and so on are in reality the only reparation that can go to the people.

It is the freedom they got; it is the change in their conditions of life for the better; it is a safer life without crime; and, indeed, I must say, hon De Lille, it is also about the arrest of any such people who did crooked things with regard to the defence acquisition, a subject that is very close to your heart. Let us arrest them and lock them up. That is part of the reparation process. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

    Implications and outcomes of India-Brazil-South Africa Summit

1. Ms F Hajaig (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:

   What are the implications and outcomes of the recent India-Brazil- South Africa (IBSA) Summit for Africa and developing countries in general? N54ENG

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. With regard to IBSA, India-Brazil-South Africa, the participating member states of the IBSA Dialogue Forum have, indeed, since its inception in 2003, always understood that the forum was more than a trilateral initiative intended to benefit solely their own citizens. Indeed, the three countries have consistently reasserted their commitment to ensuring that globalisation benefits especially the developing countries.

In this regard, IBSA has sought to contribute to the efforts of the countries of the South to establish an international political, economic and social order that is fair, representative and equitable. Similarly, the forum has pledged to contribute to the renaissance of the African continent through support for the socio-economic development plan of the African Union, Nepad.

Against this background, the 2nd IBSA Summit held in Tshwane on 17 October 2007, among other things, reflected on the WTO Doha Development Round of trade negotiations and reaffirmed the commitment of the three countries to carry out negotiations towards an outcome that is fair and acceptable to all. Of particular importance, the forum reiterated the centrality of the development dimension of the round and welcomed the strengthened engagement, solidarity and co-operation among developing countries in that process.

Hon members will of course be aware that these three countries, IBSA, are together in the G20 group that is one of the negotiating groups in the WTO process. We are together in the NAMA-G11 group of developing countries that is negotiating the non-agricultural market access issues, and of course, all three of us are also part of the G5 developing countries that continue to engage the G8.

The summit also emphasised the need for the re-organisation of the global system of governance, with the United Nations assuming its pre-eminent role in that regard. It especially expressed its full support for a genuine reform and expansion of the Security Council, both in permanent and non- permanent categories of membership, with greater representation for developing countries in both categories. We, accordingly, called for the immediate commencement of the intergovernmental negotiations relating to the reform of the Security Council.

We also expressed ourselves on the challenges facing the global community on the issue of climate change, noting, of course, that it had a disproportionately high impact on developing countries, particularly with regard to their vulnerability, inadequate means and limited capacities to respond adequately to its effects.

We also addressed the matters of the Millennium Development Goals, which relate to all of the developing countries, and some decisions were taken as to what we need to do in this regard. That includes the matter of continuing to address the issue of the debt that is owed by developing countries, fast-tracking official development assistance flows and of course reductions in the inequalities in the international trading systems.

The IBSA Summit therefore underscored the significance of adequate, new and additional financing for the adaptation efforts of developing countries without diverting resources for development.

The IBSA Summit supported the Pan-African Infrastructure Development Fund, and indeed, as the hon member would be aware, we also have established a poverty and hunger alleviation fund, renamed the IBSA Fund Facility for South-South Co-operation, with the purpose of assisting other developing countries. In this regard, projects are already being implemented or envisaged in Burundi, Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau in Africa, and in Timor Leste, Laos and Palestine in Asia.

These outcomes of the 2nd summit of the IBSA Dialogue Forum demonstrate the importance that, indeed, all of us attach to promoting the interests not only of India, Brazil and South Africa, but, given the weight and place of the three countries in the global community, also to their role in ensuring that we do indeed focus on the interests and concerns of developing countries in general. Thank you.

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Madam Speaker, let me express my sincere gratitude to the President for his elaborate response. Now, hon President, given the extent to which some countries are most vulnerable in terms of poverty and hunger, in particular women and children, what progress has been made thus far by IBSA in this sector?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Well, Madam Speaker, as I was indicating, we established IBSA in 2003, and one of the things that we have done is to set up this fund to address precisely the matters to which the hon member refers, namely poverty and hunger.

I have indicated some of the projects and countries to which we are committed, either actually already involved or planned, to deal with these matters related to poverty and hunger. So, we will continue that programme. We are concerned to ensure that, in fact, those interventions are actually effective and producing the results that are intended with regard to the issues of poverty and hunger.

That is also part of the reason why we are so focused on the matter of the Doha Development Round, and, as I’ve indicated, particularly on the development nature of those negotiations. It’s called the Doha Development Round because it’s supposed to impact on development and therefore to reduce hunger and poverty.

I’m saying that is precisely the reason why we are so focused on that and indeed keenly interested that this process should be speeded up so that we end these negotiations in a manner that will produce that development with regard to the poor and the hungry of the world. That is why, also, I have referred to matters of the Millennium Development Goals and issues about flows of overseas development assistance.

We are even now, hon member, involved in a discussion with some of the G8 countries to try and elaborate a focus programme with regard to those Millennium Development Goals, to ask, for instance - one of these Millennium Development Goals relates to education; universal access to primary education, education of the girl-child and all of that – do the resources exist? Has the developed world given the resources for us to achieve that goal by 2015? Secondly, I’m saying we’re engaging some of the developed countries to get that question answered. As a related question that we have to answer, particularly on the African continent, we have to ask whether the continent has the capacity to spend that money if it is available.

I’m giving you that example just to indicate that, indeed, with regard to IBSA and its concerns about the rest of the developing countries, we want to get down to that kind of detail so that we do indeed produce these positive outcomes for countries that are poor, people who are hungry, but that indeed we don’t just use IBSA to strengthen and develop our own countries and our own peoples, but also have an impact on the lives of other people in the developing world. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

Mr H J BEKKER: Hon President, the IFP is very strongly in favour of the broadening of trade and other relations, particularly as far as international policy is concerned, and even in our economic policy we endeavour to broaden additional trade blocs.

In this regard we regarded the European Union and the ACP, or Asian- Caribbean-Pacific, actions very, very positively. Similarly with the Asian Tigers, but Mercosur has shown us the very importance of the Southern American states, and particularly that of Brazil. You will find a very strong ally in the IFP, particularly with the outcomes and the future with regard to the IBSA process and the way forward. My question, Mr President, is, would the apparent inability that we do find among some of our African countries, and the SADC nations, to a certain extent, to be right on the ball with us in this whole thing, hamstring us in going forward, or do we perhaps need to have an approach in that we say we go forward regardless of this, and should they then at a later stage come on board, that we simply will have to leave them behind for the time being? That is my question.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I must express my appreciation for the hon Bekker’s offer of forming an alliance on this matter, but I don’t think we should be allied going in the wrong direction. [Interjections.]

I think that the countries of the continent understand very well the need, first of all, for regional co-operation within the continent. All of these regional economic communities, whether it is SADC or ECOWAS or whatever, I think the countries of the continent understand the critical importance of achieving that regional integration.

The matter of how you achieve it, of course, becomes a challenge, as, for instance, the simple matter of saying let us open our borders, let us have free-trade areas and so on, but do you have the transport means to move the goods between those countries? The decision might be quite correct and very good; but no roads, no rail, no whatever. So I am saying I don’t think there’s a general reluctance.

The African continent also understands the importance of forming these partnerships with other areas of the world in any case. The continent is already part of those arrangements, as you’ve referred to quite correctly, through the ACP. The African continent is in a particular relationship with the European Union anyway. It doesn’t have to be argued. The United States, with its AGOA, established a particular relationship with the African continent.

The challenge is not reluctance, not unwillingness to move, as a consequence of which we should then take a decision that we will move on our own and the rest will follow, but the challenge is to answer all of the questions on detail that always, always arise when you’ve got negotiation agreements of this kind.

Let us negotiate these things and let’s agree, rather than to say we’ll go it alone, because in the end I do not believe that that going it alone would in any case be in the interests of South Africa either.

I do not perceive a sense of reluctance, but it’s not easy. Even, hon Bekker, when you look at the straightforward matter of the capacity to negotiate, to have the human resources, the people with the skill and all of that to be able to sit and negotiate an agreement, that in itself can serve as an obstacle. However, I think it would be incorrect, really, for us to say let’s go it alone and the rest will catch up with us. Thank you.

Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon President, given the delay in the finalisation of the WTO Doha Development Round of talks, the ACDP welcomes IBSA’s commitment to the India-Mercosur-SACU trilateral free-trade agreement and initial discussions held in this regard.

In view of the fact that the parties involved in the IBSA Summit “urge the need for sustained efforts to realise early an India-Mercosur-SACU free- trade agreement,” what are the steps that will be taken to achieve this goal of a free-trade agreement, and will this have any impact on the WTO Doha Development Round of trade negotiations, which, the IBSA Summit recognised, was entering a critical stage? In other words, would such a trilateral free-trade agreement strengthen the hand of the developing nations vis-à-vis the developed nations? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I’m quite certain that it would, Madam Speaker, because an agreement among ourselves as developing countries would have to be predicated on the matter of development that such a free-trade area would have to be focused on the matter of addressing poverty and underdevelopment in our countries.

We couldn’t negotiate an agreement between the three regions – SACU, India and Mercosur - which would result in increasing poverty in any of these countries. Indeed, I’m quite certain that it would communicate a message as to how to structure these international trade relations in a manner that helps us to address this challenge of poverty.

What is required is that, as we are saying regarding what steps would be taken, we just have to begin the negotiations, set up the necessary teams, etc. There is indeed a very firm commitment to move on this matter, because it’s a very strong feeling, not only in the governments in the three countries, but also in civil society and business in all three countries that, in fact, these three countries can do things together which would have a very critical impact in terms of development, including this question of addressing poverty.

Yes, hon member, I would say that, indeed, it would give a good example as to the sort of outcome that we would want out of the WTO process. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mrs S M CAMERER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr President, as you have indicated, during the past couple of years, we’ve put a considerable amount of effort into the IBSA Dialogue Forum, with 10 focal point meetings of Ministers and senior officials. Also, as you have indicated, two presidential summits, and one of the positive spin-offs has been to enhance the recognition by the international community of the increasingly important status of this group of emerging markets. You indicated one of the dividends was the fund facility which is able to fund projects. You mentioned Guinea-Bissau, Burundi and Palestine, among others.

Could you give the House an indication of what is in the fund at present to undertake these projects and, in this connection, may I draw your attention to what Deputy Minister Van der Merwe said in this House in May? She said:

We are starting to translate foreign policy outcomes from global platforms, such as IBSA, into programmes at the national level …

So perhaps the President could indicate if any such programmes for South Africa received attention at the past presidential summit – I think it was last month – and if so, what they are. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon member will pardon me, because I won’t be able to answer the question. I can answer the question, but it’s somewhat of a different question.

You see, the question that was posed, hon member, had to do with, not the impact of the IBSA forum on the IBSA country, but the impact of IBSA on the rest. Now, I can answer the question about the issue, for instance, that you say was raised, quite correctly, by the hon Deputy Minister Sue van der Merwe about the internal programmes that we have to implement arising out of the IBSA Summit.

I can, but it’s a different question, and I did mislead myself when I first read the question and thought that it was what the hon Camerer was asking, so I have a seven-page answer here for that question about the impact domestically of these programmes, but I do not think this is the place to do that.

I wouldn’t know, honestly, how much money is in the kitty, with regard to that fund, but I’m sure that it’s a piece of information that we can supply. Perhaps what I should do is to send her a copy of this response about the internal implications of the IBSA process. That we can also do, rather than for me to answer it now. Thanks, Madam Speaker.

  Government policy on racial composition of national sports teams

1. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) asked the President of the Republic:

   With regard to comments he made in 2002 that for two to three years we should not mind losing international competitions because we are bringing our people into these teams, (a) how has this been given effect in government policy on national sports teams up to now and (b) how will it affect government policy on the racial composition of national sports teams in the future? N59ENG

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows that all sporting federations in South Africa are autonomous - with the federations responsible for their day to day activities, including the selection of national teams. Although we adhere to this practice, it does not detract from government’s responsibility to accelerate transformation in sport; making sport accessible to all South Africans; making more funds available to school sport; and establishing academy systems and sporting facilities that will facilitate talented athletes to reach their full potential.

To assist in achieving these goals, the National Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill will provide the Minister of Sport and Recreation the scope to engage and influence the national federations constructively to ensure good and responsible governance in the best interest of South African sport.

The Leader of the Opposition has to agree that we still have a somewhat skewed picture of sporting facilities and opportunities in our country. As government, we want to correct this and ensure that our national teams are representative of the total South African population. We want all our children to start from the same line. The one who finishes first must not be predetermined by the disparities of where they individually started.

To this end, government has resolved to correct the situation and to ensure that there is grass-roots development of sport in these areas so that more young people from disadvantaged areas are afforded the opportunity to unlock their potential. This is done through the Mass Participation Programme and School Sport Programme. To fund these programmes, government has budgeted R 376 million up to date. The total budget for the period 2004 to 2010 will be in excess of R1 billion.

Furthermore, we encourage the local authorities, provincial departments and the Department of Housing to include the building of sport facilities in their respective housing programmes. As government, we fully support the notion of a winning culture in sport. Indeed, we rally fully behind our national teams when competing in the international sporting arena. However, to have a real and lasting impact on our nation, we cannot compete with the exclusion of certain parts of our population. If we win, it must be a victory for the whole country as it was demonstrated now by the Springboks. With true transformation, as a country, we can become an even greater force in world sport. Through proper development programmes by our national federations and good supporting systems, we can exploit our wealth of sporting talent with representative teams being a natural outcome. If indeed we address the matter of equality of facilities, equality of access to training and stadia, etc, the law of averages will probably tell us that we will in the end merge with these representative teams. So, we must turn things around in the shortest period of time. But indeed, as all of us have said, not at the expense of any of our athletes. I have no doubt that all sport-loving people in this country, which is the entire population, acknowledge the importance of representative teams.

Sport must belong to the nation. It is an integral part of our way of life and of the South African culture over which government, with its elected representatives, also has a serious responsibility. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker and Mr President, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, if I have listened and heard you correctly, Mr President, then there will be a greater emphasis on development in future. If that is so, I am in a very embarrassing position for the second time today to support you whole-heartedly. [Laughter.]

But that has certain implications, Mr President. I want to ask you whether the government is up to doing the following: Spend up to R40 billion – that’s what the department says – on facilities and infrastructure; also see that it will be necessary to reintroduce a culture of competitive sport at school level; and introduce a huge programme of training the trainers or coaching the coachers. It will be a massive effort to really develop our human resources and our sporting talent for everyone. If that is the core and the door to achieving diversity, we will be with you all the way.

We have so much talent on tap in our country, but you can’t put a man in a team before he is ready. We must assist him to get to that level of achievement in order to know that the day he puts on a Springbok jersey or a Protea jersey or a cap, he is truly the best man in that position in South Africa. For that we will support you 100%. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: No! I think the women hon members of the House need to applaud hon Delport, because he says that one can’t put a man who is not qualified in a team to play for the Springboks. But women can play for the Springboks at any time. [Applause.] I think we should applaud him.

Hon Delport, you are quite correct. We have to concentrate on the development of sport. We can’t address this matter just in the context of the composition of the national teams. We are saying that sport is critically important to the challenge of social cohesion. We need to be able to create these facilities for young people so that they are able to participate in sport - take them off the streets and keep them from wrongdoing. This is very important. So, all of the matters and the things that you raise have to happen. They are development.

A lot of things need to be done in schools. This includes trainers, facilities, etc. I am sure the hon Minister of Education would agree with me that this should also include encouraging teachers to regain the enthusiasm to stay on after class in order to work with young people to develop them in sport. [Applause.] We have to do all of those things. We may not be able to find R40 billion, but let’s start with what we have.

Issues have been raised in schools and in communities - I know that the Minister of Sport and Recreation has been raising this matter. For instance, there used to be interprovincial competitions of all sorts in schools – in athletics, rugby, cricket, etc. What happened to all of that? This might still be there in rugby, but what about the other sports. So, yes, we must have that, coaches and everybody.

We may not be able to find R40 billion, but that is the direction we must take, in the first instance, to attract as many of our people into sport as possible - not exclusively the young, but of course the young. But the hon Delport also needs to put on some shorts and engage in sport somewhere. But then, he must have access to a sport facility. So, the hon Delport does not need to feel embarrassed for supporting the correct things. He can get embarrassed for supporting wrong ones, but this one, I think, is the correct direction to take. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr B M KOMPHELA: Hon President, whilst we are moving across the length and breadth of the country as a multiparty portfolio committee, including the DA, the people of this country say that it is unprecedented for the President of the country to lead in sport, unity and social cohesion. Therefore, we must seize that opportunity to profile matters on sport for the purpose of unity and social cohesion.

But one area which is a weakness in South African sport, is the lack of a comprehensive policy for the allocation of funds and all the other responsibilities of who should do what in as far as sport is concerned. In the light of that, hon President, is the government willing to consider this so that in the end we may be able to consider the policy as a blueprint and a direction whereby all of us can begin to allocate scarce resources to all the people - particularly the majority of the people who do not have those facilities? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I would agree indeed that this is an important issue, as the hon Komphela says. Addressing these matters of unity, social cohesion and all that is important. We should indeed have a comprehensive policy that addresses the question of what it is that we want to do. I would imagine, where he refers to a comprehensive policy on the allocation of resources, that this would arise after we have said that this is a comprehensive programme that we are putting in place.

This is what we want to do in schools, villages, townships and wherever. This is what we want to do in rugby, cricket, athletics, traditional sport, and so on. Here is where we want to go and this is what we want to do. Indeed, in that context we would then have to ask ourselves how to allocate resources.

That would be the natural consequence of that. So, I would indeed agree. We do need a comprehensive policy and targeted programmes to the extent that we can generate funds to finance such a programme. I do hope that we are all moving in that direction. This does require a comprehensive approach, because it is possible to become caught up by fashion - this particular code becomes very popular and you would devote resources there.

I heard the Minister of Sport and Recreation complaining the other day, quite correctly, that none of us were there to see the netball team off when they left the country. He was quite right, but I am saying that we could of course avoid that in the context of a comprehensive policy. We would then have a comprehensive allocation of funds – I would agree. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr W D SPIES: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon President … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Spice!

Mr W D SPIES: No, it is Spies.

The SPEAKER: Spies! [Laughter.]

Mr W D SPIES: It is Spies, hon Speaker. It is an Afrikaans word for assegai.

Hon President, thank you very much for the answer that you gave. Like the hon Delport, I would like to add my support to what you have said. I think what you have said actually underlines what was said by the Minister of Sport and Recreation a few days ago when he said that we should place a high emphasis on development and move away from the concept of racial quotas and racial targets in sport. I think this very same principle is very important.

For this reason, you also referred earlier on to the hon Van der Merwe, who presented a cake to sweeten the appetite. I would like to present a book today, also to sweeten the appetite. The title of this book is: The Naked Emperor - why affirmative action failed. The reason why I would like to present this book to the members of the Cabinet and to you is that this book is actually asking for exactly this same principle to be applied in the workplace. What is being asked for here is an emphasis on development and a moving away from racial quotas.

My question is whether you would be prepared to open a debate about moving away from racial quotas in the workplace and in the economy as well.

The SPEAKER: Hon member, that sounds like a totally different question to me. But the hon President is at liberty to answer the question if he feels like it.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: It might be wiser, Madam Speaker, for me to reserve my response up until the hon member has given me this book, and I have read it. For instance, Madam Speaker, he talks about racial quotas in the workplace. I don’t know what workplace that is. [Interjections.]

No, I have never heard of any factory which says that 20% of our sweepers shall be African at the end of the day. [Interjections.] No, he is talking about quotas. Honestly, I haven’t heard about that. That is why I am saying I might be wiser once I have read the book, because it will explain this.

Whatever we do with regard to this discussion, one of the things we really should never ever underestimate is the need to build a non-racial South Africa. [Applause.] It’s critically important for the success of this country. It has to happen. We should never ever forget it. We might have all manner of debate about the means to achieve that particular goal, but I do not believe that we should put forward proposals that relate to this matter whose effect would be to perpetuate a racially divided society. [Applause.]

That’s part of the challenge with regard to what the hon Delport was saying about man and sport. The easiest position to take is for us to select all Springbok players on the basis of merit without racial quotas. It sounds right. What this means is that, until that time when you have created the physical and other conditions which have created and given birth to a Springbok player of excellence, John Smit, we shall keep the team as it is because that is what merit means. You see, your merit is not inborn.

It is a merit that arises from the social conditions that you were born in and grew up in. [Applause.] So, indeed we may very well say no racial quotas, but we must still answer this question: How then do we speed up the process of the emergence of non-racial national teams? Away with quotas, but in with the non-racial team! How? So, that question must be answered. [Interjections.] Sure, agreed - development. But what I am saying is that 10 years down the road, where shall we be? [Interjections.] It depends on the development.

Let us not have this debate for too long. The point is that we have to accelerate the process of the building of a non-racial society. I am saying that you should accelerate that process. Development, facilities and so on are a critically important part of this, but, I don’t want to enter into this debate.

Jake White, at a certain point in recent years, said: I know many black players in the provincial sides who could be Springboks. We are not giving them space and we are waiting for this day of maturity. It is because we are not giving them the space to mature as they play against more difficult teams, that we are slowing the process of transformation down.

I am saying, yes. No quotas indeed, but we must answer this other question. How then do we accelerate this process of change? The development, the building of stadia, the training of coaches and so on is necessary but not enough. So, let’s answer this question together.

I nearly mentioned the name of a player who I think the Cheetahs are underplaying. I won’t mention his name. They always bring him in late. [Interjections.] I will not mention his name. [Applause.] That’s the problem. They bring him in at the end. The Cheetahs bring him in during the last 15 or 20 minutes, when they are losing. I don’t think that is correct. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr M B SKOSANA: Madam Speaker, hon President, I have received that book. But unfortunately I was given the book by my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services. He doesn’t want it. [Laughter.]

Madam Speaker, I am not taking anything away from what the President has said. It is quite a thing that ought to be done. I am also not taking anything away from what the hon Delport has said. I am simply trying to bring in the other side of the coin as a question. Mr President, had we started integrating in 1994 in terms of transformation in sport and lost a few games and begun to win after coaching and training, we could have won even now with an integrated team. We could have won if we had sacrificed in 1994 and integrated and lost. Some people were saying we were going to loose if we did that, because the others did not have the merit to be in there.

I am saying that we should have done that, Mr President, and sacrificed to lose as a nation and looked at the bigger picture that eventually we were going to win as an integrated nation. I think we are riding on a tiger at the moment. We really don’t know when we are going to be in there and whether we are going to win.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, I agree with the hon member. It should not be too difficult a principle and a practice to understand. To back up what the hon member has just said, hon members, you’ll remember that in the last Tri-Nations tournament, the national coach of the Springboks refused to let some of the players participate in that tournament because he said that they should rather lose in the Tri-Nations and not retain the cup so that they will win the World Cup. It was the same principle.

So, I agree, hon member, because putting in people who are developing into these national teams is part of their training and their development. It may be that therefore you do not win all the games. In the end you win this other thing, which is the building up of a truly representative South African side. Thanks, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

                DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIAL IN THE HOUSE


                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Hon members, before I proceed to the last question, I wish to point out to hon members that nobody is allowed to distribute any material in this House without prior permission from the presiding officers.

                     WELCOMING CUBAN DELEGATION


                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Secondly, I wish to take this opportunity to recognise in the gallery a delegation from Cuba led by the Minister of Foreign Investment and Economic Co-operation, hon Martha Lomas Morales. [Applause.] You are welcome, hon members. I also see the South African ambassador to Cuba, whom we also welcome home. [Applause.] [Interjections.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, I have been flashing again. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER: You always flash very late. [Laughter.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: But it is a very … [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for hon members to flash? [Laughter.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, it is a very brief question.

The SPEAKER: Hon Van der Merwe, I have taken the four supplementary questions. I am now moving on to the last question. The President has been standing there for two hours now.

Implications of, and steps to sustain, the current surge of investment

1. Mr B A Mnguni (ANC) asked the President of the Republic: (1) Whether he has found that the current surge of investment was largely due to preparations for the 2010 Fifa World Cup tournament; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,

   (2) whether the government has taken any steps to sustain these investment trends after 2010; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what steps;

   (3) whether the current surge of investment will enable the government to achieve the employment and poverty reduction targets that have been identified by the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (Asgisa); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? N148ENG

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, currently, South Africa is in the ninth consecutive year of positive economic growth, which is unprecedented in our history. The current surge of investment is also unprecedented, at least since the 1960s. And indeed, this is partly - and naturally so - as a result of the FIFA World Cup 2010. But our investment vision for the economy has been considerably broader than World Cup-related activities. We know that the performance of the economy in the past few years suggests that higher rates of growth and employment creation are possible and achievable. The South African historical precedent shows that investment of over 25% of GDP and GDP growth at 6% were achieved in the 1960s and 1970s. These are the levels we are aiming for. And it means that a structural growth acceleration of this order of magnitude will require well-targeted and efficiently implemented policy changes and development initiatives.

Therefore we have deliberately placed ourselves on the course that continues to commit government to investing in infrastructure backlogs- to overcome backlogs and improve logistics - as well as programmes that will crowd in private sector investment. An example of this is the increasing success now being achieved at Coega.

Private sector investment is currently growing by 13% annually in real terms. Investment by the public sector is rising even more rapidly. The latest Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement estimates that investment by the public sector will be in the vicinity of R500 billion for the coming three financial years.

Of this, spending attributable to the 2010 FIFA World Cup will amount to R40 billion to R50 billion – 10% or less of total planned investment by the public sector. What these trends suggest, is that investments directly related to 2010 will be around 3% to 4% of total fixed investment in South Africa over the next three years. Clearly, as impressive as these figures are, relying only on the World Cup for fixed investment is not sustainable. Sustaining investment trends will require that we continue our work to further improve the investment environment. Investment in economic infrastructure, particularly the network industries, is a major contributor to growth and should enable us to do more things faster and cheaper and enhance the competitiveness of the South African economy. Improved economic efficiency and the reduced cost of doing business that will result would promote the ability of all key sectors to compete and create employment.

Improving economic infrastructure such as communication, port and rail, in line with our targets, will have a significant impact on economic growth. Investment in road infrastructure is as important as port and rail, given that it brings into the economy people in outlying areas. Where road construction and maintenance uses labour-intensive methods, such as with the infrastructure Expanded Public Works Programme, or EPWP, it is additionally valuable as it is contributing to work opportunities and skills development.

Further, to promote investment we will continue to focus on promoting an accessible, affordable and competitive information and communications technology infrastructure. We will also continue to implement an accessible, quality, reliable 24-hour public transport system which should support productivity, service delivery and a reduced cost of living. The first phase of this public transport plan will coincide with the 2010 transport plan that prioritises twelve large cities, including all nine host cities for the World Cup. In line with all our public investment initiatives, our priorities go beyond 2010, and in this instance the final phase of investment in public transport will conclude in 2020.

Similarly, we will continue to invest in energy infrastructure such as generation capacity in electricity and storage capacity in liquid fuels. These investments will support the rebalancing of our energy sources, including the development of the nuclear industry. Thirdly, we will actively explore and promote alternative sources and renewable energy such as wind, solar, and wave energy.

With regard to employment matters, Madam Speaker, recent performance shows that we are indeed making progress in rolling back unemployment and poverty. Since 2004, employment has been growing. And since 2002 the poverty head-count has fallen by nearly 20%. Our strong recent performance in relation to poverty and employment can and must be maintained and we will therefore continue our planned public investments and create the environment for encouraging investment in labour-absorbing economic activities. In this regard, we are constantly reviewing and improving our performance in programmes such as the Expanded Public Works Programme, the Small Enterprise Development Strategy and the Industrial Policy Action Plans.

Finally, encouraging investment is as much an art as it is a science. Our track record shows that we are getting this right, thanks to macro-economic stability, strong institutions of democracy, improved infrastructure and strategic government activity that lead to the crowding in of investment. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Mr B A MNGUNI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr President for your elaborate answer. Almost all my follow-up questions have been answered. However, as the Fifa World Cup is not only for South Africa but for the region and the African continent in general, what economic opportunities does the Fifa World Cup tournament provides for the SADC region and the African continent in general?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, what the hon member knows is that right from the beginning the position that we took with regard to this in our bid to host the 2010 World Cup, was that we said that we want this to be an African World Cup, and we said then that when we say Africa we include the African Diaspora.

That has been our approach. Fortunately, Fifa has also taken the same position. I am sure the hon member would be familiar with the programmes that have then been launched by Fifa to make the impact on the African continent that he is talking about, which has to do with refurbishment of stadiums and training of people. Even last week we had women soccer coaches from various parts of the continent attending a course here and you would also be familiar with what the countries in the region are doing. Of course, many of them look forward to hosting the teams when they prepare for the tournament.

So, countries are indeed busy with stadiums and other activities - hotels and so on – to ensure that they have the capacity to host such teams. That also includes work that is going on in the region with regard to the issue of tourism, because expectation is that with all of these people coming here it would be possible also to attract them to visit the neighbouring countries as tourists.

So, there are, certainly, many economic activities taking place in this region. But more broadly, with regard to the continent, we are working with Fifa to ensure that in these practical ways - regarding sport administrators, coaches and facilities - that indeed this does become an African cup. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr S J F MARAIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr President, we cannot do anything else but support you in terms of what you have said so far. But, despite the current surge for fixed investment in the preparation for the Fifa World Cup, do we still not experience sufficient sustainable fixed foreign direct investment in especially the manufacturing sector with the objective to export these products through which valuable foreign currency can be earned? The Medium-term Budget Policy Statement warns against the weak export performance, which is our best option to assure rapid growth to ensure the required labour absorption and the overexposure of South Africa in the portfolio investment market.

We know that the deficits on the current account of the balance of payments are largely financed by these investments - but with the real threat that certain capital outflow will leave South Africa ill-equipped and in an embarrassing situation and a predicament. Mr President, what other fiscal measures do you intend using to stimulate and support the manufacturing, export and skills development sectors to ensure that South Africa can sustain the recent domestic investment boom? I thank you, Madam Speaker.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, I would imagine that the hon member has received a copy of our Industrial Policy Action Plan. It would be important for the hon member to look at that, because it addresses especially this matter that he is raising, which was correctly raised by the Minister of Finance, namely the matter of what we need to do to strengthen our manufacturing sector to increase exports, competitiveness and all of that. This matter is why we thought it was important to have an industrial policy and an action plan for its implementation.

I’m sure the hon member would find the indications there, as to the sort of measures that we need to take. He would also be familiar with the work that we are doing in order to address this critically important matter of skills shortages, whether through Jipsa, more work with the Setas, universities, more work with the FET and so on. The hon member is indeed correct that it is something we need to address.

If we do indeed implement, as we must, this Industrial Policy Action Plan that we have agreed upon, it should make an impact on this issue of what happens to our manufacturing sector. The matter of continuing to attract foreign direct investment is a permanent challenge. We just have to keep at it and I’m sure we will succeed, but it’s just something that we must continue to do.

The hon member expressed his concern about the crisis that might be generated by a sudden reversal of short-term capital flows. I don’t think that is going to happen. I can’t imagine under what circumstances that would happen. I don’t think we should scare ourselves unnecessarily. There is sufficient confidence in the country by the international investor community and so on. We have to focus on the programmes we have agreed upon, including this Industrial Policy Action Plan, and do whatever is necessary in that regard. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.

The House adjourned at 16:20 ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Introduction of Bills

   1) The Minister of Science and Technology

   (a) Technology Innovation Agency Bill [B 49 – 2007] (National Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No 30164 of 17 August 2007.]

   Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160.

   In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of Bills may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) within three parliamentary working days. TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Finance

   a) Proclamation No 26 published in Government Gazette No 30297 dated 13 September 2007: Commencement of the Pension Funds Amendment Act, 2007 (Act No 11 of 2007).

   b) Proclamation No R.27 published in Government Gazette No 30338 dated 28 September 2007: Determining of a date on which section 12(1) of the Act shall come into operation, in terms of the Second Revenue Laws Amendment Act, 2004 (Act No 34 of 2004).

   c) Government Notice No R.834 published in Government Gazette No 30275 dated 7 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 1 (No 1/1/1343), in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 2004 (Act No 34 of 2004).

National Assembly

1. The Speaker

   a) The following private member’s legislative proposal was submitted to the Speaker on 29 October 2007, in accordance with Rule 234:

     Legislative proposal to amend the Protection of Constitutional
     Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act (Mr H J
     Bekker)
   

   Referred to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions for consideration and report.

2. The Speaker

   a) Letter from the Minister of Defence, dated 6 November 2007, to the Speaker of the National Assembly, in terms of section 65(2)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999), explaining the delay in the tabling of the Annual Report of the Castle of Good Hope for 2006-2007.

   LATE TABLING OF THE CASTLE OF GOOD HOPE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE 2006- 2007 FINANCIAL YEAR

   Madam Speaker

   It has been brought to my attention that the Castle of Good Hope received its final audit report only at the end of August 2007 from the Auditor General. Resulting from this, the Castle’s internal preparations were completed on 10 October 2007.

   Kindly note and accept my deepest regret for any inconveniences caused by the delay in tabling the attached document.

   Yours truly,

   M G P LEKOTA MINISTER OF DEFENCE: MP

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean (SEAFO), dated 1 November 2007:

   The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean (SEAFO), tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996, referred to it, recommends that the House approves the said Convention.

Request to be considered.