WEDNESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2007 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
                                ____

The Council met at 15:30.

The Deputy Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Deputy Chairperson, I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the Council —

(1) notes that —

     (a)      25 November to 10 December 2007 marks the beginning of the
           16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence campaign to
           highlight the scourge of violence against women and children
           in our society;
     (b)      the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence transcends
           to many parts of the world and has grown to be one of the key
           international campaigns that are used as organised strategies
           by governments, individuals and civil society organisations
           to call for the elimination of all forms of violence against
           women and children in society; and

     (c)      for 2007, the global theme for the 16 Days of Activism is
           “Demanding Implementation, Challenging Obstacles: End
           Violence Against Women”;

(2) further notes that since 1991, the 16 Days of Activism campaign has helped to raise awareness about gender violence and has made formidable inroads in fostering change towards raising the plight of many women who are brutalised at home and at the hands of their loved ones;

(3) acknowledges the extensive policy and legislative framework that has been created by the government to deal with violence against women and children in South Africa;

(4) further acknowledges that the government has moved a step further in the process of promulgating the Sexual Offences Bill, which was passed by the Council and which is intended to provide greater protection to vulnerable persons who are victims of sexual offences; and

(5) calls on all the people of South Africa, including victims of of this appalling crime, to “Speak out, Stand up, and Commit to preventing Violence against Women and Children in our society”.

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

That the Council —

(1) notes with shock and disgust that a 57-year old teacher has appeared in court after being charged with raping a grade 7 pupil, who is only 12 years old, at a school in Louis Trichardt;

(2) further notes that teachers and all adults are in a position of trust and should serve as role models and mentors who guide and teach our children;

(3) acknowledges that the perpetrator of this heinous crime abused his position of influence and betrayed the trust of this young girl;

(4) realizes that children are amongst the most vulnerable members of society and their plight should always be at the fore of our decisions and thinking, especially during the period of 16 Days of Activism For No Violence Against Women and Children which starts next week; and

(5) hopes that, if found guilty, this man feels the full might of the law as he does not deserve to be part of our society.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Before I proceed to the next item, I wish to welcome all the special delegates from the provinces, MECs and also our Deputy Minister of Education, the hon E Surty, to this House. Thank you.

                        MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

                     (The late Mr L T K Tonjeni)

Mr A T MANYOSI: Deputy Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council —

(1) notes with deepest sympathy and sadness the passing away of a veteran of the liberation struggle, comrade Luvuyo Templeton (Kaizer) Tonjeni, on Sunday 11 November 2007, who will be buried in Middle–Tyira, Qumbu, on 24 November 2007; (2) further recalls that Comrade Tonjeni served as a senator from 1994 to 1997 when the Senate was replaced by the NCOP, and later served as a member of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature until he retired in 1999;

(3) expresses its untold appreciation for the invaluable selfless sacrifices and contribution he made towards the liberation of our country; and

  4) accordingly extends its condolences to the Tonjeni family and all
     his relatives and friends.

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

                2010 FIFA WORLD CUP PRELIMINARY DRAW

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr B J TOLO: Chair, I move without notice:

That the Council —

(1) notes that the 2010 FIFA World Cup Preliminary Draw will be held in Durban on 25 November 2007, which will be attended by thousands of delegates from 204 countries of which 53 will be from the African continent;

(2) also notes that this event is intended to set the stage for the country’s preparations for the hosting of the most important soccer spectacle to ever take place on the African continent – the 2010 FIFA World Cup;

(3) further notes that the 2010 FIFA World Cup Preliminary Draw will be preceded by one of the most anticipated clashes in the South African football calendar, namely a derby between the country’s two soccer giants, Orlando Pirates and Kaizer Chiefs, which will be broadcast live in 43 European countries as well as in the United States of America and will be broadcast in French, English, German, Italian, Russian, Polish, Romanian, Greek, Turkish and Norwegian; and

(4) calls on all the people of South Africa and the African continent to stand tall and resolutely to ensure that this event sends ripples of confidence from Cape to Cairo and to spread the message that “Africa’s time has come and we are ready to host”. Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

                      VICTORY OF BAFANA BAFANA

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr B J TOLO: Chair, I move without notice:

That the Council —

(1) notes the victory of Bafana Bafana yesterday in a thrilling match against Canada; and

(2) hopes that this is the beginning of good things to come for Bafana Bafana.

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

                    EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Deputy Chairperson, hon MECs, members of the provincial legislatures, esteemed members of this very august House, the National Council of Provinces, congratulations on turning 10; I know you celebrated your 10th anniversary and thank you for your contribution to our democracy. May I, at the onset, convey the apologies and best wishes of our Minister, who is in the National Assembly answering questions. She would have liked to be here personally to share the experience of the passage of this Bill with you in this House.

I think it is appropriate to endorse the sentiments of the hon Mr Mzizi with regard to the heinous crime by a teacher who is supposed to be the caregiver, custodian and mentor of a child – such acts of violence and abuse cannot be tolerated and it’s important that the SA Council for Educators takes immediate steps and that such criminal actions are eradicated. We cannot afford for certain individual’s diabolic actions to tarnish the good name and reputation of thousands of teachers who commit themselves on a daily basis to work for the benefit of our learners in many schools under very challenging circumstances. Thank you very much for drawing this to the attention of the House.

I also support the motion that we should commit ourselves to the 16 Days of Activism. It’s important that we become aware of the fact that government has, in fact, planned marches countrywide for men to demonstrate extensively their support for women and to fight any form of abuse against our women and children. Therefore, the MECs who are present here and members of the National Council of Provinces should join members in this House, as well as those outside, to join thousands of men who are trying to achieve a Million Men March in support of our women, because it is the business of men to ensure that they become the protectors of our women and our children. So, thank you very much for that opportunity.

I also note that the chairperson of the select committee is in actual fact not only the chairperson of education, but also of sports and recreation and, indeed, we celebrate the victory of Bafana Bafana in relation to soccer, and we look forward to a good 2010 World Cup.

Chairperson, I do understand that you have a very tight schedule, today. I’m going to try to deal with the Education Laws Amendment Bill in the easiest possible way so that we can have a shared understanding of the importance of the Education Laws Amendment Bill.

It deals, firstly, with the issue of consultation in terms of the National Education Policy Act, Nepa. Nepa has two sections, section five and section 11 which, when read against each other, create some confusion, given the fact that when the Minister develops policy and passes law, she consults with the various stakeholders, whether it be the Education Labour Relations Council or the SA Association of Governing Bodies. It allows the Minister to establish an appropriate forum where she requires support or assistance in terms of any aspect with regard to policy. So, this legislation really clarifies the law and provides the opportunity for the Minister to constitute such a body for when an opinion or certain advice is required in relation to any aspect of policy.

The important achievement, in my opinion, with regard to this law is issues of norms and standards. We’ve never had any norms and standards with regard to what a school is. What is a school? What should its shape and size be? What should its content be? How big or small should a classroom be? What should the learner-teacher ratio be in a classroom? Should a school without a laboratory and a library be regarded as a school?

These are questions that we have to deal with, and given the context of our past, and given the huge disparities in our schools, it’s important that we enable the Minister to set out, at least, the minimum norms and standards in relation to what a school should be and what type of learner support material should be provided in a school; what a class size should be like; what amenities, including sports and recreation, should be provided in a school; and what kind of structures, with regard to safety and security in a school, are necessary in order to create a caring environment for our learners.

So, the Bill does enable the Minister to do that, and I think it’s important that we support this particular aspect. Hon members, you are all aware of the fact that we have a serious problem with crime in general, and also with crime within our schools in terms of drug abuse and learners carrying dangerous weapons. We’ve received many appeals from all quarters, and from all political parties, that we should strengthen the hand of the head of the school to enable him or her, where there is reasonable ground for suspicion, to search groups of learners to ensure that they do not enter the school premises being armed or being in possession of drugs.

What this Bill does is, in fact, something quite drastic, but something that responds directly to the appeal of our society to create safe and caring schools. It enables the principal or a person designated by him or her to search groups of learners, where there is reasonable suspicion and in the best interest of the learners. I think this is important, because it sends a very strong message that you do not enter our schools, which are in any case declared gun-free and drug-free, with any weapons and if you do, you will have to deal with the consequences. This is an important area where we had to intervene and, indeed, we had.

If you look at the South African Schools Act, you will discover that it describes at great length the roles, responsibilities and functions of governing bodies. It’s important that we do so because these are democratic institutions that have been established to ensure that our schools become part of the communities they belong to, and are owned by the communities, and also that they respect the right of parents, learners and educators alike to participate in an important forum such as this. However, the South African Schools Act did very little in terms of describing the roles, responsibilities and functions of principals. In fact, I think just about a line or two has been devoted to it – that the principal is responsible for the professional duties in terms of managing the school.

What we thought we should do in order to create clarity of understanding amongst members of the governing body and the principals or headmasters or headmistresses of the school, is to elaborate on the roles and responsibilities of a principal. Indeed, he or she would be responsible for the implementation of the curriculum. It is critical that this becomes a responsibility that he or she does not delegate to anybody else, but that it is a conferred responsibility in terms of legislation.

Indeed, he or she would be responsible for the professional management of the school and the professional management of the staff so that we do not have a situation where members of the governing body enter a school, assume the authority of the principal and assume that they could professionally manage the staff and then infringe on the professional authority and autonomy of a principal. It is indeed necessary that we do so.

More interesting in this legislation is the attempt to ensure that they are held accountable, as leaders of an institution and as leaders of a school. If a school is led well, it functions effectively and quality education can be provided, but when schools are led by poor leaders they become dysfunctional. We are saying that the principal must account, and he must be able to submit a report to the head of the department and to the governing body in relation to the performance of the school.

Where the school is dysfunctional, he or she has a responsibility to ensure that he or she submits an improved strategy in terms of dealing with the issues of dysfunctionality. We cannot have consistent underperformance and mediocrity in our schools.

This is what the legislation allows us to do. It holds the principal accountable to the head of the department as well as the governing body, so that they can become aware of the performance or the strategic vision of the school on an annual basis.

It also allows, where a school is indeed dysfunctional, the head of department to intervene and provide the school with a mentor for a defined period of time to ensure that the school does not suffer or become the victim at the expense of poor leadership within that school. It has been an appeal from our people and we have indeed responded to the appeal.

The other element that the Bill deals with, which is important and we’ve heard members in this House addressing it, is the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS. It speaks to more than a billion rand that has been set aside for the learners who go to tertiary institutions.

We have, in fact, celebrated the recapitalisation of our Further Education and Training, FET, colleges. They provide new avenues of opportunity; they provide us with the intermediate and artisan skills that are so critical and necessary in our country. But what kind of support have we provided to these FET colleges in terms of enabling learners to have access to it, particularly the poorest of the poor?

You may well be aware that, in fact, the Minister announced it in this House. Rl00 million had been set aside last year and it’s going to be increased to R200 million for the next financial year to allow for bursaries for learners attending FET colleges. Somebody has to manage this mechanism and indeed NSFAS will do so on behalf of the Department of Education, and I think it is something that we can celebrate collectively.

This is the broad thrust of the Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to really thank the select committee and its members for their diligent and robust engagement in relation to various aspects of the Bill. In fact, they proposed two substantive amendments through the provinces and these have been taken on board by the Department of Education.

I would also like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the MECs for Education as well as the chairpersons of the standing committees in the various provinces who held public hearings; who listened to the voices of the people and shaped the form, content and the nature of the negotiating and final mandates to the members of this esteemed House. Thank you to all of you for making this Bill a reality. I think it is something that we could, as a collective in this country, celebrate together because it responds not only to any political party, but also to the needs of millions of learners in our schools and thousands of parents who have appealed to us to make our schools safer, effective and efficient and provide quality education to all our learners. Thank you for your kind attention. [Applause.]

Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, Deputy Minister, hon members, many education laws which were passed were meant to create a framework to enable government to transform education. Today, here, we can say that, without any fear of being contradicted, as a country we have made serious strides into transforming education. The landscape in education has transformed in such a way that the bantu education we received prior to 1994 is now safe in the museum of history alongside the spinning wheel.

However, with the implementation of these laws, it is clear that there are still some practical problems that we are still facing. The Bill before this House is an attempt by the Department of Education to refine some of these education laws and to address some of the implementation problems that we have come across. It is common knowledge that there is still a big challenge with regard to the school infrastructure, especially in the rural provinces. This has led to an unconducive learning and teaching environment in our schools. In the past 13 years, we have also seen that there is no uniformity in provinces regarding the provision of infrastructure. Some provinces have built schools whilst others have built classrooms. Even those that built schools more often than others, have built low-quality schools.

This Bill makes provision for the national Department of Education to establish minimum norms and standards that provinces will have to abide by when building school infrastructure. The Bill further provides for minimum and uniform standards with regard to the capacity of a school.

In the past, we have heard of situations where the education departments in the provinces, and even nationally, have been taken to court by schools motivated by racism, refusing to admit learners from other language groups even if those schools were half-empty.

The norms and standards envisaged here will tell us about the carrying capacity of each school. Therefore, there will be no excuse by any school not to admit a child if that school is not full.

We are all aware of the violence and drug abuse that have gripped our schools. We have seen children stabbing each other, even to death. In the Western Cape alone we have been told that more than 70 stabbings have actually taken place this year.

We have seen children using drugs like tik in some of our schools. As a nation, we need to say enough is enough. We have a responsibility to work together to reclaim our schools and make them once again proper institutions of learning and teaching. If we do not do so history will judge us harshly.

This Bill empowers teachers to carry out a random search of any group of students suspected of having dangerous weapons or drugs in their possessing and to also test the urine of any suspected drug users.

This Bill suggests that this be done in a manner that does not violate the human rights of the learner. We have heard a very few voices, albeit, saying that teachers are not trained to search students and that this must be left to the police. We believe that that is being technical about this serious matter. Anybody that is serious about education and the safety of our children at school will embrace the provisions of this Bill with both arms.

We believe that a teacher must teach a child in his or her totality and act in a manner that seeks to protect innocent learners. Having sent their children to school, parents must relax in the belief that their kids will return home safely, because they are protected in a school environment. That protection is the responsibility of teachers – as somebody said, in loco parentis. In other words, the teachers are there on behalf of the parents of the learners. Therefore, anything that the parents do to the children, the teacher can actually do. So, this whole question of this thing being left to the police is unwanted and unwarranted.

The Bill also outlines the procedure to be followed when dangerous weapons or drugs are found in the possession of a learner. But you must hasten to say that opening a criminal case for such a learner is not an option.

The South African Schools Act has hitherto outlined the functions of the SGB, but not those of the principals. It has also been thought and taken for granted that principals will know their functions. The other mistake they have always made was to think that a good classroom teacher would make a good principal.

Real life has taught us that that is not true. This Bill outlines the functions and the responsibilities of a principal. The clarification of roles between the principal and SGBs will enhance the smooth running of school, as treading on each other’s toes will be a thing of the past. With the passage of this Bill, there will now be some certainty as to what happened to a school or to schools that are underperforming.

For a long time, we have heard of schools that have been underperforming and nothing happened to them. The fact that the principal will now know that if there is no improvement in results, his or her career may be at stake, will help to improve the results.

To date, we have new situations where some provinces would not comply with national policies and the national Ministry did not have any leverage to compel any province to comply.

An illustration of this point will be that it has always been a national policy that when a school is built, that school must have a sports ground on its premises. We have seen so many schools being built without sports grounds in the provinces and nothing is happening to these provinces. It gives us pleasure to see that in this Bill there are measures in place to compel provinces to comply with national norms and standards.

To date, the NSFAS covers students at tertiary institutions alone. This Bill provides that this important financial aid scheme be extended to deserving learners at FET colleges. It is now common knowledge that FETs have been recapitalised to provide very important skills for the development of our country.

It is our considered view that when this Bill is implemented, it will fundamentally improve the situation in our schools and by extension improve the quality of the lives of our people. We urge this House to support this Bill with the amendments. We thank you.

Nksz N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Ngiyabonga, Sihlalo. Ngizothatha leli thuba ukubingelela iPhini likaNgqongqoshe Wezemfundo, abahlonishwa abaqhamuka ezifundazweni kanye neNdlu yonke, uma ucubungula futhi ufunda isigaba 5(a) salo Mthethosivivinywa obizwa nge-Education Laws Amendment Bill, uzohlangabezana nezimo kanye neziqondiso zezingqalazizinda namakhono ezikoleni. Lesi sigaba siyachaza ukuthi uNgqongqoshe angaba nalo ilungelo lokunikeza umkhombandlela mayelana nezimo zezingqalazizinda ezikoleni - izinto ezifana namagumbi okufundela, izindlu zangasese, amanzi, ugesi nokunye okubalulekile okumaqondana nesikole.

UNgqongqoshe angabuye futhi abhekelele ikhono lesikole ukuthi bangaki othisha kuleso sikole, inani lezingane ezifundiswa uthisha ngamunye ukuthi zingaki, ukuthi izikole ngabe zinemiphumela emihle yini noma cha kanye nokuthi ngabe isikole sinazo yini izincwadi zokufunda ezifanele kanye nokunye okuwusizo ekuthuthukiseni izinga lemfundo kuleso sikole. Lokhu kuzoba nomthelela ekutheni izinga lemfundo kuleli lakithi libe phezulu ngokwanele. UNgqongqoshe usenalo futhi igunya lokwenza isiqiniseko sokuthi inqubo yezemfundo iyefana kuzo zonke izikole zakuleli.

Isahluko 16 (a) sikhuluma ngezemisebenzi nelungelo likathishanhloko wesikole. Kuyilungelo likathishanhloko ukumela uMnyango Wezemfundo esigungwini esibhekelela isikole esibizwa nge-Governing Body futhi abuye aselekelele isigungu leso. Ngakho-ke nguyena owedlulisa umbiko eMnyangweni Wezemfundo futhi abuye awethule ubhaliwe. Lo mbiko wethulwa njalo uma kuqala unyaka. Uqukethe amalungiselelo onyaka wonke futhi uchaza ngokuthuthukiswa kwezemfundo kuleso sikole. Kunesidingo sokuthi lo mbiko ubuye uchaze izindlela zokuthuthukisa kwezemfundo ubuye usho ukuthi zizothuthukiswa ngaluphi uhlobo. Kubuye kube khona uhlelo futhi okufanele lulandelwe yisikole ngasinye uma kwethulwa lo mbiko.

Kuyilungelo loMnyango lokwemukela noma ukuchitha umbiko kathishanhloko. Esigabeni 58(c)kuyachazwa ukuthi oNgqongqoshe bezifunda yibona abafanele ukuba nesiqiniseko sokuthi ngabe le mibandela yesigungu esibhekelela isikole iyalandelwa yini noma cha, ngenxa yokuthi yibona abazokwethula imibiko kuNgqongqoshe kazwelonke. Kuyilungelo futhi loMnyango ukugunyaza izinhloko zeminyango ekutheni zibe nesiqiniseko ngesimo sezikole ngokwamagumbi okufundela, othisha kanye nohlelo lwezemfundo kuleso sikole.

Umbiko onjengalona kufanele wedluliselwe kusihlalo wesigungu esibhekela isikole kanye nothishanhloko ungakafiki umhlaka-30 Mandulo minyaka yonke. Lo Mthetho uzothuthukisa imfundo kuleli laseNingizimu Afrika, ngakho-ke kubalulekile ukuthi usetshenziswe yizifundazwe ngokwanele ukuze ube nempumelelo. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)

[Mrs N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Thank you, hon Chairperson. I would like to take this opportunity to greet the Deputy Minister of Education, and members from the provinces and the House at large. When one studies and reads section 5(a) of this Bill, known as the Education Laws Amendment Bill, one encounters rules and regulations that deal with infrastructure and capacity in the schools. This section stipulates that the Minister has the right to give guidelines with regard to infrastructure in the schools – things such as classrooms, toilets, water, electricity and other important facilities in the schools.

The Minister may also determine whether a school has sufficient capacity, the number of teachers in a school, the student-teacher ratio, and the kind of results produced by the school; and whether the school has sufficient books as well as other facilities that are necessary for the improvement of the standard of education in that school. This will have an impact on elevating the standard of education in this country to an acceptable level. The Minister also has the authority to ensure that the standard of education is the same in all the schools of this country.

Section 16(a) deals with the duties and obligations of the school principal. It is the duty of the principal to represent the Department of Education on the school governing body and to assist that body. Therefore, it is he or she who submits written reports to the Department of Education. The report includes the school’s annual business plan as well as the improvement of education standards in that school. The report must include strategies for the improvement of education and how this is going to be done. There is a prescribed format which must be followed by the school when submitting the report.

The Department has the right to accept or reject the principal’s report. In section 58 (c) it is stipulated that it is the duty of the provincial MECs to ensure that the decisions of the school governing body are implemented, because they are the ones who will submit reports to the national Minister. It is also the duty of the department to authorise heads of departments to ensure that there are sufficient classrooms, teachers and a proper teaching programme in that school.

Such a report must be submitted to the chairperson of the school governing body before the 30th of September annually. This Bill will improve the standard of education in South Africa. It is crucial, therefore, that it must be used extensively by the provinces for it to be successful. Thank you. [Applause.]]

Ms H LAMOELA: Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, special delegates from the provinces, I believe that our democracy cannot flourish unless government is faced with vigorous, critical and effective opposition that is loyal to the constitutional order and promotes the wellbeing of our country. With regard to the Education Amendment Bill, I aim to do just that.

This Bill is advancing amendments to the education system in South Africa that, if enacted, will bring about significant changes in the management of schools. However, there are major challenges in terms of gaps and a lack of clarity regarding some of the clauses of the Bill, which should be given careful thought before the Bill is adopted as law.

Clause 1 – and I hope my understanding is correct – places education almost entirely in the hands of the Minister of Education and excludes important organisations in the front line of education delivery from involvement in policy-making. The only body that the Minister will be required to consult is the National Education and Training Council, whose membership the Minister is free to decide on herself.

The DA believes that in education everybody should be regarded as a stakeholder and one person alone cannot take decisions on educational matters. Will the Minister not overlook the need for consultation with affected parties as it is the case in Khutsong, where unnecessary conflict arose as a result of a lack of consultation with communities?

Regarding norms and standards, this push for uniformity rather than a standard for what should be attained is concerning, and the DA does not say that it is not proper to upgrade schools. My concern is that uniformity must not become the benchmark of what a quality school is when it is really about the quality of teaching.

It is hard to fathom how standards such as minimum numbers of learners are going to be enforced, given the inevitable pressure at schools that are seen as being good.

In respect of the right of principals to testify against the state, the DA welcomes the removal from the Bill of the section dealing with the advancement of one employee over another. This would surely be a violation of the principal’s right to equality before the law. Secondly, this would infringe upon the right to freedom of speech, would never be accepted in terms of the labour law, and would surely affect the rights of others to have disputes resolved fairly.

Regarding dangerous objects and illegal drugs, the DA has minor problems with the definition of the former, yet it is not always clear that the department has thought through the practical consequences of having to train principals and teachers in body-searching and drug testing.

What will happen in the case where teachers are intimidated by pupils? Will this have any cost implications for the department and will the full effects of the law apply to learners in the same way that it would apply outside the school?

I am asking these questions because it would be pointless to have provisions on drug testing and body-searching for weapons if learners know that there will be no ultimate sanction.

In conclusion, I think we need a more sophisticated approach to school governance; one that recognises the enormous range of capacity in our country, leaves those schools that exercise their powers responsibly alone, but which demands accountability from those that do not.

Onderrig of geletterdheid is een van ons grootste skatte wat ons aan ons volk se voortbestaan kan wy omdat niks kundigheid kan vervang nie want dit het ’n langdurige uitwerking op lewens. Baie dankie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Education or literacy is one of the greatest treasures we can contribute to the survival of our nation, because nothing can take the place of expertise in terms of long-term benefits in our lives. Thank you very much. [Applause.]]

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister of Education and hon members, it is common knowledge that violence in schools is beyond control, and for that reason the IFP supports the provisions for random searches, seizures and drug testing of learners. So far society has failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that learners are protected against the escalating violence in schools.

These provisions may infringe on human rights but until such time that they are tested in a court of law, the IFP supports their use to combat school violence. The IFP strongly believes that decisive and immediate action needs to be taken to protect learners and ensure that schools are havens for learning and not for violence.

Sihlalo ohloniphekileyo, ubudlova nokungalawuleki kwabafundi ezikoleni sebudlulele. Miningi iniphefumulo esichithekile, liningi igazi elichithekile, abazali basosizini ngokufa kwabantwana babo endaweni yokufunda ebiyaziwa njengendawo ephephile kodwa hhayi manje. Amathishela awasakhululekile ekufundiseni ngoba awasaphephile.

UMnyango Wezemfundo uthathe igxathu elihle ngomthetho wokusesha abafundi, uma kusolakala ukuthi kukhona okushaya amanzi futhi ayikho enye indlela engenziwa ukubhekana nalesi sihlava esihlasele intsha yethu. Kuyoba kuhle kulokhu kusesha kubhekelwe ukuphepha kukathisha omkhulu. Ubambiswano luyadingeka phakathi kwabazali, isigungu esibhekele abazali esikoleni, amathishela kanye nabafundi.

Utshwala, izidakamizwa, konke lokhu kuyincithakalo esikoleni. Abaqaphi bayadingeka ezikoleni ukulekelela amathishela nabafundi. UMnyango Wezemfundo kudingeka ufake isandla ngokuthe xaxa noma ukhuphule amasokisi ngokolimi lwanamhlanje. UMnyango Wezemfundo udinga ukukhuphula amasokisi ekufakeni imali ethe xaxa ukuze kwazeke ukuthi kufunwe abaqaphi abangochwepheshe phela, abazoqapha ezikoleni ukuze kuvikeleke udlame, ubudlova obuvela ngaphandle kwesikole nobuvela ngaphakathi esikoleni. Ngiyabonga kakhulu. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Hon Chairperson, violence and unruly behaviour among learners at schools is excessive. Too many people have lost their lives and parents are in agony due to the death of their children at schools that used to be known for their safety, but which is no longer the case now. Teachers are no longer comfortable when they teach because they are not safe.

The Department of Education has taken a firm step to search learners if it is suspected that something is wrong. There is no other way of dealing with this ugly situation that is confronting our youth. This searching of learners would be appreciated if it protects the principal of the school. Co-operation between parents, teachers and learners is necessary.

Alcohol and drug abuse is destructive in schools. Security is needed at schools to assist teachers and learners. The Department of Education should make a significant contribution and pull up their socks in today’s lingo so that we would be in a position to find professional security personnel who will look after our schools in order to prevent violence in and outside of schools. Thank you.]

Ms T J NDIMANDE (Limpopo): Chairperson, I just want to make one point before I start with the debate. I want to correct and workshop hon Lamoela. I think she needs help because she doesn’t seem to have read clause 1 properly. She does not understand it. The clause says that the body, as it stands, is like a mass meeting and that it needs to be made a manageable body. That is what the Bill says. Nobody is excluded from policy-making in Education as everybody has the right to make inputs. I hope she understands that a school governing body, SGB, is a representation of the parents in that particular body.

Hon Lamoela, please do understand! Do not assume and daydream so as to mislead the public to score political points and for political gimmick posturing. I just wanted to remind you.

Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity to share the position of Limpopo on the Bill that is under consideration by this august House. In doing so, I would like to reflect on a number of areas that the Bill seeks to address.

With regard to the proposal that the Minister must prescribe the minimum norms and standards on schools’ infrastructures, capacity and matters such as learning and teaching support materials, we believe that these will be helpful particularly in view of the challenges in these areas.

In provinces such as ours, where there is a serious infrastructure backlog, it is key for government to come up with measures such as these so that we could slowly close the gaps. We, therefore, welcome the move to introduce such measures.

It is also plausible to know that the Bill seeks to tighten the screws around issues of safety in schools. The country has recently witnessed some unpleasant trends in terms of isolated cases of violent behaviour in schools. We believe that the proposal made in the Bill to allow random searches, seizing and drug testing will, in the long run, put an end to these unwanted elements in our education system and ultimately society.

Leswi ndzi lavaka ku vula swona hi leswi, xiphiqo lexi nga tsandzaka matshalatshala lawa ya vulavulaka hi Nawumbisi lowu hileswaku vana va xikolo phela, a va xavisi swidzidziharisi, a va manyufakichari swidzidziharisi, swidzidziharisi swi manyufakichariwa hi van’wankumi lava va lavaka ku fuma hi ku hatlisa. Van’wana va vona i vaaka-tiko va tiko reri.

Van’wana va vona hi lava va taka hi le handle- switaswifamba lava va lavaku na ku kongomisa poyila mfumo lowu wa ANC naswona xikongomelo xa vona xin’wana i ku lava ku vona tiko leri ri wa hi matsolo. Hikuva ku dlaya vana lavantsongo i ku dlaya rixaka na poyila tiko ya Afrika Dzonga hikuva rixaka ra mundzuku i vana lava. Vana va xikolo i dzaka ya tiko leri loko vona va nga switivi va lava ku hoxa mali aswikhwameni ntsena.

Hi ku vulavula hi ndlela leyi Limpopo yi ri vaaka-tiko hinkwavo va Afrika- Dzonga a hi yimeni hi milenge hi lwa na swilo leswi hikuva kuri hina hi nga tikumi hi ri van’wana va vaxavisi, ku lumba vana va hina swibamu na ku ka hi nga vuli nchumu loko vana na ri na mukwana na mabyalwa lawa ya nga to onha tiko leri ra Afrika-Dzonga. (Translation of Xitsonga paragraphs follows.)

[One of the problems that won’t be addressed by this Bill’s initiatives is that pupils who sell drugs are not manufacturing them, but these drugs are being manufactured by rich people who want to maximise their wealth overnight.

Some of these people are citizens of this country, while others are from other countries and want to bring disrepute to the ANC-led government and eventually bring this government to its knees. Destroying our children is destroying a generation and bringing shame on South Africa, because they are the future generation. School pupils are our heritage but they do not realise this because they are only interested in getting money.

Limpopo urges all fellow citizens of South Africa to stand together and fight against these things, lest we also become drug sellers ourselves. If we give our children guns, and do not reprimand them when they are in possession of knives and abusing alcohol, then we would be contributing towards the destruction of our country South Africa.]

School governance is another area that needs constant reflection and review. There have been instances where the roles of the principal and those of the school governing body are confused. It is, therefore, critical, as the Bill proposes, that the role of the principal be made clear so as to avoid such challenges.

While we welcome the move to ensure that the SGBs support the head of the department when dealing with a principal who lacks the capacity to perform his duties, as a country we need to do more in terms of capacitating these important bodies to function independently of principals. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean the creation of adversarial relationships between principals and the SGBs, but be a way of enhancing the performance of SGBs.

In some schools, for example, the SGBs are used to endorse the decisions of the principals. We also welcome the move to introduce a system where the heads of the department are given the responsibility to identify underperforming schools and come up with measures to address such underperformance. These will enable us to turn things around, particularly in schools that are known to be consistently performing poorly.

It would be critical for us in provinces to ensure that interventions to address the identified weaknesses are devised and implemented accordingly. We are particularly pleased with the move to broaden the scope of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, to include students who are enrolled at Further Education and Training colleges. We believe that this will help our youths from poor backgrounds to have access to post-matric education. This will also help improve our skills base as we are likely to see an increase in the enrolment at FET colleges.

As a province we are fully in support of the Bill that is under consideration. Thank you.

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister, if my memory serves me well, I put a question to our national Minister of Education sometime last year about violence in our schools. We also had as the select committee an engagement with the department dealing with this particular matter.

I am almost 100% sure that as a result of the questions and the engagement with the department and the select committee these are the products that we have here with us today in this august House. What I am trying to say is that the select committee is doing its job and it’s a job well done. [Applause.] If we can influence our executive to take a certain route, it’s our responsibility to do so.

In the recent past we have seen many incidents reported in the media about violence and drugs in our schools. To this end, we have also seen the national department engaging in research and the formulation of a national response to violence in our schools.

However, all this means nothing if we do not equip the Minister with the proper tools to successfully deal with this particular problem. No matter how much we speak about the issue of the inadequacies of addressing the symptoms, we have to agree that removing weapons and drugs from learners would definitely go a long way to ensuring that it is removed from society.

Because our children spend a lot of time in schools, they grow up in a culture of certain things becoming acceptable because it happens at school. Now if we take that principle and remove these dangerous weapons and drugs from our schools, we would be ensuring that our children get used to coming to a school that is in a very safe and drug-free environment. Hopefully, this would culminate into the broader society being free of all these evils.

Chairperson, it only makes sense that searches at schools are random and unannounced. We must remember that in many cases these dangerous weapons and drugs are not brought into our schools by adults or criminals, but by some of our own learners. And I think, in my humble opinion, that the legislation before us today makes ample provision to ensure that these searches are conducted and recorded in a sensitive and, of course, in a responsible manner.

Hon Minister, the idea of having searches does not necessarily mean that our educators must report cases to the police. We would not like to see a situation whereby our educators are involved in court cases everyday of their lives. The educators are there to educate. Their responsibility would be to inform the police who would then come and collect those drugs, weapons or whatever it may be and the Criminal Procedure Act can kick in after that.

Hon Minister, the issue of underperforming schools weigh heavily on my heart. But I know that you are also extremely worried about it, and I trust that this legislation would further equip you and your department to look into the situation and that you would interrogate this issue thoroughly.

I just feel that South Africa has one training manual for educators and one curriculum for learners. So why should we then have two completely different outcomes, sometimes at different schools in the same community?

Lastly, I would like to touch on the issue of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme fund. Though I am happy with the current performance of the fund, I feel that more needs to be done to ensure that more prospective students have access to these funds, even if we have to look at lowering some of the criteria. It is indeed so that the student fund is there to assist the poorest of the poor. Recently, the Chancellor of the University of Venda, Cyril Ramaphosa, embarked on a campaign to raise R1 billion for that university. This has made me realise that we need to do more to make our institutes of higher learning more financially viable and less dependent on government funding. That way, Minister, we would be able to put more money into programmes like the National Student Financial Aid Scheme fund and to ensure greater opportunity for our children to further their education.

Chairperson, with those few words, the Northern Cape and the ANC support this Bill. Enkosi. [Thank you.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, may I express my gratitude to all the esteemed members for their contributions. Indeed, Ms Lamoela, we fully subscribe to democracy and democratic practices. And democracy is alive and well, given the fact that in the context of this Bill alone, three amendments had been proposed and they’ve been accepted. Which means that this House is certainly not just a rubber stamp; it makes its contribution. Your concerns have been raised and indeed are taken note of. So, I think our democracy is working extremely well.

But, I would like to deal with some of the issues that you have raised a short while ago. I thank the hon chairperson, Mr Tolo, for his contribution and for his leadership in the select committee. Indeed he should take pride in the fact that the select committee had all the types of recreation as one of the norms, and that this House had proposed sports to be included in it, and it is one of the norms that we have included as a result of the suggestion.

He has alluded to an important area of challenge that we face in this country, that is of infrastructure. Quite clearly, our historically black schools are underresourced, have poor infrastructure and have no appropriate sanitation. That is something that we have to address. Otherwise we would not have parity, and we would not be able to create the environment that is conducive for proper and effective learning.

You may well be aware of the fact that the National Education Infrastructure Management System has been completed in terms of doing a survey of all our schools. Today, we have visual and aerial photographs of all our schools. We can see how many toilets there are; whether they are receiving water from the municipality or from a borehole. We can say what a classroom looks like, whether it has ceilings or not, and the survey of all schools in the country has been concluded.

This enabled the department to plan very well and we persuaded the Treasury to say that this is one matter that indeed requires more attention. And, I think, we will certainly get the support of the Treasury in this regard.

Now, just to provide you with some statistics, Mr Tolo, given the fact that you’ve raised the issue of infrastructure, the number of overcrowded schools has fallen from 51% in 1999 to 24% in 2006, which is a remarkably good achievement.

The number of schools with electricity has increased from 11 174 to 20 713 – almost a 100% increase in 10 years. The number of schools without water has fallen from 8 823 in 1996 to 3 152 in 2006. The number of schools without on-site toilets has fallen from 3 265 in 1996 to 1 532 in 2006. That means we’ve made enormous strides. Yet, much more has to be done and we would indeed take your suggestions very seriously.

Ms Lamoela, you’ve raised certain aspects and, indeed, in the context of democracy it is important that you receive a response. And we do so in a very dignified way, mindful of the fact that the voices of everybody in all political parties are important to our democracy. You’ve raised a concern which is a legitimate concern, but you would not want to lock the Minister into only one association called the NEPC. What this amendment does is precisely that; it allows the Minister to establish appropriate bodies to advise the Minister. So, whilst consultation is taking place with the ELRC, the association of governing bodies and various other forums, the Minister still has the prerogative not to consult and confirm with anybody, but to establish appropriate bodies as and when required. So, what the Bill does is a response to your concern. In fact, you are accusing us of not responding and being restrictive. In fact, we are not parochial, we are much broader.

Now, to raise the issue of Khutsong in the context of management is really a poor attempt at not being able to see the wood for the trees. You basically have to understand that the turbulence has nothing to do with education. The turbulence has a political background, and it is precisely because of the lack of democracy and a failure to comply with the provisions of the SA Schools Act that we have what we had in Khutsong in relation to our schools.

I think what we should do – and if indeed we are patriotic as we ought to be – we should congratulate the MEC for Education in the North West for saying that notwithstanding the disadvantages, notwithstanding the turbulence and the harassment and the intimidation, he took it upon himself, with the support of the national department, to take those children who are writing their year-end examination to another place and provide special tuition and extra resources to enable them to write the matric examination; and, indeed, the community has subsequently celebrated the situation. That is what our democracy is all about. How are we going to be more innovative about it rather than talking about political turbulence and associating it with poor management in our schools?

With regard to the issue of the deletion of clause 16, we certainly support the view, and we certainly believe that we should be mindful at all times of being consistent with the Constitution.

But, interestingly enough, what this Bill does, and which has been supported by everybody, is that it clearly indicates that the principal acts on behalf of the head of department; and also that the principal must act in a way that is consistent with the policy, the law and the directive of the head of department. If we understand that, then we understand the role of the principal in a school as an extension who derives his or her authority from the head of department. And I think that would assist in clarifying the roles of principals in schools; and certainly, as long as that is in compliance with policy and directives, we will have no difficulty whatsoever. I do believe that as a result of these amendments, there would be a dramatic reduction in frivolous litigation that has occurred prior to this.

With regard to the question of: What if teachers are too afraid? Are we going to accept the excuse tomorrow that teachers, because of certain postures of learners being somewhat aggressive, would now refuse to go to school unless certain kinds of counselling are provided and/or that these learners are removed from schools? You have to draw a fine line. I don’t think our teachers are timid. I think we must give them more credit. They certainly have the ability to search their own children at home. Certainly, they could do so in a dignified way.

What Mr Sulliman is saying, is correct. We always said – and the Bill makes it very clear, Mr Sulliman – that it has to be consistent with the dignity and the right to privacy of the learner and that the best interest of the learner must always be protected. So, there is nothing wrong with training, but I don’t think we need years for the training. It is merely to say what are the guidelines, and we will establish the guidelines regarding the search.

But beyond that, Ms Lamoela, if a person is known to be an aggressive person, the principal has three choices. He or she could call the police to carry out the search or the arrest if a person is found in possession of that particular item; or could use safety measures so that you don’t have a random search. The principal can also take it upon himself or herself to do that without even conferring that responsibility to the teacher, or to do it as one would expect it to occur in the normal course or in terms of this amendment. So, there are three choices available.

Mr Sulliman, let me assure you that this Act here and these amendments are not going to end those criminal prosecutions. In fact, the law is very clear. It says in subsection 14: ``No criminal proceedings may be instituted by the school against a learner in respect of who …’’. Which means the intention here is not to become a police officer in the school, but merely to maintain discipline and to ensure that, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary proceedings are to be instituted.

However, if the principal finds a dangerous weapon or drugs in the possession of a learner, he or she is obliged to take it and hand it over to the police. The principal would then take that dangerous weapon or drug to the police so that the school could not be accused of being in possession of a dangerous weapon or an unlawful drug. So, I want to give you that assurance and, indeed, that is the intention of this legislation.

With regard to school governance, you can’t have a law for historically white schools and a law for historically black schools. In fact, that is what you are doing. Because of the resources and the experience and the advantages, generally you would find that the former model C schools tend to function better than other schools which are more challenged in terms of numbers, teacher development and resources.

What we are saying when we talk about the performance plan is that, whether you are in a good school or a bad school, you have to submit it because that’s part of accountability – not only to the head of department, but also to the governing body – so that they have a sense of what is transpiring. As much as the better and the good schools can be improved, the mediocre schools can also be improved. It is for the benefit of everybody, and I don’t think we should discriminate or distinguish among schools.

I would like to thank Ma Vilakazi who always expresses herself about creating safe environments. She has been doing that consistently as a member of the House. Ms Ndimande’s comments have certainly been helpful. I think by and large all members, including Ms Lamoela, made useful contributions to the debate. We will certainly note all the concerns that have been raised. Thank you once again for contributing to this Bill, which I believe will be a reality very soon. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province’s vote.

I shall now allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote in terms of Rule 71, if they so wish.

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

Ms B N DLULANE: The Eastern Cape supports the Bill.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Vrystaat ondersteun. [Free State supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [We support.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo? Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo hai seketela. [We support.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): Mpumalanga supports the Bill.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Noord-Kaap ondersteun die wetsontwerp. [Northern Cape supports the Bill.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West supports the Bill.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Western Cape siyavuma. [We support.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces voted in favour. I, therefore, declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

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

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF NCOP ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL SUMMIT AND TENTH
                             ANNIVERSARY

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to present to the Council the report, this afternoon, on our 10th anniversary activities that took place in May 2007. It is an honour for me to table this report in this House.

As you are aware, Chairperson and hon members, 2007 has been a crucial year for us as we took stock of what we have done as an institution to live up to our mandate for the first 10 years of our existence. To this end, we held an intergovernmental summit in May, where we looked, among other things, at the NCOP’s role and challenges in the following areas: intergovernmental fiscal relations; social transformation, with particular focus on education, health and social development; socioeconomic development, with focus on small business development and integrated planning; institutional and legislative matters; and, the relationship with the media.

The report before us this afternoon, published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee reports of 12 November 2007, captures presentations and deliberations on the above issues. It also contains the recommendations that were made by delegates to the summit on that day.

We owe it to all the different role-players and stakeholders represented at the summit to do something about these recommendations. As presiding officers we have already prepared a 14-page action document that lists what we must do to respond to each of the recommendations that relates to the NCOP.

The document was made available to members in the course of last week. You should be having this document in your hands.

If we adopt the report today, with the recommendations, we will channel the different tasks to the different structures and office bearers identified in the document for follow-up action that we need to take as this House.

For instance, there are recommendations that we re-look the composition and the size of this House, the NCOP, whether 54 permanent members are sufficient to serve this House. As far as I am concerned, I don’t think they are; I think we need to increase the number of permanent delegates in this House. [Applause.]

The role of the rotating Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP is one other issue that we have to look at. In terms of the Rules and the Constitution, we keep on electing the second, that is the rotating, deputy chairperson with absolutely no powers. And what is happening in this regard is that once this person is elected, he or she leaves the House and thereafter doesn’t know what is happening in the NCOP. The following year we go on and elect another person.

We need to design, if we agree that this role should continue, certain powers and functions so that the rotating deputy chairperson can fully participate in the work of the Council and guide it wherever possible. Of course, we will take this up with the relevant structures.

I can cite many other issues that were discussed in this summit. For example, there are issues relating to policy-making and budgeting for concurrent functions that the Minister of Finance has raised with us on at least three occasions, as well as at the summit.

These have been referred to the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Finance, hon Tutu Ralane, who is sitting there, to advise us on how we should proceed on them. I guess that they will look at the issues raised by the Minister and advise the House very urgently, because we would like to act on those things as soon as we come back next year.

We cannot sit on these things because, I believe, these are very important facts that the Minister has raised in terms of division of revenue, as well as how we deal with the fiscal issues relating to the provinces. We need to make sure that we attend to all the recommendations made at the summit, except those that are not within the scope of our mandate.

There are, of course, recommendations that deal with issues such as the co- ordination of our oversight work, which is very important, and on which we took certain positions at the programming workshop that took place in 2006. We need to revisit the workshop report in order to remind ourselves of what we said at the workshop, while at the same time continuing to monitor our performance in this regard.

I want to repeat again, before this Council, that the bulk of the work of passing legislation has been tremendously reduced at national Parliament. Therefore, it is important for parliamentarians to go back to the people on the ground and ask whether the laws that we have passed are relevant and effective in terms of making the lives of our people better. That is where our major focus, as permanent delegates and provinces, has got to be. I think that is a programme that we need to shape up, from the coming year onwards. In the decade to come, we have to look at those laws and say whether their implementation has really had a meaningful impact on the lives of the people on the ground or not.

From time to time we will report back to this House on the progress we are making with some of the issues raised at the summit, including, of course, the issues you will be raising again this afternoon when you debate this report. Now, let me touch briefly on the institutional memory projects. You will remember that we did two institutional memories. Both of these projects were launched yesterday, that is the documentary that you viewed last night and the launch of the book. The most beautiful thing about these two projects is that the documentary will remain in the NCOP, in order to help the new generation of leadership and members of this House to understand better what the NCOP is all about. This would help them not to start from scratch, but to build on the work that has been done by the current leadership and members of this House.

Some of us, when we took up our positions in this institution, could not find anything documented that we could use for reference purposes and which we could build on. However, these two projects are very important for us to leave as an institutional memory for generations to come.

I must announce in this House that I am very disappointed that despite the fact that we invited all the members of this august House to participate in the ceremony last night, a lot of you did not turn up. It was really disappointing. You had a sitting earlier and the buses were just outside, ready to ferry you to the function, and so you had no excuse not to be there.

I was actually very surprised that the function was well attended by people from outside, NGOs and ordinary people on the ground, who actually made an impact in terms of debating the topics under discussion last night. However, I also wish to thank those people from the Council who attended.

I think that, as Members of Parliament, we need to pause and think hard about the fact that when we take an initiative like this, we have to do that with all the seriousness required, and not be unsure of what we are doing or leave our work half-done.

As you are aware, hon members, the book itself is incomplete as there are many things that we have to include in it, and we have consulted with the steering committee thereon. The whole book will be completed around mid- March in 2008. We will distribute it to all the stakeholders once it is printed. We are looking for an independent person to draft it very quickly for us.

Secondly, I want to talk about the question of the assessment of the Taking Parliament to the People programme. We want to assess this programme, as we had agreed. We have finished visiting the nine provinces. Now what we should do as this House is to pause and ask: What impact has this programme had on our provinces, particularly in terms of promoting public participation by and education of our people on the ground?

We are now reviewing this programme, not with a view to stopping it, but with a view to asking what we can do to make it work even better than what it is at the moment.

We will use the results of this study, which will include interviews with all the key stakeholders and the role-players on the ground, to enhance this programme. We do not want to abolish it, as I have said, but to enhance it.

Accordingly, we will interview Premiers in the different provinces, Speakers of provincial legislatures, Members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures and the executive. All of these will be expected to take part in this study. At the end of the day, we would like to see the study really enhance this particular programme.

We want you to critique the programme and make suggestions on how we can improve it so that it benefits our people even more as we continue with it.

I want to thank you all, as I present this report, and I want to table some of the recommendations that arose from the summit. I am tabling the document, which we will call an action plan once you have adopted it. Thank you very much, hon members. [Applause.]

Mr S MAZOSIWE (Eastern Cape): Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I would like to say that I was part of the proceedings last night and was happy to have been at that event. It opened my eyes more, to the need to intensify the work of the NCOP. I would also like to congratulate the Chairperson of the NCOP for presenting this report. I read it timeously. I feel proud to be taking part in this debate today, in celebrating 10 years of the NCOP’s existence.

As we share experiences, we should always bear in mind that this is a dynamic process and new ideas will continue to enhance the work of the NCOP. Today, we are talking about increasing the numbers of the NCOP. At its inception, I recall, in 1997, there was no mention of the word oversight, Taking Parliament to the People, Provincial Weeks and many more innovations that have characterised the NCOP.

The budget process of the NCOP has also taken a much desired leap forward – that of taking the budget to the people. This process is now beginning to bear fruit in the Eastern Cape in that all stakeholders are now able to engage in critical issues affecting service delivery. The Great Kei and the Butterworth Municipalities’ deficient capacities are now being addressed by both provincial and the national government because of the NCOP’s intervention.

There are other examples I could make, but because of a lack of time, I am not able to do so. Another key achievement in the NCOP is engaging in dialogue with provinces who, in the past, applied punitive measures against truant municipalities, to concentrate on one of the most important roles provinces can play – capacitating municipalities. Again, I would also like to give an example of Butterworth. Hon members would recall that in 1998 there was a huge problem between the province and the Butterworth Municipality then, which had a number of administrative and political problems. The province intervened by instituting section 139, but the NCOP debated the matter extensively. We were called from time to time to come here and debate the issues.

You would recall the hon Mohammed Bhabha – I am not sure if the hon Surty was there at the time, but I vividly recall hon Bhabha and Mr Ngcuka at the time – who were involved and engaged in persuading the province to capacitate and concentrate on section 158 of the Constitution, and to make sure that the Butterworth Municipality, at the time, was really functioning properly administratively. This is the route we ultimately took, and as we speak now, things are not as they used to be in that municipality.

The Provincial Weeks provide an opportunity for permanent delegates to get to grips with service delivery issues in various municipalities; to interact with Premiers, MECs, Speakers, MPLs and councillors in a more meaningful way and thus solving bottlenecks.

However, the biggest challenge continues to be the ability of the NCOP to bring government departments to account with clear timeframes. I am not talking about the adversarial process that we find sometimes. I am talking about setting clear timeframes on programmes that government itself promised to deliver to our people.

When we monitor as the NCOP, we really need to be stronger and make sure that there are answers given to those communities who have problems. It is something that I would like to see happening in the NCOP timeously, so that at the end of the day, there is delivery on the ground. The reason why the NCOP is taking parliament to the people and engaging in Provincial Weeks is to ensure that service delivery, at the end of the day, is enhanced.

That is why we need to really make sure that this particular area is strengthened in the NCOP. For example, in the next round of Provincial Week MPs, should be able to report back fully on the issues raised in the previous visit. In the Nelson Mandela Metropole, for example, we were faced with that dilemma when the NCOP permanent delegates visited that area. For the second time in August 2007, we were asked what has happened to the questions which were referred to national Ministers, and to provincial MECs. At the time, not all the answers could be given in that particular meeting.

Therefore, I am saying again that we need to strengthen this area and make sure that when we visit again, whether it is next year or some other time, there are adequate answers on all those issues that they have raised. The Eastern Cape legislature has attempted to engage with the South African Local Government Association, Salga, over the past few years. Both parties have signed a memorandum of understanding regarding co-operation on matters of mutual interest. This marriage still exists, though it is in a dormant state. I must say that I was happy when the issue was raised last night as well, so that this forum, the NCOP, takes up the matter with Salga nationally – as well as perhaps trying to facilitate the same debates in provinces – for it to participate in our debate in terms of the Constitution. We cannot sit back and say that we are satisfied, because we are not. Our brothers are still not fully participating in the process.

We know for a fact that, in the past, they used to participate in the NA and in the budget processes, but that has also declined a bit. In the provinces again, they are not really participating, except in the budget process. As I said, we have attempted to have meetings with them, but because of technical problems on their side, our meetings have always been cancelled at the last moment.

I hope the NCOP will deal with this matter, whilst at the provincial level, we will also continue to pursue the matter. I am raising this to highlight the need to debate the matter and come to an amicable solution, because I believe that, as the old saying goes, unity is strength. Halala! NCOP Halala! [Applause.]

Mr Y BHAMJEE (KwaZulu-Natal): Chairperson, thank you for inviting me to participate in this debate. As the Chairperson said earlier, this is indeed a work in progress and we welcome the report. It touches on a significant number of issues that we believe can only empower and advance the quality of oversight as far as the NCOP is concerned.

However, whilst saying that, it must also be recognised that the status of the NCOP needs to be advanced and, secondly, the way we go about conducting our oversight role also needs to be advanced. Those are our challenges, because for the last 10 years, we have been focusing largely on transforming the legislative process that we inherited from the apartheid regime.

The movement towards playing our oversight role has been slow, and even our colleagues at the National Assembly find that it is indeed challenging. Effectively, all Members of Parliament and legislatures need to understand that our main responsibility is to ensure that every cent is accounted for and that the plans and objectives as determined by the strategic plan are adequately reported in the annual reports and that we play our oversight role of holding Ministers and their respective departments accountable. If we don’t do that then, effectively, we are not exercising the powers that are granted to us in the Constitution and, in terms of the principle of co- operative governance, we will indeed be found wanting.

On 13 September 2007, when the Minister of Finance addressed the KwaZulu- Natal legislature on the provincial budget and expenditure review, he advanced the cause of the principle of intergovernmental relations and co- operative governance as enshrined in the Constitution. This was indeed a historic and rich experience that involved the participation of role- players across three spheres of government, which suggested to all that the national Minister and Treasury, in general, are indeed touchable.

This interaction, at one level, advanced the cause of the intergovernmental relations summit that brought together a range of stakeholders, which included members of legislatures and executive branches of government from national, provincial and local government, as well as nongovernmental organisations. The participation of NGOs suggests that there is a role for all concerned citizens to assist towards enhancing the principle of co- operative governance, in particular the media.

I emphasise in particular the media largely because there is a general understanding and appreciation among people, who know no better, that the NCOP is a subordinate House of Parliament. We need to understand fully that a lot of work needs to be done by the NCOP to correct that misunderstanding. Nobody else is going to do that. Only those who are committed to the NCOP will do that, because you understand what it is. I served in the National Assembly and I know for a fact that even our colleagues there do not fully grasp and understand the value and quality of work that you are doing. I also understand that our colleagues in legislatures, and as legislators, do not fully grasp the work that the NCOP is doing and is capable of doing in terms of oversight and advancing the principle of co-operative governance, because that is the core of our Constitution.

The NCOP’s Intergovernmental Summit emphasised that the core responsibility of the NCOP is to critically monitor intergovernmental relations and thereby entrench the principle of co-operative governance across three spheres of government, as mandated by the Constitution. There is no other House or institution in South Africa that empowers a single institute to do that. It empowers the NCOP to do that.

We know for a fact it is the NCOP that plays an oversight role on provincial expenditure and outcomes, and it offers us an opportunity to measure the performance of our respective provinces as per budget allocations. We can start comparing.

For example, KwaZulu-Natal has the largest education budget compared to other provinces. The province spent R56 billion on school education between 2003-04 and 2006-07. Over this period, 4 055 classrooms were built. The number of learners at primary and secondary schools increased to 64 226.

While these are undisputed facts, we as legislators need to assess and evaluate whether this delivery represented value for money. Given the limited professional resources available to us, and equally limited resources of the NCOP, we need to seriously address the concern whether we are empowered to meaningfully fulfil our responsibility of oversight. It is easy for us to talk about oversight, but if resources are not available …

When the Ministers come before us, they normally have a team of experts behind them, each qualified to talk about their respective programmes. We have one researcher perhaps, if we are lucky, and that researcher is serving two or three other committees. Even if that researcher is dedicated, the task of today’s monitoring process and oversight is so huge and so colossal that you need a lot of skills, expertise and backup support.

The challenge facing parliamentarians, not only in South Africa but internationally, is to ensure that there are enough resources available so that we can play our oversight role. Failing that, we remain glorified social workers. We need to ensure that we move out of this, friends, comrades and colleagues. It is a challenge, and I am putting myself in the same category. I do feel that at times I am found wanting. I have the scope, I have the commitment, but I do not have the resources. So, it is a challenge.

The other thing that you need to focus on, colleagues, is the fact that each year when we are presenting our speeches, we will quote the President and, at the same time, we will also quote the Minister of Finance and we will then identify clearly what our priorities are. For example, we would argue collectively that, and I am sure all of us would put this in our speeches, accelerating economic growth and the rate of investment is our first priority. Priority two would be creating work opportunities. Priority three would be investing in community services and growing the social wage. Four would be improving the effectiveness of the state, including combating crime and promoting a service-orientated culture. Lastly, another priority would be building regional and international partnerships for growth and development.

When we are echoing these priorities, we need to move one step further and ask how the departments are including these priorities in terms of their strategic plans. Also, how are they reporting on them and are they measurable? That is what the hon Minister said to us in the report, if you look at it, and one of the recommendations is on page seven:

The NCOP must, among other things, debate at length the following issues: One, policy-making and budgeting for concurrent functions; the assignment of powers and functions and oversight and accountability…

On what do we play our oversight and what do we account on? To grasp that, we need to know what we are going to account on. If you do not know what you are going to account on, then what are you going to account on? Also, who accounts and why do we account? That has come out, but is not explicit. It is implied that these are the things that you must do in your recommendations.

As I said earlier, this is work in progress and it is extremely important that we take this further: Oversight on how public resources are used to champion the cause of a better life and in terms of the priorities. Is there value for money? How do you assess value for money? Do we have the expertise? At least, do we have the common sense to go to the strategic plan and assess the annual report and take it programme by programme. Sometimes you will sit for 10 or 15 minutes, or half an hour or probably two hours and say the work is done, we have played our oversight role on the department. However, if we are serious, we will have the department sitting in front of us all day, for probably two or three days. How long does it take them to put a strategic plan in place? How long does it take them to put targets in place and how long does it take them to measure those targets? So, how are we then going to assess, in the space of half an hour, whether they are reaching their targets or not? These are the challenges that are facing us.

We need to be constructive and very honest on monitoring what we have been mandated to do. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Dr H E MATEME (Limpopo): Hon Chairperson, hon members, all protocol observed, we would like to commend this institution for having the bravery to look into itself. That is highly commendable. Before I make an input as the province mandated me to do, I would really like to look a bit at the question of resources, strategic plans, and so forth – at how fresh and current they are.

With regard to resources, I do not think that as government we can confidently say that we do not have enough resources – because come 31 March, there will be lots of roll-overs and more. Right in the first quarter, through reports from departments, you can already see that in March these people are going have a problem or an inability to spend money. So, I think that this House should also tackle this challenge of the inability to spend.

We appreciate this opportunity to debate on the important subject of intergovernmental relations. It is rather a challenging subject. But for the purpose of the debate, I have considered to just focus on two critical principles – integrated development and co-operative governance.

The principle of intergovernmental relations is entrenched in the Constitution, as speakers before me have indicated. All spheres of government and all organs within each sphere need to do or consider to do the following: respect the constitutional status, institutions, powers and functions of governments in other spheres; not assume any powers or functions except for those conferred to a particular sphere by the Constitution; exercise powers and perform functions in a manner that does not encroach on geographical, functional or institutional integrity of government in any sphere.

I may be interpreted to be creating no-go areas. But positively interpreted, we are saying let there be teamwork. I think that all the three spheres have a responsibility to exercise oversight.

The principle of the separation of powers and co-operative governance is based on the understanding that an institution that is designed to deliver services – the implementing arm of government – cannot monitor and assess the quality and pace of such delivery. We are referring here to the executing arm. They cannot be the players and referees at the same time. So, our good, world-renowned Constitution has made provision that there will be implementers and referees. Implementers are players. In the same breath, the legislative institution cannot make laws and be responsible for the interpretation of the constitutionality of the laws. That is why then we have the legal side of our government.

Inherent in the whole system of the intergovernmental relations is a need for an institution to exercise oversight over the implementing agent. Speakers before me have correctly identified the NCOP as such an institution. The action of the NCOP on the ground is beginning to produce results. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa places this mandate on the legislative arm of state. The exercise of oversight in the country, to a large extent, has been ushered in by our democratic government. Since then, legislatures have been exploring different models through which oversight could be exercised effectively. One speaker said that when we started, this word “oversight” was not even there in our vocabulary. But now as our democracy matures, this word features more and more and robust debates are emerging from it.

There are terms, by legislatures, to explore different models through which oversight can be exercised. I think it has proved to be an exercise worth its while. Consider the noise around the Standing Committee on Public Accounts – Scopa – and the noise around all portfolio committees; those that really carry out the mandate as given to them by the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act. So, this House is very much on the right track.

We often hear that the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. If in our context a start means a year, we have already taken 13 meaningful steps towards the thousand miles. Up to now, delivery has not been happening in our communities. If it is not happening, it is not because of a lack of good policies or lack of appropriate institutional arrangements. It is also not because of a lack of warm bodies in the offices or lack of funds – I have already alluded to the issue of roll- overs.

With good policies in place, a sizeable number of warm bodies in our offices and other requirements also in place, it is inexcusable for certain sectors in our communities, up to this day, except for the vertical programmes – pensions, free health services, etc. – to have not yet experienced any change for the better. I have farmworkers in mind here. Farmworkers are from such communities.

I agree with the draft of the NCOP Intergovernmental Relations Summit report that: firstly, Integrated Development Plans, IDPs, should reflect the synergy and alignment of plans of all spheres of government – that is very, very critical; and secondly, there should be an alignment between the financial years of the three spheres of government so that when we conduct monitoring, we can move in steps. But if one financial year ends in March and the other in July, then the synergy is compromised.

We also agree with the report that various pieces of legislation should be reviewed per impact they are making on communities. A case in point here is the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and the Communal Land Rights Act. I work greatly with agriculture. These are Acts about agriculture. We have an old lady who passed on in January. But because of the flaws in our own legislation, we only managed to bury this lady in October. I think it is a sad day for democracy if that is going to continue to be the way things happen.

The civil service must also show an appreciable movement forward in implementing our programmes. Excuses like learning curve and lack of skill no longer convince anybody because our civil service is employed on merit.

The sooner we have a single service, the better. We have learnt that it was being worked on. But really the sooner we have one machinery that implements the policies of this government, the better. We, therefore, submit that the NCOP should also tackle this particular challenge, because it creates a flaw in our effectiveness.

Chairperson, I would further propose that this sitting here today be dubbed the launch of operation “skop en donder” – the constructive way. We can also dub it operation “shosholoza”. When we ask the civil service to jump, they should only ask us how high and not why.

Materially, South Africa can rise to the basic expectations of its people. Within 13 years, in some aspects, we have made much more progress than what some governments before us could do within hundreds of years.

Internal monitoring systems of the departments must also be strengthened. I thank you. [Applause.] [Time expired.]

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): Hon Chairperson, members of the NCOP and the distinguished guests, it is a great honour for me to be accorded this opportunity to participate in this debate on the consideration of the NCOP Intergovernmental Summit and, of course, the Tenth Anniversary Report.

One would like to start by saying that the leadership of the NCOP, particularly the Chairperson, together with the NCOP as a whole, need to be congratulated on the fact that once you start reviewing what you have been doing and identifying the gaps, you are surely going in the right direction. There’s nothing that is cast in stone which is a formula that you have to follow. You will need to review it now and again and there are gaps which need to be closed.

Hon Chairperson, the South African Constitution divides government into three spheres which execute delivery of service to the same community; what the national, the provincial or even local government must do is done to the same person. You don’t have a territory which is separate from local government which is called the province alone or national alone. It is the same Mrs Gumede to whom you must deliver service.

Now, that already indicates that there should be integrated government relations. You cannot work in silos because you are going to duplicate the job to the same person. The fact that we have Minmec Forums and the President’s Co-ordinating Council at national level already provides the basis for integrated government programmes at both national and provincial levels. Taking Mpumalanga as a case in point, we have the Premier’s Co-ordinating Forum which comprises the Premier as chairperson, MECs, executive mayors, municipal managers, the SA Local Government Association chief executive officer, and his or her deputy, the Provincial Director-General and the head of department for local government.

The main focus of this forum is to ensure the integration of the broad planning of the provincial government with the municipal integrated development programmes, commonly known as IDPs. The main challenges encountered by the provincial government, and those encountered by the municipalities in the province, are expected to be addressed at this level.

We also have various forums for provincial MECs at which the particular MEC meets with councillors entrusted with the functions pertaining to the MEC’s department. These forums are suppose to check the co-ordination of programmes of local government and those of the provincial government so that, for example, you do not have the provincial department of health building a clinic or hospital in a municipal area without prior or proper consultation with the municipality in question which is responsible for providing basic logistics and commodities such as water, sanitation and other related matters.

Although this is happening in our province, there is room for improvement in that, at budgetary level, there should be strong co-ordination between municipalities and provincial departments. You see, if these people are budgeting differently and everyone is the boss of a particular department or level, you have a problem in service delivery. You sometimes get a feeling that things are not happening as they should, because of the budgetary inequities which you find.

Another important form of co-ordination is among provincial departments themselves. Normally, we have a provincial lekgotla in which departments outline their plans for the coming year and in which all departments participate under the leadership of the Premier. If this is strictly adhered to, there will be no room for one department to create a developmental project in isolation without bringing other departments on board.

Here one can think in terms of housing settlement development by the departments of local government and housing without involving the department of education, which itself must build schools in the same settlement. Another example is if the housing department does not consult with the departments of health and social services in planning the construction of health facilities in the same settlement, you will encounter problems. Again, if the department of housing plans settlements, but fails to consult or work together with the department of roads and public transport, you will have no access road to that settlement.

Now, looking at this scenario, one is convinced that there are integrated governmental relations in our province but there are greater things that still need to be done. You need improvement, for instance, at the level of oversight, because I think there is still a problem there. You find that there’s a programme of the NCOP for oversight in the province. The provincial legislature also has its own programme which is parallel to this or they need to be adjusted in one way or another.

I think, in the review, something needs to be done to deal with co- ordination, because if you don’t co-ordinate oversight – even if the oversight is good – by the province or by the NCOP, you will be having problems and the follow-up will be a problem. So co-ordination, to me, is the most important thing and is paramount in service delivery. Otherwise, it will be a talk show week.

We will all leave the programmes for the province and go to the Taking Parliament to the People programme by the NCOP, and then, from there, you go back and there are no follow-ups, or the province is following a parallel programme. So, co-ordination in the oversight is important and I would recommend that some mechanisms be found.

Of course, another area has already been mentioned by my colleague from Limpopo. You see, to have one level having the financial year ending at a different time than the other levels, while we have a unitary or a single government or a single legislature which is national, is a problem. You either find the mechanism to deal with it or change the financial years to be congruent so that the oversight goes very well. You don’t have this understanding which is a big problem. You can’t do it if the one has a different financial year to the other.

My recommendation is that we should try and look at this question of synchronisation of financial years in order to make sure that when you do oversight you don’t have a problem. And, of course, the programmes of the national sphere, particularly those of the NCOP, need to talk to those of the province, the legislative programmes, so that you don’t have other people going away to other projects when the NCOP is around in the province. That makes it appear as if these people are not planning things together. So, I think the review will be an important aspect in that.

I hope such matters and also many others will be looked at too. Of course, the time at my disposal does not allow me to go into all those details, but those budgetary matters and the oversight aspects are the most important that need to be looked at, because you’ll find that one department will be saying: I’ve been overseen by the provincial portfolio committee, and now comes the NCOP about the same matter. Well, that would be because of a lack of co-ordination. And, of course, oversight must be done by all the structures of the NCOP. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr C A T SMITH (Northern Cape): Madam Chairperson, hon Chairperson of the NCOP, the hon Mahlangu, MECs present, members of this House, representatives of provinces, I have had the privilege of attending the summit, and today I am privileged to participate in this debate that deals with the issues that were discussed at the summit. Let me also join my colleagues in congratulating you on your 10th anniversary. But, in particular, let me mention and congratulate the leadership of the NCOP, and everyone of these members who have participated and assisted, for having done sterling work.

Let me also express my sincere gratitude for the invitation to attend last night’s meeting. It was a privilege. I found that it was very educative and it was good. Listening to this documentary is really something that the NCOP must use.

Hon Chairperson, I sometimes get the idea that it is the members of the NCOP themselves who sometimes feel inferior to their colleagues in the National Assembly. Therefore, I would urge you all to be very proud of the good work that you have done and that you are doing and to use this documentary to build to your advantage, first of all, but also to educate the masses out there about the good work that you have done. You must do it yourself and we will certainly assist. Agb Voorsitter, ek wil ook sê dat Suid-Afrika ‘n geskiedenis het waarin demokratiese beginsels nie bestaan het nie en wat ons nie geken het nie. Dit is absoluut arrogant, soos die agb lid van die DA vroeër gedoen het, om in ‘n debat te kom praat oor demokratiese beginsels, asof “ons” die beginsels vir Suid-Afrika geleer het. Dit is die ANC wat vir Suid-Afrika demokratiese beginsels geleer het. [Tussenwerpsels.] Dit is die ANC wat vir Suid-Afrika … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Hon Chairperson, I also want to say that South Africa has a history where democratic principles did not exist and where these were unknown to us. It is absolutely arrogant, as the hon member of the DA has done, to come and speak in a debate about democratic principles, as if “we” had introduced South Africa to these principles. It is the ANC that introduced South Africa to democratic principles. [Interjections.] It is the ANC that taught South Africa …]

Ms J F TERBLANCHE: Hon House Chairperson, I want to know whether it is correct for a member, in one debate, to refer to a previous debate? I don’t think it is correct according to our Rules. Could you please just make a ruling on this? The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Hon member, I am not going to rule now. I am going to check and then I’ll rule accordingly. Continue, hon member.

Mnr C A T SMITH (Noord-Kaap): Agb Voorsitter, baie dankie. Dit is ‘n spreekwoordelike voorbeeld van iemand wat die beginsels van demokrasie nie ken of verstaan nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Die ANC het verder voortgegaan om hierdie goeie werk te doen en hierdie prossesse voort te sit en die opvoeding vir Suid-Afrika te gee wat gekulmineer het … [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C A T SMITH (Northern Cape): Hon Chairperson, thank you very much. This is a proverbial example of someone who either does not know or who does not understand democratic principles. [Interjections.]

The ANC further proceeded to do this good work and continued to lead these processes, and to give South Africa the education that culminated in … [Interjections.]]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Hon Chairperson, I would like you to rule in terms of Rule 33, because the noise the hon member, Mrs Lamoela, is making is so loud that it crosses the floor and also disturbs my ability to concentrate on the speaker. [Interjections.] Now that I’m talking, she is howling at me, again violating the very same Rule 33 and also violating the decorum of this House. I request that the Presiding Officer rule that the member either keeps quiet or be taken out of this Chamber. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Hon Chief Whip, I think I have to take a decision. Members have been making noise, and I have been asking members to please have order in this House. Therefore, I’m not going to remind any member about the Rules of this House; I will just urge members to respect the House and to respect the speaker even if the speaker is saying what the members do not want to hear or do not like. And, therefore you, hon member, please continue. Thank you.

Mnr C A T SMITH (Noord-Kaap): Agb Voorsitter, baie dankie. Die Bybel leer vir ons van Fariseërs. Dit lyk vir my hier is ook ‘n klomp.

Hierdie goeie werk wat die ANC gedoen het, kulmineer in die Grondwet wat geskryf is en wat internasionale erkenning het. Maar, die ANC het nie opgehou met hierdie goeie werk nie; hy’t voortgegaan. Die vestiging en die skepping van die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies as die tweede Huis van die Suid-Afrikaanse Parlement, is weereens iets waarop die ANC trots kan wees: Dat ons so iets kon vestig wat uniek aan Suid-Afrika is en ook uniek in die wêreld is. Ek wil graag vir die lede van die ANC in hierdie Huis vra om voort te gaan om ook die ander partye te leer hoe om hul provinsiale belange in die Raad van Provinsies te dien, sodat daardie verantwoordelikheid van ware verteenwoordiging ook nagekom kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C A T SMITH (Northern Cape): Hon Chair, the Bible teaches us about the Pharisees. It would seem that a number of them are right here.

This good work that the ANC has done culminated in the Constitution that was drawn up, and that won international recognition. But the ANC did not cease in its good work; it continued its task. The creation and establishment of the National Council of Provinces as the second House of the South African Parliament is once again something the ANC can be proud of: That we could establish such a structure that is unique to South Africa, and unique in the world. I would like to ask the ANC members of this House to continue to teach the other parties how to serve the interests of their provinces in this Council of Provinces, so that the responsibility of true representation may be complied with.]

Parliament needs the people. Again, it is a unique principle; something of which the ANC certainly is proud of. It is a principle that is built on what the Freedom Charter says: “The People shall govern.”

En ons moet voortgaan om hierdie goeie werk te doen en nie net deur hierdie proses van “Parliament Meets the People” te kritiseer nie, maar so moet ons ook help om Suid-Afrika te transformeer vanuit `n toestand van armoede en van geweld, na rykdom en na vrede. Ons moet dit doen deur sosio-ekonomiese ontwikkeling en deur die regering se geïntegreerde fiskale plan, wat op die tafel is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[And we must continue to do this good work, not only by criticizing this process of “Parliament Meets the People”, but also by helping to transform South Africa from a state of poverty and violence to a state of prosperity and peace. We have to achieve this through socioeconomic development and through the Government’s integrated fiscal plan, which is on the table. ]

The principle of the separation of powers between Parliament, government and the judiciary is important and teaches us our oversight role. I want to urge the NCOP to go and exercise their oversight role and, indeed, make public participation important, because it is through these processes that the implementation of policy is realised. It is important so that we can arrive at being the developmental state that we want to be. Through these processes we can ensure that these IDPs are in place and that the LEDs at local government level are established.

Maar, in hierdie debat wil ek graag stilstaan en aandag skenk aan die rol van georganiseerde plaaslike regering, naamlik Salga. Dit is my nederige opinie dat die manier waarop Salga in die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies hul funksie verrig, nie effektief is nie. Ons moet vir Salga help om dit te kan doen. Dit is nie goed genoeg om net hier te kom deelneem aan debatte van gesamentlike aard nie, of om net die opening van die Parlement by te woon nie. Ek is van mening dat Salga ‘n groter rol, ook in die komitees, moet speel waarin hulle aan die komitees sal verduidelik wat die toestand is – “The state of municipalities in the provinces”. Ek wil ook voorspraak maak dat ons sal gaan kyk dat hierdie verteenwoordiging van Salga, binne die Raad van Provinsies, op ‘n provinsiale basis sal geskied. Met ander woorde dat dit nie een lid van Salga is nie, maar dat dit nege of meer lede sal wees wat uit die provinsies kom om die komitees toe te lig sodat, wanneer die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies besluite neem rakende plaaslike regering, ons meer inligting tot ons beskikking sal hê.

Dan, baie belangrik en ten laaste, moet ons nooit die verskillende rolle wat daar bestaan tussen nasionale-, provinsiale-, en plaaslike regeringsvlakke verwar nie. Dit is absoluut belangrik dat ons ons rolle sal verstaan en dat ons hierdie rolle nie sal oortree nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[But in this debate I would like to pause and pay attention to the role of organised local government, i.e. Salga. It is my humble opinion that the way in which Salga performs its function in the National Council of Provinces is not the most effective. We must help Salga to participate more effectively. It is not good enough to come here only to participate in joint debates, or only to attend the opening of Parliament. I am of the opinion that Salga should also play a greater role in the committees, by explaining to the committees what the situation is like – “The state of municipalities in the provinces”. I also wish to advocate that we see to it that this representation of Salga in the Council of Provinces is done on a provincial basis. In other words, there should be not only one Salga member, but nine or more who come from the provinces to inform the committees, so that we have more information at our disposal when the National Council of Provinces takes decisions relating to local government.

Then, in the last instance and very importantly, we should never confuse the different roles of the national, provincial and local spheres of government. It is of the utmost importance that we should understand our various roles, and that we should not transgress beyond these roles.]

At the end I would like to say may God bless you in all your endeavours. Thank you.

Mr H YAWA (North West): Hon Chairperson, the Chairperson of the House, Mr Mahlangu, distinguished members, in honouring and congratulating this House for the sterling work it has performed, let me just quote from a Senegalese author, Miriama Ba in her novel where she says:

Women should no longer be decorative accessories, objects to be moved about, companions to be flattered or calmed with promises. Women are the nation’s primary, fundamental root, from which all else grows and blossoms. Women must be encouraged to take a keener interest in the destiny of the country.

I am saying this because this month we are celebrating not only the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children, but also the continuation and perpetuation of the abuse of women and children in the country which this House must take as one of the aspects or actions that we must engage in to strengthen the work of intergovernmental relations. This campaign is presently not only taken at national level as it used to be in the past. It is taken in at all levels, including local municipalities.

This year we have seen some progress in the implementation of the campaign – the work that the NCOP is doing and the lessons that we can draw from that. Let me just give you one example. In the North West Province, we were visited by the Governor of Kronoberg County in Sweden who attended our imbizo. As they left, they said that they would make sure that they start the process in Sweden that we have embarked upon in South Africa. That is how important the work is of forging relations between all spheres of government in South Africa.

I do not want to be repetitive because the hon Mahlangu has emphasised the issue of co-ordination which is sometimes confusing when oversight work is done in provinces. You find that Members of Parliament in provinces do the same thing that the NCOP does, whilst they should be complementing each other. I think if that co-ordination can be strengthened, we will see the very good work that the NCOP does in the provinces.

Hon Chairperson, you were sometimes in the North West, in the area of Kgalagadi, where you did sterling work. As you went there and talked to people, that taught us how important intergovernmental relations are. When you talk to people, irrespective of the level you are at, they do not separate you from government. They say that this is an imbizo of the government. No matter if it is held by the provincial government, it is still an imbizo of the government.

In the North West we attend our izimbizo with municipalities where mayors are expected to respond to issues that communities are raising. Chairperson, this is what you also do to us when you visit our provinces. MECs or Premiers must account for what the people tell them. This is really a good thing that we must continue with. We must work very hard at making our people enjoy the fruits of the freedom which they were deprived of for many years. It is only this government led by this House which talks to the people. It is only this government which allows the people to even swear at it. But at the end of the day, some people would claim that the ANC-led government will not be voted for in the next elections. But the people do not disappoint us, because they have someone to talk to and someone to listen to.

It is because of this constitutional obligation that we, in the North West, have accelerated in strengthening intergovernmental relations within the province. We remain committed to improving the system of government and to ensuring that we collectively bring service closer to the people in a coherent manner. With regard to this, the North West Premier’s Co- ordinating Council has been established, and has done an excellent job by throwing leadership across provincial and local spheres of government. This is replicated in the district by executive mayors. In this Premier’s Co- ordinating Council, we also have the participation of the house of traditional leaders. That is how you can see that the relationship and the bringing about of unity for the people of South Africa can be done.

We have been able, within this context, to deepen the trust of forging the collective identity of interest between spheres of government by encouraging national government departments to participate, formulate, as well as adopt sector master plans which outline goals that are to be pursued in the local spheres of government. Co-operative governance has been institutionalised, and we have created synergic links between the National Spatial Development Plan, the Provincial Growth and Development Strategies and the Municipal Integrated Development Plans.

Since we have adopted this approach, significant progress has been made. This co-operative mode of governance has also helped us to identify interventions and support measures necessary to building capacity at local government level, and with appropriate interventions. This issue of the realignment of planning, budgeting and delivery has taken root as we work towards integrated and sustainable development.

By strengthening this co-operation and partnership with all the spheres of government, we are underlining the fact that we are indeed a unitary state governed by the same Constitution, which encourages co-operative governance as a central pillar to the South African constitutional order. Co-operation must characterise the way in which government governs; and it is about the whole of government working together as one in an integrated way. We do this with the objective to maximise development and to ensure that the three spheres of government tackle developmental challenges in a co- ordinated way. It was as a result of this continuing need for co-operation with one another and the desire to ensure integrated governance that institutional mechanisms such as the President’s Co-ordinating Councils; Ministers and Members of the Executive Council – Minmec sector; Budget Council; budget forums and other structures were put in place. These structures were meant to foster integration between all spheres of government.

The principle that integrated policy priority should inform resource allocation has gradually gained momentum. The challenge, however, is whether new regulations to remove barriers of integrated budgeting are required or not.

I am sure you all know that the North West was known as the centre of activities that were not quite acceptable – the burning of streets, the digging of roads and the burning of tyres. Chairperson, with the help of this House and your co-operation, we begin to see the results of our co- operation. We are working towards rectifying the situation where people have been complaining about water resources. Due to this relationship, our people will benefit and enjoy the fruits of their freedom.

Hon Chairperson, let me congratulate you on the sterling work that you have done in this august House. Please continue to do your oversight work. Whip us if needed, but do so in a friendly manner. Thank you very much.

Mr C STALI (Western Cape): Hon Chairperson of the NCOP, hon members of the NCOP, esteemed guests, ladies and gentlemen, in unpacking the debate on intergovernmental relations within the South African context, we are obliged to recommit our efforts in achieving effective interaction among the different spheres of government.

Our Constitution declares that government comprises national, provincial and local spheres of government, which are indeed distinctively interdependent and interrelated. Addressing the NCOP Summit on Intergovernmental Relations and Co-operative Governance, the Minister for Provincial and Local Government, Sydney Mufamadi, reminded us that:

Our national economic focus of 6% real growth is not realisable unless our three spheres of government work more closely together.

He went on to say:

Growing co-operation between government spheres has already helped to improve the quality of the Integrated Development Plan – IDP – of our municipalities, while the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act 2005, is clear in its facilitation on how national government, provincial government and local government should promote and provide mechanisms and procedures to facilitate the settlement on intergovernmental disputes.

The NCOP Intergovernmental Relations Summit, which is the topic of discussion today, took stock of the achievements since its creation. In this case, taking stock entails evaluating and nurturing the successes of the first decade but similarly stepping up our actions to respond to the challenges that remain.

There is a need for all government sectors and spheres to understand that we owe it to our people to continue to work together, irrespective of who the political head of that particular sphere of government is.

In the Western Cape, for instance, we have witnessed public spats between the City of Cape Town and the provincial government on transport agreements.

The building of the 2010 Green Point Stadium and other important projects in our province should not suffer while we have the IntergovernmentalRelations Framework Act, which should guide us on how we should do our work as government.

We should use our Constitution to address the achievements and challenges we face as an ultimate resource on how our government should work. Central to the question of local development objectives is local government’s responsibility for social and economic development and sustainable delivery of affordable services.

Last year, the Constitutional Court interpreted section 152 of the Constitution as imposing a constitutional obligation on municipalities to fulfil those objectives as a public duty. This means the municipalities have a positive duty to fulfil local development objectives. It is also clear that these objectives will not be achieved by local government in isolation.

All sectors and spheres of government have a duty to work together to help fulfil our mandate of halving poverty and unemployment by 2014.

To achieve these goals, we need to work together on the basis of planning frameworks and identifying priorities concerning service delivery without competing for the same space and roles. We will, indeed, achieve our goal of creating a better life for all the people of South Africa.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, I will try to respond very briefly to the debate, but I think you will agree with me, today, when I say we have really had a very vibrant debate in the NCOP. I have been sitting there listening and it shows to me that members have studied the report very carefully and they understand what is contained in the report. I am even very impressed with the attendance by the special delegates, something which was starting to diminish in this House. I am very proud to see that you have revived yourself as special delegates to make this House your House. It’s not our House; it is the House that takes care of the interests of the provinces. I am very happy that you are participating so actively, today.

It is perhaps a pity that Mr Yawa has already gone, who is MEC for local government in the North West Province. I wanted to correct something, because I made an incorrect announcement when we were sitting in Pniel, where I said hon Xhasa was the first to submit the report on the status of the local municipalities. Actually, it was Mr Yawa from the North West, who was the first one to submit that report [Applause]. The Eastern Cape was the second one to submit the report to me last week. It tells us something: Provinces are now beginning to understand what it is that we should do. You see, in terms of section 106 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, all MECs of local government … niyangiphazamisa. [You are disturbing me.] … all provinces, must submit a report on the status of local government or local municipalities to the NCOP and to the national Minister. That assists us because we can then study the report – all the committees who are involved, from the finance committee, provincial and local government, whichever committee – and thereafter say this is the status of municipalities in these particular provinces. How can we then together get involved and assist? That is the first point. Congratulations to those provinces that have begun to understand this thing.

Secondly, I want to thank all the people who have contributed because you now are beginning to think and understand that the NCOP is not an enemy when it visits the provinces. I think that is a wonderful understanding. We are not enemies when we come to the provinces, but we are there to complement our colleagues because we are all working in the legislative sector. The aim, for all of us, is to make sure that the executive delivers on the promises that they have made to our people in terms of the budgets that you have been talking about, in terms of the programmes, in terms of policies, and everything that you have been talking about. If we can reach that understanding that all of us from the local municipalities, provincial legislatures and from national level are the legislative sector and our job is to monitor and make sure that things are happening, then I think we shall be moving on the right track. You are not to think that when we come there and say, what are these people coming to do here? It is not our job to intimidate you. Our job is to work together, as all members have said from the different provinces, and we should monitor together.

On the issue of the SA Local Government Association, I think a lot of people have dealt with it and said we need to improve. I agree. We are calling a workshop – which is a proposal of the summit – early next year. Mr Masondo made a proposal to us that we should call this workshop so that we can reach an understanding of how we can together work with them as Salga and participate there.

It is also a pity that the mother from the Northern Province [Limpopo] has left. NJ is still here and Mr Bhamjee and all other people. Mazosiwe is still here. You all raised very important issues, particularly of co- ordinating the work of the departments from national government, provincial government up to the local government, because if we don’t co-ordinate, then we run the risk of not delivering the services on the ground as we are supposed to. We will complain that we don’t have the resources, and yet we are not putting the resources together to make them implementable or for making service delivery to the people easier on the ground.

On Operation Shosholoza, why can’t we do it? Let us shosholoza! Let us put in effort and some energy and let us move. Perhaps that is the thing that we will talk about.

Regarding all the matters that you have raised, perhaps you can begin to look at page three of the recommendations that I have just tabled to you here. For example, commission one has already raised an issue which says we must establish a joint planning mechanism to streamline integrated development plan budgets and targets and strengthen the intergovernmental relations between the three spheres of government. That is a recommendation from the summit.

If you look at page seven, what the Minister of Finance is saying, just to quote one or two of those things, is that the most important thing – I am referring to the finance committee – is that:

The NCOP must, among other things, debate at length the following issues: policy-making and budgeting for concurrent powers because I think that is where the difference is and that is where the problem is. The question of unfunded mandates in the provinces is where the problem is.

He says we must debate the assignment of powers and functions, the concurrent powers that we are talking about. I want to cite one example very quickly. I am looking at the time and I can see you are very tired. I just want to give one example about concurrent powers. When a national Minister gives you money as a department, that money goes to the treasury of the province. Am I correct? [Interjections.] Once it is in the hands of the treasury of that particular province, what can the poor Minister at national level do about that money? He can’t dictate and say go and do this or go and build 15 clinics. That might be the intention, but the treasury in the province will decide to do other things because they have got other priorities that they want to do.

Now the Minister of Finance says that we should discuss those functions. What do we actually mean with concurrent powers, because if there are concurrent powers, should we have both powers since they are concurrent? Does it mean that once the money reaches the treasury in the province, it is in the exclusive power of the treasury and the province and the executive to decide what they want to do with the money? Do you understand where the problem lies? Now the Minister is saying that all these things should be discussed.

The third point is to discuss the question of oversight and accountability, he says. Those are very crucial things and I can go on and on about the report, but all these things are tabled here and we are going to take them up and move on … shosholoza] … from next year onwards, and see how we can improve on all these issues.

Thank you very much for your input. This was a very vibrant debate and I think I can see that we are forging ahead, and we will be successful in taking this House forward and also in assisting our people on the ground together. Thank you very much and may God bless you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Thank you, hon Chairperson. That concludes the debate, and 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 to cast their province’s votes. Are all delegation heads present?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting.

Eastern Cape? Ms B N DLULANE: Eastern Cape supports the report.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): Mpumalanga supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Noord-Kaap ondersteun. [Northern Cape supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West ke ya rona. [North West supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Siyaxhasa. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: (Ms M N Oliphant): All nine provinces have voted in favour.

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

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL    AFFAIRS - CONSIDERATION OF CONVENTION ON CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
         FISHERY RESOURCES IN THE SOUTH EAST ATLANTIC OCEAN

Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson and hon members, the convention before us today signifies in a very profound manner that Africans have long been utilising its natural assets, not only to develop socially and economically, but also to contribute to a deeper understanding of conservation and the sustenance of it. The general objective of the convention is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the convention area through effective implementation of the convention. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! Can I appeal to hon members to please keep their conversations down? I just want to appeal to the leaders of delegations to ensure that their delegates are not making a noise in the House, including the Chairperson of the Council, hon Tolo and hon Sogoni. Continue, hon member.

Rev P MOATSHE: Thank you, Chair. This convention is closely modelled on the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement – the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

The signatories to this convention are Angola, Namibia, South Africa and the United Kingdom – on behalf of St Helena Tristan Da Cunha and Ascension Island - as well as Iceland, the Republic of Korea, Norway, the United States and the European Union.

In order to ensure the achievement of the general objective of long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources, the convention sets out a number of general principles of responsible fisheries management, but it is up to signatory countries to determine the specific details of implementing these principles.

The convention requires countries to, inter alia, adopt measures based on the best scientific evidence available to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources; apply the precautionary approach in accordance with the convention; take account of the impact of fishing operations on ecologically related species such as sea-birds, seals and marine turtles; adopt measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem as dependent upon or associated with the harvested fishery resources; ensure that fishery practices and management measures take due account of the need to minimise harmful impacts on living marine resources as a whole and protect biodiversity in the marine environment.

Chairperson, as is evident, the objectives of the convention affirm the sovereign rights of the member states to manage the fishery resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean collectively. Furthermore, it recognises the conservation and sustainable economic use of the marine diversity of our oceans. It spells out the obligations, jurisdiction, methods and procedures which member states must uphold. Moreover, it encourages research awareness and education with regard to the above.

With regard to the provision of resources – financial, human and otherwise – it will be incumbent on state parties to honour their commitment with respect to the effective implementation of the provisions of the convention.

In conclusion, South Africa’s priorities with regard to international maritime laws are indeed reaffirmed by becoming a signatory to this crucial instrument. We so move, Chairperson.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the Third Order. 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 to cast their province’s votes. Are all delegation heads present? Thank you.

I shall also allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations 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 the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Eastern Cape supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State? Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Free State supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Gauteng siyavuma. [Gauteng supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal ondersteun. [KwaZulu-Natal supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE (Mpumalanga): Limpopo re a e thekga. [Limpopo supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU: Mpumalanga supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Noord-Kaap ondersteun. [Northern Cape supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West ke ya rona. [North West supports.] The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap ondersteun. [Western Cape supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): 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 PUBLIC SERVICES -   INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON OIL POLLUTION PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE AND CO-
                           OPERATION, 1990

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Chairperson, the purpose of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation is to ensure that member states put adequate measures in place to be able to respond to oil pollution incidents and, where applicable, enable states to co-operate in dealing with oil pollution incidents.

It is, in the main, a proactive measure to ensure minimum damage to the environment and to our 3 km coastline, which contributes enormously to our economy in terms of fishing resources, whose value is estimated at R4,5 billion per annum. It is also important to bear in mind that South Africa is located along one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, making it vulnerable to shipping disasters and pollution incidents.

This convention also applies to offshore units, seaports and oil-handling facilities and requires that all member states’ registered vessels have an oil pollution emergency plan on board; that all member states’ vessels, while in port, be subjected to inspections for compliance; that all member states establish national systems for responding promptly and effectively to oil pollution incidents; that all member states have national contingency plans in place for preparedness and response, and have the mechanisms to co-ordinate and respond to oil spill incidents; that masters of vessels and offshore units report any incidents of oil pollution without delay; and that pilots of civil aircrafts promptly report any incidents of oil pollution to the nearest coastal state.

The Select Committee on Public Services, therefore, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231 of the Constitution, approves the said convention and protocol. I thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (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 delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province’s votes. Are all delegation heads present?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall proceed to 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 or against the report, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Siyayixhasa. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mrs M N Oliphant): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Siyayixhasa. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: Elethu. [Supports.] The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Re a ethekga. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces have voted in favour of the report. 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 PUBLIC SERVICES - INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIP’S BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Chairperson, at least four activities have been identified that pose great threats to the world’s oceans, and these are the following: The introduction of harmful aquatic organisms to new environments; land source marine pollution; over-exploitation of living marine resources and habitat destruction.

During the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 in Johannesburg, action was called for to accelerate the development of measures to address the problem of invasive alien species in ocean-going vessels’ ballast water.

Ballast water is water taken in by ocean-going vessels at a foreign port or at sea to control the vessel’s trim, list and draft, and to ensure safe and efficient operation of the ship during such sea voyages.

It must be noted that already the uncontrolled discharge of ballast water sediments from ships has led to the transfer of harmful organisms, causing injury and damage to environment in all parts of the world.

The delegation to the diplomatic conference convened by the International Maritime Organisation in February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments.

The objective of the convention is to reduce risk to the environment by the diversity of fisheries and health owing to the non-indigenous organisms that are transported within ships’ ballast tanks.

This is a very important convention for South Africa, with its long, sensitive coastline and the importance of the fishing industry in terms of job creation and food security. Therefore, the Select Committee on Public Services recommends that the Council approves the said convention in terms of section 231 of the Constitution. Thank you, Chair.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question, and 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 to cast their province’s votes. Are all delegation heads present? In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province.

Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against the report, or abstain from voting.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: Siyavuma. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Re a e seketela. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West ke a rona. [North West supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Elethu. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces have voted in favour of the report. 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 JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE - MEDIUM-TERM BUDGET POLICY STATEMENT

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Chairperson, hon members, may I state upfront that the Joint Budget Committee dealt with the terms of reference of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, as outlined by Parliament.

After the tabling of the statement the JBC, the Joint Budget Committee, engaged the Minister of Finance and National Treasury and convened departmental hearings from Wednesday, 31 October, to Friday, 2 November 2007.

The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement reinforces government’s commitment to combating unemployment and poverty through accelerating the rate of economic growth and through the improvement of service delivery.

Over the next three years provinces will receive an additional R36,1 billion more than what was estimated during the Budget tabling in February this year. This additional amount reinforces interventions in education, health and social development, with the sole aim of expanding the benefits and quality of these services, especially to the poor.

We wish to emphasise that the mere allocation of funds does not necessarily secure the achievement of the desirable outcomes. We implore this honourable House to ensure that the desired results are achieved through this budget allocation.

There is, of course, no replacement for relentless vigilance in monitoring not only the expenditure, but also the quality and usability of the final product. Accordingly, we should, where possible, insist on infrastructure and other capital projects that continue to bolster the community’s economic opportunities, even long after the project has been completed.

The increased resources proposed for provincial and local government over the medium term must be complemented by improved co-operative government and intergovernmental co-ordination. Of course, this should include increased efforts by the national sphere to drive more strongly the implementation of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act, among others.

An appropriate step should be taken to encourage that provincial and local government co-fund and actively support nationally set priorities.

During our interaction with certain departments, we noted the disturbing occurrence of repeated and substantial inter transfer of funds within Budget Votes. Although these inter transfers remain within the permitted margins, we were concerned that these may be indicative of poor planning and might, therefore, conceal other inefficiencies within those departments.

We are engaging the National Treasury in an effort to deepen our inquiry into this practice in order to ensure that no substantial deviation from the approved budget is allowed.

In conclusion, we wish to plead, again, with Parliament to allocate more time for our committee – and all others in Parliament – to deal with this statement. I thank you.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question, and 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 to cast their province’s votes. [Interjections.]

Hon Moseki, could you please respect the House, and the same goes for hon Shiceka and hon Dlulane!

Are all delegation heads present? [Interjections.] Hon Botha …!

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province.

Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against the report, or abstain from voting.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Re a e thekga. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal ondersteun. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo e a e seketela. [Limpopo supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): Supports.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Elethu. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: SinguMntla Koloni sihamba nayo. [We, as the representatives of the North West, agree.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Ondersteun. [Supports.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): All provinces have voted in favour of the report. 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 local government and
              administration – intervention in Utrecht

Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, my presentation, today, is with regards to the taking over of certain functions of a municipality by the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal. The municipality is called Emadlangeni Municipality which is in Utrecht. The taking over by the provincial executive committee happened on 22 August. This happened as a result of the investigation which was conducted by the MEC in terms of section 106 of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act.

This investigation was looking at issues relating to mismanagement, maladministration, fraud and corruption. The outcome of this investigation revealed a lot of things. As a result of this the MEC requested the municipality at the beginning of August to respond within 30 days on how it was going to implement the recommendations of the investigation. The municipality could not respond to this. Therefore, on the basis of that, the MEC communicated with the municipality without success. Then the MEC took a decision to intervene in that municipality. That intervention, as I said, happened on 22 August; and we as a committee were briefed on 23 October about the report. After the briefing, we took a decision that we could not rely only on the information presented by the MEC. In terms of the administration of justice one has to listen to both sides. We used the audi alteram partem rule to be able to get these views from the ground.

We went there with a multiparty delegation that involved the IFP and the DA which are members of the committee, as well as the ANC. These parties are the ones that are represented in that municipality. We met with all stakeholders ranging from mayors, councillors, senior management of the council and all the employees of that municipality.

Our findings as a committee was that Emadlangeni Municipality is dysfunctional; it cannot raise its own revenue; it is operating on a deficit; it is unable to collect revenue and that the money owing was R2,9 million. There was no attempt to raise it.

Since it owns a lodge, the administration increased the tariffs of the lodge at the beginning of the year, but the council had not taken a decision to ensure that those increases were effected, meaning, therefore, that the municipality was running at a deficit out of its own creation and choice. If they wanted to, they would have been able to raise the revenue so that they could to run the municipality.

This is a municipality of four wards with seven councillors – the whole municipality. So, one can see how small it is. It’s a plenary municipality where the mayor is also a Speaker holding all the positions.

The committee came to a decision that the municipality has a potential to raise its own revenue and be able to work on its own. However, it requires other spheres of government to assist it, because it cannot do what is expected to be done.

We also found that in the municipality the top and middle management level has unskilled labour. People could not give direction to what should happen because they don’t even have an organogram. The employment was based on which party one was supporting, then one would automatically be employed without looking at the skills that are available in the area. There were workers who have been casuals for the past 15 to 20 years, which is against the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, against the Labour Relations Act and it is in violation of the legislation of this country. Employees are compelled and forced to drive nonroadworthy vehicles. If one drives one of those vehicles and one is stopped by a traffic police, a ticket is issued to that driver as an individual, whilst one was forced by the managers to drive the vehicle.

The committee was also concerned about the bickering between political parties. The conditions were very bad. One could see when people start talking in the council meetings that their blood is almost at boiling point and they would want to touch each other. They don’t understand that politics is a theatre and you are just acting in that theatre and, therefore, you must be expected to engage in such arguments and when you come out there should be no bad blood. [Interjections.]

We then recommended that we can support the intervention in that area, but on certain conditions, because we believe that a provincial government is supposed to support all municipalities, including giving support to them in terms of section 154 of the Constitution.

As was said, the Minister for Provincial and Local Government is supposed to be giving reports to this House about the state of municipalities. MECs are supposed to give reports to the Minister, and the Minister should consolidate the reports and then present them to the NCOP.

You cannot believe that these two municipalities we are talking about are in South Africa. Thus, it means that the provincial government is supposed to play its part. What we are saying is that we can support the intervention on condition that the Minister presents a comprehensive programme of support to the municipality, to us, in terms of human and financial resources. We want to see that in the short and medium term. The Minister must also present to us the legality of the appointment of the acting municipal manager, as well as the payment of the mayor in September, because what happened is that the mayor signed a contract with the municipal manager to say that he was appointed on a month-to-month basis.

In terms of the Constitution and the law, this responsibility belongs to the council. We don’t know then how that responsibility was delegated to the acting mayor to do so. That is why we want to get to the legality of this move. The acting mayor was given an acting allowance of over R8 000 in September. We are now checking because in terms of the Office Bearer’s Handbook that is not there. There is no law that says it has to be done, and there is no law that says it cannot be done to give an acting allowance. We want to get that from the MEC.

We are also saying that political parties that are here must go and support that municipality in terms of creating conditions conducive to political debate and the handling of issues, then service delivery can happen.

We also recommend that the municipal manager must embark on creating a financial recovery strategy and the broadening of a tax base in that municipality. The MEC must engage the district municipality on water services provision, because what is happening is that the municipality is under another political party given the suspension of the mayor – because the authority over water is in the district council – it is not providing water at a local level because of political party differences, which is not correct. We are saying that there must be intervention into this.

The last two points are that we must get monthly reports on the progress of that intervention, and the MEC must tell us the timeframe for this intervention. We cannot just support it on a blank cheque without us knowing how long it is going to take.

Those are the recommendations that we are raising in terms of supporting this report, based on those conditions. That is what we experience in municipalities, but we will continue doing work in the municipalities as this responsibility has been bestowed on us by the Constitution and by this House. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Order! I shall now put the question. And 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 to cast their province’s votes. Are all delegation heads present?

In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Is there any province that wants 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 please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [In favour.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): KwaZulu-Natal.

Mr Z C NTULU: Siyavuma. [In favour.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Re a e thekga. [Limpopo in favour.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Ke ya rona. [Northern Cape in favour.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: In favour.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Ondersteun. [In favour.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms m n Oliphant): All nine provinces voted in favour. I, therefore, declare the report adopted in accordance with 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 - UPLIFTMENT OF PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION OF MAGISTRATE M S MAKAMU, SENIOR MAGISTRATE AT BENONI, DATED 25 OCTOBER 2007

Mr D A WORTH: Chairperson, seeing that I am the last speaker and have been given 10 minutes, which I have never had before, I have to bargain. [Laughter.] If you all clap and vote for my speech, I will cut it down to five minutes and if you clap even more, I will cut it down to two minutes. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Hon members, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, on 23 November 2005, provisionally suspended magistrate Mr M S Makamu – a senior magistrate at Benoni – from office. The NA and the NCOP shortly thereafter, confirmed the provisional suspension, based on the decision by the Johannesburg regional court, to convict Mr Makamu of fraud on 21 June 2005. He, Mr Makamu, was sentenced to a fine of R10 000, all of which was suspended for a period of four years on certain conditions. [Interjections.]

The Magistrates Commission, in terms of section 13(4)(a) of the Magistrate’s Act 1993, determined to withhold Mr Makamu’s remuneration. The Magistrates Commission then commenced with its investigation into Mr Makamu’s fitness to hold office as a magistrate. However, the inquiry was postponed at his own request, pending the outcome of his appeal against his conviction in the regional court. The appeal was upheld by the High Court in Johannesburg and both his conviction and sentence were set aside. The commission has, therefore, decided not to proceed with this inquiry against Mr Makamu and the determination to withhold his remuneration automatically fell away at the time when his suspension was lifted. Therefore, the committee recommends that this Council should agree with the decision to uplift the provisional suspension of Magistrate Mr M S Makamu from Benoni, with immediate effect. I so move. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order! Hon members, I can delay this House for 30 minutes if you don’t behave. [Interjections.]

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 province’s vote. Are all the delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of, against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Siyayixhasa. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Ondersteun. [Supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: Siyavuma. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Mpumalanga?

Mr N J MAHLANGU (Mpumalanga): In favour. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Northern Cape?

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Noord-Kaap ondersteun. [Northern Cape supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West in favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Western Cape?

Mr N MACK: Wes-Kaap ondersteun. [Western Cape supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): 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 Council adjourned at 18:48. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Translations of Bills submitted

 (1)    The Minister of Social Development


      a) Wetsontwerp of Tradisionele Gesondheidspraktisyns [W 20 –
         2007] (National Council of Provinces– sec 76(2)).


     This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Traditional
     Health Practitioners Bill [B 20 – 2007] (National Council of
     Provinces – sec 76(2)).

      b) Wysigingswetsontwerp op Keuse oor die Beëindiging van
         Swangerskap [W 21 – 2007] (National Council of Provinces– sec
         76(2)).


     This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Choice on
     Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill [B 21 – 2007] (National
     Council of Provinces – sec 76(2)).


 (2)    The Minister of Communications


      a) Wysigingswetsontwerp op Elektroniese Kommunikasie [W 38 –
         2007] (National Assembly – sec 75)
     This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Electronic
     Communications Amendment Bill [B 38 – 2007] (National Assembly –
     sec 75).

 (3)    The Minister of Finance


      a) Wetsontwerp op Belasting op Oordrag van Sekuriteite [W 44 –
         2007] (National Assembly – sec 77)


     This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Securities
     Transfer Tax Bill [B 44 – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 77).


      b) Wetsontwerp op die Administrasie van Belasting op Oordrag van
         Sekuriteite [W 45 – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75)


     This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Securities
     Transfer Tax Administration Bill [B 45 – 2007] (National Assembly –
     sec 75).

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Health

(a)     Report and Financial Statements of the Compensation
    Commissioner for Occupational Diseases (CCOD) for 2005-2006 and
    2006-2007, including the Reports of the Auditor-General on the
    Financial Statements for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Defence on Employment of SANDF to Uganda, dated 20 November 2007:

   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 Uganda, referred to the Committee, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.

2. Report of the Mediation Committee on the Children’s Amendment Bill [B 19B – 2006] and [B 19D – 2006] (Reprint) (with textual corrections) (National Council of Provinces – sec 76), dated 21 November 2007:

   The Mediation Committee, having considered the Children’s Amendment Bill [B19B – 2006] and [B19D – 2006] (Reprint) (with textual corrections) (National Council of Provinces - sec 76), as well as the papers referred to it, reports the bill with further amendments [B 19E – 2006] and presents a mediated version [B19F – 2006].

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Amendment Bill [B9B-2006] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 15 November 2007:

   The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs , having considered the subject matter of the Regulation of Interception of Communication and Provision of Communication-Related Information Amendment Bill [B9B-2006] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it, reports the Bill as follows:

   The Bill was referred to the Committee on 29th August 2007. The committee received a briefing on the 14th September on the Bill.

   On 17 October 2007, the Committee received submissions from the three service providers, namely, Vodacom, MTN and Cell C and some state departments, namely, Department of Communications and Department of Safety and Security.

   The committee deliberated on the Bill on 9th November 2007. On the basis of numerous inputs which were valid in nature, the Committee is of the view that the issues raised need to be addressed by the department.

   The committee therefore recommends:

    That the Bill be referred back to the Department of Justice  and
    Constitutional Development to  look  at  issues  raised  by  the
    committee.  Due to  the  nature  of  inputs  received  from  the
    stakeholders, the committee is of the view that, if it  proposes
    amendments, it will be tantamount to redrafting of the Bill.