ZA HANSARDS

→ Parliamentary → National Council of Provinces - 21 June 2007

« Previous Debate

Next Debate »

National Council of Provinces - 21 June 2007

THURSDAY, 21 JUNE 2007 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

                                ____

The Council met at 14:04.

House Chairperson Mr T S Setona took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                          NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr M A MZIZI: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the Council –

(1) notes that police in Mtubatuba, in KwaZulu-Natal, are angry after a rape victim withdrew the charge before the suspect was sentenced nearly a year after he was arrested;

(2) further notes that a DNA test proved that there was a 99,99% chance that the suspect sexually abused the victim;

  3) realises that the time taken between the arrest of suspects and the
     sentencing is too long and places too much of a burden on the
     victim; and

(4) acknowledges that justice delayed is justice denied.

                     LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MEMBER

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That the Council, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 17(1) of the Rules of the National Council of Provinces, grants hon F Nyanda leave of absence from proceedings of both the Council and committees of the Council in terms of Rule 17(2) until the hon member is ready to resume her duty. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): As there is no speakers’ list, I shall now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber.

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any province that wishes to make a declaration of vote? None.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of or against the motion, or abstain from voting.

IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces have voted in favour of the motion. I therefore declare the motion agreed to.

Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

          SUSPENSION OF RULE 239 IN ORDER TO CONSIDER BILLS

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That the Council suspends Rule 239 of the Council Rules in order to consider the following Bills:

(a) Appropriation Bill [B 2 – 2007];

(b) Pension Funds Amendment Bill [B 11B—2007 (Reprint)];

(d) Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 19 – 2007].

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): As there is no speakers’ list, I shall now put the question: That the motion be agreed to. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province.

IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces have voted in favour of this motion. I therefore declare the motion agreed to.

Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

                (Consideration of Votes and Schedule)

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! Hon members, as there is no speakers’ list, I shall now put the Votes in the order in which they appear in the Schedule to the Bill.

Vote No 1 – The Presidency – put and agreed to.

Vote No 2 – Parliament – put and agreed to.

Vote No 3 – Foreign Affairs – put.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: I just want to bring to the attention of the Chairperson that, as the Whippery of the multiparty Whips, we normally allow parties to make indications to the Schedule. I don’t know whether the Schedule was brought to the attention of the presiding officer because, in terms of that, the ID has objected. I understand the ID has only one member in this House and the member is presently part of the entourage of the Chairperson on the trip abroad.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I’m not sure, but I need to be guided here, Chief Whip. If the ID do not stand and state their objection, I take it that they have agreed to the Vote.

Mr A WATSON: Chair, firstly, may I just point out that the Schedule that was circulated at the multiparty Whips meeting is totally incorrect; in line with the documentation that I submitted to the Chief Whip in writing and also electronically. There are numerous errors on it. And I therefore reserve my right to vote as per my list, which I also indicated to the Chairperson.

I wrote to the Chief Whip both by hand and electronically – to inform him that there was a mistake with regard to Vote 3, that we are going to vote against it and that we want to record our objection. Would you please take that as such?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! Hon members, we don’t need a debate on this matter. From where I sit, it is my assumption that the paper before me does not take away the right of the party, whether during lunch or yesterday or after the multiparty Whips’ meeting, to dissent. That is why I went through it. Therefore, in that regard, hon Watson, the objection of the DA will be noted.

Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).

Vote No 4 – Home Affairs – put.

Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

Vote No 5 – Provincial and Local Government – put.

Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

Vote No 6 – Public Works – put and agreed to.

Vote No 7 – Government Communications and Information System – put.

Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).

Vote No 8 – National Treasury – put and agreed to.

Vote No 9 – Public Service and Administration – put and agreed to.

Vote No 10 – Public Service Commission – put and agreed to.

Vote No 11 – SA Management Development Institute – put and agreed to.

Vote No 12 – Statistics SA – put and agreed to.

Vote No 13 – Arts and Culture – put.

Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Any further objections?

Mr A WATSON: [Inaudible.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! Hon Watson, will you please bring to my attention any disturbances you notice in this Chamber. Two wrongs do not make a right. Did I hear you saying it’s stupid?

Mr A WATSON: No, Chairperson. I did not say that. I said I can’t hear you because of the disturbances behind me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): You must bring that to my attention. Your point is noted.

Mr A WATSON: I am doing that, sir.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I would really appeal to the Chair: We know heckling is allowed in the House but I think we will make this exercise very simple, convenient and less time-consuming if we do that in an orderly manner. If there is no party objecting and if we all keep quiet, then we will know that there is no objection. Unless there is a party objecting, let’s allow the Chairperson to recognise that party so that we do this exercise in an orderly manner.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Hon members, we must not make heckling a disease. I think we only do that when other members are speaking. There is no debate here but there is a lot of heckling and it disturbs me because I can’t hear. If I have to make a ruling on a substantive issue, I am obstructed because of the noise in the Chamber.

Vote No 14 – Education – put.

Division demanded.

Mr A WATSON: May I address you on a point of order, Chairperson?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): What is your point of order, hon member?

Mr A WATSON: Is it in order for a member to call the DA crazy? This hon member has said we are “demo-crazy.’’ [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! May I please once more plead with you, hon members, that we must not be fussy about this process. We are not doing it for the first time. It is the right of any party to raise an objection. And, it is a procedure of this House that if there is a call for a division and it is supported by a certain requisite number of members, that should be adhered to. May I please once more appeal for restraint on the part of members. Hon Ntwanambi, will you please clarify this matter?

Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Chairperson, I did not say the DA is crazy. I said “demo- crazy’’.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! I will not make a ruling on that because I didn’t hear it. But with due respect, hon Ntwanambi, I don’t think your intervention in this regard is assisting us at all.

I have satisfied myself that all members have taken their seats. As tellers, to my right I appoint the Chief Whip of the Council and to my left I appoint hon A Watson. Tellers can now proceed with counting.

The Council divided:

AYES - 29: Adams, F; Botha, D J; Dlulane, B N; Gamede, D D; Goeieman, C M; Hendrickse, N D; Kolweni, Z S; Mack, N J; Madlala-Magubane, N M; Manyosi, A T; Masilo, J; Mazibuko, N F; Mkhaliphi, B J; Mkono, D G; Moatshe, P; Moseki, A L; Mzizi, M A; Ntwanambi, N D; Oliphant, M N; Ralane, T S; Robertson, M O; Shiceka, S; Sibiya, J M; Sogoni, E M; Sulliman, M A; Tau, R J; Themba, M P; Tolo, B J; Windvoël, V V Z.

NOES - 6: Fielding L H; Le Roux, J W; Thetjeng, O M; Van Heerden, F J; Watson, A; Worth, D A. Vote accordingly agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

Vote No 15 - Health – put.

Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

Vote No 16 - Labour - put.

Division demanded.

The Council divided:

AYES - 29: Adams, F; Botha, D J; Dlulane, B N; Gamede, D D; Goeieman, C M; Hendrickse, N D; Kolweni, Z S; Mack, N J; Madlala-Magubane, N M; Manyosi, A T; Masilo, J M; Mazibuko, N F; Mkhaliphi, B J; Mkono, D G; Moatshe, P; Moseki, A L; Mzizi, M A; Ntwanambi, N D; Oliphant, M N; Ralane, T S; Robertson, M O; Shiceka, S; Sibiya, J M; Sogoni, E M; Sulliman, M A; Tau, R J; Themba, M P; Tolo, B J; Windvoël, V V Z.

NOES - 6: Fielding L H; Le Roux, J W; Thetjeng, O M; Van Heerden, F J; Watson, A; Worth, D A.

Vote accordingly agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

Vote No 17 – Social Development - put.

Division demanded.

The Council divided:

NOES - 6: Fielding L H; Le Roux, J W; Thetjeng, O M; Van Heerden, F J; Watson, A; Worth, D A.

Vote accordingly agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, hon members, it’s clear that we want to spend a very, very long time on these discussions today, so let me make a speech and I hope to complete within the next hour or so. I so move. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Chairperson, Minister, colleagues, the 2007 Appropriation Bill reflects our maturing policy environment and allows us to focus on building a better future.

The Appropriation Bill provides us with the resources to tackle many of the urgent issues of concern to all South Africans. The healthy position of public finances, as reflected in the positive Budget balance, allows government to invest more resources in modernising key infrastructure and public services while providing a cushion against potential shocks to the economy.

This Budget is about sharing the fruits of more rapid economic growth. Additional infrastructure spending on public transport, roads, water, sanitation, housing, schools and clinics will enable us to reshape our cities and improve the quality of life of all South Africans.

The extension of the grants system that our President referred to in his recent Budget Vote deliberations deserves special mention. The latest figures, as at March 2007, indicate that about 13,2 million people are now accessing these grants.

It is common knowledge that the volume of government service delivery is at times found to be uneven and not as effective as anticipated, while the assault on poverty remains the central political thrust of the ANC. This battle must be won.

Both the select committee and the joint budgetary committee recommend that this House approves this Appropriation Bill. Thank you.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to.

In Accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish.

Is there any party that wishes to make a declaration? There is none.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye”.

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Those against will say “No”.

HON MEMBERS: No!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I think the “Ayes” have it.

The majority of members have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                    TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

                 TAXATION LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

           (Consideration of Bills and of Reports thereon)

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Chairperson, this tax legislation continues the work of tax reform. The task of democratising our regime is a major undertaking and these pieces of legislation are one step, amongst many, in a move towards a democratic tax regime which has been underway for several years now. The ANC is committed to the creation of a better life for all.

Tax receipts are a device that a majority party must use to promote its goals of social and economic transformation. Although the 2007 Budget is for a surplus, expenditure in the key antipoverty sectors is increasing. This legislation legitimises some of the main tax policy changes announced in the Minister of Finance’s February 2007 Budget Speech.

The legislation includes measures to encourage individuals to save both for their deferred consumption needs and for their retirement benefits. This legislation, in addition, seeks to assist small businesses by extending the small business tax amnesty for an extra month – until 30 June 2007.

As far as personal income tax relief is concerned, individuals earning less than R43 000 will not be taxed. In February 1996 only individuals earning less than R14 600 per annum were not required to pay tax. This demonstrates the commitment of the ruling party in crafting a tax regime that is pro- poor.

The tax on retirement funds has been repealed. Long-term savings for pension, provident funds and individual retirement annuities can expand tax- free thereby maximising retirement benefits of future retirees. The commitment by the national government to ensure that individuals will have adequate financial resources to sustain themselves during retirement is also demonstrated by the amendments proposed in the Pension Funds Amendment Bill, currently before Parliament.

This legislation and the Pension Funds Amendment Bill collectively ensure, firstly, that every future retiree receives benefits which are, firstly, inflation related and, secondly, that every retiree receives a proportional share of what he or she would have been entitled to. The total effect of these changes is that individuals and not financial institutions benefit from the retirement fund industry.

A new tax regime is provided for lump sum payouts for retirees and death. The legislation provides for the following: The first R300 000 lump sum amount will be tax free; an amount between R300 000 and R600 000 will be subject to an 18% rate; an amount between R600 000 and R900 000 will be subject to a 27% rate … [Interjections.] … and all amounts above R900 000 will be subject to a 36% rate. These rates apply to pension, provident and retirement annuity funds. The interest and dividend exemption for individuals below 65 years of age will increase to R18 000. In 2000 it was R3 000. The exemption for older people will increase to R26 000. In 2000 it was R4 000.

Last year an amnesty for small businesses, including taxi operators, was approved. The amnesty period was from 1 August 2006 to 31 May 2007. This legislation extends the amnesty by a month. It is noted that 275 398 applications were received for this amnesty. The last two weeks for the application witnessed a large number of applications after a slow initial start - hence an extension was logical.

It has become politically necessary for the ANC government to address the need of individuals to provide for adequate financial resources after retirement. This would free financial resources in the form of increased take-up of social grants, which is already is absorbing voluminous state resources. State resources would be better utilised by those unable to provide for retirement on their own and those who are very poor.

In 1994, the corporate tax rate dropped from 40% to 35%. In 1999, tax on company profit dropped to 30% and it is a documented fact that the corporate tax rate dropped to 29% in 2005. Moreover, July 2006 witnessed the elimination of the Regional Services Council, RSC, and the Joint Business Council, JBC, levy. A reduction in Secondary Tax on Companies, STC, from 12,5% to 10% and its individual replacement with a dividend tax implies that business will incur a drop in tax liability.

Retaining the 29% company tax rate obscures the reduced tax burden of companies. The corporate tax rate for New Zealand is 33%, for Belgium 33,9% and for the United States and Japan it is 40%. The corporate tax rate for developing countries such as Argentina is 35%, for India it is 35,9% and for Egypt it is 40%.

In conclusion, the select committee requested me to make an appeal to the citizens of this country that they should ensure that next time they visit their tax consultants, they do not use a broken VCR remote control as a calculator. [Interjections.] That is very important. That is what they asked me to say. Lastly, the Select Committee on Finance appeals to the NCOP to support this piece of legislation. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, on a point of privilege: In terms of Rule 33, as a member of this august House, I request that the hon Goeieman distributes that input. It is quite useful and empowering, and it will enable us to ensure that in our constituencies we are able to educate the people about this. It was very good research. Thank you very much, Chair. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I think the request will be taken care of by the hon Goeieman and his team, hon member.

I shall now put the question in respect of the Third Order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to.

In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any party that wishes to make a declaration? There is obviously none.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour will say “Aye”.

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Those against will say “No”.

HON MEMBERS: No!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I think the “Ayes” have it.

The majority of members have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question in respect of the Fourth Order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to.

In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish.

Is there any party that wishes to make a declaration? There is obviously none.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour will say “Aye”.

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Those against will say “No”.

HON MEMBERS: No!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I think the “Ayes” have it.

The majority of members have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

             MUNICIPAL FISCAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr E M SOGONI: Chairperson, hon Minister of Finance, comrades and colleagues, in a developmental state like ours, with a history of neglect of the majority of the people, there can never be enough resources to address the imbalances of the past. The national government will not have enough resources to distribute to local governments.

However, national government allocates the equitable share, unconditional and conditional grants in order to provide constitutionally mandated basic services by local government.

Local government has a responsibility to push the frontiers of poverty further back. It also has a responsibility to have a policy for indigent citizens.

Section 229 of the Constitution therefore enjoins national government to come up with enabling legislation, though only after consulting with the Financial and Fiscal Commission and organised local government to come up with legislation on the Municipal Fiscal Powers and Functions Bill. This requirement has been complied with.

We will remember that similar legislation was passed for provinces and they did not opt to implement it. So, this Bill creates space for those municipalities that may wish to implement this Bill.

The Bill therefore seeks to promote predictability and certainty in respect of municipal fiscal powers and functions, to ensure that municipal fiscal powers and functions are exercised in a manner that will not materially and unreasonably prejudice the national economic policies and economic activities across municipal boundaries.

It also allows the Minister, on application by a municipality or group of municipalities or organised local government, to authorise a municipal tax.

In addition, it regulates the application process for authorisation of municipal taxes in respect of applications received. It also provides for matters that must be addressed in regulations, authorising and regulating the imposition and administration of the municipality surcharge tax.

This Bill spells out very strict measures before a municipality can finally be granted this power. So, it means that this power will not simply be a free-for-all.

The Select Committee on Finance would like to thank the National Treasury officials for their co-operation and assistance during the process of deliberations on this Bill. The committee proposes the adoption of the Municipal Fiscal Powers and Functions Bill.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour will say “Aye”.

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Those against will say “No”.

HON MEMBERS: No!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I think the “Ayes” have it.

The majority of members have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                    PENSION FUNDS AMENDMENT BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon colleagues, the Pension Funds Amendment Bill is an attempt to address past injustices of denying members what was rightfully theirs, and seeks to prevent the same situation from arising in future.

In the short-term, the Pension Funds Amendment Bill deals with the immediate concerns with the implementation of the current Act, whereas its longer-term vision deals with social security and retirement fund reform processes

The objectives of the Bill are as follows: The existing Act exempts bargaining council funds from registering under the Pension Funds Act; and there are 1,5 million members in these funds. The problem with the existing arrangements is that members of these funds are not afforded equal protection by being under the Act and under oversight by the registrar.

In addition, members of these funds do not have access to the Pension Funds Adjudicator. The proposed amending Bill brings such funds into the regulatory net. Subsequently, a concern was raised that the inclusion of bargaining council funds under the Pension Funds Act would result in conflict between this Act and the Labour Relations Act.

It is argued that the Minister of Labour endorsed the inclusion of bargaining council funds and already 165 funds have registered voluntarily. The recent practice involving bulking and secret profits demonstrates that although the law was in place, it is necessary to codify the specific duties of the administrator and the Act.

The pension fund administrator receives premiums from many funds and bulks these receipts under its control and thereby obtains a high interest from the bank. There is nothing wrong with this practice; the point, however, is that the interest yielded from this practice does not accrue to the members of the pension funds.

The higher interest received from the consolidation of premiums of pension funds ends with the administrator of funds. The secret profits are not disclosed to the managers or trustees of the pension funds. The administrators must have properly trained staff, well-defined compliance procedures, must furnish the registrar, as requested, with information timeously and must disclose and manage conflicts of interest vigorously.

Every fund, including funds which have no actuarial surplus, should conduct an investigation into proper use in order to determine if a distribution is required.

The current Act does not make provision for a deputy or an acting adjudicator and this omission impedes operational efficiency. The current amendments provide for one or more deputies or adjudicators to be appointed by the Minister of Finance.

The current law does not permit the registrar to remove a trustee without first applying to a court of law. It is argued that the court process is too lengthy and does not serve the interests of the members. It is proposed that the registrar may, in the best interests of members of the fund, remove the board member of the fund in cases where the fund is not in a sound financial position and the board member fails to act when the fund is in a precarious financial position and does not manage the fund in terms of the rule of funds.

The Bill proposes that the registrar may replace any board member who is not fit and proper. It is also noteworthy that the registrar cannot behave arbitrarily because a process of appeal is still available against any decision of the registrar.

The current law allows for a spouse’s portion on divorce to remain in the fund without any return on growth. This treatment of the spouse’s share is unfair, since the spouse‘s share remains in the fund for a considerable time. The Bill allows for a payment of benefits to a non-member spouse in terms of a divorce order, and permits payment of benefits that include growth.

It further proposes that the above–mentioned proposals be retrospective and be deemed to have come into operation on 7 December 2001 under section 43.

The objective is to protect members and former members and the intention in passing this legislation is to deal with the appropriation of surpluses. The Select Committee on Finance appeals to the NCOP to support the amended Pension Funds Amendment Bill.

Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Thank you very much, hon members.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to.

In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties the opportunity to make their declaration of vote, if they so wish.

Is there any party that wishes to make a declaration?

There is none.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye”.

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Those against will say “No”.

HON MEMBERS: No!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I think the “Ayes” have it.

The majority of members have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE AND WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR M F MATHE, AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE IN PINETOWN

Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, I am told that the hon Sogoni has led a process of sex change. All of us, together with the hon Sogoni, are now addressed with “Malibongwe”, as if we were women. We have joined a group of women.

Chairperson, I am presenting to the House for it to take a decision, a decision about members of the Bench. I shall start with Magistrate M F Mathe.

The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, in terms of section 13(3)(b) and section 13(4A) of the Magistrates Act, Act 90 of 1993, presented a report to the committee. This report requests us to consider the fact that Mr Mathe has to be provisionally suspended as a magistrate, in terms of section 13(3)(c) of the Magistrates Act.

Secondly, the determination of the Magistrates Commission is to withhold Mr Mathe’s remuneration in terms of section 13(4A) of the Magistrates Act. The question is: What did this gentleman do that we have to consider his suspension and the withholding of his remuneration?

Mr Mathe was convicted on 4 May 2007 of stealing R11 000 in cash, and we therefore asked the committee on 24 May 2007 to consider the matter. We request this House to support the views of the committee that the two points raised by the Minister and considered by the commission be supported by this House. That is what I am standing here to do. I request you to act in that way. We will do that in terms of section 13(4A)(c).

Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber.

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any province that wants to make a declaration? We shall now proceed to the voting in alphabetical order.

IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE AND WITHHOLDING OF REMUNERATION OF MR I X MASIMINI, AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE IN QUEENSTOWN

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): In terms of the speakers’ list, I will call hon Shiceka.

Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, I have been requested by the committee to present to you and request you to support the views of the committee in relation to the matter presented to it by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development on the matter that involves Magistrate Masimini.

The Minister presented the report to the committee, where the committee considered two matters. One matter is the provisional suspension of Mr Masimini as a magistrate and the second matter is the matter raised by the commission that Mr Masimini’s salary should be withheld.

Mr Masimini was convicted on 24 November 2006 of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, what they call in security areas “assault GBH”. He was convicted by the court at Ezibeleni in Queenstown. Based on that, we request this House to support the committee’s views, taken on 14 April 2007 in terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act of 1993.

Power is bestowed on and vested in this House to take a decision in terms of the said Act and the sections that I have quoted. We request you, therefore, to support this decision so that the magistrate can sit at home and know that violence cannot be accepted.

The intention of the committee is to set a precedent and to ensure that people who preside over others must lead by example. They must not be involved in acts that undermine the judiciary, acts that undermine our democracy. When they sit on the Bench, they must be beyond reproach. We must respect their decisions because we know that they lead society by example and because we know that they are role models in our society. In that respect, we request this honourable House to concur with the views of the committee.

Thank you very much.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted.

As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chairperson whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting.

IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

  CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LABOUR AND PUBLIC    ENTERPRISES - PROTOCOL ON POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NEPAD ICT
      BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, hon members, the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee endorsed the Nepad broadband network for Eastern and Southern Africa as a Nepad flagship project in 2003.

The project, developed under the e-Africa commission, is a project that seeks to connect African countries to them and to the rest of the world via a terrestrial and submarine network system. This project is a truly African project that collaborates between 23 countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. It is a public-private partnership between the governments of the region and private African telecom companies.

The Nepad network will be governed by a set of principles, two of which I would like to mention. The first is that there shall be nondiscriminatory access. By this I mean that the cost of access to the network is the same for owners as well as nonowners and this will be irrespective of the size or wealth of the company requesting such access. The second is that all African telecommunications companies in the region will have an opportunity to invest the same amount irrespective of their wealth or their size.

A protocol was developed that would govern the network. This protocol has been adopted under the auspices of the African Union. It is this protocol, known as the Protocol on Policy and Regulatory Framework for Nepad ICT Broadband Infrastructure for Eastern and Southern Africa that I put before the House for ratification today.

The protocol provides for a common framework for the provision of cross- regional and cross-border high quality, high speed and reliable electronic communications at an affordable price to the end-user. The protocol contributes to the development and promotion of the economic, social and cultural integration of the African continent. It ensures African ownership, which will promote security over the network with minimal non- African interference. It is a private-public partnership between the governments of the region and the private African telecommunications companies, thus advancing the spirit of cohesion, partnership and working together.

After receiving presentations and engaging in discussions around the protocol, it is the committee’s submission that the Protocol on Policy and Regulatory Framework for Nepad ICT Broadband Infrastructure for Eastern and Southern Africa be ratified by this august House.

I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the Ninth Order. The question is that the report be adopted.

I shall now also allow provinces the opportunity to make their declaration of vote in terms of Rule 71 if they so wish. Is there any province wishing to make any declaration of vote? There is obviously none.

We shall now proceed to the voting on this question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting.

IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Hon members, it’s our last sitting today. We will be going away for a constituency period. I just want to appeal to members to behave and that I believe when you come back you will respect this House and be disciplined. Have a good constituency period.

The Council adjourned at 15:18 ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

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 21 June 2007:

     (a)     Appropriation Bill [B 2 – 2007] (National Assembly – sec
         77)

     (b)     Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 18 – 2007] (National
         Assembly – sec 77)

     (c)     Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 19 – 2007] (National
         Assembly – sec 75)

     (d)     Municipal Fiscal Powers and Functions Bill [B 9B– 2007]
         (National Assembly – sec 75)

     (e)     Pension Funds Amendment Bill [B 11B – 2007 (Reprint)]
         (National Assembly – sec 75)

National Council of Provinces

The Chairperson

Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces in respect of Bill passed and transmitted

(1)     Bill passed by National Assembly on 21 June 2007 and
     transmitted for concurrence:


     (a)     Housing Consumers Protection Measures Amendment Bill [B 6B
          – 2007 (Reprint)] (National Assembly – sec 76).


          The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Public
          Services of the National Council of Provinces. TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Minister of Finance

(a)     Proclamation No R.12 published in Government Gazette No 29921
     dated 1 June 2007: Fixing a date on which section 147(1) of the
     Revenue Laws Amendment Act, 2003 (Act No 45 of 2003), shall come
     into operation.

(b)     Government Notice No 467 published in Government Gazette No
     29913 dated 1 June 2007: Definition of “Retirement Annuity Fund”
     in section 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).

(c)     Government Notice No 472 published in Government Gazette No
     29913 dated 1 June 2007: Proviso to paragraph 9(3) of the Fourth
     Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).

The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

(a)     Proclamation No R.7 published in Government Gazette No 29831
     dated 25 April 2007: Referral of matters to existing Special
     Investigating Unit and Special Tribunal, in terms of the Special
     Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, 1996 (Act No 74 of
     1996).

(b)     Proclamation No R.10 published in Government Gazette No 29831
     dated 25 April 2007: Extension of the period of operation of
     sections 51 and 52, in terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
     1997 (Act No 105 of 1997).

« Previous Debate

Next Debate »