National Assembly - 22 May 2008
THURSDAY, 22 MAY 2008 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:03.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
NEW MEMBER
(Announcement)
The SPEAKER: Order! I have to announce that the vacancy caused by the resignation from the National Assembly of Ms H S Ntombela has been filled by the nomination with effect from 15 May 2008 of Ms Z P Dlungwana.
In terms of section 48 of the Constitution, members of the National Assembly must swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution before they begin to perform their functions in the National Assembly. OATH
Ms Z P Dlungwana, accompanied by Ms N P Khunou and Mr T R Mofokeng, made and subscribed the oath, and took her seat.
AFRICA DAY
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice that:
That the House –
1) notes that on Sunday, 25 May, we shall celebrate Africa Day,
proclaimed as such to commemorate the establishment of the
forerunner to the African Union (AU), the Organisation of African
Unity (OAU);
2) further notes that the OAU worked to ensure the unity of African
states towards the realisation of freedom, peace and development
and strove tirelessly to harness the natural and human resources of
the continent for the benefit of the people;
3) recalls that the AU recognises the need for common responses to the
major challenges of globalisation facing Africa and for boosting
regional integration processes through an effective continental
mechanism;
4) believes that Africa Day must be a day on which we celebrate the
lives and contributions of the African masses and express pride in
the millions of Africans, women and men, who on a daily basis,
sustain and fight for the vision of an Africa free of the legacy of
colonial oppression, poverty and marginalisation and that the AU
remains committed to the goal of ending poverty and
underdevelopment on the continent;
5) acknowledges the importance of involving the African peoples, as
well as the African diaspora in AU processes of economic and
political integration of the continent in order to ensure that the
AU is a union of peoples and not just a ``union of states and
governments’’; and
6) commends the continued effort by the AU and the Pan-African
Parliament aimed at realising peace and prosperity on the
continent.
Agreed to.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move the following motion:
That the House debates government’s implementation of import quotas and the negative effect this has had on the local clothing and textile manufacturing industry.
Thank you.
Dr S M VAN DYK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move the following motion:
That the House debates the current staff and skills shortages experienced by Eskom in the light of the up to 100 000 additional workers needed in order to implement Eskom’s bold programme.
Thank you.
MEETING TO AVOID POSSIBLE XENOPHOBIC ATTACKS ON FOREIGNERS
(Member’s Statement)
Ms L L MABE (ANC): Madam Speaker, the ANC commends the initiatives by the ANC MP, hon Lumka Yengeni, who has through her Dunoon constituency office arranged the meeting between the community, leadership of Dunoon and representatives of the Milnerton police station. The objective of the meeting was to avoid any possibility of attacks against foreign nationals by communicating messages that promote peace and community cohesion. The meeting will be followed by a general meeting of all members of the Dunoon community, including foreign nationals, church leaders and members of the South African Police Service today at Sophakhama Primary School at 18h00.
We welcome the undertakings by the Milnerton police station commander, Superintendent Van Wyk, that regular patrols will be reinforced in pursuit of the objectives of building safer communities. We wish to congratulate Milnerton police station, in particular, Captain Nqatha and Superintendent Hobana who are deployed in the area on a full-time basis, for the co- operation they have shown to the people of Dunoon. I thank you.
ESCALATION OF XENOPHOBIC ATTACKS ON FOREIGNERS
(Member’s Statement)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION (DA): Madam Speaker, not for the first time, when South Africans face national crises of mounting proportions, they are left rudderless by government where the only approach of dealing with situations is to deny their very existence. On Monday this week, when the death toll in Alexandra and Diepsloot stood at 12 people and the number who had been displaced from their homes were within hundreds, I called on the Minister of Home Affairs to stop the circumventing the matter by making cloak-and-dagger references to a third force and to get the root cause of the problem by acknowledging the xenophobia-fuelled attacks for what they are. On Tuesday, when the number of dead had almost doubled to 22 and the number of immigrants injured and displaced in the escalating violence had reached thousands, I urged government once again to recognise this crisis for what it is so as to begin to formulate workable solutions to the stalemate. Today’s report indicates that 42 people have died so far in a catastrophe that threatens to take on even greater dimensions as the violence spreads to other parts of the country.
What has our government’s response been? We have a President who has given the go-ahead for an extremely delicate though very necessary military intervention and left the country in his customary absentee leadership style. And, more importantly, we have a Minister in the Presidency who now asks us to meditate on his theory that these attacks are in fact the work of “Right-wing populous groups who have mobilised” “the lumpen proletariat against society’s minority groups”. How much longer must South Africa be left at the mercy of a government in denial, incapable of offering credible decisive leadership when it is most needed? I thank you.
DEPLOYMENT OF SA NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE
(Member’s Statement) Mr V B NDLOVU (IFP): Madam Speaker, it was announced yesterday that the President of the Republic of South Africa has authorised the internal deployment of military units to help the police end the xenophobic violence in Gauteng. Under normal circumstances, the IFP would not support the internal deployment of army units as they are not suited or properly trained to deal with civilians.
However, in this particular case, the IFP recognises that the situation is not normal and that the police need any help they can get. Our support for army deployment comes with very strict pre-conditions. Firstly, the military unit must be under direct control of the police; they must also provide assistance requested by the police and the military unit should not be involved in criminal investigations at all.
Secondly, great care should be taken to ensure that military units are not directly involved in crowd control. They are simply not trained for such situations. Thirdly, the military units should be subjected to stricter rules of engagement with the use of minimal force as a prerequisite. Care should also be taken not to deploy any weapons with the units. Finally, the unitary units should only be deployed in areas where the greatest threats exists and not at any area wider than that. I thank you.
NATIONAL ENERGY SUMMIT
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs J L FUBBS (ANC): Last Friday, on 16 May 2008, the ANC hosted a National Energy Summit. That summit was attended by representatives of civil society, organised labour, business and government. They engaged each other to achieve an effective joint approach to the electricity emergency which is facing South Africa. Indeed the summit recognised that the poor and the workers will be unable to afford electricity at the Eskom 53% tariff hikes.
In mobilising stakeholders from every sector of society, the ANC was able to generate an environment that pursued a constructive review. Delegates at the summit were generally in favour of smoothing up the process rather than the imposition of yet another shock to the people, especially the poor, and to the economy. We welcome this phased-in approach of long-term costs which will minimize the price burden on the poor and the economy in general. In this way, the poor and working people will continue to have access to affordable electricity.
This mobilisation of stakeholders from all sectors of society recalls the campaign that brought about the Freedom Charter and the process that led to the Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP. The ANC recognises that only by mobilising national support can our national goals of poverty eradication, employment creation and dynamic economic growth and a developmental state be achieved. I thank you.
MANAGEMENT FAILURE OF ESKOM
(Member’s Statement)
Mr G T MADIKIZA (ANC): Madam Speaker, the UDM has noted with disgust that the truth about management failures of Eskom are slowly emerging. This week we learned that the crucial maintenance of plants and equipment was neglected because it reflected well on the company’s bottom line. Similarly, coal stocks were allowed to dwindle to dangerously low levels because the financial sheet would not look so rosy if expenditure had to be increased to maintain coal stocks.
In both of these cases, it appears to have been a sinister ploy to justify huge salaries and bonuses for the people at the top whom we have entrusted with ensuring that our economy and our homes have the electricity they require. It also exposes the real reasons why, this year, Eskom suddenly required a 60% hike in tariffs. The chickens have finally come home to roost and Eskom’s management mistakenly thought that it could simply pass the buck to the consumers.
In the meanwhile, we know that Eskom continues to change its tune on an almost daily basis about the possibility of more load-shedding and power cuts. When will the lies and misinformation stop? We are now approaching the start of the winter months and soon the electricity supply will become a matter of life and death for many people. I thank you.
FAILURE OF MBEKI GOVERNMENT
(Member’s Statement)
Mnr P J GROENEWALD (VF PLUS): Speaker, die besluit van President Thabo Mbeki om die weermag in te roep om stabiliteit ten opsigte van die xenofobie-aanvalle te verkry, is ’n erkenning van die President dat daar ’n noodtoestand in Suid-Afrika heers.
Die onvermoë van die polisie om die situasie te hanteer, reflekteer ook op die professionaliteit van die polisie om sulke situasies te beheer. President Mbeki en die regering se hardkoppigheid om oor jare die werklikheid van die xenofobieprobleem te erken, het gemaak dat die saak so handuit geruk het dat ’n drastiese besluit, soos om die weermag in te stuur, nou geneem moes word. Die weermag moes eintlik lankal reeds ingeroep word, want dit sou ’n verergering van die konflik kon voorkom en baie lewens gespaar het.
President Mbeki pluk nou die wrange vrugte van die mislukkings van sy regering. Die vier belangrikste mislukkings is: Eerstens, die gebrek om wet en orde te handhaaf. Die mislukking om geweldsmisdaad in Suid-Afrika onder beheer te kry, veroorsaak dat mense hulle tot geweld wend sonder die vrees dat hulle gearresteer en suksesvol vervolg sal word. Tweedens, verwys ek na die swak grensbeheer. Die swak grensbeheer het miljoene onwettige immigrante Suid-Afrika laat binnekom. Dit is verder verswak deur die sluiting van die kommando’s en die oordra van die weermag se funksies van grensbeheer na die polisie – wetende dat die polisie dit nie kan doen nie.
Derdens, verwys ek na die korrupsie in die staatsdiens. Korrupsie is endemies onder die regering van Mbeki en weinig word gedoen om dit te beveg. Voorbeelde soos Travelgate, Oilgate, en die wapenskandaal skep die indruk dat korrupsie tot op die hoogste vlak toelaatbaar is.
Vierdens, en laastens, verwys ek na sy buitelandse beleid. Die stille diplomasie van Mbeki met Zimbabwe was net ’n reddingsboei om die kwynende Mugabe langer as wat nodig was aan bewind te hou. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD (FF PLUS): Speaker, President Mbeki’s decision to call on the Defence Force in order to attain stability with regard to xenophobic attacks is an acknowledgement by the President that a state of emergency is prevailing in South Africa.
The inability of police to deal with the situation also reflects on the professionalism of the police to control situations such as these. President Mbeki’s and government’s stubbornness to acknowledge the reality of the xenophobia problem over the years resulted in the matter becoming so unmanageable that a drastic decision, such as sending in the troops, now has to be taken. The Defence Force should have been called in long ago, because this would have prevented the conflict from worsening and many lives would have been spared.
President Mbeki is reaping the bitter fruits of the failures of his government. The following are the four most important failures. The first failure is the inability to maintain law and order. Failure to control violent crimes is causing people to turn to violence without the fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted successfully. Secondly, I want to refer to the poor border control. Poor border control allowed millions of immigrants to enter South Africa illegally. This has been further weakened by the dissolution of the commandos and by transferring the function of border control from the army to the police – knowing full well that the police are incapable of performing this function.
Thirdly, I want to refer to corruption in the Public Service. Corruption is endemic in the Mbeki government and very little is being done to combat it. Examples such as Travelgate, Oilgate and the arms deal are creating the impression that corruption is permissible up to the highest level.
Fourthly and lastly, I want to refer to his foreign policy. Mbeki’s silent diplomacy regarding Zimbabwe was only a life buoy to keep the ailing Mugabe in power for longer than was necessary.]
IMPROVEMENT IN LIVING CONDITIONS OF FARMWORKERS
(Member’s Statement)
Ms T E LISHIVHA (ANC): Madam Speaker, some farmworkers who have been enduring long winter nights in mud houses in Limpopo have received four- roomed houses from the provincial government and their employer. BuaNews reported that one of the beneficiaries, Mr David Mashele, speaking on behalf of the recipients, said, ``Life was tough as some of the workers had no roof at all over their heads. We are grateful to receive these houses in my lifetime. I never imagined myself staying in a four-roomed house with big windows, ceiling and a toilet.’’
Freedom under the ANC-led government is gradually restoring the dignity of all our people. The ANC works to strengthen safety, security and access to justice for farmworkers. We shall also continue to encourage all stakeholders, including government and the farming community, to engage in the issue of providing basic services and ensure that land reform programmes also give farmworkers access to land. I thank you. [Applause.]
IMPACT OF ILLEGAL INFLUX OF FOREIGNERS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M V NGEMA (Nadeco): Madam Speaker, a state is defined by its geographical borders and its ability to protect its territory. The collapse of border control in South Africa is one of the prime reasons for the anarchic state that Gauteng is faced with today. It is the duty of the responsible government to lend a helping hand to neighbours within this region. However, when refugees are able to freely enter a country without scrutiny because the Department of Home Affairs is incapable of regulating the illegal influx of foreigners, national peace is undoubtedly in jeopardy.
Unfulfilled expectations within poor communities, coupled with the presence of an estimated three million Zimbabweans refugees, of which a percentage makes up employees that earn a wage in a country where jobs are scarce, unfortunately, does breed a volcano waiting to erupt. The key factor behind our problems is poor governance which emanates from a lack of skills at certain, if not at all, levels within government. This phenomenon infiltrates to all bureaucratic levels as well.
The only pragmatic method that can save South Africa in the long term from poverty and most of the social ills that we are faced with today is the implementation of quality education for all in order for us to create a highly educated and efficient bureaucracy that will facilitate growth and development.
MEDIA ATTENTION LED TO GOVERNMENT TAKING ACTION
(Member’s Statement)
Mnr S SIMMONS (NA): Speaker, die oproepe vir die inspanning van die weermag om die vreemdelingehaat-aanvalle teen te werk, en die regering se skynbare gewilligheid om daaraan gehoor te gee, spreek van dubbele standaarde.
U sien, op die Kaapse Vlakte en elders word honderde jongmense vermoor in bendegeweld en op plase word boere en hul werkers steeds vermoor, maar die regering hanteer dit nie met dieselfde erns nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr S SIMMONS (NA): Speaker, calls for the deployment of the Defence Force to counteract xenophobic attacks and government’s apparent willingness to respond to it are evidence of double standards.
Hundreds of young people are being murdered in gang-related violence on the Cape Flats and elsewhere, and farmers and their workers are still being murdered on farms, but government does not handle this with the same earnestness.]
Last year, in the Budget Vote on Defence, I called upon the hon Minister of Defence to avail more Defence Force resources to fight against crime, together with the intelligence services.
It is my conclusion that if these xenophobic attacks did not enjoy these levels of media attention, government would most likely not have given it the current level of attention it has. So, gang-related murders and farm killings will only receive this kind of drastic action once they become more topical again. I thank you.
INFANT DEATHS IN EASTERN CAPE
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M WATERS (DA): Madam Speaker, diarrhoea used to be a deadly disease across the world, but in the 1970s it was discovered that a simple rehydration mixture containing water, salt and sugar saved the lives of most babies infected.
Yet, over the past few weeks, 125 babies in the Eastern Cape have died because of not being given the simple mixture of water, salt and sugar. At the same time, this provincial government placed an advert in this month’s Sawubona magazine, claiming that life in the province today is better than it was yesterday. The cost of the rehydration formula that would have saved these babies’ lives would not have amounted to a thousandth of the cost of placing this advert.
There is a culture of self-satisfaction that prevails in many parts of this country which ensures that, on the one hand, no expense is spared in printing glossy promotional material in elite magazines and holding grand parties while, on the other hand, babies are allowed to die from conditions that should not, in all honesty, be deadly anymore, given our country’s sophisticated health infrastructure.
The death of these babies is just the latest in a long series of failures on the part of this department, and this particular administration is without a doubt a dismal failure. It cannot be allowed to continue like this. This department has brought about the situation where the province’s health system is in a state of collapse. The latest health barometer shows that the Eastern Cape has the highest perinatal mortality rate in the country. Last year, while mother-to-child HIV transmission prevention programmes have been expanded across the rest of the country, in the Eastern Cape, the availability of this service shrank by 10%.
Last year, the province was the subject of yet another scandal when figures were released showing an unacceptable high rate of baby deaths at Frere hospital, and every year, the department’s annual report shows an administration in a state of chaos. The DA calls on the Eastern Cape department of health to be placed under administration. I thank you. [Applause.]
CONVENTION ON DISAILITY RATIFIED BY SOUTH AFRICA
(Member’s Statement)
Mr D C MABENA (ANC): Madam Speaker, the international community recently converged at the United Nations headquarters in New York at the launch of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, thereby giving effect to the recognition of disabled people as first-class citizens.
The convention could only come into effect after 20 countries had signed and ratified it. It is with enormous pride that this happened with South Africa being one of the member states that have signed and ratified this convention.
As the ANC, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to this House for the speedy manner in which it processed our participation in the convention. Thanks go to the ANC-led government for, firstly, not waiting for the international community to prescribe what needs to be done for disable people, but actually putting disabled people first as one of the vulnerable groups that require being included through the many pieces of legislation, including our Constitution, which went through this House. We, as the ANC, hope that the convention will award the country an opportunity to excel in services meant for disabled people. We note that a lot has been done, albeit that there are challenges. This ratification is a step that needs to be celebrated. Disability rights are human rights. Thank you. [Applause.]
PLIGHT OF STREET CHLDREN
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs I MARS (IFP): Madame Speaker, the IFP calls on the Department of Social Development to urgently look at the plight of street children. We ask the Minister to report back to this House as to what their successes or failures are in ensuring that the problem of street children is solved, by alternatively putting them in places of safety or by finding other methodologies of dealing with them.
The greatest resource in Africa are its children. It is within them that the solution to Africa’s problems and the continent’s future lies. Therefore, it is important to cultivate this resource and nurture it lovingly. Otherwise it could become a source of despair. Morally, every society has a duty to protect their very weak from the ravages of destitution; something we in South Africa have always failed to do. The welfare of all members of any community is the responsibility of every member of the community. The weak, especially children, require our compassion and absolute support. Street children, pleasant or not, are amongst the weakest. When the children are treated with disdain and contempt, they become alienated, disgruntled, confrontational, aggrieved, unhappy, and very angry. One day they will fight back and you might be their target when they do.
We all know that a lot of street children choose to stay on the streets rather than going to shelters or homes because they don’t trust their caregivers. Many of the street kids have been subjected to rape, abuse and neglect by the very same caregivers and families. We have to acknowledge and deal with this, as a matter of urgency. I thank you.
BUILDING OF HOUSES IN ANC-CONTROLLED ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY
(Member’s Statement)
Mnu N W NGCOBO (ANC): Somlomo, umasipala waseTheku ophethwe uKhongolose wakha izindlu ngesikhulu isivinini. Lezi zindlu zibhekelele bonke abantu. Ngikhuluma nje kunezindlu e-Westville, e-Chatsworth, e-Newlands naKwaMashu ezihlala abantu bazo zonke izinhlanga, kanjalo futhi naboMkhonto Wesizwe Veterans Association, MKVA, banikezwe ithuba lokuthi babe nezindlu lapha kulezi zindawo. Lokhu futhi kunikeza ithuba lokuthi abantu baphile ndawo ngokubambisana.
E-Lamontville uMnyango Wezindlu ukhiphe izigizi ezinga-250 ezigidi ukuze kwakhiwe izindlu khona kuzophela imijondolo nokulungisa izitezi kanjalo nokunikezela izindlu kubanikazi bazo. Ezinqoleni, e-Lower South Coast, imindeni eminingi yakhelwe izindlu kungakhatheleli noma ngabe banemizi kangakanani, ungaba mkhulu noma ube mncane, kodwa umuzi nomuzi wakhelwe indlu kangangokuba abanye abantu bayaqala bathi nabo sebenzezindlu eziyizikwele. Siyamncoma-ke uKhongolose ngaleso senzo. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu member’s statement follows.)
[Mr N W NGCOBO (ANC): Madam Speaker, the eThekwini Municipality which is led by the African National Congress is building houses at a very fast rate. These houses are for everybody. As I speak, there are houses in Westville, Chatsworth, Newlands and KwaMashu, which are built for different racial groups, as well as members of the uMkhonto weSizwe Veterans Association who have also been afforded the opportunity to own houses in these areas. This will also make people from different racial groups to live together in harmony.
In Lamontville, the Department of Housing has allocated about R250 million for the building of houses in order to do away with the squatter camps and also to renovate the double storeys, as well as give people ownership of their houses. In Ezinqoleni on the Lower South Coast, houses have also been built for many families regardless of the number of housing units that they have on their homestead and, regardless of whether those units are big or small, a house was built for every homestead in the area. And some people have also boastingly mentioned that they too, now, own square-shaped houses. We thank the ANC for this great deed. I thank you. [Applause.]]
COMPANIES’ COMPLIANCE WITH EMPLOYMENT EQUITY LEGISLATION
(Member’s Statement)
Ms A M DREYER (DA): Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of Labour said that the carrot was not working and that he was bringing out the stick, threatening to double inspections at the JSE, Johannesburg Stock Exchange- listed companies, for compliance with employment equity legislation. Although the Department of Labour received R700 million to increase the number of inspectors, the vacancies are still at 12%. There is a lack of skills, compromising the quantity and quality of inspections, as is clear from the following.
The Assmang smelter experienced three explosions in three years, resulting in 8 deaths. Over the past 10 years, the mining industry has averaged 240 work-related deaths per year. However, the Minister wants to focus on race- counting while workers are dying under dangerous working conditions. Is race classification more important than the lives of workers?
Helen Suzman recently said that, in the end, the real reason apartheid was abolished was that it just could not be implemented. There weren’t enough whites to do the jobs and the trade union rights given to black people meant that the situation had to change. Similarly, one day, race quotas in the workplace will be abolished because they could not be enforced. There are simply not enough skilled people - of any colour - to fill the vacancies. The skills crisis is so acute that anybody who can do the job, regardless of skin colour, should be appointed. [Applause.]
RAILWAY LINE BETWEEN CAPE TOWN AND ATLANTIS RECEIVES GO-AHEAD
(Member’s Statement)
Mnr J D ARENDSE (ANC): Mev die Speaker, vir meer as 30 jaar bestaan daar ‘n spoorweg in Atlantis wat weinig in gebruik is en nooit aan dié gemeenskap se pendelaars `n diens gelewer het nie. Ten spyte daarvan is die mense sonder eie vervoer nog steeds van taxis afhanklik om na Kaapstad en ander areas te reis. Hulle moet wag tot die voorgestelde 17 passasiers die taxis vul voordat dit kan vertrek, terwyl die busdienste volgens geskeduleerde tye ry, en werkers daag dus altyd laat by hul werkplekke op. Na ons lang voorbiddings en pleidooie wat aan die Minister van Vervoer gerig is, het ons uiteindelik konsensus bereik. Die spoorlyn tussen Kaapstad en Atlantis sal binnekort vir diens gereaktiveer word. Ons is ook verseker van tussenstasies wat tot stand gebring sal word. Verder is ons ook verseker van ‘n dienslaan vir busse en taxis op die R27, of Weskuspad, wat voor 2010 voltooi sal word. Namens die breë gemeenskap van Atlantis, wat Mamre, Witsand, Dunoon, Melkbos, Duynefontein en Parklands sowel as die breë gemeenskap van Blouberg insluit, wil ons graag ons hartlike dank teenoor die Minister van Vervoer, die Premier van die Wes-Kaap, en aan die LUR vir vervoer en openbare dienste uitspreek wat ons noodkreet gehoor het. Die spoorlyn en nuwe bus- en taxibaan sal definitief verligting verskaf vir die slakkepas wat ons op dié roete ondervind.
Dit is baie duidelik dat ons leiers in die ANC bereid is om te luister en aan ons mense se vereistes te voldoen. Dié twee projekte sal nie net die vervoer se slakkepas verlig nie, maar ek is daarvan oortuig dat dit ook werkverskaffing en ekonomiese ontwikkeling in veral Atlantis en omgewing sal bespoedig. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr J D ARENDSE (ANC): Madam Speaker, for more than 30 years there is a railway track in Atlantis which has hardly been used and never delivered a service to the commuters of this community. Despite this, those who do not have their own transport are still dependent on taxis to travel to Cape Town or other areas. They have to wait until the required 17 passengers fill the taxi before it can depart, while the bus services run as per scheduled times, and consequently workers always arrive late at their places of employment.
After our long intercessions and appeals to the Minister of Transport, we have finally reached consensus. The railway track between Cape Town and Atlantis will shortly be reactivated into service. We have also been assured that intermediate stations will be established. In addition we have also been assured of a service lane for buses and taxis on the R27 or the West Coast Road, which will be completed before 2010. On behalf of the broader community of Atlantis which includes Mamre, Witsand, Dunoon, Melkbos, Duynefontein and Parklands as well as the broader community of Blouberg, we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the Minister of Transport, the Premier of the Western Cape, and the MEC for Transport and Public Works who heeded our calls. The railway track and new bus and taxi lane will definitely bring relief to the snail-pace traffic which we experience on this route.
It is very clear that our leaders in the ANC are willing to listen and meet the needs of our people. These two projects will not only bring relief to the snail’s pace of the traffic, but I am convinced that this will also accelerate job creation and economic development, especially in Atlantis and the surrounding areas. Thank you.]
XENOPHOBIA AND VIOLENCE
MANAGEMENT FAILURE OF ESKOM
INFANT DEATHS IN EASTERN CAPE
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Could I have a week for responses this afternoon?
The SPEAKER: No. [Laughter.]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Let me deal with what is clearly a very big issue raised by a number of members, namely, the terrible violence and eternising conflict that we witness primarily in Gauteng. The first issue I want to raise is that it is necessary for us to guard against labelling and, secondly, it is necessary for all of us as elected representatives of the people, everywhere, to guard against fanning the flames.
I was rather struck when I heard the Leader of the DA, Mayor Zille, addressing a meeting in Mitchells Plain last night and saying that the xenophobia was caused by the fact that foreigners were selling tik to our children. It’s wrong. It has to be fundamentally wrong that we are inflaming it in this kind of way. All of us have a responsibility to guard against fanning the flames because what is happening cannot be in the interest of any South African at any time. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon Minister.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, I am asking for your protection, please.
The SPEAKER: The hon Minister has something to say and has to be given the opportunity to do so. And we have to listen to him.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I said we have a responsibility because the issues on the ground cannot be resolved by the military or by merely the police. The call by Members of Parliament for higher visibility of public representatives is highly needed. We don’t need statements on television by the President, but we need higher visibility of public representatives in all of the affected communities. We don’t need exposure.
We heard in the first statement this afternoon the initiative taken by the hon Lumka Yengeni. She went to Dunoon which has experienced conflicts in the past and prevented that from happening again. I hope that all members of the House respond to the call by visiting as many areas as possible, and deal with the issues as they are.
The second point I would like to raise is in response to both the hon Ndlovu and the hon Groenewald. The SA National Defence Force is deployed in support of the police only. [Interjections.] Madam Speaker, would you protect me from that horrible man with the moustache over there? [Laughter.]
The SPEAKER: You are totally protected.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order …
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order, hon Ellis?
Mr M J ELLIS: I cannot believe that calling an hon member “horrible” is in fact parliamentary. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, it is a point of view of the hon member, and I think you should not worry about it.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: It was a Freudian slip, that you must accept. [Laughter.]
I think it is very important to recognise the fact that the Constitution should be upheld. The deployment here was in support of the police, and on their request as a backup and not as a first line of defence. This is what has happened within the context of section 202 of the Constitution.
I want to give members the assurance that it happened with a great deal of caution and circumspection. We must ensure that the police are able to do the policing – which is necessary. More importantly, we need to ensure that we have higher visibility of political and religious leaders and others on the ground that people can relate to, because that would always be superior to any statements made to newspapers. That is a call on that issue.
In respect of the issues raised by hon Bici, for the record, let me state that Eskom took advice because it was sitting on huge stockpiles of coal. They sought professional advice and it came in the suggestion that stockpiles could in fact be managed at a considerably lower level. In the downward management of that, supply conditions and prices changed, and you had a fallout. I think that, as a consequence, the coal that they were then using was slurry and was from the bottom of the stockpiles. It tended to be wetter than in summer. That then created the maintenance problem. It is very necessary that we give the management full support so that they can deal with the issue as we go forward. I think I have covered the issues raised by the hon Simmons.
In respect of what the hon Waters had raised, Hansard is always perfect. What do you do now about the fact that there might still be contaminated water somewhere in the country? There is no crisis. I want to repeat that: There is no crisis, because all of us drink tap water all the time. We are one of the few countries in the world that can do that. So let’s stop shouting that there is a crisis.
But how do you prevent it? Do you go around and hand out rehydration kits to everybody, just in case there might be a crisis? [Interjections.] You are speaking from the perspective of hindsight and I think it is unhelpful in the circumstances. I thank you. [Applause.]
DEALING WITH XENOPHOBIA
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Thank you, hon Speaker. Last night, my ANC branch, which is called Sonya Bunting, convened a public meeting in a place called Bertrams, is closer to the CBD of Johannesburg. It is one of the suburbs which are populated by people whom a number of us would call illegal immigrants or foreigners. The purpose of that branch meeting was for the ANC to address the concerns and the fears and to take action to deal with these criminal attacks against defenceless people. I think this is a clear example - and I know that it is not just a unique occurrence - that ANC branches everywhere are concretely dealing with this scourge that is confronting us as South Africans. That is important. As the hon Minister of Finance has said, such things can never be solved by basically armchair politicians. I am talking about people who come here and pontificate instead of taking up the hard work of beginning to deal with this issue. That is one of the things that I think is important. Once again, the ANC is leading in that endeavour.
The second area, which I also think is important, is that the ANC- led government and the ANC have been upfront in condemning these criminal occurrences, because they are nothing else but criminal mobs and they cannot be disguised by any intellectual rhetoric that all of us can basically put together. What we have seen, hon Speaker, are all sorts of opportunists; they are criminals, looting and basically vandalising the hard-earned property of people who have worked hard.
There are other types of opportunists, these are intellectual opportunists. People who, with a stroke of a pen, can basically lay blame and condemn, and abuse first and foremost the ANC and the President of the Republic of South Africa. It means that should any natural disaster occur in this country, quite clearly, the hon members from the other side will blame the ANC. [Interjections.] For anything that is happening this country that is not going right, hon members from the other side blame the ANC. What I would like to hear from them is: How many of them, because they all stay in leafy suburbs, joined students and academics at the University of Witwatersrand who were also picketing and taking action against xenophobia yesterday?
One of the issues that are also quite important is the fact that it is easy to pontificate. It is much easier to sit down and write articles about how bad the situation is in South Africa, but the challenge for honest politicians is to take action, which is what the ANC is doing. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
IMPROVEMENT IN LIVING CONDITIONS OF FARMWORKERS
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon members, you can calm down now, because I am just trying to say thank you to the hon Lishiva. She mentioned a very important fact, and that is that workers on farms in Limpopo have received houses from the ANC provincial government. Their dignity was restored, as a result of provincial government and the so-called commercial farming sector working together. It happens in so many places, and it is actually the most important thing for the continuation of our food production - that the dignity of farmworkers must be recognised.
Ons moet die samewerking van die landbousektor met die werkers bewerkstellig en die toegang vir werkers – plaaswerkers - na grond, is die belangrikste enkele faktor om die toekoms van voedselproduksie in hierdie land te verseker. Daarom sê ek baie dankie aan die agb lid. Thank you. [Dankie.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[We should bring about co-operation between the agricultural sector and farmworkers, and for workers – farmworkers – access to land is the single most important factor to ensure the future of food production in this country. That is why I’m thanking the hon member.]
Thank you. [Applause.]
FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, hon members including the hon Mike Ellis … [Laughter.] The Financial Intelligent Centre Amendment Bill being debated in this House today seeks to substantially enhance the regulatory framework for oversight of compliance with our laws to support the detection, investigation and prosecution of the laundering of the proceeds of crime.
These announcements in turn will contribute to our efforts to promote greater collaboration, sharing of information and efficiency in the manner in which supervisors and divergent industries can respond to risks that cut across their respective jurisdictions.
Those who seek to gain financial power from criminal activity will exploit every opportunity to abuse the services by financial institutions, so their illegal profits may remain undetected. This may be a trite point to make but it bears repeating. Is it that hon members of this House are reminded of the context in which these amendments are to be considered?
This is why our resolve to build the necessary mechanisms that will take financial power away from criminals should be unwavering. The consequence when this abuse of our financial institutions is left unchecked is that doubts are cast of the integrity of our financial sector and its ability to expose such abuses.
It’s for this reason that in 2001, when we passed the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, we made supervisors responsible for supervising compliance with its provisions. The amending Bill before this House seeks to make it fundamentally clear that we intend for this responsibility to be part of supervisors’ future functions.
However, merely spelling out that supervisors are expected to carry out this responsibility would be an empty gesture if they are not also given the tools to carry out these functions. Therefore, with these amendments, we shall give supervisors a broad range of powers, including administrative sanctions which will enable them to reduce risk of compliance failure or carrying.
As said, I still firmly believe that the most effective way to prevent compliance failures is to promote that culture of compliance. The provisions in these amendments strengthen the position of supervisors in relation to the industries they supervise.
However, I hope that when we talk about compliance, we remind ourselves of the context which I referred to earlier. In this regard, institutions in the private sector should be encouraged to spend their energy and resources in meeting the obligations that will enable them to expose the abuse of their services should it happen, rather than testing the resolve of supervisors charged with maintaining the integrity of the industry.
The matters dealt with in the amending Bill received widespread comments during a long and an exhaustive consultation process. I would like to thank all those who took time to engage objectively and seriously with these matters with the view to improve the final product which we have before us to consider.
I would also like to thank the Portfolio Committee on Finance under the guidance of the hon chair, Nhlanhla Nene, for interrogating the Bill and helping to sharpen it as an instrument that will deliver greater efficiency in our efforts to combat criminal abuse of our financial sector. I hereby request that the House supports the passage of the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment Bill 2008. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr K A MOLOTO: Madam Speaker, hon members, in 2001 Parliament passed the Financial Intelligence Centre Act. This Act is meant to assist the law enforcement agencies in their fight against organised crime and protect our financial system from being contaminated with the proceeds of crime. This was a very important decision indeed, as it made it difficult for criminals to launder their dirty money through our financial system.
Accountable institutions like banks are required by the law to report suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Centre. The law enforcement agencies are then expected to use that information to undertake further investigations on those suspicious transactions.
However, we need to point out that this framework had its own shortcomings. Part of the problem was that the enforcement measures were inadequate and inappropriate in certain circumstances. The Financial Action Task Force on Money-laundering, an international body, commented on the supervision of compliance regarding the principal Act during an evaluation of South Africa in 2003.
It recommended that South Africa should give adequate powers to a supervisory body to enable them to enforce the provisions of the principal Act. The problem with the principal Act was that it provided for enforcement through criminal sanctions only. That posed serious challenges because some of the offences were merely of a regulatory nature.
The Financial Intelligence Centre could not enforce compliance through administrative penalties or sanctions as the principal Act had not conferred such powers on the centre. An effective regulator must possess the power to enforce compliance through administrative sanctions. This is an established international practice. Hence the Financial Action Task Force on Money-laundering recommended that South Africa should pay attention to this matter.
The Financial Intelligence Centre must have powers to undertake inspections, issue directives, request information, impose administrative sanctions and institute proceedings in the High court. This Bill addresses these shortcomings.
The Financial Intelligence Centre can approach the High Court to compel an accountable institution to comply with any provisions of the principal Act or stop contravening the Act. The centre can also restrain an accountable institution from conducting business pending an application in court.
There are certain interested parties who perceived the powers conferred on the centre as unconstitutional, especially those dealing with administrative sanctions. We sought legal advice on this matter when we were dealing with the Pension Fund Amendment Bill in 2007. There is no substance in this argument. It is an established international practice to confer such powers to a supervisory body. The hon Sibidla will elaborate on the enforcement provisions contained in the Bill in greater detail.
There are those who contest that certain provisions of the Bill are not consistent with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. There is no substance to this argument also. The provisions in this Bill regarding the appeal processes are fair and just.
Firstly, an institution or person may appeal against a decision of the centre to the appeal board. Secondly, the decision of the appeal board may be taken on appeal to the High Court as if it were a decision of a magistrate in a civil matter.
Let me turn to another matter that sparked heated debates, that is the consultation process. There are some interested parties who are of the view that there was not sufficient consultation on this Bill. The information presented to us by the National Treasury clearly indicates that there was sufficient consultation.
A consultation document was circulated for comment in November 2006 to all supervisory bodies and representatives serving on the Money-laundering Advisory Council for comment.
The document was also placed on the Financial Intelligence Centre’s website inviting interested parties to comment by 26 January 2007. The submissions were considered and incorporated into the draft Bill. We are satisfied that there was adequate consultation during the drafting of this Bill given the evidence presented before us.
This Bill enhances the sharing of information and co-operation between the centre, supervisory bodies and law enforcement agencies. The sharing of information and co-operation are critical to the successful implementation of this Bill, and ultimately, the prosecution of criminals.
We need to deal a fatal blow to organised crime. Therefore, we appeal to our law enforcement agencies to build investigation and analytical capacity among their members. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S J F MARAIS: Madam Speaker, I want to start off by complimenting Minister Manuel and the National Treasury on their continued performance, as well as the Portfolio Committee on Finance for the high level of deliberations.
Suid-Afrika doen nie sake in isolasie nie. Ons is afhanklik van internasionale handel en beleggings en ons moet die internasionale beleggers en handelsvennote die versekering kan gee dat ons ’n finansiële bestel het wat betroubaar, geloofwaardig en bo verdenking is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[South Africa is not trading in isolation. We are dependent on international trade and investments and must be able to give trading partners the assurance that we have a financial system that is reliable, credible and above suspicion.]
In order to combat money-laundering and related criminal activities, the Financial Intelligence Centre Act will impose control obligations on accountable institutions to identify clients, report transactions to the Financial Intelligence Centre, FIC, etc, with supervisory bodies who will perform supervisory functions.
A review of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act became necessary in order to comply with the 2003 Financial Action Task Force’s international standards and also to try and restore our image which is currently seen and perceived to be a haven for fraudsters and money-laundering operators, for which drastic measures are urgently required. Although the FATF has recommended that South Africa should give adequate responsibilities and powers directly to supervisory bodies, the FIC proposed that this authority be provided to them primarily. Questions have been raised regarding the low rate of prosecutions. The Treasury stated the lack in express provisions establishing administrative enforcement structures and powers in the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, which impact negatively on the administration of the principal Act, and is limiting the effectiveness of the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing regime.
Die DA steun die beginsel van hierdie wet heelhartig, maar daar is tog kommer oor die effektiewe implementering in die praktyk. Die taak kan nie vermag word sonder dat alle belanghebbende partye deel is van die proses nie. Hoewel ons verseker is dat almal geraadpleeg is, kom dit teenstrydig voor met die inligting wat ons bekom het van veral die Banking Association of South Africa en die Law Society of South Africa. Hierdie organisasies en hul lede is myns insiens onontbeerlik vir die suksesvolle implementering, maar het hulle onopgeloste bekommernisse. Sonder die bedryf se inkoop, kan verwag word dat die wet dalk nie veel meer werd gaan wees as bloot ’n gebaar om die internasionale besorgdhede te probeer sus nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The DA wholeheartedly supports the principle of this Bill, but is however concerned about its effective implementation in practice. The task cannot be done without involving all the stakeholders in the process. Even though we were given the assurance that everyone was consulted, it seems to be inconsistent with the information that we received from particularly the Banking Association of South Africa and the Law Society of South Africa. These organisations and their members are, as far as I am concerned, indispensable for successful implementation, but they do have their unresolved concerns. Without the industry buying into it, it can be expected that the Bill may be nothing more than a mere gesture to pacify international anxieties.]
The Bill provides wide-ranging powers – all discretionary, without guidelines - on the exercise of the discretion. The centre will now have the power, for instance, to issue a written directive to any category of accountable institutions. It also adds the responsibility of supervising compliance to the functions of all supervisory bodies with the principal Act and provides for a range of powers to conduct inspections and impose a range of substantial administrative penalties. There is no indication, however, as to how these adjudicative administrative powers will be exercised and how an accountable institution can access courts if it wants to challenge a directive.
We are in need of a policy to effectively counter money-laundering, the financing of terrorism and other related criminal activities.
Ek vertrou dat die versekering wat Tesourie en die FIC my gegee het dat hierdie uitstaande besorgdhede van die bedryfsrolspelers aangespreek sal word en ek versoek ook dat hulle dan aan die portefeuljekomitee daaroor moet terugrapporteer.
Die Minister het die goedkeuring van hierdie wetsontwerp nodig om die internasionale gemeenskap gerus te stel en daarom sal die DA die aanvaarding van hierdie wetsontwerp met die genoemde kwalifikasies steun. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[I trust the assurance given to me by the Treasury and the FIC that these unresolved concerns of the role-players in the industry will be addressed, and I also request that they report back to the portfolio committee in this regard.
The Minister needs this Bill to be approved in order to put the international community at ease, and therefore the DA will support this Bill with the above-mentioned qualifications. I thank you.]
Mr N SINGH: Chairperson, money-laundering, criminal financing and terrorist financing are some of the most serious commercial crimes facing not just South Africa, but also the entire international community.
Post the September 11, 2001 attacks, or 9/11 as it is known, the international community became much more vigilant in countering these crimes through a series of statutes and procedures. The hon Moloto did indicate that the Financial Intelligence Centre Act was passed in 2001. However, there was a need for the review of the implementation of the Act which was suggested by the Financial Action Task Force, which showed up certain shortcomings. So, the Bill before the House today aims to do exactly that. Very importantly, it moves enforcement from a criminal perspective only to an administrative enforcement – a process that will hopefully be more streamlined, quicker to respond and would remove some of the pressure on our criminal justice system. The IFP supports this shift.
Among others, the Bill turns the centre into a super regulator – a provision that caused some debate amongst sectors that already have their own regulators. A legitimate question raised in the committee was whether these regulators which already perform a supervisory role will be supplanted with more powers by the centre. The IFP hopes that the expanded role given to the centre will not lead to this situation. Hopefully there will be better co-ordination and co-operation between various regulators and not conflict which would paralyze enforcement. We do hope that there is no toe trampling and blurring of responsibilities. All regulators are urged to act with common purpose and vision.
The IFP would also have liked to see the scope of institutions covered by the Act being widened to cover all possibilities for money-laundering. But, however, most importantly, this Bill will stand or fall by its implementation. There is no point in having good legislation on paper that cannot be implemented in practice. For instance, the budgetary implications for this Bill have not yet been fully costed and, as a party, we find that problematic. What the legislation is in effect doing is presenting the centre with a blank cheque which it might use when approaching the Treasury for future funding. For this reason, the IFP will be monitoring the implementation of this Bill very carefully to ensure that it will indeed be an improvement on the principal Act.
The IFP will, however, support the Bill. Thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, the Bill before us seeks to plug existing gaps and ensure compliance with the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, standards. A consequence of noncompliance was an unfavourable credit rating for the country and affected the risk factor perceived by foreign investors. It is essential that the country’s risk for money-laundering and terror financing is minimised resulting in South Africa being rated a better credit risk and a better choice for investors.
South Africa has been described as being very vulnerable to crime syndicates. Whilst the Financial Intelligence Centre, FIC, has been an effective weapon in the fight against money-laundering in South Africa, much still needs to be done. At present, agencies such as commercial banks and other role-players are required to report any suspicious transactions. As a consequence, 21 466 suspicious transactions were received for the period 2006-07, of which 549 referrals, amounting to R1,4 billion, have been referred to the investigating authorities.
The need, thus, for an effective FIC in combating money–laundering and terrorism cannot be overemphasised. However, certain concerns have been expressed that the FIC will become a super regulator and that turf wars will result. The ACDP understands that the intention of the Bill was not for the FIC to supervise other supervisory bodies, such as the Financial Services Board.
However, the new functions and powers contained in the Bill will no doubt put pressure on those existing relationships. The Bill, therefore, gives recognition to various Memoranda of Understanding to define the relationships between the various parties. Both the FIC and supervisory bodies may appoint inspectors on either a permanent or an ad hoc basis. The FIC would only take action if there was no supervisor in place or where there was a supervisory failure.
In view of these welcome developments and the need for an effective FIC, the ACDP will support this Bill. I thank you.
Ms N N SIBHIDLA: Chairperson, the main objective of this Bill is to provide for an administrative enforcement framework within which administrative penalties, under the principal Act, can be applied in deserving matters. The Act, as it stands today, provides for enforcement of its provisions through criminal sanctions and requires the involvement of a number of law- enforcement agencies. This makes enforcement inappropriate for measures that are regulatory in nature.
The current model lacks an administrative process, which will provide a more flexible and efficient way of addressing certain contraventions of the Act. Therefore, the proposals in front of us are meant to allow the centre to respond effectively towards all kinds of breaches of the principal Act. The penalties, among others, include issuing a warning or reprimand, issuing a directive to take remedial action, or a suspension of certain business activities, to mention a few.
It further gives powers to assist the centre and supervisory bodies in determining when compliance failure occur, as well as an appeal procedure concerning sanctions imposed by the centre. We think that by establishing an appeals board, in a way, this Bill deals with some of the concerns of those affected by this Act. During our hearings there were individuals who were not in favour of some of the amendments to control money-laundering – even some from this House chose to reserve their comments.
It is important to remind some members of this House, particularly those who chose to reserve their comments on the Bill, about the effects of money- laundering. Money-laundering has an effect on a number of areas like micro and macroeconomics. At a microeconomic level, the private sector is vulnerable to money-laundering due to what is termed as the ‘crowding-out effect’. Money-launderers tend to set up what is known as front companies where their profits are not the proceeds from the business itself, but from some form of criminal activity. These front companies often offer their products at a very low price, giving them an undeserved competitive advantage. Legitimate businesses then cannot compete as there is no fair competition involved and are, therefore, forced to close shop, resulting in workers ending up unemployed.
At a macroeconomic level, money-laundering can force countries to make policy mistakes due to measurement errors in macroeconomic statistics arising from money-laundering. At this level, money-laundering can also lead to misallocation of resources due to distortions in relative asset commodity prices arising from money-laundering activities.
I have highlighted just a few of the serious effects of money-laundering and hope that those who think that money-laundering does not have victims, may now be convinced otherwise. From what I have said on how money- laundering can affect the social and financial wellbeing of every individual, it is clear that, if it goes unchecked, money-laundering is detrimental to economic development. It damages the financial institutions, impairs productivity, and can even distort a country’s international capital flow.
Money-laundering is a threat to the proper functioning of a country and its financial system. Therefore, the efforts of the ANC-led government to legislate and enforce laws to combat money-laundering are efforts to make crime not worth committing and not just punishing the perpetrators. The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, I want to express my appreciation to all parties for their support for this piece of legislation. It is a very necessary piece of legislation and a necessary set of amendments, as hon members have indicated.
I think part of what we have is a situation that, since 2001, different regulations have been applied differently. What we need to be able to do is to ensure that all the accountable institutions will respond in the appropriate manner and for that reason there needs to be some ability to lean on them because those responsibilities should not be taken too lightly.
The hon Marais made reference to the presence of some regulators and I think it is necessary for us to distinguish between regulators and what, in some instances, are industry associations. If you look at banks in South Africa, it is actually quite highly regulated. The Registrar of Banks located at the Reserve Bank has a very good and strong relationship and would be the regulator. That does not change the fact that the banking association has an important role to play as an industry association and they are not an accountable institution in the same sense of the word.
However, in respect of the legal profession, it is very difficult because the reach of the Law Society of South Africa is actually quite limited. And the ability to deal with that very necessary distinction between privilege and abuse is something that we have to work at continuously. I think we are persuaded that the National Law Society doesn’t quite exist and that there needs to be a different set of relationship structures within the provincial law societies, and hopefully these would not just follow the norms of the four provinces of the past.
I do want to give hon members the assurance that the idea is not to set up the FIC as a super regulator. It would cost an enormous amount of money and the systems to try and do that would just be an overwhelming task. We do want the FIC to have close relations with regulators.
I hope that part of what they would be able to do in the future is to also raise, in the context of Parliament, some naming and shaming of those accountable institutions that don’t want to perform their role. Then we have to get to the bottom of that. Then we would have a sense of who they are and where the abuse is. But I think we need to bring those issues into the open because it is one thing to pat the banks on the back for they know you as clients and all of the other things that they do but I think, by the same token, we must bring into the open those who don’t actually want to comply or play a role and some of them are state institutions. So, we need take some of those issues forward.
In respect of the cost that the hon Singh raised, I am assured that the cost at the Financial Intelligence Centre will be marginal. In the industry, by and large, accountable institutions should be already doing the things that the amendments require of them to do. So, I can’t really see save to try and duck and dive past the amendment proposed here. While the issue of costs have been raised as strongly as it has been in the course of the parliamentary hearings, clearly it is something that we will keep an eye on.
Again, Chairperson, I express appreciation for this Bill. Thank you.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(First Reading debate)
TAXATION LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, I have ten other Bills today, and this would greatly please the hon Ellis. We are debating the first instalment of this year’s taxation amendments, as contained in the Bill. These Bills were formally presented before this Assembly in March this year and a few remarks may be in order as a refresher of the issues that they presented.
The main objective of these Tax Bills is to adjust tax rates and monetary thresholds. Despite global uncertainty and rising inflation, we are in a position to once again afford some income tax relief across the board, especially for lower and middle-income salaried workers.
These Bills assist individuals by adjusting personal marginal brackets and thresholds for all income groups. For instance, up to R46 000 of annual income will now be exempted from income tax, and the top 40% marginal personal income tax rate now applies only once taxable incomes rise above R490 000. The tax-free interest income thresholds are also increased as a further inducement to promoting savings. On the supply side of our economy, the headline corporate income tax rate will decrease from 29 to 28%. I trust that this step would have inspired confidence in the local economy and will, over the medium-term, contribute towards high levels of investment growth and job creation.
In respect of pension and related administrative matters, while large-scale pension and social security reforms remain in the pipeline, various substantive and administrative tax changes are taking place to facilitate these larger reforms. This legislation clarifies all the various forms of private retirement vehicles available, as well as the process of transferring funds between these retirement vehicles.
This Bill further alleviates taxpayers’ provisional tax obligations when receiving retirement lump sums. Other key changes involve steps to improve the integrity of the pay-as-you-earn withholding system. This system is vital for overall retirement reform because the system itself would operate as a foundation for administration of the proposed compulsory social security and other retirement contribution.
An unfortunate by-product of tax systems is the problem of continued and sophisticated tax-avoiding schemes, despite the valiant efforts of the SA Revenue Service. The most significant avoidance currently at play is the misuse of intra-group relief. This relief was simply intended to allow for the deferral of gains when assets where transferred between companies within the same economic group. However, sophisticated tax planners have misused the exemptions so as to artificially create the wholesale exemption when selling controlling shares in companies. I am happy to announce that this potentially costly loophole has been closed without undermining legitimate transactions. This balanced approach allows us to protect the fiscus in a sustainable way.
As a final matter, the Bill contains relief measures that overcome isolated tax hurdles. For instance, taxpayers wishing to provide donations to public benefit organisations can now do so through the pay-as-you-earn system. Administrative tax penalties would be revamped in favour of more objective and transparent criteria. Foreign expatriates working within South Africa will receive a two-year exemption for fringe benefit housing allowances.
I believe that the Tax Bills being debated have been widely supported. Our efforts to maintain a responsible and equitable tax system of lowering tax rates when deemed appropriate and affordable while closing tax loopholes enjoyed by the select few would be the right thing to do. Again, I would like to thank the hon Nene and the members of the portfolio committee for their valuable role in this process. I thank you.
Mr N M NENE: Ngiyabonga Sihlalo na malungu ahloniphekile. [Thank you, Chairperson and hon members.]
The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill and the Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill, as the Minister has already indicated, are just the first instalments of legislation that give legal effect to this year’s tax proposals that were announced in the Budget Speech which he delivered on 20 February this year.
These Bills essentially cover the changes in rates, thresholds, technical changes and other urgent matters. For the purposes of this debate, I would be dealing with miscellaneous policy and administrative amendments, and my colleague Comrade Aaron Mnguni will deal with the changes in rates, thresholds and the urgent matters that I have referred to. In pursuit of the ANC’s agenda of a better life for all, and in response to the people’s call in 1955 when they called for sharing in the country’s wealth, it is imperative that attention be given to the redistribution of income through tax instruments.
Over the years, since the ANC came into power, tax reforms have played a key role in addressing the skewed distribution of income, which is symptomatic of all capitalist dispensations, and the apartheid one was one of the cruellest. Building on this foundation, this year’s Taxation Laws Amendment Bills take the process a step further. In line with the country’s campaign to attract scarce skills, last year – in 2007 - a number of amendments were proposed including the extension of a concession that foreign expatriates visiting South Africa could receive tax-free employer- provided accommodation for up to one year.
This exemption period is extended to two years, in line with temporary work permits. The rationale for this exemption is that it is understood that short-term expatriates normally retained their houses back home. However, this exemption is subject to a monetary ceiling equal to the lesser of 25% of monthly salary or R25 000 per month.
In order to develop research and development, section 11(d)(7) is amended to extend the 150% deduction to the receiving taxpayer where funding came from the other party as opposed to only exempting the funding party. This had the disadvantage of defeating its purpose if the funding party was outside the tax net. Research and development was conducted on behalf of the funding party.
Last year’s adjustments provided for the re-organisation of collective investment schemes with unintended consequences. The amendment clarifies the eligibility of permissible active participation of any controlled group company in relation to the company that is issuing the shares. Some of the submissions on this matter revealed some startling evidence that the committee would be keen to follow up on, particularly as it relates to the black economic empowerment transactions, mergers and acquisitions. The committee is currently considering holding hearings on these subjects so as to get to the bottom of this.
On employee’s tax, it is proposed that no employee’s tax be set off against a taxpayer’s normal tax liability, unless the employer has submitted an acceptable annual reconciliation to the SA Revenue Service. This ensures that the employee is assessed on a fair basis. These amendments also propose an overhaul of the administrative penalty system by introducing a more objective system that creates a more certain environment for taxpayers. Personal income tax is further simplified by proposing that taxpayers no longer have to submit supporting documents when filing their tax returns. This is an ongoing process that we have seen being implemented already during this past tax year. Taxpayers are, however, required to keep their supporting documents for a period of five years, after which these may be discarded.
It is also proposed that employers that fail to submit the pay-as-you- earn/IRP5 reconciliation should be penalised. In the briefing by Sars on their strategic plan, we were informed that it was well underway and that the co-operation from the employers was encouraging. As members will be aware, filing season has also been delayed in order to allow the employers time for preparations for the new system. The SA Revenue Service is also assisting employers with the necessary software in order to implement the system smoothly. A number of submissions were received and processed before the committee with regard to these amendments. I must admit that the time allocated to deal with such large volumes of submissions had not been adequate and a number of presenters raised this matter with the committee. We hope that in future this will be addressed - all in the interests of participatory democracy.
Allow me to extend our gratitude to the team from National Treasury and SA Revenue Service for the time, energy and passion they dedicated to the process. The committee members were under tremendous pressure to digest and plough through the large volumes of information with very little or no technical and administrative support, and the overworked staff was equally tremendous.
As I have indicated, this is but the first instalment of our tax legislation this year. We will return to this House with the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill later in the year and plead for your indulgence in advance. The committee supported these Bills unanimously. I thank you.
Dr D T GEORGE: Chairperson, government does not control the economy, but it is a key participant in the economy. The role of government is to facilitate a stable macroeconomic environment.
The major instruments available to government are monetary and fiscal policy. These policies should work together. Monetary policy seeks to influence the quantity of money available in the economy. Fiscal policy influences the level and composition of government spending and taxation, and is designed to stabilise the business cycle. The basic principle of fiscal policy is that it stimulates the economy when there is a downturn, and restrains the economy when it grows too fast.
The Taxation Laws Amendment Bills give effect to some of the tax proposals presented by the Minister of Finance in the 2008 national Budget. The Bills amend various tax rates and thresholds. In determining tax rates, monetary and fiscal policy needs to be co-ordinated. It doesn’t make sense to give with one hand and take away with the other. Reducing personal income tax places more disposable income into the hands of consumers, and can stimulate consumer demand. If supply does not also increase, the result is price increases.
The modest adjustment to personal income tax rates is not intended to stimulate consumer demand. It is intended to compensate lower-income earners for inflation that has eroded their purchasing power. We support this position, although it has not fully compensated, as intended, given rapidly rising price increases. We recommend that future tax rates amendments should adjust more appropriately for fiscal drag.
The reduction in the corporate tax rate is in line with the DA’s alternative budget proposals. The Bill clarifies aspects of pension tax administration within the Income Tax Act. A review of the tax regime applicable to pension funds is long overdue. Very few South Africans make sufficient provision for retirement, and the tax regime should be structured to encourage the accumulation of assets for retirement.
The process to restructure our social security system has begun and presents an opportunity to align fiscal policy to achieve this objective. It is possible to stimulate retirement funding through innovative taxation, as demonstrated internationally.
A tax system should be as simple as possible. The cost of compliance is a real cost to society. Steps to reduce the tax compliance burden on small businesses are welcomed, and more should be introduced. Small businesses are the job creators and should receive all the encouragement that they can get.
Although simplified individual income tax returns and a more objective penalty system will enhance the tax collection process, pre-filled returns may make the process much easier.
In view of South Africa’s critical skills shortage, the relaxation on expatriate housing is good for business. Further incentives should also be considered to attract the appropriate skills into the economy. Urgent anti- avoidance measures were introduced to closed, domestic and cross-border restructuring schemes. During the public hearings, it was concerning to note that some tax practitioners seem to hold the view that promoting abusive tax avoidance schemes is acceptable. This behaviour is bad for all taxpayers, given that taxes should be broadly-based, allowing tax rates to be as low as possible at all points. Abuse of the tax system prevents this from happening.
During the public hearings, it was encouraging to observe National Treasury engaging with various stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome, and to avoid unintended consequences in its anti-avoidance measures. This strengthens the social contract between government and taxpayers.
The fundamental purpose of taxes is to raise necessary revenue for programmes. Government should never forget that it is spending the people’s money, and that the people expect them to spend it wisely. We support the Bills. Thank you.
Mr N SINGH: Chairperson, as indicated by the hon Minister and the chairperson, the hon Nene, the Bill before the House arises from tax proposals contained in this year’s Budget announced by the Minister, and it provides, inter alia, for rates thresholds and anti-avoidance transactions that cost the national fiscus a large amount of money each year. We have been told that, later on this year, we will be looking at other tax legislation.
The IFP supports the proposals made in these Bills. We also want to express our appreciation for the wide-ranging nature of consultation that took place with stakeholders on the Bill. I cannot think of any stakeholder who did not at least have the opportunity to make an input into the final product.
However, notwithstanding a large number of submissions and public hearings, there were a number of grey areas in the drafts that needed clarification. Section 45 that deals with intra-group transactions was one such area, but we are satisfied that the consultation process has now clarified that section to the satisfaction of most.
There were initially some complaints that not enough time had been allowed for stakeholders to make inputs, a concern that we shared. However, after the public hearings, intensive discussions ensued that allowed more than enough time for all views to be heard.
Wilful anti-avoidance must be prevented at all costs, but I don’t believe that legitimate transactions are under the microscope in this legislation. We do know, as the Minister indicated, that there are some sophisticated tax planners. It was quite surprising, during the public hearings, to hear some interesting revelations. Some amendments to the Bill were withdrawn for further consideration.
In conclusion, as a party, we want to express our gratitude to Keith Engel of Treasury and Franz Tomasek of the SA Revenue Service and their teams for constructively engaging the committee and stakeholders in the process, leading to a better final product and more certainty for stakeholders. The IFP supports the Bills. Thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, I will focus on the tax returns issue.
The ACDP is pleased to note that tax return filing requirements in the case of individuals no longer requires a taxpayer to attach supporting documentation to his/her tax return. So, thank you, hon Minister. That affects us, and helps us greatly as Members of Parliament.
A far greater burden will be placed on the employer to provide the necessary pay-as-you-earn documentation to the SA Revenue Service. So, in our case, Parliament will be doing the work on our behalf. In view of this amendment, this will ensure that Sars has the power to prescribe the information and data from employers for reconciliation purposes.
We also welcome the fact that the administrative penalty regime is to be revamped by the insertion of section 75(b), and that a more objective penalty system is introduced that will be administered with a defined set of criteria. Interest will now also be charged against recalcitrant taxpayers in terms of an amendment to section 89 quat, and the ACDP encourages taxpayers to avoid paying interest by making additional payments. However, interest will also be paid to taxpayers who overpaid employees’ tax.
The ACDP supports these amendments. We support these Bills as well. Thank you.
Mr B A MNGUNI: Minister, Deputy Ministers, colleagues and the House at large, the chairperson and other colleagues have already covered most of the issues that the Bill seeks to address. However, I would like to emphasise a few points covered in the two Bills with regard to rates and thresholds.
Value-added tax remains unchanged at 14%. It has been at this level since 1992 and for good reason. VAT is the third largest source of revenue in the country. It is an indirect tax that is regressive, as it does not discriminate whether one is poor or rich. As a result of increasing oil and food prices, there is a call from quarters in society to abolish VAT from some of the basic food stuffs. The argument behind this call is that the poor will benefit from the zero-rated basic necessities. This is a very complex matter that requires an in-depth study or investigation. We should also avoid responding to temporary crises with solutions that are complex to manage in the long term. There has not been a scientific study to determine if this is really going to benefit the poor or end up in the pockets of the rich. One thing that is certain is that it is going to have an impact on revenue collected.
In the interest of small business and to bring them into the mainstream economy, VAT registration threshold was increased from R300 000 to a million rand. Registration will be compulsory in 2009. Although some lobby groups wanted this provision to be put into effect as from 1 March this year, the committee supported the SA Revenue Service’s proposal that it be effected in the coming year, seeing that the tax system needed to be simplified and, most importantly, some revenue was going to be forfeited if the effective date was brought forward. Again, people who were advocating for this change are not entrepreneurs running small grocery shops, corner shops or vegetable stalls but are well-established entities. However, one is not oblivious to the fact that they may be representing some of the clients who are in such businesses. The question becomes: At what cost?
With regards to section 44(3)(d) of the Value-Added Tax Act, it currently provides the SA Revenue, Sars, with the option of paying vendors VAT refunds through a third party nominated by that vendor. As the industry pointed out, using a third party for refund poses a risk of not getting such refunds. The proposal that this provision be withdrawn is reasonable, and we hope that Sars will be sympathetic to the vendors and accede to the amendments. I am of the view that this will be in the interest of facilitating and doing business cost-effectively.
Still under consideration is the proposed amendment of paragraph 28 of the fore-schedule to the Income Tax Act that seeks to permit the employees tax credit only if the employer properly accounted for the employees’ tax to Sars. The argument brought forward by the industry is that this provision unduly prejudices the employees who have, in good faith, had employees tax deducted. Whereas the envisaged transgression is on the part of the employer, but it is the employee who is penalised.
Clearly, with all the innovations of the so-called ‘washing machines’ in the practitioners’ industry, I think Sars is justified in making certain that the employers have duly passed on to the agency all tax deducted from employees. Although it might take a bit longer for the employee to be reimbursed, I think it is only fair that the agency certify the correctness of the information it gets from the industry. The unpleasant part of it is that there is no interest accrued on the credit due to the employee whilst the verification is taking place. However, employees cannot be penalised for the sins of their employers. Thank you. [Applause.] The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, let me again express my appreciation to all parties in the House. I think that if one looks at the debate in the committee on the Taxation Laws and Revenue Laws Amendment Bills, then one can see the collaboration at work across party lines but also between the committee and the executive, and I think that we greatly appreciate it. I want to express that appreciation because that is not a flash in the pan; it is an ongoing, strong relationship, and I know that all parties see the work of the SA Revenue Service as a matter of pride.
The hon Swart spoke of the changes in the administration system. Very importantly, the one appeal I want to make is that people should not throw away the supporting documents because I think we would like to spare people the embarrassment of not being able to produce these on demand.
Last Thursday, we announced the new filing season campaign. Prior to that, we had a meeting with a number of large businesses just to test how they would respond to some of the changes. The changes are about shifting a lot more of the responsibilities so that they can do the work once-off.
There is bit of an issue that we have to watch very closely because, if employers do not file, then the employees can’t get their IRP5 and would be placed in a difficult position. That puts a lot more pressure on Sars in a very short period of time, but it is something we have to watch very clearly and closely. We have had commitments from a number of large businesses to support this change, and I think that is to be encouraged. It is not just business but also tax advisors who are committed to trying to change this.
One of the big changes that will come about in the course of the next filing season is that one will receive a blank letter, but if you want to file a tax return, then the onus is on the individual to collect the form. The form will be populated. All of the data will be on there because the details on the IRP5 will then be printed on the tax form, and that makes a very significant difference. It allows us to stagger the filing season - companies first, then individuals, and people who file electronically will have until 29 January to do so. This should be a bit difficult in the beginning, but I think that we need to ensure that there is a high level of participation and the necessary education. What Sars will do is to have very high visibility of staff at various points assisting people and talking them through the issues over the next few months.
But the Bill is not about that. It is about changes to the taxation laws. That is supported, but is also supported in the environment where there are very significant administrative improvements. [Applause.]
I want to expression appreciation to all parties in the House for the support. Thank you. Debate concluded.
Taxation Laws Amendment Bill read a first time.
Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill read a second time.
TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
There was no debate.
Bill read a second time.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL COURTS
AMENDMENT BILL
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Baba Mhlanga, ngiphakamisa: [Hon Mhlanga, I move:]
Ukuthi siwamukele Umbiko. [That the Report be adopted.]
Motion agreed to. Report accordingly adopted.
JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL COURTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, hon members, it is with great pleasure that I present this proposed legislation to the House. Upfront, I would like to thank the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, the hon Mr Yunus Carrim, and members of the committee for considering this Bill, notwithstanding their tight schedule.
The proposed legislation is important for the transformation of the judicial and legal sector as it will enable people previously excluded from justice services to have access to such services. It is of course our commitment as this government to contribute towards a better life for all our citizens.
The Bill will cure the defects in the current court system, in particular the jurisdictional competency of the magistracy. When the regional courts were established in 1952, they were not conferred with civil jurisdiction. They could only hear serious criminal offences other than treason and murder and only in 1990 was their jurisdiction extended to include murder. But, of course, over the years, there has been a delegation of civil jurisdiction to the lower courts and the hierarchy is dependent upon the action and quantum.
I won’t go into that but just want to say that the important point that we really want to put across is that what was established in the old Bantustans and rural areas were not proper courts, but branch courts and periodic courts. In terms of this arrangement, civil disputes could only be dealt with at the seat of the proper courts which were beyond the reach of many citizens living in the former black townships and rural areas. The consequence of this arrangement, for example, is that people from Soweto, which is made up of a conglomerate of townships with a population in excess of 3,4 million, have to approach the magistrates’ court in Johannesburg, commonly referred to as 15 Market Street and designated formally or at the time was proclaimed as the Ferreirasdorp Magistrate’s Court. This court, as we all know, has been congested and it is indeed sad that a population of 3,4 million could not be properly served with appropriate justice services.
I would like to refer to a quote from the Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, opening a magistrates’ conference in September, whose focus was the transformation of the judiciary, in particular the magistracy. He then talked about this history, this baggage from our past, and said:
These features of the magistracy were in great part a product of the times. The colonial, and later the apartheid government, sought to exercise governmental authority over vast tracts of land, vast numbers of people. This they sought to do by a trickle of governmental decoys with the least public resources.
This is the reality. Even today we are struggling with this reality. With regard to courts, he went on to say:
Magistrates’ offices served mainly the poor and often those discriminated against on grounds of race, gender and disability. In short, the magistracy served mainly the disenfranchised and marginalized members of society. The ruling party and the economically powerful often sought and found judicial solace in the superior courts. There was therefore no pressing need to reform the magistracy in a way that would respond to the needs of an open, democratic and just society.
In fact, colleagues, the many complaints I have heard from citizens across the country relate to lack of access to courts dealing with family matters in particular, especially the area of divorce. For the entire Republic, three divisions of the Black Divorce Courts were established in 1929, namely: the North East Division with its seat in Durban, which serves some of the areas in the old KwaZulu-Natal, Transvaal, Lebowa, Venda – that is Gauteng, Limpopo and indeed Venda which is now in Limpopo; the Central Division with its seat in Johannesburg which serves part of the Transvaal, part of the old Bophuthatswana – North West, and the Southern Division with its seat in King William’s Town which serves the area in the Eastern Cape. I hope you have noted how widely the service areas for Johannesburg were defined. Regardless of where people stayed then, they were expected to file their cases at the seat of the three courts. Imagine the inconvenience. So, this has been a complaint of our people every time we went to izimbizo.
In 1997 the Divorce Courts were deracialised to bring them in line with the constitutional order. However, their demarcated areas were left unchanged. The pilot Family Court Centres established in some of the major towns did not remove but did in fact minimise the hardships endured by people in far- flung areas, away from such courts. Through this Bill, the Divorce Courts and the pilot centres of the Family Court Centres will be integrated into the regional courts. We have allocated funds for the creation of additional registrars and administrative pools to deal with the extended civil regional courts’ jurisdiction provided for in this Bill.
The creation of the additional judicial posts for the civil jurisdiction regional courts will ensure that the current criminal jurisdiction regional courts are not diverted from the current heavy criminal case load. Anyway, we’ve many appropriate arrangements and I am convinced that the arrangements made are adequate. I want to assure the chairperson of the committee that we will take seriously the advice given to us.
This Bill is supported by the judiciary and the legal profession. I request the House to support this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J B SIBANYONI: Ngithokoze kuSihlalo, kuboNgqongqotjhe nakumalunga ahloniphekileko wePalamende. [Thank you, Chairman, Ministers and hon Members of Parliament.]
The Bill we are debating today is intended to amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act, so as to extend civil jurisdiction and the jurisdiction to adjudicate divorce matters to the regional courts.
First and foremost, I would like to state that the Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Amendment Bill goes a long way in the strive to transform the judiciary and to provide access to justice for all.
Regional courts were established in 1952 with criminal jurisdiction to hear all matters except murder and high treason. From their establishment until the demise of apartheid in 1994, regional courts focused solely on serious crimes, most of which involved offences under the terrorism legislation and the legislation aimed at curbing resistance against the oppressive laws and policies of the erstwhile government.
Due to their exclusive criminal jurisdiction, the regional court mainly drew and continues to draw its magistrates from the prosecution and less from the legal profession, which is the trend with the High Court. This anomaly further exacerbates the situation at the High Court in that although the regional courts are seen to be the intermediate court between the district courts and the High Court, magistrates of the District Court are more likely to be appointed at the High Court than the regional courts. This is simply because the regional courts are perceived to be criminal courts while district courts are seen as courts of law. This distinction no longer finds application in our constitutional democracy.
UmThethomlingwa lo uqalene nokukghonakalisa kobana woke umuntu anikel we ilungelo lobulungiswa lokobana akghone ukunghonghoyila. Lokhu kufaka hlangana imilandu yomphakathi neyomndeni leyo engararululwa ngokusetjenziswa komthetho, lokho siqunto esingathathwa yiKhotho yeRijini.
Umnqopho womthetho otjhukunyisiweko lo, unikela ilwazi elingaphezu komThetho wesaHlukaniso nomTthetho womNdeni, begodu unabela ehlelweni loke lomthetho womphakathi. Ezakhamizini, ukunabiswa komThetho lo kusukela emthethweni womphakathi ukufikela eKhotho yesiGodi, uzakungezelela ikghono lokusetjenziswa komthetho malunga womphakathi malungana nokurarulula imiraro yemilandu yomphakathi nokuthola isizo lezomthetho. Imilandu engaquntwa yiKhotho ePhakemeko ngileyo edlula isamba semali engange R100 000 enikelwa amaKhotho wesiYingi lokho kuquntwa yiKhotho yesiGodi. Lokhu kuzakwehlisa iindleko zomlandu ngokuthi akuzokufana neKhotho ePhakemeko lapho imilandu yomphakathi ithatha isikhathi seminyaka emibili ukuya kwemine. Imilandu izakusetjenzwa msinyana emaKhotho wesiGodi wona afikelwa ngobuduze.
Abamangali bangafaka iimbawo zokumangala ngokwabo nanyana basebenzise abajameli ukubalekela ukusebenzisa amagqwetha wamajaji, lokho kuyinto efunwa yiKhotho ePhakemeko begodu kubangela iindleko eziphezulu zemilandu enarheni yekhethu.
Kilokhu kuzakuzuza abatlhagako namalunga womphakathi angakghoni ukulandela iimbawo zawo zokumangala eKhotho ePhakemeko ngonobangela weendleko eziphezulu zemilandu.
UmThethomlingwa lo umuhlahlandlela wemilandu yokuhlukanisa amaKhotho wesiGodi esikhundleni seendleko eziphezulu zeKhotho ePhakamileko kunye nekhotho yesahlukaniso leyo edzimelele emithethweni yebandlululo. Ikhotho yesahlukaniso yanje, iziinsalela zeKhotho yekadeni yabantu abanzima yesahlukaniso eyasungulwa ngokomThetho wokuPhathwa kwaBantu abaNzima we- 1929, ukusebenzela abantu abanzima.
Ikhotho le iyincenye yamakhetho eyasungulelwa ukuphatha abantu abanzima ngokuhlukileko kurhulumende wakadeni webandlululo. Nanyana kwabakhona ukunatjiswa kwekhotho yesahlukaniso kizozoke iinhlanga ngomnyaka we-1986, ikhotho le isesenamatshwayo wakade nemikhawulo efaka lokhu, kutjho bonyana nemithetho isafana. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[The Bill seeks to enhance access to justice in that every person should be given the right to have any dispute, including civil and family disputes that can be resolved by the application of the law, decided by the regional court.
The intention of the proposed legislation goes beyond divorce and family law disputes and extends to the entire civil system. To the citizens, the extension of this law to the jurisdiction of the regional court will increase access to justice for members of the community in relation to the resolution of civil disputes and to have access to legal services. Matters that would ordinarily be decided by the High Court are those that exceed the monetary value of R100 000. Certain matters presented to the district courts, will now be decided by the regional courts. This will reduce the cost of litigation in that, unlike the High Court, where the average case cycle for civil matters takes between 2 to 4 years, cases will be dealt with much more quickly at the regional courts, which are within easy access in terms of proximity.
Litigants can litigate on their own or use attorneys for their cases and thus avoid the use of advocates, which is required in the High Court that adds to the high cost of litigation in our country.
This will benefit the poor and the indigent members of society who are not able to pursue their civil disputes in the High Court due to the high cost of litigation.
The Bill is the guide to divorce cases in the regional courts, instead of the more costly High Court and the Divorce Court that still uses the apartheid policies. The current Divorce Court is the remnant of the old Black Divorce Court which was established in terms of the Black Administration Act of 1929 to serve the black people. This court forms part of the courts which were established to form a separate administration for blacks as part of the policy of the old apartheid government.
Despite the extension of the Divorce Court to all races in 1986, this court is still characterised by its original features in that its territorial jurisdiction is the same, as are the rules applicable to this court.]
Currently, litigants must file their summonses and pleadings not only outside their magisterial district but also outside the province of residence. After this Bill has become law, married couples who want to divorce will be able to do so in the regional courts where they reside.
Presiding officers of the Divorce Courts, who are not regarded as magistrates, are appointed at the Divorce Courts and move in circuits to cover the vast areas covered by each of the courts, sitting an average of one day per month in any designated area.
Not only is our Constitution perceived as exemplary by most constitutional democracies, but it is unique in more than one sense. It enshrined in section 34, the right of access to court, which is uncommon in other jurisprudence.
In so far as the judiciary is concerned, the proposed legislation seeks to streamline the judicial process and create a single career pathing for judicial officers. The Act, as revolutionary as it is, will be implemented incrementally. Parliament has been assured by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development that additional budget will be provided annually to increase the capacity of the regional courts by appointing more regional court magistrates, building more courts and improving infrastructure at courts.
Linked to the implementation plan is the assurance that there will be an intensive judicial education programme that will be designed in conjunction with the judiciary to ensure that a regional court magistrate who was excluded from the practical application of the civil law is reskilled to apply this vital branch of the law.
There are no strong objections to the principles articulated by the Bill. The few magistrates who advocate the retention of the current Divorce Courts base their views on the fact that Divorce Courts have shown a high level of efficiency and are surprised by government’s move to scrap them. The argument misses the point in that their integration into the ordinary regional courts is not influenced by their individual performance. It is not whether they operate rightly in the eyes of some but it is whether they do the right thing in performing constitutional mandate.
The proposed legislation is geared to streamline services relating to justice and to respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of a modern society - a caring society - in the manner that increases access to justice. In their current form, regional courts lack these attributes.
During its 52nd national conference held at Polokwane, in Limpopo, December 2007, the ruling party of South Africa - the ANC - noted as follows: ``There have been great strides in transforming the judiciary but more still must be done.’’
Ngifuna ukutjho Sihlalo bonyana lokhu kuzokwenza bona abantu bekhethu bakwazi ukufinyelela emakhotho wabo kalula. Njenganje umuntu ohlala e- Nelspruit, ikhotho yakhe isePitori, umuntu ohlala eMafikeng nakafuna ukutlhala uya ePitori. Njenganje abantu bazakuba nelungelo lokuthi bakwazi ukufaka isahlukaniso namkha umlandu wokutlhala i-divorce la bahlala khona. Abantu abahlala e-Witbank emalahleni bazakwazi ukufaka isibawo sesahlukaniso khona ekhotho yaseMalahleni. Begodu nomuntu ohlala e- Kwaggafontein uzakuba nelungelo lokufaka isahlukaniso ekhotho yaseMkobola. Lokhu kuzokunikela abantu ilungelo lokuthi bafinyelele kalula emakhotho la bangathola khona isizo.
Abomarhastrada bazokwazi bonyana nabafunde zoke iimfundo zemithetho emaNyunivesithi bangasebenzisi umthetho munye nasele bakhethwe ukuba bomarhastrada besifunda namkha besigodi, batholakale basebenzisa umthetho munye. Okwanjesi sebazakwazi ukusebenzisa imithetho yemibango yemilandu ama- civil cases, begodu nemithetho yobulelesi ama-criminal cases. Okukhulu wukuthi bakwazi ukusega imilandu yokutlhalana namkha ama-divorce. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[Chairman I would like to say that this will enable our people to access their courts easily. Right now, somebody who resides in Nelspruit, has to attend a court in Pretoria. If a person who resides in Mafikeng wants to apply for a divorce he has to go to Pretoria. Now people will have the right to apply for their divorce cases where they reside. People who reside in Emalahleni, Witbank, will be able to file their divorce applications at Emalahleni Court. And even the person who resides in Kwaggafontein will have a right to file his divorce application at Mkobola Court. This will give people the right to easily access their courts for assistance.
After the magistrates complete their law studies at universities, they do not use one law, but when they are chosen to be provincial or regional magistrates, they should be able to implement one law. They will be able to implement laws pertaining to civil and criminal cases. The most important thing is that they should be able to adjudicate divorce cases.]
The ANC supports this Bill. I thank you.
Mnr L K JOUBERT: Voorsitter, agb lede, ek was nie veronderstel om vandag aan hierdie debat deel te neem nie. My kollega en vriend, Dr Tertius Delport, hoofwoordvoerder van die DA oor justisie sou ons spreker gewees het. Hy het egter ’n hartaanval gehad en het ’n ernstige hartomleidingoperasie ondergaan en sal vir ’n tyd lank nie by ons wees nie. Ek vra vir u om asseblief aan hom en sy familie te dink in julle gebede. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr L K JOUBERT: Chairperson, hon members, I was not supposed to participate in this debate today. My colleague and friend, Dr Tertius Delport, the DA’s chief spokesperson on justice, should have been our speaker. However, he has had a heart attack and had to undergo serious heart bypass surgery and will not be with us for quite a while. I ask that you extend your thoughts and prayers to him and his family.]
The DA welcomes the Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Amendment Bill, as we welcome all measures to improve our justice system. This, of course, is an interim measure pending the further rationalisation of our courts, which is a constitutional imperative that we still have to comply with more than 12 years down the line. We realise that this is a complex matter, but if Napoleon succeeded in codifying all French law in less time, surely we should be able to do better in this day and age. It is regrettable that we still do not have a clear picture of the final rationalisation of our courts, and we seem to be doing this in piecemeal way.
I say this because the portfolio committee is at present also busy with the renaming of the High Courts Bill and the Traditional Courts Bill. One gets the impression that there is no holistic vision of what South Africa really needs, so in the meantime we tinkle with the existing structures. What we need is a clear picture of where we are taking our court system, and that – I am afraid – is not forthcoming. As far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned, I am happy to state that our concerns were addressed, especially the one about the regional magistrates being adequately vested in civil law.
Dr Delport, as chairman of the training committee of the Magistrates Commission, felt very strongly about this issue, and we are satisfied with the provisions for training of regional magistrates as stipulated in the Bill. Another concern we had was the backlogs in our regional courts, and it was felt that the regional courts will be overburdened if civil jurisdiction is added to their already heavy workload. The promise of more than 50 new regional magistrates posts alleviate our fears, and we can only urge the department to start filling the posts without delay, preferably from the private sector, as it would otherwise just amount to playing musical chairs.
In as much as we are today, in adopting this Bill, dissolving the Divorce Courts I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to salute the presiding officers of those courts who, over many years, gave so diligently to us. Although the Divorce Court has its origin in racial legislation, in later years it became a model court and, in my experience, is the best organised of all courts that I attended as a practitioner. I can only hope that now that they will be part of the regional courts they will transfer their excellence to these courts. I thank you.
Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, as the title suggests, the Bill before the House today seeks to extend the jurisdiction of regional courts, as distinct from district courts from hearing only criminal matters, to the hearing of civil disputes and divorce matters.
Whereas before district courts had jurisdiction to deal with certain specified civil cases up to a R100 000, at present regional courts have no civil jurisdiction. The Bill proposes that such jurisdiction be bestowed on regional courts in respect of divorce proceedings, and matters relating to the nullity of marriage. This provision will thus change years of standardised divorce procedural matters in terms of both the Magistrates Courts Act of 1944 and the Black Administration Act of 1929.
By merging divorce courts so that they become part of regional courts, all presiding officers and other personnel are also to be merged by the same process. It is envisaged that members and officers of regional courts would receive additional and specialised training for their new roles.
The IFP welcomes the proposed amendments as they would contribute towards enhancing access to justice for all and the transformation of justice, the state and society, and recognizing the need for the lower courts to mirror their counterparts, the superior courts, where appropriate.
The IFP feels that by increasing the jurisdiction of the regional courts, the judicial expertise of magistrates will further develop, thereby increasing the pool of suitable candidates from which appointments could be made to the bench of the superior courts. The IFP will support the Bill. Thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, the ACDP notes the concerns that were expressed by various parties that the department would be shooting itself in its foot by extending jurisdiction to courts that were already overburdened. Concerns were expressed that courts currently experience hefty backlogs in criminal matters, with regional courts facing a 43% backlog of criminal trials last year. However, the department responded that civil jurisdiction would be extended on an incremental approach as capacity developed.
Now, Ms Atteridge, a senior magistrate in Cape Town, made an impassioned plea regarding access. She pointed out that access to justice entailed that, when the facilities and services were utilised, they must comply with minimum standards to ensure the dignity of people. She cited the example of people having to wait outside in the sun or rain to access fundamental services.
I raised certain questions with the department, particularly relating to the civil jurisdiction of district courts, and I was pleased with the answer that it would be increased from R100 000 to R300 000 and that, in itself, would allay the burden on both regional and High Courts. To allay concerns on the lack of capacity and the impact of this Bill on the backlog of regional court cases, we welcome and support that an incremental approach be implemented as capacity and skills are developed. So, for these reasons, the ACDP will support this legislation.
Let me also take this opportunity to express our sentiments for a speedy recovery to Dr Delport, after his heart bypass operation. Thank you very much. Mr S SIMMONS: Chair, hon Minister, and colleagues, section 165(4) of the Constitution requires that courts be accessible and effective, amongst others. The National Alliance supports any effort to achieve these constitutional imperatives, including the Bill before us in the House. We are still a long way from a truly effective and accessible judiciary, and therefore, the interim status of this measure has to be emphasised. It therefore goes without saying that greater levels of concrete and practical efforts are needed to ensure that all people enjoy the benefits of an accessible and effective judicial system.
A need exists for a streamlined judiciary, capable of serving all South Africans. In this regard the National Alliance will, in the forthcoming Budget Vote, outline a proposal for a municipal court system with greater responsibilities, thereby bringing our courts closer to the people. This proposal will include a practical proposal on giving ordinary South Africans greater access to legal aid. The National Alliance supports this Bill. Thank you.
Mr Y I CARRIM: Chairperson, comrades and friends, we welcome this very necessary and long-overdue Bill, particularly because it’s a further shedding of the legacy of our apartheid past and, more significantly, it advances our transformation of the judicial system and the criminal justice system as a whole, in particular in making the court system more accessible to the people.
Mr Sibanyoni has, of course, dealt with many aspects of that, not least the inexpensive, more accessible process that this Bill provides for. But of course I do accept what hon Mr Leon Joubert says, namely that the department could have done better and that this Bill could have been brought before this Parliament sooner. But he will know more than I perhaps as a lawyer that transforming the judiciary, that is, transforming the criminal justice system, poses challenges that are especially unique and extremely difficult to overcome. Often you have to carry with you key stakeholders in the criminal justice system and in particular the judiciary.
So, I think that, yes, we could have done better and I think maybe the Minister herself might concede but, no, it’s not easy. Furthermore, too, this Parliament has a role. We, as a portfolio committee, have a role as contributors as well. What, after all, is a system of co-operate governance if not serving to provide the space to do precisely that?
I think hon Mr Joubert is both wrong and right that elements of the overall vision are there and in fact that aspects of the strategy are there. It’s just that we require more co-ordination. And that, too, is not a responsibility that falls solely on the shoulders of the executive; it also falls on Parliament, civil society and many other stakeholders in the criminal justice system as a whole.
Mr Sibanyoni has dealt with many key things that relate to the value of this Bill, and so have other members, much of which one can find little to disagree with.
I will actually take us through very quickly, in the three to four minutes I’ve got left, our report that we submitted on this Bill to the ATC for publication, close of course to our finalisation of it.
We want to stress that we think that there are very good characteristics of the Divorce Courts, and these characteristics must be drawn on in the way we integrate the Divorce Courts into the regional courts. We are especially pleased, let us add, hon Minister, that there is a very incremental process. We must stress to this House that in fact it’s not as if civil jurisdiction will be heaped onto the regional courts overnight. The Minister will do so incrementally and base this on the capacity of the respective regional courts to actually manage civil jurisdiction and on some acknowledgement of the number of backlog cases they have in respect of criminal cases and so on and so on. We think it is a very sound, very sober, very temperate process that will be effected by the finalisation of this Bill through both Houses.
We want to say that in fact we received various submissions right up to the last moment that we processed the Bill. We think that the department could have done more to secure the participation of some of the stakeholders. In fact, they did that but perhaps not enough. Finally, on the role of Parliament, that is what we are here for and stakeholders have a right to come to us even after they have been turned down by the executive, and I must stress that the department is extremely co-operative.
Before my time runs out, let me, in the middle of my speech in so far as there is coherence in the speech at all, add that I must thank hon Johnny de Lange and hon J B Skhosana, who actually led the process by the department. Thanks go to our excellent secretary “Lolly” Phumelele Sibisi for her work and to our very good researcher, Christine Silkstone, for the background work that they did.
Now there are many issues, I must stress, that will arise in the processing of this Bill through interaction with stakeholders that we won’t be able obviously, hon Minister, to address in the Bill nor indeed did we carry them in our full report. We think that it helped us to understand aspects of the overall criminal justice system. I want you, through this House, to communicate in so far as you can to the stakeholders who came that many of the issues that you have raised, Christine Silkstone has taken down and we will feed it into the process of the further transformation of the criminal justice system. Of course we will, all of us, hopefully, as committee chair… I see the Chief Whip is here writing exact reports for incoming committees and the incoming chair and, by that stage, I may be a ambassador in Mongolia, and who knows, the Minister might be in Alaska as an ambassador. The issues still remain. It doesn’t matter where Comrade Mabandla is next year March. I would prefer Alaska, by the way, Chief Whip and I think hon Minister Brigitte Mabandla will prefer Mongolia because I can deal with winter probably better than she can because I spent a few years in England.
Let me stress, I am being kind to the Minister not because I’m servile to her, but because we are comrades. So, Chief Whip, please note that I prefer Alaska as some have noted. Thank you very much, all of you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
REPEAL OF BLACK ADMINISTRATION ACT AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Legislative Proposal)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:
That the House, in terms of Rule 238(3), gives permission for the legislative proposal to be proceeded with.
Motion agreed to. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS ON BUDGET, STRATEGIC PLAN AND PRIORITIES OF THE SABC BOARD
Mr I VADI: Chairperson, over the last three weeks, the media and opposition MPs have had a field day commenting on the report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications. The report expressed a serious concern at developments at the SA Broadcasting Corporation, and the loss of confidence in the ability of the SABC board to discharge its statutory responsibilities.
Most have interpreted the crisis at Auckland Park as part of the fallout within the ANC after its Polokwane conference. For example, the hon Dene Smuts has said that “the atmosphere is thick with conspiracy and political purges”. Suzanne Vos from the IFP has said that “the in-fighting was the result of there being two centres of power in the ANC”.
Similarly the Sunday Times’ editorial claimed that “Corporate governance and effective management at the SABC has all but collapsed as a result of the fight in the ruling ANC for political control of the public broadcaster”. Jabulani Sikhakane, from The Star, drawing on Cold War symbolism, stated that “It would appear the Polokwane brigade, as in the new leadership of the ANC, has found its own pair of testicles to squeeze: the Scorpions and the SABC.”
Pippa Green says that –
There is little nobility in the battle raging at Auckland Park, and no obvious winner. There is a loser, though, and that is the country, which has seen an institution that should be a foundation of democracy crumble because of factional political battles.”
Of course any major development today must be located in its political context. It would be foolish not to do so, but what these journalists and opposition members fail to realise is that Parliament must act when there are clear signs of a leadership breakdown in a state-owned entity. Parliament must act when it becomes apparent that a board of a state-owned entity has become dysfunctional.
The committee’s drastic display of displeasure against the SABC board is about the right of Parliament to exercise effective oversight over the public broadcaster, rather than about factional strife in the ANC. It is principally about public accountability of an institution that spends from the public purse.
Secondly, it must be remembered that the problems at the SABC did not start on 30 April when the committee expressed its loss of confidence in the board. In fact, the problems can be traced back at least two years. There is a long string of events that were either administratively mismanaged or just not tackled at all. To start with, there were media reports in June 2006 of the blacklisting of selected political commentators and journalists by the SABC’s head of news and current affairs. Later, there was the appointment of the Sisulu Commission of Inquiry into the matter. We must state today that the recommendations of the Sisulu Commission were virtually ignored by the executive management of the SABC.
Then, in early 2007, there were media exposures of financial irregularities and a conflict of interest by the head of legal services of the SABC, which were also not dealt with decisively. This was followed by serious allegations of mismanagement, racism and staff in-fighting in a number of regional offices of the SABC. Then came the news early this year that the SABC has lost its broadcasting rights for soccer, cricket and rugby to a privately-owned TV channel.
I suppose the final straw for the committee was the leaking to the Sunday Times of a company memorandum by a board member. The memorandum contained serious allegations against the group Chief Executive Officer of the SABC.
The group CEO, of course, disputed the facts raised in the memorandum, and placed on record that it contained factual inaccuracies and misleading information. He expressed his extreme displeasure at the allegations levelled against him. He informed the committee that he first became aware of the memorandum through the media, and despite requests to meet with the board to resolve the matter, the board had refused to meet him.
What happened after that is history. The group CEO suspended Dr Snuki Zikalala. This was followed by the midnight suspension of Mr Dali Mpofu and then his reinstatement by the courts. Only two days ago, the board announced that it is appealing against the court’s decision. So, the SABC saga drags on.
In all of this, what the committee found is that there was a complete breakdown in the relationship between the SABC board and its executive management. There was no trust between the board and the group CEO. There were no mechanisms or processes in place to resolve differences satisfactorily between the board and the executive management. Further, the board was not in a position to execute its responsibilities effectively.
The committee is fully conscious of the fact that neither it nor Parliament has the legal power to remove a board member or the board as a whole, but it also cannot turn a blind eye to the crisis that exists at Auckland Park.
We therefore recommend to the House that, at the very least, it expresses its serious concern at the failure and inability of the board to fulfil to its statutory functions. Secondly, the House should express its loss of confidence in the board. In doing so, we must be clear that we are not taking sides between the board and the group CEO. Our criticisms are aimed at the board as a collective entity.
Having said that, I must emphasise that there is today an urgent need for the board to reclaim some degree of public trust and confidence. In this regard, and in the light of the controversy that has dodged this board since its inception, I would respectfully appeal to each and every member of the board to search his or her conscience. I would also appeal to each member to ask himself or herself two simple questions: “Am I serving the best interests of the public broadcaster?” Secondly: “Am I discharging my responsibilities in the best way possible?” If the person’s answer is no, then such a person should take the honourable step and resign voluntarily. Thank you. [Applause.]
Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, the chairperson of the portfolio committee has just described the problems under the old SABC board and the problems created by the sitting GCEO Advocate Dali Mpofu to justify an attempted purge of the new board. Now I am going to tell it the way it was and is.
Sir, when the outgoing government intimidates ANC MPs into inserting three names over and above the eight which all MPs from all parties unanimously supported for the SABC, then that is bad but it is not a Mbeki board. However, when the incoming government or parts of the Tripartite Alliance try to intimidate the whole newly appointed board into resigning, that is worse. Who will be next? The SA Human Rights Council, the Independent Electoral Commission, IEC or judges? Sir, those persons are protected from arbitrary attack in Parliament by the requirement that a substantive motion has to be brought.
The SABC is not as grand as they are, although it enjoys the same appointment procedure, but that does not mean you can make unsubstantiated attacks on them. It does not mean you can unseat them. I am withdrawing my proposal that we should amend the Broadcasting Act’s removal provision to give Parliament a role, because Parliament, in that committee, does not seem to understand that a person let alone a body of persons has to do their job badly or do something wrong before you can act against them.
Do not think for one moment that the twin suspensions at the SABC or the Mpofu court verdict means the ANC MPs had a case against the board. Not only did they not have a case, they never formulated a complaint; they never formulated a charge. Therefore no evidence was offered, and the board hardly knew from day one to day two what defence to offer, indeed even that they had to offer one since they never knew what they stood accused of until the sentence was pronounced, out of the blue, and the verdict.
It is only the Queen of Hearts, you know, from Alice in Wonderland, who believes “the sentence comes first, the verdict afterwards.” And even the King and the Queen of Hearts had the hang of the idea of a trial or an inquiry because the Knave of Hearts knew he stood accused of something - the board didn’t. The Knave of Hearts knew that that something was specifically the stealing of the tarts, all on a summer’s day. You are the members of the South African Parliament and this report before you, printed on Friday 16 May purports to be, as its heading indicates, about the budget, strategic plan and priorities of the SABC.
However, these matters have not been discussed to this day. They have not been read by the ANC MPs, I will tell you that. On 29 April, the ANC insisted, contrary to practice, that the whole board should fly in to see - read your report- “whether they collectively take ownership of the strategic plan”. Did they bake these tarts? You would have expected therefore that this plan would have formed at least the basis of the next day’s discussion, not to mention the eventual damning findings: “That there is serious concern at the failure and inability of the board to fulfil its statutory duties”, and that “it was not in a position to execute its fiduciary duties.” Really? Really, so they cannot bake tarts? How do you know?
Not a single question was asked on these matters, not a word. The reports were not dealt with and yet you see it fit to bring such findings.
Now let me tell you what the deliberations in the committee did consist of on day two, 30 April, until we walked out when a motion of no confidence was pulled like a white rabbit out of a Mad Hatter’s hat. It is a thing that has no basis and no effect, such a vote of no confidence, as we said as we walked out. A motion of no confidence will not be put in this House today because you cannot put such a thing.
The ANC’s recommended motion also has no substance. The proceedings on day two consisted of an ambush. The Chair announced at the commencement that what was now on the table, today, was a different tray of tarts altogether, namely the memorandum leaked to the Sunday Times. It was not tabled. I haven’t read it; the hon Kgotso Khumalo said he hadn’t read it. He must not tell us here today, by the way, that there were other unresolved issues, as the Chair has just tried to do.
The new board reported on those outstanding issues inherited from the old board on 27 February. Mr Khumalo says with a straight face that the committee has not been briefed on the Premier Soccer League, PSL, radio soccer rights. We have, by Mr Peter Mancer of the PSL. There is one issue you never want to deal with - politics in Sea Point - and when the hon Vos tried to raise it very substantively, you silenced her.
So this report misleads when it says: “The following issues pertaining to the SABC were considered” and then lists matters from point one through to point six. They were not considered. Sir, the half dozen board members present on day two were challenged, at forefinger nail-point of impressive length, by the hon Lumka Yengeni to say one by one whether they took ownership, line by line, not of the strategic plan for which they had been summoned to fly in, but of the memorandum posted on the Sunday Times website. “Off with their heads! - as the Queen of Hearts used to say in Alice in Wonderland.
Now let me tell you why the board was really flown in. They were flown in for a staged showdown with their own management. The management were presumptively offered protection. Now you really don’t need privilege to complain that the board didn’t see you as a collective, but insisted on its own person-to-person procedure. That is really all this entire motion rests on: So-called differences driven by MPs, I am sorry to say, supported by Mrs Nzimande, who felt that the memorandum about Adv Mpofu was really about them all. Fine, go down with Dali, as far as I’m concerned.
This is another attempted purge like Blade Nzimande’s attempt to tell Media 24 to purge Mathata Tsedu. The ANC has not proved a thing against a four- month old board which it damns, when I think the board is trying to deal precisely with old problems, including the loss of not one but two sets of sports rights by a CEO who would long ago have been sacked in the private commercial broadcasting sphere.
It is unacceptable when MPs orchestrate differences or collude with management to get rid of a board that they appointed which is actually trying to do its work. I think that it is one of many purges being carried out in this country by an incoming power bloc, which sweeps procedure and justice aside, and it is a phenomenon that concerns me very deeply. [Applause.]
Ms S C VOS: Chairperson, the IFP will not support this report, because essentially it is a report with a manipulative party-political motive. The post-Polokwane ANC alliance wants to get rid of this pre-Polokwane ANC alliance SABC board. The issue is very clear; it is one of using Parliament here today in an attempt to set a process in motion to wrench control of the SABC board into new hands. This report has no precedence and no substance in law. This Parliament cannot sack this board, and we all know it.
Late last year, the IFP opposed the recommendation of appointment, by the President, of this Board as currently constituted in both the Portfolio Committee on Communications and in Parliament. Both times the ANC in the portfolio committee and in this House voted down our genuine concerns. We agree that there are serious problems in the SABC. We agree that serious problems exist in both the governance and management of the SABC, but let us be clear with regard to this report: The subject matter of the budget, strategic plan and priorities of the SABC has not been dealt with by the committee, as Mrs Smuts so clearly said, including the very serious allegations of fraud, racism and political interference pertaining to the SABC Sea Point office, which I raised over and over again with no result.
We all know what lies at the heart of these problems, and it is that the SABC has been steadfastly turned by the ANC alliance back into an apartheid- style state broadcaster. The ANC alliance crammed the SABC with party- political appointments and now we are seeing the result. Politicians, and politicians in the ruling party in particular, have let the SABC down and have let the people of South Africa down. The IFP therefore believes that the Broadcasting Act and all other relevant consequential laws must now be urgently amended to allow for the independent selection and appointment of the SABC board and board members to be made beyond party-political control. The selection of the SABC board must be taken away from Parliament. A new procedure for the public selection of the board must now be put into motion. Thank you.
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Chairperson, what is clear from this committee report and the events that had transpired in the past few weeks is that there is a serious conflict in the upper echelons of the SABC. The board as the ultimate authority should take responsibility for allowing this conflict to spiral out of control. I, however, must hasten to add that the source of this conflict seems to revolve around the factional infighting of the ANC with certain people in institutions like the SABC being viewed as members of the faction that has fallen into disfavour.
Despite the many valid concerns regarding the SABC, which are alluded to in the committee report, one can’t help but notice that these concerns are only now deemed critical enough to warrant drastic action from the side of the committee. We also have our reservations about the conduct of the SABC, and hope that any changes to the membership of the board or the activities of the board will translate in a marked change in the conduct of the SABC as a whole, especially the news department.
For us the solution is not for one politically biased board to be replaced with another that is more acceptable to the ruling faction. The board of the SABC as well as the staff of the SABC need to unshackle themselves from the long history of compliance to whosoever is ruling the country.
The SABC is the public broadcaster, and its first and only concern should be the needs of the public. The culture of pre-emptive self-censorship and blinkered pandering to the perceived expressed wishes of the ruling party must come to an end. The UDM does not support this report and will not be party to the vote of no confidence proposed by the ruling party. Thank you.
Mr L W GREYLING: Chairperson, the ID believes that it is completely unacceptable that the SABC has become mired in controversy due to the ANC’s infighting. This mess goes against our public broadcaster’s constitutional mandate by our people.
What is being forgotten in this crisis is the effect it is having on our journalists; they are the victims because they are the ones who take their duty to South Africans seriously. They can no longer show their accreditation with pride. The SABC has already lost so many brilliant journalists to other media companies, and we simply cannot afford to lose any more.
Because the Portfolio Committee on Communications does not have the power to remove the existing board, the ID fails to see what we can gain from this process except the continuation of the destructive stalemates. Unless the President acts, and the ID doubts that he will, we are stuck with this board. It would therefore be far better to try and find an amicable solution with all parties concerned. Surely this is a better option than fanning the flames of political division to the detriment of news and journalists alike.
The ID pleads with all of you to help remove the politics from the SABC for once and for all and that in future any appointment to the board or top management not be based on political affiliations. Only in this way can the public and the SABC journalists be assured that party-political commissars like Snuki Zikalala will not tamper with the information that is beamed into our homes.
The ID will therefore not support this report, and calls upon the committee to play a constructive role in resolving this mess. Thank you.
Mr S N NXUMALO: Chairperson, hon members, as the Portfolio Committee on Communications, we executed our duties as permitted by law on the selection of members of the SA Broadcasting Corporation board. Advertising, shortlisting, and interviews were held which finally came up with names that we agreed we can propose to Parliament. We came to Parliament with the list of names although there were clouds hanging over some names.
We proposed those names to be voted for by this House. This House voted for those which were eventually signed in by the President and the board officially resumed their duties as of 1 January 2008.
Yaqala inkathazo ngalelo langa. Ekuqaleni kukaFebruwari 2008, kwaba khona umhlangano weBhodi wokuqala obizwa ngokuthiwa yi-Induction workshop. Laliphelele iBhodi kulo mhlangano. Uma ngithi laliphelele, ngisho ukuthi kwakukhona izinhlangothi zombili okungabaphathi abaholwa umpathi jikelele oyinhloko kanye nalaba abakhethwe yiPhalamende abayishumi nambili. Kwaba umhlangano onsuku mbili befundiswa abasha ukusebenza kweMinyango ye-SA Broadcasting Corporation, i-SABC, nezinhloko zayo. Kwaba sengathi izinto zizohamba kahle kanti asibuzanga elangeni.
Ngomhla zingama-29 kuMashi 2008, saba nomhlangano kuleli Bhodi bangafika bonke njengoba sasibazi beyishumi nambili. Emhlanganweni wokuqala nje sasicele ukuthi kube khona nabe-Premier Soccer League ukuze basichazele kahle ngodaba lokulahleka kwelungelo lokusakazwa komabonakude kwemidlalo yebhola lezinyawo. Ngaphambi komhlangano sathola incwadi ebhalwe umphathi jikelele ebuza ukuthi ukuphapha kwani lokhu esikwenzayo? Simusaphi lo muntu we-PSL? Wasabisa ngokuthi angase angezi uma kuza nomuntu we-PSL kodwa saqhubeka nokumletha phansi kwaleso simo.
Kulowo mhlangano ikomidi lethu lalinemibuzo eminingi elalifuna ukuyibuza iBhodi lakwaSABC. Nansi eminye yemibuzo: Udaba lwe-SABC namahhovisi ase- Seaboard lapha kwakubikwa ukuxabana kwezinhlanga kuze kungenele umthelela wezepolitiki. Okwesibili, udaba lwe-SABC namahhovisi ase-Free State ngoba nalapho kunezindaba ezijulile. Okwesithathu, sifuna ukwazi ngezinyathelo ezathathwa kulandela izincomo zeKhomishana ka-Marcus Sisulu lapho wayethe akuxoshwe uDokotela uSnuki Zikalala ngoba esolwa ngonyawo lwemfene. Okwesine, sifuna ukwazi ngamagama aziswana ayezwakale emthonjeni yabezindaba ethi uMmeli uDali Mpofu benoDkt uSnuki Zikala bezwakala bethi uma kungaphumelela uQabane uZuma - beze bembhuqa bemfanisa nenkawu - bona bosula ezikhundleni zabo. Sasifuna bacacise kulokhu. Kepha emhlanganweni, uSihlalo waleli Bhodi uNksz Mkhonza wavele wathi abazukuphendula nowodwa wale mibuzo ngoba iBhodi yabo iseyintsha. Wathi bayobuya basiphendule.
Ngomhla zizine ku-Ephreli, yena lowo Sihlalo uNksz Mkhonza wabhala imemorandamu igxeka ukusebenza kukaMmeli uDali Mpofu isho nokuthi uDali uyisikhubekiso ekusebenzeni kwakhe kungcono axoshwe, futhi usezikhethe yena noChristine Qunta no-Lagadien ukuba baphenye uDali Mpofu ukuze bathole izaba zokumxosha.
Ngomhlaka zingama-29 Ephreli, kwaba nomhlangano weBhodi elingaphelele, bengekho abaphathi lapho okwahletshwa khona ngabaphathi kulowo mhlangano. Ukukhuluma ngomuntu engekho kufana nokuhleba uma ungambizanga ngamabomu ekhona. Kwasabona laba bakhethwa beBhodi babengaphelele kuxoxwa ngale memorandamu eyayibhalwe usihlalo enxenxa abanye ukuba bameseke emizamweni yakhe yokuketula uDali. Abanye abayithandanga le nto. IBhodi lahlukana phakathi kwaba abayisikhombisa ngala kanye bayisihlanu ngale.
Ngomhla ziyi-13 Ephreli, le memorandamu yaputshukela kwabemithombo yezindaba. Ukusukela ngomhla zizine kuze kube umhla ziyi-13, leyo memorandamu yayingakafiki ezandleni zikaDali Mpofu. Ngomhla zingama-29 Ephreli 2008, i-SABC kwakufanele izokwethula isu lezinhlelo kanye nesabiwomali ezithebeni zekomiti. Bafika. IBhodi nabaphathi babemunye khona benhlanhlaka. Kwacaca ukuthi leli su lezinhlelo abathi bazolethula akuvunyelwene ngalo. Ikomiti lacela ukuthi beze sebephelele emhlanganweni wangakusasa. Ngomhla zingama-30 Ephreli, iningi labakhethwa beBhodi lafika emhlanganweni. Sekuxoxwa kwacaca ukuthi ibhodi lehlukene kabili - kukhona uMkhonza, uQunta, uLagadien abapheka futhi baxove izinto kwa-SABC. Abanye izimvu ezilandela osekushiwo. Emhlanganweni kwaba yingxovangxova phakathi kweBhodi nabaphathi. Usihlalo webhodi athi kukhona uphenyo abuye athi alukho, uDali athi namanje akakayitholi kwaleyo memorandamu uyifunda emaphepheni. Sangazi ukuthi silalele bani siyeke bani siyikomidi.
Kwacaca kodwa ukuthi ubudlelwano phakathi kwabo abusophinde bulunge ngenxa yokwehluleka kweBhodi ukukhomba indlela. Leli Bhodi iqeqeba labantu elingayazi into eliyenzayo futhi elingeke liphinde lilungiseke. Njengekomidi, sanquma ivoti yokungabethembi phecelezi Vote of no confidence kubona. Emva kwalokho, uDali Mpofu waxosha uSnuki Zikalala ntambana. Kwathi ngabo lobo busuku bangalala, iBhodi laxosha yena Dali lowo. [Uhleko.] Konakele e-Auckland Park, umaxoshaxoshana. [Uhleko.]
Umahluleli omkhulu wenkantolo eGoli uvumelene nathi siyikomidi ukuthi leli Bhodi umsangano nje. Izinqumo elizithathayo lizithatha limi ngezinyawo. Okubi kakhulu uSihlalo waleli Bhodi noma kunini nje akayiboni inkinga. Uma simshaya ngevoti lokungamethembi, uthi kuzoqhubeka izinto njengenjwayelo. Esinqumweni sikamehluleli uthi ayikho into enzima, bazolungisa into athe umehluleli ayihambanga kahle baphinde bamxoshe futhi uDali. Akanandaba nezindleko zecala. Sithi-ke siyikomidi kwanele manje ukudlala umjikajo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[And it was on that very first day that the problem started. At the beginning of February 2008, there was an induction workshop. All members of the board were present in that workshop. When I say the board members were all present, I mean that both parties were there, a team of managers led by the Group CEO as well as the other twelve board members who are elected by Parliament. They held a two-day workshop where new members were familiarised with the workings of the SABC and its heads of departments. Initially we thought that things would be alright, but we were wrong.
On 29 March 2008, we had a meeting with the board, but not all of them showed up. In that first meeting, we had asked the Premier Soccer League to send us one of their own people to explain to us how the SABC had lost the soccer broadcasting rights. And just before the meeting could sit, we received a letter from the Group CEO asking us why we were so meddlesome in things that did not concern us. He wanted to know our reason for requesting the presence of a person from the PSL. And he also threatened us that he might not even attend the meeting if we still insisted on having a representative from the PSL, but we went on to invite the PSL despite all that.
We had many questions that we as a committee wanted to ask the SABC board. Here are some of them: The issue of the SABC offices in Sea Point where it was reported that there were racial tensions amongst the groups and this was said to have included political bias. Secondly, there was the issue of the SABC and its Free State office - since it is known that there are also sensitive issues there. Thirdly, we wanted to know what steps were taken following the recommendations of the commission chaired by Sisulu and Marcus that Dr Snuki Zikalala should be fired because he was found to have acted inappropriately. Fourthly, we wanted to know about the derogatory words mentioned in the press which were allegedly uttered by both Adv Dali Mpofu and Dr Snuki Zikalala that if Comrade Zuma wins – whom they had allegedly likened to an ape – they would resign from their positions.
We wanted them to give clarity on this matter. But, in the meeting, the chairperson of the board, Ms Mkhonza, just said that they would not respond to any of these questions because the board was still new. She said they would respond at a later stage.
But, on the 4 April, the same chairperson, Ms Mkhonza, wrote a memorandum criticizing Adv Dali Mpofu’s work. It further stated that Adv Mpofu was a thorn in her side and it recommended that he be fired. She had already appointed herself, Christine Qunta and Lagadien to investigate Dali Mpofu so that they could find leverage to fire him. On 29 April, a meeting of the board was held and it comprised non-executive board members and that is when the back-stabbing of the executive members of the board was done. Talking about someone in their absence is tantamount to back-stabbing especially if you deliberately leave that person out. And not all non-executive members of the board were present when that memorandum was discussed where the chairperson was bidding other members to help her in her mission to topple Dali. Some did not like this and the board was divided into camps of seven members on the one side and five members on the other side.
On 13 April the very same memorandum was leaked to the press. As from 4 to 13 April, that memorandum had not been given to Dali Mpofu yet. On 29 April 2008, the SABC was supposed to come and present its strategic plan and its budget to the committee. The board presented itself. They seemed very united even though they were divided. It became clear that the strategic plan which they had to present was not agreed upon, and the committee requested that the whole SABC board be present at the following day’s meeting.
On 30 April, most non-executive board members were present in that meeting. It became clear during the discussions that the board was divided into two – on the one hand it was Mkhonza, Qunta and Lagadien who were conspiring and confusing matters at the SABC, and others were just merely seconding what had been presented. That meeting was a mess between the non-executive members of the board and the executive members. The chairperson was confusing those at the meeting by constantly saying there was an investigation going on and, at the same time she would also say there was none. And Dali on the other hand would say that he had not yet received the memorandum, but he had only read about it in the newspapers. As a committee we did not know who to believe and who not to.
It became clear that the relations between them would never improve because the board was unable to give guidance. This board is just a group of clueless people who do not know what they are doing and it will never come right. As a committee, we have decided to cast a vote of no confidence in this board. After that, in the evening, Dali Mpofu suspended Snuki Zikalala. And, in turn, the board couldn’t sleep, and it suspended Dali that same night. [Applause.] Something is wrong in Auckland Park; they are playing a firing game. [Applause.]
A judge in a Johannesburg High Court agreed with us as a committee that this board is just a nuisance. The decisions they are taking are inconclusive. And worst of all is that the chairperson of this board does not seem to see any problem in all this. When we cast the vote of no confidence in the board, she said that things would go on as usual. And, as far as the High Court’s ruling is concerned, she merely said there was nothing difficult there; they will simply follow the correct procedure and suspend Dali again. She does not seem to care about the expenses of the case. Therefore, as the committee, we are saying it is enough. The game is over.]
Now is the time!
Abesule bonke abebhodi ezikhundleni zabo. Asisabadingi. Abahambe. Sesiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] [All board members must resign; we don’t need them anymore. Let them go. We have had enough. [Applause.]]
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chair, the SA Broadcasting Corporation, the SABC, is supposed to be owned by the people of South Africa and be the voice of the people. The 1999 Broadcasting Act was supposed to have heralded a complete break from the old order where the SABC was the voice of the NP, when public interest was confused with narrow party interests. Yet, it is very clear that the SABC has been used to promote the ANC’s party interests. It is also very clear that the present crisis reflects the broader battle within the ANC - that of control of the SABC which would ensure that that faction of the ANC has greater control of the state broadcaster. Yet, again, the public interest is being confused with the party’s interests and, in this case, factions within the party.
It is disingenuous now for ANC MPs of the Portfolio Committee on Communications to move a vote of no confidence in the very board that it promoted last year. This only gives credence to concerns that it is because certain members of the board are seen to be Mbeki appointees, and find themselves within the wrong ANC camp.
The ACDP, whilst appreciating that certain board members did not meet the Act’s criteria of independence from the government and other interests, will not be part of a witch-hunt against board members by factions within the ANC. For this reason, the ACDP will not support the recommended ANC motion or vote of no confidence. Thank you.
Dr C P MULDER: Voorsitter, almal in Suid-Afrika word deur ’n wet van hierdie Raad verplig om ’n televisielisensie te betaal. Watter seggenskap het Suid-Afrikaners daarna oor wat die SABC dan met hul geld maak? is die vraag. Dit is een van die redes waarom die SABC-raad verslag doen aan die Nasionale Vergadering, maar om ’n geloofwaardige en onafhanklike openbare uitsaaier te hê, is dit baie belangrik dat dit baie duidelik moet wees dat daar ’n groot verskil is tussen “verslag doen aan” en “beheer uitoefen oor”.
Sedert 1994 is ek lid van die portefeuljekomitee wat aanbevelings aan die President doen oor die aanstel van die SABC-raad. Tot onlangs het ek met entoesiasme daaraan deelgeneem en dit was ’n sinvolle oefening, waar kandidate op meriete oorweeg is en daar saam gekyk is na wat in die beste belang is van Suid-Afrikaanse radioluisteraars en televisiekykers. Die laaste keer – veral die laaste twee keer – was dit baie duidelik dat die ANC-lede baie spesifieke instruksies gekry het wie om aan te stel en wie nie, ongeag die meriete van ’n persoon of sy haglike vertoning in die onderhoud. Met daardie werkswyse mors u my tyd en u vernietig die SABC se geloofwaardigheid.
Nadat die arme ANC-lede van die komitee in November hulle opdragte van Minister Pahad uitgevoer het, en ’n raad aangestel het wat dan pro-Mbeki is, kies die ANC in Desember mnr Zuma in Limpopo. In April, drie maande later, kry dieselfde ANC-komiteelede nuwe opdragte. Nou moet die pro-Mbeki raad verwyder word en met ’n pro-Zuma raad vervang word. Wat ’n gekkespul! Waar hulle in Desember volle vertroue in die SABC-raadslede gehad het, het hulle in April skielik geen vertroue meer in hulle nie. Die ANC-lede is nou gedienstig aan die nuwe ANC-base.
Ek wil voorspel dat die Mbeki-raadslede en –werknemers, soos dr Zikalala, op die kort termyn waarskynlik gaan oorleef, maar die Zuma-ondersteuners op die lang termyn gaan wen. Maar in die groot prentjie, sê ek vir u, in die proses vernietig u die geloofwaardigheid van die Parlement, van die portefeuljekomitee, van die SABC en van die openbare uitsaaier in Suid- Afrika. Dit is so jammer dat ons hierdie werkswyse op hierdie wyse volg. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, everyone in South Africa is compelled by an Act of this Assembly to pay for a television licence. The question arises: After they have done so, do South Africans have a say in the matter of how the SABC uses its money? This is one of the reasons why the SABC board reports to the National Assembly. However, in order to have a credible and independent public broadcaster, it is very important that it should be clear that there is a big difference between “reporting to” and “exercising control over”.
Since 1994, I have been a member of the portfolio committee that makes recommendations to the President on the appointment of the SABC board. Until recently, I enthusiastically participated in this process. It was a meaningful exercise, where candidates were considered on merit and together we looked at what was in the best interests of South African radio listeners and television viewers.
The last time – especially on the last two occasions – it became clear that the ANC members had very specific instructions about who to appoint and who not, irrespective of the merits of that person or his poor performance during the interview. With such a modus operandi you are wasting my time and destroying the credibility of the SABC.
After the poor ANC members of the committee had executed their orders from Minister Pahad in November, and appointed a council that was pro-Mbeki, the ANC elected Mr Zuma in Limpopo in December. In April, three months later, the same ANC committee members received new orders. Now the pro-Mbeki board has to be removed and replaced with a pro-Zuma board. What foolishness! Whereas they had full confidence in the members of the SABC board in December, all of a sudden, in April, they had no confidence in them at all. The ANC members are now bowing to the new ANC bosses.
I want to make a prediction that the Mbeki board members and employees, like Dr Zikalala, will in the short term most probably survive, but the Zuma supporters will win in the long term. But, in the bigger picture, I am telling you, you are destroying the credibility of Parliament, the portfolio committee and the SABC, the public broadcaster in South Africa, in the process. It is such a pity that we are doing things this way. I thank you.]
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, the FD will not support this report by the Portfolio Committee on Communications, for the following reasons.
Press freedom and the independence of the public broadcaster are concepts derived from the national values of open democracy and are protected by this country’s Constitution.
The SABC is a public facility with a mandate to build the democratic ethos of the nation. It should operate above political influence and it should hold power independent of government authority.
The problem with the SABC simply is that it is in a power-sharing relationship with government with nowhere to escape. The SABC was an instrument of the previous apartheid government, and today it is similarly serving the present government. What has happened at Polokwane is that there was a power shift. Before, it was easy for the SABC to be its master’s voice, but since there is a new master lurking in the shadows, the SABC no longer knows who the master’s voice is. This report is an attempt to purge the SABC in preparation for the newly elected pro-Zuma ANC National Executive Council, NEC. It is therefore to be expected that in a monopoly-charged environment such as in government’s overriding majority, struggle for power between factions will spill over into public arenas such as Parliament. The Portfolio Committee on Communications is an example of the way such hostility is displayed.
The issue is no longer about democratic governance but about political control over the instruments of government.
We may or may not have agreed with the President’s appointment of the SABC board, neither may we have liked the way the CEO of the SABC conducts business or the manner in which he was dismissed, but neither is it responsible oversight on the part of the Portfolio Committee on Communications to wish to oust the SABC board. Such actions will set precedents for abuse of state power. Thank you.
Mrs L E YENGENI: Hon Chairperson, I’m not going to divert from what I wanted to say by responding to people who have nothing else to do in this Parliament except to listen to what the ANC says, and oppose it. These are people who have no constituencies, who are paid taxpayers’ money, doing nothing for the community except to oppose the ANC. [Interjections.]
The only person I can respond to is hon Vos. At least there is something important that you’ve said; at least you agree with us that there are serious problems in the SABC. As for the rest, it is as if they have not spoken at all.
Since the leakage of the memorandum on 13 April 2008, the circus of the new SABC board was, again, on the front pages of the printed media and on the screens of the electronic media. The leakage opened a debate in the media that had partially subsided, a discussion on the representativity of the broad cross-section of our population on the SABC board.
Our alliance partners were amongst those organisations and individuals who criticised the composition of the SABC board. To our alliance partners, the absence of labour representatives was among their cause of dissatisfaction.
Despite all that was on air, as members of the ANC in that committee, we were aware of the difficulties that were faced both by the board and management. However, we gave them all the benefit of the doubt that they would overcome those obstacles and unite in performing their different mandates for a common objective. To our astonishment, only three members of the board appeared before the committee on 29 April 2008, and there were no valid reasons as to why the rest could not attend. This new board has only appeared before us once; it’s a new board so I don’t know what is usual about it. It would have been impossible to continue in the absence of other members of the board, especially because it was their second appearance before the committee. We also needed to be satisfied that the strategic plan was a product of a collective, despite rumours in the media that, in Auckland Park, the operating law was that of the jungle and that only the fittest survive. We sent them packing and demanded that the entire board and management be present when the meeting resumed the following day.
To our surprise, both the board and management were talking different languages on the issue of the memorandum. Our suspicion that the strategic plan might not have been done collectively was confirmed. It became clear that the new board rubberstamped what was essentially prepared by the previous board.
On the issue of the leaked memorandum, the chairperson appealed to the committee not to discuss it on the basis that it was being revised. The deputy chairperson supported the chairperson by saying that they realised that there were inaccuracies in the memorandum and might be contested. The board told us that the document would be brought to us when it had been finalised. However, we insisted that it had to be discussed.
It goes without saying that both the chairperson and the deputy of the SABC board misled Parliament because, amongst their reasons to suspend the group chief executive officer, GCEO, were things contained in the memorandum that were being revised, as it was not accurate according to them. Again, the chairperson’s actions contradicted what she told the parliamentary committee. The management also complained bitterly about the treatment at the hands of the board, and the inability of the board to take them into confidence.
The management requested a meeting to workshop issues on corporate governance, and their expectations were duly turned down by the board. Their second request to meet with the board after the leakage of the memorandum was also rejected. Instead, the members of the management were individually ambushed and answers demanded to questions posed by the board.
We are not suggesting that the management is perfect and has no contribution to the mess in Auckland Park, nor are we projecting that the GCEO is the Angel Gabriel. However, the board has an authority over the SABC executives. The board has a duty to intervene strategically where it is necessary. It is the duty of the board to promote good corporate governance, and a healthy working relationship between management and members. The least we are expecting from the board is to be accused of being untrustworthy and of being champions of confusion and anarchy, instead of providing leadership.
We suspected that there might be victimisation of management by the board after the meeting of 30 April 2008, and we encouraged all those who needed to get things off their chests to do so without fear. We also appealed to the board not to act against management on the basis of the discussions of 30 April, as that would be tantamount to victimisation of the members of the executive and abuse of power. Once more, our suspicions were proven correct.
We carefully observed what was going on in front of us. It was clear from the contradictions between the board and management that they were antagonistic. It was also clear that the board failed in performing its constitutional mandate. It was, without doubt, because trust had broken between the board and management. On that basis, we had to pass a vote of no confidence in the board. [Interjections.] If we had legislative powers to fire or to dissolve the board, today they would only exist in the history books.
As if all this drama was not enough, a few days later, we learnt that the Head of News and Current Affairs had been suspended for insubordination and leaking of confidential documents. Again, a few days later, the board suspended the GCEO. The rest is history.
Who, in this august House, except the DA, is not convinced that there is no authority or control in the SABC? Who, in this House, is prepared to put his neck on the block and convince this House that this board is capable of exercising its mandated powers, except the DA? [Interjections.]
Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act of 1999 deals with the removal of the board. As it is now, it is very unclear, ambiguous, and is subject to many interpretations. The ANC will have no option, but to insist on the amendment of the law so that, in future, when such scenarios occur, we know exactly who has to do what, when and how. [Interjections.] The judgment against the SABC board chairperson and the board itself was absolutely scathing and cutting to say the least.
The Supreme Court judge said that “the conduct of Ms Mkhonza falls short of what is expected of an independent director who should act without fear and favour, and with integrity and honesty.” These are harsh words, indeed. For a public official of a public broadcaster’s integrity and honesty to be questioned by a Supreme Court judge is a serious indictment of the person and of the entire board.
The ANC cannot ignore the fact that the integrity and honesty of this chairperson and her board has been questioned by a Supreme Court. This is exactly what the committee had seen long before the hon judge came to the same conclusion. The ANC, therefore, wholeheartedly concurs with the hon judge, and hereby calls upon the chairperson, Ms Mkhonza, and her board to do the honourable thing and resign, so that the committee can speedily put in place a mechanism for the selection and the appointment of the new board, which will start on a clean slate and which will do its job in a manner that is consistent with the spirit, letter, and provisions of our Constitution and law. I thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Before I recognise the Chief Whip, I am informed that some members of the board are here. You are welcome.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chariperson, I move:
That the Report be noted.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I wonder if you can explain to us exactly, or whether the Chief Whip would explain exactly what that means, because normally the call is for the report to be adopted. He is asking for the report to be noted which, in other words, means that is it simply noted, and there is no need for us to adopt the report.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon member, I think you know that it’s the procedure; either reports are noted or adopted. I’m not sure what it is that you are asking.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I ask you to please make absolutely certain that the Chief Whip of the ANC means what he says, and that is that the report will only be noted.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): That’s what I heard him saying – “noted”.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Yes, honestly, Chairperson, I think Mr Ellis is very familiar with the procedures in this House. A report is either rejected, noted or adopted, and we’ve done that many times. I don’t think that there’s anything unusual.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): What I heard, and let me repeat it, is that the Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved the motion that the report be noted.
Are there any objections? [Interjections.] Do I hear objections? There is no one standing to show their objections, so therefore, there’s none. [Interjections.] Hon members, can we please proceed on this matter? I know it’s very emotional for some of you, but we have to respect the House.
Mrs S A SEATON: The IFP will like to note its objection to the report even being noted.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): The IFP’s objection will be noted.
Mr L M GREEN: The Federation of Democrats will also …
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Order, just a minute.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Is the objection by noting suggesting that it’s adopted, from her point? [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): You can come back to your point, and then I will come back to that.
Mr L M GREEN: Yes, Chairperson. Despite that it is merely noted, the FD would also want you to note its objection to the report. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Order, hon members. I am just noting the objections, and there are two now. We proceed that it is agreed to with those two objections.
Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, if you would allow me. Is it possible to withdraw a report, because the situation clearly is that the ANC has been humiliated by its own portfolio committee member and does not wish to accept the report. [Interjections.] I applaud that. But the fact that you are noting doesn’t very clearly indicate that you are rejecting your own member’s report, and that I applaud. Is it not possible simply to withdraw?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): I don’t know what the difficulty is today with a noted report. We’ve been doing this all these years, and either a report is rejected, noted or adopted. [Interjections.] The Chief Whip of the Majority Party stood and said that the report should be noted, and there were two objections to it. We’ve noted those objections. Can we proceed on that particular order?
Mr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, to ensure that there is clarity, please note the rejection of the FF of the report. [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you very much.
Mr M J ELLIS: May I say, Sir, that the hon Nel is not entirely right. Very, very seldom do we simply note a report. Never, quite frankly, and he is making a desperate attempt to rescue his party from a particular situation that they have dug themselves into. But, in view of what other parties are doing, Mr Chairman, the DA would also like to have its objection to the notification of this report noted.
Mrs C DUDLEY: It is confusing because, obviously, the ACDP prefers it being noted to being accepted, but we will also register our objection to the whole thing.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you very much. It is noted.
Mr L W GREYLING: The ID would also like its opposition noted. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Noted.
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Chairperson, we’d also, as the UDM, like to register our objection to noting. Thank you. [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): I think the report has already been noted. Those who have expressed their objections to the noting will be recorded. Therefore, the report is agreed to … [Interjections.] … with objections.
Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): The motion is agreed to. Then the report …
Mrs S A SEATON: No, Chairperson. You have not put it to a vote. The motion is not agreed to.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, no one had called for that, because all of you were waiting for adoption. So now that the adoption did not come, the majority party said “noted”.
Now, I think there’s been that difficulty to say what it means. That is why hon Ellis even stood to ask what it means. Are we hearing it properly and all sorts of things? Now we have gone through that particular aspect, the objections of various parties have been noted. And then, therefore, the report is noted.
Mrs S A SEATON: I would question how a report can be noted when only one party …
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): The report is noted.
Mrs S A SEATON: One party notes is. The rest of the Parliament does not note it.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Well, I don’t have to say how many. The report is noted, and then the objections are also noted. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Alright, hon members, I will be going on to the next Order, because no one is calling for a division. So, the Secretary will read the last Order of the day. [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Hon Chairman, what are we going to divide on, Sir?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): You said noted.
Mr M J ELLIS: The report has been noted. You want us to divide on whether it should be noted or not. But you are saying …
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): I am just saying that I am proceeding now, because the report is noted, with the objections noted, and that’s it. [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: But you raised the issue, sir. You raised the issue of a division. Now we are not calling a division, because we are not adopting this report in this House; we are only noting it. That is fine. Motion agreed to (Inkatha Freedom Party, Federal Democrats, Freedom Front Plus, Democratic Alliance, Independent Democrats, African Christian Democratic Party and United Democratic Movement dissenting).
Report accordingly noted.
ACTING IN UNITY IN PURSUIT OF PEACE, DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
(Debate on Africa Day)
Ms H C MGABADELI: Madam Speaker, hon members, distinguished guests, friends and comrades, it is hot here. You can feel that.
Yebo, kuyashisa. Kushisiswa yini. [Yes, it is hot. But, what makes it hot?]
The debate on its own is proving to us that it is the other way round. The topic says “Acting in Unity in Pursuit of Peace, Development and Social Justice”, and it is what we have been seeing and not in this House only. I am saying that to talk about our own continent while we are inside its boundaries is something which not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do.
I would like to thank the Office of the Chief Whip that informed me yesterday afternoon that I will be participating in this event. Celebrating Africa Day to me means celebrating the whole package of good, as well as bad happenings of the past, present and those we will be faced with in the future.
This opportunity for today is opening my eyes to the following things: Within 10 minutes, you cannot define Africa Day; within 10 minutes you cannot give your colleagues the history of Africa; someone will have to do it on another day, when we really celebrate Africa Day as a parliament in Africa. As for what is happening now in some parts of Africa, particularly in the SADC region, we cannot be celebrating it. Somebody will have to talk and analyse this sudden burst of thunder.
We finally have to live up to each of the tasks of identifying those issues, if they do exist - those that unite in pursuit of peace, development and social justice - from this speech that I will be delivering. Identify it on your own at home, here with your family.
In doing so, I have decided to make use of the fallen hero of our soil, Steven Bantu Biko as my shield and my blanket to cover all of our African brothers, African sisters, our parents, our grandparents, Africa’s rivers, Africa’s valleys, Africa’s mountains, fountains, rains, the forest, the crocodiles and the dangerous as well as friendly animals, hiding in the rocks and hillocks of our continent to name but a few.
I am using Steven Bantu Biko to cover all of them. To dedicate this celebration, I will allow his own words to directly celebrate with us. I am going to request you to keep quiet. You can talk with your mouth, but to yourself. You should keep quiet and pretend as if Steve Biko is here with us and he is talking. If you love nature and you have been to a waterfall, just imagine you are at that water fall but there is no waterfalling, only Steve Biko’s voice flowing saying:
One of the most difficult things to do these days is to talk with authority on anything to do with African culture. Somehow Africans are not expected to have any deep understanding of their own culture or even themselves. Other people have become authorities on all aspects of the African life or, to be more accurate, on Bantu life. Thus we have the thickest of volumes on some of the strangest subjects - even the feeding habits of the urban Africans, a publication by a fairly ``liberal’’ group, the Institute of Race Relations.
He continues to say:
In my opinion it is not necessary to talk with Africans about African culture. However, in the light of the above statements, one realises that there is so much confusion sown, not only amongst casual non-African readers, but even amongst Africans themselves, that perhaps a sincere attempt should be made at emphasising the authentic cultural aspects of the African people by Africans themselves.
He continues again to say:
Since that unfortunate date – 1652 - we have been experiencing a process of acculturation. It is perhaps presumptuous to call it ``acculturation’’ because this term implies a fusion of different cultures. In our case this fusion has been extremely one-sided. The two major cultures that met and “fused” were the African culture and the Anglo-Boer culture. Whereas the African culture was unsophisticated and simple, the Anglo-Boer culture had all the trappings of a colonialist culture and therefore was heavily equipped for conquest. Where they could, they conquered by persuasion, using a highly exclusive religion that denounced all other Gods and demanded a strict code of behaviour with respect to clothing, education, ritual and custom. Where it was impossible to convert, firearms where readily available and used to advantage. Hence the Anglo- Boer culture was the more powerful culture in almost all facets. This is where the African began to lose a grip on himself and his surroundings.
You can come back now from your valley where you have been listening to the water called Steve Biko talking to us about Africa Day. This is the book he called I Write What I Like. This is not him now; it is me. When we celebrate Africa Day, we should be able to successfully monitor how far we have shifted as Africans from what the late Steve Biko said before he died at the age of 30. We should be able to see and plan carefully as to how best we can add more value towards him and others whom he worked and finally died for.
This topic, its content and its implementation … iyasetshenzelwa. Lolu xolo esikhuluma ngalo awulutholi uhlezi lapha emabhentshini futhi ubanga umsindo. Uyithola ngokuthi uye kubantu base-Afrika … [… are worked for. This peace that we are talking about is not achieved by merely sitting there on the benches and making noise. You get it by going out to the people of Africa …]
Who are both black and white. Hence we call them Afrikaners because they are Africans.
Uyaluthola ngokuthi uhambe uyosebenza; ungakhulumi ngalo lapha. [You get it by going out to work and not just by talking about it whilst you are sitting here.]
We should be able to see and plan carefully as to how best we can add more value to it. We are in Africa. Therefore, the celebration of Africa Day annually has to have its own committee that will ensure that the whole gallery of a parliament in Africa in Cape Town depicts the practical reality of Africa in its totality. Even the food from our restaurants in Parliament should also celebrate Africa Day on that day. I was eating there; there was nothing African about the food. When we want to create jobs in an African Parliament that is situated at the tip of Africa that is regarded to have resources, we should create jobs for people who are going to cook African food for us on Africa Day - potjiekos and breyani - and then we can talk on this good topic of “Acting in Unity in Pursuit of Peace, Development and Social Justice.
We really thank everyone for coming today. I hope the Africans that are sleeping peacefully are hearing us as we try to celebrate Africa Day.
Mayibuye i-Afrika! [Let Africa come back! [Applause.]
Ms S M CAMERER: Chairperson, this year’s Africa Day on Sunday is the 45th anniversary of the inauguration of the Organisation of African Unity, OAU, in 1963, representing the institutionalization of Pan-African ideals. Nearly a half a century later, there are reasons to celebrate as Africans but there is also a need to be realistic about the enormous challenges facing our continent.
First, the fact of Africa Day is itself a cause for celebration. The OAU’s successor organisation, the African Union, AU, was born nearly six years ago on South African soil and this is a timely reminder that all South Africans and indeed all Africans have a lot to be proud of.
Firstly we have made great strides towards Pan-Africanism through the establishment of the Pan-African Parliament, again an establishment which resides on South African soil. While there are problems with resourcing and this is still just a consultative body it is a step forward.
Secondly, the fact that the AU has adopted a much more interventionist stance through its legal framework and institutions is a sign of growing maturity. For example, the AU’s Peace and Security Council established in 2004 has facilitated the AU’s ability to manage and resolve conflicts on the continent and there is certainly a plethora of those - but that belongs to the bad news that I will get to later on. Peace-building interventions include Burundi and Dafur and Somalia.
That the AU has introduced a mechanism for Africa to set standards of governance for itself through the African Peer Review Mechanism is a further sign of our increasing maturity. More and more African states are embracing the notion that accountability and transparency are essential features of democratic government. It is still early days to declare these achievements as a watershed for Africa’s ability to adhere to good governance but these are good signs. We can only hope that there will be growing support and participation for the ARPM.
On the economic front there is much to celebrate in terms of a number of economic and political developments of importance to the economic wellbeing of Africa. For example, last year, the World Bank committed US$34,3 billion to 620 projects in African countries designed to overcome poverty and enhance growth. On average, African countries experienced a growth rate of 5,4% last year. According to the World Bank, this will have a significant impact on poverty reduction on the continent.
The growth is likely to extend for the next two years and the African Development Bank notes that “the rate of GDP growth is expected to strengthen to about 6% during this year. However African countries still need massively more investment to improve the lot of the 40% of the sub- Saharan population who still lives on US$ 1 a day. President Thabo Mbeki’s positive role in trying to persuade the G2O countries to make the policies of the International Monetary Fund, IMF, and World Bank more pro-poor and Africa-friendly should not go unnoticed.
In central Africa, the relaunched Burundi/Rwanda/DRC economic bloc should be a key step in restoring peace and stability to this region. This spirit of economic unity must be sustained to help Africa overcome the economic and social hardships that are still prominent in so many African countries.
With the first ever Fifa Soccer World Cup to be hosted on African soil within reach, it is expected that the continent will register greater levels of economic prosperity in the years to come. We all have a duty to ensure that the image of our country and our continent improves and, unfortunately, this is where the bad news comes in.
This debate is being held against a backdrop of an international media- feeding frenzy over the xenophobic attacks which started in Alexandra township and are now taking place around the country, though mostly in Gauteng. To see our own country erupt into the bloodiest violence against humanity that was last seen during apartheid is a shaming experience. It is embarrassing that, as we celebrate Africa Day, there are people out there killing our brothers and sisters from neighbouring countries.
From the start, the DA advocated that the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, be called in to assist the police to quell the violence and distribute humanitarian aid to victims, and we are glad that the President has at last listened. We can only hope that the violence can be smothered in a security blanket to give us time to return to normality and introduce much-needed measures to combat xenophobia.
Despite economic progress, on the political front in Africa things are not well. Within the past five months, the continent has had two elections which have resulted in bloodshed and violence and torture for those who voted against the government in power. In Kenya, more than 1 000 people were killed in post-election violence. In Zimbabwe, up to 300 people are believed to have been killed while hundreds have been injured in violent attacks for voting for the party of their choice.
The Mugabe government’s shenanigans around both the election and the release of the results has done nothing for Africa’s image, let alone our own as we have been seen to have failed to take a tough line against a rogue regime. At last, however, the Zuma faction in the ANC seems to have found its voice with Dr Pallo Jordan saying:
If Zanu-PF has lost the confidence of a substantial number of the citizens of that country, such that the only means by which it can win elections is either by intimidating the people or otherwise rigging them, it has only itself to blame.
And no one should sympathise or support its mischievous tricks.
The problems that destabilize the continent are entrenched by the failure of fellow African countries to take a strong stance against the injustices of autocratic regimes like Mugabe’s government. SADC did not act in “Unity in Pursuit of Peace, Development and Social Justice” as the title of today’s debate suggests, and particularly in the case of Zimbabwe.
We must combat the disillusionment that has long been associated with our continent and show by example that there is more to Africa than internecine wars, high child mortality rates, high rape and HIV rates, low longevity and high unemployment. Allowing violent xenophobic attacks and tolerating violent despotic regimes like Mugabe’s are certainly not helpful in this connection. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Chairperson, when the land is in turmoil, nations gripped with fear and hostilities, where confusion threatens to reign supreme and the pangs of poverty wreak havoc throughout the African nations, then in what form do you celebrate Africa Day? What is your message to the people?
Speaking in this House against xenophobic and criminal violence affecting parts of our county, the hon Bapela, among other things, said, “We want to assure our African brothers and sisters that our resolve for Africa’s prosperity remains solid.” Noble as that may be – which I believe is noble
- we now need to pause for a moment to reflect on this resolution and our African agenda. Is it finding place in the African soul and identity? Is it finding resonance with the African dream championed by Nkrumah, Azikiwe, Padmore, Du Bois, Lumumba, Luthuli and Sobukwe? They dreamt and struggled for an independent, sovereign Africa, liberated from ethnic wars, poverty ignorance, disease, underdevelopment and disunity.
If our African agenda is right as it should be, our dreams noble, then why the neverending sobs and tears of the African child in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Darfur and almost the rest of the continent?
African historians and writers argue that the African predicament is largely the result of leaders of the independent Africa emulating colonial administrators and governors, pursuing similar autocratic and corrupt practices, encouraging divisiveness and ethnic conflicts and supporting arms and drug trafficking.
It is therefore right and proper for Africans today to want to celebrate the African quest for peace, for self-discovery, self-love and acceptance, self-reliance and self-healing from the painful convulsions of the African soul. While celebrating Africa Day, the continent may want to heed the words of Kofi Awunoor when he wrote:
Our continent, the beggar continent of the new millennium, has become a plague unto itself. The cure of our ailments lies with us, and no one else.
We have pleaded alibis for too long. Our plight is our responsibility and ours alone. No one, other than Africa, can cure or feed Africa. No one, other than Africa, can educate Africa. No one, other than Africa, can develop Africa. That stark fact must be the first proposal upon which all of us, Africans at home and abroad, agree; we must draw up a new agenda, taking into account our present predicament.
Thank you.
Mr L W GREYLING: Chairperson, Africa Day should be an occasion to celebrate our glorious continent, to take stock of what we have achieved and what we still need to do to make Africa a better place for all our people. As we emerge from histories of oppression and colonialism, we clearly have many challenges to deal with. The crisis in Zimbabwe and the wave of xenophobia that has surged through South Africa is obviously high on our agenda right now.
As African leaders, we need to ask what we can do, not just about the current problems but also about the challenges we face more broadly. The ID believes that part of our problem is due to our lack of unity. What are we as leaders therefore doing to promote respect, understanding and tolerance amongst the people of Africa?
Ten years ago, I had the privilege of travelling the length and breadth of Africa and I visited more than half the countries on this continent. During my travels I was struck by the enormous humanity of people, many of whom are being forced to find ways for surviving under the turmoil of natural disasters, conflicts and parasitic governments.
This is quite literally a continent on the move where survival often requires people to travel thousands of kilometres from their homes. We need to recognise this and, in the spirit of ubuntu, embrace each other with solidarity and humanity. Through greater unity I am certain we will be able to overcome all our present challenges and see Africa rise again. Thank you.
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, the ACDP acknowledges Africa Day, on 25 May, as a day inspired by the popular struggle of African people throughout the world to free themselves from oppression and exploitation with a focus on the plight of continental Africa today. This is a day when we as African people can unite in contemplation of our united history, heritage, cultures and challenges.
How sad that Africa Day in South Africa this year is celebrated against a backdrop of violent attacks against fellow Africans who find themselves in South Africa, hoping to escape difficult and even tragic circumstances in their own countries. People with dreams, feelings, families; people who simply want the same thing we want.
The first democratic elections in South Africa, in 1994, introduced a new democracy that has been heralded internationally as a miracle transition. The multiracial dispensation that replaced apartheid has done much to address the legacy of a racially divided past, yet discriminatory attitudes and practices continue to manifest themselves not only in historically familiar divisions but also in new forms of identity-based violence like xenophobia.
Xenophobia is not a new phenomenon in South Africa, writes David Mwanambuyu from Cape Town:
As a Zambian national, whose country not only sheltered ANC leaders but committed enormous resources to help liberate our “brothers and sisters” in South Africa, I am shattered by the current wave of xenophobia among impoverished communities.
On my part, I have decided to do something about it.
Peace, development and social justice must begin in our own back yards and every one of us is individually responsible.
Sadly, South Africa, SADC and tha African Union, AU, all stand as very poor examples of a caring Africa. Their rejection of the people of Zimbabwe has cast yet another shadow over this day. Thank you.
Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, on Africa Day we must celebrate the achievements of Africa and its people. Last week I attended a conference in Brussels at the European Parliament. I had just finished my speech there and had just told them how proud an African I was and how we were busy solving our problems when the first terrible pictures of people being killed in South Africa were broadcasted. I had to try and explain what is happening in my country because they did not understand. What a sad time to celebrate Africa Day.
Sir, white racism is condemned by the FF Plus. But we also condemn black racism and xenophobia. As long as articles are written, like the one recently in the City Press, for example, that African people cannot be racist but only white people can be, then we are not realistic about South Africa and Africa’s problems. What we see presently is blatant black racism and xenophobia in Africa and South Africa. Mr Mandela spoke to this Parliament on 10 May 2004 and said that a guiding principle for him in his life has been that there are good men and women to be found in all groups and from all sectors of society, and that in an open and free society, those South Africans will come together to jointly and co-operatively realise the common good.
Wat is die werklikheid van Afrika en Suid-Afrika? In enige groep in Afrika is goeie en slegte mense. Mnr die Voorsitter, daar is goeie Afrikaners en slegte Afrikaners. Daar is goeie Sjonas in Zimbabwe en daar is slegte Sjonas in Zimbabwe - en ek noem nie name nie. As die goeie mense van elke groep kan saamwerk, kan ons hierdie probleme wat deur die slegtes veroorsaak word, oplos. Maar solank as daar witmense is wat sê alle swartmense is sleg, vorder ons nêrens heen nie. Solank daar swartmense is wat sê alle witmense is sleg en hulle is sleg vir Afrika, vorder ons ook nêrens heen nie. Laat ons kom by “n punt waar ons hierdie werklikheid aanvaar en saam van hierdie kontinent ’n suksesvolle kontinent maak. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[What is the reality of Africa and South Africa? In any group in Africa there are good and bad people. Mr Chairperson, there are good Afrikaners and bad Afrikaners. There are good Shonas in Zimbabwe and there are bad Shonas in Zimbabwe – and I am not mentioning names. If the good people in every group could work together, we would solve these problems caused by the bad ones. But as long as there are white people who are saying that all black people are bad, we are not making any progress at all. As long as there are black people who are saying that all white people are bad and that they are bad for Africa, we are also not making any progress. Let us reach a point where we accept this reality and co-operate to make this continent a successful continent. Thank you.]
Ms F HAJAIG: Chairperson, I shall begin with a short quote from Pixley ka Isaka Seme’s essay, The Regeneration of Africa. He says:
Oh, for that historian who, with the open pen of truth, will bring to Africa’s claim the strength of written proof. He will tell of a race whose onward tide was often swelled with tears, but in whose heart bondage has not quenched the fire of former years. He will write that in these later days when Earth’s noble ones are named, she has a roll of honour too, of whom she is not ashamed.
The giant is awakening! From the four corners of the earth Africa’s sons, who have been proved through fire and sword, are marching to the future’s golden door bearing the records of deeds of valour done.
This was written in 1906. Africa has come a long way since then, making its way through great trauma, suffering and deprivation to a brave new world. We see the emerging, promoting and upholding of principles of human rights and democracy, encouraging of good governance, transparency and accountability, as well as facilitating integration, unity, co-operation and development on our continent, Africa.
It is interesting to note that, a mere seven years ago, in May 2000, The Economist magazine published an article that declared Africa “the hopeless continent”, and therefore a place to be ignored. The very same The Economist asked a rhetorical question in 2006: “Is Africa, often dubbed the hopeless continent, finally taking off?” If The Economist is to be believed, then Africa remains one of the few continents which, in a very short space of time, would have traversed from “hopeless” to “recovery”. However, the fact of the matter is that Africa has never been a hopeless continent. If this was the case, it would have not been colonised and its resources would have been squandered by the developed world. If it was ever a hopeless continent, Africa would not have been today a theatre of activities and competition between different global actors bent on exerting their influence and domination.
In 2007, Africa saw the hosting of the African Union Summit and played host to different global leaders from China to the United States of America. All these are clear indications that Africa has a lot more to offer to the rest of the world at an economic level besides other levels. It is this interest in Africa’s resources that the African political leadership must understand and be able to exploit for the betterment of the lives of the people of Africa in pursuit of peace, development and social justice. Whether it is the European Union trying to immerse itself in Africa’s economic potential through economic partnership agreements or China’s increasing support and involvement in Africa, the message is simple and clear: The world’s interest towards Africa is growing. Thus, Africa needs to be able to respond collectively and proactively, taking advantage of this situation in order to ensure that, unlike in the past, nothing happens on the continent without the expressed and collective acknowledgement from the African leadership through the various organs of the African Union which needs to be strengthened in every manner, enabling it to carry out its mandate.
Africa is confronted by various challenges in the quest for peace, security and social justice. Peace and security is closely linked with development, including human development. One of the most critical challenges is regional unity and cohesion. In pursuit of this objective, the African Union has undertaken the process of harmonising and rationalising regional economic communities, RECs. Research shows that most RECs are still nowhere near achieving their stated objectives.
Conflict resolution and peace-building form important pillars of peace and security initiatives. The two are related and are interlinked. While conflict resolution may focus on addressing the root causes of conflict as well as the various processes that lead towards restoring peace, peace- building goes several steps further to address mediation, facilitating processes of negotiation and the creation of mutual understanding and reconciliation. In this regard, women should play a bigger role in peace negotiations and other processes. The invisibility of women in these processes has therefore had the effect of undermining the value that women can contribute to conflict prevention, peace-enforcement, post-conflict reconstruction and peace-building.
When will the suffering of the people in Darfur stop? When will the suffering of people in Chad and the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc - the list goes on - stop? Africa must find solutions for its problems. But, more importantly, an early warning system must identify possible problems and ward off conflict. The fragility of the African state is an important variable in the analysis of why conflict situations arise. As one scholar noted: “Present conflicts in Africa and elsewhere underline the reality that security threats often arise not from outside aggression, but from the unconsolidated nature of the African state ….” In mature and functional political systems, the coercive monopoly of the state provides protection to all citizens as a basic right. The failure of a state to provide such protection to its citizens in weak African states gives rise to a more complex security dilemma.
In conclusion, there is general consensus that development cannot occur in situations of conflict and instability. Experience has also shown that development will not be sustained in the absence of oversight, accountability and transparency. In the absence of the above, the society will be unable to produce and distribute resources efficiently.
Lastly, the African Peer Review Mechanism, as outlined in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, is an important instrument that promotes accountability, transparency and gives definition to an African democracy. Let all governments accept and open up their countries for peer review that can only strengthen democracies and promote social justice. Let us celebrate and rejoice that Africa is on the move and will carve its own destiny. Viva Africa, Viva!
Mr M V NGEMA: Chairperson, the security of a nation, state or a community is intricately bound to the security of its neighbours. This being said, understanding and tackling the root causes of conflict on the African continent is a long-term process that requires the commitment of leadership at the national and regional levels together with the support from the international community.
The major obstacles in making substantial progress on the African continent is the lack of implementation owing to a lack of resources and at times a lack of political will by the states.
The African Union, AU, has the right and the responsibility to protect. Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act affirms the right of the union to intervene in a member state in respect of grave circumstances. The AU’s responsibility to build the continent is currently being pursued through its post-conflict and reconstructive framework.
Much pain and suffering such as that experienced in Zimbabwe would be prevented if the AU enhanced and strengthened its mechanisms for preventive diplomacy and early response to potential conflicts before they escalate. African states and their institutions need to move away from the rhetoric and clichés and take genuine action to develop their own solutions for Africa’s security and development.
Relying on the support of external patterns and donors only perpetuates dependency. It is important to remember that the donors themselves have their own political agendas. Thus, the solution to African security challenges lies in reducing both technical and financial dependence on external patterns. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, with my two minutes allow me to remark that Africa Liberation Day is the fruit of a long African struggle for freedom. Through the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Africans were sold like animals. In 1885, the imperialist Berlin Conference turned Africa into British Africa, French Africa, Portuguese Africa, German Africa, Italian Africa and Spanish Africa. There was no African Africa left for Africans. Africa’s richest were looted and used to develop and enrich western countries.
Africa Liberation Day was given birth by a resilient political philosophy which has refused to die even when a super power built on a competing ideological school of thought crumbled under Mikhail Gorbachev. Henry Sylvester Williams coined this stubborn African political philosophy “Pan- Africanism” in 1900. Pan-Africanist giants such as George Padmore, CLR James, Du Bois, Nkrumah, Sobukwe, Lumumba, Lembede, Sekou Toure and Modibo Keita took the Pan-African vision to what it is today.
The African Union, the Pan-African Parliament and the present struggle for the economic liberation, social emancipation and technological advancement of the African continent are some of the achievements of Pan-Africanism.
On this 45th anniversary of Africa Liberation Day, let it be reiterated that Pan-Africanism demands that the riches of Africa must be used for the benefit, uplifting, development and enjoyment of the African people. Pan- Africanism is a system of equitably sharing food, clothing, homes, education, health care, wealth, land, work, security of life and happiness. Pan-Africanism is the privilege of the African people to love and give themselves their way of life, respect and preference.
Attacks on Africans by other Africans from the same Mother Africa manifests the extent to which colonialism has poisoned the minds of Africa’s people. The message of Africa Liberation Day today is that African nations will not progress rapidly unless they act in unity, pursue peace, development and social justice. [Time expired.]
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, how can we celebrate Africa Day with a clear conscience this year, if the world must in horror watch images on TV of an African being burnt alive by another African in our own beloved country? Where is the respect for human life? The last time we saw images of a man being necklaced was in 1989, when there was an orchestrated agenda to make the country ungovernable. But, 18 years later, we do have a democratically elected government. We must be obeyed. Why this lawlessness?
What is currently happening in South Africa with the reference to the attacks on foreigners is not to be seen as an isolated incident. South Africa forms part of a collective of states in Africa and the rest of the world, which must account for its actions and policies. There is a growing disillusionment amongst our people with government and the political institutions in general. A recent survey by the Human Science Research Council, HSRC, has shown that trust in our political institutions is weak, which suggests that people are not impressed with the way political parties are governing their affairs. It might be that the recent attacks on foreigners reflect a symptom of this distrust in leadership. It would appear that, instead of relying on the political officials to address their grievances and problems, our communities seem to be taking matters into their own hands with dire consequence.
There is a leadership crisis in our nation and due to the fragmentation within the ruling party and government, our state is under siege because of a void of purpose, direction and constraint.
We ought to have brought hope and peace to Zimbabwe through mediation, but instead we brought the crisis to our land. We ought to have expunged corrupt officials from government, but instead, from the top echelons of government to the average person in our communities, there is a disregard for our justice system.
In conclusion, if we wish to be respected among our peers in other countries, then we have to go back to the ideals we had or believed in when we fought, and many died, for a free and democratic nation led by a respected leadership. I thank you.
Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, I’d like to start on a personal note, mainly because of the Afro-pessimism that has come from some of our speakers here. I am quite surprised that, on a day when we are celebrating the unity of Africa, what comes across so strongly in some of the presentations is Afro- pessimism, which is really not about the Africa I know.
On a personal note, I’ve spent 10 years of my life in countries north to us. I’ve spent 10 years in countries such as Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Zambia and Kenya. I know those countries very well, and what is being described by some of our people here is not the Africa I know; it is the Africa that is imaged in the newspapers and in media and so on.
Two weeks ago I was at a conference in Rwanda. Rwanda is a country that experienced enormous genocide not long ago. But, in Kigali, I was in a conference with 130 people from Africa, with some from Europe. I travelled all over Kigali, and the Africa I saw in Kigali is not the one that is being described by some of the colleagues here.
I regard myself as very much a part of Africa. I’ve lectured in universities in Ethiopia, in Cameroon, Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, in Uganda and Kenya – right across Africa – and what I experienced in those universities is not what some people are describing here today. Africa is a wonderful continent. When I phone my children in the United Kingdom, we speak Swahili – it is the language of our family.
So, I’m not a foreigner in Africa, and no African should be a foreigner in South Africa – that is the lesson we must get here today. We belong to Africa, which is a wonderful continent. Surely, we see distortions here and there – the monstrous leaders that emerge here and there, where Africa has seen Idi Amin, Mobutu, and other butchers in other parts of Africa. We have a problem with our neighbour here, who I won’t name. So there are problems, but let us a get a good picture and a balance of where we are located. It is a continent so rich and powerful that we must celebrate what is really there, and not the stuff that the media foists upon us, even if they would sometimes reflect reality.
What I have to say today is that, even in Europe, and globally, there is a new concern about Africa or a new interest. Partly, this is because of the poverty in Africa, the Millennium Development Goals of the UN, and immigration into Europe. Many Africans are fleeing to places like Paris, which is now a predominantly black city. London is now also a black city. There is this problem now that Europe is experiencing of immigration by people who flee poverty in their own countries. Partly the concern in Europe is about climate change, because it is now realised that what happens in the continent of Africa affects the people of Europe and the United States of America. Partly it is because of Aids, a disease that travels across continents and partly also - let us admit - it is a problem of terrorism, which has a place in certain African countries, and which of course becomes a base for the whole world.
So there is a concern that is manifesting itself in a rather interesting phenomenon. That is that the world, the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, the G8, and other forces like the European Union are now saying: “We must increase aid to Africa so that there is more money on the ground,” because - as the hon Pheko was clearly correct - they said, Africa has been robbed and looted of its resources, and indeed continues to be so. The G8 and other countries are saying: “Let us re-examine the way the rest of the world supports Africa, but let us re-examine the way that aid flows.”
Now I personally have been to a number of conferences in Europe and in Rwanda and elsewhere around this question of aid effectiveness, and what the North is saying to Africa is: “We will increase aid, but let us do it in a way that the aid is effective”. So something rather interesting is happening as there is a dialogue between the G8, between Europe in particular and people in Africa, of which I have been a part. And, by the way, to indicate and confirm my not being a foreigner in Africa, I am the chairperson of a network of Members of Parliament across the whole of Africa, and our network is within Nepad, and now it is concerned primarily with the question of aid flowing from Europe to Africa.
What we are saying is this: We want increased aid from the rest of the world to Africa, but we want it to be monitored so that even when it is on budget – as is the case in South Africa, and by the way, we are the recipients of R10 billion for over six years from the European Union - it is going to our Treasury. We, as Members of Parliament, including ANC MPs in the Finance committee are saying: “We want to monitor that aid so that it does not only belong to the Minister of Finance and the Treasury, but to the nation.”
We are saying the same thing across the whole continent. Let us monitor aid, and ensure that, where it is on budget, namely budget support, it is used for the poor, because that money does not belong to the Minister of finance in Sweden, Norway or the Netherlands, but to the taxpayers of those countries. So aid is a transfer from the people of Europe to the people of Africa, and not from the executive of Europe to the executive of Africa, because that is where things go wrong. So, colleagues, let us celebrate what is becoming a new partnership between Members of Parliament in Europe and Africa in which I am involved quite heavily. We must ensure in this House that aid is properly monitored and accounted for in this Parliament, and not merely treated as a transfer between some Minister somewhere and the one here. We want to monitor this process, and we also want that that aid which comes to Africa should also come to the parliaments of Africa, because they are not as empowered as we are, although we are not as empowered as we would like to be. We are saying that the proportion of aid which goes to Africa must also go to support the parliaments of Africa so that they can become democratic, so that some of the complaints that members have articulated here today about the lack of democracy and so on can be addressed. You cannot have a democracy if a parliament has no finance, and if all the money is controlled by the Minister or the treasury.
So we are saying to the donors in Europe, who are operating on the basis of goodwill, because the taxpayer in Sweden is motivated by the very best motives when he or she says a portion of my salary can go to the poor people of Africa, “Ensure that that transfer also empowers the parliaments of Africa so we can have genuinely multiparty parliamentary democracy on the continent of Africa.” I also want to – by the way - say that this idea of a partnership between Europe and Africa around the question of aid transfers has now been accepted by influential sectors of the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the IPU, which met in Cape Town and passed an excellent resolution on this, and by a number of other people who are now coming on board and saying yes, it is a very good idea that this transfer of funds from taxpayers in Europe to poor countries in Africa should go through the parliamentary process and the principle should be approved by all of us. This is a way of cementing perhaps a new opening for Africa in Europe and a new understanding about our role, and so, please, colleagues let us not be Afro-pessimistic. It is a wonderful continent, and it is so rich. I love it, and I even speak Swahili. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 18:04. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 22 May 2008:
a) Standards Bill [B 46B – 2007 (Reprint)] (National Assembly –
sec 75).
b) National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Bill [B 47B –
2007] (National Assembly – sec 75).
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
(a) Submission of the Financial and Fiscal Commission on the
Division of Revenue Bill for 2009-2010, tabled in terms of section
9(1) of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act, 1997 (Act No 97
of 1997).
- The Minister of Minerals and Energy
(a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Minerals and Energy for
2008/2009-2010/2011.
National Assembly
- The Speaker
a) Reply to recommendations in the Fifteenth Report of the Committee
on Public Accounts (Media Advertising, Publishing, Printing and
Packaging Sector Education and Training Authority (MAPPP Seta)), as
adopted by the House on 21 November 2007.
Referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.
b) Reply to recommendations in the Sixteenth Report of the Committee
on Public Accounts (Information System Electronics and
Telecommunications Technologies Sector Education and Training
Authority (ISETT Seta)), as adopted by the House on 21 November
2007.
Referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.
c) Reply from the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to
recommendations in the Eighteenth Report of the Committee on Public
Accounts (South African National Parks), as adopted by the House on
21 November 2007.
Referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.
d) Reply to recommendations in the Twenty-Sixth Report of the
Committee on Public Accounts (Playhouse Company), as adopted by the
House on 21 November 2007.
Referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.