National Assembly - 20 November 2007
TUESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2007 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:00.
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.
PROTEAS’ VICTORY OVER NEW ZEALAND
(Draft Resolution)
MR M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House –
1) notes the Proteas’ innings and 59-run victory over New Zealand in
the second Castle Lager Test on Sunday, 18 November 2007;
2) further notes that this victory means that South Africa won the
second test of the two-match series against New Zealand with two
days to spare;
3) recognises that this victory has lifted the team to third position
on the latest LG ICC Test Championship Table;
4) congratulates South African bowler Dale Steyn, who took ten wickets
in each test, resulting in him being nominated Man of the Match for
the second test and Man of the Series; and
5) further congratulates the whole team on their superb performance and
wishes them well in the upcoming one-day series against the Black
Caps starting on 25 November 2007.
Motion agreed to.
AWARD FOR WOLWEDANS DAM
(Member’s Statement)
MS C C SEPTEMBER (ANC): Madam Speaker, on 4 November 2007, the Wolwedans Dam received a prestigious award from the President of the International Commission on Large Dams. Wolwedans Dam is situated on the Great Brak River near Mossel Bay in the Southern Cape in South Africa. The dam was nominated by experts from countries who pioneered and led the construction of the roller-compacted concrete dams, of which South Africa is one. The dam was built using a roller-compacted concrete, which is basically … a dry concrete mix compacted by equipment … traditionally used for earthworks such as bulldozers and vibratory rollers.
One of the major benefits of this method of construction is that it speeds up the construction process. The cost of construction is further reduced due to the fact that significantly less form work is used.
The ANC sees this as an honour and a proud moment for the whole of South Africa to receive such recognition for outstanding technological innovation, and that South Africa could share its experience with the rest of the world. Similar RCC techniques will be applied in the De Hoop Dam Project, and other projects still in the planning phase. I thank you.
SELECTION OF THE SABC BOARD
(Member’s Statement)
Ms M SMUTS (DA): Madam Speaker, a letter has been sent to the Speaker by Ms Gloria Tomatoe Serobe, and published in the ATCs dated 15 November 2007, following notice of a substantive motion proposing an ad hoc committee to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Ms Serobe wilfully furnished false or misleading information during an interview for selections of the SABC Board. That letter, in our view …
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I believe that a motion has been moved in this regard. Is this not anticipating discussion of such a motion, I ask?
The SPEAKER: Actually, as we all know, the motion was put to the House by the hon Vos, and therefore, I don’t think the statement would be in order to come on top of that.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, may I address you on that? The motion was indeed put forward by Ms Vos, but the statement by the hon Ms Smuts actually covers various other aspects, and not just the issues that were raised in the motion itself.
The SPEAKER: No, hon member, we will deal with the issue of the motion, including the letter that is about that same issue that is the subject of that motion.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, may I ask when we will deal with that, because we are due to rise on Friday of this week, and time is running out rapidly?
The SPEAKER: We will deal with that issue, hon Ellis. Can you just take your seat, and then we will deal with that issue, but not in this sitting. The issue of the motion is part of the business that is before us as the House. I would like now to proceed to the IFP.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, may I request …
The SPEAKER: I heard two voices …
Mr M J ELLIS: This is not a point of order, Madam Speaker, but if you are going to rule that one out of order, could we not replace hon Ms Smuts’ statement with another statement from the DA?
The SPEAKER: Yes, you can do that.
PURCHASE OF ARMS BY SANDF
(Member’s Statement)
Mr E W TRENT (DA): The DA has recently learned that 27,8 million euros were paid for 17 missiles for the four Valour frigates, each costing approximately R16 million; expensive toys, hon Minister. In addition, the SANDF has spent approximately R990 million on the first phase of a ground- to-air missile defence system that could escalate into many more billions.
The suppliers are – surprise - Denel and Thales Air Defence, Thales being one of the weapon suppliers implicated in the arms deal. Denel is furthermore allegedly behind schedule as a result of problems with local suppliers and other issues.
The project is expected to finish in November 2009, 54 months after the original deadline. Denel is expected to pay R80 million in penalties for this. Arms deal related matters are currently being investigated by eight countries and by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for alleged bribery to secure weapons contracts.
Please tell us, how can you justify spending more and more taxpayers’ money on sophisticated weapons that in any event we are unable to adequately service and operate? We don’t even have enough pilots for the Hawks and the Grippens haven’t even been delivered yet. This is an absolute waste of taxpayers’ money. Please, Mr Minister, tell us with whom are we at war and who is the aggressor that we are going to have to face in the future?
Just on a closing note, why do we need frigates to chase rogue fishing boats? Each one of those missiles that you used the other day to sink some derelict old ship for practice purposes cost R16 million. How many more are we going to fire off before we tell the world what a wonderful navy we have? Surely we could have used other means to patrol our coast, not frigates worth billions of rands. Thank you.
16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM AGAINST ABUSE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN
(Member’s Statement)
Ms C N Z ZIKALALA (IFP): Madam Speaker, from 25 November to 10 December 2007, our country will again participate in the international 16 days of activism against women and child abuse campaign. We have done so over the past few years to highlight that abuse against women and children is ongoing and remains one of the scourges of our society. Regrettably, it is mostly men who are responsible for abuse of women and children. One of the main aims of the campaign is to raise awareness among men that their behaviour is unacceptable.
The IFP is therefore very happy to note that this year’s campaign will include a million-man march around the country, with the main march happening in Bloemfontein. This sends out a very strong signal that men are prepared to stand up for women and children’s rights to not be abused and to live in dignity without fear.
The IFP therefore calls on the men of South Africa to join the marches in large numbers, to show their opposition to the abuse of women and children, and to support women in their struggle for a life free of fear. Thank you.
PROVISION OF FREE TRANSPORT FOR FARMWORKERS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M R SONTO (ANC): The ANC is committed to ensuring that freedom of movement and safe transportation is provided to all. In the space of five days, 18 farmworkers died in two separate road accidents in the Western Cape. On Tuesday night, 13 November 2007, an open truck the workers were travelling in overturned on the N1 highway near De Doorns. Eight workers died on the accident scene.
Five days earlier 10 farmworkers who were travelling in a bus were killed after the bus overturned near Piketberg. The ANC calls on government to investigate the causes of these two accidents as part of the effort to improve the working conditions of farmworkers. Thank you.
CLINICS BUILT WITHOUT ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER
(Member’s Statement)
Mnu J BICI (UDM): Somlomo, i-UDM ikhwankqisiwe kwaye idanisiwe kukubona urhulumente osezintanjeni eqhubela phambili nokufeda. Urhulumente osezintanjeni wakha iikliniki, kodwa akugqiba ukuzakha akazifakeli manzi, ntonje uzibonelela ngamatanki. Kuthi kwakufika imbalela, aphele amanzi ematankini. Akuphela amanzi, kuye kufuneke ukuba oonesi baqhube iikiriva, balayishe iimbombozi baye kukha amanzi emilanjeni.
Ayimelanga kwenzeka loo nto kweli xesha siphila kulo; kumele ukuba xa isakhiwa ikliniki kube kufakwa namanzi ukwenzela ukuba izigulane namanesi akwazi ukufumana amanzi afanelekileyo.
Aba ke benza ibango besithi ngababo aba bantu ndithetha ngabo, bathetha into abayicingayo, kwaye lilungelo labo ukwenjenjalo. Enkosi, Somlomo. (Translation of isiXhosa member’s statement follows.)
[Mr J BICI (UDM): Speaker, the UDM is shocked and dismayed to see the government continue to fail. Government builds clinics, but provides them with tanks to store rain water, instead of providing them with water. When the drought comes, the tanks run dry. When the tanks run dry, nurses are forced to push wheelbarrows to fetch water, in plastic containers, from rivers.
That is not supposed to be happening, not in this day and age; ideally, what should happen is that when a clinic is built, it should also be supplied with tap water so as to satisfy patients’ and nurses’ water needs. Those who claim the people I am talking about as their own are just expressing a wish, and it is their right to do so.]
CRIME PREVENTION AND WORKABLE SOLUTIONS
(Member’s Statement)
Mnr P J GROENEWALD (VF Plus): Mevrou die Speaker, die VF Plus verwelkom enige plan om misdaad te bekamp. Dit was lankal reeds ons voorstel dat misdaad net effektief beveg kan word as daar onder andere behoorlike koördinering is tussen die polisie, justisie en korrektiewedienste.
Die bekendmaking van ’n superplan om misdaad te bekamp is die soveelste plan van die regering. Augustus verlede jaar het die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit, mnr Charles Nqakula, ook ’n nuwe misdaadplan aangekondig. Ten spyte hiervan het ander misdade, en spesifiek huisroof, met 25% gestyg.
Dit het tyd geword dat misdaadplanne omskep word in werkbare oplossings om misdaad te beveg. Voorheen was daar ook verskeie tienpuntplanne van die regering om misdaad te bekamp. Die werklikheid is misdaad veroorsaak dat mense onveilig is in hulle eie woonhuise, daar waar hulle veronderstel is om met gemoedsrus by hulle families te kan wees.
’n Oorkoepelende instelling op kabinetsvlak word verwelkom, maar die praktiese funksionering daarvan sal bepaal of misdaad effektief hierdeur bestry sal word of nie. Die positiewe oorweging van Minister Charles Nqakula om misdaadstatistiek meer as eenkeer in ’n jaar bekend te maak word sterk ondersteun. Die VF Plus vra lankal reeds dat misdaadstatistiek kwartaalliks bekend gemaak moet word. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD (FF Plus): Madam Speaker, the FF Plus welcomes any plan to combat crime. It has been our stance for a while already that crime can only be combated effectively if, among other things, there is proper co- ordination between the police, justice and correctional services.
The government has announced its umpteenth super plan to combat crime. In August last year, the Minister of Safety and Security, Mr Charles Nqakula, also announced a new plan against crime. Despite this, other crimes, specifically house burglary, have increased by 25%.
It is time to transform crime plans into workable solutions to combat crime. Previously, the government also had various 10-point plans to combat crime. The reality is that crime has caused people to start feeling unsafe in their own homes, where they are supposed to have peace of mind with their families.
An overarching institution at Cabinet level is welcomed, but its practical functioning will determine whether or not it is able to combat crime effectively. We strongly support Minister Charles Nqakula’s positive consideration to release crime statistics more than once per annum. The FF Plus has been asking for quite a while now for crime statistics to be released quarterly.]
HEROES PLEDGING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE CAMPAIGNS AGAINST HIV/AIDS
(Member’s Statement)
Nkszn N M MAHLAWE (ANC): Somlomo, umbutho wesizwe, i-ANC, ulothulela umnqwazi inyathelo elithe lathatyathwa ngamaqhawe eentlobo zonke zemidlalo, ngokuthi azibandakanye kwiphulo lokulwa nesifo uGawulayo neNtsholongwane yaso.
La maqhawe aya kuthi abe nohambo ngeenyawo kwezi ntsuku zili-16 zilandelayo. Aya kuhamba esuka kweleNdunduma esingise kwiSixeko saseBhayi. Apha endleleni aya kuhamba evula abantu amehlo ngesifo uGawulayo neNtsholongwane yaso.
Thina singamalungu ombutho wesizwe, i-ANC, siyabakhuthaza abantu ukuba bazihlole isimo sabo malunga nalo mbulala-zwe. Into ekufuneka icace gca okwekati emhlophe ehlungwini, yeyokuba wonke umntu kufuneka aye kuhlolwa, kodwa ngokuthanda kwakhe, hayi ngesinyanzelo.
Umbutho wesizwe uya kuthi gqolo usebenzisana naye nabani na ozimisele ukufaka isandla ekwakhiweni kwesizwe sakuthi. Siyabulela. (Translation of isiXhosa member’s statement follows.)
[Ms N M MAHLAWE (ANC): Speaker, the ANC commends the step taken by heroes from various sporting codes, who decided to take part in the fight against HIV and Aids.
These heroes will embark on a long walk in the coming 16 days. They will walk from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth. On the way they will be giving advice to people on HIV and Aids.
As the ANC, we encourage people to go and test so that they can know their HIV status. What must be crystal clear is that everyone has to go for this test voluntarily, and not by force.]
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN MTHATHA
(Member’s Statement)
Mr P H K DITSHETELO (UCDP): Madam Speaker, it is common knowledge that the SA Police Service is in control of crime and keeping it at a reasonable level.
However, it is reported in the Eastern Cape in five villages outside Mthatha that violence against women has reached alarming proportions since
- Nine people have been killed, and 11 women raped since last September. This unbearable situation has forced some families to abandon their homes and seek refuge elsewhere with neighbours or relatives or even to live in the bush.
Surely, hon Minister, this is a very untenable situation which warrants your concern. What impression are we creating for our tourism industry? Could you please review the police visibility in such areas and reassure the people of their safety? I thank you.
NEED FOR CULTURAL REVOLUTION FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EMANCIPATION OF
AFRICANS
(Member’s Statement)
Dr S E M PHEKO (PAC): Madam Speaker, our country needs a cultural revolution to drive a national agenda for economic and social emancipation of the majority of the poor. We shall destroy ourselves if we fail to discover who we are, and where we should be now.
The greatest achievement of European colonisation was the conquest of the minds of the African people. There is, therefore, a tremendous work to be done before we can talk of being truly free. Poverty, inadequate education and lack of technology to process our raw materials, the bastardisation of African languages and alarming moral decay must be vanquished. The propensity to protect Eurocentric values at our expense has led some people to mistake our magnanimity for imbecility. Why should they not when, for example, many of our former freedom fighters such as Apla and other victims of apartheid are languishing in the prisons of this country? This is despite the fact that the United Nations, through the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, declared apartheid a crime against humanity.
Our country must fight over ideas instead of individuals. The destiny of our people must not depend on personalities but on a national agenda that results in their economic liberation and social emancipation. I thank you.
OVERSPENDING BY MAYORS IN FREE STATE
(Member’s Statement)
Mnr A J BOTHA (DA): Speaker, die Uitvoerende Burgemeester van die Noord- Vrystaat se Makaka munisipaliteit het skynbaar ag geslaan op die kritiek wat die agb Manuel moes verduur vir sy begrotingsurplus en beplan dus ’n uitgebreide sosiale opheffing ter plaatse met ’n beplande verlies van etlike miljoene rand.
’n Ekstravaganza vir Kroonstad wat in Sandton van stapel gestuur is sou die Cheetah en Blou Bulle na Kroonstad bring asook die Professional Soccer League, Orlando Pirates, Celtics, Stars en Super Sport United plus internasionale sterre soos Tiger Woods en Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Nadat die burgemeester reeds meer as R1 miljoen ongeoorloof vooruitbetaal het vir hierdie gekke fantasie het slegs die sokker realiseer en nie in Kroonstad nie, maar wel in Welkom omdat Kroonstad se stadion afgekeur is.
Minimum uitgawe sover is rofweg R5 miljoen. Terwyl slegs R200 000 inkomste vir sosiale opheffing gegenereer is. Hierdie minimum verlies van R4,8 miljoen is dus die pyn by die skande wat die dorpies Viljoenskroon, Steynsrus en Kroonstad moet verduur as gevolg van ANC onbeholpenheid en moedswilligheid.
Die DA benoem gevolglik Burgemeester Mogorosi as munisipale mamparra van die jaar, LUR Mafareka as provinsiale mamparra, omdat hy teen heftige DA beswaar aan mamparra benoemdes uitvoerende magte verleen, en die ANC as politieke mamparra van die jaar omdat die volk belas word met sulke ondienstige mamparra-agtigheid. [Gelag.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr A J BOTHA (DA): Speaker, apparently the Executive Mayor of the Makaka Municipality in the northern Free State has heeded the criticism that had to be endured by the hon Manuel for his budget surplus, and is therefore planning extensive local social upliftment that will result in a projected loss of countless millions of rands.
The extravaganza for Kroonstad, which was launched in Sandton, would see the Cheetahs and Blue Bulls come to Kroonstad, as well as the Professional Soccer League, Orlando Pirates, Celtics, Stars and Super Sport United, plus international stars like Tiger Woods and Ladysmith Black Mambazo. After the Mayor had already made unsanctioned payments of more than R1 million rand for this fool’s paradise, only the soccer materialised, albeit not in Kroonstad, but in Welkom, because Kroonstad’s stadium had been turned down.
The minimum expense to date amounts to roughly R5 million, while only R200 000 was generated for social upliftment. This minimum loss of R4,8 million is thus the pain that accompanies the shame that has to be endured by Viljoenskroon, Steynsrus and Kroonstad as a result of ANC bungling and wantonness.
Consequently, the DA nominates Mayor Mogorosi as municipal fool of the year, MEC Mafareka as provincial fool of the year because he, despite heavy DA objection, accorded fool nominees executive powers, and the ANC as political fool of the year because it has burdened the people with such disobliging foolishness. [Laughter.] [Applause.]]
MIRACLE CHILD OF BLUE DOWNS
(Member’s Statement)
Ms Z A KOTA (ANC): Madam Speaker, on 5 November 2006, a girl-child was raped and set alight at Blue Downs. On 5 November 2007, a year after this ordeal, the community of Blue Downs gathered at a local school hall to celebrate the successful recovery of this miracle child. Her bravery can never be forgotten. For this she was named the “Little Rock”.
The ANC thanks, in particular, the community for support given to this family from day one. The community pooled resources together and placed this child in a private school for her safety. That is why on that day they launched a trust under the name ``the Little Rock Trust’’. The event was attended by people from all over the Western Cape and across political affiliations.
As we, on 25 November 2007, begin the annual campaign of 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children, we call upon all communities to unite in support of similar victims of crime, and in particular to uproot this scourge of violence against innocent children in our communities. Forward with the caring ANC government! Forward! I thank you, Madam Speaker.
REFINERY TANK FIRE IN DURBAN
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs S A SEATON (IFP): Madam Speaker, a storage tank containing more than 7,5 million litres of refined fuel caught fire at the Engen Refinery in Tara Road, south Durban yesterday, causing confusion and fear amongst residents.
This is a second major fire in the area in two months. In September a tank at the Island View petrochemical and bulk liquid storage facility also caught fire.
A thorough investigation must be conducted to determine the reason for the fire. The refinery is situated in the heart of a residential area where residents have, for many years, expressed their concerns in respect of pollution, health and safety issues.
These two recent fires highlight the hazards that residents are confronted with and the need for vigilance and open communication between the refinery, the residents and the relevant city authorities.
It is obvious that the activities at the refinery pose a threat to residents and therefore a sound and clearly communicated emergency plan must be in place to ensure that residents are prepared for any eventuality. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
ADVOCACY FOR CHANGE IN WTO, IMF AND WORLD BANK
(Member’s Statement)
Mr N M NENE (ANC): Madam Speaker, the ANC supports the efforts by government to advocate for change in the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The G20 Conference, the first to be held in Africa, convened in Kleinmond, outside Cape Town over the weekend under the theme: “Sharing –Influence, Responsibility, Knowledge”.
The work programme centred on, amongst other things, ensuring the continued relevance of international financial institutions and sharing experiences about the impact of high commodity prices on economic growth, which affect countries of the South greatly.
We believe that the G20 Forum is united around the vision of a new model of multilateralism which pulls together individuals with collective knowledge and best practices to promote economic and social advances for the benefit of the entirety of the global community of nations.
The ANC commends the government’s efforts to prioritise the fight against poverty and the focus on building economies of developing countries. We support the approach to make multilateral institutions more accountable to the peoples of the South and to work to strengthen the United Nations and its specialised economic agencies and promote greater coherence between the different multilateral agencies. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
CLIMATE CHANGE - 2012 FRAMEWORK
(Member’s Statement)
Mr G R MORGAN (DA): Madam Speaker, climate change is one of the greatest challenges both government and the members of this House will ever have to deal with. Its effects will be felt particularly by developing countries although the solution requires a global response.
The world leaders will gather in Bali in December for the next round of the Conference of the Parties, a process that will begin pathing the post-2012 framework. It is important that the South African delegation plays a leading role in these negotiations.
The DA urges the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to argue for the following principles going forward. Firstly, 25 countries are responsible for 83% of the world’s emissions and so it is critical that all of these players are involved in the future framework.
Secondly, equity is a critical negotiation principle and therefore a post- 2012 framework must recognise historical and per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases and the differing economic circumstances between developed and developing countries.
Thirdly, the framework should allow different types of commitment to accommodate different national strategies and circumstances.
Fourthly, climate change should be addressed within the framework of sustainable development to achieve economic development, poverty reduction and environmental protection.
Country delegations have a tendency to be selfish in such negotiations. However, we trust those delegates present will arrive at a viable way forward by the end of the conference. I thank you.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs B TINTO (ANC): Madam Speaker, energy-efficiency and conservation is the cornerstone of the ANC-led government’s energy policies. This involves the adoption of least cause planning approaches, the improvement of dwelling thermal performance, the promotion of energy efficient appliances, the use of solar water heaters, appliance labelling and the implementation of time- of-use electricity tariffs.
In the past few days our government and the government of Japan signed a memorandum of understanding which is aimed at co-operation on various areas including the promotion of energy conservation and skills and technology exchange programmes. Further, the two governments discussed the reinforcement of relations between the two countries in the field of mineral resources, energy and environment with reference to promotion of energy conservation and nuclear energy.
The ANC welcomes the initiative and calls on our government to intensify efforts for environmental education to all sections of our people. I thank you.
PURCHASE OF ARMS BY SANDF
OVERSPENDING BY MAYORS IN FREE STATE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, the hon Trent … Oh! He is back. I thought he was a guerrilla, who hits and runs. Chapter 11 of the Constitution enjoins us to establish a National Defence Force. It doesn’t create an option. One will find in clause 200 of Chapter 11 one of those posts that you have to have; there must a member of Cabinet responsible for defence and the relationship between defence as set out in the Constitution and Parliament is well catered for in chapter 11.
So, when the hon Trent asks the questions or makes statements as he does, it needs to happen against this backdrop because once the Constitution compels you to have a defence force one can’t then have unsophisticated weapons. It is ludicrous because on the larger scale of things, we are not investing as heavily as almost as every other member of the United Nations in our defence capability. We are one of a handful of countries in the world that spend less than two percent of its gross domestic product on its defence capability. We are also one of four countries in the world that spend more on provision of water than what we do on defence.
So, it can’t be a question of priorities, nor can it be a question about the fact that the weapons we are investing in are too sophisticated.
In respect of the point he raised about Hawks and Grippens: The Hawks are trainer fighters so we need to train people before they can fly the Grippens, failing which they drop out of the sky, planes and all. It is a perfectly rational approach that has been taken.
Finally, I want to draw to the attention of the hon Trent and other members of the DA that the strategic defence procurement package arose from the Defence Review and was supported by all parties in this House including the DA or its predecessor the DP at the time. You were in the tent. Will you protect me, Madam Speaker? Even from hon Van der Merwe.
The SPEAKER: Absolutely, you are protected hon Minister, from hon Koos van der Merwe.
Mr E W TRENT: Speaker, may I ask the hon Minister a question?
The SPEAKER: The hon Minister is responding to the statement.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Uyazamazama wena. Hlala phansi! [You are taking chances. Sit down!]
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to hon Nene’s statement on the hosting of the G20 Summit. I will also tie in a few other points that were raised by the hon Morgan and the hon Tinto and perhaps the hon Seaton.
Indeed we hosted the G20 Summit, and it was an exceedingly well-attended and exceedingly well-run meeting. We are very proud of the work done by officials to prepare for the meeting. The focus of the meeting was broadly on four areas: the state of the global economy and current market turbulence and the impact of that on the ability of the countries to provide services to their people; a discussion on the fiscal elements of growth; the issue of commodity circles and financial stability; and very importantly, the reform of the Brettan Woods hood institutions.
It is work in progress and I think we planted the big stake for change in these areas and the President addressed the forum on Sunday and spoke at length about the reform of the Britain hood institutions and why the democratic deficits must be addressed in the interest of multilateral governance.
One of the issues that will come onto the agenda of the G20 as it is taken to Brazil next year and the UK in 2009 is indeed the issue of climate change. It is an important issue. It’s part of what we must recognise as global public goods. Financial stability and a sustainable environment are two sides of the same coin.
It is very important to tie those up with the issues that the hon Tinto raised because Japan, in hosting the G8 next year, has focused on the issue of energy efficiency, and again that is part of the same discussion. What we would like to see as a country is that all of those issues be brought together so that we can maximise the effort in respect of the global campaign into 2008-9 and beyond.
In taking this forward we need to exercise caution that the carbon footprint does not become the next boundary of protectionism. Already it is being used against the importation of fruit like strawberries from South Africa. If one flies these things in aeroplanes there is a carbon footprint one cannot deal with like that. We have to guard against these kinds of issues.
I should also appeal to Madam Speaker and the Secretary to Parliament for energy efficiency, Comrade Tinto, in the lighting in Parliament. Here too we really must make an appeal about that.
Finally, in respect of the hon Seaton’s issues, one of the big problems driving up petroleum prices in the world is refining capacity. What the OPEC Summit in Riyadh said this past weekend is that there is sufficient crude available and they are happy to open new fronts of crude, including a very important new one discovered in Brazil just recently and all up the West Coast of Africa.
Crude is available in its refining capacity. The one problem with refineries is that nobody wants them in their backyard. There is an enormous difficulty; perhaps it is one of the issues that the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism must take up and examine, namely how we will deal with this because if we do not have sufficient refined products we have to import them. As we import them, this then has an impact on the balance of payments. We must either do that or shift to bicycles big time. Clearly there is a discussion that needs to happen and Parliament needs to be involved in this matter.
In respect to what the hon Botha raised I think it is just the fight between Kroonstad and Bothaville. Why else would he raise it? Thank you.
16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM AGAINST ABUSE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN MTHATHA
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the point that was made by the hon Groenewald. In fact, if I understood him well, he was making the point that when strategies have been formulated, they must be implemented. I agree with him entirely on that point. However, if you look at our statistics, particularly for the last quarter of last year, you will actually see the effect of the strategy that was put in place by the law-enforcement agencies, not just the police alone.
It is not just the police alone, because what that indicates with regard to crimes during that period, which over the years have always indicated a steep rise, particularly serious and violent crimes, is that for that period statistics indicate that crime went down.
We had a meeting yesterday where we were briefed by the police with regard to what they are going to do during this period and I hope, as you have indicated, that once more there will be adherence to the plans that have been formulated so that these are not just strategies that are adopted but not implemented. I agree with you on that matter.
Therefore, we would also want to ensure that when these plans have been defined, they must be implemented. I appreciate, nonetheless, the observations that you have made.
The hon Ditshetelo is sitting quite close to the hon Zikalala from the IFP. The hon Zikalala correctly says that it is not only the law-enforcement agencies that we need to deal with when it comes to crimes against women and children. She pointed out that in most cases it is men who are committing these crimes and therefore her appeal was to men.
She said that men must change their behaviour. However, apart from that she said that you have to be part and parcel of the South African people’s programme to change the mind-set with respect to this particular matter.
I think that as we talk about the law-enforcement agencies, it must not be laws to us. These are social crimes which in the main are committed by people against people whom they know and therefore our message – although we must always remind the law-enforcement agencies about their responsibility – should be something akin to what the hon Zikalala was saying.
Let us change the behaviour of people who are committing these offences. Let us, particularly those who are sitting here, who are public representatives, participate in those programmes. In fact, in your response, hon Ditshetelo, you actually ought to have said that you support what the hon Vilakazi was saying and you yourself would mobilise these men. Thank you very much.
The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, the hon member is the hon Zikalala and not Vilakazi.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: I am very sorry, hon Speaker.
PROVISION OF FREE TRANSPORT FOR FARMWORKERS
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, in reaction to hon Sonto’s statement on the farm accident, firstly, let me express deepest sympathy from the side of the Ministry with regard to this terrible loss twice in a short while. There may even be some foreign citizens among the people who didn’t survive this accident and they must be treated with the same humanity. One can’t really sleep well while this type of thing is happening.
With regard to the statement of the member, more specifically in the first part, he mentioned that it is about freedom of movement and safe transportation. Yes, it is about that, but that is not all that is at stake. He asked us to investigate the causes of these two accidents. It goes further than the accidents. It is also about who is taking responsibility for what happened in those two instances. It has been linked in the discourse to systematic evictions.
What is quite clear is that there must be greater regulation of labour consultants or people to whom this responsibility shifted with regard to the transport of workers in these instances. We will certainly have to get the intention of the Ministries of Transport, Agriculture as well as Labour in this regard, because with great respect, there is something fundamentally rotten in some practices with regard to farm-workers, and in some areas more markedly than in others. Thank you.
PURCHASE OF ARMS BY SANDF
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has answered Mr Trent, because at the time when I raised my hand I didn’t know who he was going to respond to. I can only say he has responded effectively.
I can also advise Mr Trent to talk to Mr Sayedali-Shah. Mr Sayedali-Shah was at the portfolio committee meeting today where the portfolio committee requested the generals to tell them about the state of readiness, and Mr Singh must lecture that ignorant member about the importance of having a defence force that is ready to do its core business.
This ridiculous argument that, because there is no war, you should not be ready, is something that I don’t even want to entertain and give it some credibility which it does not deserve.
16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM FOR NO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
MIRACLE CHILD OF BLUE DOWNS
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Thank you, Madam Speaker; I almost became the Deputy Minister without portfolio today. I would like to say to the hon member – I think it’s Vilakazi from the IFP …
The SPEAKER: Zikalala.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Mzikalala, I beg your pardon, madam.
The SPEAKER: Zikalala. There is no “M”; it starts with a “Z”.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Zikalala. Thank you for that, Madam Speaker.
In raising awareness about the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence Against Women and Children Campaign, which I support, I would like to urge you, hon member, to mobilise your party, your various communities and constituencies to support this very important period.
I would also like to caution you, hon Zikalala. For you to begin to raise this awareness in your communities, start by saying that women have a right to wear pants. No one should tell a woman what to wear. I am referring to the woman who was assaulted by that particular community, because she was wearing pants. You should start to raise awareness in that area. That is part of women’s rights.
Thank you, hon Zoliswa Kota for raising and reminding us of what this little girl went through. That is how it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be across party lines. It is not a single party complaint, but it is from all parties. It doesn’t matter what community you live in. Sometimes discrimination against women is so subtle that you cannot see it, but it is there in any given community. It is there; it exists. Hence, I want to urge the male parliamentarians to go and join this triple M march – million-man march in support of no violence against women and children. Thank you. The SPEAKER: That brings us to the conclusion of the Ministers’ responses. The Secretary will read the first Order of the Day.
SOUTH AFRICAN JUDICIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE BILL
(Consideration of Report)
There was no debate.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
CHILDREN’S AMENDMENT BILL
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I, with leave, move without notice:
That the House -
1) notes that the National Council of Provinces has rejected the
Children’s Amendment Bill [B 19D – 2006 (Reprint)] (National
Council of Provinces – sec 76(2));
1) elects the following members, as nominated by their respective
parties, as the Assembly representatives to the Mediation Committee
on the Children’s Amendment Bill [B 19D – 2006 (Reprint)] (National
Council of Provinces – sec 76(2)): Bogopane-Zulu, H I (ANC); Louw,
S K (ANC); Gumede, M M (ANC); Mkongi, B M (ANC); Morobi, D M (ANC);
Nzimande, L P M (ANC); Semple, J A (DA); Skosana, M B (IFP); Solo,
B M (ANC); and
2) elects the following members as alternate members: Morwamoche, K W
(ANC); Sibanyoni J B (ANC); Weber, H (DA).
Motion agreed to.
SOUTH AFRICAN JUDICIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, it is with joy, and with gratitude to all those who made it possible, that we have this Bill before us today.
The ground norms for the creation of this institute were extensively discussed at a colloquium in April 2005. An Advisory Committee on Judicial Education, under the leadership of Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke, crafted proposals forming the basis of this Bill. Judges, magistrates, the Judicial Service Commission, members of the Magistrates’ Commission, our drafting team in the Ministry of Justice, the director-general, the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, the Law Society of South Africa, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Justice College and the Society of Law Deans of South Africa were all represented and participated in the advisory committee.
The Bill makes provision for the South African Judicial Education Institute to be established as a juristic person with the mandate for judicial education and training of judicial officers and aspiring judicial officers. The governance of the institute will vest in the council of the institute consisting of representatives of all interested parties and role-players, as well as two persons from the public not involved in the administration of justice.
The objects of the institute will be to: provide proper, appropriate and transformational judicial education and training, having due regard to both our inherited legacy and our new constitutional dispensation; and to offer judicial education and training to aspiring and newly appointed judicial officers as well as continued training for experienced judicial officers. I must thank the portfolio committee indeed for the work that they have done. I would like to congratulate our new Chair as I thank the out-gone Chair for the work well done. I congratulate the new Chair and am saying that I am certain that we will have a great time together working on outstanding matters. With regard to this Bill, we should begin to deal with substantive matters of actually setting up the institute.
We need to ensure sure that we align the process of restructuring what is currently known as the Justice College with further consideration of the detail in the establishment of the judicial education institute. It’s important that we establish those synergies. Thus, we must design a phased- out transfer of training of magistrates from the current Justice College in the coming year. We must also have the council established. Hopefully then they will also start dealing with content with insignia and all matters that go with establishing a new institution.
I have a sense of hope, as we restructure the current Justice College, regarding our ability, even in the preparatory process prior to actually having the new institute and the transformed Justice College - which may have another name, by the way, because it will be training officials that serve in the justice system, including prosecutors.
I hope that with the establishment of these two important institutions we will enhance expertise and efficiency. We will be able to use resources that we have optimally, and hopefully this will enable us to escape the stereotype that goes with debates today about the transformation of the judiciary and the equation of race and colour with incompetence. Hopefully, in time, when the institute comes into being, we will have no difference on the basis of colour or gender, but we will have judicial officers who are properly trained and trusted as efficient judicial officers by society at large.
Let me say that what is important for us as we pass this Bill is to know that without a waste of time, immediately at the beginning of next year, we have to begin processes that will enable us to align the establishment of both institutions, and that we really have these institutions supporting each other conceptually. In other words, as we conceptualise both institutions, we must see them as complementary because that is how we will be assured of using the resources that we have at hand maximally.
This is in terms of having your very able and efficient trainers of judicial officers also rendering services that enable us to have similarly efficient and trusted service providers within the justice system such as court managers, prosecutors, etc. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr Y I CARRIM: Madam Chair, comrades and friends, this Bill, as was suggested by the Minister a moment ago, is part of a package of Bills aimed at facilitating the transformation of the judiciary. The Bill that is about to be debated shortly after this, the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill, is part of this package.
The department, we understand, is working on a policy paper on the overall transformation of the judiciary. The committee understands that the policy paper will be negotiated with the judiciary. We understand that several Bills will flow from this policy paper. We welcome this process as a committee and hope that the policy paper and the Bill will reflect significant consensus amongst key stakeholders.
The South African Judicial Education Institute Bill that is before us certainly does, and so it was easier for us as a committee to process the Bill through Parliament. The committee has reported on the Bill and it’s carried in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports. I will simply take us through some of the issues that the report raises and some related issues.
The committee feels of course that the establishment is sharing the same view with the Minister that the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill is crucial to the transformation of the judiciary and we certainly welcome this Bill. If the institute is effective, our country will have a more empowered, efficient, effective and representative judiciary, more in tune with the values and the requirements of the new Constitution and the new democratic dispensation. The institute would ensure, as the Bill suggests, both independence on the one hand and judicial accountability on the other.
The institute has a crucial role, we believe, of educating and training aspiring judicial officers and so contributing to ensuring that the judiciary becomes increasingly representative, but not just representative in demographic and gender terms, as important as this is, but representative too, very importantly, of the progressive values that are the heart of our Constitution and the new society we are seeking, the challenges notwithstanding, to forge.
The institute is also meant to serve newly appointed judges and, in this regard too, can play a very valuable role. It needs to make itself relevant to these judges, and the judges need to draw on the institute. It’s a two- way process. Experienced judges, too, can and must benefit from the institute. Does learning ever end? Is there ever a closure to acquiring new knowledge and skills?
After all, we live in a constantly changing and dynamic world with streams of new knowledge. Just about every major profession has some institutional or other form of upgrading skills and improving knowledge - cardiologists, physicists and architects, for example, have systems to improve their professional skills. If we are to be effective and productive human beings, we have to constantly learn and grow our knowledge.
Judges, surely, are not immune to this need. Theirs, too, is a field of change and growth even if at a slower pace than others. The need for replenishment is recognised, we are told, in most judicial systems globally, and is very well captured in the preamble to the Bill which I will read to you. It reads:
And whereas law has become much more complex and varied, develops rapidly and is increasingly influenced by the globalisation of legal systems, trade, technology, new insights and challenges …
… and so, of course, the Bill follows.
Essentially, the Bill provides for a 23-person council, headed by the chief justice to govern the institute, with a director to take overall responsibility for the administration of the institute. The council comprises a broad - in fact a full - comprehensive range of stakeholders including the deputy chief justice; the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal; two judges president and two other retired judges; the director of the institute, an advocate; an attorney and two law academics and so on.
The director-general of the department serves as the accounting officer. The committee expects, though, that the institute will account to the committee for its annual report through the DG, a nonexecutive representative of the council of the institute.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member. Hon members, there are just too many meetings taking place. [Interjections.] Hon member, please continue.
Mr Y I CARRIM: It is coming, Madam Deputy Chair, from my left-hand side and they don’t even … [Interjections.] So, I don’t know what they are talking about, but in any case, the Bill that reached the committee was basically sound, we must insist. The amendments we effected are not substantial and do not affect the underlying framework of the Bill.
For example, the committee provided for a mechanism to designate members to the council. Following representations to us, we also increased the representatives of the magistrates in the council from three to five. Perhaps the only amendment of any significance, if it is that, the committee made was to remove the clause which provided for a judicial officer to be a director of the institute. It reflects the committee’s views that it is not appropriate to appoint a serving judicial officer or a judge, just out from active service, as the director of the institute.
The Bill in fact provides for the director to be a CEO of the institute, and he or she will bear the principal responsibility for the administration and management of the institute. The committee holds the view that such functions are distinctly removed from those associated with the holding of judicial office.
They are not compatible, we believe, with the office of a judicial office bearer, and should a judicial office bearer be appointed to this position, the independence, impartiality and dignity of the judiciary is potentially at risk. The same, needless to say, would apply to a judge, to some or other degree, who’s been discharged from active service.
Now, of course, the committee’s amendment does not exclude a judicial officer, active or retired, from serving as a director of the institute, but it does not expressly provide for this. However, should the council decide to appoint a judicial officer, the question of remuneration will have to be addressed and the Minister will have to apply her mind to that.
The committee understands that the department has not yet worked out the cost of implementing the Bill. Obviously, it would be unreasonable to expect a precise costing to have been completed at this stage, but we are concerned that there is not even a broad estimate of the cost.
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the Ministry for their co- operation with the department, in particular, Johan De Lange and his team. I also want to thank Christine Silkstone, if she’s here at all, who’s from the parliamentary research unit and our comrade Thando from the ANC unit and of course, Phumelele Loli Sibisi, the very pleasant and efficient committee secretary.
I note Minister that you have said - and this is in the House - that you look forward to a great time together. Since you said it in the House, you shall duly be held to account. I might mention, as you well know, that I’m a new member of this committee and a new Chairperson; I am not even a lawyer.
So the first thing we could do, Minister, is to look into the possibility of us going off for a week to Mauritius while the Polokwane conference is being held, so that we can talk about matters of state, and you can empower me on what my role is. I shall exercise oversight of you in ways that you didn’t imagine. [Laughter.]
I must also say that you referred to my predecessor as the ``out-gone Chairperson’’. I need to remind you that she refuses to go. [Laughter.] She is going to come back here in few minutes to lead the debate on the next Bill. Mind you, I don’t want her particularly to go, nor do we want her to go. She is most welcome to semi-co-chair this committee. Thank you very much, and thanks to Fatima. I wish her well. Let me suggest to her that, only this morning, Comrade Minister …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no Fatima in this House.
Mr Y I CARRIM: Ah, the hon Ms Chohan if she remembers that she is that. I just want to remind her that, since I left the public enterprises committee, SA Airways is sliding inexorably down. [Laughter.] Yet again, this is the fourth time in a month that they were late! Again, this morning … [Interjections.] … SAA. Fatima, please, sort them out! [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr L K JOUBERT: Deputy Speaker, hon members, I’ve always been under the impression that judges are appointed because they have the necessary knowledge, wisdom and skills to fairly adjudicate. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case anymore, and I only have to refer to the preamble of this Bill, which the hon Carrim read to you just now.
It is also interesting that there’s no requirement in law that a judge should have a legal qualification. The Supreme Court Act only stipulates that a judge should be a fit and proper person. Now, there is also no requirement that the chairperson of the justice and constitutional development committee has to be a lawyer, hon Carrim, but, so far, I think you are a fit and proper person.
We find the first reference to legal qualifications for judges in the judicial reforms that were introduced after the retrocession of the Cape in
- The court had six judges, three of whom had to be lawyers from Holland and three local appointees with, as far as possible, knowledge of the administration of justice.
After the second annexation of the Cape by the British in 1806, a formal qualification was introduced and a judge had to be a barrister of the United Kingdom or advocate of the Cape Bar.
In the Orange Free State, judges were initially laymen but, in 1875, a professional High Court was introduced, and the qualification for judges was doctor of laws or advocate with at least seven years’ experience and 30 years of age.
In the Transvaal, the 1885 Constitution vested judicial power in popularly elected landdrosten and jurors who were not legally qualified. However, in 1877, a High Court of Justice was created and judges were required to have a diploma of doctor of law.
After the Anglo-Boer War, when civil governments succeeded military rule in 1902, the whole administration of justice was reconstructed and judges had to be qualified advocates or judges of any British colony. At the National Convention of 1908-09, it was decided that the judges of the Union would be qualified advocates or judges of any British colony. However, this was not enacted, with the result that there existed no criteria until 1959 when the present principle of a fit and proper person was introduced.
Until fairly recently, the practice was that judges were exclusively appointed from the ranks of senior council. The net has now been thrown wider and appointments are also made from the ranks of attorneys, academics and even junior council.
One of our senior judges, Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, recently criticised the new pre-graduate LLB degree, and I want to fully agree with him, although some of our senior judges don’t even have an LLB.
I think it is time that we revisit the legal qualifications of our lawyers. If judges need special training, as provided for in this Bill, the ranks from which they are appointed need it as badly. The DA supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Deputy Speaker, a well-functioning judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy. At present, our judiciary is not functioning optimally, with cases taking far too long to be heard and judgments sometimes outstanding for months on end.
There are reasons for this poor state of affairs, and one is the quality of education and training provided to judicial officers. We are pleased that comprehensive consultation took place with the legal fraternity and it is my understanding that all role-players support the Bill before the House. The IFP particularly supports the provision that the judiciary itself will be in charge of training, with the Chief Justice playing a leading role.
Having addressed the training of judicial officers, we have scored some points, but there are many other hurdles to cross before we can be sure that we have an effective judiciary. We are still saddled with long waiting periods for trials to be heard and long-outstanding judgments.
However, having listened to Mr Joubert, who talked about the judges in the old days, I am reminded of the English judges of the early 1800s, who spoke a very high kind of English. There was an interpreter who had to interpret.
And the judge said: “Tell the accused I find him guilty.”
And the interpreter said: “Die oubaas sê jy’s skuldig.” [The old gentleman says you are guilty.]
The judge said: “Tell the accused he’s a liar.”
The interpreter said: “Die oubaas sê jy lieg.” [The old gentleman says you are a liar.]
The judge then said: “Tell the accused he’s a thief.”
The interpreter said: “Die oubaas sê jy’s ‘n dief.” [The old gentleman says you are a thief.]
And then the judge said: “Tell the accused he’s an unmitigated scoundrel.”
En die tolk se oë rol so [and the interpreter’s eyes rolled like this] and he froze and said: “Die oubaas sê jy’s ‘n stront.” [The old gentleman says you are rubbish.] [Laughter.]
Ms S N SIGCAU: Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, the Bill before us is the result of a protracted process, which was the subject in 2005. As is often the case, the basic principles and objectives of the draft legislation were generally accepted by parties, but there was disagreement on what means to employ to reach that end.
There was also a definite concern that the original draft legislation, like the rest of the package of Bills discussed in 2005, had, as a purposeful, covert intention, the potential to undermine judicial independence. It is thus good that the product we see before us today is, in most respects, acceptable to all sides.
It is worth noting that the judiciary, not the executive, has the biggest say in the operation of the institute, in the composition and election of the council and in all of the activities of both these bodies. We sincerely hope that the institute will achieve the desired outcome of a better- equipped judiciary, capable of dealing with modern judicial complexities, as well as the demands of a constitutional democracy.
The UDM supports the Bill. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr S N SWART: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill establishes a judicial education institute in order to promote the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts by providing judicial education for judicial officers.
Now, the ACDP understands that the Bill was agreed upon between the Department of Justice and members of the judiciary. This followed the rejection of the first version of the Bill by the judiciary who were concerned that it compromised its independence. This view was shared by the International Bar Association and the Commonwealth Legal Education Association.
Thereafter an advisory committee, consisting of representatives from various law sectors, including the judiciary, was established to make recommendations on the Bill to the Department of Justice and the Ministry. This Bill is now a culmination of that process and, hon Minister, a vast improvement on the first draft.
As far as legal education is concerned, the ACDP does wish to highlight one aspect, and that is the need for training on sentencing, as vast discrepancies exist from one court to the next in this regard. Whilst we appreciate that this is only one aspect and that it will form part of the training, the ACDP trusts that the institute will deal with sentencing whilst we await the SA Law Reform Commission’s comprehensive sentencing framework. This is particularly relevant following the amendments we passed earlier this year on minimum sentencing. The ACDP will support the Bill. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Mr R B BHOOLA: Madam Deputy Speaker, while the judicial system has received much criticism for the backlog in cases and the management of the court system, we have received insight from the budget hearings as to the progress made in a number of areas. The MF welcomes a judicial education and training institute that offers to both educate and further train judicial officers to manage and uphold their portfolios effectively and efficiently.
In view of the provisions of the Bill, all appears in order in the formulation and management of this institute. It further appears to be consistent with maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The MF hopes that the provisions of this Bill will be inculcated most accurately and that the training offered to judicial officers will involve comparative studies of international justice systems so as to invite development and growth in this arena.
The MF will support the Bill.
Mr L M GREEN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the FD supports the ongoing training of judges and magistrates and we believe that such training hinges on providing the judiciary with skills to perform its task with objectivity, independent thought and impartial judgment within the constitutional dispensation of our country.
The establishment of the SA Judicial Education Institute must compare favourably with its international counterparts while taking into account our historic challenges as well as a strong and robust judicial legacy which help shape the realisation of our constitutional democracy.
The proposed legislation aims to transform judicial education in line with the democratic trends in other countries and to further opportunities for judicial officers to enhance the expertise and mobility within the judicial system.
The institute is rewarded with the scope and governance to function independently and professionally to attain its objectives in training a skilled judiciary.
The FD supports the SA Judicial Education Institute Bill without any reservations. I thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr G B MAGWANISHE: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, let me take this opportunity to thank all members who have participated in this debate. When the former President Nelson Mandela said in 1961, ``I am a black man in a white man’s court’’, what did he mean? If Comrade Ida Mntwana was in that situation she would have said: I am a woman in a male-dominated court’’. Comrade J B Marks would have said: I am a worker in a court which is a symbol of superexploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie’’.
What do the above statements really mean? To us as the ANC these statements are at the core of what we mean by the transformation of the justice system in general and the transformation of the judiciary in particular. These questions are important because this is what our society seeks to achieve. A society where there are no blacks or whites, just South Africans. A society where there is gender parity; where women are not second-class citizens but equal partners. A society where class contradictions are managed for the common good of all classes and strata, arising from what Comrade Mandela said in 1961. Further questions are still relevant today as they were then.
What values do or must these men and women in the Bench uphold? Do women who appear before our courts feel safe that they will not suffer secondary victimisation? Are these values consistent with the type of society we are trying to build? Are these values, amongst others, to include nonracialism, nonsexism, a subscription to uphold the Constitution and promote democracy?
These values can take us a long way in assisting in resolving contradictions created by colonialism of a special type, which are related to class, race and patriarchy. If we do not commit ourselves to solving these contradictions our democracy shall be shallow and meaningless to our people; it will be like any bourgeois democracy. Then the question will be: What happens to what Mark Gevisser refers to as “the dream deferred”?
The answer is simple: The people will revolt. Our people know what they fought for and they know what to expect from this democracy. There can be no rule of law in the absence of meaningful democracy. To us transformation means representivity of all races on the Bench.
It means gender parity on the Bench. It means quality gender parity on the Bench. Most importantly, it means judicial officers who uphold the values and the spirit of the Constitution. The majority of our courts are working well and some, like the Constitutional Court, have contributed to the development of our legal jurisprudence both locally and internationally.
However, we cannot run away from the fact that most of our judicial officers were trained when our country subscribed to the supremacy of parliament, which needed a different way of interpretation. Our country now subscribes to the view that says the Constitution is the supreme law of the country and it has its own approach in terms of interpretation.
There are new developments in our society which our judicial officers need to be aware of, like the introduction of the Internet which has created other kinds of offences like cyber crimes.
Globalisation has its challenges for the economy and for the rule of law. Continued education for the judiciary can be ignored at great cost to the judiciary itself and to society as a whole. Ignorance of our cultural diversity can render our laws irrelevant and unjust, though legal.
The question is: What will happen to those communities whose cultures and traditions are ignored even though those traditions are not in conflict with the Constitution?
We often say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the same breath we must say that ignorance of race, gender and class issues is no excuse either.
Judicial training is not only a South African phenomenon. There are many jurisdictions like Canada where this is done. One principle that we feel very strongly about as the ANC is that judicial education must be controlled by the judges themselves.
They will be responsible for the curriculum of the institute to a council chaired by the Chief Justice. We are of the view that we cannot separate continued education from transformation of the judiciary because part of what the institution must do is to train aspirant judges, which will create a pool from which judges can be appointed.
Surgeons are responsible for lives of people in theatres and continuously need to improve themselves because medical science is developing.
Even judges are responsible for lives of people in the courtrooms and society is not static; neither is the legal science. All professions need continuous education and the judicial officers are no exception. We are happy that our judges and hon members have the same values as the ANC on this matter. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon members, thank you very much for the support you give us in passing this Bill. We will take into consideration the critique that the Bill is not costed. Let me just indicate to the House that the process of costing the Bill has begun to the extent that in fact land has been identified and it is being surveyed. However, we do need to come and account to Parliament and bring forth a full costing of the Bill beyond just infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We need to get you a seat nearby. [Laughter.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Deputy Speaker and hon members, once more I present to this House a Bill, the substance of which was considered by the consultative colloquia we held in 2005. Let me just say that this Bill as well has been one that was considered by a broad spectrum of stakeholders. I am aware that there are dissenting voices with regard to some parts of the Bill. I will leave that to members of Parliament to introduce and to debate further.
However, I have been told by the portfolio committee that during parliamentary deliberations on the complaints provisions, a number of concerns were raised. The most important of these are that, in terms of the Constitution, judges are appointed on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission and can only be removed from office upon a finding of incapacity, gross misconduct or gross incompetency by the Judicial Service Commission; and that finally, it is the National Assembly that has to call for the removal of such judges, with a two-thirds majority.
The second point that has been brought to my attention relates to the scheme of the Constitution which indicates that issues regarding incapacity, misconduct and incompetency of judges fall within the provision of the Judicial Service Commission – thus under the Judicial Service Commission Act of 1994. This should, therefore, contain a legislative framework relating to standards for judicial conduct and ethics, including any envisaged complaints mechanisms and enquiry procedure.
The Bill as introduced did not make provision for procedure leading up to a finding of incapacity, gross incompetence or misconduct by the Judicial Service Commission. We all know that up to now, we haven’t had any impeachment procedure, although there have been debates around ethics and some judges. The Bill, as introduced, did not deal with a disclosure of assets by judges, which is an established practice in a number of developed countries and a modern way of disclosure if you hold high office as a public office bearer.
Let me just say that this is before the House today, and I pray that it is supported because we do need to have this kind of regulation for the dignity and honour of our judicial officers. We need greater accountability, and to have transparency. It is only in that way that they will have the deserved respect from the public. I thank you.
Ms F I CHOHAN: Chairperson, with the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994, the constructs of the executive as well as the legislature in this country were completely overhauled and transformed beyond recognition. The one arm of government that was not substantively and completely transformed was the judiciary. It was envisaged during the historic negotiation process that the transformation of the judiciary would be a more drawn out and evolved process.
In this regard, the point has previously been made in this House that transformation of the judiciary means more than just diversity of the judiciary. Though it is true that a reflection of the diversity of the general population on the Bench, in terms of race and gender, remains an important element in a legitimately composed judiciary anywhere in the world, this is particularly so in this country.
Transformation entails a mind-set change. In its fullest extent, it must entail a progressive outlook, the adherence in the strictest sense to the principles of equality and dignity so fundamental to our Constitution. It must, importantly, also entail a meaningful recognition of the existence in the country of the social contract between the legitimately elected government and the majority of the people of the country to create a united nation in all of its diversity based on a nonracial and nonsexist ethic with a distinct predisposition to progressively redressing the imbalances of the past.
This Bill is one of a trio of transformation Bills produced by the portfolio committee a few years ago with a view to putting in place the legal framework within which such a transformed judiciary would evolve. However, the unexpected resistance to the proposed Bill seemed to suggest that many in the country were of the view that the transformation of the judiciary had in fact been achieved the minute it began in its leadership structures reflecting the faces of essentially black men.
Indeed it is only now, given the recent controversies pertaining to some members of the Bench, that some voices have sought to call for legislation to implement a disciplinary procedure for judges. Some who had previously labelled these Bills as a gross intrusion into the sacrosanct independence of the judiciary were now suddenly asking what the delay was in passing this legislation.
Let us be absolutely clear, neither this legislation nor any of the others in the package of transformative Bills were ever intended to undermine the good standing of the judiciary. Indeed from the outset the Bills recognise that the legitimacy of the judiciary rests on the foundation of its perceived integrity, its competence and its independence from undue influence.
Section 1 of the Constitution envisages a system of government that is based on accountability, transparency and responsiveness. That the judiciary is the third arm of government or the state is trite. Thirteen years into our democracy and while other aspects of our Constitution have come to be realised, we have not had in place a procedure through which complaints about judges from members of the public could be dealt with in an effective and open manner. The matter of the integrity of the judiciary, its accountability and the matter of its independence are all interlinked. The Constitution, inter alia, states that:
The judicial authority of the Republic is vested in the courts. The courts are independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law, which they must apply impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.
Judicial independence has in some quarters been argued to mean a complete excision from any influence, no matter how remote, of the executive and the legislature. The Constitutional Court itself in many decisions has declared this interpretation to be absolutely wrong.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judiciary in a submission during 1998 to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission explained the matter in these words:
Judicial accountability is not the same as the accountability of the executive or the legislature. The judges are accountable; their accountability does not extend to their having to account to another institution for their judgments.
Judicial independence denotes freedom of conscience for judges and noninterference in their decision-making. It is not concerned with judicial misbehaviour. The judiciary must be beyond the undue influence of any person, association, legislative or executive branches of government. The fear of losing out on a promotion or their job must not weigh on judges in any decision.
However, it is important to remember that the independence of the judiciary is not a private right; conditions guaranteeing the independence of judges were not created for the benefit of judges but for the benefit of the judged.
While the Constitution stipulates that there should be freedom from fear, favour and prejudice on the part of the judiciary, particularly in matters where the state is a litigant, care must be taken by the judiciary itself that the impartiality applies to all litigants, including the other arms of government. There have been developments, particularly in countries like France, which strictly adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers that courts do not usurp the inherent law-making powers of the other two branches of government through the mechanism of judicial review.
While we do not in this country espouse the separation of powers in such a strict sense, it is, nevertheless, incumbent on the courts to be wary of over-reaching into the domain of the other branches given the very limited nature of their accountability. This is a matter though for judicial sensibility and discernment lest the referees become the players.
In his compelling book entitled The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective, Mauro Cappelletti makes the point that since the Second World War, there has been an increased reliance on the so-called least dangerous branch of government to curb the potential abuse of power of the legislature and executive branches. The advent of the social welfare state and the consequent development of big government have led to an increased political terrain for the judiciary.
This is as true for South Africa as it is for those countries emerging from the Second World War. The very nature of the constitutional state leads to entrusting the power of review as well as law-making powers to the branch of government most removed from democratic accountability.
It therefore becomes evident that the increased vesting of political powers in our courts requires a more vigorous mechanism of accountability than has been the custom certainly in this country. That individual judges must be free from personal influence or private interest is trite. However, we should not forget that in this world where the asset bases of conglomerates far exceed those of some states, the independence of the judiciary faces another potential threat particularly from the private sector.
In this regard, it is very easy for judges who may have interest other than the vocation of adjudicators to develop, if not a conflict of interest itself then, certainly, the perception of one. The one can hardly be said to be worse than the other in a world where nothing is beyond the reach of those who wield heavy wallets.
Prior to this, the law provided a blanket prohibition on serving judges holding other offices of profit with the proviso that permission could be obtained from the Minister of Justice for such extra income-generating activities.
With this legislation we do away with this proviso, except when it comes to judges receiving royalties from legal books written or edited. Henceforth judges will be judges, not directors of boards or companies, nor will they hold any other office of profit.
As far as the category of judges who have been discharged is concerned, this law retains the existing principle that they are to apply in writing to the Minister for any income-generating work, not related to their service to the state as judges for life. It has been argued that these judges should be allowed in blanket fashion to pursue their vocations, particularly in the lucrative arbitration industry.
This argument ignores the institution of the judges for life regime implemented prior to the advent of democracy. This effectively means that upon retirement judges get paid a salary for life without having to contribute to a pension fund. This fact alone makes it not unreasonable for the law to require that permission be sought for the privilege of earning income over and above the salary provided by the state.
In addition, the fact is that even when discharged from the Bench, there is the potential to be recalled for periods to serve on the Bench and the potential to negatively affect the good standing and reputation of the judiciary as a whole.
We provide in this legislation for a register of judges’ registerable interests. This will entail that judges, like members of this House, will have to disclose interests deemed to be registerable. This regime will apply to judges and their immediate families. The position of a registrar is, in addition, established in the office of the Chief Justice.
There are three categories of complaints that may be lodged against judges, namely frivolous complaints that may be dealt with in summary fashion, serious but not impeachable charges, and impeachable charges, which are visited with more elaborate procedures. The conduct of the judges will be measured against a standard of conduct stipulated in law.
In this regard, it was argued that it should be sufficient for the judiciary to regulate itself in the form of broad guidelines. Indeed the judiciary in this country, as far back as March 2000, adopted a code of ethics which was aimed at being a guideline for judges both on and off the Bench.
However, the application paragraph of the guidelines reads as follows:
Ethical rules differ from legal rules in that they are seldom absolute. These guidelines describe the high standards to which all judges should aspire. Nor does any breach of any particular rule or guideline necessarily warrant censure.
This legislation envisages a code of conduct which alongside the code of ethics will apply to all judges. Unlike the code of ethics it will have the force of law and as such it will be passed by this House as the supreme law- maker.
To fulfil its constitutional role, the judiciary needs public acceptance of its moral authority and integrity. Accordingly, the Constitution commands all organs of state to assist and to protect the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness of the judiciary. However, it is even more important – I want to suggest that judges themselves at all times seek to maintain, protect and enhance the status of the judiciary.
I began talking about transformation of the judiciary. Inherent too in this transformation imperative apart from an effective and efficient court system is the aspect of the unitary nature of our justice system. In our Constitution justice is a national functionary. The existence in our country of a federally based High Court structure is therefore incongruent to the vision of the Constitution.
This though is a discussion for another time and another Bill, but we will all do well to bear in mind that the legitimacy of the judiciary during the apartheid regime was seriously tainted and tendencies to hang on to structures originating in the apartheid past, including aspects as ostensibly benign as the location of court buildings evoke strong emotional responses.
The matter of transformation of the judiciary is multidimensional and in the limited time I have I will not have begun to deal with many of its essential components. Suffice to say that in transforming this vital sector of government no effort should be spared to rebuild and guard the good name and standing of our judiciary, among whom are outstanding sons and daughters of this land.
While the executive executes decisions through tools more palpable in the form of the security apparatus as well as the bureaucracy of government, the reputation and legitimacy of the judiciary are its only real source of power.
This legislation is aimed at restoring to the judiciary the tools to preserve the source of their power. How the judiciary conducts and manages the implementation of this law will determine ultimately their power in relation to the other spheres of government in this country henceforth.
I thank you for your attention and before I leave the podium, let me please make a few remarks, this being probably my last speech in this particular portfolio. Firstly, I want to thank the Minister, seeing that these Bills have been particularly difficult to process. I really want to thank you for the stubbornness that you have shown to lead us along this path. I think history will bear out that these Bills were enormously essential and crucial to the transformation initiative. Hence I thank you for your leadership. I know it’s been a very difficult situation.
Likewise to the director-general in his absence, Adv Menzi Simelane, as tenacious as the portfolio committee members when it comes to driving this Bill, I want to say to him - if you would please convey that in my book - unlike the Mail & Guardian he is a 10/10 director-general and I really appreciate all of his support that he has shown me as the chairperson.
People like Mr B M Skosana, Adv Johannes de Lange, Mr Deon Rudman and others have been absolutely phenomenal and the department really has a lot of treasures of that sort. Thank you all for the support and guidance.
Regarding the study group of the ANC, I could not have hoped for a better team, and thank you very much to all of you, particularly to Imam Gassan Solomon who is a repository of the institution of the justice portfolio committee - he has been there since 1994. I don’t know how we would have really progressed without his enormous assistance. Likewise to Mr Luwellyn Landers, another stalwart of the portfolio committee, thank you very much for your help as senior members.
We worked extremely well with the members of the opposition, particularly Dr J T Delport. Thank you very much for your assistance, as well as Mrs Camerer who has also departed. I also want to thank the hon Leonardus Joubert, the hon Steven Swart and not forgetting the hon Koos van der Merwe as well.
I must say with some disgust that the hon Koos van der Merwe has never tabled a cake in the committee while I was chairperson and I would be enormously disgusted if he should do so now that I have left the committee. [Laughter.]
To the hon Yunus Carrim, who is particularly upset about SAA, I just want to say one thing: The minute he left the chair of public enterprises the management and board of SAA breathed a sigh of relief because what that meant was that they could immediately cancel the route between Cape Town and Durban, which is extremely unprofitable, and they tell me now that because of this they will be registering a profit next year. [Time expired.] Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Voorsitter, die DA ondersteun hierdie wetgewing, maar met sekere ernstige voorbehoude.
In essensie kry ons nou die moontlikheid om ’n behoorlike gedragskode vir regters daar te stel en dan ’n proses om nalewing van daardie gedragskode af te dwing. Grootliks berus al hierdie sake in die hande van die regbank self.
Die onlangse ondervinding wat ons gehad het ten opsigte van ’n klagte wat moes behartig word deur die Regterlike Dienskommissie was nie baie bemoedigend nie. Ons hoop dat die regbank deur selfdissipline baie angstig en jaloers sal waak oor die hoë standaarde wat die regbank aan sigself behoort te stel. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr J T DELPORT: Chairperson, the DA supports this legislation, but with certain serious reservations.
In essence we are now given the opportunity to create a proper code of conduct for judges and a process to enforce compliance with that code of conduct. Most of these issues rest with the judiciary itself.
The recent finding we had in respect of a complaint that should have been handled by the Judicial Service Commission was not very promising. We hope that the judiciary, through self-discipline, will guard anxiously and jealously the high standards that it should be setting.]
Now my reservation: Clause 11(2) of the Bill requires of judges who are discharged from active service to obtain the consent of the Minister to perform any work whatsoever for remuneration. At the portfolio committee the DA formally proposed an amendment. The object of this amendment was to allow judges who are discharged to do judicial and quasi-judicial work as of right, in other words, without seeking permission from the Minister. For any other work, we are happy that permission should be required.
The ACDP supported this amendment, but it was voted down by the majority party. Two reasons were advanced. The first was that judges are judges for life. They continue to receive a judge’s salary after being discharged and should not earn double remuneration. This argument does not hold water. The simple fact is that judges who are recalled in an acting capacity are in any event remunerated for that service.
The second reason advanced was that discharged judges who act as arbitrators prevent inexperienced judges from gaining the necessary experience in intricate cases, because many of the big companies would rather opt for arbitration than to trust the case in the hands of an inexperienced judge. This is also probably why clause 11(3) dictates that the Minister will not grant his or her consent if such work will undermine any aspect of the administration of justice, especially the civil justice system. May I point out that the right of parties to revert to arbitration is part and parcel of the civil justice system and to act as an arbitrator in fact strengthens the civil justice system?
The portfolio committee was privileged to listen to the views of no less than three eminent retired, discharged judges, which included a former Chief Justice and a former judge of the Constitutional Court. They were opposed, very adamantly so, to the principle of ministerial permission. Having carefully listened to their arguments, I have no doubt in my mind that clause 11(2), as it now stands, will be tested in the Constitutional Court. This, in my opinion … [Interjections.] I will represent them. This, in my opinion, must be avoided.
It can be avoided. I seriously appeal to the Minister to reconsider clause 11(2) and have a careful look at our amendment. Please amend that section when the Bill comes before the NCOP. South Africa does not deserve to have this issue tested in the Constitutional Court and cause a rift between the judiciary and the legislature. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, the IFP supports the Bill with reservations. The specific question I wish to address today is whether retired judges receive pension upon retirement or continued salaries.
There can be no doubt that whatever law we are trying to make or whatever law may be in place, people who retire get pensions and are free to continue to work as hundreds of thousands of civil servants in fact do.
So, why are judges to be an exception? The answer is very simple. It is because litigation is being taken away from the High Courts at an alarming rate to be done outside of the courts by way of arbitration. Lawyers and judges tell me that litigants are losing confidence in the capacity of the High Court to effectively do civil work. They say civil cases, especially in Pretoria, can be heard only after a waiting period of about two years, because of the congestion of court rolls. They say litigants have to wait months on end to get High Court judgments. There are even examples of undelivered judgments for up to four years.
Madam Speaker, where does the problem lie? The problem lies in the judicial system itself. Therefore, trying to prohibit judges from doing arbitration work won’t cause the problem to go away. There are dozens of advocates and attorneys who are getting progressively involved in arbitration and more and more civil work is being taken away from the High Courts. The solution to protecting the High Court lies in the hands of the Minister and the judiciary. They must get the judicial house in order, because the problem won’t go away by victimising retired judges.
Judgments must be delivered in good time; that is, within one month. Trials should be heard within good time; that is, not more than six months’ waiting. Retired judges are unfairly targeted. They should enjoy the same rights as hundreds of thousands of other retired people. Therefore, although we support most provisions of the Bill, we cannot support clause 11(2) and we will support the DA’s amendment.
Finally, the time has also arrived for us to have a debate on what the judiciary is. Where does the legislative aspect end and where does the judiciary begin? We have to have a discussion on this because what is the judiciary that we are trying to protect and keep neutral? Thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, when the Judicial Service Commission dealt with the ACDP’s complaint against Cape Judge President Hlophe, it recommended that specific guidelines should be furnished as to when judges can do extrajudicial remunerated work.
These guidelines, together with further provisions relating to the disclosure of judges’ financial interests, are now contained in the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill which the ACDP supports. Following the outcry, as well, when the JSC’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into the allegations against the Cape Judge President was made public, the Cape Bar Council also stated that –
It is acutely conscious that the Constitution and national legislation do not afford the JSC, or any other disciplinary body, powers of sanction over superior court judges short of recommending impeachment.
This, the Cape Bar Council said, is –
… a shortcoming that adversely affects the JSC’s ability to fulfil the role that the public expects from it in respect of matters of alleged judicial misconduct or incompetence which, although serious, are not sufficient to warrant impeachment.
The Bar Council then joined calls for this shortcoming “to be urgently addressed by Parliament”, and this shortcoming is now addressed in this Bill which seeks to make provision for structures and procedures relating to oversight over judicial conduct, make provision for the maintenance of a register of judges’ financial interests, and to establish a judicial conduct tribunal to inquire into, and report on, allegations of incapacity, gross incompetence and gross misconduct against judges.
The ACDP also agrees with the Cape Bar Council and various leading lawyers and academics that “confidence in the JSC and the judiciary has, unfortunately, not been wellserved by the manner in which the Cape Judge President’s issue has been addressed”. The JSC should have shown greater transparency in reporting on the matter, particularly following its unanimous finding that the conduct of the judge concerned, in accepting R467 000 from the Oasis Group and then granting the group permission to sue a fellow judge, was “inappropriate” and that his explanations were “unsatisfactory in certain respects”.
As former Constitutional Court judge, Johann Kriegler, stated: “On his own showing, the particular judge was guilty of grossly improper conduct and here we have a matter of elementary judicial ethics”.
This begs the question as to why it was decided not to hold a public inquiry that might have led to impeachment proceedings. Whilst we appreciate that the JSC did not exonerate the judge involved, the slap on the wrist strengthens the perception that the JSC simply protected one of its own. In our view, the honourable thing remains for Judge Hlophe to step down as a judge and, more particularly, as the Cape Judge President.
Whilst the ACDP furthermore fully supports the provisions of the Bill, our one concern also relates to the position of retired judges who will be required to obtain ministerial permission for any work performed during retirement. Whilst we appreciate the explanations provided by the portfolio committee chairperson in this regard, this provision, we believe, should be reconsidered as it may negatively impact upon attempts to draw legal practitioners to take up permanent positions on the Bench.
In conclusion, let us be reminded of the words of Johann Kriegler that –
Judges are fallible and people do not expect perfection, but what they do expect – and are entitled to demand – is, at least, honesty and impartiality. When judges are no longer seen to be administering justice to all alike, without fear, favour or prejudice, the immediate casualty is the administration of justice. Then the rule of law suffers and, ultimately, individual rights and freedoms.
The ACDP will support this Bill and I again want to thank the previous chairperson, hon Fatima Chohan, for the gracious manner in which she has chaired the committee and these Bills. I thank you.
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the independence of the judiciary has always been a sensitive issue since the birth of democracy. However, their independence is a crucial faculty to the development and conduct of the justice system.
The MF believes that judicial officers cannot be held liable for the backlog of judicial matters and the loopholes in the system. In fact, the lack of capacity is a state issue that needs to be serviced if we are to effectively transform and inculcate an efficient and democratic judicial system.
As for the provision of remuneration for judicial officers and what the legislation provides for, the MF has no objection - as long as remuneration provided for is justified and well within the means to manage and maintain the efficient and effective reliance of judicial officers.
The MF supports the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill. I thank you, Chairperson.
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, recently, judicial conduct has come under the spotlight, and due to the lack of proper institutional capacity to deal with such matters we have, in certain instances, witnessed division within the judiciary.
The establishment of a Judicial Conduct Committee will hopefully provide a framework instructing members of the judiciary on matters regarding accountability and appropriate conduct. The conduct of judicial officers is a matter of national importance, and the integrity and stability of the state demands from officials the dignity required in conducting the affairs of the state.
The Bill has given citizens the opportunity to report any gross misconduct by an official, thereby keeping the judiciary in check of its service mandate. It is, therefore, right and justifiable that the constraints contained within the Bill and to which the judiciary is to be subject will advance the overall dignity, independence, integrity and professional service of the judicial system.
In the matter relating to receiving payment for any service outside of the judiciary, a judge not in active service may only do so with the written consent of the Minister. It has been reported that in the past judges were given oral consent by the Minister to engage in such a service. Besides placing the effective administration of justice at risk in granting such consent, the practice is also unbecoming of the profession and should be wholeheartedly discouraged.
We welcome the provision requiring judges to disclose a register of financial interests since the independence of the judiciary implies imposing checks, balances and controls to inhibit relations in order to protect our fledgling democracy. The matter that is still outstanding is compiling a code of judicial conduct, and we trust that this will be done in the time allocated.
The FD supports this Bill with reservation for clause 11(2), and we concur with the arguments of both the DA and the IFP as presented in the House today. I thank you.
Mr J B SIBANYONI: Ngithokoze Sihlalo. Ngilotjhise woke amaLunga ahloniphekileko wePalamende. Ikulumopikiswano yanamhlanjesi le, iqakatheke khulu kwamambala ngombana imayelana netjhuguluko leenkoro zokusegela begodu nalabo abahlulelako. [Thank you, Chairperson. I greet all hon Members of Parliament. Today’s debate is of paramount importance, because it deals with the transformation of the judiciary.]
The Judicial Service Commission was established in terms of the Judicial Service Commission Act of 1994. In terms of this Act, there is no real complaints mechanism for judges. The current system is half baked. Members of the Judicial Service Commission who are members of Parliament, except the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, recuse themselves whenever the commission hears complaints about judges. Our Constitution deals with instances that can lead to impeachment of judges by Parliament. There is currently no provision for wrongdoing or misconduct that does not lead to impeachment.
I would like to draw every person’s attention to the fact that, as matters currently stand, the commission is one of the independent structures that were created with the advent of the democratic dispensation in South Africa. Its independence should be respected. Once the commission makes a decision, that decision should be respected in the same manner as a decision of a court of law.
I would not agree with hon Delport by uttering negative comments as far as the case which has recently been attended to by the Judicial Service Commission is concerned. I also do not agree with hon Van der Merwe that litigants, as they are losing hope in the High Courts, should proceed to arbitration.
In terms of the Bill that is debated today, we are ushering in a new dispensation, addressing an issue of judicial and disciplinary mechanism for dealing with allegations of incapacity, gross incompetence or gross misconduct against judges.
Yindlela yokunqophisa iingwegwe emejajini ahloniphekileko. [It is a way of disciplining our honourable judges.]
They are honourable judges.
The Bill provides a grievance procedure and mechanisms for complaints about judges. This forms part of the transformation of the judiciary. For the benefit of our constituency, and for them to understand what this Bill is all about, I hereby continue in isiNdebele.
UmThethomlingwa lo esiwuphetheko kulekulumopikiswano yanamhlanjesi, ukhuluma ngamagadango athathwako lokha umuntu nakafuna ukufaka isinghonghoyilo malungana namajaji. Omunye nomunye umuntu unelungelo lokunghonghoyila kusiHlalo weKomiti yeNghonghoyilo, bese usiHlalo ukhetha ihloko yekhotho bonyana iqale isinghonghoyilo leso.
Isinghonghoyilo kufanele siqaliswe entweni yinye nanyana eentweni ezingaphezu kwayinye kilezo ezine ezikumThethomlingwa. Hlangana nazo ngibala nazi ezilandelako: Kokuthoma, kubhalelwa kwejaji ukwenza umsebenzi walo ngobujamo bamajaji namkha ukuziphatha kumbi nofana budlabha. Okwesibili, ukungatlhogomeli i-Code of Conduct namkha umTlolo wokuziPhatha kwamaJaji nanyana isiyalelo esisemthethweni. Okwesithathu, ukwamukela namkha ukuphatha i-Ofisi lapho ijaji lirhola khona imali ngendlela ephikisana nomThethomlingwa. Okwesine, ukungalaleli namkha ukungalandeli isiyeleliso nanyana amagadango ijaji eliwalelwa namkha liwenze ukulungisa umraro nanyana ukuziphatha nokwenza into engakhambisani nokuba lijaji.
Iinghonghoyilo ezincani zingapheliswa ngendlela erhabako. Singathululwa, njengokuthi nakukufanele bona loyo onghonghoyilako adlulisele umlandu ekhotho engaphezulu, ukufaka i-appeal ngamanye amezwi, namkha isinghonghoyilo nasinganatlha.
Ikomiti ingaphakamisa bonyana kukhethwe ikoro ebizwa ngokuthi yi-Tribunal, lapho kungathathwa khona amagadango wokobana ijaji lithokoziswe umsebenzi, i-impeachment. Lokho kwenzeka uSihlalo nakanelisiweko bonyana kungatholakala isiqunto sokobana ijaji libhalelwa msebenzi walo, kufanele athumele isighonghoyilo ekomitini, lona elizakutjho bonyana isinghonghoyilo kufanele siye ku-Tribunal namkha awa. Nasele kuqediwe nge-Tribunal begodu kube nesiphakamiso sokubana ijaji lithokoziswe umsebenzi walo, indaba ithunyelwa ngePalamendeni, kukhulunywe nge-impeachment. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[The Bill under discussion today deals with grievance procedures for complaints about judges. Every individual has a right to lodge a grievance with the chairperson of the grievances committee. The chairperson will appoint an official in charge of the High Court services to oversee the grievance.
The grievance must be based on one or more of the four issues contained in the Bill. Among others, I can mention the following: First is the incompetence of the judge to perform his duties according to the code of conduct for judges. Secondly, not taking into consideration the code of conduct for judges. Thirdly, to be in a position of accepting remuneration which is unlawful according to the Bill. Fourthly, to behave in a manner that is against the acceptable code of conduct for judges.
Minor grievances should be attended to with immediate effect. If the complainant appeals and the High Court finds that the appeal has no prima facie evidence, then the appeal shall be dismissed.
The committee can propose the election of a tribunal, where the decision of discharging the judge concerned from his duties will be taken. That happens when the chairperson is satisfied with the decision that the judge failed to perform his or her duties; then the impeachment could be applied after this matter has been debated by Parliament. The chairperson must forward the grievance to the committee, which will decide whether the grievance qualifies to be forwarded to the tribunal or not. Once the tribunal has finalised its process and recommended that the judge be discharged from his or her duties, that recommendation should be tabled in Parliament for debate on impeachment.]
Once a judge, always a judge! By this I mean that people who are appointed as judges become judges for life. They earn a salary not only when they are presiding on the Bench, but continue to get paid even after they are discharged from active service and for the rest of their lives.
In terms of this Bill, serving judges will be entitled to do extra-judicial work, such as writing books or lecturing as well as receiving royalties for legal books written or edited by the judges, with the consent of the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, acting in consultation with the Chief Justice.
The Bill provides for certain criteria to be met:
Written consent may only be given if the Minister is satisfied that the granting of such consent will not adversely affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of justice; adversely affect the image or reputation of the administration of justice in the Republic; in any manner undermine the legal framework which underpins the judge for life concept; result in any judge engaging in any activity that is in conflict with the vocation of a judge; and bring the judiciary into disrepute or have the potential to do so.
Honourable judges cannot have a blanket ability to do things such as arbitration and get an additional income whilst they are getting paid as judges. They cannot have their bread buttered on both sides.
The measures are for the good of the honourable judges to prevent them from getting embroiled in controversies which may be seen as bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Judges are expected to maintain the good standing and respect of the judiciary.
In the past, judges have always been applying to the Minister for permission to engage in extra-judicial activities. There is nothing new or wrong in putting a procedure for judges to comply with, before engaging in some work other than what they have been appointed to do.
Parliament, as a legislative body, intends to curb some of these activities that may lead to complaints about the judges. The Bill gives effect to accountability and openness. These are fundamental values that underpin our constitutional democracy. It is not correct to act in a manner that is self- serving. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, when we refer to and talk about the separation of powers, we should not forget that in our Constitution there is a principle of co-governance, that is, co- operative governance. It is a very important principle. In my view, it does apply even among the three arms of government.
The whole idea of the executive having a place within the administration of justice, a place to anchor or play a part around the judiciary constitutes checks and balances. It is very important that we should recognise that. Similarly, in Parliament we have to try and recognise that the judiciary cannot operate, strictly speaking, independently as in fairyland. We live in a real world and need to have that kind of balance between organs of state.
With regard to 11(2), we are in a continuous process of transformation of the justice system. It is currently progressing very effectively and in a focused manner. We are involved in the review of the criminal justice system. Of course, we have our eye on and intend to begin effectively the review of the civil justice system as we reported sometime back in this House. All of these interactions among the three organs of state are always under review. It will be in that context that people should look at all these principles that are introduced in the Bills.
In any event, the whole question of permission for retired judges to do extra-judicial work is current. It is not a new element introduced into the Bill.
I should really thank all the parties represented in this House for supporting, broadly speaking, the Bill. It is a very important Bill as we all know. You’ve said it yourselves.
I should, in conclusion, quote the Deputy Chief Justice on ethics. The quotation is so relevant and also shows that even the judiciary takes this Bill very seriously. This is what he said in his speech at a conference of the lower courts judiciary in Midrand – what we call the magistracy – on 15- 16 September 2007:
A judicial officer is not involved in any undertaking, business, fundraising or other activity that may affect the status, independence or impartiality of the judicial officer or is incompatible with the judicial officer.
It is important that a judicial officer is not engaged in financial and business dealings that may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judicial officer’s judicial position or are incompatible with the judicial office.
A judicial officer shouldn’t receive income or compensation for work that’s not compatible with judicial office.
You would say that’s common sense and that you agree. However, I thought it was important to refer to what he said because in effect he was endorsing, broadly speaking, also what is entailed in the Bill.
In other words, I think most judicial officers will endorse this Bill. Probably, we will have reservations, as you have said that there have been judicial officers appearing before the portfolio committee having reservations about section 11(2). However, let me thank you for the support. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon Minister, I deemed your quotation and explanation very crucial and therefore gave you an extra two and a half minutes.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): The Bill will be sent to the NCOP for concurrence.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR M F MATHE,
AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE AT PINETOWN
Question put. That the recommendation of the committee be adopted, and the withholding of remuneration of Additional Magistrate, M F Mathe be confirmed.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR I X MASIMINI,
AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE AT QUEENSTOWN
Question put: That the recommendation of the committee be adopted, and the withholding of remuneration of Additional Magistrate I X Masimini be confirmed by the House.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - UPLIFTMENT OF PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION OF MR M S
MAKAMU, A SENIOR MAGISTRATE AT BENONI
Question put: That the recommendation of the committee be adopted, and the upliftment of provisional suspension of Senior Magistrate M S Makamu accordingly confirmed by the House.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND WITHHOLDING OF
REMUNERATION OF MR T V D MATYOLO AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, AT PORT
ELIZABETH
Question put: That the recommendation of the committee adopted, and the restoration to office of Additional Magistrate T V D Matyolo accordingly not confirmed by the House.
The House adjourned at 16:20. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2007
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Message from President
The Speaker and the Chairperson of the NCOP received the following
message, dated 14 November 2007, from the President, calling a Joint
Sitting of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces:
CALLING OF A JOINT SITTING OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
In terms of section 84(2)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996, read with Rule 7(1)(a) of the Joint Rules of
Parliament, I hereby call a joint sitting of Parliament at 14h00 on 21
November 2007, in order to make an announcement regarding a process for
the consideration of Presidential Pardons for persons who have
committed what are alleged to be political offences.
With kind regards
Signed
THABO MBEKI
National Assembly
The Speaker
-
I have received a copy of the recommendations of the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office-Bearers, under the chairpersonship of Justice Dikgang Moseneke, in respect of an annual inflationary-linked adjustment to the remuneration of public office- bearers for the 2007/2008 financial year.
Copies will be made available to Members.
-
On 20 September 2007, Ms S C Vos, MP gave notice of a substantive motion proposing, amongst others, the appointment of an ad hoc committee to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Ms Serobe wilfully furnished the Portfolio Committee on Communications with false or misleading information.
I have received the following letter from Ms Serobe in regard to this matter:
CREDA PLEASE INSERT - Insert - T071115-insert – PAGE 2264
-
Referral to Committees of papers tabled
1) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Social Development for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Development Agency (NDA) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 159-2007].2) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health for consideration and report. The Report of the Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.3) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SAS-Seta) for 2006- 2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 84-2006].4) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security for consideration and report:
a) Report of the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS) for the period 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007, in terms of section 18(5)(d) of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No 116 of 1998). b) Report of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) for July 2006 to December 2006, in terms of section 18(5)(c) of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No 116 of 1998).5) The following paper is referred to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women and the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 1 – The Presidency for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 198-2007].6) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Portfolio Committee on Housing. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Construction Education and Training Authority (CETA) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.7) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Transport for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor- General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Rail Commuter Corporation Limited (SARRC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 188-2007].8) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the State Information Technology Agency (Proprietary) Limited (SITA) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 33-2007].9) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 24 – Department for Safety and Security for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 199-2007].
10) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Bureau of
Standards for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements and Performance
Information for 2006-2007 [RP 105-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Companies and
Intellectual Property Registration Office for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements and Performance Information for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Small Enterprise
Development Agency for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance
Information for 2006-2007.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Export Credit Insurance
Corporation of South Africa for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007.
e) Report and Financial Statements of the South African National
Accreditation System (SANAS) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007.
11) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Housing for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Rural Housing Loan Fund
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements and Performance
Information for 2006-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the National Urban
Reconstruction and Housing Agency for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
and Performance Information for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the National Home Builders
Registration Council (NHBRC) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007.
12) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on
Provincial and Local Government:
a) Government Notice No 522 published in Government Gazette No
30013 dated 29 June 2007: Exemption for High Capacity
Municipalities in terms of section 122(2) and (3) of the Local
Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act No 56
of 2003).
13) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Science and Technology for consideration and report. The Reports of
the Auditor-General are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 31 – Department of
Science and Technology for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 200-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 131-2007].
14) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence and the Joint Standing Committee on Defence:
a) The President of the Republic submitted a letter dated 6
September 2007 to the Speaker of the National Assembly
informing Members of the Assembly of the employment of the
South African National Defence Force in the Central African
Republic.
15) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Revenue
Service (SARS) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
205-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Reconstruction and
Development Programme Fund for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 179-2007].
c) National Treasury – Consolidated Financial Information for the
year ended 31 March 2007.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Financial Services
Board on the Registrar of Pension Funds for 2005 [RP 97-2007].
e) Convention between the Republic of South Africa and the
Republic of Mozambique for the Avoidance of Double Taxation
and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on
Income, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution,
1996.
f) Explanatory Memorandum to the Convention between the Republic
of South Africa and the Republic of Mozambique for the
Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal
Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income.
g) Report and Financial Statements of the Development Bank of
Southern Africa Limited for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
h) Report and Financial Statements of Sasria Limited for 2006-
2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
i) Report and Financial Statements of the Accounting Standards
Board (ASB) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 85-2007].
16) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance:
a) Government Notice No 809 published in Government Gazette No
30247 dated 31 August 2007: Determination of interest rate for
purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “official rate
of interest” in paragraph 1 of the Seventh Schedule, in terms
of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).
b) Government Notice No 1062 published in Government Gazette No
30220 dated 31 August 2007: Rate on the interest on Government
loans made in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999
(Act No 1 of 1999).
c) Government Notice No R.815 published in Government Gazette No
30254 dated 7 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No. 1 (No.
1/1/1342) in terms of the Customs end Excise Act, 1964 (Act No
91 of 1964).
d) Government Notice No R.816 published in Government Gazette No
30254 dated 7 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No. 3 (No.
3/618) in terms of the Customs end Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91
of 1964).
e) Explanatory Memorandum on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill,
2007.
f) Explanatory Memorandum on the Securities Transfer Tax Bill,
2007.
17) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communications for consideration and report. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African
Broadcasting Corporation Limited (SABC) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
18) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture and Land Affairs for consideration and report. The
Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Agricultural Research
Council (ARC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
168-2006].
19) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice an Constitutional Development for consideration and report.
The Reports of the Auditor-General are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Special Investigating
Unit (SIU) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 206-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Office of the Public
Protector of South Africa for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 193-2007].
20) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African National
Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 27-2007].
21) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Enterprises for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Eskom Holdings Limited
(Eskom) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
22) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Lotteries
Board for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 170-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Competition Tribunal
for 2005-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP 125-2007].
c) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Quality
Institute for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Estate Agency Affairs
Board for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
e) Report and Financial Statements of the International Trade
Administration Commission of South Africa for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 91-2007].
f) Report and Financial Statements of the National Gambling Board
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 142-2007].
23) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Finance. The Reports of the Auditor-General
and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Credit
Regulator (NCR) for the ten months ended 31 March 2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for the ten months ended 31 March 2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of Khula Enterprise Finance
Limited for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Micro-
finance Apex Fund for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
24) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
and Industry for consideration:
a) Report to Parliament on the Strategic Industrial Projects
(SIP) of the Department of Trade and Industry for April 2002
to March 2007.
b) Report to Parliament on the National Industrial Participation
Programme of the Department of Trade and Industry for 2006-
2007.
25) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Health for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Medical
Research Council (MRC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 172-2007].
26) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communications for consideration and report. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Sentech Limited for 2006-
2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
27) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
and Industry for consideration and report. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements the National Productivity
Institute (NPI) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
28) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Provincial and Local Government. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Local Government Sector
Education and Training Authority (LG-Seta) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 69-2007].
29) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Transport. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Transport Education and
Training Authority (Teta) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 76-2007].
30) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on the
Auditor-General for consideration and report. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Auditor-General for
2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 134-2007].
31) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 8 – National Treasury
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 139-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Reserve
Bank for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Financial Services
Board (FSB) 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 91-
2007].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Office of the Ombud for
Financial Services Providers for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007.
e) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Regulatory
Board for Auditors for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
32) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communications for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent
Communications Authority of South Africa for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 155-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Post
Office Limited for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 7 – Government
Communication and Information System (GCIS) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 194-2007].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Media Development and
Diversity Agency (MDDA) for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
33) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Health. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Council for Medical
Schemes for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 75-
2007].
34) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Housing for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Social Housing
Foundation for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the National Housing
Finance Corporation Ltd (NHFC) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007.
35) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Education:
a) Government Notice No 496 published in Government Gazette No
29979 dated 8 June 2007: Appointment of ministerial committee on
schools that work, in term of the provisions of regulations 20,
Part 8, of the Treasury Regulations for Department, Trading
Entities, Constitutional Institutions and Public Entities,
issued in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act
No 1 of 1999).
36) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture and Land Affairs for consideration and report. The
Reports of the Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Ncera Farms (Pty) Ltd
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama
Trust Board for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 210-
2007].
37) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Economic
Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Unemployment Insurance
Fund (UIF) for 2006-2006, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 162-
2007].
38) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and
report. The Reports of the Auditor-General are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Prosecuting
Authority for 2006-2007, including the Reports of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 and on the
Financial Statements of the Criminal Assets Recovery Account
for 2006-2007.
b) Report of the South African Law Reform Commission for 2006-
2007 [RP 123-2007].
c) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Human
Rights Commission (SAHRC) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 132-2007].
39) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Science and Technology for consideration and report. The Reports of
the Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Human Sciences Research
Council (HSRC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
128-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Council
for Natural Scientific Professions 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the National Research
Foundation (NRF) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
40) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Public Service and Administration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Public Service Sector
Education and Training Authority (PSeta) for 2006-2007 [RP 73-
2007].
41) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
and Industry for consideration and report. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Empowerment
Fund for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
42) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry.
a) Government Notice No 517 published in Government Gazette No
30003 dated 21 June 2007: Repeal Part 1 of the Regulations
published by Government Notice No. R2362 of 18 November 1977
in terms of the Trade Metrology Act, 1973 (Act No 77 of 1973).
b) Government Notice No R.544 published in Government Gazette No
30023 dated 6 July 2007: Compulsory specification for cement
in terms of the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
c) Government Notice No R.545 published in Government Gazette No
30023 dated 6 July 2007: Regulations relating to the payment
of levy and the issue of sales permits in regard to compulsory
specifications: Amendment in terms of the Standards Act, 1993
(Act No 29 of 1993).
d) Government Notice No R.546 published in Government Gazette No
30023 dated 6 July 2007: Regulations relating to the payment
of levy and the issue of sales permits in regard to compulsory
specifications: Amendment in terms of the Standards Act, 1993
(Act No 29 of 1993).
e) Government Notice No R.547 published in Government Gazette No
30023 dated 6 July 2007: Regulations relating to the payment
of levy and the issue of sales permits in regard to compulsory
specifications: Amendment in terms of the Standards Act, 1993
(Act No 29 of 1993).
f) Government Notice No R.580 published in Government Gazette No
30050 dated 13 July 2007: Standards matters in terms of the
Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
g) Government Notice No R.581 published in Government Gazette No
30050 dated 13 July 2007: Incorporation of an external company
as a company in the Republic of South Africa: Revere
International Limited, in terms of the Companies Act, 1973
(Act No 61 of 1973).
h) Government Notice No R.582 published in Government Gazette No
30050 dated 13 July 2007: Incorporation of an external company
as a company in the Republic of South Africa: Delburne
Holdings Limited, in terms of the Companies Act, 1973 (Act No
61 of 1973).
i) Government Notice No 643 published in Government Gazette No
30074 dated 20 July 2007: Standards matters in terms of the
Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
j) Government Notice No 644 published in Government Gazette No
30074 dated 20 July 2007: Standards matters in terms of the
Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
k) Government Notice No 648 published in Government Gazette No
30092 dated 20 July 2007: Companies and Intellectual Property
Registration Office (CIPRO) – Intellectual Property Division:
Notice in terms of regulations 3(7) in terms of the Copyright
Act, 1978 (Act No 98 of 1978).
l) Government Notice No 649 published in Government Gazette No
30074 dated 20 July 2007: Repeal of Government Notice No 1322
of 1 September 1995 and publishing of regulations in terms of
the Trade Metrology Act, 1973 (Act No 77 of 1973).
m) Government Notice No 698 published in Government Gazette No
30144 dated 10 August 2007: Standards matters in terms of the
Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
n) Government Notice No 741 published in Government Gazette No
30189 dated 17 August 2007: Incorporation of an external
company as a company in the Republic of South Africa: Kotze
Investments (Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Companies Act, 1973
(Act No 61 of 1973).
o) Government Notice No 781 published in Government Gazette No
30225 dated 28 August 2007: Rules for the conduct of matters
before the National Consumer Tribunal in terms of the National
Credit Act, 2005 (Act No 34 of 2005).
p) Government Notice No 819 published in Government Gazette No
30254 dated 7 September 2007: Proposed amendment of the
Compulsory Specification for Vehicles of Category 03 and 04,
in terms of the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
43) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Arts
and Culture for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 14 – Department of
Arts and Culture for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
44) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Road Accident Fund
(RAF) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 112-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Airports Company South
Africa Limited (ACSA) for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Air Traffic and
Navigation Services Company Limited (ATNS) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Railway Safety
Regulator (RSR) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
94-2007].
e) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Civil
Aviation Authority (SACAA) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 146-2007].
f) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Search
and Rescue Organisation (SASAR) for 2006-2007.
g) Report of the Regulating Committee of the Airports Company of
South Africa and Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company
Limited for 2006-2007.
45) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy for consideration and report. The Reports of
the Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Council for Geoscience
(CGE) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 116-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Nuclear
Energy Corporation Limited (NECSA) for 2006-2007, including
the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007 [RP 96-2007].
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Central Energy Fund
Group of Companies (CEF) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General and the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements of the Central Energy Fund Group of
Companies for 2006-2007 [RP 189-2007].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Diamond
Board Fund for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 111-
2007].
e) Report and Financial Statements of the National Nuclear
Regulator (NNR) for 2005-2006, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2005-2006 [RP
95-2007].
f) Report and Financial Statements of Mineral Technology (Mintek)
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 109-2007].
46) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Health. The Report of the Auditor-General is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Mine Health and Safety
Council for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 26-2007].
47) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on
Provincial and Local Government:
a) Government Notice No 824 published in Government Gazette No
30264 dated 7 September 2007: Notice of allocations per
municipality for Schedule 7 local government conditional
grants, in accordance with sections 8(3) and 22(1)(a) of the
Division of Revenue Act, 2007 (Act No 1 of 2007).
48) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 33 – Department of
Transport for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
49) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Social Development for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 18 – Department of
Social Development for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
203-2007].
50) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Social Development for consideration and report and to the Joint
Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status
of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Social
Security Agency for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
100-2007].
51) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communications for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 26 – Department of
Communications for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
204-2007].
52) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communications for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
Committee on Science and Technology. The Reports of the Auditor-
General are referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Electronic
Media Institute of South Africa for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 185-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Universal Service and
Access Agency of South Africa (USAASA) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 169-2007].
53) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 17 – Department of
Labour for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 49-
2007].
54) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Health. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Compensation Fund for
2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 51-2007].
55) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Minerals and Energy. The Report of the Auditor-General is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Energy Sector Education
and Training Authority (Eseta) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 61-2007].
56) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Works for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Agrément South Africa for
2006-2007.
57) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and
report. The Reports of the Auditor-General are referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 23 – Department of
Justice and Constitutional Development for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 119-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Presidents’ Fund for
2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 120-2007].
58) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for consideration and report. The
Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 27 – Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 80-2007].
59) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy for consideration and report. The Reports of
the Auditor-General are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 30 – Department of
Minerals and Energy for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
35-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Electricity
Distribution Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd (EDIH) for 2006-
2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the National Nuclear
Regulator (NNR) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
95-2007].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the National Energy
Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 167-2007].
60) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Water Affairs and Forestry for consideration and report. The
Reports of the Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 34 – Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 201-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of Inkomati Catchment
Management Agency for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 177-2007].
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Water Research
Commission for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 147-
2007].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Trans-Caledon Tunnel
Authority (TCTA) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
61) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture and Land Affairs for consideration and report. The
Reports of the Auditor-General and Independent Auditors are
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 25 – Department of
Agriculture for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 216-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 29 – Department of
Land Affairs for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
209-2007].
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Land and Agricultural
Bank of South Africa (Land Bank) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 219-2007].
d) Report and Financial Statements of the National Agricultural
Marketing Council (NAMC) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007 [RP 1-2007].
e) Report and Financial Statements of Onderstepoort Biological
Products Limited for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
62) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Foreign Affairs for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General are referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 3 – Department of
Foreign Affairs for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the African Renaissance and
International Co-operation Fund for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007.
63) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 13 - Statistics South
Africa for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 104-
2007].
64) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Provincial and Local Government for consideration and report. The
Reports of the Auditor-General are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 5 – Department of
Provincial and Local Government for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Municipal Demarcation
Board for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 218-
2007].
65) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Provincial and Local Government for consideration and report and to
the Portfolio Committee on Finance. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Municipal Infrastructure
Investment Unit (Pty) Ltd (MIIU) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 27-2007].
66) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Service and Administration for consideration and report. The
Reports of the Auditor-General are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 10 – Department of
Public Service and Administration for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 220-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 11 – Public Service
Commission (PSC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
160-2007].
c) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 12 – South African
Management Development Institute (SAMDI) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007.
67) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Works for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General are referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 6 – Department of
Public Works for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
b) Report and Financial Statements of the Council for the Built
Environment (CBE) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Construction Industry
Development Board (CIDB) for 2006-2007, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
68) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Works for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
Committee on Housing, the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and
Forestry, the Portfolio Committee on Health, the Portfolio
Committee on Education and the Joint Monitoring Committee on
Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women. The Report of
the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Development
Trust for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 182-
2007].
69) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Health for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 16 – Department of
Health for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 115-
2007].
70) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Housing for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and the Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 28 – Department of
Housing for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 113-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of Thubelisha Homes for 2006-
2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of Servcon Housing Solutions
(Pty) Ltd for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
71) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Safety and Security for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 22 – Independent
Complaints Directorate (ICD) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 223-2007].
72) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Sport and Recreation for consideration and report. The Reports of
the Auditor-General are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 19 – Department of
Sport and Recreation South Africa for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 106-2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of Boxing South Africa for
2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Drug-Free
Sport for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 148-
2007].
73) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Science and Technology for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Africa Institute of
South Africa for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
215-2007].
74) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Science and Technology for consideration and report. The Report of
the Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Academy of Science of South
Africa for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
75) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and
report:
a) Upliftment of the provisional suspension of a magistrate: Mr M
S Makamu, a senior magistrate at Benoni.
b) Report in terms of section 13(4)(a) of the Magistrates Act,
1993 (Act No 90 of 1993): Suspension of a magistrate: Mr T V D
Matyolo.
c) Progress Report, dated 10 September 2007, to Parliament in
terms of section 13(3) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90
of 1993): Inquiry into allegations of misconduct: Mr M F
Mathe.
d) Progress Report, dated 10 September 2007, to Parliament in
terms of section 13(3) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90
of 1993): Inquiry into allegations of misconduct: Mr M K
Chauke.
e) Progress Report, dated 10 September 2007, to Parliament in
terms of section 13(3) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90
of 1993): Inquiry into allegations of misconduct: Mr I X
Masimini.
f) Report on the withholding of remuneration of Mr T V D Matyolo
in terms of section 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993
(Act No 90 of 1993).
76) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Education for consideration and report. The Reports of the Auditor-
General and Independent Auditors are referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 15 – Department of
Education for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 110-
2007].
b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Council
for Educators (SACE) for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
c) Report and Financial Statements of the Council for Quality
Assurance in General and Further Education and Training –
Umalusi for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Council on Higher
Education (CHE) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
e) Report and Financial Statements of the National Student
Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 180-2007].
77) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Science and Technology for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Labour and the Portfolio Committee on
Education. The Report of the Independent Auditors is referred to
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Tshumisano Trust for
2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
78) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Science and Technology for consideration:
a) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Sultanate of Oman on
Scientific and Technological Cooperation, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the
Sultanate of Oman on Scientific and Technological Cooperation,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
c) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Argentine Republic on Scientific and
Technological Cooperation, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
d) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the
Argentine Republic on Scientific and Technological
Cooperation, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
e) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Slovak Republic on Scientific
and Technological Cooperation, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
f) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the
Slovak Republic on Scientific and Technological Cooperation,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
g) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of Australia on Scientific and
Technological Cooperation, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
h) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of
Australia on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, tabled
in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
i) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Hellenic Republic on
Scientific and Technological Cooperation, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
j) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the
Hellenic Republic on Scientific and Technological Cooperation,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
79) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Correctional Services and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Letter from the Minister of Correctional Services, dated 13
September 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 Department of Correctional
Services for 2006-2007.
80) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Home
Affairs and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Letter from the Minister of Home Affairs, dated 28 September
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 Department of Home Affairs for 2006-2007.
81) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Correctional Services for consideration and report. The Report of
the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 20 – Department of
Correctional Services for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 217-2007].
82) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture and Land Affairs for consideration and report and to
the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The
Report of the Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Perishable Products
Export Control Board (PPECB) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007.
83) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Letter from the Minister of Transport, dated 4 October 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
Reports of the South African Maritime Safety Authority, the
Cross-Border Road Transport Agency, the Urban Transport Fund
and the Road Traffic Management Corporation for 2006-2007.
84) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy for consideration and report and to the
Portfolio Committee on Health and the Portfolio Committee on
Labour.
a) Report of the Mine Health and Safety Inspectorate for 2006-
2007.
85) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on
Provincial and Local Government, the Portfolio Committee on Health,
the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, the Portfolio
Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry and the Portfolio Committee
on Education:
a) Government Notice No R.824 published in Government Gazette No
30264, dated 7 September 2007: Allocations per Municipality in
terms of Sections 8(3) and 22(1)(a) of the Division of Revenue
Act (No 1 of 2007) for the following Schedule 7 Local
Government Conditional Grants: (1) Bulk Infrastructure Grant,
(2) Backlogs in Water and Sanitation at Clinics and Schools
Grant, and (3) Backlogs in the Electrification of Clinics and
Schools Grant in term of the Division of Revenue Act, 2007
(Act No 1 of 2007).
86) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration:
a) Annual Economic Report of the South African Reserve Bank for
2007.
b) Address of the Governor of the South African Reserve Bank – 20
September 2007.
c) Government Notice No R.835 published in Government Gazette No
30276, dated 14 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No. 1
(No. 1/11344) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964
(Act No 91 of 1964).
d) Government Notice No R.836 published in Government Gazette No
30276, dated 14 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No. 3
(No. 3/619) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act
No 91 of 1964).
e) Government Notice No R.837 published in Government Gazette No
30276, dated 14 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No. 3
(No. 3/620) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act
No 91 of 1964).
f) Government Notice No R.838 published in Government Gazette No
30276, dated 14 September 2007: Amendment of Schedule No. 4
(No. 4/306) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act
No 91 of 1964).
87) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and report:
a) Agreement Establishing the Collaborative Africa Budget Reform
Initiative (CABRI), tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the
Constitution, 1996.
b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement Establishing the
Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative (CABRI).
88) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report
and to the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of
Life and Status of Women. The Report of the Auditor-General is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Commission on Gender
Equality (CGE) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
176-2007].
89) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Sport
and Recreation and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Letter from the Minister of Sport and Recreation, dated 10
October 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 Department of Sport and
Recreation for 2006-2007.
90) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Service and Administration for consideration and to the
Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government:
a) Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the
investigation into the Management of Public Servants in Terms
of Prevailing Provisions who re elected as Municipal
Councillors in the Limpopo and Western Cape Provinces – August
2007 [RP 152-2007].
91) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Safety and Security for consideration and report:
a) Proclamation No R.19 published in Government Gazette No 30162,
dated 10 August 2007: Notification by President in accordance
with section 25 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy
against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 33
of 2004).
b) Proclamation No R.24 published in Government Gazette No 30252,
dated 7 September 2007: Notification by President in
accordance with section 25 of the Protection of Constitutional
Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004
(Act No 33 of 2004).
92) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration:
a) Proclamation No R.21 published in Government Gazette No 30245,
dated 31 August 2007: Referral of matters to existing Special
Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals in terms of the
Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, 1996
(Act No 74 of 1996).
b) Proclamation No R.22 published in Government Gazette No 30245,
dated 31 August 2007: Referral of matters to existing Special
Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals in terms of the
Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, 1996
(Act No 74 of 1996).
c) Proclamation No R.23 published in Government Gazette No 30245,
dated 31 August 2007: Referral of matters to existing Special
Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals in terms of the
Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, 1996
(Act No 74 of 1996).
d) Proclamation No R.25 published in Government Gazette No 30290,
dated 12 September 2007: Referral of matters to existing
Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals in terms of
the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act,
1996 (Act No 74 of 1996).
93) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
and Industry for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
Committee on Science and Technology. The Report of the Independent
Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Support Programme for
Industrial Innovation (SPII) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements
for 2006-2007.
94) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
and Industry for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
Committee on Education. The Report of the Auditor-General is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Technology and Human
Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007.
95) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
and Industry for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 32 – Department of
Trade and Industry for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
96) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Public Service and Administration. The Report of the Independent
Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Government Employees
Pension Fund (GEPF) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2006-
2007.
97) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report
and to the Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture. The Report of
the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Commission for the
Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious
and Linguistic Communities (CRL) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 126-2007].
98) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Enterprises for consideration and report. The Report of the
Independent Auditors is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of arivia.kom (Pty) Ltd for
2006-2007, including the Report of the Independent Auditors
for 2006-2007.
99) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Works for consideration:
a) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Republic of Cuba on the
Employment of Technical Advisors, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
100) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Enterprises and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Letter from the Minister for Public Enterprises, dated 25
October 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 arivia.kom for 2006-2007.
101) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence and the Joint Standing Committee on Defence:
a) Report of the Auditor-General on the findings identified
during a performance audit on the rendering of catering
services at the Department of Defence – August 2007 [RP 221-
2007].
102) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Service and Administration for consideration:
a) Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the Management
of Poor Performance in the Public Service – August 2007 [RP 165-
2007].
b) Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the Management
of Conflicts of Interest through Financial Disclosures – May
2007 [RP 20-2007].
c) Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the
Implementation of the Promotion of Access to Information Act,
2000 (Act No 2 of 2000) in the Public Service – August 2007 [RP
166-2007].
d) Consolidated Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on
Inspections of Public Service Delivery Sites – August 2007 [RP
164-2007].
e) Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on Citizen
Satisfaction Survey 2006/2007: Department of Home Affairs,
Department of Trade and Industry and Transport Services by
Provincial Departments – September 2007 [RP 163-2007].
103) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence and the Joint Standing Committee on Defence:
a) The President of the Republic submitted a letter, dated 26
October 2007, to the Speaker of the National Assembly informing
Members of the Assembly of the employment of the South African
National Defence Force in Uganda.
104) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport for consideration and report:
a) 1991 Amendments to the Convention on the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO), 1948, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of
the Constitution, 1996.
b) Explanatory Memorandum to the 1991 Amendments to the Convention
on the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), 1948.
c) International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling
Systems on Ships, 2001, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of
the Constitution, 1996.
d) Explanatory Memorandum to the International Convention on the
Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, 2001.
105) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
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).
d) Government Notice No R.1002 published in Government Gazette No
30393, dated 28 October 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 6 (No
6/110) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91
of 1964).
e) Government Notice No R.938 published in Government Gazette No
30356, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 1 (No
1/1/1345) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No
91 of 1964).
f) Government Notice No R.939 published in Government Gazette No
30356, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 1 (No
3/621) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91
of 1964).
g) Government Notice No R.955 published in Government Gazette No
30370, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 3 (No
3/622) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91
of 1964).
h) Government Notice No R.956 published in Government Gazette No
30370, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 4 (No
4/307) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91
of 1964).
i) Government Notice No R.957 published in Government Gazette No
30370, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment of Schedule No 8 (No
8/6) in terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91 of
1964).
j) Government Notice No R.958 published in Government Gazette No
30370, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment issued in terms of
section 74(3)(a) of the Value-Added Tax Act, 1991 (Act No 89 of
1991).
k) Government Notice No R.959 published in Government Gazette No
30370, dated 12 October 2007: Amendment of Rules (DAR/38) in
terms of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 (Act No 91 of 1964).
106) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
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.
107) The following paper is referred to the Joint Monitoring Committee
on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and
Disabled Persons for consideration and report. The Report of the
Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Youth
Commission (NYC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance
Information for 2006-2007 [RP 184-2007].
108) The following paper is referred to the Joint Monitoring Committee
on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and
Disabled Persons and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
a) Letter from the Minister in The Presidency, dated 8 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 National Youth Commission (NYC) for 2006-
2007.
109) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Minerals and Energy. The Reports of the Auditor-General are
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Chemical Industries
Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 59-2007].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Mining
Qualifications Authority (MQA) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 72-2007].
110) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Trade and Industry. The Report of the Auditor-General is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Manufacturing,
Engineering and Related Services Sector Education and Training
Authority (MER-Seta) for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP
71-2007].
111) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Communications and the Portfolio Committee on Trade and
Industry. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Media, Advertising,
Publishing, Printing and Packaging Sector Education and
Training Authority (MAPPP-Seta) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 70-2007].
112) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Science and Technology and the Portfolio Committee on
Communications. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Information
Systems, Electronics and Telecommunications Technologies Sector
Education and Training Authority (ISETT-Seta) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 68-2007].
113) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Labour for consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee
on Water Affairs and Forestry. The Report of the Auditor-General is
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Forest Industries
Education and Training Authority (FIETA) for 2006-2007,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 64-2007].
114) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Arts and Culture for consideration and report. The Reports of the
Auditor-General are referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Northern Flagship
Institution for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 153-
2007].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Windybrow Centre
for the Arts for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
(c) Report and Financial Statements of the Afrikaans Language
Museum for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 191-
2007].
(d) Report and Financial Statements of the National Library of
South Africa for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 175-
2007].
(e) Report and Financial Statements of The Freedom Park Trust
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
(f) Report and Financial Statements of the South African
Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) for 2006-2007, including the
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2006-2007 [RP 195-2007].
(g) Report and Financial Statements of the National English
Literary Museum for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
h) Report and Financial Statements of the National Heritage
Council for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007 [RP 192-
2007].
(i) Report and Financial Statements of The Playhouse Company
for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
115) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Arts
and Culture for consideration and report and to the Joint
Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status
of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Library
for the Blind for 2006-2007, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
116) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for consideration and report. The
Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African
Weather Service (SAWS) for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 114-2007].
117) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence for consideration and report. The Report of the Auditor-
General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 21 - Department of
Defence for 2006-2007, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007.
118) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Education for consideration and report and to the Portfolio
Committee on Public Service and Administration. The Report of the
Auditor-General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Education Labour
Relations Council (ELRC) for 2006-2007, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2006-2007
[RP 145-2007].
119) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for consideration:
(a) Strategic Plan of the Marine Living Resources Fund for
2007 to 2010.
120) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Public Service and Administration for consideration:
(a) Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the Audit
of Reporting Requirements and Departmental Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems within National and Provincial Government –
June 2007 [RP 17-2007].
b) Third Consolidated Service Monitoring and Evaluation Report:
March 2006 by the Public Service Commission (PSC) [RP 22-2007].
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
-
The Minister of Correctional Services
(a) Report of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons for 2006-2007 [RP 82-2007].
National Assembly
- The Speaker
a) Draft Notice and Schedule in terms of section 2(4) of the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 2001 (Act No 47 of 2001), determining the rate at which salaries are payable to Constitutional Court judges and judges annually, with effect from 1 April 2007, for approval by Parliament.
b) Draft Notice and Schedule in terms of section 12(3) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993), determining the rate at which salaries are payable to magistrates annually, with effect from 1 April 2007, for approval by Parliament.
Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report by Wednesday 21 November 2007.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE, ON EMPLOYMENT OF SANDF TO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
The Joint Standing Committee on Defence, having considered the letter
from the President on the employment of the South African National
Defence Force (SANDF) to the Central African Republic, referred to the
Committee, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.
National Assembly
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill [B 4─2007] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 7 November 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill [B 4─2007] (National Assembly – sec. 75) referred to the committee and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports on the Bill with amendments [B 4A─2007] as follows:
-
This is the first of a package of Bills aimed at facilitating judicial transformation.
-
The South African Judicial Education Institute Bill emerged from a process of extensive consultation and negotiation with the judiciary. The Committee understands that the Bill has been substantially agreed to by the judiciary.
-
The Committee feels that the establishment of the South African Judicial Education Institute is crucial to the transformation of the judiciary and welcomes this Bill.
-
The Committee believes that the Bill is basically sound. The amendments effected are not substantial and do not affect the underlying framework of the Bill. For example, the amendments to clause 7 relate to the composition of the Council of the Institute, and are necessary in order to provide for a mechanism to designate the Council members who are not ex officio members, as well as to increase the representation of magistrates on the Council by two members. The new clause 11 results from the rearrangement of clause 5 into separate clauses – in effect, the new clause is the original clause 5(2). However, the Committee would like to draw attention to the amendment of clause 12 (introduced as clause 11). It reflects the Committee’s view that it is not appropriate to appoint a serving judicial officer or a judge discharged from active service as the Director of the Institute. The clause states that the Director would be the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute and, as the head of the Institute, he or she would bear the principal responsibility for the administration and management of the Institute. The Committee holds the view that such functions are distinctly removed from those associated with the holding of judicial office. They are not compatible with the office of a judicial office bearer and, should a judicial office bearer be appointed to this position, the independence, impartiality and dignity of the judiciary is potentially at risk. The same would apply to a judge discharged from active service.
-
The Committee stresses that all policy decisions regarding the Institute, and particularly the training curricula, would be determined by the Council, of which the majority of members would be judicial officers.
-
The Committee understands that the Department has not yet worked out the cost of implementing this Bill. Obviously, it would be unreasonable to expect a precise costing to have been completed at this stage, but we are concerned that there is not even a broad estimate of the cost.
-
The Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is the Accounting Officer of the Institute. The Committee expects though that when the Institute reports to the Committee in terms of clause 15, the Director General, a non-executive representative of the Council of the Institute and the Institute’s Director will account to the Committee.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill [B 72─2001] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 15 November 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject matter of the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill [B 72─2001] (National Assembly – sec. 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, endorses the classification of the Bill and presents redraft of the Bill, namely the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill [B 50 – 2007].
-
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR M F MATHE, AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE AT PINETOWN, DATED 14 NOVEMBER 2007: The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the report on the withholding of remuneration of Magistrate M F Mathe, tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993), reports as follows:
1. The Committee noted from the report tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development that the Minister, on 22 August 2005 and on the recommendation of the Magistrates Commission, provisionally suspended Mr Mathe from office in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 and that his provisional suspension was confirmed by Parliament in terms of section 13(3)(c) of the Act on 13 October 2005. 2. The Committee noted that Mr Mathe was, on 4 May 2007, convicted by the Durban Regional Court on a charge of theft of R11 000,00 in cash. 3. The Committee further noted that the Magistrates Commission on 24 May 2007, determined to withhold Mr Mathe’s remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Magistrates Act,1993. 4. In terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, Parliament must, as soon as is reasonably possible, consider the report and pass a resolution as to whether or not the determination concerned is confirmed, either with or without amendment, or set aside. 5. The Portfolio Committee therefore recommends that the National Assembly resolves to confirm the determination by the Magistrates Commission to withhold Mr Mathe's remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.
Report to be considered
- REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE UPLIFTMENT OF THE PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION OF A MAGISTRATE: MR MS MAKAMU, SENIOR MAGISTRATE AT BENONI, DATED 14 NOVEMBER 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the report on the upliftment of the provisional suspension of a Magistrate, Mr MS Makamu, Senior Magistrate at Benoni, reports as follows:
- Background
1.1 The Portfolio Committee noted from the report tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, on 23 November 2005, provisionally suspended Mr M S Makamu, a Senior Magistrate at Benoni, from office. It was done in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, (Act No 90 of 1993) on the advice of the Magistrates Commission. A report to this effect was subsequently tabled in Parliament in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Act. The National Assembly, on 21 June 2006, and the National Council of Provinces, shortly thereafter, confirmed Mr Makamu’s provisional suspension. Mr Makamu’s provisional suspension was based on the following: Mr Makamu was convicted by the Johannesburg Regional Court of fraud and, on 21 June 2005, sentenced to a fine of R10 000.00 or, in default of payment, to a period of six months imprisonment, all of which were suspended for a period of four years on certain conditions. The conviction relates to an incident where he allegedly convinced the administration Officer at the Benoni Magistrate’s Court to sign an official letter in which he stated that he (Mr Makamu) was entitled to an official motor vehicle allowance to the amount of R80 973.00 per annum, well knowing that in truth and in fact he at the time did not qualify to receive such an allowance. Mr Makamu then presented the said letter to Bankfin where he applied for an instalment sale agreement in order to purchase a new motor vehicle.
1.2 The Portfolio Committee noted that the Magistrates Commission, on 31 March 2006 and in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, determined to withhold Mr Makamu’s remuneration. A report to this effect was tabled in Parliament on 7 April, 2006. The National Assembly confirmed the Commission’s determination on 21 June 2006 and the National Council of Provinces shortly thereafter.
1.3 The Portfolio Committee noted that, after having been provisionally suspended from Office, the Magistrates Commission commenced with its investigation into Mr Makamu’s fitness to hold Office as a Magistrate. After conclusion of the investigation, the Commission decided to charge Mr Makamu with misconduct and served a written notice to this effect on him on 25 July 2005. However, the inquiry into his fitness to hold office was, at his own request, postponed sine die on 13 January 2006, pending the outcome of his appeal against his conviction in the Regional Court.
1.4 The Portfolio Committee noted that, on 15 June 2007, the appeal against Mr Makamu’s conviction and sentence was finally heard and upheld by the High Court in Johannesburg. Accordingly, both his conviction and his sentence were set aside. According to the Commission, it after having studied the record of the proceedings is of the view that it would not, on a balance of probabilities, be able to successfully prove the charge of misconduct which was based on the incident which formed the basis of the criminal prosecution and which led to his provisional suspension, against Mr Makamu.
1.5 The Portfolio Committee also noted that, accordingly, the Commission has decided not to proceed with its inquiry against Mr Makamu. Since the misconduct inquiry formed the basis of his provisional suspension, his provisional suspension could not be sustained and accordingly, his provisional suspension was uplifted with immediate effect.
1.6 The Portfolio Committee also noted that, since the withholding of Mr Makamu’s remuneration was based on his provisional suspension, the determination to withhold his salary automatically fell away at the time when his provisional suspension was uplifted.
1.7 The Portfolio Committee also noted that, since the basis on which Mr Makamu was provisionally suspended fell away, there was no reason to uphold his provisional suspension. Accordingly, his provisional suspension was uplifted with immediate effect.
- The Portfolio Committee therefore recommends that the National Assembly agrees with the decision of the Minister to uplift the provisional suspension of Mr MS Makamu, with immediate effect.
Report to be considered.
-
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR T V D MATYOLO, AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE AT PORT ELIZABETH, DATED 14 NOVEMBER 2007: The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the report on the suspension/removal from office of Mr Matyolo and the withholding of his remuneration, tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 13(4)(b) and 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993), respectively, reports as follows: 1. The Committee noted from the report tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development that the Magistrates Commission on 23 August 2007 and 29 October 2007, respectively, resolved to recommend the removal from office of Mr Matyolo in terms of section 13(4)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 and determined to withhold his remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Act. 2. The Committee noted that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development has, in terms of section 13(4)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, suspended Mr Matyolo from office on 27 September 2007. 3. The Committee further noted that Mr Matyolo has been absent from office since 5 June 2007 without leave or any other valid reason and that in terms of regulation 34(1) of the Regulations for Judicial Officers in the Lower Courts he, in the circumstances, is deemed to have absconded and as such he made himself guilty of misconduct. All efforts to trace him were unsuccessful. 4. In terms of section 13(4)(c) and 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, Parliament must, as soon as is reasonably possible pass a resolution as to whether or not –
(a) the restoration of Mr Matyolo to his office is recommended; and (b) the determination to withhold Mr Matyolo’s remuneration is confirmed, either with or without amendment, or set aside. 5. The Portfolio Committee therefore recommends that the National Assembly resolves – (a) not to restore Mr Matyolo to his office in terms of section 13(4)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993; and (b) to confirm the determination by the Magistrates Commission to withhold Mr Matyolo's remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.
Report to be considered
-
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR I X MASIMINI, AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE AT QUEENSTOWN, DATED 14 NOVEMBER 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the report on the withholding of remuneration of Magistrate I X Masimini, tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993), reports as follows: 1. The Committee noted from the report tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development that the Minister, on 13 March 2006 and on the recommendation of the Magistrates Commission, provisionally suspended Mr Masimini from office in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act, 1993. 2. The Committee noted that Mr Masimini had, on 24 November 2006, been convicted on a charge of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm, that he was also charged for having made a false/incorrect statement when applying for an appointment to the Regional Court Bench and that he had been found guilty on three counts of misconduct for having used foul and injudicious language in court. 3. The Committee further noted that the Magistrates Commission, on 19 April 2007, determined to withhold Mr Masimini’s remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Magistrates Act,1993. 4. In terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993, Parliament must, as soon as is reasonably possible, consider the report and pass a resolution as to whether or not the determination concerned is confirmed, either with or without amendment, or set aside. 5. The Portfolio Committee therefore recommends that the National Assembly resolves to confirm the determination by the Magistrates Commission to withhold Mr Masimini’s remuneration in terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, 1993.
Report to be considered MONDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2007
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
-
Assent by President in respect of Bills
1) Housing Consumers Protection Measures Amendment Bill [B 6B – 2007 (Reprint)] – Act No 17 of 2007 (assented to and signed by President on 12 November 2007).
2) National Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill [B 17B – 2006] – Act No 18 of 2007 (assented to and signed by President on 12 November 2007).
3) Banks Amendment Bill [B 12B – 2007] – Act No 20 of 2007 (assented to and signed by President on 12 November 2007).
4) Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Bill [B 42B – 2005] – Act No 27 of 2007 (assented to and signed by President on 12 November 2007).
-
Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
(1) The JTM on 15 November 2007 in terms of Joint Rule 160(6)
classified the following Bills as section 75 Bills:
a) Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Amendment Bill [B 48 – 2007]
(National Assembly – sec 75)
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on its oversight visit to the 2010 FIFA World Cup Host Cities, dated 25 June 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Transport having visited 2010 FIFA World Cup Host Cities reports as follows:
-
Introduction
-
In the course of the Parliamentary second term, the Transport Portfolio Committee in the National Assembly has conducted a relatively intensive oversight programme to assess transport preparations for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The Committee has interacted with the National Department of Transport (DoT), including a full-day interaction with departmental staff in the head office in Pretoria. The Committee has also conducted a series of oversight visits to host cities. At the time of completing this report, seven of the nine host cities (Johannesburg, Polokwane, Nelson Mandela, eThekwini, Rustenburg, Mangaung and Mbombela) had been visited. Cape Town was visited on the 20 June. Thus far, the Committee has been unable to establish a date with the City of Tshwane.
-
Cabinet has identified public transport as the primary legacy that should be derived from our hosting of the World Cup. If the opportunity of hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup is to be used to provide a sustainable transport legacy, then planning and the assurance of effective funding for public transport systems needs to be more or less completed already, and full-scale implementation needs to be underway in the coming months, if this is not already the case.
-
The relatively tight time-lines that we are now facing needs to be further appreciated in terms of the FIFA requirement that no major infrastructural construction should be underway in the host cities for six months prior to the actual event in July 2010. This means that there are, effectively, just two-and-a-half years in which to complete significant public transport transformation.
-
In this report the Committee will raise a number of concerns about the current state of progress. In the light of attempts in some quarters, mostly outside of our country, to suggest that South Africa will not be able to host a successful FIFA World Cup, the Committee wishes to state up-front that they have no doubt that the capacity to provide effective transport for the event exists within our country and that we will rise to the occasion. The Committees concern relates less to event-oriented transport provision in the narrower sense, and much more specifically to the question of ensuring that an effective and sustainable public transport legacy will be laid down.
-
In the light of the tight deadlines, the Committee has decided to produce this interim report on our work before the end of the Parliamentary second term. The Committee will focus on some key areas of concern, making recommendations which it believes needs to be addressed by the Executive with a sense of urgency. The committee will compile a fuller report providing much more specific details once it has completed its round of host city oversight visits and other ongoing oversight work.
-
Reinforcing dedicated 2010 capacity in the National Department of Transport
-
In the budget hearings with the DoT on March 20th, 2007, the Committee was informed that the DoT had a staff vacancy rate of 41%. The Director General assured the Committee that 50% of these vacancies “were in the process of being filled”. It is possible that some progress has since been made, but that still leaves a very high level of vacancy. Whatever the general levels of staff shortage, the shortage of senior DoT staff working in a relatively dedicated way on 2010was very evident to the Committee. It was also raised as a concern with the committee by a number of host cities.
-
At present there is only one senior official, a Chief Director, who is working full-time on the 2010 project in the DoT. The official reports to an Acting Deputy Director who devotes considerable time to 2010 matters, but who also has extensive additional responsibilities. Many other senior officials in the DoT are also actively involved with 2010 matters, and the Committee was impressed with the general understanding senior members of the DoT brought to the challenges - but they all have many other responsibilities and principal points of focus.
-
This situation should be compared to Germany’s World Cup preparations where, the delegation was told, the Local Organising Committee had a team of 80 full-time transport specialists. A similar sized team of transport experts is working full-time on London’s 2012 Olympic preparations.
-
The Committee recommends that the DoT should urgently build up a dedicated 2010 transport team.
-
An important role of such a team should be to support the work of the host cities, through: • augmenting city capacity where it is needed, which may require full-time secondment to host cities; • ensuring a more effective flow of national information on 2010 transport. Several host cities commended the early support they had received from the DoT but added that “things have gone a bit quiet over the past six months”; • assisting host cities to more effectively access national transport entities – for instance, Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality is uncertain what ACSA’s plans are for the Port Elizabeth airport. This is impacting upon their road based transport infrastructure planning in terms of connecting the airport to local hotels. eThekwini expressed even stronger concerns and uncertainties about road access to the planned new King Shaka airport at La Mercy. • Ensuring that there is effective coordination between provinces and host cities.
-
Challenges in host cities
-
The level of planning and preparedness varies greatly from host city to city. In some of the major cities, including City of Johannesburg (CoJ), eThekwini and Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality there are clearly competent transport teams in place, most planning is effectively completed and implementation of the main 2010 projects and systems is poised for roll-out. However, in each of these cities there are challenges and frustrations that need to be addressed some of which will be noted below. Other cities, Polokwane in particular, appear to have made very little progress and there are serious capacity and other concerns that will also be noted below.
-
Johannesburg The Johannesburg 2010 flag-ship public transport project is the Rea Vaya Bus Rapid Transit system. Phase one of the project, which is scheduled to be operational by 2009 in time for the Africa Confederations Cup, will involve 94kms of dedicated bus-lanes and will provide an estimated 413,000 passenger trips per day. The first phase runs on several key routes including a major south-north line from Lenasia through Soweto to Sunninghill, another line begins in Alexandra, and there are line around and through the CBD. The routes take in the two Johannesburg 2010 stadiums - Soccer City and Ellis Park, as well as some of the training stadiums. The capital expenditure will be R2,1bn, and the city expects to have secured all funding by January 2008.
-
Costing less than one-tenth of the Gautrain project, and with a first phase that will transport about four times more passengers, this is a major project. The CoJ is receiving full support for the Rea Vaya project from National Treasury and has successfully accessed other financial assistance.
-
The CoJ has, however, identified several potential risks to the Rea Vaya project, including:
• The slow pace at which Environmental Impact Assessment approvals are moving; • Uncertainty about the provincial Operating Licensing Board and the province’s impending conclusion of new bus contracts and subsidy policies and whether these will be co-ordinated with Rea Vaya planning; • The dangers of competing provincial initiatives on similar routes that will undermine the financial sustainability of Rea Vaya – the example of the recent Monorail proposal was cited. -
The CoJ also mentioned capacity challenges. In this regard the Committee believes that the CoJ should consider building a full-time Rea Vaya team. At present leading officials dealing with Rea Vaya are not full-time on this project, they all have other transport responsibilities. In particular, the Committee believes that, while strong engineering, infrastructural and town-planning skills exist within the City, much greater attention should be given to the very complex area of institutional development, financial models, and BRT operational and regulatory features. The CoJ is pioneering one of the first integrated public transport systems ever in South Africa. It plans to integrate the city-owned Metrobus, the privately owned Putco, and the taxi associations currently on the routes, into BRT operating consortia. This is a highly commendable approach, but it is an extremely complex matter which cannot be left to the last few months before the first phase becomes operational. Integrated mass-based, public transport systems have not been built in South Africa for 40 years and more, if at all. Experience and skills, particularly in regard to public transport financial, institutional, business-planning and the operating and regulatory systems are not readily available. Experienced international transport economists and operational planners may well have to be brought in, to work closely with South African counterparts.
-
The CoJ is of course involved in numerous other 2010-related transport projects including park and ride facilities for access to stadiums, coordination with the SA Rail Commuter Corporation on stadia-related stations, access to fan parks, and the first phase of an International Transit and Shopping Centre for buses and taxis arriving from the Southern African region, and even further afield on our continent.
-
eThekwini – The Committee was also impressed with the senior officials in this metro and with the detailed 2010 transport planning processes underway. After considerable evaluation, eThekwini has decided not to go for a full BRT system as their principal 2010 flagship public transport legacy project. Instead they have decided to focus on upgrading, extending and revitalising the north-south rail corridor. They indicate that they are working closely with the SA Rail Commuter Corporation/Metrorail in this regard. Most of the infrastructure expenditure will have to be borne by SARCC/Metrorail.
- Using existing rail infrastructure obviously has many advantages, however a major challenge will be to greatly improve on the very low present levels of rail ridership on the corridor – a mere 17,000 out of a current 200,000 public transport passenger trips per day (the majority of them currently in minibus taxis).
-
The City’s major contribution to the north-south rail corridor is an ambitious plan to transform the Warwick Junction precinct. In terms of passenger movements, Warwick Junction is by far the City’s major rail station and transport interchange hub with several major taxi ranks. It is also a thriving commercial centre for small traders. However, the present reality is chaotic – different taxi ranks are located irrationally, pedestrians have to cross the extremely busy N3 main route into Durban from Gauteng, the area has the highest concentration of pedestrian fatalities in the country, and the commercial potential of the location is compromised.
-
The City has completed extensive planning for a major overhaul of the Warwick Junction area. The overhaul involves transforming existing taxi ranks and regulating them more effectively, so that taxi associations servicing townships in the North, West and South of the City are respectively located on the appropriate side of the precinct (which is not the case at present). The overhaul also involves building a fly-over for the Gauteng-Durban road at this point, to create a safer pedestrian and public transport environment below. Despite planning having been completed for some years, the project has failed, for some reason, to secure DoT support, and therefore there has not been funding for it. Unless approval is secured before September 2007, it will be too late to proceed with the renewal ahead of 2010.
- The DoT’s reluctance to support the project appears to be based on the belief that this is basically a car-friendly, free-way oriented project. The proposed fly-over is about pedestrian safety and about freeing up ground-level space to public transport. The Committee recommends that the DoT should engage, as a matter of urgency, at a high level with eThekwini to clarify this matter. The Committee further recommends that eThekwini’s Warwick Junction transformation plans should be fully supported as a key component of providing a 2010 transport legacy.
-
eThekwini has many other important public transport plans related to 2010 – including an inner-city People Mover bus project, stadium related pedestrian infrastructure, public transport priority lanes on some east-west corridors, and a proposed extension of the rail line to Bridge City in the North.
-
eThekwini is also engaging the taxi industry with a view to developing an active role for existing associations as feeders for the flagship north-south rail corridor. While commending the objectives of this process, the Committee is concerned that the City does not yet seem to have very clear ideas about exactly how taxi association cooperation will be secured, and particularly what business and financial models and integrated operating systems are envisaged. Once again, the committee believe this reflects the relative strengths on the engineering and town planning side in our country, and the relative lack of expertise in operationalising integrated mass public transport networks. The committee recommend that this should be an important area of assistance that should be provided by a dedicated DoT 2010 transport team as envisaged in 2.5 above.
-
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality – The NMBM has opted for a BRT system as its flagship 2010 public transport legacy project. Route planning is more or less complete, and the city has decided to go for low- floor, left-door buses on the system, partly because it will not be a fully closed BRT system throughout, and will therefore rely on kerbside loading in some cases. The city is relatively sure of adequate funding for the project. In the view of the Committee, here as elsewhere, the principal challenges lie in the operational, business, financial and regulatory models. The city is currently in negotiations with eight taxi associations operating on the proposed BRT route. It envisages breaking the Algoa Bus Company’s current single contract for the whole city into five and combining Algoa Bus Company and taxi operators into consortia. The proposal is to have a negotiated contract for BRT routes.
-
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality officials have identified as potential risks to their 2010 transport programmes several issues, among them:
• A lack of in-house capacity. The Committee believes that this applies less to infrastructural, engineering and town-planning capacity, and rather more to operational, business, financial and regulatory capacity for the BRT; • Slowness in obtaining environmental impact assessment approvals. The city officials recommended that national government considers establishing a 2010 fast-track capacity in the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism – not in order to avoid effective environmental impact assessments, but in order to ensure that delays on this front do not undermine the whole objective of using 2010 to lay down an effective (and environmentally enhancing) public transport legacy. The Committee recommends that this proposal should be seriously considered.
-
As mentioned in 2.5 above, Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality also expressed concern about a lack of clarity around ACSA’s plans for Port Elizabeth airport. This hampers their own ability to plan effectively for road transport and infrastructure to cater for the anticipated 2010 surge in passengers through the airport – an estimated 5000 per day compared to the current 1200.
-
Polokwane – The committee is very concerned with what it found in Polokwane. The City does not appear to have any serious 2010 public transport planning in place. In fact, it has not even completed its regular Integrated Transport Plan, as is required by the National Land Transport Transitional Act.
-
For the present, 2010 transport projects involve widening to four lanes the main access roads to the stadium but with little thought given to a public transport legacy. The delegation was told by the mayor that public transport is a “provincial matter”.
-
The city is also planning to build a bus and taxi rank near the station for cross-border international transport. It is planning a second rank for domestic buses and taxis but at some distance from the international rank - that is, without any consideration for integrating national, domestic and road and rail modes. This second rank is being proposed despite the fact that there is a relatively new bus and taxi rank but that is unused. The city officials were unable to provide satisfactory explanations for any of this, nor were they able to provide any sense of current ridership levels on different routes. The delegation was referred to “studies that are still underway”.
-
Planning for the road-based connections to the airport at Polokwane are also a serious matter of concern. The delegation did not have a sense that any serious planning or consultation is happening in this regard.
- It is true that smaller host cities like Polokwane may well not encounter as many inherent transport challenges as cities like Tshwane, Johannesburg and Cape Town that already face serious congestion problems. However, the Committee believes that the situation in Polokwane needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. In particular, the committee recommends that the DoT and the Limpopo provincial Department of Transport engage actively with the city. TUESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2007
-
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 20 November
2007:
(a) Public Service Amendment Bill [B 31B – 2006] (National
Assembly – sec 76(1)).
(b) Rental Housing Amendment Bill [B 30B – 2007] (National
Assembly – sec 76(1)).
- Bills referred to Mediation Committee
(1) Bill, as amended by National Assembly, and rejected by National
Council of Provinces on 20 November 2007, referred to Mediation
Committee in terms of Joint Rule 186(2)(b):
(a) Children’s Amendment Bill [B 19D – 2006 (Reprint)]
(National Council of Provinces – sec 76(2)).
National Assembly
The Speaker
-
Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly in respect of Bills passed by Council and returned to Assembly
1) Bills, subject to proposed amendments, passed by National Council of Provinces on 20 November 2007 and returned for consideration of Council’s proposed amendments:
a) Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Bill [B 50B – 2003] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 14 November 2007, p 2244). b) Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Bill [B 15B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 15 November 2007, p 2301). The Bills have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council. c) South African Express Bill [B 14B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 07 November 2007, p 2058). d) Broadband Infraco Bill [B 26B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 07 November 2007, p 2058) The Bills have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council.(e) Human Sciences Research Council Bill [B 16B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 08 November 2007, p 2064)
(f) Astronomy Geographic Advantage Bill [B 17B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 08 November 2007, p 2064).
The Bills have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council. g) Transport Agencies General Laws Amendment Bill [B 27B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 29 October 2007, p 2021). The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Transport of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council. TABLINGS
National Assembly
- The Speaker
(a) The President of the Republic submitted the following letter
dated 7 November 2007 to the Speaker of the National Assembly
informing Members of the Assembly of the employment of the South
African National Defence Force in Darfu in Sudan:
EMPLOYMENT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE FOR A
SERVICE IN FULFILMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA TOWARDS THE AFRICAN UNION AND UNITED
NATIONS
This serves to inform the National Assembly that I have authorised
the employment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF)
personnel to Darfu in Sudan, for a service in fulfilment of the
international obligations of the Republic of South Africa towards
the African Union (AU) and the united Nations (UN), as part of the
AU/UN Hybrid Operation in Darfu in accordance with the United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1769.
This employment is authorised in accordance with the provisions of
section 201(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa, 1996, read with section 93 of the Defence Act, 2002 (Act No
42 of 2002).
I will communicate this report to members of the National Council
of Provinces and wish to request that you bring the contents hereof
to the attention of the National Assembly.
Regards
signed
TM MBEKI
(b) The President of the Republic submitted the following
letter dated 9 November 2007 to the Speaker of the National
Assembly informing Members of the Assembly of the employment of
the South African National Defence Force during the 2007/2008
festive season:
EMPLOYMENT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE FOR A
SERVICE IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE
This serves to inform the National Assembly that I have
authorised the employment of the South African National Defence
Force (SANDF) personnel, for a service in co-operation with the
South African Police Service in prevention and combating of
crime and maintenance and preservation of law and order during
the 2007/2008 festive season 1769.
This employment is authorised in accordance with the provisions
of section 201(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996, read with section 93 of the Defence Act,
2002 (Act No 42 of 2002).
A total of forty two (42) SANDF members will be employed as
from mid-November 2007 until 31 January 2008.
I will communicate this report to members of the National
Council of Provinces and wish to request that you bring the
contents hereof to the attention of the National Assembly.
Regards
signed
TM MBEKI
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Protocol on Finance and Investment of the Southern African Development Community, dated 20 November 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Protocol on Finance and Investment of the Southern African Development Community, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Request to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Convention between the Republic of South Africa and the Republic Mozambique for the avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to taxes on income, dated 14 November 2007:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Convention between the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Mozambique for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.
Request to be considered.
- INTERIM REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON MATTERS RELATED TO EX- MINEWORKERS UNION, DATED 20 NOVEMBER 2007:
SUMMARY: This is an interim report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Matters Related to Ex-Mineworkers.
The report seeks to indicate progress that has been made since the establishment of the committee. It is not intended to be reflective of the views of the committee on the subject matter as the committee has not had sufficient time to synthesize the information that has been gathered so far. Moreover, there are other institutions; entities and agencies such as TEBA; the Mineworker’s Provident Fund that must still appear before the committee. The Eastern Cape department of Health could also be included to share information with the committee in terms of whether or not the Benefit Medical Examinations (BME) process is yielding any results.
The report attempts to present the main points of the submissions/presentations made to the committee by those who have already appeared before it, in order to give a sense of what the issues are - as articulated by the relevant persons and departments.
- Background
The Ad Hoc Committee on Matters Related to Ex-Mineworkers was established on 11 October 2007, as a result of a resolution adopted by the House, on 19 September 2007, following the People’s Assembly in Mbhizana, from 17 to 19 September 2007.
In terms of that resolution the committee is mandated to investigate complaints received during interactions at the Peoples Assembly. Initially, the committee was required to report to Parliament on 31 October 2007 (ATC, 20 October 2007), but this was changed to 22 November 2007 (ATC, 25 October 2007) The complaints in the main centered around a belief by the Ex- Mineworker’s Union that certain government departments/offices were not honouring promises that were made relating to employment and social assistance benefits.
- Meetings
In the process of investigating, the committee has held 7 meetings with stakeholders such as departments; organizations and individuals. These include the Office of the Speaker ( Adv. Cetywayo); President of the Ex- Mineworkers Union (Mr E Nomazele); Office of the Premier, Eastern Cape (Mr P Xotongo); National department of Health; Department of Labour; the Chamber of Mines and lastly but not least, the National Union Mineworkers (NUM)
- Office of the Speaker
The information received from this office as articulate by Adv. Cetywayo revealed that the office first got involved in the matter in February 2006, mainly as a reaction to a letter that was written to the Speakers Office, threatening a protest on the day of the State of the Nation Address.
The information shared with the committee also revealed that the concern of the ex-mineworkers was around the diseases contracted by their members and the fact that the matter, which was raised with the Presidency, had not been given the attention they expected.
However, at a meeting subsequently held with them the issue seemed to revolve, as stated above, around the lack of responsiveness since a meeting held with the office in 2005. The second matter was the issue of lawfulness of individuals holding two positions such as Councillors who are Teachers.
The last point was that the view of Speaker’s Office was that the mineworkers be listened to although there would have had to be interaction with the Presidency before the matter could be taken up by Parliament. 2.2 President of the Ex-Mineworkers Union (Mr E Nomazele)
The presentation made by Mr Nomazele who claims to be the President of the Ex-mineworkers took the problem back to the 1987 strike. In his view NUM had ordered mineworkers to go home without being paid. This was one reason for them to suspect that NUM was had a hand in their woes. He mentioned a number of steps they took without success. These included taking their complaints to court, asking for assistance from organizations and high profile people. He conceded that a small amount of money was paid out to people by the Eastern Cape government. Yet, he complained that there was a misunderstanding around beneficiaries and that government must intervene using the traditional social set up of our families (e.g Omolokazana naba Ntakwethu etc.)
Mr Nomazele raised the issue of an amount of R54m due to mineworkers but was in his view stopped by the department of labour. To have them heard by government they approached the Presidency and staged a sit-in at the Union Buildings in Pretoria in 2006. He told the committee that, to disperse them, the Eastern Cape government promised to give them monthly food vouchers of about R840. That promise was never honoured. The Mbhizana People’s Parliament session was a good occasion for them to further express themselves. Mr Nomazele is also claiming that government and the National union of mineworkers are keeping an amount of R3m which is due to ex- mineworkers. This he said should be resolved.
2.3 Government
2.3.1 (Office of Premier, Eastern Cape)
Mr P Xotongo represents the Premier’s office in Mthatha and according to him the matter of the Ex-Mineworkers goes back to the time of Rev. M Stofile, who was Premier on the Eastern Cape.
He told the committee that the R54m was administered by the National Department of Health and that there were records of payments to people who were rightful claimants even though they were not members of the Union. This, he contended was the reason why the government list of beneficiaries and that of the Union do not match. He further told the committee that although money was available, the problem was that people were not traceable. He emphasized that the money was not being denied except that it would only be paid to proper claimants (these being those recognized by law and chamber of mine rules)
On the issue of food vouchers he said that a means test was applied and as result some people /names were disqualified as they appeared on the database of the Welfare Department but those whose names did not appear received the food vouchers. He rebutted the issue of monthly assistance as contended by Mr Nomazele, although he conceded on being queezed that such a promise was indeed made.
He also asked for the assistance of Parliament in reviewing the law.
Mr P Nyamfu joined the proceedings at this stage and was given an opportunity to address the committee. He represents a second group of mineworkers based in and around King Williams Town. They too at some point staged a sit-in, in the Premier’s Office.
- Department of Health
The department first dealt with the matter of Ex-Mineworkers after 1994 through the office of the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases (CCOD) when the R54m million was transferred back to the CCOD. In the period 1994 to 1996 the department received incomplete records and when it received complaints a task team was formed consisting of the National & Provincial Departments of Health; Chamber of Mines; House of Traditional Leaders; Provincial Labour Office and NUM, to assist in attending to the problem of mineworkers. This was in August 2002. In 2003 some information was captured from old files and a list of about 18 500 names was compiled. From this list all those who qualified were paid a sum of about R2 700 across the board, after approval by the Minister of Health, to about 11 200 people. This was in March 2003.
From the R54m - R30, 2m was used and, the balance is roughly over R20m.
From July to September the Compensation Commissioner of Occupational Diseases staff visited different regions of the Eastern Cape in an effort to trace possible beneficiaries (20m would be used for this)
Union members started to disrupt meetings, chasing away beneficiaries and destroying application forms, demanding interest on the R54m and exclusion of mineworkes from the then Ciskei.
By 2004 – Occupational Health Nurses took over the work of the CCOD, after they were trained, of identifying beneficiaries/claimants. The task team ceased to exist.
Again in 2005, the CCOD deployed staff after sit-ins were resumed.
The process of identifying eligible beneficiaries and claimants is on- going.
- Department of Labour
The department confirmed the existence of the R54m, adding that it was available and was being paid to legitimate claimants. This being done by the department of Health and payments were continuing/done as and when documentation was presented.
Unemployment Insurance and Compensation for Injuries have been paid to legitimate claimants and are still being paid when relevant documentation was presented.
The department pointed out that it was communicated to the Union that payments can only be done within the confines of the law, further that payment would always be paid to those beneficiaries who presented the requisite documentation as proof that they or their dependants sustained injuries or diseases on duty.
The department assured the committee that the affected departments have always done all within the law to serve the group and would continue to do so.
It concluded by saying that government was willing and has put mechanisms and resources in place to continue servicing ex-mineworkers.
- Chamber of Mines
The Chamber of Mines responded to the issues as raised by the Ex- mineworkers point by point.
a. Pension and Death Benefit (Mineworkers Provident Fund) - This was only for people in service after 1989 - Was paid upon death, not on leaving service - Covers death on duty + one year after service - Funeral benefit: R10 000 (deceased employee) R5000 (spouse) R5000 - R2000 (children)
b. Non Payment of Provident Fund (only for people in service after 1989)
c. Long Service Awards (Administered by TEBA)
The committee was told that Ex-mineworkers Union had provided the 1970’s Provident Fund a list of names and employee numbers. And when the fund went through its records - 9 cases were found. Payments to these were paid.
d. Occupational Injuries and Diseases
Injuries -These were paid by Rand Mutual Assurance (RMA) or in some cases in terms of COIDA. Diseases (MBOD and CCOD) Both fall under Health
e. R54m
This was the money paid by the old SA Government to the former Homeland governments for payment of compensation for occupational diseases to an estimated 11 500 ex-mineworkers. When the areas were incorporated into SA, the money had to be repaid. An amount of R54m was accounted for. However, records of mineworkers to whom the money applied were lost either in the offices of MBOD & CCOD. The Benefit Medical Examinations process would assist in getting the beneficiaries.
The meeting was also informed by the Chamber of Mines about a project for ex-mineworkers - to ensure that the required tests for occupational diseases are done so that ex-employees who are found to have occupational diseases are compensated. A sum of R42m has been set aside for this purpose and the project would be launched in various regions. The project would be rolled out over 5 years.
The National Union of Mineworkers and the Department of Health are assisting the Camber of Mines in this project.
The Committee also interacted with Secretary to Parliament, Mr Z Dingani, relating to his interaction with the Ex-mineworkers.
- National Union of Mineworkers
The National Union of Mineworkers told the committee unequivocally that it does not handle compensation on behalf of anyone, that they do not act as a conduit for payments. However, they admitted/accepted that they do assist mineworkers in terms of the lodging of their claims.
NUM insisted that that their role was to raise the issue of the conditions under which mineworkers work by for example making recommendations to employers and/or influencing legislation. They also admitted to playing a role in the setting up of trusts and once these are then they become responsible for their own rules, as they are often independent bodies.
The National Union of mineworkers also revealed that in the evolution of the problem of Ex-mineworkers they were not in the picture in terms of who the Ex-mineworkers met and saw.
They pointed out that the 1987 strike was not just an industrial strike but became a political conflict in the Hostels particularly.
As for the R54m, they said that they have no intimate knowledge of this money adding that TEBA handled the monies of mineworkers.
- Findings
The committee has not made any findings at this stage as it views the investigation as work in progress.
- Challenges/Observations
The Committee notes that in terms of an e-mail correspondence between Hon. GQM Doidge and Mr T M Manele (01/10/2007), who was in his office, the committee should have been given a researcher, however, this was not followed through. Due to the complexity of the issue this capacity is glaringly absent/missing.
- Recommendations
The Committee recommends that, whilst it understands the gravity and urgency of the concerns raised the House considers:
- Extending the deadline for the committee to report - to 31 March 2008.
- Providing adequate research assistance to the committee when it resumes its work in 2008.
Report to be considered.