WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2008
                                ____

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:04.

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.

     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE OF GOVERNMENT OF FLANDERS

The SPEAKER: Order! I wish to acknowledge in the gallery Mr Wantens, a representative of the government of Flanders. Mr Wantens is now concluding a tour of duty of nine years as head of the Flemish diplomatic representation in Southern Africa. Welcome to the National Assembly, Mr Wantens. [Applause.]

               ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NIGERIAN DELEGATION

The SPEAKER: Order! I also wish to acknowledge the presence of a delegation of Nigerian senators that is visiting our Parliament. You are welcome! [Applause.]

                        MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

              (The late President Mwanawasa of Zambia)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House –

 1) notes with shock and profound sadness the untimely death of the
    Zambian President, Patrick Levy Mwanawasa, on Tuesday 19 August
    2008;


 2) further notes that President Mwanawasa had been in hospital in Paris
    since suffering a stroke at the end of June 2008;

(3) recalls that he rose to prominence as a leader of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy, MMD, in Zambia, which won elections in 1991;

(4) acknowledges that, in his role as Chairperson of the Southern African Development Community,SADC, President Mwanawasa played a pivotal role in addressing the challenges facing the region; and

 5) conveys its condolences to the Mwanawasa family, the Zambian
    Government and people, and the Movement for Multiparty Democracy.

The SPEAKER: The condolences of the House will be forwarded both to the embassy of Zambia and the current president of Zambia, as well as the Mwanawasa family.

Agreed to.

  GENERAL LAWS (LOSS OF MEMBERSHIP OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, PROVINCIAL
          LEGISLATURE OR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL

                      (Consideration of Report)

There was no debate.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, we move:

That the Report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

  GENERAL LAWS (LOSS OF MEMBERSHIP OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, PROVINCIAL
          LEGISLATURE OR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL

               CONSTITUTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BILL

                CONSTITUTION FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, Mr L K Joubert, in his dissertation called “The mandate of political representatives with special reference to floor-crossing: A legal historical study”, opens his discussion of floor-crossing with a quotation of the following remark by Winston Churchill, and I quote:

Some men …

And I suppose you can add “women” –

… change their party for the sake of their principles; others change their principles for the sake of their party.

I think that remark is a very apt one today as we discuss the abolition of floor-crossing in our country. Mr Joubert also points out in his dissertation a whole lot of elements indicating that floor-crossing has actually existed in this country for a very long time, at least since 1910. I’m not going to deal with all those but it is worth some reading. I mention this to illustrate that floor-crossing is not a new phenomenon to our democracy but that it has existed for many decades in South Africa – particularly in white South Africa - although possibly with different features to the kind of floor-crossing that we know at present.

The interim Constitution, as amended by the final Constitution, contained an antidefection clause that penalised a member of a legislature who left his or her political party in order to join another political party. You will all remember that the old Item 23A(1) of Schedule 2 of the interim Constitution provided, and I quote:

A person loses membership of a legislature if that person ceases to be a member of the party which nominated that person as a member of the legislature.

Provision was also made that Item 23A may be amended by an ordinary Act of Parliament, and not by the usual two-thirds majority, to provide for the manner in which it will be possible for a member of a legislature who ceases to be a member of the party which nominated that member, to retain membership of such legislature; and, secondly, to provide for any existing party to merge with another party or for parties to subdivide.

The sanctioning of floor-crossing is said to have had some advantages, in particular for the newly-established democracy in South Africa. The prohibition of floor-crossing not only implied that votes for a party were accurately translated into seats in a legislature, but also that parties had no chance to gain more seats except in the next general election. On the other hand, the weaknesses of this prohibition were often mentioned and, sometimes, even fiercely debated in South Africa.

In 2001, problems within the opposition alliance led to discussions about a change in the law and the regulation of floor-crossing in South Africa. That situation led to Parliament passing four pieces of legislation in June 2002 that shared a common objective, namely to enable a member of a legislature or municipal council to become a member of another party whilst retaining membership of that legislature or council and, secondly, to enable existing political parties to merge or to subdivide.

The constitutional validity of those four Acts was challenged in the case of United Democratic Movement vs President of the Republic of South Africa and Others. On 4 October 2002, the Constitutional Court held that floor- crossing legislation for national, provincial and local government was not inconsistent with the Constitution, but further held that the Loss or Retention of Membership of National and Provincial Legislatures Act, as a result of a procedural defect, was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The other three pieces of legislation, however, were consistent.

Shortly after this, we drafted a new piece of legislation to create the Constitution Tenth Amendment Act, and to contain the contents of the Loss or Retention of Membership of National and Provincial Legislatures Act that had been declared unconstitutional. The principal object of that Act was to re-enact the provisions of the membership Act.

The Institute for Democracy in South Africa, in its submission to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, indicates, for example, that in total 1417 public representatives - 55 of them Members of Parliament sitting here, 60 members of provincial legislatures and 1302 councillors - have crossed the floor in the five window periods for floor- crossing since the inception of floor-crossing in 2002 and, secondly, that the cumulative number of votes cast in the 2004 elections at national level would have been changed by 8% by these crossings of the floor.

Since the inception of floor-crossing, a general resistance has developed amongst political parties and the public against floor-crossing. Furthermore, floor-crossing has been strongly criticised in many sectors of the media as well as in the public. A whole lot of reasons are given for that which I’m not going to list today. Government has noted this resistance and criticism and has now introduced this legislation. You will also be aware that at the ANC Polokwane conference at the end of last year, the party changed its policy stance on this matter and definitely adopted a policy for the abolition of floor-crossing. Consequently, the need has arisen to abolish floor-crossing as it is one of the issues on which we possibly have consensus across society.

The main objects of the three Bills before the House are to abolish floor- crossing and to provide for related matters. The three Bills must therefore be read in conjunction with each other. The effect of abolishing floor- crossing would mean that we revert to the position prior to 2002, when floor-crossing was formally introduced into our law.

The Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill seeks to abolish floor-crossing in the national and provincial legislatures by repealing Schedule 6A, the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill seeks to abolish floor-crossing at the local government level by abolishing Schedule 6B, and the General Laws (Loss of Membership of National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Council) Amendment Act then amends a whole list of pieces of legislation where we have to remove any reference to floor-crossing.

As the next window period for floor-crossing at local government level is September 2009, it’s imperative that Parliament passes these three pieces of legislation before then.

I would like to thank the chairperson of the committee, Mr Carrim, and all the members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for their hard work in dealing with these pieces of legislation. We’ve also noted the remarks they have made in their resolution in the report we have just passed. I have also been informed that all the parties have unanimously supported this legislation and I do trust that they will follow Mr Churchill’s views and not change their ideas today. So, on behalf of the ANC I strongly recommend the passing of the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill, the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill and the General Laws (Loss of Membership of National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Council) Amendment Bill, to the House. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask, when the Deputy Minister’s name became J H van der Merwe, because on the speakers’ list he is J H van der Merwe? [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Well, we will consult the Minister of Home Affairs on that matter. [Laughter.]

Mr Y I CARRIM: Madam Chair, comrades and friends, it’s not as if we in the ANC were all very enthusiastic about agreeing to floor-crossing in 2002. In fact, as a whole, there was quite some ambivalence within the ANC on this. Our alliance partners, the SA Communist Party and Cosatu, were opposed to floor-crossing then, and they have constantly been calling for its abolition since we passed the legislation we did - which is not to say that they have decided for us. We, as the ANC, have decided.

Those who processed the Bills at the time, within the Justice and Provincial and Local Government study groups of the ANC, will remember the endless debates, and even tensions finally, on what the terms of floor- crossing should be. Those who opposed floor-crossing tried to restrict the possibilities as much as possible, but lost out. But that’s democracy within a political party - you win arguments at times, and you lose at others, but finally you respect the views of the majority.

Of course, the ANC ensured that there were provisions in both the interim Constitution and the 1996 Constitution barring floor-crossing. In 1997, following pressure from opposition parties to allow floor-crossing, Parliament set up the Ad Hoc Committee on Membership of Legislatures. Again, the ANC majority in the committee decided that there shouldn’t at that stage be floor-crossing within a proportional list electoral system. The ANC also constantly opposed private members’ Bills allowing for floor- crossing. In 2002, the ANC, with a certain ambivalence, as I said, finally agreed to floor-crossing because of the change in the political terrain, as set out in part by the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development. There were various considerations. There was, of course, a significant political realignment taking place at the time, and there were shifts in political identity and orientation, especially within the opposition parties, and the ANC agreed to floor-crossing to facilitate the expression of this. Mainly, of course, this revolved around a major component of the former NNP public representatives being trapped within the DA, and they wanted out! Floor-crossing was the only answer at the time.

Of course, as the ANC, we may have been unduly influenced in our support for floor-crossing at the time, with the need to contain the DA and win the Western Cape provincial government. To the extent that this is true, we behaved, I suppose, like any other political party in a democracy. It is interesting that not just the DA, but 86% of this House, for whatever reason, voted for floor-crossing in 2002.

But we were clear that there were many other reasons why floor-crossing would be appropriate in the context. And for what it is worth, serving in the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government at the time, I said in this House:

The underlying value is that councillors should cross the floor primarily because of ideological or policy reasons or because there is a significant shift of opinion within a party or the public, and not on the basis of individual whim or personal gain.

Hence the thresholds of numbers set for councillors and other public representatives to meet in order to qualify for floor-crossing.

The ANC was also concerned about the racialised patterns of voting and believed that floor-crossing would help to erode this. Again, for what it is worth, I had this to say in the House at the time:

It is rather simplistic to believe that the ANC just wants to gobble up every councillor available. Part of the longer-term aim is to deracialise the voting patterns. What sort of nonracial future do we have if Africans vote overwhelmingly for one major party and non- Africans almost wholly for a group of small marginalised parties? If managed appropriately, floor-crossing could, over time, contribute to less racialised voting patterns. And don’t we all need that?

Well, we now want floor-crossing abolished because it has become, in essence, unseemly; it has become unacceptable. There have been unintended consequences of floor-crossing legislation that serve to undermine our democracy. While some people have crossed the floor for ideological and policy reasons, many have done so for very individualistic reasons, including in search of monetary gain and personal promotion, and to escape from disciplinary action against them by their parties or personal feuds within their parties. This has been especially the case at local government level. Floor-crossing has become a circus in some municipalities, not least in a major metro such as Cape Town. It has led to instability and undermined service delivery, with unnecessary changes in administration with major reshuffles of councillors through floor-crossing. And in this august House, no less, there is the curious phenomenon of one-person parties with no obvious electoral base or known policies at all. Obviously, it was never intended that floor-crossing would be reduced to this farce, and it has to end.

While floor-crossing advanced a degree of nonracialism at the level of public representatives, it has not done much to deracialise voting patterns, as non-African public representatives crossing the floor have not been able to carry a significant section of their supporters over to parties which have their base mainly in the African community. Of course the challenge to deracialise the voting pattern remains. For the ANC, floor- crossing was merely one aspect of a multipronged strategy to achieve this. We obviously now need to intensify other aspects of the strategy and develop new and more creative elements of our overall strategy to erode racial voting patterns. But while this is a responsibility mainly of the ANC, all parties have a duty to contribute to this to entrench and advance nonracialism and democracy in our country. Invariably, issues about the electoral systems were raised in our consideration of these Bills. The majority in the committee feels that the current proportional representation system is appropriate for now, but as conditions change, there would be a need to review the electoral system to ensure increasing public participation in legislatures. The committee feels that within the first two years of the new five-year term of Parliament, Parliament should consider a review of the electoral system and examine the appropriateness of some form of an inclusive system that could possibly provide for both proportional representation and constituency public representatives. We have no particular views on whether the system should be changed or not, and these issues are more appropriately dealt with by the Home Affairs Ministry and the parliamentary committee on Home Affairs, but we feel that a review of the electoral system should be considered periodically. Just as we have changed our position on floor-crossing, it might well be that in future we may want to change the electoral system, in whatever way, to ensure greater inclusiveness, representivity and accountability.

The committee feels that within the current proportional representation system, the Speaker’s Office could consider developing guidelines to ensure that MPs do not account only to our respective political parties for our constituency work, but also to Parliament as a whole. There might also be a need for the Speaker to foster co-operation between the Chief Whips of the various parties to see if we cannot ensure a greater geographical spread of our constituency offices.

Finally, may I also thank Imam Solomon for co-chairing the processing of these Bills, and Mr John Jeffery for coming to our rescue at the last minute and dealing with major technical amendments that we could not actually have done without his considerable assistance.

I have said in this House before that, having known Mr Jeffery for over 20 years, I suspect that many of his more creative ideas come from his partner, Prof P J Schwikkard, and his 16-year-old son, David. Be that as it may, and I remain ever convinced of that, it seems to me that the committee is quite right. I am not sure what the rules say, Madam Speaker, but the committee feels that, given that he is already the parliamentary counsellor to the President, and given that he has many responsibilities, and given too that he forewent those responsibilities to help us to process this Bill and meet our deadlines, we strongly recommend that he be promoted from parliamentary counsellor to the President to senior parliamentary counsellor to the President. To win Mr Trevor Manuel over to this, we want to stress that there shall be no budgetary implications – he doesn’t want any increase in his salary. So, can we give him a big round of applause? I am the person with the big mouth, but he is the one who delivers. [Applause.]

So, thank you, John Jeffery, once again. And please, in return, don’t praise me. The last time I praised you, you praised me. And the House is going to discover that, because we are homeboys in a sense, we spend most of our speeches praising each other. So, please don’t praise me, and I won’t let them know that you wrote this text that refers to you. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr L K JOUBERT: Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the Deputy Minister for acknowledging my thesis. I’m honoured that he at least seems to have read it. Sitting there, looking at him across the floor, I think he is starting to remind me a lot of Churchill, so I think there are great days ahead for him.

In 2002, when the so-called floor-crossing legislation was adopted, this House supported the legislation with an overwhelming majority of 280 out of

1. That is more than 86%. Then, as now, the legislation was fast-tracked, although there was a private member’s Bill asking for the same thing under the line for years. However, this private member’s Bill was ignored, which seems to have become the norm in this Parliament. Not a single private member’s Bill has been passed in this House since 1999. [Interjections.]

But, when it is in the interests of the ruling party, time is made for such legislation, and the process is fast-tracked, irrespective of its importance. The urgency then, in 2002, was that the ANC-NNP alliance needed to present the Western Cape and Cape Town to the ANC. Today that is part of history.

In April 2006, two private members’ Bills, aimed at amending the Constitution by reintroducing an antidefection clause, were tabled in Parliament, one by the hon Van der Merwe, and the other by Dr Delport of the DA. These Bills remained under the line until it suited the ANC to revive the matter. [Interjections.]

In December 2007, the ANC, at its Polokwane conference, came to the conclusion that the political terrain which necessitated floor-crossing had changed, and therefore floor-crossing had to be scrapped. Translated into plain English, this meant that we don’t need it anymore, so let’s get rid of it before it backfires on us. Before Polokwane, everything indicated that the ANC alliance was about to split. I still think it would have happened had the left not succeeded in executing the coup at Polokwane. Now it became important to prevent the party from splitting, and the result is that the ANC had to protect itself from possible defections; hence these Bills that are again brought to Parliament in haste.

Although all parties in the committee agreed to the abolishment of floor- crossing, and I doubt whether there would be any vote against these Bills today, I want us to stand still for a moment and contemplate seriously what we are doing and how we are doing it. We are not implementing these amendments because we made an in-depth study of the mandate and accountability of political representatives so as to improve our democratic system. No, on the contrary, we have done no research in this regard. We have not even dusted the Slabbert Commission’s report; in fact, what we are doing is simply implementing an ANC conference resolution.

We are supporting these Bills for the simple reason that they remove a revolting measure from our Constitution, but at the same time, we lament the fact that, again, the matter of a political representative’s mandate is brushed over without serious consideration.

Although we support the scrapping of the present floor-crossing legislation, we believe that the wider picture needs to be addressed. After this amendment, we perpetuate the result of an election for five years. Five years is a long time in politics. Great wars have broken out and were finalised in less time. Yet our current system of representation has no way of accommodating such changes. It is high time we took our legislative function more seriously and made laws of general application and not for party-political gain. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, I support Mr Carrim when he says that John Jeffery’s title must be changed. He is now a counsellor. Mr Carrim wants him to be a senior counsellor; we want him to be the former counsellor. [Laughter.] Mr Carrim talks a lot of sense sometimes as a non-lawyer. He must remember that floor-crossing was plainly an abuse of the Constitution in order to allow members of other parties to cross the floor to come to the ANC. However, Mr Carrim has, like Mr Johnny de Lange, also admitted a lot of failures in the ANC, and one wonders what Damascus experience they have had, because they are now admitting to the many atrocities, the many failures of the ANC, over a period of 15 years.

This debate is a huge triumph for the IFP. On behalf of the IFP, I submitted a private legislative proposal to scrap floor-crossing in late 2006, after the IFP had been inundated with criticism and dissatisfaction from voters of all political parties. The proposal that we have made will now eventually become an Act of Parliament. In the past also, Mr de Lange, people voted for individuals. They now vote for political parties. Political parties then compile lists of candidates for election, and therefore determine who are to represent the party.

The logical result is that seats that are won are the property of the party and not of the individual. By giving their seats to other parties, floor- crossers transfer rights which they themselves do not have. By doing so, they break a legal principle of many centuries, stating that one cannot give away something which is not yours. The old Latin maxim is: “Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse haberet.” If ever there was a travesty of democracy, it was floor-crossing. The Bill will now put an end to the violation of our Constitution, and we trust that the ANC has learnt its lesson and will never again violate our Constitution. [Interjections.]

Thula. Hlala phansi. Hlala phansi. [Be quiet. Sit down, sit down.]

Madam Speaker, I also want to agree with Mr Carrim that the time has arrived for us to review our electoral system. That was a good point that he made.

Now, by taking the initiative to have floor-crossing scrapped, the IFP has demonstrated the crucial importance of opposition parties in a democracy. It is a great triumph for the IFP that these measures are being scrapped. [Applause.]

Mr J BICI: Madam Speaker, the Bills before us mark the end of a sordid era in our young democracy’s history. The UDM had, from the outset, opposed the implementation of floor-crossing in a proportional representation system since it was inherently flawed on a number of counts.

Floor-crossing tends towards chequebook politics. Floor-crossing tends towards all manner of underhanded tactics and undue rewards and enticements being offered to prospective defectors. It is also known that it introduces unnecessary instability into political systems but, most importantly, floor- crossing is widely known to be inherently insulting towards the voters, who are not consulted about their electoral choice being undermined.

History has proven the UDM correct. We are glad this day has arrived, even if the harm that has been done to our democracy will take a long time to heal. At least this festering sore has been cut out and the healing can now start. [Interjections.]

Floor-crossing was introduced for reasons of political expediency.

The SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon Bici, may I assist you by asking hon members to just temper their festive mood by lowering their voices. Proceed, hon Bici.

Mr J BICI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Floor-crossing was introduced for reasons of political expediency. Now that it is being scrapped, we say, “good riddance”. The UDM supports the Bills. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr M H HOOSEN: Madam Speaker, in supporting these Bills before the House, the ID is content that, finally, Parliament has listened to the voice of the electorate on the issue of floor-crossing.

The ID believes that the scrapping of floor-crossing will go a long way in restoring the credibility and value of Members of Parliament in the minds of our voters. For far too long, career politicians have gambled and bargained with the will of the people and, finally now, some dignity can be restored to our democracy. The ID maintains, however, that these amendments should be the first step in reforming the link between public representatives and the voters.

We agree with the chairperson of the portfolio committee that the time is now right to consider changes to our electoral system. In particular, the ID, since 2006, has been calling for the consideration of the implementation of the Slabbert Commission report. The ID believes that now is the time to give serious consideration to a mixed electoral system where elected representatives are made accountable to the voters rather than just to their political parties. Thank you.

Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, allow me at the outset also to acknowledge our chairperson, Mr Carrim. He said that he does not like praises, but way back in 2002, he might recall, he was very frank about his views and stance on floor-crossing. He then stated quite categorically that the 10% threshold would undoubtedly benefit the majority party – and we have clearly seen that. We do sing your praises now for the stance that you then took. You have been vindicated.

The ACDP, as well, participated in the partially successful Constitutional Court challenge to the legislation that allowed floor-crossing. We therefore support these provisions that will bring an end to floor- crossing. In a proportional list system such as we have, citizens vote primarily for the party of their choice and its leader - not so much for the candidates on a party list, whom the vast majority of voters do not know. It is a cardinal principle of proportional representation systems that elected members vacate their seats when they resign from their party or lose their party membership. This system, according to the Electoral Commission, which also opposed floor-crossing, ensures that the will of the people as expressed in an election cannot be negated and substituted by the will of an individual or a group of individuals. That principle is effectively negated by floor-crossing.

In our view, floor-crossing presented one of the most serious threats to our multiparty democracy. However, we cannot say that we weren’t duly warned by various instances, including the Constitutional Court in a prior judgment to the judgment referred to by the Deputy Minister. It stated - and it is interesting to highlight the three issues mentioned when it upheld the antidefection clause contained in the interim constitution – that the antidefection clause which disallows floor-crossing promotes accountability of members to the electorate. It obliges members of a party who are elected by virtue of the inclusion of their names on a party list, to remain loyal to that party. That, it said, meets the expectation of voters who gave their support to the party and not the individual.

Secondly, the court said that it can act as an additional check on legislators, who are accountable not only to the electorate and the legislature, but also to their parties; people that are elected by virtue of their lists, cannot suddenly question their party’s policies and go on a frolic on their own.

Thirdly, it is supportive of a multiparty democracy. It prevents parties in power from enticing members of small parties to defect from the party upon whose list they were elected to join the governing party. That we clearly saw. The court said that if this were permitted, it could enable the governing party to obtain a special majority which it might not otherwise be able to muster, and which is not a reflection of the views of the electorate.

So we were warned by the Constitutional Court and now we are relooking the whole issue. Whilst the ACDP appreciates that the first window period of floor-crossing dealt with the problem facing the DA at local government level, clearly what the court warned about did occur. The majority party enticed various members from opposition parties to join its ranks, resulting in a huge majority, which is clearly not a reflection of the views of the voters. We, together with other opposition parties, bore the brunt of this feeding frenzy. Floor-crossing also contributed significantly to voter apathy, with voters believing that it is useless to vote when elected representatives can defect to another party.

It has also regrettably further engrained negative public perceptions of politicians as self-seeking opportunists, with voters being outraged at political shenanigans exhibited during floor-crossing periods.

For these reasons, the ACDP supports these clauses, and we trust and look forward to a review of the electoral system. I thank you.

Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Mev die Speaker, die VF Plus verwelkom hierdie wysigings aan die Grondwet om politieke oorlopery te stop. Ons was immers van die begin af gekant teen oorlopery en het dit gesien as niks anders as politieke diefstal van die kiesers se stemme nie.

Dit is egter ironies dat die DA se spreker vanmiddag hierso teen oorlopery kom praat. Die agb Joubert self is ’n oorloper van die IVP af na die DA. [Tussenwerpsels.] En dan praat hy nogal van “revolting measures”. Hy is die een wat met sy gewete moet saamleef. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Die hele fiasko van oorlopery is begin deur die DA. In die 1996-Grondwet is oorlopery verbied, maar dit was die DA wat die ANC oorreed het om oorlopery te magtig en selfs gestem het vir drie grondwetwysigings om dit te kan toelaat.

Die grootste politieke onreg teenoor die kiesers van Suid-Afrika is deur die DA gepleeg met hierdie oorlopery en hulle is dit aan die kiesers verskuldig. Dit sal hulle nie help om hier aan my linkerkant te sit en brom nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Die VF Plus was ook gekant teen oorlopery want Suid-Afrika se jong demokrasie sou daardeur bedreig word. Die wêreldtendens was nog altyd dat dit die regerende politieke party is, wat deur oorlopery bevoordeel word. In Suid-Afrika was dit geensins anders. In die Nasionale Vergadering was dit elke keer die ANC wat die meeste oorlopers bygekry het. In 2005, byvoorbeeld, het 14 van die 25 oorlopers, of 58% van die oorlopers, na die ANC oorgeloop. Verlede jaar het vier uit die sewe oftewel 57% na die ANC toe oorgeloop. Die gevolg was dat die ANC se meerderheid van 70% na amper 75% gestyg het. Dit sou ’n bedreiging vir die demokrasie gewees het.

Ook op plaaslike regeringsvlak het dit in twee oorloopperiodes gebeur: In 2002 het 21 stadsrade van magsbasis verander, waarvan 20 na die ANC gegaan het.

U verwys na Winston Churchill. Ek het in die erkenning van my magisterskripsie oor oorlopery die volgende aanhaling van Langenhoven: “Hoor die hoenderhaan roem: Ek het gekraai, kraai hy, dat die dag moes breek. En kyk, daar breek hy.” Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Madam Speaker, the FF Plus welcomes these amendments to the Constitution to end political floor-crossing. As you know, we were opposed to floor-crossing from the outset and saw it as nothing less than political theft of the electorate’s votes.

However, it is ironic for the DA’s speaker to oppose floor-crossing here this afternoon. The hon Joubert himself has crossed the floor from the IFP to the DA. [Interjections.] And then he even refers to revolting measures. He is the one who has to live with his conscience. [Interjections.]

The whole fiasco of floor-crossing was started by the DA. Floor-crossing was prohibited in the 1996 Constitution, but the DA persuaded the ANC to authorise floor-crossing and even voted for the three constitutional amendments to make it permissible.

The biggest political injustice to the voters of South Africa was committed by the DA with this floor-crossing and they are now under obligation to the voters. It will do them no good to sit and mutter here on my left-hand side. [Interjections.]

The FF Plus was also opposed to floor-crossing because it would put South Africa’s fledgling democracy under threat. The world trend has always been that the ruling political party is the one to benefit from floor-crossing. In South Africa has by no means any different. In the National Assembly it was always the ANC who gained most of the floor-crossers. In 2005, for instance, 14 of the 25 floor-crossers, or 58% of the floor-crossers, defected to the ANC. Last year four out of seven, or 57%, defected to the ANC. As a result the ANC’s majority increased from 70% to almost 75%. This would have been a threat to democracy.

At the local government level it happened in two floor-crossing periods: In 2002, 21 city councils underwent a change in their power base, of which 20 went to the ANC.

You have referred to Winston Churchill. In the acknowledgements of my masters’ thesis on floor-crossing I quoted the following from Langenhoven: “Hoor die hoenderhaan roem: Ek het gekraai, kraai hy, dat die dag moes breek. En kyk, daar breek hy.” Thank you.]

Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, as previous speakers have mentioned, this issue of whether Members of Parliament should be allowed to cross the floor and keep their seats is something that has been with us since the days of the interim Constitution of 1993. As the ANC, it is something that we have deliberated on for some time. There have been months of discussion in the legislature and governance subcommittee of the NEC. It was a matter discussed at our policy conference in July last year, and finally, at the 52nd national conference of the ANC in Polokwane last year, a decision was taken that floor-crossing should be abolished.

Unlike other decisions or resolutions taken at Polokwane, we haven’t been accused of undermining Parliament by coming with a pre-established position, but we are implementing with these three Bills a resolution taken at Polokwane and effectively abolishing the ability to cross the floor and keep your seat.

There are still some issues that are not resolved, as some speakers have mentioned. There is the issue of party mergers that will not be able to take place. Things will be frozen between election periods. If, as we had in 2004, the NNP wanted to dissolve and join the ANC, that would not happen. So those are some issues that we may want to look at and give further attention to.

I heard Mr Van der Merwe’s speech. It is a pity, if he and the IFP really were so interested in this issue, that neither he nor any other IFP member could attend the portfolio committee hearings into these Bills or the deliberations of the portfolio committee – there was nobody there from the IFP when this issue was discussed.

The main issue that I was meant to be discussing is the question of the content of the Bills. There is only one change or amendment to the Constitution that we made and that is a plain language one. The Bill read: “Be it enacted as follows” – and we changed that to “Parliament enacts as follows”. Nobody uses words like “Be it enacted as follows” any more. Hopefully that won’t upset the purists, but that is a change that we made.

As far as the general laws amendment Bill is concerned, there was a provision that prevented parties from changing their names. That we did not agree with, and that clause was rejected. Secondly, there were clauses dealing with the funding regime, the money given by the Electoral Commission to parties in terms of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act. We felt, having gone into that, that the system was quite complicated and, rather than tinker with it and make some changes here and there, the whole system needed to be reviewed and there needed to be considerable input from the political parties about the changes that should take place.

So, effectively, with the General Laws Amendment Act the only change we are making is to provide for the abolition of floor-crossing. Madam Speaker, those are the changes and the Bills that are before us. The last point from my side is to say that this is an issue on which parties have generally changed positions. You heard Mr Swart. At one point even the ACDP supported floor-crossing. You have heard the IFP. They have kept their position, but it didn’t stop them from accepting floor-crossers. They might have had this principled position of how bad floor-crossing was - I can’t remember Mr Van der Merwe’s words, if he is listening to me - but they accepted floor- crossers with open arms when they came. Similarly, the FF Plus has covered the point about Mr Joubert’s reference to the “revolting measure” from our Constitution. It was so revolting that he himself made use of it.

The Bills are before the House. We move for their adoption. [Applause.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker and hon members, like David of old, I can proudly say that I was glad when they said unto me: “Let us go into the National Assembly to abolish all legislation on floor-crossing.” Our feet are standing at this podium to say that this legislation has betrayed the electorate and enriched charlatans for the past seven years. Some parties have even gone to the lengths of recruiting during the window period, instead of such individuals using their conscience to cross.

Notwithstanding that it was conceived with noble intentions, some spineless, unscrupulous and soulless individuals abused it to cause havoc for personal gratification. This explains why even some parties that saw the light of day because of floor-crossing, now don’t want to hear a thing about it.

We look forward to the day when the electoral system will be reviewed, even if we were to combine the first-past-the-post and the list systems, as in the local government elections. I thank you.

Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the MF has been in conflict with the Constitution in that, as its members here, we have been voted into these seats as its representatives by a group of people that had faith in our leadership and ability to best address their needs. In no way should we have the right to choose to exercise an individual mandate to cross over to any party. In all honesty, we are pleased that floor-crossing has come to a halt.

We believe that, as MPs, we need to constantly exercise our powers and voice, taking constant cognisance of who we represent and why we are here. The MF is pleased that these Bills will be effective within all spheres of government and that floor-crossing will no longer be an option for political gain.

The MF supports the Constitution Fourteenth and the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bills, as well as the General Laws (Loss of Membership of National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Council) Amendment Bill. I thank you.

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, the constitution of a nation is sacrosanct. It is not a condom for political prostitution. [Interjections.] The PAC supports this Bill. It is a shame that a Parliament which calls itself a “people’s Parliament” ever enacted a law such as floor-crossing. This law is a classical distortion of democracy.

The votes and mandate of voters given to political parties in this House have been violated with impunity. The window of opportunism has been mischievously and misleadingly called the “window of opportunity”: an opportunity for whom - for the voters or for those who contaminate and manipulate the vote of the voters?

The abolition of this political form of vote rigging and kleptocracy deserves its ignominious end. Floor-crossing has affected service delivery. Time has been spent lobbying and campaigning for floor-crossing. Let us hope that with this floor-crossing today being buried, liberatory democracy will emerge and will give the citizens of our country the basic necessities of life, such as employment, education, decent housing, affordable health care and land, and liberate them from poverty. Izwe lethu! [Our land!] [Interjections.]

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Speaker, on 11 June 2002, when Parliament debated the Constitution of South Africa amendment Bill, Azapo did not support the amendments then, because they were legalising floor-crossing as we have experienced it.

As a matter of principle, Azapo did not even accept anyone who wanted to cross to its ranks. [Interjections.] For this reason, Azapo was labelled unrealistic, but we knew that the day would come when we would be singing from the same hymn book. That day is today, thanks to the electorate of South Africa.

The amendments we are considering today are good for our democracy. They strengthen what is generally referred to as the legitimate expression of our people. We salute the electorate for being vigilant and say to them that they should remain vigilant because there will be many things to defend in the future. I thank you.

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, the FD supports the dissolution of this law, despite having been a beneficiary of floor-crossing, which was done as a principled stand against undemocratic practices and an autocratic party leader. Scrapping the law on floor-crossing, to reflect positively on political parties, must combine with changes to the proportional representation system, as recommended by Van Zyl Slabbert. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members!

Mr L M GREEN: In the absence of constituency accountability, political party allegiance is rooted in the cultic dominance of the leader. In practice, the party develops patronage politics that rewards positions to those loyal to the leader at the cost of institutional democracy. Such is the current state in which most of our political parties find themselves.

What needs to be put in place as a substitute to floor-crossing, and in the absence of a constituency system, is a law that requires all political parties to have a constitution which guarantees internal party democracy and limits the chances of a leader gaining unfettered centralised powers. I thank you.

Mr G B MAGWANISHE: Madam Speaker, hon members, the deputy president of the ANC and the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I think we are happy that we have a lot of cadres today who are prepared to implement the ANC conference resolutions. ANC conferences have always been the foundation for the development of our democracy. When we go to ANC conferences we do not only carry the mandate of our branches, but also the aspirations of the people of South Africa, the peoples of Africa and the people of the world.

Conferences of the ANC have not only contributed to policy development but also to the practice and the theory of knowledge. Many dissertations and theses have been submitted to institutions of higher learning citing conferences of the ANC as part of literature review.

It is through ANC resolutions that we have institutions such as the Constitutional Court, Chapter 9 institutions, and many other government programmes. It is the ANC that first declared that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and no government can just claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people. That was said at a time when some of the people in this House believed that South Africa was a white man’s country.

The Polokwane conference was a special conference, like all ANC conferences. This conference was not about the dissolution of the Directorate of Special Operations, but about the transformation of the state, the deepening of democracy, economic transformation, a better Africa and a better world, social transformation, a reconstruction and development programme of the soil and many other issues.

There seems to be a mischievous view that suggests that because the ANC has passed a resolution that some do not like, therefore it does not have the right to do so. It is puzzling that resolutions from the same conference attract such strong opposite reactions. It is also puzzling that when the ANC conference passes a resolution that some agree with, everything is fine, but when the ANC conference passes a resolution that they do not agree with, the same people question the bona fides of the organisation and the conference itself.

The three Bills before us are a direct product of the Polokwane conference. At this conference the ANC said:

Because of our divided political history, many public representatives had a false understanding of political organisations to which they had not been exposed but after interacting with members of these organisations, realised that they stood for similar principles as they did and therefore wanted to join them. As a result of political dynamics at the time, the ANC agreed in 2001 that floor-crossing should be provided for to allow public representatives who had changed their minds about the party of which they were a member to join another party.

Since the floor-crossing legislation came into effect in 2002, a number of difficulties and unforeseen consequences with the implementation of the legislation have emerged. The political terrain which necessitated floor-crossing has changed. Therefore, we resolved that floor-crossing should be abolished and that public representatives of other political parties should be encouraged to join the ANC regardless of whether or not they retain their seats.

Despite the fact that the ANC benefited far more than any other party in the process, when it realised that there were problems with the system, it gave leadership as expected. Opposition parties should thank the ANC for its generosity and for saving them from extinction. This shows our commitment to multiparty democracy. We are committed to working with everybody in building a national democratic society.

Let me also mention that we always got more than two thirds of the votes in national elections, not through floor-crossing. Azapo did not get anybody because nobody wanted to go to them. Everybody wanted to come to us - that is why we were able to receive people. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon members and Ministers, I must say that today we witnessed one of the greatest shows of lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. I think this could have been a great day for our Parliament. At a certain time in our history we had to experiment with something called floor- crossing. We all know what the reasons were. Instead of those parties that actually initiated and voted for it, those individuals that crossed the floor, and those that accepted people that crossed the floor, coming up here and admitting to having made a mistake, we get some of the people who come here and moralise about the issue.

It is a very sad indictment. Mr Joubert comes and tells us that this is one of the most revolting pieces of legislation that Parliament has ever passed. But he was a member of the IFP. He was sitting on those benches there and he jumped ship and sat there, and now he comes and moralises to us about the evils of floor-crossing!

I did not know when I was reading L K Joubert here that I was actually reading his dissertation. I didn’t know it! I should have immediately recognised him by the quote from Churchill. I should have recognised him when it said “Some men change their party for the sake of their principles, others change their principles for the sake of the party”. That was him! I should have recognised him. [Applause.]

I think we should be very careful. If you want us to take you seriously - any individual – if you want us to engage you intellectually, then you must be honest! You can’t stand here and cross the floor and then want to come and moralise to us.

My old friend Koos - I have to get a little stab in here, you know. I mean he moralises also about floor-crossing and he is correct. Since he has been in the IFP he hasn’t done naughty things, but there was a time in his history that he elevated floor-crossing to fine-tune it very, very carefully. When we sat out there fighting you and your white parliament, it looked like political ping-pong was going on here. People were jumping around from one racist and conservative party to the other. [Laughter.]

So, on a lighter note, Koos: we shouldn’t moralise too much in case our skeletons come back to haunt us. [Laughter.]

I do think that we should also say to the nation that, although there was a necessity to deal with this issue of floor-crossing, it also showed the worst in us as South Africans. There can be no doubt that what was happening with the floor-crossing in some instances was just disgraceful, particularly at local government level where people literally jumped for positions and for money and in the process changed governments. I think what we should do as South Africans today, and we should do it with one voice, is to say that this thing is now in our past. Whatever we did, we will not repeat it and we will clearly not try to emulate and do the kind of dastardly and sometimes totally morally unacceptable things that were done as part of floor-crossing.

Thank you for the support from everyone, and we hope that this puts the whole thing to bed at last. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

General Laws (Loss of Membership of National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Council) Amendment Bill read a second time.

Question put: That the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill be read a second time.

The SPEAKER: There are no objections. However, this Bill falls within the ambit of section 74(3) of the Constitution, and a supporting vote of two thirds of the members of the Assembly is therefore needed. Although a division has not been demanded, members are required to record their support for the Bill. The bells will be rung for five minutes to ensure that all members who are around, are in the House so that we can record the support that is required for the Bill to be adopted. Order! Could hon members settle down, and make sure that they are all in their allocated seats, because it is only from their allocated seats that they will be able to register their votes.

When requested to do so, hon members will simply indicate their support by pressing the appropriate button. If a member inadvertently presses the wrong button, he or she should press the correct button, and the last button pressed is what will be recorded.

The question before the House is that the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill be read a second time.

AYES - 310: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, M J; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Bici, J; Blanché, J P I; Bloem, D V; Boinamo, G G; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, C-S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Camerer, S M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chang, E S; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cupido, H B ; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Delport, J T; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlungwana, Z P; Doidge, G Q M; Doman, W P; Erwin, A; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E ; George, D T; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Greyling, L W; Groenewald, P J; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A ; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacob, A C; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Jenner, I E; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Jordan, Z P; Joubert, L K; Julies, I F; Kalako, M U; Kalyan, S V; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Labuschagne, L B; Landers, L T; Lee, T D; Lekgetho, G; Lekota , M G P; Leon , A J; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Lucas, E J; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Madella, A F; Madlala-Routledge, N C; Maduma, L D; Madumise, M M; Magau, K R; Magubane, N E ; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlaba, T L; Mahlawe, N M; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Manuel, T A; Marais, S J F; Martins, B A D; Masango, S J; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburi, I F; Matsomela, M J J ; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbili, M E; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meruti, M V; Mfeketo, N C; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Minnie, K J; Mkhize, Z S; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng , T R; Mogale, O M; Mohamed, I J; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morgan, G R; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Motlanthe, K P; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mufamadi, F S; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Mzondeki, M J G; Nash, J H; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nel, A H; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt- Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, S B; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N ; Nyambi, A J; Nyembe, K K M; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Padayachie, R L; Pandor , G N M; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Roopnarain, U; Rwexana, S P; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Seremane, W J; Shabangu, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S ; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau , S N; Sikakane, M R; Singh, N; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skosana, M B; Smith, V G; Smuts, M; Solo, B M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, J J M; Surty, M E ; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Swathe, M M; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Trent, E W; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S C ; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M ; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A; Vos, S C; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Waters, M; Weber, H; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.

Question agreed to in terms of section 74(3) of the Constitution.

Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Bill accordingly read a second time.

Question put: That the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill be read a second time.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, this Bill also falls within the ambit of section 74(3) of the Constitution, and a supporting vote of two thirds of the members has to be recorded. I therefore now request that the bells be rung for half a minute.

Order! Hon members, the question before the House is that the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill be read a second time.

AYES - 309: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, M J; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Bici, J; Blanché, J P I; Bloem, D V; Boinamo, G G; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, C-S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Camerer, S M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chang, E S; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cupido, H B ; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Delport, J T; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlungwana, Z P; Doidge, G Q M; Doman, W P; Erwin, A; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E ; George, D T; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Groenewald, P J; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A ; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacob, A C; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Jenner, I E; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Jordan, Z P; Joubert, L K; Julies, I F; Kalako, M U; Kalyan, S V; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Labuschagne, L B; Landers, L T; Lee, T D; Lekgetho, G; Lekota , M G P; Leon , A J; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Lucas, E J; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Madella, A F; Madlala-Routledge, N C; Maduma, L D; Madumise, M M; Magau, K R; Magubane, N E ; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlaba, T L; Mahlawe, N M; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Manuel, T A; Marais, S J F; Martins, B A D; Masango, S J; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburi, I F; Matsomela, M J J ; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbili, M E; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meruti, M V; Mfeketo, N C; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Minnie, K J; Mkhize, Z S; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng , T R; Mogale, O M; Mohamed, I J; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morgan, G R; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Motlanthe, K P; Motubatse- Hounkpatin, S D; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mufamadi, F S; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Mzondeki, M J G; Nash, J H; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nel, A H; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, S B; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N ; Nyambi, A J; Nyembe, K K M; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Padayachie, R L; Pandor , G N M; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S ; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Roopnarain, U; Rwexana, S P; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Seremane, W J; Shabangu, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S ; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau , S N; Sikakane, M R; Singh, N; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skosana, M B; Smith, V G; Smuts, M; Solo, B M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, J J M; Surty, M E ; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Swathe, M M; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Trent, E W; Tsenoli, S L; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S C ; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M ; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A; Vos, S C; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Waters, M; Weber, H; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.

Question agreed to in terms of section 74(3) of the Constitution.

Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Bill accordingly read a second time.

Reform of customary law of succession and regulation of related matters bill

                      (Consideration of Report)

There was no debate.

The Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move:

That the Report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

REFORM OF CUSTOMARY LAW OF SUCCESSION AND REGULATION OF RELATED MATTERS BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, the Bill I talk to is a very important piece of legislation. It is hugely transformational as it touches on the lives of thousands of people, young and old.

This Bill is the product of an investigation by the SA Law Reform Commission into the customary law of succession. It introduces fundamental changes to the customary law of succession in that it aims to abolish the customary rule of primogeniture in so far as it applies to the law of succession and to bring it in line with the Constitution.

The customary rule of primogeniture, which is pivotal to the customary law of succession, means that when the head of a family, normally a man, dies, the eldest son inherits his estate. If he does not have a son, his father inherits the estate, and in the case where his father predeceased him, any close male relative inherits his estate.

The practice disqualifies widows from inheriting intestate estates of their spouses. It also disqualifies sons who are not the eldest, daughters and extramarital children from benefiting from the intestate estates of their fathers. Extramarital children only qualify to inherit from the intestate estate of their mother after intramarital children and other close male members of the family have inherited.

The custom, in a sense, does exclude women and, therefore, discriminates. Clearly, this principle is in conflict with the Bill of Rights. The recommendations of the SA Law Reform Commission regarding the incompatibility of the customary law of succession with the Bill of Rights were confirmed in the Bhe case by the Constitutional Court.

This Bill will achieve equality for the most marginalised in our society, particularly women and children. I must say that I was very pleased to learn that there had been extensive consultations organised by the SA Law Commission.

I won’t go through the sections, as other members will talk to those sections, save to indicate that those that I will mention, I think, are themselves materially transformational. Clause 2(1) extends the application of the Intestate Succession Act of 1987 to deceased estates of Africans who die intestate. Previously, these estates were dealt with in terms of the repealed Black Administration Act of 1927.

Clause 2(2) deals with how the Intestate Succession Act of 1987 must be applied in the case of the different supporting marital unions which occur in customary law. Some of these unions are entered into by or on behalf of males, while some are entered into by women for the purpose of providing children or increasing the offspring of the deceased.

Clause 2 is therefore intended to come to the relief of women who have entered into such unions with men or with other women for the purpose of providing children. It recognises them as descendants for purposes of the application of the Intestate Succession Act.

Clause 3 provides guidelines on how the Intestate Succession Act is to be interpreted in order to give effect to the provisions of this Bill. For example, reference to a spouse in the Intestate Succession Act will be interpreted as including every spouse and every woman of any ancillary union referred to in clause 2. The method of calculating the child’s portion is also provided for in the clause.

The Bill also introduces another change by providing, in clause 4, for the property accruing to a woman or her spouse under customary law by virtue of her customary marriage to devolve in terms of a will of such a woman. Should such a woman die without a will, her property will devolve in terms of the Intestate Succession Act of 1987. When such a woman refers to a child in her will or where any reference in section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act is made to a descendant in a case where a woman dies without a will, these words will be interpreted to include any child born out of any supporting union entered into in terms of customary law for the purpose of providing children for such a woman.

Section 5 is equally very important; so is section 6, which excludes succession to property held by a traditional leader in his or her official capacity on behalf of a traditional community from the application of this particular Act. However, the essence in all these clauses is really to capacitate such women in a manner that allows them to inherit and their offspring not to be prejudiced.

Let me conclude by congratulating the portfolio committee. Of course, the chairperson of the portfolio committee deserves to be commended for his sterling leadership of the committee. I also thank the officials in my department, who are always available to assist. I can’t falter and not mention the Deputy Minister.

We have a massive campaign, called Operation Sesifikile, with the Office of the Master of the High Court. This is really an outreach programme extending education to millions of widows, many of whom need assistance as persons to inherit under this particular succession regime.

I wish you to support, as Members of Parliament, a campaign of access to justice that we have embarked on, working with the SA Women Lawyers’ Association. Assisting the poorest of the poor in this area of intestate succession is a priority in this particular campaign. I thank you.

Ms N M MAHLAWE: Madam Speaker, deputy president of the ANC, hon members of this House, allow me first on behalf of women in this House and women of this country, and during this Women’s Month, to congratulate the hon member of this House, Kgoshi Tinyiko Phillia Nwamitwa-Shilubana - Viva Her Royal Highness – on her victory against legally entrenched customary practices which deprived her and others of their rights and dignity for years. We say her victory is a victory for all women, and a victory for women is a victory for the nation. And a victory for the nation is a victory against injustices.

We would say as women: You strike a woman, you strike a rock! I won’t say “you die” - it is not the norm for me.

Lower courts should take cognisance of the fact that cases on issues of customary law relating to women are always upheld by the Constitutional Court, a very expensive exercise for women which many cannot afford. We say to the magistrates of lower courts, now is the time for you to take women seriously.

The Bill before us, the Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Bill, seeks to provide for matters of succession in respect of the different types of family structures that exist within customary law in respect of women and children who have been excluded from protection by the law. For example, in terms of the Intestate Succession Act, Act 81 of 1987, children born of such unions did not qualify to inherit from the intestate estates of their fathers. This Bill is correcting this situation.

The same Act of 1987, clause 2(1), provides that deceased estates of Africans who died intestate could be dealt with in terms of the repealed Black Administration Act of 1927. This is being addressed in the Bill so that the varieties of supporting marital unions in customary law are dealt with. This Bill seeks to abolish the customary rule of male primogeniture as far as it applies to the law of succession - the Minister has referred to this extensively - so that it is in line with the spirit and current notions of equality and human dignity. This is what we seek for all women of this country.

The Bill gives effect to the judgments of the Constitutional Court on matters relating to customary issues. I have just said that most cases related to customary law have been upheld by the Constitutional Court only. In the case of Bhe and Others versus The Magistrate of Khayelitsha, and also that of Shibi versus Sithole and Others, the Constitutional Court declared the principle of male primogeniture incompatible with the Bill of Rights. The hon Sibanyoni will speak on these two cases.

The committee had to make some amendments and proposals on key issues not addressed by the Bill. For instance, the word “traditional” had to be deleted from the definition of customary law, as the Constitutional Court also had observed in the case of Shilubana that to define customary law as something traditionally observed ignores the contemporary practice of a community. The Bill provides that property accruing to a woman or her house under customary law should, by virtue of her customary marriage, devolve in terms of a will. If she dies without a will, her property will devolve in terms of the Intestate Succession Act of 1987.

The interpretation of the Intestate Succession Act in order to give effect to provisions of the Bill is provided for in clause 3. Madam Speaker, I shall leave the rest of these provisions to hon Sibanyoni, but would like to say that this Bill has gone a long way to addressing numerous problems faced by women in customary unions or customary marriages. I would like to reiterate the words of the Pan-African Conference held in Kenya, that the waiting for women must end. We are determined to see a translation of the rhetoric policy and legal framework into practice. So, let it be. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr L K JOUBERT: Chairperson, hon members, every lawyer who has practised in the rural areas of our country would agree that this Bill is long overdue. In view of the changes in social circumstances that developed during the past 50 years or so, it has become necessary to modify the customary law of succession to provide adequately for the welfare of all family members, especially widows.

As lawyers, we tried to circumvent the unfair operation of the customary law by advising clients to make wills since the customary law only applied to intestate deceased estates. This, of course, did not help the hundreds of thousands of those that did not have access to legal advice.

The way in which the system worked, until the Constitutional Court ruled the customary law on this point unconstitutional, was that if a black South African died leaving no valid will, his estate had to be administered in terms of the Black Administration Act of 1927. In terms of the Black Administration Act, which applied customary law, the firstborn male was the sole heir of an intestate estate. This made sense in a culture where the firstborn male heir took over the responsibilities of the deceased. However, with the social changes that occurred over time, the social responsibility of the firstborn male heir became blurred and it became the norm rather than the exception that the heir accepted the assets of the estate without at the same time accepting the responsibilities that went with the assets.

The case of Bhe and Others v The Magistrate of Khayelitsha and Others illustrates this point. Mr and Mrs Bhe were married in terms of customary law and had two minor children born out of the relationship. Mr Bhe acquired an immovable property in Khayelitsha, which became the family home. Mr Bhe died without a will and his brother claimed that he was the intestate heir to the property, which was the position under customary law. However, under customary law, the heir, in this case Mr Bhe’s brother, was supposed to inherit the assets together with the liabilities and he was expected to use the assets for the support of the deceased’s liabilities.

Because of the breakdown of the customary system, male heirs took the assets of their brothers’ estates without accepting the corresponding liabilities, with the result that the widows and children suffered.

I can entertain you with many examples of how we endeavoured to enter into protracted settlement negotiations just to secure a widow her rights to the place she considered her home, all at great cost.

However, these defects have now been removed, and I sincerely hope that we have at the same time removed the colour of a deceased estate as well.

We welcome this piece of legislation. It is just sad that we had to be prompted by the judiciary to enact it and even then, it took us five years. We should really be more sensitive to the needs of our people. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, the IFP supports this Bill. The purpose of the Bill has been explained by other speakers and I don’t intend to repeat what they have said. The Bill is in line with the decision by the Constitutional Court in 2003 to reform the law of succession in order to bring it in line with the Constitution.

It amends customary law and emanates from a report of the SA Law Reform Commission. A discussion paper was widely distributed and elicited comments from a variety of interested parties, including prominent nongovernmental and community-based organisations concerned with gender issues and customary law. A series of workshops were held, in addition. They were attended by, amongst others, traditional leaders in all the provinces.

It would appear that a very comprehensive and extensive consultation process was followed and that the Bill enjoys general support.

The IFP supports the Bill.

Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, the ACDP will support this Bill as it seeks to address certain deficiencies that presently exist in our customary law of intestate succession.

As has been pointed out, a widow in a customary marriage whose husband dies intestate, that is, without a will, does not enjoy adequate protection and benefits under the existing customary law of succession. This also applies in certain cases to children. Stories abound of women and children being deprived of inheritances and being put out of their family houses where they have been excluded from the protection of the law. Clearly these hardships needed to be addressed, and that is what is being achieved by this Bill.

This Bill seeks to do this by abolishing the customary rule of male primogeniture, a very strange word that obviously means the firstborn. As the general rule would apply, only a male who is related to the deceased would qualify as an intestate heir, that is, where there is no will. Women do not participate at all and in certain cases, as was indicated, children are also excluded.

In a monogamous family, the eldest son of the family head is the heir to the exclusion of all others in intestate succession. Clearly, this is an unacceptable state of affairs, which was first addressed in the Constitutional Court case of Bhe vs The Magistrate of Khayelitsha and Others, where, interestingly, the court stated that “the exclusion of women from heirship and consequently from being able to inherit property, was in keeping with a system dominated by a deeply embedded patriarchy, which reserved for women a position of subservience and subordination in which they were regarded as perpetual minors under the tutelage of fathers, husbands or the head of the extended family”. Clearly, that is the issue that was addressed, and the ACDP supports this Bill.

We do also, however, share the concerns expressed in the report, which related to the capacity of the Master’s Office to deal with the additional customary law estates. We believe that this is an issue which the portfolio committee will have to monitor.

The ACDP supports this Bill. I thank you.

Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, this Bill is pivotal to the laws of succession, to customary marriages and to the liberation of the rights of women who are in this type of marriage.

We are most pleased at the effect of equality established between customary and civil marriages in the case of death.

It is definite that in earlier times when customary marriages were dissolved by civil marriage, many women, especially poor rural women, were compromised. We are therefore extremely pleased and are hoping that this consideration may be extended to all religious marriages.

In many instances, society has changed and many women have to fend for themselves. It is for this reason that we need to empower widows and secure their inheritance at a time when they need it most. The MF supports the Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Bill. I thank you.

Nmz J B SIBANYONI: Sihlalo, ngilotjhise kuboNgqongqotjhe namaSekela wabo begodu nakiwo woke amalunga ahloniphekileko wePalamende. Ikulumopikiswano yanamhlanjesi siyenza nje, kuyinyanga yabomma, inyanga kaRhoboyi, kuyinyanga la iPalamende yaboMma inomhlangano elangeni lesibili. Kandi-ke bahlangana nje sekumnyaka wesine selokhu bahlangana njalo. Malibongwe igama lamakhosikazi, Malibongwe!

Umnqopho walomThethomlingwa selebawukhulumile abanye abakhulume ngaphambi kwami, ngalokho-ke angekhe ngawubuyelela. Begodu malungana nemilandu eyakhulunywa yiKhotho yomThethosisekelo weSewula Afrika, imilandu yakaBhe noShibi, njengombana iLunga elihloniphekileko umma Mahlawe bekade athi ngizakukhuluma ngawo, angeze ngisabuyelela ngombana iLunga elihloniphekileko begodu nomnganami ofundileko Umnumzana Swart sele akhulumile ngawo. Engifuna ukukutjho ngilokhu … (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)

[Mr J B SIBANYONI: Chairperson, I greet all the Ministers and Deputy Ministers and hon Members of Parliament. Today’s debate coincides with Women’s Month, which is August. It is a month in which the Women’s Parliament is meeting for the second day. This is the fourth year of their regular meetings. Praise the name of women, Praise!

Those who spoke before me mentioned the purpose of this Bill, which I am not going to repeat. And concerning the cases that have been dealt with by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, which involved Bhe and Shibi, as the hon member Ms Mahlawe said, I was going to talk about them. I am not going to talk about them because the hon member and my learned friend Mr Swart has already talked about them. What I want to say is that …]

… Bill provides that the estate of a person subject to customary law, who dies intestate, must devolve in accordance with the law of intestate succession, as regulated by the Intestate Succession Act, subject to the following.

Firstly, a spouse in a customary marriage will inherit a child’s portion of the estate or an amount that does not exceed that set by the Cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice in the Gazette.

Secondly, the variety of supporting marital unions in customary law has to be accommodated. Recognition is given to a woman who has entered into a union with a man for the purpose of raising children and to ancillary unions entered into by a woman with another woman for the purpose of providing children to the deceased’s house to ensure that the women concerned are regarded as descendants.

Ukwahlukanisa namkha ukwabiwa kwepahla yomuntu ohlongakeleko ngokulandela umthetho namasiko wesikhethu, kulandela umuntu wembaji, umsana olizibulo nguye obayindlalifa. Lokhu kade kukhethulula umma, kukhethulule godu nabantwana babantazana namkha babadala kunezibulo lomsana. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[The devolvement or distribution of the estate of the deceased in our culture follows a patriarchal practice. The first-born son inherits the estate even if the daughters are older than the son. This was discriminating against the mother and her daughters.]

When I was studying law at the then University of Zululand, our lecturer wrote something like this in his notes on Zulu law about the status of a woman under Zulu law:

A woman is a perpetual minor. Before marriage she belongs to her father. During marriage she belongs to her husband. After marriage she reverts to her father, if he is still alive, and if he is deceased, she falls under the authority of her eldest son.

That was the position under the Black Administration Act. I remember this very well because during those times lecturers didn’t like it when students tried to exercise their minds. If you answered an assignment by saying “I think”, the lecturer would draw a red line and next to that he would write: “Don’t think. Give me back my notes.” That’s why I still remember the notes by the lecturer.

Ekuthomeni umnqopho womthetho wesikhethu wamafa kwakukuvikela umndeni nomphakathi emsebenzini obudisi wokutlhogomela umma okhanjelwe yindoda kunye nabantwana bakhe. Umthetho wamafa khabe kungasikuhlukanisa ipahla kamufi kodwana khabe kukutlhogomela umuzi kamufi nokuthi ibizo lakhe liragele phambili. Khabe kukghonakala ngokuthi kube nomuntu ozokutlhogomela umndeni kamufi nepahla yakhe. Abafelokazi bayabonelelwa lokha nabasala ekhayapha nakangakabuyeli ekhabo namkha ayokwenda engcenye. Kungalokho-ke ngesikhethu kunesiko lokuphakela. Eminye imihlobo yabantu ikhuluma ngokungena abanye bathi kuvusa, kukhona godu nabathi lisiko lokuzalela. Amasiko la asesekhona emthethweni akatjhayisani nomThethosisekelo. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[At first, the purpose of the Customary Law of Succession was to protect the family and the community from the difficult responsibilities of taking care of the widow and the children. The customary law of succession was not about the distribution of the estate of the deceased but about taking care of the family of the deceased in order to keep his name forever. This was made possible by having a family member who would take care of the family and the estate of the deceased. The widow is taken care of at home, unless she decides to go back to her place of birth or gets married to another man. That is why in our culture, there is a practice that the widow remarries within the family to an older or younger brother of the deceased. Other people talk about remarrying in the family. Other cultures refer to it as resuscitating the home and there are those who call it a culture of giving birth. Those cultures still exist in the statutes and do not contradict the Constitution.]

The Bill notes the following: A widow in a customary marriage whose husband dies intestate does not enjoy adequate protection and benefit under the customary law of succession; certain children born out of customary marriage do not enjoy adequate protection under customary law; section 9 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law; social circumstances have so changed that the customary law of succession no longer provides adequately for the welfare of family members; and the Constitutional Court has declared that the principle of male primogeniture, as applied in the customary law of succession, cannot be reconciled with the current notions of equality and human dignity as contained in the Bill of Rights.

The application of the official customary law of rules of succession in circumstances vastly different from their traditional setting causes much hardship. Because patriarchal oppression was embedded in the economic, social, religious, cultural, family and other relations in all communities, its eradication cannot be an assumed consequence of democracy. All manifestations and consequences of patriarchy - from the feminisation of poverty to physical and psychological abuse, undermining of self- confidence, and open and hidden forms of exclusion from positions of authority and power – need to be eliminated. The state is one of the pillars of the national democratic revolution and thus it should be used to win the war against discrimination of persons on the basis of their gender.

The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I thank all the members who participated in this debate. The Bill will indeed greatly benefit our people and we therefore accede to our mandate of transforming our society for the better.

On the matter of the Office of the Master, we will, as we usually do, consider the report and we will take advice, as provided in the report, save to say that it was inevitable for us to increase capacity at the Master’s office. But of course the Master’s office is also part of our focus on transformation in the sense that we need to modernise that, and we are doing so, and we need to professionalise the services there. I must say that many friends from all provinces will have noticed that we have even set up mobile offices for the Office of the Master.

So, once more I invite you to join us in partnership as we increase the frontiers of access to justice for all our people. This week, Sawla, the SA Women Lawyers’ Association, in partnership with the Department of Justice, are on the airwaves everywhere providing information and knowledge, extending actual services to our people – all the services they need, including the campaign of imparting information about the law of succession, and the rights of women in succession. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

             NATIONAL HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS BILL
   TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, members of Parliament, chairperson and members of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, chairperson and members of the National House of Traditional Leaders, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to address this House after our last interaction when we presented the Budget Vote of the Department of Provincial and Local Government.

We are meeting today to debate the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill, B56 of 2008, and the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill, B57 of 2008. I would like to thank the National House of Traditional Leaders, the provincial houses of traditional leaders, all the organs of civil society and the general public for the contributions made during the process of finalising the two Bills we are presenting today. Their contributions have indeed enriched and shaped the final product being presented today.

Our government believes that governance based on traditional leadership institutions is in fact the backdrop of democracy in Africa in general and in a democratic South Africa in particular.

In this regard, we have put in place a constitutional and legal framework that ensures that traditional leadership functions in a manner that embraces democracy and contributes to the entrenchment of a democratic culture, thus enhancing its own status and standing among the people.

The implementation of the new legal framework on traditional leadership over the past 14 years has seen the evolution of the institution, promotion of gender representation, democratisation of the structures of traditional leadership and the improved involvement of traditional leadership in development and service delivery. In all these endeavours, government has been working with traditional leaders.

During the long-drawn period of negotiations for a democratic South Africa, the ANC fought very hard and long for the inclusion of Chapter 12 in the Constitution, thereby giving constitutional recognition to the institution of traditional leadership.

This process was driven by a number of objectives, including paying tribute to the role the institution played in the formation of the ANC as a revolutionary movement fighting for the rights of the oppressed masses of our people; and acknowledging that the institution has a critical role to play in the new dispensation, especially with respect to rural communities.

To this effect, you will recall that Cabinet approved the White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance in 2003. The Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act was subsequently enacted in the same year. Provinces followed suit with the complementary provincial legislation.

The implementation of these pieces of legislation over the past three years has revealed a need for further refinement of the legislative framework to further deepen and improve the role of the institution in service delivery and development within traditional communities.

With regard to the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill, B56 of 2008, Chapter 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provides that national and provincial legislation must provide for the establishment of houses of traditional leaders. Since 1994, the National House of Traditional Leaders and provincial houses of traditional leaders have been established through the relevant national and provincial legislation.

The Council of Traditional Leaders Act was passed in 1994, in line with the 1993 interim constitution. This Act was repealed in 1997 and replaced by the Council of Traditional Leaders Act in 1997.

The 1997 Act was further amended through the Council of Traditional Leaders Amendment Act of 1998 and again through the National House of Traditional Leaders Amendment Act in 2000.

In an attempt to improve the functionality and broaden the scope of the work for the National House of Traditional Leaders, the Bill before us today provides for the following key issues in line with the Constitution, the White Paper and the framework Act: The continued existence of the National House of Traditional Leaders with added responsibilities; the composition of the National House of Traditional Leaders to be representative of all provinces, including the provinces that have recently acquired traditional communities after the redetermination of provincial boundaries; to streamline the process of electing members of the National House of Traditional Leaders in the provinces; to determine powers and duties of the National House of Traditional Leaders in line with the White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance; to enhance the effective functioning, management and administration of the National House of Traditional Leaders; to make provision for support to the House by government in respect of administration, finances, capacity-building and resources; to make provision for the relationship between the national House and the provincial houses; to make provision for the relationship between the national House and kings and queens; and to make provision for the relationship between the national House and government.

It is therefore clear that the Bill provides for the continued existence of the National House of Traditional Leaders with added responsibilities which will enable it to function more effectively. It will also offer the House an opportunity to develop into a stronger organisation, working in partnership with other structures of traditional leadership, which will continue with its important and primary task of promoting the interests of traditional communities in our country.

Indeed, we have seen the House develop to what it is today. The finalisation of this Bill thus marks another important milestone for the House. Government stands ready to work with the House in a co-operative spirit for the betterment of the lives of traditional communities.

I turn now to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill, B57 of 2008. The Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, Act 41 of 2003, was passed in December 2003 and came into operation in September 2004. The implementation of the Act at national and provincial levels has necessitated that certain improvements be effected to the Act.

The Bill therefore provides for the following amendments: Recognition of kingships or queenships and the withdrawal of such recognition; disestablishment of paramountcies and the withdrawal of recognition of paramount chiefs; establishment of kingship or queenship councils and the determination of their functions; the determination of the membership of traditional councils and kingship or queenship councils by Premiers and the Minister respectively, in line with provincial peculiarities; establishment of a traditional subcouncil where the area of jurisdiction of a traditional community occupies two or more geographical areas apart from each other; extension of the original one year to five years as the period within which the traditional authorities must be transformed in line with the Act; and the alignment of the terms of office of all the structures within the institution of traditional leadership with the term of office of the National House of Traditional Leaders. These amendments therefore are intended to ensure that all the structures within the institution are established and that the institution functions more effectively. It is hoped that this endeavour by government will help restore the dignity of the institution and enable it to play its role in service delivery and development in partnership with government. Therefore, once passed, the Bill will further enable traditional leaders to constitute part of the cadre of leadership that is leading in transforming South Africa towards a better life for all.

In addition to the two Bills, government is committed to working and supporting the institution of traditional leadership, as is demonstrated through the development of the government-wide national programme of support for traditional leadership, the establishment of a dedicated national department for traditional leadership and other initiatives.

I would like to emphasise that it is the vision of government therefore to continue to transform and support the institution of traditional leadership in accordance with the constitutional principles of democracy and equality, and that it might play its meaningful role in the development and service delivery to the rural communities of our country.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the portfolio committee for the efficient manner in which they dealt with these two Bills. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S L TSENOLI: Chairperson, hon members and guests, the January 8th statement of the ANC observed that this year will see anniversaries of events in our past that had helped determine the cause of our struggle, and defined the kind of society we are building today. And one of those is the 25th anniversary of the formation of the United Democratic Front, a critical moment in the deepening of internal resistance and mobilisation that contributed to the collapse of the apartheid system.

That day is today. Twenty-five years ago, we travelled across the length and breadth of the country to cram into the Rocklands civic centre in Mitchells Plain to launch this dynamic, powerful movement that effectively dictated the text of the famous speech read from this podium on 2 February 1990 by one FW de Klerk. The UDF united, apartheid divided, we declared. In saying so, we were continuing the Congress tradition of uniting people, of working with them in their diversity and working with them across many things that separated them to pursue a common South Africa, as envisaged in the Freedom Charter.

Today, the Bills that we present before the House continue the task of addressing the national grievance that apartheid vested upon us, and restoring the dignity of the institution of traditional governance and transforming it, so that these institutions themselves comply with the Constitution and the White Paper policy framework agreed to by traditional leaders themselves and other key role-players.

We are repealing some of the provisions of the existing legislation and ensuring the continued existence of the houses of traditional leaders. We are also making provision for the alignment of national, provincial and local houses in their design, composition and transformation agenda. The houses pursue unity and eschew fragmentation, even if they are flexible enough to allow for different traditions and customs to prevail.

We have satisfied ourselves in the committee that relatively adequate consultation occurred, and that some of the contentious issues and pressing expectations of traditional leaders will be dealt with in the ongoing work to set up a department, as the President called for in the state of the nation address and in further consultations going forward.

By saying that we are satisfied that relative consultation took place, we mean that the department itself, in our interrogation of the work they did, showed us - and we corroborated this with actors who were involved in these briefing sessions - that the national houses, the provincial houses and many stakeholders were invited to sessions during which the proposed Bills were given to them.

We are aware that some of the key stakeholders felt dissatisfied with some of the provisions, but in the nature of democracy and in the nature of seeking to find the best way across a complex arena, it is expected that there will be differences. Our approach in accepting these Bills was that we were persuaded by the necessity, firstly, to let them comply with constitutional provisions but also with the White Paper policy framework that was recently adopted. It was necessary, therefore, to repeal the old legislation so that it is consistent, as we said earlier, with the policy framework.

The significance of the measures in these two Bills is that not only do they introduce cross-alignment, better co-ordination and accountability, which my colleagues will speak on, but they also provide for continued work to enable deep interaction between the traditional leadership institutes themselves and the communities they lead. We hope this work will be addressed in policy development going forward. We are aware that in respect of some of the issues, for example the code of conduct, the traditional leaders and the House felt that they should have been given an opportunity to develop their own, but that would have taken time.

What we have accepted, as the recommendation, is that, based on the framework that already has been accepted, we should proceed with the one that is in the Bills that are provided here, so that future development of any adjustment must be based, obviously, on the policy framework as well as the Constitution. We hope this will be accepted in the spirit that we recognise work in progress. For us in the committee, the work to rid our country of poverty, the work to transform all institutions to be deeply engaged in this process, is what informs and inspires us to work in the way in which we did in this Bill, because we recognise the significant role that the traditional leaders play in their communities to mobilise and interact with government at local, provincial and national levels, to ensure that we hit poverty where it needs to be hit, so that there is very little of it left when we are finished.

The role of the House of Traditional Leaders, as transformed in the proposed legislation and in the framework, with their agreement, must complement our own work. The past colonial and apartheid government played dirty games with these institutions. It is our task, working with them, to rid them of those problems and restore the dignity that they deserve as part of our African Renaissance agenda. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr M M SWATHE: Chairperson, the DA welcomes the introduction of these two Bills. These two Bills are a watershed in reforming the role of traditional leadership within the democratic dispensation. We support the objective of both Bills to improve the capacity of the houses of traditional leaders to make them more effective in addressing the challenges facing traditional authorities throughout the country. We hope these pieces of legislation will strengthen the smooth working relationship between the national House, provincial houses and the government.

One of the major challenges facing traditional authorities within our democratic order is the issue of the key gaps, resulting in a legal vacuum with regard to accountability, and the powers and functions indicated in the Bills. The DA acknowledges that traditional leaders are central to protecting our heritage and consolidating our constitutional democracy. Previous legislative regimes have often treated traditional authorities as an island, separate from our democracy.

As a result, there has been unnecessary confusion between traditional leaders and democratically elected leaders such as councillors. The lack of synergy emanating from some traditional leaders and councillors has undermined the interests of the public, as leaders grapple for authority. We hope that these Bills will strengthen relations between these role- players to serve the interests of the people.

We also welcome the fact that there will be a code of conduct to guide traditional authorities in conducting their affairs. There is clearly a need to ensure that traditional authorities are more transparent and involve people in their core activities. The introduction of kingship or queenship councils will also improve the capacity of traditional leaders’ accountability. We argue that two full-time members will be sufficient to execute the duties of the house, and will allow the other members to pay attention to matters in the communities, which remains the most important duty of a traditional leader.

I want to stress that the role and functions of the houses, as contained in the Bills, are in line with the Constitution. Adherence to these will promote the role of traditional leadership within our democratic constitutional dispensation.

The committee strengthened the clause on the role of the houses by inserting that the houses must promote, and I quote:

The transformation and adaptation of customary law and custom so as to comply with the provision of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, in particular by preventing unfair discrimination, promoting equality and seeking to progressively advance gender representation in the succession to traditional leadership positions.

This is a clear challenge in the Bill.

With regard to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill, we are satisfied with the manner in which the Bill seeks to clarify the role of kingships and queenships. The recognition establishment of kingship and queenship councils will certainly go a long way in strengthening the capacity of traditional authorities to fulfil their mandates.

Clause 4A(3) states that, and I quote:

A kingship or queenship council and its resources may not be used to promote or prejudice the interest of any political party …

This is of specific importance if traditional leadership is to prosper. Traditional authorities must not be used as political tools to advantage or disadvantage political parties. This is a daunting challenge which traditional leaders have to overcome, particularly in the run-up to the general elections.

Finally, the DA wants to caution that the budgets will have to be kept in check for the fiscus to afford it. We hope that the Bills will make traditional leadership more compatible with the country’s constitutional democratic values. Thank you very much.

Mr M J BHENGU: Chairperson, these two Bills are the last chapter in a continuous string of broken promises aimed at disintegrating the institution of traditional leadership, whilst pretending to protect and recognise it. Our entire constitutional sentiment was predicated, inter alia, on the promise that the powers and functions of traditional leadership would be protected, and that a provincial constitution alone would provide for the monarchy of KwaZulu-Natal and its kingdom.

The people of KwaZulu-Natal came together through their elected representatives on 16 March 1996, and unanimously adopted a provincial constitution, with many built-in compromises, which nonetheless made full provision for the monarchy of KwaZulu-Natal. All this has been disregarded by these two Bills which now impose a uniform system across the country which is foreign and inimical to the traditions, history and needs of KwaZulu-Natal. It is indeed a subversion of our monarchy.

Among the subversive elements of this legislation is the newly introduced incompatibility between certain offices of traditional leadership and membership in national and provincial legislatures. Members of royal councils and the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the House of Traditional Leaders cannot hold such political office, which will create a divorce between political hierarchies and traditional hierarchies, with consequent predictable conflicts. The role ascribed by this legislation to the Premier and the Minister in the affairs of the monarchy is both foreign and intolerable, and smacks of a persistent colonial attitude.

Today we are completing a process which has inflicted a deep and fatal injury on the monarchy of KwaZulu-Natal and the institution of traditional leadership nationwide. We have seeded deep into the South African soil winds which will undoubtedly germinate into powerful storms and tempests, possibly many years after our departure from this earth. In our present era no historical issue disappears, and it is bound to re-emerge with a vengeance, in years to come.

Today this House is finalising the set of historical grievances which now define the international question of the Zulu monarchy. This is bound to be taken up by future generations, who, when reading the record of these proceedings, will curse those who went along with the government’s endless betrayals and broken promises, without standing up to voice their indignation and defend our Republic’s honour and national morality. The IFP does not support this Bill. I thank you.

Mnr I E JENNER: Voorsitter en agb lede, ten midde van uitdagings bring dié langverwagte wet erkenning aan tradisionele leiers, asook insluiting, en bevordering van morele waardes in ’n kulturele perspektief. Hierdie twee is die vernaamste aspekte waaroor daar lank en in diepte gedebatteer is. Hierdie twee aspekte bring ook in samewerking met die wet ’n einde aan die skade en verbrokkeling wat apartheid veroorsaak het. Vandag word die skerwe van kulturele vervreemding opgetel en is daar ’n herlewing van inheemse en vergete groepe.

Die uitdagings wat egter indringend aandag moet geniet, is die begrotingsimplikasies, die lang uitstaande diensleweringskwessies, die dringende bemagtiging van tradisionele leiers om die werkswyse van die verskillende regeringsfere te verstaan, en die voorbereiding van veral plaaslike regering om hierdie geïntegreerde benadering te bevorder. Ek wil ook die hoop uitspreek dat die nuwe tradisionele leiers en groepe nie nou sal ontvou soos nuwe politieke partye agt maande voor die verkiesing nie. Hierdie nuwe wet sal ook die uitgeslote deel van die geskiedenis moet bywerk as ’n doel om die debat betreffende identiteit, grondslag of eerste nasie, wie ontdek of gevind was en wie hier was, te stimuleer en te finaliseer. As verontregtes sal ons tradisionele leiers en gemeenskappe na vandag weer kan opstaan, weer kan trots wees, weer ’n volk kan wees, weer ons eie taal kan praat, weer ’n nasie kan wees en sodoende uitvoering gee aan die visie van ons voorvaders. Die OD ondersteun die wetsontwerp. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr I E JENNER: Chairperson and hon members, amidst many challenges this long-awaited Act brings recognition to traditional leaders, as well as the inclusion, and promotion of moral values from a cultural perspective. These were the two most important aspects about which there was lengthy and indepth debate. These two aspects, in collaboration with the Act, also bring an end to the damage and disintegration that was caused by apartheid. Today, the fragments of cultural estrangement are being recovered and there is a revival of indigenous and forgotten groups. The challenges that should, however, enjoy incisive attention, are the budget implications, the long-outstanding service delivery issues, the urgent empowering of traditional leaders to understand the modus operandi of the different spheres of government, and the preparation of, especially, local government to advance this integrated approach. I would also like to express the hope that the new traditional leaders and groups do not now unfold like new political parties eight months before the elections. This new Act would also have to bring up to date the excluded part of history with the purpose to stimulate and finalise the debate with regard to identity, roots or the first nation, who was discovered or found and who was here. After today, as wronged people, our traditional leaders and communities will be able to rise again, be proud again, speak our own language again, be a nation again and in this way give expression to the vision of our forefathers. The ID supports this Bill. Thank you.]

Mr H B CUPIDO: Chairperson, the ACDP welcomes and supports the two Bills before the House today. According to the National House of Traditional Leaders, prior to the promulgation of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003, there were signs that visibly indicated that the relationship between them and the government was not favourable.

Subsequently, our President, Thabo Mbeki, at the annual opening of the National House of Traditional Leaders this year, stated, and I quote:

While government departments have been encouraged to work with traditional leaders where they can, implementation has revealed that the Traditional Leaders and Governance Framework Act requires further refinement.

Hence, government clearly acknowledged that they were working to refine the legislative framework, which will facilitate the imperative responsibility of traditional leaders in South African society. Consequently, we have the dawn of the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill before us today.

In essence, this Bill before Parliament provides appropriately for a National House of Traditional Leaders on the ground and defines in greater detail its powers and duties, and, most significantly, provides the relationship between the House, the provincial houses and government on matters of legislative process.

Overall, the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill affords the basis for the complete incorporation of the parliamentary process initially envisaged. Furthermore, the Bill deals with the functioning of the National House of Traditional Leaders and it gives effect to the needs and interests of re-establishing the function and realigning it with the functions of Parliament in general.

It must be said that the ACDP wholly supports the National House of Traditional Leaders and their system of government for the rural areas, provided that the system does not go against Christian values, for the reason that the ACDP shares certain fundamental values. Together, we believe in the promotion of traditional values and cultures, social coherence and national identity. Furthermore, the ACDP believes that when such an institution is intact, we will hear less of crime in the rural areas.

To conclude, the ACDP supports this Bill, but calls upon the traditional leaders to refrain from participating in party politics whilst at the same time serving as traditional leaders, as this dual role, in our view, is repugnant to the duty of traditional leaders of uniting their subjects. The ACDP supports the Bill.

Ms P BHENGU: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister for Provincial and Local Government, hon Ministers, Members of Parliament and distinguished guests, the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government tables before this House an additional National House of Traditional Leaders Bill and a Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill. These are the two separate but related pieces of legislation which, together with the policy review process, would cement what the ANC has always said in terms of recognising the institution, status and role of traditional leadership within our modern constitutional and democratic system.

As required by law, we invited comments from all concerned South Africans and organised groups. I’m happy to report to this House that we indeed received valuable inputs from a number of submissions which helped in shaping the final outcome of these two Bills.

Chairperson, the committee initiated a process of public hearings and the inputs received were extensively dealt with during the deliberations. I can confidently say that no individual or group will claim that their comments were not considered by the committee.

Last week Wednesday, the committee voted on the Bill, and the ANC supports the Bill as amended. Since this is a section 76 Bill, we expect our colleagues in the NCOP to go to the provinces to further strengthen the transformation process of traditional leadership in order for it to achieve full legitimacy and democracy, and be respected and accepted by all the people of our country.

On the other hand, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill is the result of a decision of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, established by The Presidency in terms of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003.

The Nhlapo Commission, as it was formally known, was mandated to hear cases where there was doubt as to whether a traditional leadership position had been established in accordance with customary law; cases where the title of an incumbent traditional leader was challenged; claims by communities to be recognised as traditional communities; cases questioning whether an establishment of tribes was legitimate; disputes around traditional authorities’ boundaries and the resulting division or merging of tribes; and other relevant matters.

The Bill therefore amends the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, Act 41 of 2003, to provide for, among other things, the following: The recognition of kingships and queenships and the withdrawal of such recognition; the withdrawal of recognition for paramount chiefs in the de-establishment of paramountcy; establishment of kingship and queenship councils; and the functions of kingship and queenship councils.

On the other hand, the main objective of the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill is to repeal the National House of Traditional Leaders Act of 1997, replacing it with a whole new Act. The Bill overhauls the current Act by repealing it, together with its amendments passed in 1998 and 2000, replacing it with the new law which is in line with the Constitution and the White Paper on Traditional Leadership and Governance adopted in 2003. The main thrust of this Bill is thus the establishment and the effective functioning of the National House of Traditional Leaders.

One of the progressive provisions of the Bill is the measure that speaks about the strengthening of the relationship between the national House and the provincial houses. In addition, the House must also hold biennial meetings with the kingship or queenship council to discuss matters of interest to the kings and queens, and matters related to service delivery and the development of traditional communities.

However, for the House to perform its functions it needs to be provided with all the necessary support by the national government. The House is also instructed to submit a report to Parliament giving an outcome of its activities and programmes. A way must also be found for traditional leaders to co-operate with communities and organise groups to pursue common developmental objectives that stand to benefit the social welfare of the traditional communities.

UKhongolose wenze olukhulu ushintsho okokuqala ngqa eNingizimu Afrika ukubhekelela izindaba ezithinta abaholi bendabuko. Amakhosi endabuko ebenganakiwe uhulumeni wobandlululo nawohulumeni bezabelo. Namuhla abaholi bendabuko sebeyahola ngisho nezinduna imbala seziyahola. Noma-ke uhlelo lusaqhubeka kodwa lokho kusho ukuthi uKhongolose kuningi akwenzile. Amakhosi asakhelwa ngisho nezinkantolo zokuthetha … [Kwaphela isikhathi.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[The African National Congress has brought about significant changes concerning the affairs of traditional leaders for the first time in South Africa. Traditional leaders were not catered for by the apartheid regime and homeland governments. Nowadays, traditional leaders and headmen receive remuneration. Even though this programme is still being implemented, it still means that the ANC has done a lot. The traditional leaders also have traditional courts … [Time expired.]]

Rre B E PULE: Modulasetulo, UCDP e dumelelana le mametlelelo ya Melaotlhomo e, gore go nne le Ntlo ya Segosi ya Bosetšhaba. Go tlaa thusa gore go nne le tshwaragano go tswa kwa tlase, ke gore ditheo tse di golaganang le dipusoselegae, Palamente ya porofense le Kokoano Peomolao ya Bosetšhaba. Ka gale go na le ketsaetsego gare ga bogosi le bokhanselara mo metseng, bogolo fa go tshwanetse go dirwa ditlhabololo. Setswana sa re “bogosi ga bo tlolwe e se letsoku”. Le fa go ntse jalo go na le makhanselara ba ba itirang magosi, ba rata go tlola bogosi.

Tsholofelo ke gore Melaotlhomo e, e tla tlhamalatsa tsamaiso ya bogosi. UCDP e lebogela fa maikaelelo a magolo a puso e le go tsholetsa seriti sa bogosi jaaka magosi e le ona batlhokomedi ba setso sa merafe ya bona go nna boswa jwa bana ba merafe eo. Ntlha e nngwe e e botlhokwa ke therisano ya go dira ditlhabololo mo metseng. Go tswa kwa ga lowe, magosi a ntse a tlhokomela merafe ya ona ka ditlhabololo, bogolo ka kago ya dikolo. A go seka ga bonala e kete rona batho ba re tlhopiwang go direla dingwaga di le tlhano re ka gaisa ba ba tsaletsweng maemo ao. A molao o totobatse maikarabelo a dikgosi mo setšhabeng jaaka Molaotlhomo o o bua, mme re solofela gore puso le yona e tla tshegetsa magosi a rona jaaka e solofetsa. UCDP e dumalana le mametlelelo ya Melaotlhomo e. Ke a leboga. (Translation of Setswana speech follows.)

[Mr B E PULE: Chairperson, the UCDP concurs with the amendment of these Bills which propose the establishment of a National House of Traditional Leaders, which will help to forge unity at grassroots level, especially structures that are linked to the local government, provincial government and national government. More often than not there is confusion between traditional leaders and councillors in the villages. There is a Setswana saying that chieftaincy is something that traditional leaders are born with and will die with. Despite that, there are councillors who disregard and disrespect them.

The UCDP is grateful that the main purpose of government is to uphold the dignity of chieftaincy, as they are the traditional guards of their communities which would eventually become the legacy for their children. We hope that these Bills will clarify the role of chiefs in no uncertain terms. Another important point is the discussion about developments in villages. It has been the responsibility of the chiefs to ensure that communities are taken care of, especially in bringing about developments such as the building of schools. May we people, who are voted into office for a period of five years, not act like we can do better than traditional leaders who were born to lead. The law should lay down what the responsibilities of the chiefs are over their respective communities, just like the Bill states, and hope that the government too will support our traditional leaders as promised. The UCDP supports the amendment of these Bills. Thank you.]

Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF has an abundance of respect for tradition, customs and culture. These aspects are at the root of the people we are and the history of generations past.

We are also lucky that through the horrendous events of colonialism and apartheid, we have managed to preserve our culture and tradition. It is crucial for a democratic state that we find ways to reintroduce effective traditional leadership and bodies of governance as initiated by the Constitution.

The MF extends its respect to the traditional leaders of South Africa and has confidence in the preservation of African tradition. These Bills have been long awaited and we sincerely hope that they will facilitate traditional leadership in South Africa and will demonstrate African tradition that complies with the Constitution.

We further feel that there should be some dialogue between traditional leaders and the national government, as a united effort to address the challenges of South Africa and its upliftment. It is important that we identify common concerns and network co-operative projects.

It is crucial that traditional leaders should also be ambassadors for all the traditions and customs of the people of our nation. We need to realise that we house many traditions. While we cater for these traditional leaders, we maintain as much respect for the traditions of our rainbow nation.

The MF supports the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill and the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill. I thank you, Chairperson.

Nkosi M NONKONYANA: Mgcinisihlalo, Malungu ale Ndlu abekekileyo, bonke abantu abafanele ukuhlonitshwa, ndiyabulela ngokuba nditefiswe ukuze nam ndenze libe linye okanye abe mabini ukuxhasa le Mithetho iYilwayo.

Ngenxa yokuba ke ndicelwe ziinkozi zam ukuba ndithethe zindive, noko ndiza kucela uxolo kuwe, Sihlalo, njengoko bendithembisile ukuba ndiza kuthetha isiXhosa poqo namhlanje. Kunyanzelekile ukuba ndithethe zindive ezinye iinkosi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)

[Chief M NONKONYANA: Chairperson, hon members of this august House and all protocol observed, I thank you for the honour that has been bestowed upon me in order for me to say a word or two in support of the Bills.

I have been mandated by the traditional leaders to speak on their behalf and because of that, Chairperson, you will forgive me, as I know I promised to speak only pure isiXhosa today. I will have to speak in the language that all other traditional leaders will understand.]

I rise to add that needed voice of royal approval to both these Bills, which the ANC proposes that the honourable House approves. It is gratifying to note that almost all the parties have accepted these Bills. I’m certain that the IFP, the party that I thought was close to the institution of traditional leadership, is the only one that will vote against these Bills. I will deal with their concerns later.

The National House of Traditional Leaders Bill, although repealing all the previous pieces of legislation passed by this honourable House, guarantees the continued participation of traditional leaders at national level, that is, the third sphere of governance. It also addresses some of the challenges experienced since the unprecedented establishment of the national House by the ANC government as far back as 18 April 1997, that is, more than 11 years ago.

Furthermore, it provides for a legal framework for the necessary relationship between the national House and the forum of kings and queens. This is another innovative step taken by the ANC government.

The provision for a forum of chairpersons and secretaries will also enhance co-operation and the sharing of a common vision and mission of a united South Africa by traditional leaders.

Furthermore, as if this were not enough, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill is aimed at effecting the necessary improvements to both the principal Act and the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, Act 20 of 1998.

The national House will therefore continue to exist and exercise its powers and functions as set out in the principal Act. Traditional leaders in Gauteng and traditional leaders in the Northern Cape will, for the first time, enjoy membership of the national House.

During public hearings traditional leaders voiced their wish that in addition to the full-time chairperson and deputy chairperson, all the members of the House must work full-time, as well as their desire for the House to work independently of the department. It became clear during our interaction with them that this desire, together with the question of whether traditional leaders should continue to be involved in party politics, should await a review of the White Paper, which the department is initiating. I’m sure the hon Cupido of the ACDP will find this very gratifying.

Furthermore, in the light of the envisaged establishment of the department of traditional affairs announced by President Mbeki early this year, it became clear that these and other issues needed to be considered in a process that must involve public participation.

I turn briefly to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill. Pursuant to the adoption of the White Paper and the passing of the Act in 2003, the Act that this Bill seeks to amend provides, amongst other things, for a framework for transformation of traditional authorities and the creation of a traditional council that guarantees, for the first time, at least 30% participation by women. Malibongwe! [Praise!]

Furthermore, again for the first time in our history, a framework for the establishment of local houses was provided for. The Act provides for the necessary co-operation and mutual trust between all spheres of government and the institution of traditional leadership in order to accelerate service delivery in traditional communities.

In line with the views expressed by traditional leaders, especially by that progressive organisation, the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA, an independent commission was established to deal with the claims and counterclaims. The commission has made a determination regarding the legitimacy of the current paramountcies and confirmed that some of them are in fact kingships.

We also need to address the implementation of the determination of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims relating to queens and kings, as well as the establishment of the queens’ and kings’ councils.

The Act currently does not provide for a mechanism to de-establish paramountcies established in terms of the old order legislation. The amending Bill therefore provides for the establishment of another tier or rung of traditional leadership, that is, kingship or queenship. Never again shall we refer to our queens and kings as paramount chiefs.

The ANC is indeed serious about restoring the pride and dignity of the institution of traditional leadership in South Africa. And the IFP … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, firstly, I would like to acknowledge Nkosi Khuthama in the gallery, who is the chair of the National House of Traditional Leaders. We welcome you, chairperson.

Secondly, I would like to thank all those who participated in the debate and those who supported the two Bills in front of us today. And I’d also like to thank hon Bhengu for making it very clear to us that before these Bills were tabled here today, there was a process at portfolio committee level where all different parties had to make their inputs and motivate their support or lack of support for the two Bills. That process was a democratic process.

One doesn’t expect one’s input always to be accepted by one’s portfolio committee; it is either accepted or rejected, depending on how one motivates one’s issues.

To my way of thinking, we have a Constitution in the country, and the institution has to evolve in line with the Constitution of the country; you cannot pick and choose what to implement from the Constitution. Therefore, we are not going to sit back and not transform what needs to be transformed in this country.

Lastly, I would like to say to everyone: Thank you very much for participating in the debate, particularly to those who supported the Bills.

Debate concluded. Question put: That the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill be read a second time:

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 197: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Bloem, D V; Bonhomme, T J; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cupido, H B; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlungwana, Z P; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gcwabaza, N E ; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N; Holomisa, S P; Jacob, A C; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, M; Kalako, M U; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Maduma, L D; Madumise, M M; Magau, K R; Magubane, N E ; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlawe, N M; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Martins, B A D; Mashangoane, P R; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Matsemela, M L; Matsomela, M J J ; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meruti, M V; Mfeketo, N C; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng , T R; Mogale, O M; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Motlanthe, K P; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Nash, J H; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nonkonyana, M; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, S B; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N ; Nyembe, K K M; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Pule, B E; Rajbally, S ; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Rasmeni, S M; Schneemann, G D; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S ; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Surty, M E ; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Wyk, A; Wang, Y; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.

NOES - 39: Bhengu, M J; Blanché, J P I; Boinamo, G G; Botha, C-S; Chang, E S; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Dreyer, A M; Ellis, M J; George, D T; Julies, I F; Kalyan, S V; Kohler-Barnard, D; Lee, T D; Lowe, C M; Lucas, E J; Masango, S J; Minnie, K J; Morgan, G R; Nel, A H; Rabinowitz, R; Roopnarain, U; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Sibuyana, M W; Singh, N; Skosana, M B; Stephens, J J M; Steyn, A C; Swart, M; Trent, E W; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M ; Vos, S C; Waters, M.

ABSTAIN - 1: Swathe, M M.

Question agreed to.

National House of Traditional Leaders Bill accordingly read a second time.

Question put: That the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill be read a second time.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 232: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Blanché, J P I; Bloem, D V; Boinamo, G G; Bonhomme, T J; Botha, C-S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cupido, H B ; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davidson, I O; Davies, R H; Delport, J T; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlungwana, Z P; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Ellis, M J; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gcwabaza, N E ; George, D T; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A ; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacob, A C; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, M; Julies, I F; Kalako, M U; Kalyan, S V; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Kohler-Barnard, D; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lee, T D; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Maduma, L D; Madumise, M M; Magau, K R; Magubane, N E ; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlaba, T L; Mahlawe, N M; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Marais, S J F; Martins, B A D; Masango, S J; Mashangoane, P R; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Matsemela, M L; Matsomela, M J J ; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meruti, M V; Mfeketo, N C; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Minnie, K J; Mkhize, Z S; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morgan, G R; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Motlanthe, K P; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Nash, J H; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt- Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nonkonyana, M; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, S B; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N ; Nyambi, A J; Nyembe, K K M; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Pule, B E; Rajbally, S ; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Rasmeni, S M; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schneemann, G D; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; September, C C; Seremane, W J; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S ; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, J J M; Steyn, A C; Surty, M E ; Swart, M; Swathe, M M; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Trent, E W; Tsenoli, S L; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M ; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A; Wang, Y; Waters, M; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.

NOES - 11: Bhengu, M J; Chang, E S; Lucas, E J; Rabinowitz, R; Roopnarain, U; Seaton, S A; Sibuyana, M W; Singh, N; Skosana, M B; Van der Merwe, J H; Vos, S C.

Question agreed to.

Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill accordingly read a second time.

          NATIONAL RAILWAY SAFETY REGULATOR AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (On behalf of The Minister of Transport): Chairperson, hon members, the National Railway Safety Regulator Amendment Bill of 2008, which I present on behalf of Minister Radebe, seeks to amend the National Railway Safety Regulator Act, Act 16 of 2008. The principal Act establishes the Railway Safety Regulator, which is responsible for overseeing safety in relation to railway infrastructure, railway operation and promoting railway as an efficient mode of transport.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Minister, give us a minute. Order, hon members! Please take your seats. Please proceed, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: One of the main focus areas of the amending Bill is to amend the principal Act so as to be in line with current developments, to empower the Minister to include monorail systems, trains, systems running on pneumatic tyres and railways running on narrow gauges within the ambit of the Act, and to regulate matters connected therewith.

The Bill seeks to ensure that the function of exempting railways is now fulfilled by the regulator and not by the Minister. The amending Bill makes it clear that the operators remain responsible for railway safety.

The amending Bill seeks to require the regulator’s annual report to be submitted within five months after the financial year-end, rather than within three months, so as to be in line with the Public Finance Management Act.

The Bill also provides that the CEO may appoint members of staff rather than the board, and that the Minister will no longer be responsible to approve conditions of service of staff members. The Bill empowers the CEO to delegate his or her responsibilities or powers and duties, and provides that the regulator’s funds will include penalties and fees.

The principal Act is amended so as to empower the Minister to make regulations, to adopt and accept existing standards as well as to develop new ones, and to empower the CEO to appoint inspectors who will audit, inspect and investigate the transportation of dangerous goods prior to their transportation by rail. The amending Bill provides that the operators must investigate railway occurrences and empowers the regulator to take steps if the operator fails to do so. The Bill further empowers the regulator to subpoena witnesses and documents in connection with the investigations and to clarify circumstances under which the regulator may require information.

There will be no financial implications for the state and the entity itself; instead the revenue of the Railway Safety Regulator will be increased by charging a fee for training, advice and additional fees for administering permits and from penalties imposed.

I commend this Bill to the House. Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr J P CRONIN: Thank you, Chairperson, and thanks also to the Acting Minister of Transport for stepping in. The national Railway Safety Regulator was established by legislation in 2002, so it is quite a new entity - it really only came into operation over the past couple of years.

In the view of the committee - and we have interacted with the Railway Safety Regulator frequently over the years – it is beginning to make real progress and to make an impact in terms of ensuring that there is effective safety and operational standards in our rail system. This amending Bill basically attempts to incorporate the lessons that we have learnt over the past couple of years of the Railway Safety Regulator to improve where necessary and also to make provision for new technologies and other possibilities.

Let me briefly deal with the three or four areas where we are introducing amendments. The first is around governance issues. Often, and certainly in my experience with these state entities that we are setting up, there are some teething problems, for instance, confusion between the boards and the CEOs as to who is supposed to be doing what. There have been some challenges on that frontier and so, in the amending Bill, we are making it very clear who is doing what. For instance, the CEO is the person who appoints staff, and not the board. That is something that happens sometimes. Appeals about decisions made by the Railway Safety Regulator go to the board, and not back to the Railway Safety Regulator as such. So there are some governance issues, like that, that we are just cleaning up in this legislation.

Then there is the issue of the mandate. Again, with these entities that we set up, there are often dangers of what we can call “mandate creep”. They start to do all kinds of things which are not really what they were intended to be doing. So, for instance, in the original legislation, in which I was somewhat involved and for which I must accept responsibility, we said that amongst the other things that the Railway Safety Regulator should be doing, it should also be promoting rail. Now that is a desirable object, but quickly – not in the case of this agency but in the case of some of the others - they take promoting this or that area of transport to mean that they must go out and do all kinds of things which are very far from their core mandate. So we have removed that from the mandate. Their mandate is to look after and to regulate the safety of operations on the rail system. That is their mandate. In so doing, of course, they will hopefully be promoting rail.

We have tried to be clear about the mandate, but we have realised that in one critical area we also need to broaden the mandate a little and state it more clearly. When we dealt with the original legislation, we were well aware that safety, and particularly occupational safety issues, fall under other legislation, under the Department of Labour and labour inspectors and so on. And so we have insulated the Railway Safety Regulator from those matters and have focused it on operational safety matters. But, of course, these two things interlay quite often, and poor occupational safety situations can then result in operational problems and difficulties. We actively sought input from the Federation of Unions of South Africa and the SA Transport and Allied Workers Union, the trade unions that are active in this sector, and they all made valuable inputs into the process. What we have done now, is to say that in so far as occupational health and safety matters impact on operational safety in the railway system, the Railway Safety Regulator should also work closely with the Department of Labour to make recommendations and findings in regard to that. For instance, Satawu told us that the noise levels in many of our locomotives are horrific – I think the Minister of Labour in fact encountered that. After a few years, the train drivers started having impaired hearing. That is bad for the individual and unacceptable, but it is also potentially an operational hazard. We really need to be able to deal with matters like that.

In other ways also we are trying to give the Railway Safety Regulator a bit more teeth. For instance, some of the problems in terms of operation have to do, not with what is happening directly in the rail environment, but with the way in which a factory might be packaging particular goods which then come into the railway environment. And if, for instance, there are incidents on the railway system, we are now empowering the Railway Safety Regulator to go and inspect premises, not just ones that are on the railway system but also ones that are off the railway system, but which can impact in terms of operational safety. We are also making allowances for new technologies such as, monorail - God forbid that we should ever have any - but if we do, they will fall under the Railway Safety Regulator. The same applies to trams, narrow gauges, magnetic levitation systems and so on. It is unlikely that we will get them in the short term, but we are making provision for these likelihoods. That is basically what we have done. It’s a fairly simple piece of legislation and I think that there is broad agreement from all parties around it. I would like to thank the colleagues in the committee, and I would also like to thank our colleagues from the Department of Transport, the Railway Safety Regulator and Transnet. Transnet always keeps a beady eye on what we are doing in terms of transport regulation, as they should, and they make their valuable inputs also into our technical understanding of what is required in this area.

The ANC supports the National Railway Safety Regulator Amendment Bill. Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr C M LOWE: Chairperson, I shall be reading the speech of the hon Stuart Farrow. He is recovering from surgery and unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon.

Chairperson, the national Railway Safety Regulator was established by necessity in 2002. After a long delay in getting its board in place, and a chief executive officer and staff appointed, it finally got down to work around 2004. Since then it has not looked back and has arduously pursued its role with eagerness and enthusiasm. At last reports were being submitted to Parliament on an annual basis on rail-related incidents and occurrences, and the public will now be able to see for themselves how safe our commuter and freight services really are.

For many years railway incidents were dealt with in the form of a board of inquiry which, despite the professional level of reporting, were never able to revoke or penalise the licensee responsible. In South Africa today, railway operators are not only monopolised by Transnet, but consist of numerous other concessionaires – private rail services, tourist providers, and mining operators all utilising our rail network.

All of these operators have to be registered as network operators and, if one looks at its definition in the Bill before us, it ensures that the person or persons who have the ultimate accountability for one or more of the following – the safety of the network or part thereof, including the proper design, construction, maintenance, and integrity of the network; ensuring compliance of rolling stock with applicable standards of the network for the authorising and directing of the safe movement of rolling stock on the network – must now comply in showing that the transport of all passengers and goods is a high and safe priority.

The Bill goes further to allow the national Railway Safety Regulator to impose penalties on those network operators who do not comply with the standards already agreed to in the issuing of the respective safety permits. Hopefully, one cannot envisage any matter of safety being compromised, as clearly the national Railway Safety Regulator will now have more teeth to refuse the reissuing of a safety permit to an operator if the operator is found to be noncompliant. This would be even more important in cases of noncompliance identified during the outcome of any investigation arising from a reported occurrence.

The DA hopes, therefore, that the national Railway Safety Regulator will be given the necessary funding and support to employ sufficient inspectors to check and verify all network operators’ rolling stock and, of course, the goods that they are conveying.

Railway safety relies on the integrity of the various network managers to ensure standards are met and, more importantly, the safety of those employees who work within the sphere of the railway environment. They should be vigilant and observant with regard to safety issues.

From all accounts, the Department of Labour has not been effective in ensuring compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, particularly when it comes to compelling operators such as Transnet to safeguard diesel locomotive drivers from high noise levels in the cab – as we heard from the hon Cronin.

Despite this matter being raised by the DA some eight years ago, and evidence existing of it being raised in this same Parliament over 40 years ago with regard to steam locomotive drivers, the matter has been given scant regard. It is thus imperative that inspectors work hand-in-glove with their colleagues in Labour to ensure the proper oversight of operational safety in our networks. The DA is pleased to support the Bill. I thank you, Chairperson.

Mr E J LUCAS: Chairperson, safety on our passenger rail transport is problematic, especially during peak hours. Most of the problems are caused by overloading; however, the criminal elements add to making our trains unsafe.

It will be important for the Railway Safety Regulator to pay special attention to how the commuter is being treated. We welcome the idea of widening the scope to include monorail systems, trams, track gauges, etc, in order to accommodate systems which are required for a specific reason. This will include the proper construction and maintenance of the network.

The terms and conditions of service of the chief executive officer will be determined by the board after consultation with the Minister of Transport. The chief executive officer will be able to appoint staff, which, I believe, is a more practical arrangement. Safety inspectors will be empowered to investigate packaging, marking and classification of dangerous goods prior to such goods being loaded onto a train.

The IFP is of the opinion that the amendments will enhance the operations and safety of our rail network. The IFP supports the amendments. I thank you.

Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson, over the past few years rail travel has fallen victim to crime and accidents. It is crucial that, as Parliament, we pass legislation that will enhance safer rail travel and secure effective management of rail commuting.

We need to clamp down on cable thieves and secure areas around rail tracks and around commuters. The Bill’s regulations and provisions appear in line with ensuring effective rail management. The MF is very excited about the Gautrain project, but it would have been a greater achievement if it had been introduced or initiated in other provinces too.

While it is true that rail travel does take longer, it has been a more cost- effective choice for many, and we need to ensure the continued accessibility of rail travel to the majority of South Africans who have been severely compromised by the cost of living. Rail safety is one of our greatest concerns and one that we hope is high on the agenda. The MF supports the amendments.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate) The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (On behalf of The Minister of Transport): Chairperson, hon members, once more, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, Jeff Radebe, I present to you the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill.

The Bill is derived from the interventions contained in the Road to Safety Strategy 2001-2005, and is intended to assist the department in ensuring a reduction in the number of deaths and fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents on our public roads.

The Bill proposes in the short term, and in the long term, to give effect to some of the principal strategic interventions contained in the Road to Safety Strategy 2001-2005. The proposed amendments to the Bill are intended to deal with incidents of fraudulent issuance of driving licences and corrupt practices within the road traffic management by streamlining the process of issuing driving licences and other processes at driving licence testing centres.

The following are the salient objectives of the Bill: To curb incidences of criminal activity by or in relation to the operation of motor vehicles on public roads; to enhance professionalism of traffic officers and to combat fraudulent and corrupt activities - this is provided for by instructing traffic officers who are wearing uniforms to display a visible name tag; to provide for circumstances under which the courts can suspend a driving licence of a driver who is found to be in excess of the prescribed speed limit; to prohibit private persons from operating driving licence testing centres; to prohibit the unauthorised use of an officer’s infrastructure number; to regulate the conduct of traffic officers in relation to the examination of the loading of motor vehicles; to prohibit the impersonation of traffic officers and the wearing of a traffic officer’s uniform without permission; to empower the Minister to prescribe training procedures and qualifications of persons appointed as national inspectors at licence testing centres and stations; to make new provisions regarding the processes by which driving licences are issued and to provide for liability of managers, agencies or employees; and lastly, to streamline the process of setting fees by empowering MECs to set such fees.

I commend this amending Bill to the House.

Mr J P CRONIN: Chairperson, this piece of legislation, like the previous one, I think, is pretty straightforward - I wish all our legislation was equally straightforward.

As the acting Minister has said, its objectives, amongst other things, include enhancing the professionalism of traffic officers.

That needs to be contextualised. Traffic officers are not a national competence. So, the national Department of Transport doesn’t have a single “speed-cop”, as we used to call them. This is a provincial and municipal competence. We find on our roads, or sometimes not, a host of different kinds of traffic officers with different regulations, different practices, and so on.

What we are trying to do here in terms of national legislation is at least to begin to professionalise the operation by introducing broad standards, training requirements, and so forth. That is the first objective of these amendments here, and in so doing, we also obviously aim to combat fraudulent and corrupt practices. We are going to require all traffic officers to wear name tags so that they can be identified and behave in a professional way.

We are also prohibiting private persons from operating driving licence centres. Surely this has to be a public function and is not something that can be concessioned out or contracted out. And so, we are quite clearly saying it is happening to some extent in some places, but it can’t be the case. This needs to be firmly in public hands, and we need to be publicly accountable for what happens in terms of these driving licence centres.

We also want to enhance the quality of the evaluation that happens at these driving licence centres. Again, it’s a patchwork of different standards, and so on. So, we are trying to introduce a single system and one set of values and training for this.

Then we are providing for the suspension of driving licences if a driver is convicted for excessive speeding. That already exists, but we are trying to be specific. It’s important that we tend to be specific. We do have the scourge of excessive speeding on our roads, causing our country to have one of the highest fatality levels in the world.

If you are speeding by more than 30km an hour in an urban area, that should result in your licence being suspended. If you are speeding by more than 40km an hour on a freeway or in a non-urban area, that should definitely result in your licence being suspended. You are still breaking the law if you are speeding by more than 5km an hour. But if you are speeding by between 30km and 40km an hour, then, surely, you don’t deserve to be driving. You then need to be taught a firm lesson, because basically these are weapons of destruction, literally of murder, in our country. Seventeen thousand people died last year on our roads, and much of that had to do with speeding.

There were two issues where we as a committee actively amended the amending Bill we received. The Bill, in the form that it came to us from Cabinet, said that it was a requirement for applicants for driving licences to apply at centres nearest to their places of residence. We asked what was meant by that – within the province or within the municipality? Initially the department said, well, municipality. We said, well, that can’t be right. There are serious problems. There are huge queues. What about MPs who want to get a driving licence and who are not in their usual place of residence, and so on? So we can’t impose that. They said, well, let us make it per province then. We said, the residents of Khutsong won’t be very happy being told that they have to go to the North West to apply for a driving licence, and they can’t go to Gauteng because we’ve told them that it’s a soft boundary and not an international frontier. So we can’t do that.

We understand what the intention of this intervention was, because there are patterns which suggest serious corruption. In one case we know of serious corruption, where planeloads, literally, of people are travelling from one city to a distant province, 30 at a time, in order to acquire a driving licence in some distant city within South Africa. I won’t name the city.

Clearly, there is a pattern of corruption that is probably happening there. This is not just a matter of convenience; something funny is happening. But then we must deal with it appropriately, and not disqualify or hinder the average honest citizen who is trying to get a driving licence. We’ve got rid of that requirement of “closest to your place of residence”.

Secondly, in the public hearings the Chamber of Mines, the SA Bus Owners Association and others complained that often regulations in regard to road traffic were gazetted without adequate consultation. The department assured us that this was not the case. They said that they always consulted key stakeholders and they had a long list of key stakeholders, and so forth, and that they always did this. We didn’t try to arbitrate with regard to what the Chamber of Mines and the SA Bus Owners Association were saying and what the Department of Transport was saying. But we did say that it is very desirable that we make sure that there is effective consultation before regulations are published, particularly where the regulations can be quite technical. It does require technical understanding in some cases.

So, what we’ve said is that before the regulations become regulations, the Minister must table them, must inform Parliament for some response from Parliament or comment if we need to make it, and at the same time draft regulations must be published in the Government Gazette.

We are not trying to deal with every regulation. Quite realistically as a parliamentary committee, we couldn’t. But if there is a problem, we want to create a parliamentary space for organs of civil society, whatever, or individuals to come to Parliament and say that there is a problem with a particular regulation. We think that proper consultation would have resulted in a different regulation.

We don’t want to stall matters. So, we are giving a four-week period. We are saying it must be tabled in Parliament for comment. Draft regulations must be published for comment in the Government Gazette at least four weeks before they become regulations. So, there is a four-week span. We are not trying to hold things up. With those amendments to the amending Bill, the committee was very happy, and the ANC certainly supports the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr K J MINNIE: Voorsitter, ek lees graag die toespraak namens mnr Farrow, wat, soos u verneem het, in die hospitaal is. [Chairperson, it is my pleasure to read this speech on behalf of Mr Farrow, who, as you have been informed, is in hospital.]

The Bill before us deals with a number of important changes pertaining mainly to matters which require either tightening up or improving certain sections in the principal Act. These include formalising some of the definitions pertaining to authorised officers within the traffic sector, and the wearing of name tags by these officers to ensure identity and avoid fraud. Our traffic officers play an important role in the control and management of traffic and those drivers who choose to disobey the rules of the road.

South Africa needs to accredit some 6 000 additional traffic officers to meet international norms, and our drivers need to change their mindset from disobedience to obedience. Hopefully, the demerit system, currently being tested as a pilot project in Tshwane, will help.

The Bill also looks at improving the quality of our vehicle testing centres and ensuring that they are properly registered. Many of our motoring citizens complain about the long delay experienced in acquiring a learner driver’s licence and ultimately a driver’s licence. What is pleasing in this amending Bill is that applicants can be evaluated for learners’ licences and drivers’ licences at any authorised testing station in the country. Many school-leavers need drivers’ licences for employment opportunities and, hopefully, this will cut down on the waiting period, which currently averages six months in many of the larger centres.

Another aspect of the amendment, which I’m sure most of us in this House and the motoring public in general have experienced, is the whole matter of blue-light escorts or emergency response, and the allowances given to those authorised vehicles to exceed the general speed limit, on the one hand, and the disregarding of road traffic signs on the other. Although these vehicles have become a part of our daily lives, it is somewhat disconcerting to see the increased use of escorted vehicles for very important persons, Ministers and, in some cases, even Members of Parliament, rushed through heavy traffic for no other reason than their importance. Needless to say, it is unnecessary and embarrassing. On this matter, though, an important addition to the Bill was made to ensure regulation pertaining to these convoys or emergency response vehicles was tabled in this House before promulgation in the Government Gazette.

All in all, the Bill has some useful amendments to make our country’s roads safer, and therefore the DA will be supporting this Bill.

Mr E J LUCAS: Chairperson, the Bill seeks to amend the National Road Traffic Act of 1996. It is important for all South Africans, national and international visitors and businesspeople to recognise that our authorised officers are both competent and efficient.

Much negativity has been directed at our traffic officers because there have been a number of cases when traffic officers, as well as licensing officers, have been accused of wrongdoing and, in fact, there have been many proven cases of fraud. It is important that the traffic officers have visible name tags in order to prohibit the impersonation of traffic officers. We hope that this will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain uniforms and name tags.

The IFP welcomes the fact that all driving licence and testing centres will be registered. Needless to say, many of our citizens have been able to acquire roadworthy certificates and drivers’ licences through fraudulent means.

These amendments are geared to minimise this behaviour. Many vehicle accidents can be attributed to these underhanded dealings. The amendments also seek to ensure that a licence applicant has gone through the proper procedures, resulting in the driver being capable of handling the vehicle he or she is permitted to drive.

Circumstances when emergency vehicles may ignore road traffic signs and speed limits have been provided for in the amendments.

Numberplates are also a serious problem. There are many cases where drivers remove their numberplates to avoid being identified. Criminals, in most cases, falsify their numberplates.

Without scrupulous policing, it will be difficult to achieve the objects of the Bill. We are pleased to note that there will be training of authorised officers, which will also promote safety on our roads.

The IFP supports the amendments. I thank you.

Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson, the idea is not only to make our roads safer, but to equip people with the driving skills that, according to law, qualify one as safe to commute on public roads.

This should be the responsibility of anyone who gets behind the wheel. Today we see many more female drivers than we did in years before. This is evidence of women empowering themselves and taking the initiative to mobilise themselves.

We as the MF find this Bill vital to road safety in South Africa. However, we found that driving with the lights on 24/7, which was introduced by the late Minister of Transport, Dullah Omar, is an effective mechanism to increase visibility and decrease accidents. We call on the department to reintroduce this initiative. We also feel that for this Bill to be effective, we need to secure our roads so that they are safe, pothole-free, broad and well-structured.

The MF will support the Bill.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (On behalf of The Minister of Transport): Chairperson, once more it remains for me to thank the members for the positive debate. It’s common legend that there are thousands and thousands of fraudulent licences in our country, and that they contribute towards the road deaths that occur every year.

Hopefully, these amendments will ensure that there is greater integrity in our road traffic system, and members have contributed towards that today. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Legal succession to the south African transport services amendment bill (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (On behalf of The Minister of Transport): Chairperson, hon members, government has decided, through policy directives, that public transport should play a more important role in serving and developing South Africa and its people. In this regard, Cabinet on 18 November 2004 approved the consolidation of the passenger rail entities, that is, the SA Rail Commuter Corporation, Metrorail and Shosholoza Meyl.

The first phase of this consolidation process, which saw Metrorail consolidated within the SARCC, has been successfully concluded in May 2006. The second phase of the consolidation that involves the merger of the long- distance passenger rail entity, Shosholoza Meyl, with SARCC, will be concluded before March 2009.

Aligned with the passenger rail restructuring process, Autopax, the road- based long-distance passenger services of Transnet, has been earmarked as a noncore business identified for disposal. In June 2007, the department notified Transnet of its interest in acquiring Autopax, and Transnet confirmed this interest, advising that Transnet had approval, in terms of the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act, to dispose of Autopax through a public disposal process in the open market. The department has subsequently concluded a due diligence, validation and business plan process.

In February 2008, the department entered into discussions with National Treasury regarding the findings of the due diligence and business plan report, and it was agreed that because of the financial status of Autopax it was more appropriate for Autopax to be transferred to the SARCC.

The strategic role of Autopax within the contexts of the public transport strategy and the greater public transport arena has been determined as follows: Autopax, as an operator of intercity services for the period until 2010, will be consolidating its position as a provider of quality long- distance services and providing rural services that co-ordinate in full with Shosholoza Meyl. These rural services will become part of a provincial rural access strategy, providing public transport to communities that are currently isolated from the mainstream public transport routes.

In the build-up to 2010, Autopax will establish a separate entity and enter a management agreement with other stakeholders to manage the transport requirements and so ensure the provision of intercity long-distance passenger services for the 2010 Fifa World Cup event.

The passing of this Bill will not only bring to finality the long-term government objective of bringing passenger rail entities to one family, accountable to the Minister of Transport, but will also allow government to respond successfully to the roll-out of the rural access strategy and the provision of co-ordinated intercity services during the 2010 Fifa World Cup.

The new Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, or Prasa, as the SARCC will be known in future, will assume greater responsibilities, importance and stature than ever before. The region, of which South Africa is a major trading and economic hub, is today characterised by physical movement of both people and goods, and the main challenge facing SADC is to ensure that its rail infrastructure responds to, and integrates with, the other emerging trading systems.

Government is also awaiting proposals which will guide its options on how the private sector will participate and invest in the rail sector to promote mobility and economic development. Government has already made progress with regard to the revitalisation of rail, by approving the National Passenger Rail Plan, and has injected more than R16 billion to fund specific rail infrastructure interventions on priority rail corridors.

To improve safety and security in the rail environment, government has invested long-term solutions through the reintroduction of the SAPS Railway Policemen, and has provided the unit with 30 police stations which will cost more than R360 million. Four thousand five hundred police members will be working in the rail environment by 2010. The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa will play a major role in the provision of both passenger rail and intercity bus services for the 2010 World Cup and the sustainability of the legacy after the World Cup. Autopax will become a subsidiary of Prasa after the passing of this Bill and will procure 1 422 buses and coaches necessary to provide the projected services. Autopax will also create employment opportunities by the recruitment of about 2 229 drivers necessary for the full mobility of dignitaries during the 2010 Fifa World Cup.

In this rapidly changing international environment, characterised by economic integration, a sound transport system is paramount for active participation in order to promote regional integration and the strengthening of economic partnerships within SADC states, by providing affordable public transport solutions.

Government policy calls upon the public transport system to provide demand- driven and customer responsive services based on appropriate service levels, especially to the poorer sections of our society. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr B L MASHILE: Chairperson, hon members, and our guests, we once again come before you to request your support to pass the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill, 2008.

In 2005, we did place before you the proposal to transfer Metrorail from Transnet to the SA Rail Commuter Corporation in response to the 2004 Cabinet decision to improve the efficiency of passenger rail services in the country. You agreed with us on that matter, hence the current improved Metrorail services in our urban areas. This has dealt with only one piece of the puzzle in our passenger rail services.

Members are reminded that section 1 of our Constitution states that the Republic of South Africa is one. Reading this clause together with the equality clause in the Bill of Rights, it is expected that these improved passenger rail services in urban areas should be extended and accessed by all areas of our country. Everybody should experience efficient and reliable passenger rail services across the country, without regard to geographical location.

Now, for the above-mentioned to find practical expression, we as the ANC- led committee are bringing the last piece of the puzzle to you in the form of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill, 2008. Through this Bill we intend to do the following: to transfer the long-distance passenger rail services known as Shosholoza Meyl to the SA Rail Commuter Corporation; and to transfer the long-distance passenger bus service Autopax, commonly operating as Translux and City-to-City coaches, to the SA Rail Commuter Corporation.

The conclusion of this transfer, expected to be on 31 March 2009, will result in a consolidated passenger rail transport service under one entity, the SA Rail Commuter Corporation. This transfer will enable an improved integration of the Metrorail services, Shosholoza Meyl and Autopax services to serve our people and our SADC neighbouring states.

The transfer of these two remaining business units within Transnet will entail the transfer of rolling stock, properties and personnel. There are consequential processes that will unfold in relation to the subdivision of properties identified for transfer - these include stations and other properties for offices; the evaluation of assets; the welfare of personnel issues; finances; and other related matters.

Responding to these envisaged processes, we have put in place the following measures to enhance speedy transfer and conclusion, though they are not necessarily the only measures.

We have empowered the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the Minister for Public Enterprises, to identify and transfer certain assets owned by Transnet to the SA Rail Commuter Corporation. We have empowered the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to determine the value of assets to be acquired by the SARCC; to provide for employees to be transferred to the SARCC to have a choice to retain membership of the Transnet Medical Scheme; to exempt Transnet from applying for approval of any subdivision of land necessary in order to effect the transfer; and to set a target date of 31 March 2009 for the transfer of Shosholoza Meyl and Autopax to be concluded.

In light of the coming 2010 Soccer World Cup, our public transport system needs to have attained levels of certainty and reliability. We need synergy across all our modes in order to deliver the World Cup and beyond in terms of mobility. For too long our people, especially in the rural areas, were marginalised and received unreliable, low-standard public services, which we inherited from the previous government. The public transport service is the backbone of the so-called second economy in our country.

As the ANC-led government, we have intervened in the taxi industry through the taxi recapitalisation project that sees old vehicles being replaced by a reliable, compliant fleet across the country. We proceeded with the revamp of Metrorail, and now we are on our last hurdle with Shosholoza Meyl and Autopax. We shall not fail the masses. The majority of South Africans rely on these state-funded public transport system services for their mobility.

We therefore call upon this hon House to support the amending Bill. The ANC supports the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill, 2008. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Chairperson, I rise to read the speech on behalf of my colleague, hon Stuart Farrow.

This Bill makes provision for the transfer of long-haul passenger rail services and long-distance bus services from Transnet to the SARCC, now to be known as the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, or Prasa.

The process started in 2004 when Cabinet approved the consolidation of commuter rail into the SARCC in two phases. The first phase was concluded in March 2006 when Metrorail became part of the SARCC, and the Bill being presented today now completes the picture. Two further additions from the Transnet stable that no longer suit its profit-leading profile, namely Shosholoza Meyl and Autopax, are now transferred to Prasa.

Both of these entities provide passenger services which clearly require some level of subsidy, and by their definition should fall under the Department of Transport and its now to-be-formed agency, Prasa, previously the SARCC.

The DA has for many years called for all transport entities to fall under one Ministry in order for policies, strategies, subsidies and budgets to be singularly aligned, co-ordinated and thereafter monitored and controlled.

The “two bulls in the kraal” syndrome which has prevailed and continues being in existence up until now, clearly needs to end and one Minister needs to be held accountable for all transport-related entities. However, what happens to freight transport – Spoornet - and air transport – SAA – still needs some thinking through. Maybe with the 2009 elections coming up and some interesting Cabinet reshuffling on the cards, who knows, maybe the Minister of Transport will reflect its new and proper identity!

Mergers like these are not easy and they affect people who in the background know that their jobs may be duplicated or their functions may have become redundant. The DA therefore trusts that the lessons that were learnt from the Metrorail transfer will stand the SARCC in good stead in ensuring that this transition is easier and less painful.

The harmonisation of salaries, pensions and medical aids all need to be taken into account during this process, and hopefully these experiences and shortfalls have now been made easier by the amendments in this Bill and the overarching Labour Act.

Chair, it is intended to transfer employees and assets of the two companies to the newly formed Prasa. What Prasa will be receiving is not the best in terms of good deals but, be that as it may, they will have their work cut out to make these operations profitable, efficient and safe. The new entities will provide passenger transport which will reach sectors of our population where the private sector operators are limited, and in particular where subsidisation of fares will be highly probable. The Bill, however, does provide additional powers for the future transfer of the entities into the hands of the private sector through partnerships, contracts and participation in joint ventures in order to advance the corporation and its objectives.

This is encouraging in the sense that Autopax, for instance, which hauls 35% of the market in its Translux and City-to-City services, operates on a R36 million shortfall at present and is in effect insolvent. This will therefore require a massive turnaround and restructuring for it to become a viable and sustainable entity, and in this way to enable maybe even its future sale to emerging entrepreneurs in the transport industry.

It is further proposed that some of the buses which are unsuitable for their purposes and are on lease hire, will be disposed of, while the new acquisition of some 1 442 buses for the 2010 Fifa World Cup will be transferred to Autopax. Hopefully, with the right planning, retention of skills and maintenance of this new fleet, opportunities will arise to enable Autopax to redistribute these coaches to appropriate municipalities or transport operators in order for them not to become a burden on the state’s scarce resources. [Interjections.] The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order! Hon member, your time and that of Mr Farrow has now expired.

Mrs S V KALYAN: The DA will be supporting the Bill.

Mr E J LUCAS: Chairperson, it’s pleasing to note that the amending Bill seeks to improve the use of long-haul rail and bus services. I do believe that this is a step in the right direction. In carrying out this objective, the corporation will have due regard to key government social, economic and transport policy.

Currently, Transnet is a public company which provides rail, passenger and freight services in South Africa. Metrorail and Shosholoza Meyl have provided rail commuter services in urban centres. Shosholoza Meyl currently provides long-haul rail passenger services.

The SA Rail Commuter Corporation Ltd will be renamed the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa.

It is important to note that Transnet has run at a great loss. For the next three years, National Treasury will be allocating large sums of money to the project.

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa has a mammoth task to turn this transport venture into a self-financing venture. There will be tremendous pressure on the board to ensure that the objects of these amendments will materialise.

The IFP supports the amendments.

Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson, the MF finds it crucial that we as Parliament introduce legislation that secures the safety and growth of our people.

The consolidation of Metrorail and Shosholoza Meyl is an initiative to assure rail travel safety, but we would like to know in greater detail how safety aboard trains is being enhanced and monitored.

Further, it is evident that while rail travel is more cost effective, it does take longer, and we are wondering whether this cost-effectiveness is being maintained and whether faster rail travel is being considered.

The Bill appears to effectively address the ends we desire to attain and complies with the national Constitution.

We urge the public to invest in rail travel as a more cost-effective means of transport at a time when the cost of living is challenging.

The MF will support the Bill.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (On behalf of The Minister of Transport): Chair, I thank hon members for the support. I must say that I am really very relieved. When Minister Radebe asked me to do this, I protested very strongly because I thought it was too much work, but also because I didn’t think I knew enough about transport to present so many pieces of legislation. Little did I know that members of this House are very sweet and that they will not give me any problems whatsoever.

I am presenting another piece of work for him tomorrow, and I hope hon members are going to be just as sweet as they were today. Thank you very much, Chair. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

(Consideration of Report of Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government on proposed amendments by National Council of Provinces)

Mr S L TSENOLI: Chairperson and hon members, this Bill returns to us from the National Council of Provinces. Having had a robust and generally good exchange amongst ourselves in the committee, we agreed that this should be the way forward.

The Bill is, essentially, the first work which the department did to evaluate the various pieces of legislation we have, which are the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act and the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act. In addition, the Bill also provides for the repeal of some old pieces of legislation, including the legislation naming municipalities, so that these conform to the current naming of areas and places.

Some of the significant ones – if I may just select a few of them, not to say that others are not significant – relate to the need to align the determination as made by the Demarcation Board, and the effect thereof at the beginning of the financial year. Another amendment - if I may say so – is to provide for what was not included in the definitions of political office bearers, in order to make provision for the executive deputy mayor. Yet another relates to the legal certainty which enables the Minister to regulate issues of uncertainty whether he or she had any role or not. We agreed, after looking at the issues which necessitate this, and therefore legislation must make provision for this.

One of the significant aspects of this work is the constant cry from ward committee members for financial support for their work. This is being provided for - not only for their out-of-pocket expenses, but also for the council’s expenses - as many are already doing – in order to provide resources and funds to enable ward committees to perform their functions, to exercise their powers and to undertake development in their wards within the framework of the law. This is a very important development to assist and enable them to be more effective than, perhaps, they are now.

We are aware that some of the provisions indicate, for example, that the municipal manager’s contract may not be for more than five years, and we must provide for a transition of about a year between the terms of office of municipalities. We heard and received submissions from both the SA Local Government Association itself and also from people who had an interest in the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act. We believe that the department, which is working with Salga, needs to engage with the role- players in this sector to be able to agree on some of the issues and concerns they have about the way forward.

We believe that additional work still needs to be done, given the seven years that we have. This is almost the period in terms of which we believe that a review of the White Paper on Local Government and of introducing the policy on provinces will offer an opportunity to assess whether the legislation has met the requirements as stipulated in the White Paper. Many more substantive amendments may arise from that process when it is completed. We hope that hon members will encourage their political parties and structures to debate and review these various pieces of legislation, so that they may be amended to enable us to impact better on poverty, which is our national agenda. I thank you.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:

That the Bill, as amended, be passed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill accordingly passed (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).

The House adjourned at 18:05. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent

(1)    Bill passed by National Assembly on 20 August 2008:
      a) Local Government Laws Amendment Bill [B 28D – 2007 (Reprint)]
         (National Assembly – sec 75).

(2)    Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 20 August 2008:
      a) Air Services Licensing Bill [B 25B – 2008] (National Assembly
         – sec 75).

National Assembly

The Speaker

1. Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly in respect of Bill passed by Council and returned to Assembly

(1)    Bill, subject to a proposed amendment, passed by Council on 20
     August 2008 and returned for consideration of Council’s proposed
     amendment:


      a) Liquor Products Amendment Bill [B 22B – 2008] (National
         Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendment, see Announcements,
         Tablings and Committee Reports, 12 August 2008, p 1503).


        The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on
         Agriculture and Land Affairs of the National Assembly for a
         report on the amendment proposed by the Council.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Mediation Committee on the Housing Development Agency Bill [B 1B and B1D – 2008] (sec 76), dated 20 August 2008: The Mediation Committee, having considered the Housing Development Agency Bill [B1B and B1D – 2008] (sec 76), as well as the papers referred to it, reports that it has agreed to a new version of the Bill [B1F – 2008].

National Assembly

1. Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Africa Institute of Southern Africa, dated 10 June 2008

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of Africa Institute of Southern Africa (AISA), for the year ended 31 March 2007.

   The Committee noted the disclaimer audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General. The Committee raised concerns specifically on the following matters and reports as follows:

   Governance arrangements

   The Committee noted the following internal control weaknesses:

   1.1 the services of internal auditors were terminated with the result that AISA operated for 17 months without this function, and for the current year under review no internal audits were performed; 1.2 the Accounting Authority has not conducted regular risk assessments as required by Treasury Regulations and the universal corporate governance principles; 1.3 the Fraud Prevention Plan was incomplete; 1.4 key vacant executive positions were filled by incumbents in an acting role, this coupled with the lack of an approved organisational chart, led to staff being uncertain about their responsibilities and roles in the decision-making structure and 1.5 AISA does not have a comprehensive set of approved financial policies and procedures.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Authority ensures that:

   management implements appropriate asset register policies and procedures to ensure that the register is regularly updated for accuracy and completeness; control mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the internal audit functions are appropriately in line with corporate governance principles and management must comply with internal control policies and monitor the implementation thereof. The Accounting Authority provides the Committee with the action plan indicating procedures to be taken by management to address the above issues within 60 days after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   Capacity or people-related issues

   The Committee noted that: non-compliance with GAAP and International Accounting Standards were identified; a number of significant material audit adjustments and disclosure changes were made due to lack of financial skills and AISA experienced high attrition of senior management staff. The entire top three tiers of management resigned during the year under review, giving rise to a severe leadership vacuum. Most senior management positions were not filled and were occupied by employees in acting capacities.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Authority ensures that: management develops and implements adequate monitoring controls to ensure that financial statements submitted for auditing purposes comply with prescribed accounting frameworks; and all vacant posts, especially those in the financial environment are filled urgently and a progress report be submitted to Parliament on a quarterly basis.

   System-related matters The Committee noted that:

   3.1 The performance information was not timeously presented for audit purposes due to inadequate policies and procedures that did not facilitate accurate recording and reporting of performance information. 3.2 Lack of origination, retention, safeguarding and supporting documentation resulted in instances where balances and transactions could not be substantiated.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Authority ensures that: policies and procedures are developed and implemented according to the required standards. compliance to Treasury Regulations is adhered to as required in the revenue cycle.

   Report to be considered

2. Twentieth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Mine Health and Safety Council, dated 10 June 2008

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Mine Health and Safety Council for the year ended 31 March 2007.

   The Committee noted the qualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor- General. However, the Committee raised its concerns on the following matters and therefore reports as follows:

   Capacity or people-related issues (vacancies in key positions and lack of relevant skills)

   The Committee noted the following issues highlighted in the audit report:

   1.1 the suspension of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO); 1.2 the appointment of an employee in an acting capacity as CFO who was not in possession of the relevant skills and qualifications, thus losing institutional knowledge of the finance function; 1.3 that in the absence of a suitably qualified CFO, the finance department was not able to discharge of its functions. This is exacerbated by a lack of appropriate accounting skills in the organization.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Authority: establishes and reviews reasons for the high staff turnover and that it develops and implements strategies to eliminate this problem, especially regarding key staff positions; ensures that the organization attracts and retains the best candidates, especially for specialist positions; puts in place internal control measures, including the employment of competent and qualified people; ensures that finance staff are appropriately skilled and trained enabling them to account for transactions and balances on the required basis of accounting and enabling them to maintain an adequate fixed asset register and ensures that processes are streamlined to facilitate staff understanding their responsibilities and that compliance with legislation is monitored at a senior level.

   Governance arrangements

   The audit report highlighted that the entity: 2.1 lacked a proper control environment; 2.2 lacked the appropriate number of employees; 2.3 tasks were not appropriately aligned with compliance responsibilities; 2.4 lacked knowledge of the PFMA and all applicable regulations; 2.5 failed to establish an appropriate formal code of conduct for employees and other policies addressing acceptable operational practices.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Authority ensures that: management has a proactive approach to risk managing and that reported items are addressed as a matter of urgency; adequate supervisory controls ensures that policies and procedures are adhered to and the code of conduct is appropriately amended to deal with matters of non- compliance. Conclusion The Committee recommends that the Accounting Authority furnish it with a progress report covering all the above-mentioned issues within 60 days of the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   Report to be considered

3. Twenty First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of Boxing South Africa for the financial year ending 31 March 2007, dated 10 June 2008

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of Boxing South Africa for the financial year ending 31 March 2007.

   For the 2006/07 financial year an unqualified audit opinion was expressed by the Auditor-General on the financial statements of Boxing South Africa. The Committee raised concerns on the following matters and reports as follows:

   Capacity or people-related issues The Auditor-General identified the following shortcomings with regard to capacity or people related issues:

   1.1 a high vacancy rate; 1.2 insufficient segregation of duties; 1.3 inadequate supervision and reviewing and 1.4 the General Manager had been on suspension since 19 May 2006.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: all vacant positions are filled to ensure that there is enough capacity for the entity to deliver on its mandate; the entity complies with the sections of Treasury Regulations and PFMA which governs the segregation of duties; there is proper supervision and reviewing of processes in the entity and a progress report on the suspension of the General Manager be submitted to Parliament within 30 days after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   Governance Issues The Auditor-General identified the following shortcomings with regard to governance issues:

   1. the audit committee was not fully operational during the year under review and was due for restructuring in the following financial year, there was no risk strategy and assessment plan in place, 2.3 non compliance with laws and regulations.

   The Committee therefore recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: a the restructuring of the audit committee are finalised and fully operational; b risk assessment and fraud prevention plans are in line with Treasury Regulations and c performance information is submitted in line with the requirements of the PFMA.

   Systems related issues lack of independent reviews by management caused shortcomings in internal controls; insufficient processes to safeguard financial documentation and assets; insufficient policies and procedures for all the entity’s activities.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: a Policies and procedures are developed and approved to ensure adequate control. b The department complies with all applicable laws and regulations.

   Report to be considered.

4. Twenty Second Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa for the financial year ending 31 March 2007, dated 10 June 2008.

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Department of Sports and Recreation South Africa for the financial year ending 31 March 2007.

   For the 2006/07 financial year a qualified audit opinion was expressed by the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Department of Sports and Recreation SA. The committee raised concerns on the following matters and reports as follows:

   Asset management

   1.1 Capital assets The following deficiencies, amongst others, were reported by the Auditor- General: (i) Assets of R1 735 770 from the former South African Sports Commission and various other assets did not appear on the LOGIS asset register; (ii) The physical existence of assets with a value of R691 710 could not be verified; (iii) Capital assets of R800 362 were incorrectly classified as services on LOGIS asset register.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that a proper asset register is maintained and that periodic asset counts and follow-up on any discrepancies are performed.

   1.2 Intangible assets The closing balance as per the LOGIS asset register of R128 731 did not correspond with the closing balance of R501 000 as per note 27 of the financial statements. Various intangible assets were acquired during the year, and those were not reflected in the financial statements.

   The Committee recommends that: The department establishes controls to ensure that all intangible assets are recorded and disclosed and reconciliations are performed to verify data completeness.

   1. Staff related issues 2.1 Performance bonuses The Department of Sports and Recreation paid bonuses amounting to R1 066 682 to all staff on level 12 and below for the year under review without performance reviews. This was done contrary to what was prescribed by the Department of Public Service and Administration. The Committee recommends that: The above amount is regarded as irregular expenditure as it was made contrary to the requirements of the Public Service Regulations. Performance bonuses should only be paid when staff has been assessed based on performance contracts signed, and in accordance with policy.

   2.2 Transitional allowances paid The department paid transitional allowances amounting to R1 807 377, contrary to Public Service and Administration regulations.

   The Committee recommends that the above amount is regarded as irregular expenditure as it was made contrary to the requirements of the Public Service Regulations.

   1. Receivables for departmental revenue An amount of R810 608 relating to royalties which should have been transferred from the former South African Sports Commission did not include all the outstanding amounts as obtained from the entity which administers the royalties.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: A final decision regarding the handling of royalties are made between the executive authority, the accounting authority and National Treasury as a matter of urgency South African Rugby Union management and the department’s agent (MIG) are followed up with regard to royalties owed to the department

   1. Goods and Services: Special Services An amount of R2 412 074 was paid as allowances to athletes, per category, in preparation for the Olympic Games 2008. The payment of these athletes was administered by TuksSport (Pty) Ltd. No verification for validity and accuracy of these payments could be performed as no details of athletes were attached to the invoice.

   The Committee recommends that: All relevant approvals and valid supporting documentation are obtained before any payments are made. The department should consider paying the athletes itself and not outsource this function to save some costs. The department follow-up on this matter and report back to Parliament within 60 days after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   Material non-compliance with applicable legislation Division of Revenue Act, 2006 (Act No. 2 of 2006); 5.1 Mass participation (i) insufficient monitoring and reporting; (ii) programme implementation agreements were not available or not signed by Sports Recreation South Africa and (iii) business plans not timely approved.

   (B) 2010 FIFA world cup soccer (i) monthly reports not submitted to National Treasury; (ii) approved business plans from host cities not submitted and (iii) detailed stadium development plans were not completed or attached to signed contracts

   The Committee recommends that: the department ensures compliance with DoRA to address all the above shortcomings and report back to Parliament within 60 days after the adoption of this report by National Assembly.

   1. Supply chain management The department did not comply with the tender process as stipulated in the Supply Chain Management Circular no.9 of 2005/06 as issued by National Treasury, and thus non compliance with section 38(1) (a) of the PFMA.

   The Committee therefore recommends that: procedures for proper planning and monitoring of tender activities are implemented by the department and officials should comply with policies and procedures.

   1. Leases, accruals and commitments The Committee noted with concern that the department does not have the necessary control systems/policies and procedures in place to facilitate accurate reporting of the above.

   The Committee therefore recommends that: Comprehensive policies and procedures be developed and implemented as a matter of urgency.

   1. Information systems audit An information systems audit revealed that due process was not followed when users are created or removed or when user rights are amended; and that password control settings on BAS were inadequate.

   The Committee therefore recommends: that the above shortcomings be addressed as a matter of urgency as it could compromise data integrity.

   1. Internal control The Committee furthermore noted with concern the internal control shortcomings and root causes reported on in paragraph 19 of the AG’s report. These include amongst others: A lack of policies and procedures; No on-the-job training; No approved delegations and job descriptions; No performance evaluations and Insufficient safeguarding of assets.

   The Committee therefore recommends: That a detailed action plan, indicating proper timeframes, are compiled to address the control shortcomings in the AG’s report and be submitted to SCOPA within 60 after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   1. Conclusion The Committee is concerned with the absence of approved policies and procedures that should guide the day- to- day activities of the department. Report to be considered.

5. Twenty Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of Independent Electoral Commission for the Financial Year ending 31 March 2007, dated 10 June 2008.

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the financial statements of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) for the financial year ending 31 March 2007.

   The Committee reports as follows: For 2006/07 an unqualified audit opinion was expressed for the IEC. However, the Committee requests the Accounting Officer to assure Parliament that:

   the Commission’s current IT infrastructure is ready and capacitated to provide a stable platform to support the next national and provincial elections in 2009; and voter education will be done in a visible and concerted manner.

   Conclusion The Committee congratulates the IEC for an unqualified report from the auditors, and hopes this will be maintained.

   Report to be considered.

6. Twenty Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the South African Management Development Institute (SAMDI) for the financial year ending 31 March 2007, dated 10 June 2008.

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the South African Management Development Institute (SAMDI) for the financial y ear ending 31 March 2007.

   The Committee notes that for the 2006-07 financial year, the Auditor- General expressed an unqualified audit opinion for SAMDI, on both the Vote and the Training Trading Account. The Committee raised a number of concerns and reports as follows:

   1. Main vote

   1.1 Systems-related matters

   1.1.1 Monitoring of internal controls

   The Auditor-General reported that there was inadequate monitoring of controls to ensure proper recording and disclosure of fixed assets. This resulted in material corrections being made to the financial statements submitted for auditing purposes.

   In terms of Treasury Regulation 10.1 and section 38(1) (d) of the Public Finance Management Act, the Accounting Officer of a department must take full responsibility and ensure that a proper control system exists for the recording and safeguarding of assets.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: the fixed asset register is updated timeously; a proper filing system is developed to record all purchases and disposals of fixed assets and reconciliations between the different systems are performed on a monthly basis.

   1. Training Trading Account

   2.1 Systems-related matters

   2.1.1 Internal control activities

   The Auditor-General reported that there were inadequate systems and procedures to properly account for revenue and receivables, ensure timeous collection of debtors, and to ensure compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). This resulted in material corrections being made to the financial statements submitted for auditing purposes.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: Controls are implemented or improved to ensure that all receipts are allocated in a timely manner. Debtors with credit balances are followed up timeously and. Controls are implemented to ensure that revenue is split in accordance with the requirements of IAS 39.

   1. Monitoring

   The Auditor-General reported that there was inadequate monitoring of controls to ensure the completeness of payables and commitments at financial year-end.

   SCOPA recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that there is adequate monitoring of controls by management.

   SCOPA further recommends that the entity provides the Committee with a progress report on the abovementioned issues within 60 days of the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   Report to be considered.

7. Twenty Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Government Printing Works for the financial year ending 31 March 2007, dated 10 June 2008.

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the annual report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Government Printing Works for the financial year ending 31 March 2007.

   The Committee notes that for the 2006/07 financial year an adverse audit opinion was expressed by the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Government Printing Works (GPW). The Committee reports as follows:

   Receivables The Auditor-General reported that receivables were not initially recognised at fair value and were subsequently not measured at amortised cost as required. Estimations indicated that debtors were understated by R3, 245 million, income overstated by R15, 573 million and interest received understated by R18, 818 million.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: corrective measures that are effective and efficient are implemented by management to ensure that monies due to GPW are collected on time and appropriate policies and procedures are put in place with respect to the activities of GPW and that compliance is ensured.

   1. Inventory – Work in progress (WIP) The Auditor-General reported that: work in progress to the amount of R19, 093 million could not be verified, and no reliance could be placed on the WIP report due to inconsistencies that existed.

   The Committee recommends that: a) reconciliation must be performed between the Cost Record Report and the WIP report, b) proper supporting documentation must be in place for each WIP

   1. Payables

   The Auditor-General reported that goods received, control account included long-outstanding amounts of R1, 690 million for prior years and R5, 380 for current year. These amounts might be overstatements of payables.

   The Committee therefore recommends that: this issue is addressed as a matter of urgency; and monthly reconciliation is done and reviewed by senior managers.

   1. Special investigation The Auditor-General reported that in the Accounting Officer’s report reference is made to a forensic investigation that is still in progress. However, the Auditor-General reported that the final report dated 26 October 2005 indicated an amount of R66, 492 million which relates to fruitless and wasteful and/or irregular and/or unauthorised expenditure. According to this report, the amount could increase substantially. The report indicated that Government Printing Works (GPW) officials do not follow applicable policies and procedures and that GPW should consider taking appropriate disciplinary steps in those instances. This also relates to non-compliance with the PFMA section 38(1) (g), 38(1) (h) (iii) and 40(3) (b).

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: applicable policies and procedures are observed at all times and appropriate disciplinary actions are taken where applicable and a report in this regard is submitted to Parliament within 60 days after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly.

   1. Non-compliance with applicable legislation The Auditor-General reported on the following shortcomings with regard to compliance with applicable legislation: the fraud prevention plan was not implemented and a risk assessment plan was not approved, implemented and monitored as required by Treasury Regulation 3.2.1 and the system of internal audit was not under the control and direction of the Audit Committee as required by section 38(a) (ii) of the PFMA.

   The Committee therefore recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: policies and procedures are put in place; compliance with applicable legislation is ensured and there is an update on the debtor’s collection list.

   1. Conclusion The Committee is concerned with the adverse audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General and the fact that the GPW does not have appropriate policies, procedures, techniques and mechanisms to smoothly run its activities.

   Report to be considered.

8. Twenty Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Department of Home Affairs for the financial year ending 31 March 2007, dated 10 June 2008.

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) heard and considered evidence on the Annual Report and the report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Department of Home Affairs for the financial year ending 31 March 2007.

   The Committee notes that for the 2006/07 financial year a disclaimer of opinion was expressed by the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Department of Home Affairs. The Committee reports as follows:

   Cash and cash equivalents The completeness and accuracy of cash and cash equivalents, departmental revenue and expenditure could not be verified by the Auditor-General due to the following: 1.1 not performing reconciliations of key accounting processes or resolving long-outstanding items and 1.2 non-compliance with policies and procedures.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: reconciliation of suspense accounts is performed monthly and reviewed by senior officials and policies and procedures are developed and approved to ensure implementation of adequate controls.

   1. Payables The accuracy and completeness of payables could not be verified by the Auditor-General due to the following: 2.1 a repatriation deposits suspense account which was not reconciled and 2.2 the inter-responsibility suspense account which was not analysed and cleared as per Treasury Regulation 17.1.2.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer ensures that: there are approved monitoring controls over the review of reconciliations, clearing of suspense accounts and that there are supporting documentation there are approved policies and procedures to govern the activities of the department

   1. Capital Assets The existence, accuracy and completeness of property, plant and equipment could not be verified by the Auditor-General due to, amongst others, the following shortcomings: 3.1 no assets register was present for an audit for tangible capital assets to the value of R1 016, 149 million and 3.2 management has been unable to provide appropriate documentation to support the amount of R45, 939 million for transfers.

   The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer should: compile a complete asset register and that this is reviewed by management; ensure that its activities are based on approved policies and procedures to ensure that officials implement adequate controls.

   1. Departmental revenue and receivables Various shortcomings were identified in the controls over departmental revenue, and included amongst others the following: 4.1 written policies and standard operating procedures have not been formalised or developed to guide the financial accounting processes and related controls over the revenue collected and 4.2 there was inadequate monitoring of controls over the reconciliations leading to revenue being incorrectly recorded.

   The Committee recommends that the department should ensure that effective and efficient controls exist to ensure completeness and accuracy of the departmental revenue, receivables and cash received by the department.

   1. Conclusion

   The Committee is concerned with the absence of approved policies and procedures that should guide the day-to-day activities of the Department. The Committee further recommends that an update report be submitted by the Department within 30 days after the adoption of the report by the National Assembly.

   Report to be considered.