National Assembly - 23 October 2008
Thursday, 23 October 2008
____
Proceedings of the national assembly
____
The House met at 14:03.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
Appointment of chief whip and deputy chief whip of the majority party
(Announcement)
The Speaker announced that Mr M S Booi has been appointed Chief Whip of the Majority Party and that Mr G B Magwanishe has been appointed Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party with immediate effect. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Congratulations to you, hon members.
NotICE OF MOTION Mr G G BOINAMO: Madam Speaker, on the next sitting day of the House, I shall move:
That the House –
(1) notes that on 30 December 2008, the Department of Education will release the first results of Grade 12 for outcomes-based education;
(2) further notes that the country can brace itself for the worst Grade 12 outcomes ever;
(3) notes that in an attempt to hide the acute shame, the Minister of Education made a ruling to the effect that the results should not be published in the newspapers, but rather be announced at schools; and
(4) further ensures that the House seriously debates all circumstances that have contributed to the collapse of this country’s education system. Thank you. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon member, this should just be a notice. Give us a notice, and when the debate comes, you will then take part in the debate.
Helen zille wins 2008 world mayor award
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House –
1) notes that Cape Town Mayor and leader of the Democratic Alliance
Helen Zille was awarded the 2008 World Mayor award on Tuesday, 14
October 2008;
2) further notes that this award, launched by the international urban-
affairs think tank City Mayors, is aimed at recognising mayors who
have made long-lasting contributions to their communities and are
committed to the wellbeing of their cities nationally and
internationally;
3) recognises that she beat 820 nominees from all over the world
making this a truly remarkable achievement;
4) acknowledges the judging panel’s statement that: ``The Mayor of
Cape Town has dedicated her professional life to further the
wellbeing of all sections of South African society. She has done so
with courage, tenacity, and, above all, a deep-felt love for Cape
Town, her country and its people’’; and
5) congratulates Helen Zille not only on this great honour that has
been bestowed on her but also for placing Cape Town and the rest of
the country in the international spotlight and for making the
people of South Africa proud.
Agreed to.
Appointment of Mr A C Nel as house chairperson
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House appoint Mr A C Nel as House Chairperson.
Agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Congratulations, hon Nel.
Establishment of aN AD HOC joint committee
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows: That the House, subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, establishes an ad hoc joint committee to consider draft amendment regulations tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 10 of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act (Act No 103 of 1997) the Committee to —
(1) consist of the members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development of the Assembly and the members of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs of the Council;
(2) consider the draft amendment regulations tabled on 20 October 2008 and report by not later than 5 November 2008 with recommendations for the President, as required in terms of section 10(1) of the Act; and
(3) exercise those powers in Joint Rule 32 that may assist it in carrying out its task.
Agreed to.
Extension of deadline foR REPORTING BY ad hoc committee For FILLING VACANCY IN SA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House, notwithstanding its resolution adopted on 26 September 2008, which, inter alia, determined that the ad hoc committee on the nomination of a person to fill a vacancy in the South African Human Rights Commission should report by 5 November 2008, extends the deadline for reporting to 17 November 2008.
Agreed to.
Suspension of RULE 253(1)
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That Rule 253(1), which provides inter alia that the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate today on the Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 81—2008] (National Assembly—sec 75).
Agreed to. The SPEAKER: Order, hon members in that corner! We won’t hesitate to give you an afternoon off. I am not going to repeat what I am saying now.
Election of Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab as president of the inter-parliamentary union
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House —
(1) notes that Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab, Speaker of the National Assembly of Namibia, was elected as President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on 15 October 2008 during the 119th Assembly of the Union held in Geneva;
(2) further notes that the Inter-Parliamentary Union is one of the leading organisations in the promotion and strengthening of the institutions of parliamentary democracy and that Dr Gurirab represents the African continent as its chosen candidate for the Presidency; and
(3) therefore resolves to—
(a) express its congratulations to Dr Gurirab on his election and
to pledge its support for him during his term of office; and
(b) acknowledge the sterling work of the Parliaments of the
Southern African region, including the Parliament of South
Africa, in ensuring that Africa took up its rightful place at
the helm of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Agreed to.
ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL
(First Reading debate)
Mr N M NENE: Madam Speaker and hon members, it is easy to be a celebrity; you just fall off your chair, and your name is all over. I wouldn’t have got such publicity. Thanks to everyone that was entertained by that.
When the Minister of Finance tabled the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement on Tuesday, he also tabled, among others, the Adjustments Appropriation Bill. For this current financial year, they were subsequently referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance for consideration and report, as we hereby do. This is one of the main features of a developmental state - being responsive to the social needs of citizens and intervening by developing and deploying resources where they are needed most and prioritising the needs of the vulnerable in pursuit of a better life.
In terms of the Public Finance Management Act, section 30(2), the adjustments appropriation must provide for a number of things, including unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure, expenditure already announced by the Minister during the tabling of the annual Budget, the shifting of funds between and within Votes and the roll-over of unspent funds from the preceding financial year. As explained during the tabling and briefing to the committee, this year’s adjustments cut across all these categories. We were advised that the request for unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure amounted to something like R33,2 billion, and the Treasury Committee approved R12,471 billion. We were accordingly informed that those that were not approved did not meet the criteria of being unforeseen and unavoidable. Those that met the criteria are outlined in the Bill, and my colleague, Comrade Arthur Moloto, will be talking to some of them in more detail.
The supplementary amounts that were announced in the 2008-09 Budget amounted to R10,2 billion, and mainly cover the first tranche of the Eskom loan, Public Works’ retrofitting of government buildings with energy saving equipments, and Minerals and Energy’s Demand Side Management programme. We’ve seen this in our areas where even municipalities are doing the same - exchanging bulbs with the energy-saving ones.
The other category was that of inflation-related adjustments in terms of section 30(2)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act. These range from the remuneration of civil servants, which takes the largest portion of these adjustments, followed by municipal costs for free basic services due to high energy costs and housing costs.
In line with our Polokwane conference resolution on prioritising education and health, compensation for inflation also goes to Learner Teacher Support Material and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme. Medical equipment and medicine costs are also accommodated in this regard. As we in the ANC have always maintained that inflation hurts the poor, the National School Nutrition Programme is therefore catered for in this category.
The other category of adjustments is that of roll-overs that amounted to R2,361 billion. This is with the understanding that all these adjustments have passed the test of section 30(2)(g) of the Public Finance Management Act.
In tabling our report on this Adjustments Appropriation Bill, we appeal to the relevant portfolio committees affected by these adjustments to follow up during their oversight on whether departments truly deserve the additional allocations and whether the roll-overs have not arisen as a result of poor planning or nonimplementation of their mandates. I raise this matter because with the time at our disposal, we were not able to engage with either the departments or relevant portfolio committees in order to satisfy ourselves with the validity of these requests. We merely relied on the treasury committee and National Treasury, for the Constitution enjoins Parliament to discharge the responsibility of oversight.
I want to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their hard work and understanding that delaying this Bill will prejudice the much needed adjustments, which will impact on the lives of the citizens of the country, hence we were able to fast-track it.
The ANC supports this Bill and trusts that the portfolio committees, as I have indicated, will follow up on the issues raised and those that Mr Moloto will be dealing with in more detail. Thank you.
Mr S J F MARAIS: Chairperson, section 213(2) of the Constitution provides that money may be withdrawn and, per implication, be moved within Votes if an appropriation Act is passed by Parliament, and that it be subjected to the conditions of the Public Finance Management Act. Section 30(2) of the Public Finance Management Act states that adjustment budgets may provide for the following: unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure recommended by a committee of Cabinet; any expenditure in terms of section 16 - for example, the R1,3 billion for the Road Accident Fund, RAF; money to be appropriated for expenditure already announced by the Minister during the tabling of the annual Budget - for instance, the Eskom loan; and the roll-over of unspent funds from preceding financial years.
It is essential that the main Budget and these adjusted estimates support the sound fiscal stance we require to weather ourselves against the global financial storms. We want to applaud the Minister and the National Treasury for not bowing before the Luthuli House powers as yet. We are convinced that if the reported outcomes of the ANC summit are implemented, they will certainly jeopardise our global credibility and damage our monetary regime and the performance of our banking system.
Voorsitter, van hierdie hersiene uitgawes vir 2008-09 is geregverdig, hoewel dit kommerwekkend is dat die toegewysde fondse nie bestee kan word nie as gevolg van, onder andere, swak beplanning, swak vaardighede en swak bestuur. Sulke optrede sal nie help om ons ekonomie op dreef te bring nie. Ons vertrou dat empatie ook teenoor verbruikers getoon sal word, wie ook swaar kry.
Verblydend is die toewysings, onder andere, aan die volgende: gesondheids- en geletterheidsprogramme; skoolvoedingskemas; hoewel ons weet dat dit nie die probleem gaan oplos nie; en sosiale- en maatskaplike verligtingsmaatreëls. Hoewel die R20 verhoging te min is, help dit vir seker om die effek van inflasie aan te spreek. Provinsiale en plaaslike regerings kry toewysings wat hopelik dienslewering sal verbeter en natuurlik sal bydra tot ramp- en ander noodverligtingsfondse wat ook noodsaaklik is.
Hoewel die R1,4 miljard vir die 2010 Fifa stadions nie onverwags is nie, is dit nou ekonomies noodsaaklik dat hierdie toernooi suksesvol sal verloop, want binne die huidige wêreldekonomie sal die alternatief ’n ekonomiese ramp vir Suid-Afrika wees. Ons moet almal saamwerk om dit ’n sukses te maak. Kommerwekkend is egter weereens die toewysing aan die Padongelukkefonds, wat geld in ’n bodemlose put bleik te wees. ’n Alternatief vir die befondsing hiervan, moet gesoek word.
Die tweede gedeelte van die Denel Saab-waarborgooreenkoms en spesifiek hoeveel nog uitstaande is en wanneer hierdie tot ’n einde gaan kom, is kommerwekkend. Ons is baie bekommerd oor dit en die effek op ons ekonomie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, some of these revised expenditures for 2008-09 are reasonable, although it is disconcerting that the allocated funds could not be spent as a result of, inter alia, poor planning, poor skills and poor management. Such actions will not help our economy find its feet. We trust that empathy would also be shown towards consumers who are also struggling.
The allocations are heartening, among others, to the following: health and literacy programmes; school feeding schemes, although we know that this is not going to solve the problem; and social welfare relief measures. While the R20 increase is not sufficient, it would certainly help to address the effect of inflation. Provincial and local governments are receiving allocations that would hopefully improve service delivery and, of course, would contribute to disaster and other emergency relief funds, which are also essential.
While the R1,4 billion for the 2010 Fifa stadiums are to be expected, it is now of economic importance that this event must be a success, because the alternative would prove an economic disaster for South Africa in the current world economy. We must all work together to make this a success. However, a concern is once again the allocation to the Road Accident Fund which seems to be money thrown down a bottomless well. An alternative must be found.
The second part of the Denel Saab guarantee agreement and specifically how much is still outstanding and when this would be paid is also a concern. We are very concerned about this and its effect on our economy.] Another concern is the obvious lack of capacity and skills within departments to manage and spend their budgets effectively, as well as the lack of focus to spend on essential service deliverables and not to stock the gravy train. It is a concern that not enough is done to empower the private sector to grow the economy and drive employment exponentially.
We need effective political accountability for what is happening in so many departments and trust that Parliament will indeed see to this in the years to come. It is in the best interest of our nation that we pass this Bill despite the many concerns and possible flaws.
Die DA ondersteun die wetsontwerp. Ek dank u. [Applous.] [The DA supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]]
Mr N SINGH: Madam Speaker, firstly, I want to endorse the sentiments expressed by both the hon Nene, chairperson of our committee, and the hon Marais with regard to the various departments’ ability to roll out the funds they have and the increased allocations being made to them. This has been a source of concern for the IFP for some time. Many departments get more money than they can spend. This does not leave us, especially Members of Parliament, with much confidence when we see headlines like this in the newspapers:
State hospitals in crisis. State hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal are on the verge of collapse ….
They even say people are dying and … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order, hon member! The noise level is unbearable. We appeal to the Whips to please assist us. Please continue, hon member.
Mr N SINGH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope I will get some injury time. But I hope I don’t have to go into one of these hospitals where the health care is putrid, to say the least.
As the IFP, we are extremely concerned that while we may roll out funds, and while the National Treasury and the Cabinet have very good intentions, many departments are really not spending their money effectively and efficiently.
We welcome the fact that there is an increase in the allocation to the National School Nutrition Programme, although it is an inflation-related adjustment. We know and we read in newspapers that for many children who go to school, the only meal they receive is the meal they receive at school. But we would like to see this programme well supported and rolled out.
There is a bit of a concern about the additional R2,5 billion to the RAF. The RAF, I hope the hon Minister of Transport is here, is always in trouble. We don’t know when the National Treasury is going to invoke a section whereby, as they did with the Land Bank, they oversee the administration of the RAF because too much money is going into it. They are receiving money, but a number of people are still not benefiting from this.
We will support the Adjustments Appropriation Bill. We really feel that the work of the hon Minister of Health is really cut out for her. The new vaccines to be rolled out to reduce infant and child mortality is a welcomed step, and we trust that all these interventions and monies are going to be well spent in the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, the ACDP wishes to highlight certain aspects of the Adjustments Appropriation Bill. As pointed out by speakers, we again have a special adjustment of R2,5 billion for the RAF. It seems the RAF continually needs additional adjustments, and this is an issue of serious concern.
Secondly, in view of the escalating building costs, we support the R1,4 billion adjustment to the 2010 Fifa World Cup stadium development, as well as the R600 million for unforeseen expenditure of the last mile access network.
As far as projected underspending is concerned, we note that there is a net reduction in the Department of Defence’s 2008-09 baseline in the amount of R1,128 billion. This is explained mainly due to delays in the delivery of strategic defence equipment, and R1,9 billion will be added back in the next financial year. However, the question arises: What impact will our weakening currency have on payments due when this equipment is delivered? Will we have to pay more or will we be tied into a contract that will protect us in that regard?
In general, the ACDP supports the additional allocations for the school nutritional programme, the Occupational Specific Dispensation for nurses, and particularly the R50 million for new vaccines to combat infant and child mortality.
To conclude, I just want to thank Mr Nene for taking the fall the other morning as I would have been in that seat. So, thank you for your good work and for taking the fall for the ACDP. Thank you.
Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the adjustments appropriation is always our eyes into the progress made and the continued agenda of government. The MF is pleased that this Adjustments Appropriation Bill depicts such consistency in government plan.
We hope that the continued intention to loan Eskom funds to address the country’s energy emergency shall deliver and relieve citizens from this burden. Furthermore, allocations that shall see our Social Security Programme extended is pleasing. At the same time, we need to revise ways to address the minimal funding to pensioners.
Eskom could so gracefully impose extra tariffs on citizens to foot their electricity bill to assist the energy crisis. Similarly, we need to bring our heads together on how to attain money to allocate a more livable amount to pensioners.
The MF will support the Adjustments Appropriation Bill. Thank you.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, with my one minute, let me say that the PAC affirms that the Budget is an indication of who is valued in our society. In this regard, we welcome the Minister’s observation that the Budget is not about markets and bonds, but about people. The Minister, however, does not adequately address this in his statement. This Budget is not about people. That is why old age pensioners get a lousy increase of R20,00 in this stormy economic sea. The gap between the poor and the rich is widening.
The PAC agrees with the Minister regarding infrastructure development. But it is puzzling that for a country with such huge infrastructure and human capital backlogs, more than R500 billion can be kept for the pension of just 2% of the population.
We can’t keep on tolerating budgets that are pro-middle class and pro-rich. The Budget of this country must now start to have a pro-poor economic outlook for the aspirations of the poor majority and for political stability in this country, and, therefore, for the security of all citizens of the country. The increase on … [Interjections.] Izwe Lethu! [Our Country!] We support the Adjustments Appropriation Bill. [Time expired.]
Mr K A MOLOTO: Madam Speaker, hon members, it’s going to be a long day. So, I will be very brief.
The Portfolio Committee on Finance has satisfied itself that the Adjustments Appropriation Bill meets the requirements of section 30(2) of the Public Finance Management Act.
The amount requested to be rolled over is insignificant compared to the total Budget. Allow me to focus just on some few aspects of this Bill. An amount of R500 million is requested to provide short-term relief to committees and households facing undue hardships. I hope that would address the concerns of Dr Pheko. The RAF requires recapitalisation. An amount of R2,5 billion is requested to strengthen the financial position of the RAF. The African Renaissance fund has to be recapitalised for the purpose of acquisition of agricultural inputs for Zimbabwe. The National Treasury assured the Portfolio Committee on Finance that food would be distributed through reputable food agencies. The ANC government has intensified the fight against HIV and Aids. There is an unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure of R300 million for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission dual therapy programme and shortfalls on treatment programmes.
Recent floods in KwaZulu-Natal and in the Western Cape caused extensive damage to roads, bridges and storm-water drainage systems. An amount of R1 billion is requested to repair this damage. There is an additional amount of R168 million requested by provincial and local government to deal with the rehabilitation of infrastructure damage by flooding and for costs incurred for providing temporary accommodation to displaced people.
South Africa plays a critical peacekeeping role on the continent. Therefore, we have to support all efforts aimed at bringing peace in war- torn areas. The Department of Defence is requesting an additional R100 million for the peace support operation in Burundi.
The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, hon members, I much appreciate the 15 minutes, and I shall make full use of them.
Let me start by expressing a concern that I believe it is fundamentally important that Parliament be given adequate time to deal with issues such as adjustments appropriation because it is so significant. The oversight role of Parliament is so very important in this regard. Unfortunately, this was impossible this time. But I think we must mark it as a difficulty and try to prevent this kind of issue in the future.
The hon Pheko says that our budgets aren’t pro-poor. Well, I will challenge the hon Pheko to walk with me in any township where poor people are in this country. People will recognise me before they recognise him because they know that our budgets are pro-poor and they know what we represent in their lives - to raise the standard of living on a continuous basis. I will challenge him to this any day. I will challenge him to meet us at the polls next year, and we will see where the ANC and the PAC meet. [Applause.]
Just to deal with some of the issues, the matter of the RAF is one that was of course attended to by the Minister of Transport with the Portfolio Committee on Transport. In the second quarter of this year, a new piece of legislation was promulgated. But as we know, there are so many vested interests in this piece of legislation. Those who enriched themselves on the backs of accident victims have not wanted to let go. This is a big, big problem. It is not so much that the RAF is poorly managed. The problem is that there are systemic failures in the system because, as designed, it is fundamentally wrong. What happened in respect of the Swiss citizen and the amount of money that he was able to secure out of the RAF suggests to me that the RAF suffers systemic failures. This is what we have to repair. Legislation is part of the way to doing this. But it is not about a liquidity issue. Solvency issues will arise from time to time because of the design of the RAF. So, we have to repair that.
In respect of pensions and some things that the hon Pheko has been talking about - he even suggested that we might have been completely careless in the way in which we dealt with this matter - let me just explain. When I rose at this podium in February this year to table the Budget, the old age pensions, and it is the same for the disability grants, was R870 a month. We announced an increase of R70 a month then. Normally, that increase would last for a year. So, after that announcement it increased to R940. Taking account of the effects that inflation will have on that now, we added a further R20, raising the pensions to a new level of R960 from 1 October to 31 March 2009.
I hope that we will be in a position to stand here before the country again in February and increase pensions again to take account of the changes. This isn’t a change for the year; it is a supplement to take account of the fact that the value of pensions has been eroded by inflation. That is all. It is R20 on top of the earlier R70. That is the context in which I think we have to see the increase.
In respect of the school nutrition programme, again enough was said of it. I want to give the assurance that what my colleague, the Minister of Education, has done with the department in building up the capacity to ensure that we can overcome some of the difficulties encountered in local situations needs to be commended. At this stage, we are just increasing the amount available to ensure that the ravages of inflation on food don’t stand in the way of feeding children who, as the hon Singh said, frequently have that as their only meal. But beyond this, the roll-out of the programme to ensure that more children are fed for more days of the year and also moving this programme from primary schools to high schools are going to be very important changes. The money is in the medium-term estimates, and we will take account of that.
With regard to issues of the Denel guarantee, this is the second instalment of the guarantee with British Aerospace, BAE. This is a matter that was canvassed very extensively at the time of the special appropriation last year. The total indemnity provided is R1,6 billion. The first claim was R220 million and now this amount.
On the strategic defence account referred to by the hon Swart of the ACDP, we had to roll out these amounts because we can’t take delivery. It is recorded in that way. These issues always arise if you have a Constitution that says that you shall have a defensive capability. Not that you may, but you shall. If you are going to have one, you better have a good one, hon De Lille. There is no point in having a Mickey Mouse one. So, these issues will arise from time to time. But the Bill is largely supported across the House, and I would like to express our sincere appreciation for that support, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Debate concluded. Bill read a first time.
ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL
(Consideration of Votes and Schedule)
The SPEAKER: Order! The proceedings will initially take the form of a question and answer session. I shall put each Vote in respect of which adjustments have been made in turn, whereupon members will have the opportunity to ask questions to the relevant Ministers in respect of the adjustments.
Each party has been allocated a global time for all Votes. Once a party’s time has expired, it will not be allowed to put further questions. Members must please press the “request to speak” button if they wish to ask a question. Hon members should please wait until I recognise them before putting their questions.
Vote No 4 – Home Affairs:
Mr C M LOWE: Madam Speaker, in Vote 4, nearly half of R300 million detailed in that adjustment of estimates has to do with unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure dealing with immigration services arising from some of the problems we had with xenophobia attacks and dealing with refugees. The DA has absolutely no problem with that allocation. In fact, we would welcome it and support it. But what I am concerned to read about, in the same light, is that the Department of Home Affairs has just been found guilty by the Cape High Court of having broken the law in refusing to renew Cape Town asylum seekers’ permits and telling them that they were supposed to apply for them in Pretoria and in Johannesburg. This is indicative of a department in crisis. This is one of the many issues that arise day after day. What I want to ask the Minister, in the light of this, is whether she would support the view of not just the DA, but also the portfolio committee now, that, in fact, we need somebody from Team Finance. We need a body from the Department of Finance, the National Treasury, to assist the Department of Home Affairs in dealing with its internal control problems - the fiscal and financial problems they have there. Would she support this? If so, when will she take steps to ensure that this is done? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Thank you very much, hon member. No, we will not support this. The reasons are not about arrogance. We will not support this because we are ready to come and make a presentation about the progress which we have made.
Yes, we have challenges. It is not only this. I think you are aware that we have a group of consultants who have been working with the department to clean up our audit report. We have whittled down queries from the audit report – from 24 down to 6. There are 6 queries in our audit. But the nature of the queries, because of the amounts involved, is such that it led to us being given a disclaimer. This was not because there was no attempt or effort made to try and clean up the report of the Department of Home Affairs.
So, we will not accept the recommendation that the Department of Public Service and Administration and the National Treasury should come in. When we needed the services and the support of the Department of Public Service and Administration and the National Treasury, yes, we came to the portfolio committee and solicited their support. They came in and conducted an investigation which led to us securing consultants who are currently dealing with the turnaround process in the Department of Home Affairs. We have seen significant changes and significant progress in the department as a result of the presence of these consultants.
But I am not suggesting that we have completely turned around the department. I accept, and we are taking responsibility, that we do have another disclaimer. But you will accept that we have whittled down issues from 24 to 6, which had led to disclaimers in the past. Thank you very much.
Vote No 8 – Public Service and Administration:
Dr U ROOPNARAIN: Madam Speaker, Minister, would you say the Budget is ready to assist us to deal with the second decade’s service delivery priorities whilst correcting the first decade’s lowlights? Thank you. The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Chairperson, yes, it is true that in terms of the assessment of government performance, there are those areas where we put priorities in terms of following up on issues we set ourselves to achieve during the first decade. There are priorities that we have actually determined in terms of a programme of action. We see this Budget as an instrument that guides us to work towards that. Yes, it is true that we will be able to deal with priorities of the second decade of our democracy. Thank you very much.
Vote No 13 – Education:
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Minister, we know that per capita allocations to schools are not based on what a school needs in order to provide quality education, but on what the fiscus can afford, and this results in serious challenges. Of the 40% of schools where fees have been scrapped, general conditions have remained decidedly inferior. Will the Minister’s amended Budget adequately address this problem? Has consideration been given to the grave concerns about the plans that the Minister of Finance announced with regard to the rolling out of no-fees status to 60% of schools? Without adequate funds, this will further impact negatively on the quality of education in our schools. Of course, the present situation experienced by schools designated as no-fee schools is that funding in lieu of fees arrives late. What I am asking is whether the amendments address this problem in any way? Thank you. The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, if I could begin with the last question. The initial administrative problems we had with the allocation of funds to schools by the 30 September deadline have been addressed. We have changed administrative measures in order to ensure that provinces indicate allocations well in time and disburse money to schools. Some of the problems were not related to the department but arose from the fact that several schools did not have bank accounts or gave wrong information and so on. These were initial glitches which we have addressed.
The matter of quality is not dealt with only through the no-fee policy. There is a range of other measures that seek to address our intention to improve quality in schools. For example, we have over R1,4 billion that is allocated to provinces for the Quality Improvement, Development, Support and Upliftment Programme, Qids Up, for schools. This directly addresses infrastructure, the need for additional teaching and learning resources, teacher development and other areas that are identified by the district in consultation with the province and the national co-ordinating office as needed in 15 000 of the poorest schools in the country. In addition, we have the Foundations for Learning Campaign. So, there is a multifaceted range of interventions that seek to address the issue of quality.
The no-fee school policy adds a nonpersonnel infrastructure to schools. Therefore, it gives schools some greater flexibility in purchasing additional resources for teaching and learning or other needs that the school might have. So, it is not just a quality improvement. It also, of course, addresses the exclusion of many poor children from school in the past, in the absence of such a provision, because schools had a fee-raising right. Therefore, it often excluded poor children whose parents could not pay any fees.
The criteria for determining the allocation is elaborated in the national norm which you are fully aware of – the norms and standards for financing schools. Certainly, it is needs-based. But remember that the additional allocations which relate to personnel and other matters are addressed through alternative funding methods.
Mr G G BOINAMO: Chairperson, hon Minister, in view of the fact that the education budget in South Africa is by far higher than that of other developing countries, this budget does not address the glaring needs in South African schools. Has the Minister put any mechanisms in place to employ people with the capacity to identify the needs of schools meticulously and then spend the budget accordingly? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I’m not sure to what degree this arises from the adjustments appropriation. But let me start by saying …
… Ntate Boinamo, kgantele o beile kitso ya gago mo pele ga Ntlo e. Ke maswabi ka gore ga wa batla kitso pele o tla mo Ntlong e tona e. O tshwanetse gore o mpotse pele gore a dilo tse o di buisang mo makwalodikgannyeng ke nnete kgotsa nyaa gore ke go thuse go bua nnete fa o tla mo Ntlong e. Selo sa go baakanya dikolo ga se dirwe ka madi fela. Jaaka o buile re tshwanetse gore re nne le batho ba ba dirang le rona ba ba itseng tiro ya bona tota. Re leka go tsenya batho ba ba itseng tiro. Gape re leka go thusa batho gore le bone ba nne le kitso e e ba thusang gore ba kgone tiro ya thuto. Se re se dirang ke go nonofisa Baofisiri ba Dikgaolo. Ke setse ke buile ka seo makgetlo a mantsi mo Ntlong e. Re dirisana gape le barutabana. O itse lenaane-tsamaiso tlhabololo la rona le barutabana. Totatota re leka go nna le batho ba re ba thapang ba ba itseng tiro ya bona.
Se re se kopang ke gore le rona re le mo Palamenteng re dirisane le batsadi, barutabana le bana ba rona gore mongwe le mongwe a itse gore le ena o na le letsogo mo tsamaisong ya tsa thuto. Ga se fela ba ba dirang mo thutong. Batsadi le bona ba tshwanetse gore ba dire le bana ba bona ba ba thuse go buisa le go itshwara sentle mo sekolong. Ba thuse barutabana, ba tsamaye dikopano tse ba di bilediwang kwa dikolong, ba buise dipegelo tse di ntshiwang ke barutana. Dilo tseo tsotlhe di rulaganya tsamaiso ya thuto. Fa re ka dirisana jalo ke bona tswelelopele. Ga se madi fela, ke dintlha tseo tsotlhe di kopane tse di dirang gore thuto e tsamaye sentle. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[… Mr Boinamo, a little while ago, you mentioned before this House what you know. I am disappointed because you have failed to look for information before coming to this august House. You have to ask me first about whether or not what you have read in the newspapers is true; so that I can help you tell the truth when you come to this House. The upgrading of schools does not only involve money. Like you have mentioned, the people that we work with must have the relevant expertise. We are also trying by all means to employ people who are good at their work. We assist them by ensuring that they get the knowledge that is appropriate for their work in education. We are empowering Regional Officers, and I have already mentioned this in this House, on several occasions. We are also working hand in hand with the educators and you are quite aware of our action plan for the development of educators. In fact, we plan to employ people who master their work.
We would like to appeal to everyone here in Parliament to work together with parents, educators and our children, so that everyone should know that he or she has a say in education. This does not only refer to those that work for the department. Parents should also be there for their children, and help them read and teach them how to behave at school. They must help educators in every possible way, by attending school meetings and study reports that are issued by educators. All these will place the system of education in order. If we work together like that there will be progress. This is not only about money, it is about all these factors being interwoven to ensure that the system of education runs smoothly. [Applause.]]
Mr J BICI: Chairperson, the school nutrition programme has not been run properly for years in the Eastern Cape. The question arises as to whether or not the Eastern Cape is included in the R265 million appropriated. If it is included, how much is meant for the Eastern Cape, and what monitoring strategies do we have to make sure that the money is used properly? Thank you.
UMPHATHISWA WEZEMFUNDO: Tata, eMpuma Koloni inkqubo yesondlo ezikolweni ihamba kakuhle kakhulu. Siye saba neengxakana ezithile ngaphambili, ngowama-
- Kodwa ngoku le nkqubo siyilungisile kwaye ngoku isebenza kakuhle. Oomama bayasebenza kanti nabantwana bayasifumana isondlo. Ndiyavuya kakhulu mna ngale nkqubo.
Umba wemali siza kuwuqwalasela ze sibone ukuba xa kuqwalaselwa onke amaphondo, iphondo ngalinye silinika imali engakanani na. Asikawenzi loo msebenzi, kodwa nephondo leMpuma Koloni liza kuyifumana imalanyana yalo.
Ngokubhekisele kwiinkqubo zesondlo, sinabo abantu abasebenza ngale nkqubo. Njengoko sele nditshilo, sandisa inani labasebenzi bethu kwicandelo lethu le-ofisi kazwelonke nakweyamaphondo.
Sizilungisile iingxakana ebesinazo ebezibangelwa ngabantu ababengenzi umsebenzi wabo kakuhle nangabebesiqhatha. Zonke ezo zinto sizilungisile. Ngoko abantwana bethu baza kufumana ukutya, kanti nephondo leMpuma Koloni liza kuyifumana imali. Ndiyabulela. (Translation of isiXhosa speech follows.)
[The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Sir, in the Eastern Cape the school nutrition programme is working very well. We were experiencing some challenges before, in 2007. But now we have corrected this programme and it is working well. Women are working and children are getting their food. I am very pleased about this programme.
We will look at the issue of money and see when all provinces are being considered, as to how much money we will allocate to each province. We are not yet done with that work, but even the province of the Eastern Cape will get its portion.
With regard to the nutrition programme, we have people working on it. As I have already said, we are employing more workers in our national and provincial offices.
We have sorted out the small problems we experienced as a result of people who were not doing their work properly and those who were cheating us. All those we have managed to sort out. Therefore, our children are going to get their food, and the province of the Eastern Cape will get money. I thank you.]
Mr N SINGH: Chairperson, Madam Minister, I ask this question on behalf of my colleague, Mr Mpontshane. I may be on shaky grounds, but I hope I don’t fall off the chair. With regard to the additional funding of R39 million allocated to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme - I know it is inflation linked - the concern that Mr Mpontshane has is that in a number of institutions, the processing of applications is not timeous. As a result, many students find themselves in debt midyear and have to be expelled from institutions. Does the Minister have any comments on this particular issue?
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Ke bue Setswana? [Tsenoganong.] Ke a gana. [Should I speak in Setswana? [Interjections.]] I refuse.
Chairperson, we are trying on a consistent basis to improve the administration of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, although I must say it’s one of the best administered financial aid schemes that I have ever seen in any part of the world. We have made changes in order to assist students, and Mr Mpontshane is fully aware of this. Previously, students had difficulties because of institutions’ demand for what were called “upfront payments”. From 2006, we made an allocation available to every university to assist all applicants right at the beginning of the year so that they didn’t have this burden of upfront payments.
There are a number of policy questions that we need to look at, such as how best we might improve the scheme and its efficacy. But I think that is a longer-term investigation that is underway by the board of the National Student Financial Aids Scheme. I can assure Mr Mpontshane that the funding will be utilised very well for students who are financially needy, but who also have the academic potential to succeed.
Vote No 14 – Health:
Mr M WATERS: Chairperson, may I congratulate the new Minister of Health on her appointment. The DA welcomes the additional R750 million for health care. However, we do have some serious concerns which we admit have nothing to do with the current Minister, but have everything to do with the previous Minister. Firstly, the report on the 142 baby deaths at the Ukhahlamba District in the Eastern Cape - I’m sorry if I don’t pronounce it right - clearly states that the babies died due to poor health care. In addition, the lack of properly qualified chief executive officers, CEOs, at our hospital certainly contributes to the unacceptable standards of health care and wasteful expenditure. A case in point is the CEO of the now infamous Frere Hospital, where over 200 babies were stillborn last year. This hospital complex has a budget of R729 million. But the CEO has no managerial qualifications whatsoever. His only claim to fame is being an ANC councillor in Buffalo City. What steps is the Minister going to take to guarantee that the additional allocation is going to be spent more effectively and efficiently? Will she introduce uniform standards across all nine provinces with regard to the appointments of CEOs in hospitals? I thank you.
The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, I would agree with you that in a lot of instances, the conditions in our hospitals are not what we want them to be. We have been addressing this matter of looking at the various levels of hospitals and health care in the department and in the health care sector as a whole. We are looking at a number of options, which I don’t want to speak about now because obviously they will come forward in the policy framework. But certainly, the question of our health care in those hospitals is of major concern.
Let me say, relating to the Ukhahlamba District Hospital, I have been in contact with MEC Pemmy Majodina, who is the newly appointed MEC in the Eastern Cape. I have been receiving reports from her that she has embarked on a very energetic and ambitious programme to address those issues in Ukhahlamba District. As it was reported in this Parliament before, part of the problem is the quality of water in many of our municipalities which create a bad environment for health. That also contributed to the problems in Ukhahlamba.
In terms of ensuring that the money is spent well, unfortunately the money we are speaking about here is only the money that goes to the national Department of Health and not really the money that flows to provinces. If you have difficulty in understanding this flow of funds, believe me I also have problems with this.
But I do believe that accountability is essential. I spoke to the Auditor- General. I met with him one or two days ago just to round off matters that concerned him around the Health budget. He has also done an extensive audit on what happens to budgets that go to provinces because they don’t go through us but go through the National Treasury. What happens to those budgets? He has been doing an analysis for us, and we are looking forward to his report once it comes out. So, coming from a financial background and a background where one wants accountability and budgets to speak to finances, this is definitely going to be an emphasis that we will be looking at in the future. These are promises, but I am certain that we will make improvements on the matters you have raised. [Applause.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, we welcome the change of hands of Ministers in this department. My question is whether this change of hands of Ministers has any effect on the progress made in terms of targets and budgets of the Health department in terms of the HIV and Aids Programme? Does the new Minister have any new initiatives in mind in boosting progress in the sector that shall meet budget boundaries? I thank you, Chairperson.
The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, as you would be aware, we are midstream into a budget that was approved earlier on in Parliament. So, what we are dealing with here is just adjustments to that budget. In the adjustments we have here, we have R300 million additional funding which will go to a very important programme, and that is towards dual therapy for babies and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission. There is more funding going towards the roll-out of antiretrovirals and its uptake has been encouraging. It is more than we anticipated. It reassures that the antiretroviral programme is really on the upswing now. We will have financial difficulties in meeting the uptake. But, certainly, we want to look at getting better efficiencies going in a number of areas, and we will be looking at that, very importantly, to see how we can go forward. Thank you.
Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, hon Minister, we are contributing in this debate as constructively as possible in the hope of advancing the accountability that you seek in the Health department that you have inherited in an abysmal state.
While the IFP welcomes the increased budget for hospital revitalisation and HIV treatment, we feel that our country’s problems are not due to the amount of money which is in the budget as much as to how the money is misused or not used at all. You said yourself that the finances are so complex that you are having trouble understanding them. We have argued that for many years. Therefore, what steps will you to take to change the structure - that is my first question?
I will point out that the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, for example, has overspent by R1,8 billion. To all intents and purposes, this has placed a moratorium on new staff appointments. Yet, conditional grants in the hospital have not been spent. As a result, even pivotal hospitals like Addington are hopelessly overstretched. It is therefore in a similar state to rural hospitals in our country, whose appalling state was outlined in the national Save the Children committee. On the basis of this report, the IFP … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, particularly on my left the noise levels are unfortunately too high. Thanks. [Interjections.] That is why I said “unfortunately”, from where I’m sitting. Hon member, can you continue.
Dr R RABINOWITZ: On the basis of the report, the IFP has requested the Human Rights Commission to investigate the state of hospitals, particularly in rural areas but throughout the country, as the Addington report now shows to be necessary.
According to our erstwhile Minister of Health, the conditions in the Eastern Cape were not unique to that province. Therefore, we ask the Minister what steps she will take to hold those people accountable. Will she consider placing the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health under curatorship? Will she also look at working with the Minister of Water Affairs to look at the parlous state of our water and rivers as shown in the state of the environment report on water? Thank you. The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Thank you for the question. Around what steps to be taken for improvements in hospitals, CEOs are in very difficult positions. They are not given the authority to spend resources in the way they should be able to. You would know that all authority given to them is delegated downwards. They do not have the freedom to manage their budgets in their own way. This is a huge problem. It creates enormous managerial problems.
As you have pointed out now, all delegation have been withdrawn from CEOs regarding the appointment of new staff. This arises out of the overspending that we are experiencing in certain provinces on Occupational Specific Dispensation, OSD, for nurses. The fact of the matter is that the overspending is continuing at an unprecedented rate in most provinces. The overspending that we saw last year and that will be reported on is actually going to be higher. We are not exactly certain as to what is driving all the overspending. The Auditor-General is doing an intensive audit on what the overspending is about. Once we receive his reports, we will be able to have a better understanding of what that is all about.
In the interim, the National Treasury has assisted us with R1 billion to meet that overspending. But we are also going to have to look at what the provincial treasuries can do to assist the departments of health in terms of their adjustments estimates, and we will be watching what is going through. Apparently, there has been discussions going on with provincial treasuries. But let me say upfront that this is a major problem facing the health department. We wanted the OSD to assist nurses and, in the next phase, to assist doctors. Once we have seen what the full outcome of this is, we will have to take a decision on that.
In terms of steps to be taken around hospitals that are functioning badly, an Office of Standard Compliance has been set up in the department under Dr Marshall in April 2008. They have to review every hospital every three years. They are starting with reports, and they actually have the right to withdraw a license or authority to operate. I have great hope in the Office of Standard Compliance in assisting us. But we can’t just wait on monitoring. We actually have to take a proactive approach. This, I think, is the approach of the Ministry as a whole. I have now spoken in detail with my colleague, Dr Sefularo, and we are both of the same mind that the quality of our health care can no longer just be business as usual. It has to become a matter of priority. The patient has to be at the centre of everything around health care. We are considering this as an absolute priority. [Applause.]
Once again, we will do our level best in trying to deal with these issues. It is intolerable what patients have to deal with. We look upon all of us here in Parliament to assist with this matter. Thank you. [Applause.]
Vote No 15 – Labour: Ms A M DREYER: Chairperson, the main increases for the Department of Labour are related to transfers to the Sheltered Employment Factories, SEF, Setas and the National Skills Fund. However, this department received a qualified report from the Auditor-General for the fourth consecutive year.
The SEF incurred irregular expenditure with cheques fraudulently cashed. The National Skills Fund, specifically, also received a qualified audit report. Now, the question is: How does the Minister justify allocating more public money to a department, specifically to sections within a department, that have clearly demonstrated they cannot spend the money appropriately.
UMPHATHISWA WEZEMISEBENZI: Ndiyayithanda indlela abuza ngayo. Ukuba abuze … how do I justify? Ndiyabulela ukuba ubuze ngolo hlobo. Ngelishwa-ke mama, kwi Sheltered Employment ngabantu abakhubazekileyo, kuyanyanzeleka ke okokuba abantu abakhubazekileyo bahlale beqeqeshwa. Into yokokuba kubhenguze abantu abaphetheyo ayithethi ukuthi abantu abakhubazekileyo mabasokole. Okwesibini, uqeqesho lwabantu yenye yezinto ezingundoqo kakhulu. Amanyathelo anokuthi athatyathwe ngee managers ezingakwazi ukugcina imali, ayithethi ukuthi uqeqesho malume kwiRiphabhliki yoMzansi Afrika. Ngoko ke, isilungu esi usithethileyo sihle sona; sinike imali Mphathiswa wezeZimali siqhubekeke siqeqeshe abantu kuba igunya lokugxotha umntu ongakwazi ukuphatha kakuhle imali, sikwanalo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.) [The MINISTER OF LABOUR: I like the way she phrased the question. To ask … how do I justify? Thank you for asking like that. Unfortunately, Madam, the Sheltered Employment Factories constitutes disabled people and it is a must that they be provided with continuous training. Disabled people should not be disadvantaged because of incompetent managers. Secondly, the training of personnel is one of the main priorities. Measures of dealing with managers who are not competent in handling finances does not imply that training has to come to a standstill in the Republic of South Africa. I commend the way you have articulated your message; therefore, Mr Minister of Finance, give us money so that we continue with the training of personnel because we also do have the powers to dismiss those who are financially incompetent. [Applause.]]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, hon Minister, your department has very crucial and hard work to do. My question to you is: Can you explain what the situation is in the unemployment field? Will this allocation assist in some way in creating more jobs? Thank you.
UMPHATHISWA WEZEMISEBENZI: Umsebenzi wethu sileli sebe kukuqinisekisa ukuba imo yokufunyanwa kwemisebenzi ngabantu iyavuleleka. Ngoko ke kuyanyanzeleka ukuba iSebe lezeMisebenzi lenze kube lula ukuba abantu bafumane imisebenzi. Ingekuko ukufunela abantu imisebenzi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Our duty as this department is to ensure that job opportunities are accessible. The Department of Labour is therefore obliged to make job opportunities more accessible to the people. This does not mean that the department will go job hunting for people.]
Vote No 16 – Social Development:
Ms J A SEMPLE: Chairperson, the Minister of Finance has already referred to the effect of inflation on the cost of living. The Minister of Social Development is probably well aware that R20 is not enough to buy three loaves of bread. Does the Minister believe that the increase of R20 on social assistance grants is sufficient for poor South Africans to put essential food items on the table?
UMPHATHISWA WOPHUHLISO LWEZENTLALO: Ndimphendule? Okay! [Kulungile.] Onako okusesandleni konceda ukuba kuziswe into esuswini kumntu ngamnye. Imali ayikho. Lo rhulumente uzimisele ngalo lonke ixesha ukusebenzela abantu abahlelelekileyo. Le R20 oyikhalelayo wena abantu abaninzi bayazama ngayo noko ingonelanga nje. Nangamso. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Must I answer her? Fine! What you have will help to put a plate of food on the table for everybody. There is no money. This government is determined to look out for the disadvantaged people at all times. Most people will do quite a lot with the R20 you are complaining about even though it is not enough. Thank you.]
Vote No 17 - Sport and Recreation:
Mr T D LEE: Chairperson, we are all excited to host the 2010 Fifa World Cup. However, if 2010 is to have a positive impact on the overall development of our sport, we need to be participants in the events we host. The lack of substantial allocation for sports development programmes in the department’s budget is worrying. Government is failing to invest in proper sports development programmes, and we desperately need to develop the next generation of sports heroes. Does the Minister not think that we should be making substantial investment in sports development programmes? If not, why not? If so, does his department endorse the DA’s policy of a sports academy to develop our sports talent? Thank you.
Die ADJUNKMINISTER VAN SPORT EN ONTSPANNING: Agb Voorsitter, die agb Lee het nou regtig nie ’n vraag gevra wat van toepassing is op die aansuiweringsbegroting vanmiddag nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die punt bly, hy’s opportunisties, hy ken die regering en die ANC se beleid baie duidelik. Natuurlik belê ons nie genoeg na ons sin in sportgeriewe nie. U is lid van die portefeuljekomitee en u weet dit, maar as u ’n vraag oor die aanvullende begroting gevra het, het ek u ’n sinvoller antwoord gegee, baie dankie. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.) [The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Hon Chairperson, the hon Lee really did not really ask a question that has any relevance to the adjustments appropriation being discussed this afternoon. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is, he is opportunistic, and he understands the government and the ANC’s policy very clearly. Of course we do not invest sufficiently to our liking in sports facilities. You are a member of the portfolio committee and you know it, but if you asked a question concerning our additional allocation, I would give you a more meaningful answer, thank you. [Interjections.]]
Mr N SINGH: Chairperson, I just want to know from the hon Deputy Minister whether they are satisfied that the additional allocation of R1,4 billion is going to carry local government through in ensuring that all the stadia are ready for 2010, and whether they have done an exercise on the continued economic sustainability of the stadia post 2010. Thank you.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Chairperson, the hon Singh, yes, we are comfortable that we will be able to complete it on time - the stadia have an additional grant.
Yes, there are initiatives underway to make sure that we have sustainability of the stadia and event management after 2010.
Vote No 18 - Correctional Services: Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, can the Minister give us the assurance that, given the specific and exclusive allocation to Kimberley prison, we will now see finality of the new generation prison shortly.
UMPHATHISWA WEENKONZO ZOLULEKO: Mhlalingaphambili, ilula gqitha le nto: Andakhi, kuba andingomakhi. Kwaye imozulu ngamanye amaxesha iye ibangele ukuba kube kho ulibaziseko. Kodwa ke nangona kunjalo, laa ntolongo iza kugqitywa ukwakhiwa. Enkosi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Chairperson, this is very easy: I do not build, because I am not a builder. And the weather conditions can sometimes cause delays. Be that as it may, the building of that prison will soon be finalised. Thank you.]
Vote No 19 – Defence: Moulana M R SAYEDALI-SHAH: Chairperson, please allow me first to congratulate the newly appointed Deputy Minister of Defence. It is ironic that in the absence of the Minister of Defence, I have to put this question to him because it is based on concerns that we often shared in the committee under his stewardship as a chairperson.
However, hon Deputy Minister, you are aware that there exists a critical technical skills shortage within the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, which resulted in, among other things, the maintenance and repair of our expensive arms deals acquisitions falling behind schedule. People with experienced skills and expertise are leaving the SANDF. Last year alone, more than 6 700 people left the SANDF and amongst them 1 660 people were from critical occupations. I read Minister Nqakula’s statement on 13 October 2008, where he outlined his department’s retention strategy. He said that the strategy included drawing on retired SANDF personnel and an arrangement with tertiary institutions to produce certain critical specialists. But, with due respect, this can’t be called a retention strategy. However, it is a mitigating action, which is only part of the solution.
Based on the fact that this adjusted appropriation does not address the issue of critical skills because most of the money is going towards servicing strategic defence packages and their cost, what exactly, in coherent or well-defined terms, is going to be the department’s critical skills retention strategy? Thank you. USEKELA-MPHATHISWA WEZOKHUSELO: Mhlekazi uShah, ujonge endenxe kodwa ugqiba kubuza umbuzo – iyandoyisa into yokuba umcaphule uMphathiswa ekuxelela ezimpondweni ukuba wenza ntoni na, kwanokuba zinto zini na ezizezinye esizenzayo ukusombulula ingxaki esinayo.
Unyanisile, besiyithetha sisentanganye, nkosi, siyibhekisa phaya kwisebe loo nto. Kodwa ke kamnandi, besinika iingcebiso kwisebe, ngcebiso ezo elizamkeleyo isebe nelizimiliselayo ndithetha nawe nje. I-Occupation Specific Dispensation yenye yemicimbi esiyishukuxayo ukusombulula loo ngxaki.
Masikhumbuzane, mntakaShah, ukuba le ngxaki esinayo yingxaki esizama ukuyilungisa ngoba amazwe la onke afuna aba bantu sibaqeqeshileyo apha eMzantsi. Aba baqhubi beenqwelo-moya esibaqeqeshayo kunye nabaqhubi beenkwili, njalo njalo, bayafunwa ziinkampani, ezalapha nezaphesheya. Uya kukhumbula ukuba besiyithethile ke loo nto. Ke senza ntoni ngayo?
Yiyo loo nto sinale nkqubo phaya kwisebe, yokuzama ukubaqokelela. Andiqondi ukuba leli sebe lethu kuphela elinaloo ngxaki, koko uMzantsi Afrika uphela unale ngxaki. Siyaqeqesha apha, ngoko ingxaki yethu kukuba siza kubagcina njani na aba bantu. Kodwa ke uze ubakhumbuze naba ubakhuthazayo ukuba bahambe, ukuba ukuzingca ngelizwe lakho yeyona nto isebenzayo.
Kunyanzelekile ukuba abanye bakhe bazidine. Sililwele eli lizwe, asina kuphinda sithengise ngezakhono zethu. Ngoko ke kufuneka sibacenge, sibabuyise aba bantu, ukuze sisebenze nabo. Mandibulele, Mhlalingaphambili. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[The DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Hon Shah, you are not even looking at me but you have just asked a question. What I do not understand is the fact that you are even quoting the Minister as he was talking directly to you telling you what he is doing and what other programmes we are busy with in resolving this problem.
It is true; we used to talk about this while we were at the same level, Chief, and referred that to the department. Fortunately, we were giving advice to the department which are being implemented as I speak. We are still discussing the Occupation Specific Dispensation as one of the strategies to resolve that problem.
Let us remind one another, hon Shah, that we are still trying to resolve the problem, because other countries are recruiting people we have trained in South Africa. The aircraft pilots and the submarine pilots etc, whom we are training, are in demand at companies here and abroad. Remember we spoke about that. So, what are we doing about it?
That is why, as a department, we have the programme of retaining them. I do not think it is only our department that has this problem, but the whole of South Africa. We train them here, but our main problem is the retention strategy. But, please do remind even those whom you are encouraging to leave that patriotism is very important.
It is imperative that some should sacrifice. We fought for this country; we cannot afford to lose our skilled people. Therefore we should plead, and persuade them to come back so that we can work together. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]]
Vote No 22 - Safety and Security:
Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Minister, at the time when citizens of South Africa are crying out for help - literally being slaughtered in their homes - it seems utterly unacceptable that, firstly, we see a R459 million allocation to administration. The reasons for which I would ask the hon Minister to detail, including answering whether or not yet more than the R90 million already spent on suspended SAPS members is being asked from that amount or perhaps elsewhere.
It is unacceptable that at this time, the second highest appropriation is, of all things, for protection services. Will this assist the SAPS in their dismal conviction rate of just 19% for contact crimes? Will this train more than just 14% of our station commissioners who are not trained in management and leadership? I believe not. Protection services already had an enormous increase in their budget. I must ask why our citizens should stomach yet more money to be paid to protect our already cosseted Ministers when it seems their worth has so little value to this current government.
UNGQONGQOSHE WEZOKUPHEPHA NOKUVIKELEKA: Sihlalo, bengithi ilungu elihloniphekile lizobuza umbuzo ophusile. Engikutholayo la ukuthi ukukhuluma nje kokuzama ukuthi kunakwe noma anakwe abe yintanda kubukwa. Lento ayishoyo yokubhekelela amahhovisi, yila khona ukuhlela kanye nokucubungula kusuka khona. Ngakho-ke kufuneka kuqale lapho, uma imali izofika noma ngabe izoyaphi kumele iqale emahhovisi, ukuze kukwazi uma isuka lapho ibhekane nezinqinamba esibhekene nazo.
Njengoba ubona-ke la kwisahlukaniselo ukuthi into ebekwe phezulu lapha kakhulu esithi kufanele yenzeke, y indaba yokucubungula amacala, yindaba yobuchwepheshe kanye nokuqinisa ingqala sizinda ngoba ngaphandle kwalezi zinto ezi la, esizibeke njenge zinto okuyizona eziphezulu ekubhekeni lo msebenzi esibhekene nawo ngeke sakwazi ukuthi sehlise izinga lobugebengu. Ngakho-ke siyasemukela le sahlukaniselo esinikeziwe thina la ngenxa yokuthi siyabona ukuthi sizosinceda kulo msebenzi esibhekene nawo. Ngiyabonga Sihlalo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, I thought that the hon Member was going to ask me a sensible question. What I find is that she just needed to draw attention. What she is referring to, in terms of catering for the offices, is where the planning and analysis processes start. Therefore everything must start there. If there will be money coming in irrespective of where it is going to, it must start at the office so that it can be utilised for the challenges we are faced with.
As you can see here in the allocation, our first priorities to be addressed are the issue of crime analysis, technology and the strengthening of infrastructure capacity because without these things, which we have outlined as our priorities in order to carry out our responsibility, we will not be able to reduce the crime rate. We support this Budget allocation because it will help us in doing our work. Thank you Chairperson.]
Vote No 26 – Housing:
Mr A C STEYN: Chairperson, 95% of the total appropriation of R342 million is for the human settlement development grant commonly known as the housing subsidy. Out of this amout, R250 million is to be allocated to increased costs of construction material. Therefore, hon Minister, what I would like to know is whether this relatively small amount is to be allocated for this particular purpose proportionally across all provinces or whether there are specific projects where an increase in material costs has a greater negative impact?
Secondly, because the subsidy amount per beneficiary is fixed according to income and that it is therefore related to the overall project cost, how did the hon Minister determine which projects and/or provinces were deserving of the additional appropriation? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, I hoped that the hon member would commiserate with me seeing that my request was turned down by the hon Minister. What we have here are requests for roll-overs. As you have indicated, these are roll-overs that emanate from the housing subsidy, otherwise known as the housing development finance segment. What we have done here is to deal with two main provinces that actually suffered precisely because of the huge projects that they have. One of the main provinces is the Western Cape dealing with the court cases that held us up, the N2 Gateway project and the issue of Delft. So, we requested these roll- overs for those specific provinces.
We have to take into account that we had additional costs because of the high costs of construction. We have not dealt with the other issues that you mentioned. So, we were not faced with all of the nine provinces requesting the same things. It was just two provinces which benefited from this because of the nature of the projects they have. Thank you.
Vote No 29 – Provincial and Local Government:
Mr H J BEKKER: Mr Chair, regarding the additional transfers of about R1,5 billion to provinces, hopefully to throw some good money towards coping with massive overexpenditure in certain departments of KwaZulu- Natal, specifically, goes way beyond possible virement. In KwaZulu-Natal, with such great shortages, the executive could nevertheless still find money for large advertisements to congratulate the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal on his 60th birthday. If the hon Minister would agree that such self- congratulatory adverts were totally unacceptable and unheard of, I would like to ask him if he would look seriously into fruitless, irregular and unauthorised expenditure in KwaZulu-Natal, specifically from the Premier’s side.
UNGQONGQOSHE WOHULUMENI BEZIFUNDAZWE KANYE NABASEMAKHAYA: Sihlalo, siyabonga kumnumzane uBekker. Ngiyathemba uyazi ukuthi isifundazwe nesifundazwe sizimele ngokuthi imali yaso siyenzenjani. Uhulumeni lo kazwelonke akanalo ilungelo lokutshela isifundazwe ukuthi masenzenjani ngemali yaso. Yinto eyenziwa yisifundazwe leyo, kodwa-ke, uma ngabe kukhulunywa ngokuthi uNdunankulu waKwaZulu-Natali uye wakhipha izikhangiso enza lokho okuyilungelo lakhe, mina angiboni ukuthi kukhona okubhimbayo kule nto ayikhulumayo ikakhulukazi uma ngabe uthola ukuthi uhulumeni wenza leyo nto futhi ndaba leyo kungekahulumeni.
Ngiyethemba kuyenzeka esikhathini esiningi lapho uthola ukuthi khona, abantu bayakwazi ukufaka izikhangiso ezintweni ezikhona, kodwa-ke, odabeni lokuthi ngabe lokhu kwenziwe kuhulumeni noma ukwenze eseceleni siyokubuka lokho. Sizokwazisa ngempela impendulo yakhona. Kunjalo-ke baba uBekker. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, I thank Mr Bekker. I hope that he knows that each province is independent and that provinces decide how to spend their allocation. The national government cannot dictate how provinces must spend their allocation. That is decided at provincial level. If there are issues raised due to the KwaZulu-Natal Premier having sent out advertisements – which is within his rights – I do not see anything wrong with what he is saying because it relates to government.
I hope that this happens regularly where you find that people do place advertisements of actualities, whether he did this as part of government or as an individual, we will look into that. We will let you know about the outcome. That is the position hon Bekker. Thank you.]
Vote No 30 – Public Enterprises: Mrs C DUDLEY: Chair, hon Minister, while appreciating that Eskom requires financial propping-up, the public is concerned about how much of that propping-up will be drained by nuclear projects and whether alternative energy projects are included. How much of this substantial budget will be allocated to nuclear energy and how much will be allocated to the development of alternative renewable energy projects? Also, hon Minister, how much emphasis will be placed on the need for spending to impact substantially on job creation and economic opportunities for the broader public? Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Thank you, hon member, for the question. Your question straddles two portfolios which include the policy portfolio on Energy, and that would rest with the Minister of Minerals and Energy. But with regard to Eskom and capitalising Eskom, I think that was a smart move; it is necessary. This is an important infrastructure which anchors almost all our economic activity. I think the Budget estimates that were presented to us indicate clearly that the loan guarantee of R60 billion provided to Eskom is intended, in fact, for capacitating Eskom itself. Thank you.
Dr S M VAN DYK: Voorsitter, die Tesourie het R2,5 miljard vir die pensioene van politici en R5 miljard vir ’n verbetering in staatsamptenaarsalarisse, wat 10% van die totale aansuiweringsbegroting uitmaak, aangekondig.
Minister Mabandla, die aansuiweringsbegroting sê egter niks oor die lot van Transnet se Tweede Vastevoordeelfonds wat jaarliks net ’n 2% statutêre verhoging aan sy lede gee nie. Gaan u oorweging skenk vorentoe om begrote fondse vanaf die Tesourie via die Departement van Openbare Ondernemings na Transnet aan te vra, om die voordele van die fonds met sy 50 000 lede te verbeter? Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr S M VAN DYK: Chairperson, the Treasury has announced that R2,5 billion will be put aside for the pensions of politicians and R5 billion for an improvement in the salaries of public servants, which constitute 10% of the total adjustments appropriation budget.
Minister Mabandla, the adjustments appropriation budget however does not say anything about the fate of Transnet’s Second Defined Benefit Fund that gives its members an annual increase of merely 2%. Will you in future consider requesting budgeted funds from the Treasury via the Department of Public Enterprises to Transnet, to improve the benefits of the fund with its 50 000 members? Thank you.]
The MINISTER FOR PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: No. [Laughter.]
Vote No 31 – Science and Technology:
Dr R RABINOWITZ: Hon Deputy Minister, to what extent will funding for the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, CSIR, contribute towards funding science in the public interest, particularly paying attention to the state of the country’s rivers and dams which are shown to be in a parlous state according to the state of the environment report on water provided in March from CSIR? Would that money go towards commercial projects in CSIR? Hon Deputy Minister, how is CSIR able to respond to the serious absence of research grants for water researchers in CSIR which might lead to us developing the same state as we have with Eskom in relation to the condition of water in the country, with much more serious effects?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson, hon Rabinowitz, this does not really follow from any kind of budget adjustment. But the question remains quite pertinent that we are facing a very serious situation when it comes to our water resources. However, the primary research body dealing with water research is the Water Research Commission. There is work being done by CSIR. I am not in a position at this stage to indicate to you exactly what is being done in the area of water research and the contamination of rivers because CSIR does a whole lot of research work. But I will very happily give the hon member feedback in writing or verbally in days to come, and I will get all the necessary information from CSIR. Thank you.
Vote No 32 – Trade and Industry:
Dr P J RABIE: Chairperson, hon Minister of Trade and Industry, in your adjusted estimates of national expenditure, you appropriated R15,217 million for the Small Enterprise Development Agency. My question, hon Minister, is whether your department has the capacity to spend this particular amount of money? Secondly, will this be spent on projects or officials? Thank you, Chairperson.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Chairperson, there are two amounts that relate to the Small Enterprise Development Agency, Seda. The R15 million he is referring to is for the Seda technology programme. Is that where your question is directed? [Interjections.]
Yes, this is money that will be used for the programme. You would know that we run quite a number of incubators under Seda that spread across most of the provinces we have in the country. Those incubators actually contain some of the most important successes of Seda. Therefore, this is money that will be going towards providing support for that programme. Thank you very much.
Vote No 33 – Transport:
Mr S B FARROW: Chair, I think Minister Manuel was absolutely right when he spoke about the RAF. There is a systemic design failure. I have, for a number of years, been asking the department to look into this particular problem. We are consciously aware that the fund is technically bankrupt. We had a very expensive sectoral report which has been tabled and is now gathering dust in the corridors of power, Minister. A lot of our pleas have really fallen on deaf ears. This is the second tranche we put into this fund. I am just wondering now whether or not it is appropriate.
Effectively, as we stand at this very moment, we have a situation where the fund does not actually even make a payment to one claimant, irrespective of whether any offers have been made. This is a very bad reflection on the 350 000 people who are backlogged in this fund. I just wonder now whether we are not just putting more money into a bottomless pit. I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider making this appropriation conditional on the fact that there is a total restructuring of the fund, which will enable the over 1 000 very expensive lawyers to be made, redeployed or be converted into a particular administrators so that we can administrate this fund as it should be - as a third-party insurance fund.
The second thing is that we should maybe consider placing a moratorium on any money going out of the country in foreign claims, considering that we cannot even pay for our claims in our own country.
Thirdly, we should consider whether in fact the best way to solve this is not just to raise the present levy we have on fuel. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] UNGQONGQOSHE WEZOKUTHUTHA: Sihlalo, umnunzane uFarrow uyazi ukuthi yiziphi izinqumo esizithathile singuhulumeni sisebenzisana neSikhwama Sezingozi Zomgwaqo. Uzokhumbula futhi ukuthi kunomthetho esesiwushayile wokuthi abameli akufanele kube yibona abathola imali yezinxephezelo. Kufanele thina siyiRAF sinikeze labo abalahlekelwe ababaziyo ezingozini kodwa inkantolo lapha eKapa yasihlula. Sisazobuye silucubungulisise lolo daba ngoba izimali eziningi njengoba wazi zithathwa ngabameli.
Okwesibili futhi singuhulumeni sihambisana nazo iziphakamiso zika Satchwell zokuthi kube khona umthetho ozothi uma umuntu ehlelwe yingozi, singabuzi ukuthi ubani onecala phecelezi ino-fault. Leyo iyeza ngakho-ke zonke lezi zinto mina ngiyaqiniseka mnumzane Farrow, ukuthi uyazazi ngoba neSikhulu eSiphezulu sakwaRAF sikeseza kwiKomidi lePhalamende sanichazela ukuthi yiziphi izinto esizohlala phezu kwazo ukuze lolu daba silucubungulisise kahle.
Le mali lena ekhishiwe engu R2,5 billion izosiza ukuze sikwazi ukuthi sikhokhele labo asebezifakile izicelo zokunxephezelwa. Uqinisile ukuthi isimo sezimali seRAF asikho sihle, lokho kwenziwa nje ukuthi kunobugebengu obuningi obenziwa futhi abameli abakhwabanisayo. Angisho ukuthi bonke abameli bangabakhwabanisi kodwa baningi abakhwabanisa izimali zabantu okufanele ngabe ziya kubona bese ziza emaphaketheni abo. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson, hon Farrow is aware of the decisions we have taken as government in working with the Road Accident Fund. You will also remember that we have passed an Act which provides that lawyers should not receive the compensation. It should be us as RAF who should forward those funds to those who have lost their loved ones in road accidents, but the Cape High Court ruled against us. We will review this issue again because, as you know, most of these funds are taken by the lawyers.
Secondly, as government, we agree with the proposal made by Satchwell which states that there should be an Act which will stipulate that, if someone was involved in an accident, we should not ask who was at fault. We are coming to that one. I am therefore confident, hon Farrow, about these issues, and that you are aware of them because even the CEO of RAF attended one of the committee meetings where he explained to you which of the issues we are going to focus on so as to review this case thoroughly.
The sum of R2,5 billion, which has been issued, will enable us to pay those who have forwarded their applications for compensation. You are telling the truth when you say that the state of finances in the RAF is not good, and that is because there is too much corruption going on there, which is conducted by fraudulent lawyers. I am not saying that all lawyers are fraudulent but most of them fraudulently pocket funds which were meant for the victims of road accidents. Thank you.]
Vote No 34 - Water Affairs and Forestry:
Mr M W SIBUYANA: Chair, the question is whether it is a principle to accept increases in funding continually when it is obvious that the high vacancy rate … [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon Sibuyana, I have just been informed that the IFP’s time has expired. The IFP cannot ask further questions. Thank you very much.
Discussion on Votes and Schedule concluded.
Votes and Schedule put.
Vote No 1 – The Presidency – put and agreed to.
Vote No 2 – Parliament – put and agreed to.
Vote No 3 – Foreign Affairs – put and agreed to.
Vote No 4 – Home Affairs - put and agreed to.
Vote No 5 – Public Works - put and agreed to.
Vote No 6 - Government Communication and Information System – put and agreed to.
Vote No 7 – National Treasury - put and agreed to. Vote No 8 – Public Service and Administration - put and agreed to.
Vote No 9 – Public Service Commission - put and agreed to.
Vote No 11 – Statistics South Africa – put and agreed to.
Vote No 12 – Arts and Culture - put and agreed to.
Vote No 13 – Education - put and agreed to.
Vote No 14 – Health – put and agreed to.
Vote No 15 – Labour - put and agreed to.
Vote No 16 – Social Development – put and agreed to.
Vote No 17 – Sport and Recreation South Africa - put and agreed to.
Vote No 18 – Correctional Services - put and agreed to.
Vote No 19 – Defence – put and agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting). Vote No 20 – Independent Complaints Directorate – put and agreed to.
Vote No 21 – Justice and Constitutional Development - put and agreed to.
Vote No 22 – Safety and Security – put.
Division demanded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, voting has taken place, but 32 errors have occurred.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chair, did you say “errors” or “terrors”? [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): I said errors. [Laughter.] Definitely with an “e” and not a “t”. [Laughter.]
Hon members, I have just been advised once more by the Table here that we will have to rerun the Vote. The errors, not the terrors, were quite too many. So, we would not want to carry on with the Vote only to find that those errors are in contest. The bells will only ring for one minute. So, don’t leave the House.
An HON MEMBER: Order, Chair. There is a problem here.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Where are you speaking from?
An HON MEMBER: The DA.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): The DA side. Let’s just quickly investigate what could be the problem. Voting session is closed but we will take care of the challenges. [Interjections.] Order, hon members. I am going to give the voting results.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 275: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bekker, H J; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, M J; Bhengu, P; Bici, J; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; 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; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; Dudley, C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E ; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hanekom, D A; Hendricks, L B; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, B H; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacob, A C; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kalako, M U; Kasienyane, O R; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lebenya, P; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabudafhasi, T R; 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; Mahlangu-Nkabinde, G 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; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Mars, I; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburi, I F; Matsomela, M J J; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbete, B; Mbili, M E; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng , T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Moareng, O E; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B ; 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, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nonkonyana, M; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; 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; Rabinowitz, R; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; 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; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M ; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, G J; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shiceka, 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; Sizani, S; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Sonjica, B P; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Surty, M E; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Swart, S N; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; 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 Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 36: Blanché, J P I; Boinamo, G G; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Joubert, L K; Kalyan, S V; King, R J; Kohler-Barnard, D; Labuschagne, L B; Lee, T D; Lowe, C M; Masango, S J; Minnie, K J; Morgan, G R; Nel, A H; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Semple, J A; Simmons, S; Smuts, M; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M; Trent, E W; Van der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Weber, H; Zikalala, C N Z.
ABSTAIN - 4: De Lille, P; Greyling, L W; Hoosen, M H; Woods, G G.
Vote accordingly agreed to.
Vote No 23 – Agriculture – put and agreed to.
Vote No 24 – Communications - put and agreed to.
Vote No 25 – Environmental Affairs and Tourism - put and agreed to.
Vote No 26 – Housing - put and agreed to.
Vote No 27 – Land Affairs - put and agreed to.
Vote No 28 – Minerals and Energy - put and agreed to.
Vote No 29 – Provincial and Local Government - put and agreed to.
Vote No 30 – Public Enterprises – put and agreed to.
Vote No 31 – Science and Technology - put and agreed to.
Vote No 32 – Trade and Industry – put and agreed to.
Vote No 33 – Transport – put and agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 34 – Water Affairs and Forestry - put and agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a second time.
NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Report)
Order disposed of without debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair I move: That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted.
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Report)
Order disposed of without debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).
Report accordingly adopted.
NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate) Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Can the members of Parliament who were investigated by the Scorpions, following the Travelgate scandal, debate and vote on these two Bills that will effectively disband the Scorpions? May I address you briefly on this point?
The ACDP raised this issue at the beginning of the public hearings on the future of the Scorpions. Item 12 of the code of conduct for Members of Parliament states the following:
A member must –
(a) declare any personal or private financial or business interest that that member or any spouse, permanent companion or business partner of that member may have in a matter before a joint committee, committee or other parliamentary forum of which that member is a member; and
(b) withdraw from the proceedings of that committee or forum when that matter is considered, unless that committee or forum decides that the member’s interest is trivial or not relevant.
We, as the ACDP, hold the view that there was a clear conflict of interest and that further participation in the committees and in Parliament by affected members and possible later voting and debating will amount to a breach of the code of conduct. In our view, interest is not limited to pecuniary interest.
We respectfully ask you to rule whether it is permissible for 43 Members of Parliament to vote and debate on these Bills this afternoon.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Swart. [Interjections.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, may I just make one last point? According to the affidavit filed in the High Court last night, you stated under oath that 43 members, at the most, could very well be said to fall foul of item 12 of the disciplinary code. In view of this statement, we believe that such members - their names are in your possession - should voluntarily excuse themselves. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! I wish to thank Mr Swart for alerting me that he was going to raise this matter. I have, however, studied the issue in preparation for this debate. In the view of matters raised publicly with regard to whether certain members of this House should participate in proceedings when the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill and the South African Police Service Amendment Bill are considered, I am convinced that I have no statutory or Rule basis to instruct any duly elected member of this House, under these circumstances, not to participate in the debate. Conflict of interest in the parliamentary context is ordinarily presumed to refer to a direct interest in a matter before the House. It must refer to a personal or private financial or business interest. It is a well- established practice that in order to operate as a disqualification, a member’s interest must be immediate and personal and not merely of a general or remote character. It must not be an interest that is shared with the rest of the public or that relates to a matter of policy.
Members are sent to Parliament to represent their constituencies, who must not be disenfranchised so lightly. So, the House should not unnecessarily be deprived of their opinion.
It can be argued that a general bias exists in almost everything a Member of Parliament does in the course of his or her work. Under the circumstances, I cannot instruct any member to leave the House during the consideration of these Bills. Therefore, the debate continues. [Applause.]
I now call upon the hon Minister of Safety and Security. [Interjections.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I really apologise to the hon Speaker. It was agreed previously with the Speaker and the Secretary to Parliament that the proposer of the amendments will be allowed to table and motivate the amendments because that would bring the amendments into the debate. Otherwise, … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: I am responding to the point raised by Mr Swart.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I thought you had finished because you had asked the Minister to start speaking. However, this is a second point of order.
The SPEAKER: Okay! Minister, can you take your seat, please.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, the point is that the hon Delport has proposed a number of amendments to the Bill, which appear on the Order Paper of today. The contention is that these amendments should be debated by the House before the Bill is actually put. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: I know what to do with the amendments. I was dealing with Mr Swart. I just want to appeal for patience, Mr Ellis. There is just no way … [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, but the Minister came up here to start talking about the Bill. He came up here to start debating. You must have finished with Mr Swart. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Will you please take your seat? May I have the set of amendments as proposed? I don’t have them in front of me. I only have the order that was raised by the ACDP.
We therefore allow the debate to continue, and we will consider the set of amendments. We will give you an opportunity to speak to the amendments.
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: With all due respect, we are entitled to debate the amendments. The amendments must surely be put on the table … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: I am not stopping you from proposing the amendments. When we come to the point of the second reading, we will consider the amendments. We will follow procedures correctly. You will be given an opportunity. I don’t understand because you had a discussion with me yesterday, where I indicated that I was going to give you an opportunity to raise your amendments and you will be given an opportunity to speak to them. Can we still have that arrangement?
Dr J T DELPORT: I understood that I would be allowed to put the case for the amendments so that during the debate, other speakers can refer to my amendments. [Interjections.] That is the normal thing to do.
The SPEAKER: No, no! That is not normal, and I will tell you why. This is because I need to be on your side. I want people to focus purely on your amendments so that they don’t have to be dealing with other things while they have to deal with your amendments. May we deal with what we are discussing first. You will then later propose your amendments, and we will go to your amendments and give you an opportunity to speak to them? If anybody wants to respond to your amendments, they will not respond to anything else but to your amendments. So, this is actually to your benefit. Will you please allow me to continue? [Interjections.] Thank you, sir.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Somlomo, ngibingelele nakumalunga ahloniphekile ale Ndlu yethu. [Speaker, I greet all the hon members of this House.]
The pages of our country’s history are decorated with faces of heroic women and men who guided the Freedom Charter and spared neither effort nor strength to ensure the birth of a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.
On Tuesday, 21 October 2008, Mama Albertina Sisulu celebrated her 90th birthday. We join the millions of South Africans in saluting this fierce and fearless fighter for our country’s freedom, unwavering in her commitment to the cause of peace, justice, and development. Ma’ Sisulu triumphed over apartheid arrests, detentions and burnings. During the dark days of apartheid colonialism, Ma’ Sisulu was a tower of strength. We wish her a happy birthday. [Applause.]
Standing on the broad shoulders of those who went before us, today we face the challenge to continue the historic task of strengthening democracy and to do all in our power to improve the quality of life of all South Africans. Indeed, we still have a long way to go to reach the day when the legacy of white minority political domination will overcome, and a truly united, democratic, and prosperous South Africa will be born. Our own history bears witness to the fact that if we as people unite in pursuit of a just cause, victory is assured.
Indicators reveal that some crime levels are dropping in South Africa. Nevertheless, levels of crime in our country still remain unacceptably high. Of further concern is the high prevalence of organised crime manifesting itself through organised violent robberies, cash-in-transit heists, hijackings, theft of motor vehicles, drugs and weapon trafficking, fraudulent acquisition of national documents, and in many other ways. Organised crime and crime in general must be defeated.
Crime is a blemish to human society, the clearest demonstration of misdirected energy – like your energy that is misdirected – and a manifestation of the worst form of greed. It dehumanises the victim and the perpetrator. Crime undermines our effort to create a humane society and our struggle to ensure that human rights are realised in practice. It spawns hate and mistrust; it wastes lives; and it undermines our effort to improve the quality of life of all the people.
We must win the battle aimed at the realisation of the safety and security of every South African. The just dispensation we have entrenched is based on the principle of equality, including equal access to peace and security and an aspect of the realisation of the goal for a better life for all. The South African Police Service Amendment Bill of 2008 is a continuation of this effort. It takes our fight against organised crime to higher levels. It will enable us to rectify weaknesses in our system whilst ensuring better organisation and utilisation of our human and material resources.
Despite the progress that has been made in many areas, government’s review processes indicated the need to realign state entities mandated to investigate and combat organised crime. We have to address the issue of poor co-operation and co-ordination that has shown itself up in the past. We have to find ways to address cases of duplication and parallel investigations. If we do not, only criminals will benefit from such inaction.
As a country, we have long accepted that because of its nature, organised crime requires to be addressed through a multipronged, well-equipped and resourced unit, better to exercise proper balance in its decision to prosecute or not and to ensure the realisation of the principle of the separation of functions. Prosecutors need to be independent from investigators.
The Bill before us provides a smooth transfer of personnel. Safety and Security is ready to welcome the employees into our ranks as we are preparing to hit the ground running. We must also assure the people of our country that no cases will be lost. Once the Bill is passed, investigations of the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO, shall be dealt with as if the Act had always been in force.
As we journey along the transformation path, we continue to gain more experience and insight about the nature of the reality we seek to change. This applies to all that is the subject of our transformative effort and necessitates continual evolution of our crime-fighting strategies, entities, arsenal and programmes. We have gained considerable experience during the life of the organised crime unit, the DSO, the commercial branch of the South African Police Service and other units. On their own, the units have all contributed positively to fight against organised crime. However, we cannot deny the fact that, because they existed as separate entities, there also existed an element of negative tension arising from the fact that they had intersecting mandates. This situation also allowed some units to operate in a manner that amounted to a narrowing down of their mandate and a preoccupation with certain kinds of crimes, with the result that other crimes were inadvertently ignored. It could, for instance, be argued that not enough work was done to prosecute financial crimes despite the existence of the relevant legislative framework.
The previous arrangements also resulted in a situation where units which did not report their successes to the media were unjustly perceived as poor performers. A situation like this poses many potential dangers. The Johannesburg High Court is currently delivering a judgement on the Jeppestown case. In the pursuit of the alleged robbers, four police officers lost their lives.
Despite this high level of commitment by the SAPS, a false impression persists in some quarters that the Service is less committed. This is also because the SAPS has not stood on rooftops to shout about their successes and actions of outstanding bravery. Accordingly, we must take this opportunity to salute the men and women who, on a daily basis, expose their lives to danger to ensure the safety and security of all South Africans.
Our crime-fighting units are on the same side of the battle against crime. This fact must also be reflected in the manner in which they are generally organised as a team, not in different units.
The enactment of the South African Police Service Amendment Bill will enhance our capacity to prevent, combat and investigate priority crimes. It brings into life a multidisciplinary and integrated approach in the prevention, combating and investigation of organised crime. We need to identify and preserve the positive lessons born of our various experiences. While the initial process of merging our experiences may contain some aspect of pain, there is no doubt that the resultant sense of unity will be in the long-term interest of the fight against crime.
For some reason unbeknown to us, the opposition in our country does tend to back the wrong horse. When we proclaimed the Freedom Charter as a vision that had a promise for long-lasting peace in our country, they remained hesitant to embrace it for many years. Year after year, since the establishment of democracy, we had to weave our way through a barrage of criticism in order to pass progressive transformative policy measures. Floor-crossing is just an example. Today, they stand again on the wrong side of the debate.
Through the establishment of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, DPCI, we established a sharper instrument to stab the heart of organised crime. [Interjections.] Yes, practice will, as it often does, reveal improvement. However, the collective experience, resources, commitment and unity of purpose that already reside in the unit will ensure very firm and effective beginnings.
We must commend the profoundly democratic manner in which the Bills on this matter have been processed. The people of our land from all walks of life had an opportunity to “say their say”, as the saying goes, mindful of the fact that they were simply fulfilling their responsibilities. We must still congratulate Parliament and its committees on the thorough effort they put into processing the Bills.
We salute the people of our country on their enthusiastic participation in public hearings. We thank those who spoke in support of the Bill, as well as those who sought to draw the attention of legislators to certain witnesses. The vibrant discussion on the Bill enriched our understanding of the challenges we face. The ideas that emerged have become our national intellectual asset and have enriched the Bill and nourished our capacity to navigate our way into the future.
Some, in our society, have asserted a view that some members of this House should recuse themselves from participating in processes relating to this Bill. We shall leave this to historians to ponder why such moral rectitude never arose when we enacted legislation to outlaw apartheid on the basis that many of the participants had not only benefited from apartheid, but had actually been the architects of some of its legislative framework. [Applause.]
The rejection of Hugh Glenister’s applications by our courts is confirmation that the principle of separation of powers is well entrenched in our country. Freedom includes freedom from fear of criminal and criminality. We shall do all we can, and we invite all South Africans in their areas of social activity, to flex our collective muscle and to work with organs of our criminal justice system to bring about better, safe and secure communities. We are progressively giving life to the demand of the Freedom Charter that: “… there shall be peace, security and friendship.”
I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms M M SOTYU: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister, let me take this opportunity and congratulate you and the hon Enver Surty on your appointments, and also welcome you into the security cluster.
The former President, Thabo Mbeki, during his state of the nation address early in 2008, indicated the need for government to overhaul the criminal justice system in order to improve its effectiveness in dealing with crime in general and organised crime in particular, as highlighted by the Minister of Safety and Security. Organised crime is a challenge that affects South Africa at all levels. It creates fear in the community and contributes to economic instability. Even the Khampepe Commission, amongst other things, found that organised crime continued to present a threat to the country’s young democracy and that a comprehensive strategy to address this problem had to be found. In response to the above, the executive eventually decided that there was a need to address organised crime in a more comprehensive fashion and, to this end, to amalgamate selected special investigators of the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO, with selected members of commercial crime and organised crime components of the SAPS into a new division within the SAPS, namely the DPCI.
As a result of the challenge of dealing with organised crime effectively, the Cabinet came up with amendments to the South African Police Service Bill and the National Prosecuting Authority Bill. These Bills were referred to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development. In line with the former President’s state of the nation address, the South African Police Service Amendment Bill proposed the establishment of the DPCI. Both committees agreed that this piece of legislation, that is the South African Police Service Amendment Bill, was a very weak and poor Bill. It was also agreed that the Bill, in its current form, would not pass any legal or political test for creating an effective organised crime-fighting unit.
The Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs started with extensive public hearings in Parliament from 5 to 8 August 2008. The said committees visited all nine provinces for public hearings on the two Bills, from ll to 15 August 2008. It was obvious from the public participation that the majority of the participants supported the disbandment of the DSO in all nine provinces. Through persistent engagement, the committees were able to get all political parties in the committee to agree to the general principles of an effective organised crime-fighting unit. But parties disagreed on the kind of model that was best based on the agreed principles. We wish to thank Dr Delport who came up with this idea. Five models were proposed by different parties and each party was expected to consult with its caucus in Parliament. The ANC caucus agreed on model 4, which was the improved model 3, as proposed by the South African Police Service Amendment Bill.
The principles I referred to earlier are as follows: the multidisciplinary approach; the unit to be located within the SA Police Service as a division; the Minister of Safety and Security to be the political head, with the unit’s budget as a subprogramme within the SA Police Service; the unit to have the necessary independence to perform its functions; the head of the unit to be appointed by the Minister of Safety and Security in concurrence with Cabinet; and the head to be at the rank of a deputy national commissioner.
The Minister shall report to Parliament on the appointment of the head of the directorate. The unit will not have a separate crime intelligence function, but it will draw intelligence experts from the SA Police Service crime intelligence unit and use crime intelligence in the performance of its functions.
I must indicate that this was not an easy exercise due to the fact that the original proposal from the executive was very poor. We had to convert some of the Members of Parliament from all parties into drafters, and we went to the extent of drawing in technical and legal experts from civil society to assist in the redrafting of the South African Police Service Amendment Bill.
This review of the DSO was a complex issue, especially when it came to the location of the crime-fighting unit. We must note that this had been raised by opposition parties when the DSO was established and debated on 31 August
- As much as the DA supported the establishment of the Scorpions, the hon Sheila Camerer, in her speech then, had this to say, and I quote:
However, the questions of where to situate such an elite group of cops, their reporting lines, authorities, liaison with other police units, ministerial responsibility and so on, were never going to be easy.
In that same debate on 31 August 2000, the FF Plus was the only opposition party opposed to the establishment of the Scorpions. Dr P W A Mulder raised very serious concerns then, which are now, unfortunately, the challenges we are faced with. Dr Mulder, in his speech then, had this, amongst others, to say, and I quote:
… to establish the elite unit outside of the police in our view does not work because it is a slap in the face of the police. The government is in fact saying that the police are not doing their job properly. Perhaps one could still establish such a unit in the police, but out there it will create tension. The cross-control, in particular, we said is going to cause chaos instead of combating crime.
Furthermore, Dr Mulder had this to say, and I quote:
… we predict that this is going to create more tension in the future.
In consultation with all affected parties, from 30 September to 2 October 2008, the portfolio committees visited the staff of the DSO and the organised crime unit of the SAPS to inform them about the effects of the legislations and to listen to their concerns. Arising from the concerns and issues that were raised by both parties, it was agreed to establish a joint task team of both members of the DSO and members of the SAPS in order to deal with all concerns raised, including the transitional provisions.
It is important to note that the DSO has a skill that we need within the SAPS. It is also obvious that the SAPS organised crime unit and commercial crime unit are doing very good work, but they lack the skill to communicate their successes. I believe the DSO, with the special skill in publicity, will be able to strengthen the SAPS crime unit.
In conclusion, allow me to take this opportunity to thank all members of joint committees of Parliament for the support they have shown to us as co- chairpersons of both committees. I also want to commend the SAPS on the good work they are doing. It was clear from the SAPS’ briefing that they have the capacity to deal with organised crime. Keep up the good work. I know you can do even better.
Comrade Yunus, I will miss your brief contributions and the abnormally late working hours that we spent without any signs of tiredness. I thank the opposition party members who engaged us and criticised us constructively. Please give this unit a chance, and within three years, we will evaluate its performance. I thank you.
Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Madam Speaker, the Khampepe Commission under Judge Sisi Khampepe told Parliament to keep the DSO under the NPA. The Cabinet endorsed the report and its recommendations in June 2006. But when the reality of that ruling became apparent, the country learnt to its horror that when reality doesn’t suit the ANC, they think they can overrule a judge.
On 11 February this year, the then Minister chose to announce that he would be disbanding the Scorpions - something he had chosen not to tell the hundreds of staff of that unit. So, they heard on the news that their jobs were to be terminated. Terminated they will be, Minister, as they have to apply to see if the ANC thinks they are good enough to belong to the SAPS. These are advocates, forensic auditors, specialist investigators - none of whom ever wished to be in the police service. After hearing the sneering tones used at the SAPS head office in Pretoria when the Scorpions were referred there, ably encouraged by the hon Maggie Sotyu, well, they just won’t go! Law enforcement agencies all over the world are utterly delighted that these experts are on the market, and they will no doubt snap them up. The fact that the Director-General of Justice and Constitutional Development toured the country telling Scorpions members that they would be allowed no promotion within SAPS for the next five years has only fuelled their fears.
Of course the whole country heard the chairpersons of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security state at a press conference on 30 July, before this process had even begun, that the decision to disband the unit had already been taken; Parliament must implement Polokwane; and that the 98 000 signatures and the 7 978 written submissions we hand-delivered to them were irrelevant as they didn’t represent the “right constituency”. So, it’s obviously true that the R2 million spent to tour the country with the so-called “provincial hearings” was indeed just a means of electioneering on the taxpayer’s back. You have, in the process, created and fabricated enmity, both towards the Scorpions and between the SAPS and the Scorpions, where none previously existed. They still are the most trusted and admired crime-fighting unit in South Africa. You even completely ignored the request that the 30 relevant staff working on 5 remaining cases be allowed to take those cases through to courts before the SAPS absorbed the Scorpions.
You also know that the committees have failed to comply with Rule 243(1)(c)(iii) of the National Assembly Rules as the cost implications of the dissolution of the DSO and the creation of the DPCI have not even begun to be addressed adequately.
No matter what you do, Travelgate can’t be erased, nor can the arms deal. No one can shield any South African citizen from investigation and prosecution. The six members of your National Executive Committee, NEC, convicted by the Scorpions know that.
The DSO - the Scorpions - is but one of the units under the auspices of the NPA, an authority that is instructed by our Constitution to exercise that authority without fear, favour or prejudice. Yet, how have we, as a country, thanked the highly qualified DSO men and women - people who have given nine years of their lives dedicating themselves to tackling some of the most complex criminal investigations imaginable, taking them to court and winning 94% of them - for this selfless dedication to ensuring that right wins over might?
Members of the ANC, as they began their election campaign during provincial hearings, came out en masse with the most preposterous, self-serving statements imaginable. I noted them carefully: “Our women are still being raped” - so, scrap the Scorpions; “our homes are still being broken into” - so, scrap the Scorpions; “there is child abuse and trouble at the taxi ranks” - so, scrap the Scorpions.
I also noted there was never a call to scrap the SAPS, which, of course, should have been dealing with these matters. Theatrical tones of disgust were used in describing the troika principle, with a prosecutor leading investigators - a system that resulted in successes in court despite the fact that exactly the same system is used, but a lot less effectively, by the SAPS. One ANC branch head even claimed that Scotland Yard ran the Scorpions!
The ANC still perpetuates the “single police force” determination argument – that’s you, Mr Minister, attempting, by repetition, to overrule both the Khampepe Commission and the Constitutional Court dicta - Minister of Defence vs Mpontshane 2002(1)SA 1 - which absolutely allow for different divisions to be established to protect this country.
As this country watches the “Malemaisation” of our politics, his followers stated, amongst other fabrications, that members of the Scorpions were apartheid-era criminals. Not true, there are MK members there! Willie Hofmeyr, who has served this country so well, even as an ANC MP, came to us and calmly and logically refuted every one of those claims and pointed out that the original difficulties that the DSO had had been sorted out three years ago.
The unit’s successes speak for themselves as they were the first in this country to convict financial directors of fraud, tackle major international corporate raiding, register money-laundering and racketeer convictions. They made the Brett Kebble murder arrest, confiscated drugs to the value of R600 million, broke the platinum and abalone smuggler syndicates and ran Travelgate - many of you are intimately familiar with this. Yes, they jailed Schabir Shaik and Tony Yengeni, and, yes, they are the ones who investigated the Selebis, Agliottis and Zumas and the extraordinary Fidentia case.
Now, given these successes, the question has to be asked - before unleashing their dogs of war – as to why did the ANC not sit with them and ask questions?
One of the lessons the ANC as a liberation movement has never learnt as it attempted to transmogrify into a political party is something that perhaps the hon Johnny de Lange would apparently like us to do when our members are hacked almost to death by your members. They still want the opposition party to keep quiet, and that’s something we will never do.
We must leave this country with the checks and balances that will ensure that the next Selebi is investigated and that we have someone left to police our police. Let us hope that those of you leaving the ANC – the 50 of you, most of whom have apparently already left the House – will vote with us today against this absurd self-serving legislation. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, today reminds me of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 when American president Roosevelt described the Japanese attack as a “Day of Infamy”. I predict that the same will be said about the murder of the Scorpions.
What is to happen today? The majority party merely wants this House to rubber-stamp their Polokwane decision today. They want us to ignore the merits and outstanding successes of the Scorpions. They want us to help them cover up the truth - the real truth about the Scorpions – namely that the Scorpions must die because they had to charge high profile ANC persons such as the police commissioner and Mr Jacob Zuma.
It was crystal clear right from the start that despite the ANC’s poor window-dressing explanations to the contrary and despite the many meetings of the portfolio committee and the millions of words spoken there and … [Interjections.] Yes, I didn’t attend most of them because I attended the reference group of the President. Another IFP member was there, and you were not there all the time. So, shut up. [Laughter.] So, despite the many public hearings and all these, it was abundantly clear from the start that the ANC charade was hidden under all this window-dressing, namely the ANC’s real intention simply to enforce their rubber stamp on the killing of the Scorpions.
It is also clear after Polokwane, which now really governs South Africa - the SACP- that the silent Polokwane communist coup is taking South Africa into a new and ominous direction in doing the following: killing the Scorpions to prevent prosecutions; bringing back the Land Expropriation Bill and moving towards a disastrous Zimbabwe situation in respect of land; and creating a small super-Cabinet so that only a handful of people effectively govern South Africa in the name of democracy. No wonder the ANC has split and hundreds of thousands of their former supporters are streaming to the new party. I can see how stressed they are because they are losing.
In a nutshell, one characteristic of the Scorpions that made them this very highly successful organised crime fighter was their independence and the fact that they were located outside of the police. They could investigate and prosecute without fear of favour and without political or other interference. In fact, the Scorpions did not hesitate to charge the police commissioner and Mr Jacob Zuma. But that precious independence is now, of course, down the drain.
The IFP has a number of strong objections to the legislation before this House, and I will only refer to a few. Firstly, the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill kills the Scorpions and, secondly, the South African Police Service Amendment Bill creates the DPCI as just another police division taking instructions from the commissioner. In other words, the new unit will not be independent and could be subjected to interference from higher levels. The Bill does not guarantee that all Scorpions investigators will be selected for the new unit. Already, a number of highly skilled ones have resigned. There is no guarantee that the DSO will finalise the so-called “sensitive investigation” that it is currently conducting or which may be pending.
In conclusion, the decision to kill the Scorpions is a reckless political expediency to protect ANC leaders and members from criminal investigation and possible prosecution. The decision is the result of a communist take- over in Polokwane. The communist take-over is switching on many red lights for the future of this country, especially for democracy. In the circumstances, the IFP will not be a party to such gross abuse of power.
History will one day say that today was a day to be remembered as a day that will live on in infamy. We will therefore vote against these Bills and support the DA’s amendments which are an improvement of the Bills before the House in respect of the independence of the new prosecuting structure. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J BICI: Madam Speaker and hon members, the Bills before us are the products of the ANC’s December resolution to disband the Scorpions. This resolution was motivated by a dubious political agenda. A barrage of lies and distortions were uttered about the DSO, before and after Polokwane, to justify this unwarranted and dangerous attack upon one of the few working crime-fighting and corruption-busting institutions. It seems that the campaign to elevate one person to the highest office in the ANC and in the land will proceed, no matter what the cost.
This entire parliamentary process has been an ill-disguised sham. The Minister of Safety and Security announced the decision as a fait accompli. Later, the chairperson of the joint committee said the outcome was preordained. The public hearings were a travesty, with orchestrated ANC submissions and bussed in hooligans who shouted down any person who disagreed with them.
The ANC is pushing to dismantle a viable institution in order to create a clumsy ill-conceived replacement which is located in an organisation that is riddled with corruption and mismanagement. If there are MPs in the ANC with a shred of conscience, today is the day they can demonstrate that. It does not matter whether you think your vote alone will change anything. Do the honourable thing as an hon member. Simply do what is right and abstain. If you intend campaigning in the forthcoming elections on a ticket of respect for the rule of law and democracy, then you cannot vote in support of these despicable Bills and the profoundly undemocratic agenda.
The UDM does not support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, let’s just get down to facts and cut out the hot air. The hon Bici was never at any of the portfolio committee meetings that deliberated on this Bill; Mr Van der Merwe was hardly ever there; and Ms Kohler-Barnard was actually quite constructive when TV cameras or sound bite people were not around. Let’s get down to facts regarding the DSO or Scorpions and why we have to pass the Bills before us.
It is a fact that there were serious problems with the DSO that could not be left unattended. The Scorpions was a new innovation in the fight against crime that included prosecutors, detectives and intelligence operators in one unit - a very powerful combination, but one that created its own problems. It is useful going back, as my colleague, Ms Sotyu, did, to look at what was said at the time when the Bills that created the Scorpions were passed, and look at some of the concerns that interested groups and even parties in this House had - people who are now beating the drum that we should not be passing these Bills. Some of those concerns were that this unit would be a parallel force leading to interdepartmental jealousy and that the unit would not be accountable to Parliament. The UDM is even quoted as asking at the time, and I’m not sure whether it was the hon Holomisa or the hon Bici, and I quote: “Are they Mbeki’s private palace guard?”
Mr Macintosh, who was then a member of the DA, is quoted as saying:
In principle we are in favour of the Scorpions, but we have misgivings about them. Are they going to become a second police force?
There were serious oversight concerns. All police units are monitored by the Independent Complaints Directorate, ICD. But as the DSO fell under the NPA and not the SAPS, they could not be investigated by the ICD. There is thus no complaints mechanism for the Scorpions.
As far as intelligence-gathering capacity is concerned, all intelligence agencies are monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence. The Scorpions, however, were not included in this. So, you had a very powerful agency that combined investigating cases, deciding which cases were to be prosecuted and gathering intelligence without sufficient controls. These concerns caused the then President to set up a commission of inquiry chaired by Judge Sisi Khampepe, which the hon Kohler-Barnard referred to.
With regard to the issue of the political accountability of the investigators in the DSO, the commission said, and I quote:
It is both untenable and anomalous that the Minister of Safety and Security who has the responsibility to address the overall policing/investigative needs and priorities of the Republic should not exercise any control over the investigative component of the DSO considering the wide and permissive mandate of the DSO relating to organised crime.
The commission therefore recommended that the President transfer political oversight and responsibility over the law enforcement component for the DSO to the Minister of Safety and Security in terms of section 97(1)(b) of the Constitution. The problem, however, is how to put this into practice. You have a unit under the NPA with a budget for staff, operational expenses and expenditure for investigators. Their salaries and what they do comes from that budget. But then the budget falls under the Minister of Justice. How can you exert political oversight and responsibility over something when you have no effective say over its budget? How does Parliament perform oversight in this regard? This is something that no one, the hon members and Ms Kohler-Barnard in particular, could answer. The most we got from them was that they were not sure whether they entirely agreed with Judge Khampepe.
The Scorpions is projected - to quote Ms Kohler-Barnard - as the best crime- fighting unit the country has ever had and the SAPS is projected as useless. But this does not reflect reality. My colleague, the hon Annalizé van Wyk, will deal with this in more detail - as far as the SAPS is concerned. But I also want to quote the former head of the DSO, Leonard McCarthy, who told the justice portfolio committee that perceptions that the Scorpions was a mighty crime-fighting unit better than the police were both “misleading and dangerous”. These are some of the problems we have to address if we are serious about the long-term fight against organised crime in South Africa. We have done this by creating a new and better unit. By locating it in the SAPS, we should overcome many of the co-ordination problems such as the cherry-picking of cases. In a country with limited resources, we cannot afford duplication in the fight against crime.
The directorate, as other members have said, will be headed by a deputy national commissioner appointed by the Minister. We made a number of provisions regarding a multidisciplinary approach: better political oversight by the relevant Ministers; better co-ordination between departmental heads or senior officials; more stringent vetting procedures and integrity tests; in the light of past experience, an additional complaints mechanism under a retired judge to whom complaints of unfair investigations and political interference can be levied; and, lastly, more effective parliamentary oversight.
We separated out elements that caused problems. The directorate will not have a separate intelligence capacity. It will be supported by the SAPS Crime Intelligence Division and will therefore be subject to the oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence. Prosecutors will remain with the NPA, although we specified that the directorate must have sufficient legal offices.
The issue of prosecutors was something that the opposition liked raising. I see in Dr Delport’s amendments that he wants a bureau in the SAPS with “an adequate number of experienced prosecutors qualified to lead investigations appointed by the bureau”. Dr Delport, this is astounding coming from you. You know that section 179 of the Constitution says, and I quote:
There is a single National Prosecuting Authority in the Republic …
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: How can the speaker refer to an amendment that hasn’t been tabled yet?
The SPEAKER: I think Mr Davidson has a point, Mr Jeffery. We are not dealing with amendments yet. In terms of our own Rules, we are going to deal with amendments at the end of the second reading, and we are not there yet.
Mr J H JEFFERY: Thanks, Madam Speaker. However, the issue of prosecutors was raised. It is impossible for prosecutors to be in this unit because it is a single NPA consisting of the national director, public prosecutors, directors of public prosecutions and prosecutors. So, you can’t have prosecutors in this body. Whether they are a bureau or anything else, you can’t have them within a body outside the NPA.
With regard to the dissolution of the DSO and the creation of the new unit, I would like to thank Prof Halton Cheadle, the advisor to the Minister of Justice, for his assistance in drafting provisions that we believe are consistent with the Labour Relations Act.
With regard to investigations, we provided that on a fixed date set by the President, investigations will be transferred from the DSO to this division. We specified that the transfer must be in accordance with a mechanism to ensure that investigations are not prejudiced by the transfer and that the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Safety and Security and after consultation with the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the national commissioner, must determine this mechanism. As organised crime is constantly adapting and trying to find gaps in the state’s law-enforcement strategy, so too must the state evaluate its strategies and find new and better ways of fighting organised crime. Therefore, in the SAPS Bill, we required the Minister of Safety and Security to report back to Parliament within three years as to whether any legislative amendments are needed to improve the functioning of this directorate. Similarly, the justice committee’s report to this House requires the Minister of Justice to evaluate the continuation of the legislative provisions relating to investigating directorates and report back to Parliament within six months. The ANC, therefore, supports this Bill in the fight against organised crime. [Applause.]
Mrs P DE LILLE: Madam Speaker, the ID wants to congratulate the two portfolio committees on their extensive public consultation, even though some of it was clearly stage-managed. While many people were heard, we are not sure they were listened to. The ID considered the various options proposed by the portfolio committees, but came to the conclusion that the DSO must be left as is.
The reasons and conditions for which the Scorpions was established still exist today. At this critical time in our history, we should be looking at strengthening the fight against crime and not weakening it.
The ID also wants to acknowledge the many policemen and women who work tirelessly. The Scorpions were never meant to replace them but to compliment them, especially in the fight against organised crime. While the Scorpions made mistakes, these mistakes should have been corrected and learnt from. We should have implemented the recommendations of the Khampepe Commission. Instead, what we see in this legislation is the ANC taking the sting out of the Scorpions and creating an institutional vacuum where organised crime is able to thrive.
Gone are the investigative and prosecutorial skills, and in comes our infamous national police commissioner who now gains control of the very unit that has been investigating him. The South African public is certainly not stupid. Like us, they know why the ANC is passing this legislation. This is about pursuing factional interests at the expense of our country’s crime-fighting ability. The Scorpions has become another victim on the long list of casualties of the ANC’s in-fighting.
Sadly, the battle to dissolve the Scorpions has been won and, in this case, the war against crime has been lost. The ID opposes both Bills. Thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Speaker, colleagues, including the new deployed members of the movement led by Comrade Mnyamezeli Booi, who is a Whip, the approach of the ANC as a ruling party in dealing with crime, corruption and access to justice has been premised on the National Crime Prevention Strategy - a strategy that was developed in 1995. This strategy was under the stewardship of Dr Bernard Fanaroff. The strategies and tactics and also the structures that have been established on the matter we are dealing with now …
… lomufi esikhuluma ngaye njengamanje, iDSO … [… this disbanded DSO we are talking about …]
… were based on the National Crime Prevention Strategy – a strategy that has never been reviewed since 1995. This means we are now engaging on this process after 12 years, trying to look at how to deal with crime.
You will agree with me that crime is getting very complicated as much as it is getting very complex and sophisticated in terms of form and character. It is in this context that the ANC-led government started the process of reviewing the criminal justice cluster in the Republic of South Africa. In the process of reviewing and restructuring the crime prevention strategies, we started with the DSO and we also looked at our crime combating abilities. In the review process, we found that the establishment of the DSO was a fatal mistake as we managed to disperse our limited resources between the SAPS and the DSO in terms of investigation officers. We are the first to admit that the SAPS itself needs to be drastically overhauled so that we are poised to discharge our responsibilities. However, we had to start somewhere.
Several areas were discovered in the review process. It was discovered that the structure of the DSO was a misfit in our institution. It had a problem of roles that overlapped between itself, the SAPS and intelligence officers. This underlying concern stems from noncompliance with the constitutional obligations of our country. Judge Khampepe reported and found this on the DSO, and I quote:
I venture to opine that I find such conduct to be out of kilter with our Constitution, reprehensible, unprofessional and corroding the public’s confidence in the law-enforcement agencies.
I am reminding this House that this report came about after many of our people in this country raised concerns regarding the abuse of power by the DSO. The Public Protector pronounced the violation of rights of the ANC president, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Mhlanganyelwa Zuma. The National Assembly, after the ad hoc committee that dealt with the matter, never made a follow up on the issue of the violation of his rights. Now, I am saying this matter has to be reviewed. The National Assembly must make a follow-up on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on this matter.
Another example is the example of Phumzile Matshoba, the mayor of Ntabankulu Local Municipality. This comrade, after he discovered that the Scorpions was looking for him, handed himself over. He went to the police station, and the Scorpions arrived there. When they arrived, they took him to the streets, called television cameras on him, handcuffed him and then arrested him. This was not necessary because he had actually handed himself over. He was charged 49 times. All of those charges were dropped. The Scorpions lost on this matter.
Another example is that of Thuso Motaung, the former SABC presenter who was arrested in Bloemfontein. When the Scorpions arrived, the television cameras were not there. They called the cameras to come and humiliated him when they arrested him. This showed that their interest was on ensuring that they violated the rights of South Africans because in terms of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, there is a right to privacy. At the same time, we are a signatory to the International Labour Organisation, ILO, in terms of rights. In this case, this body has been continuously, with impunity, violating the rights of South Africans. They also confiscated taxis which didn’t even belong to Mr Motaung. Up until today, some of his belongings have not been taken back. Now, tell us, can you continue to maintain a body that is supposed to be professional and uphold the law to violate the law continuously. If it was in other developed countries in the world, this body could have been disbanded a long time ago. I appreciate the fact that the ANC is an organisation that is patient and tolerant in this case because it was supposed to have dealt with this organisation.
Despite the views of Judge Khampepe, the DSO continued to gather intelligence information illegally. They also continued to gather information which had been confirmed in the Browse Mole report wherein they said the president of the ANC was trying to sabotage this government, supported by Angolans and Libyans. They were dividing the ANC, the nation and Africa as a continent by alleging that these African countries were sabotaging a coup in this country. Therefore, this body is not a body that is supposed to be kept. It is a body that, to us, has been running and utilising apartheid operatives – some of them. You can see this because when they gathered intelligence information, they used information peddlers who were not helpful. Therefore, we are saying people who say we are supposed to keep this body are incorrect. I am asking the opposition here that if they are so averse to the ANC’s Polokwane resolutions, why do they support floor-crossing? [Interjections.]
Moulana M R SAYEDALI-SHAH: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Will the hon Minister take a question from me?
The SPEAKER: I will ask the hon member. Hon Minister, are you ready to take a question?
The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Well, questions are welcome after I have finished my speech.
Therefore, what I am saying is that we have seen problems that have been created by this unit. We saw that these problems were dealt with on 12 September as a severe and devastating blow by another judge, Judge Chris Nicholson. Despite the views of the judge, they continued …
… bezingela inyamazane yabo, amaxhoba ezingela njengamanje. [… to hunt people as if they were hunting wild animals.] [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
Moulana M R SAYEDALI-SHAH: I would like to ask him a question.
The SPEAKER: No, there is no time anymore.
Moulana M R SAYEDALI-SHAH: Oh, alright! I guarantee you, he won’t answer it anyway.
Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, the ACDP believes that this is a sad day for all South Africans who hope that the fight against organised crime will eventually be won. There can be no doubt that disbanding the Scorpions will harm the fight against organised crime since the SAPS is not well- positioned or equipped to deal effectively with organised crime. Like most South Africans, we believe that the ANC’s decision to disband the Scorpions was not motivated by the Scorpions’ low success rate, but was rather motivated by the fact that the Scorpions had been too successful. It is outrageous that the Scorpions are being disbanded, in our view, to protect senior ANC members from investigation, particularly considering the escalating and highly complex nature of organised crime in our country. This nation cannot afford to lose highly experienced and trained investigators and analysts who will not be prepared to accept posts in the SAPS. Furthermore, there are serious concerns that the principle of constant prosecutorial oversight in investigations, which is the cornerstone of the success of the Scorpions, would be lost when the new unit replaces the Scorpions.
The acting head of the NPA, Adv Mpshe, has warned that the collapse of just a few of the cases of the Scorpions could bring South Africa’s criminal justice system into disrepute and that the reckless disbanding of the Scorpions could devastate the whole criminal justice system. The ACDP agrees with him. In this regard, we regret that the NPA’s proposal that a small transitional directorate deals with certain pending sensitive cases was not accepted. This will further increase public perceptions that the Scorpions are being disbanded to protect high profile politicians from being investigated.
Furthermore, complex cases such as Fidentia will be compromised if the experienced investigating and prosecuting teams are not retained. The Khampepe Commission recommended that the DSO should be retained within the NPA. This view was initially accepted by government. However, government then did an about-turn following the Polokwane conference and initiated legislation to disband the Scorpions. The Khampepe report categorically states that:
… the rationale for the establishment of the DSO is as valid today as it was at conception.
The DSO should continue to be located within the NPA. We also fully concede that Judge Khampepe highlighted various shortcomings with the Scorpions, but we also believe that the commission presented comprehensive and compelling solutions to these problems. The ACDP believes that the shortcomings identified by the Khampepe Commission could have been adequately addressed in the model 1 we supported without disbanding the unit.
Crucial to the success of the Scorpions was the degree of independence it enjoyed while falling under the NPA. Model 4, accepted by the ANC, whereby the new DPCI will fall under the SAPS, will not, in our view, provide any degree of independence. We have to ask how the new unit will continue the investigation and prosecution of suspended National Commissioner of Police Jackie Selebi as it will now fall under the control of the SAPS. We as parliamentarians must be mindful of Judge Khampepe’s conclusion that: … it is inconceivable that the legislature will see it fit to repeal the provisions of the National Prosecuting Authority Act that relate to the location and activities of the DSO.
The ANC is doing exactly what was considered by the learned judge to be inconceivable. Therefore, the ACDP will not support this legislation. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Mevrou die Speaker, hier is ‘n paar sprekers van die ANC wat graag aangehaal het wat die VF Plus reeds in 2000 gesê het. Ek wil ook aanhaal wat die ANC by monde van hul destydse Minister van Justisie gesê het oor die instelling van die Skerpioene in 2000. Hy sê:
We are deliberately and purposefully creating a highly skilled and highly competent unique unit to complement our existing law enforcement agencies. The Directorate of Special Operations will be unique in the sense that it will form part of the prosecuting authority. It will provide it with a finely tuned investigative capacity which will focus on prioritised criminal offences.
Daar is geen twyfel, Mevrou die Speaker, dat die doel van die instelling van die Skerpioene was om ‘n unieke en effektiewe gespesialiseerde eenheid daar te stel wat met vervolgingsgedrewe ondersoeke prioriteitmisdade sou kon bekamp in die stryd teen misdaad. Dit is egter die sukses van die Skerpioene wat die rede is vir hul bestaan en wat hulle met onderskeid bewys het. Die ondergang van die Skerpioene is egter juis hierdie suksesse en die onderlinge jaloesie tussen die polisie en die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag – presies dit waarteen die VF Plus gewaarsku het in 2000 met die instelling van die Skerpioene. Dié jaloesie het veroorsaak dat kant gekies word deur politici binne die ANC.
Verder het veral hul suksesse met ondersoeke teen hoëprofiel-politici – soos Tony Yengeni, LP’s wat reisbedrog gepleeg het, Jacob Zuma en die vorige Polisiekommissaris Jackie Selebi – hierdie situasie vererger. Skielik bevraagteken die ANC die grondwetlikheid van die Skerpioene as deel van die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag. Die ANC se argument is deurgaans dat die Grondwet bepaal dat daar net een polisiemag mag wees. Die vraag oor die grondwetlikheid van die Skerpioene as deel van die Nasionale Vervolgingsgesag is egter deeglik beredeneer deur die Khampepe-kommissie. Regter Khampepe maak die volgende bevinding:
I am of the view that there is nothing jurisprudentially unsound in conferring law-enforcement responsibilities to any agency other than the SAPS.
Die argumentering dat die Grondwet bepaal dat daar slegs een polisiemag mag wees en derhalwe moet die Skerpioene ontbind word en `n nuwe eenheid binne die polisiediens gevorm word, is dus ongegrond en verkeerd. Met die aanloop tot die 51ste nasionale kongres van die ANC toe spog die ANC oor die suksesse van die Skerpioene by hul konferensiegangers en word dit voorgehou as deel van die suksesse van die ANC in die bekamping van misdaad. Dieselfde regerende ANC, kom egter met die volgende kongres en sê:
The constitutional imperative that there should be a single police service should be implemented. The DSO should be dissolved.
Die rasionaal vir die ontbinding van die Skerpioene is nie n
merietebesluit deur die ANC nie, maar n politieke besluit gebaseer op n
foutiewe interpretasie van die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika. Dit is ook
duidelik dat die politieke gesindheid van die ANC teenoor die Skerpioene
van aanprysing in 2002 verander het na n dringendheid van vernietiging in
- Hierdie dringendheid van vernietiging kan nie anders wees as politieke weerwraak teenoor politieke opponente nie.
Voormalige President Mbeki het in hierdie Parlement gesê dat die nuwe eenheid beter moet wees as die bestaande Skerpioene. Die werklikheid is egter dat met die nuwe Direktoraat vir Prioriteitsmisdaadondersoeke gaan die kern van vervolgingsgedrewe ondersoeke verlore; juis dit wat die kern van die sukses van die Skerpioene was. Die nuwe eenheid is beslis nie beter as die Skerpioene nie; inteendeel, hulle is slegter daaraan toe.
Met die eerstelesingsdebat van hierdie wetsontwerp het die agb Carrim gesê dat die mense van Suid-Afrika ‘n geleentheid gegee sal word om hul menings te gee. Met die aanvang van die portefeuljekomitee se sittings het die agb Maggie Sotyu vir die media gesê dat dit nie saak maak wat die mense sê nie, maar dat die besluit van Polokwane deurgevoer sal word. Dit is presies wat vandag gebeur. Dit is net die suiker om die bitter pil vir die wysigings wat aangebring is. Die Polokwane-besluit word nou in wese geïmplementeer. Mevrou die Speaker, met die aanvaarding van hierdie wysigingswetsontwerpe is die wetsgehoorsame mense van Suid-Afrika die verloorders en die misdadigers is die wenners. Die VF Plus ondersteun nie die twee wysigingswetsontwerpe nie en maak ernstig beswaar daarteen. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Madam Speaker, present are a few speakers of the ANC who eagerly quoted what the FF Plus had already said in 2000. I also wish to quote what the ANC, through their Minister of Justice at the time, said about the establishment of the Scorpions in 2000. He says:
We are deliberately and purposefully creating a highly skilled and highly competent unique unit to complement our existing law enforcement agencies. The Directorate of Special Operations will be unique in the sense that it will form part of the prosecuting authority. It will provide it with a finely tuned investigative capacity which will focus on prioritised criminal offences.
There is no doubt, Madam Speaker, that the purpose of the establishment of the Scorpions was to create a unique and effective specialised unit which, with prosecutorial-driven investigations, could combat prioritised crimes in the fight against crime. It is however the success of the Scorpions which is the reason for their existence and that with which they have distinguished themselves. However, the demise of the Scorpions is exactly these successes and the mutual jealousy between the police and the National Prosecuting Authority – exactly that against which the FF Plus cautioned in 2000 when the Scorpions was established. This jealousy caused politicians within the ANC to choose sides.
Furthermore, this matter was aggravated especially by their successes with investigations against high-profile politicians like Tony Yengeni, MPs who committed travel fraud, Jacob Zuma and the previous Commissioner of Police, Jackie Selebi. Suddenly the ANC questions the constitutionality of the Scorpions as part of the National Prosecuting Authority. The ANC’s argument throughout is that the Constitutions stipulates that there should only be a single police force. The question about the constitutionality of the Scorpions as part of the National Prosecuting Authority was however thoroughly argued by the Khampepe Commission. Justice Khampepe made the following finding: I am of the view that there is nothing jurisprudentially unsound in conferring law-enforcement responsibilities to any agency other than the SAPS.
The argument that the Constitution stipulates that there should only be a single police force and the Scorpions should therefore be dissolved and a new unit be formed within the police force, is therefore unfounded and wrong.
In the run-up to the ANC’s 51st national congress the ANC boasted before to their delegates at the conference about the successes of the Scorpions and it was portrayed as part of the successes of the ANC in combating crime. However, this very same ruling ANC at their next congress proclaimed:
The constitutional imperative that there should be a single police service should be implemented. The DSO should be dissolved.
The rationale for the disbandment of the Scorpions is not a merit-based decision of the ANC but a political decision based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution of South Africa. It is also clear that the ANC’s political persuasion towards the Scorpions changed from one of lauding in 2002 to an urgency to destroy in 2007. This urgency to destroy can be nothing else than political revenge against political opponents.
Former President Mbeki said in this Parliament that the new unit should be better than the existing Scorpions. The reality is however that with the new Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation the nucleus of the prosecution-driven investigations gets lost; exactly that which was the core of the success of the Scorpions. The new unit is definitely not better than the Scorpions; on the contrary, they are worse off.
During the first reading debate of this Bill the Hon Carrim said that the people of South Africa will be given an opportunity to voice their opinions. At the start of the portfolio committee’s sittings the Hon Maggie Sotyu told the media that it did not matter what the people said but that the decision taken at Polokwane would be carried through. This is exactly what is happening today. It is only the sugar coating of the bitter pill for the amendments made. The decision taken at Polokwane is now in essence being implemented. Madam Speaker, by accepting these amending Bills the law- abiding people of South Africa are the losers and the criminals are the winners. The FF Plus does not support the two amending Bills and seriously objects to it. [Applause.]]
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that history will refer to the Polokwane congress and its aftermath as the season of madness. It was a season of madness in which the serving President of this country was insulted by an unruly youngster who should rather have furthered his studies. It was the season of madness which saw the same President being thrown out of office. It was the season of madness which saw Premiers being kicked out. It was also a season of madness which saw an emotionally charged congress taking a decision that the Scorpions should be disbanded, and that decision is implemented today by ANC members in this House, albeit very reluctantly in some instances.
An effective crime-fighting unit is rendered obsolete. What a tragedy! What a shame! All along, it was an accepted principle in the committee that the crime-fighting unit for serious offences should retain the necessary independence. These principles were enumerated by the committee. But the Bill, as it stands today, falls short of the committee’s own principles under instruction.
There is a lot of window-dressing in the Bill. But that, however, does not cure the basic deficiencies. First of all, the new unit will lack the independence to act against any person whatsoever. The unit’s head will be a deputy commissioner in the SAPS. In other words, he will be a line functionary - a police officer. Although he is given the authority to take certain decisions, there is nothing to indicate that he cannot be overruled by the commissioner like any other police officer under his command.
Secondly, the budget of the unit is controlled by the commissioner as the accounting officer. This gives him effective control over the priorities of the unit. Furthermore, the DA is deeply concerned with the reasons and motives of the ANC for introducing this Bill. Why were the alleged deficiencies in the DSO not rectified? Why were they not addressed at an earlier stage? It is clear that the ANC, in demolishing the DSO, is punishing certain officers for what they did and is protecting other persons on the other hand. This is a dangerous, dangerous route to take. A structure, especially a government structure, should never be created, changed or dissolved because of personalities involved because personalities change. That is exactly what is happening today.
The ANC is of the view that this Bill is work in progress and that the issue should be revisited in future. This is absolute proof that this Bill is a product of the ANC’s season of madness which will be revisited – I am sure - once sanity returns. I honestly think that every ANC member who is going to vote for the Bill will one day say, regrettably: “What have I done? Was I really part of that season of madness?” I thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, as we celebrate the life and struggle of Mrs Albertina Sisulu, let us also mourn the passing away of a comrade, a former member and a stalwart of the ANC, the late Billy Nair.
The passing away of Comrade Billy Nair who had embraced the values and the spirit of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. His steadfast commitment to the values, rights, rule of law and our democracy, should indeed usher in a sense of hope and not a sense of madness.
The DSO, commonly known as the Scorpions, was established following an announcement by former President Thabo Mbeki on 25 June 1999 that:
… a special and adequately staffed and equipped investigation unit will be established urgently to deal with all national priority crimes, including police corruption.
The unit was first established as part of the Investigating Directorate Organised Crime, pending the passing of legislation to formalise the DSO. The process leading up to that legislation in 2000 involved many meetings between Justice and Safety and Security. The critical issues were what matters were to be investigated by the unit and the manner in which the unit would be with those matters. The underlying problems were, firstly, a duplication of functions, especially with regard to the lodging of charges – the unit was after all not a charge office – and secondly, there was an issue of who was to perform the crime intelligence functions of the unit.
The Directorate of Special Operations Bill that was introduced in 2000 was aimed at the establishment of the DSO as a separate entity under the guidance of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, NDPP. However, during the parliamentary process, the Bill was changed and became an amendment to the National Prosecuting Authority Act, and the DSO was established as an investigating directorate of the NPA in the offices of the NDPP.
The difficult issues that characterised the establishment of the DSO remained and fuelled the tension between the SAPS and the DSO. Accusations were levelled that, in some instances, the DSO would take over advanced investigations of the SAPS and claim the credit for the resultant successful operations, as well as that the DSO was cherry-picking - swooping on high-profile cases that would boost the public image of the DSO. Although these tensions were initially largely issues of turf, the allegations of politically inspired DSO investigations only emerged much later. This intensified the tensions, leading to the appointment of the Khampepe Commission, in 2005, into the location and functioning of the DSO.
Although the commission did not recommend the relocation of the DSO, it did recommend that the special investigators attached to the DSO should fall under the political responsibility of the Minister of Safety and Security, and that mechanisms should be established to better co-ordinate the functions of the DSO with those of other agencies. In respect of the vexed issue of crime intelligence, the commission found that the DSO had, as a matter of fact, engaged in crime intelligence when this was neither legislatively nor constitutionally permissible. It was for this reason that the commission recommended that the DSO be subject to the Inspector-General of Intelligence. But that recommendation did not resolve the constitutional bar on the establishment of intelligence services. Only the President may establish an intelligence service. Since the crime intelligence function of the SAPS is established in terms of the Constitution itself, the relocation of the unit into the SAPS would resolve the ongoing problem.
Hon members, it is perhaps necessary to reflect more comprehensively on the former President’s announcement that led to the establishment of the DSO. The thrust of that announcement was that the establishment of the DSO was part of a number of measures to improve the quality, conditions of service and public status of policemen and policewomen “so that they can be seen correctly as the frontline guarantors of the fundamental rights of liberty, life, safety and security”.
The establishment of the DSO was seen as one of a number of measures to achieve these objectives, and I quote:
To enable our law-enforcement agencies to translate this into a reality, I am privileged to announce that a special and adequately staffed and equipped investigation unit will be established urgently to deal with all national priority crimes, including police corruption.
The focus was to improve the SAPS. With the benefit of hindsight, achieving these objectives was more likely to be achieved by integrating the investigative capacity of the DSO into the SAPS by means of an elite and specialised unit aided by the continued guidance and assistance of dedicated members of the NPA, thus perpetuating the successful troika principles of prosecution-assisted investigations informed by comprehensive crime intelligence. This is in fact what these two Bills under discussion are seeking to achieve. The structuring of this troika of functions - prosecution, investigation and intelligence - within the SAPS is nothing new. There are 87 – I repeat, 87 – dedicated prosecutors in the NPA who assist the South African police in investigating complex commercial crimes. Informed by its own intelligence, investigated by its own investigators and assisted by dedicated prosecutors from the NPA, the SAPS Commercial Crime Unit functions along the lines that we expect the new directorate will function. Indeed, the collaboration between Safety and Security and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development has already begun. As you can see, they are seated together discussing this particular aspect.
Although there had been criticism that the ANC and its representatives in the House are just implementing party policy, I want to point out that the Constitutional Court, just yesterday, in a unanimous ruling in the Glenister matter, stated, and I quote from the judgment of Chief Justice Pius Langa:
In my view, there is nothing wrong in our multiparty democracy with Cabinet seeking to give effect to the policy of the ruling party. Quite clearly, in so doing, Cabinet must observe its constitutional obligations and may not breach the Constitution.
My task and responsibility, and the usher of hope I wish to bring in, is that indeed I would apply the latter in the spirit of the Constitution and ensure that in what we do and in how we do it, we are consistent with its provisions. I believe that Cabinet and Parliament have observed their constitutional obligations. My colleague, the Minister of Safety and Security, has outlined the consultation and public participation process and the different models considered by the joint portfolio committees. I just wish to add that if anyone has any doubt as to the seriousness of the engagement on the committee and with the public submissions, one needs only look at the original Bills and the Bills that are before you today to see the impact of that engagement.
In that vein, may I thank the chairpersons of both the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, as well as the Select Committee on Safety and Security and the distinguished and very hardworking officials from the Departments of Justice and Safety and Security, as well as Prof Halton Cheadle for his assistance in terms of labour matters. I said portfolio committee members, and that certainly includes, in our democratic dispensation, the opposition members. We spent many, many hours with deliberations.
The Bills were developed with the object of retaining as far as possible the specialised skills and methodology developed and employed by the DSO, as well as drawing from the most highly skilled and experienced detectives in the SAPS organised crime and commercial crime branches. This is where they came from. The intention is to establish a service which we think, for many reasons, ought to be located in the SAPS, but will continue to work in the spirit of the DSO in respect of the prevention and investigation of serious organised crime and priority offences.
The new unit will retain a multidisciplinary approach and employ an integrated methodology involving co-operation with and support of all government departments and institutions. It will be appropriately staffed with staff being selected on the basis of proven competence and integrity.
In this regard, it is necessary to state that it is our sincere hope that the special investigators in the DSO will seek to join the new unit in order to retain that investigative capacity as well as meeting our constitutional obligation of fair labour practices. We have given investigators a choice rather than automatically transferring them, as we could have done under the Labour Relations Act, to the SAPS; or to take up an offer of a reasonable alternative post or position in the NPA, but not as an investigator in such an event; or to take a post in the Public Service or state institutions such as the SA Revenue Services, for example. Refusal to accept a reasonable alternative post amounts to an election to leave the Public Service. This is why the severance terms will be those set out by the Minister for the Public Service and Administration for employee- initiated severance packages. In other words, four choices are available to these investigators. We have endeavoured to ensure that the core principles of the Constitution in respect of fair labour practice have been applied in this legislation. That is my task and that is my responsibility, namely consent to transfer, retention of service and conditions of employment, a reasonable alternative post and an equitable severance package for those who choose to no longer remain in the Public Service.
In the Business Day editorial today, an opinion is expressed that although the investigators will be guaranteed their conditions of service, they will not be guaranteed equal positions. Let me tell the Business Day that the right to fair labour practice in the Labour Relations Act protects all workers, including special investigators, from unfair demotion. But more importantly, let me address the members of the DSO and say that, quite apart from this government’s legal and constitutional obligations, the intention is to encourage you to move to the SAPS as the Minister of Safety and Security has already said and invited you to do. This will certainly not be done by transferring you to a post that is not of a similar status to your expertise.
I also wish to address the concern that investigations will be prejudiced by the transfer and that once files have been transferred, they will not be pursued or that investigators that have worked on these investigations for years will suddenly be removed. In order to meet this concern, the Bill mandates me to establish a mechanism to ensure an orderly and effective transfer of the investigations. I will do this in consultation with the Minister of Safety and Security and, of course, after consultation with the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Police Commissioner. Each investigation or category of investigations will be dealt with.
May I give you the assurance that where a matter is with the prosecution authority, ready for prosecution, it will not revert to investigation, unless more evidence is sought by the prosecution authority. The fear that investigations will not be properly pursued fails to take into account the SAPS’ code of conduct, which requires the SAPS to do the following: uphold the Constitution and the law; act with integrity in rendering an effective service; act against corruption and bring perpetrators to justice; and that a breach of the code constitutes a disciplinary offence or, if aimed at defeating the ends of justice, a criminal offence. There is also a new complaints mechanism under a retired judge to address any failure to pursue any investigation or any conduct to undermine any investigation.
Finally, I again repeat my thanks for what I think was a very, very vibrant and interactive endeavour on the part of the portfolio committees. Yunus Carrim, John Jeffery and the other members of the portfolio committees and the select committee, indeed you spent a great deal of time. The assurance I leave you with is that with my colleague, the Minister of Safety and Security, we will establish a mechanism that is practical, transparent and accountable. After all, the last word is with Parliament. You have the responsibility to oversee and to monitor our performance and our actions. I thank you very much for your attention. [Applause.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, today we have come to be witnesses to the demise of a competent organ of state - the DSO, alias the Scorpions. It is ironic that the unit is being disbanded because of its successes and not its failures. We are witnessing the obsession of the ANC to reconfigure, redesign, rename and reconstruct even successful entities such as the Scorpions so that they end up in mediocrity.
The successful unit that was launched in 1999 with fanfare and was hailed by South Africans for its success has to bite the dust because it fingered some untouchables in the ANC. In his usual guffaw of playing to the gallery, the Treasurer-General of the ANC was on record as saying, and I quote: “Why do we need people running around investigating one another?” He goes on further to say: “Institutions such as the Scorpions are unknown in other countries.”
It is for this reason that we in the UCDP would say, “where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise”.
This is in contrast to what the hon Fatima Chohan-Khota, a member of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, said on 11 November 1999 in a snap debate on the Scorpions. She pointed out that her committee had undertaken a visit to the United States and Canada to study, among other things, their crime-fighting structures and institutions. Whatever they learnt there, they modified to suit the local circumstances. Therefore, the Phosa argument is ill-informed.
The Scorpions have been second to none as crime busters. Their only evil is that they investigate successfully without fear, favour or prejudice. It is a shame that according to Gwede Mantashe, the Secretary-General of the ANC, the Scorpions have to be disbanded because the unit is prosecuting their leaders. He repeated this even yesterday after the successful application by the NPA to appeal against Judge Nicholson’s judgement of August on the president of the ANC.
The interests of the ruling party should by no means be put above the interests of all South Africans. The checks and balances put in place even through the Khampepe Commission do not matter to the ANC. All that matters is ensuring that their members are not prosecuted. We cannot have laws applicable to some and not to others.
We regret the majoritarian approach with which the ANC handled this matter, stating that it is a Polokwane resolution and that it has to be law willy- nilly. The time will come when they will need the counsel they are spurning now. The UCDP will not support the dissolution of the Scorpions.
Mr N T GODI: Madam Speaker, comrades and hon members, the APC enters this debate with its unwavering focus on what is in the national interest – intensifying and enhancing the fight against organised crime. It is the contention of the APC that organised crime syndicates have actually increased over the years, and what the DSO has uncovered has only been the tip of the iceberg.
To downplay the important achievements of the DSO would be as wrong as turning a blind eye to some of its glaring weaknesses, mistakes and misconducts. Similarly, some leaders in the ruling party have made assertions that the DSO needs to be disbanded because it targets them unfairly, which leaves a lingering impression that it is being disbanded for sectarian reasons whilst some in the opposition have undisguised their glee that the DSO arrests members of the ruling party.
The APC has always been for the correction of the weaknesses in the DSO without throwing the baby out with the bath water. However, the APC believes that it is undialectical to claim that we can never have a unit better than the DSO. It is our contention that the new unit out of the merger of the DSO and the organised crime unit of the SAPS should be strengthened, better equipped, resourced and supported. This new unit that is being created needs all the support and resources necessary to fight the scourge of organised crime. Let the criminals not be the winners whilst we politick selfishly with our nation’s destiny.
The APC will support the merger of the Scorpions and the organised crime unit of the SAPS. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms A VAN WYK: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, for the three Ministers who participated in the debate, it was indeed a baptism of fire, I think. The two Bills before us establish a directorate within the SAPS that will address organised crime in an integrated, co-ordinated and focused manner by doing the following: bringing together the best people for the job; supplying them with all the necessary financial and other resources; and providing them with the legal mandate required in order to fight organised crime effectively and on all frontiers. The Bill is a vast improvement on the Bill that was first introduced in Parliament. These improvements came about as a result of the intensive process of public hearings and engagements in, sometimes, robust debates in the joint committees.
I want to focus on a couple of provisions in the Bill that provide a legislative framework that makes this directorate an effective crime- fighting directorate. Firstly, this directorate is now a directorate within the SAPS that was established by law. There is only one way in which this directorate can be closed down. It can be closed down if its mandate has changed or its focus has been redirected through legislation. This is an important factor as it underlines just how important the fight against organised crime is to this ANC government.
The Bill, as it was introduced, gave excessive powers to the national commissioner in terms of the appointment of the head of the directorate, the vetting of staff for the directorate and the selection of cases to be investigated by the directorate. In the amendment of the Bill, these issues were addressed. The position of the head of the directorate was elevated to become that of a deputy national commissioner. Not only does this reflect on the importance of the directorate, but it also enables direct responsibility in terms of performance. The head of the directorate shall be appointed by the Minister in concurrence with Cabinet. The Minister shall report to Parliament on the appointment of the head of the directorate. Staff to be appointed to this directorate shall be appointed on the recommendation of the head of the directorate. Furthermore, the head of the directorate now also plays a much more direct and independent role in determining cases to be investigated by the directorate.
The Bill aims to make sure that this directorate is staffed with people of the highest integrity. In this regard, over and above the normal security clearance members of the directorate would have to undergo, the legislation also makes provision for the declaration of financial and other interests by members of the directorate and their immediate family members. Provision is also made for further integrity testing which may include random entrapment, testing for the abuse of alcohol or drugs and the use of polygraphs or similar instruments to ascertain the truthfulness of a statement. Measures have been put in place to ensure that the manner in which this integrity testing will be done will protect individuals’ rights and confidentiality. Though these measures might be considered intrusive, it is absolutely necessarily to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the unit and its staff at all times and that it should not be compromised by the actions of isolated individuals.
The Bill, as amended, places an obligation on other government departments to take the necessary steps to assist the directorate in the achievement of its objectives. This, together with the secondment of relative staff and the appointment of legal officers in the directorate, will ensure a multidisciplinary approach which the opposition would like to portray as if it has been sacrificed. It has not been sacrificed.
It is a pity that the inability of some to look past the current situation and instead focus on the broader picture and priorities cloud their judgement and the ability to engage with this legislation in a constructive manner. Furthermore, there are clear diagnoses of election fever amongst some members of the opposition. This fever is clearly making it difficult for them to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and fairytales.
Throughout deliberations on these two pieces of legislation, we had to hear that the Scorpions was the best crime-fighting unit ever and that the SAPS does not have the capacity to deal with such complicated cases, as if members in the SAPS are a bunch of people who cannot think. Even more troublesome was how some members of the opposition badmouthed the SAPS in general, like they did again today in the House. It is these very members that would come here or go on television and act as if they cared about members of the SAPS. We warned against this. After everything is said and done, it is still going to be the SAPS and its men and women in blue who must bear the brunt of the crime in our country and who constitute the barrier between law-abiding citizens and criminals. It is them we rely on to provide a safe environment in which our country and our people can grow to achieve their fullest potential. How do you then justify these statements aimed at breaking down the morale of the police and demolishing the trust of the general population in the police?
Yes, the DSO was successful, and that is why we are bringing the best practices and people in it together with the SAPS so that we can strengthen the crime-fighting capacity of the SAPS. But it is simply not true to say that they were the only successful entity in fighting crime. Let us compare apples with apples. First of all - Ms Kohler-Barnard said this – the formula used by the DSO to determine their conviction rate differs from that of the SAPS. The DSO simply takes the number of cases that were finalised in courts and then, based on the successful convictions from those cases, determines their conviction rate. The SAPS, on the other hand, determines their conviction rate against the number of cases they have in their books. So, if the SAPS has 1000 murder dockets and 100 goes to court
- of which they secure 30 convictions - they will then say they had a 3% conviction rate. For the same figures but with a different formula, the DSO will say they had a 30% conviction rate, not taking into consideration the 900 outstanding cases.
The commercial branch of the SAPS‘s statistics are determined in the same manner as that of the DSO. So, let us look at their statistics. They achieved a success rate of 92% and, in fact, 50% of the accused pleaded guilty in these cases. It is important to highlight the fact that these cases are of the same complexity as cases dealt with by the DSO - for instance, the crayon case in the East Rand. Within the SAPS, we have the organised crime unit and a unit for serious and economic crimes. In the past financial year, 2007-08, a total of 154 leaders of organised crime were identified. Of these, 131 were arrested by the organised crime unit of the police – an excellent figure indeed. It is also not only the DSO that had successes in the seizure of assets, but, in fact, so does the SAPS’s organised crime unit. In 2007-08, about R49 million worth of assets were forfeited to the state through investigations performed by the SAPS. Let me mention some of the seizure success rates of the SAPS: about R23 million worth of vehicles was recovered; R8 million worth of stolen property was recovered; R11 million worth of cigarettes was recovered; and almost R23 million worth of cocaine was recovered. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, in addressing the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill and the South African Police Service Amendment Bill, I simply want to caution that we should be careful as a nation not to destroy institutions of the state, particularly those dealing with the security and safety of our country. We can’t have murder, rape, corruption, etc, committed with impunity. Zero tolerance of crime should not be mere lip service.
Our national institutions must be reviewed and adjusted where the necessary adjustment needs to be done. But, under no circumstances should our institutions be interfered with for parochial objectives.
Much has been said about the Scorpions. The subject has reached a feverish pitch. Some people have gone to court to express their feelings about this issue. There are those who have argued that the purpose of these Bills is to protect certain political leaders from being charged for criminal offences such as corruption. If this is true, it is despicable and must be condemned in the strongest language at our command by all the citizens of this country.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that the Scorpions exceeded their powers. They also hobnobbed with foreign secret services to a point of being a tool for foreign interests. One thing must be made crystal clear and that is that security and safety forces exist to serve our country and not its functionaries or political leaders. Their primary duty is to secure this nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, I’m afraid your speaking time has expired.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Seeing that the PAC does not know whether the body being created will be a black mamba or a lizard, the PAC will abstain from voting. [Time expired.]
Mr L K JOUBERT: Madam Deputy Speaker, in its 2004 election manifesto, that is the so-called “People’s Contract”, the ANC promised to strengthen the Scorpions. Today they are breaking that contract by dissolving the Scorpions. Morally, I think they should have gone back to the voters who had mandated them to strengthen the Scorpions and explain to them why it became necessary to go against their promise.
Let us again look at the motivation for dissolving the Scorpions. The resolution taken at Polokwane was based on the wrong premise that there was a constitutional imperative that precluded the Scorpions from existing outside the SAPS. I pointed out in the First Reading debate that both the Constitutional Court and Judge Khampepe have indicated that there was no constitutional impediment on the Scorpions being in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. We therefore know that constitutional issues were not the real reason behind the drive to dissolve the Scorpions.
What then was the real reason? In the approximately 150 hours that the two committees concerned deliberated on the matter, no compelling reason was put forward at any stage - and I’m underlining the word “compelling”. The Minister for Provincial and Local Government referred to things here that were really not “compelling” reasons.
The motivation could also not have been to strengthen the fight against crime because the new unit in the SAPS will definitely not be as efficient as the Scorpions were. As a matter of fact, nobody accused the Scorpions of being inefficient. So, why fix something if it is not broken? The only logical deduction is that the Scorpions became a thorn in the flesh of senior ANC cadres who were being investigated by the Scorpions. But instead of taking disciplinary action against such members, they are being protected. Had these members been members of the DA, we would long ago have instituted disciplinary action against them because our code of conduct for public representatives requires the highest standard of ethical behaviour. Any incidence of corruption, fraud and so on, will lead to disciplinary action. However, it seems as if the ANC has a different code of conduct.
To paraphrase Attlee, one-time British Prime Minister: Democracy means different things to different people. To the ANC, it appears to mean that the resolution adopted by 2 500 delegates can be forced through a Parliament elected by 16 million people. I rest my case. [Applause.]
Mr Y I CARRIM: Madam Deputy Speaker, comrades, friends and Deputy President
- congratulations on your appointment - beyond all the bluster and political posturing, let us be clear. The vast majority of us in the ANC are not triumphalist. We are not gloating about the dissolution of the Scorpions. This is in fact a sad occasion, for what was meant to be an elite, efficient and powerful organised crime-fighting unit - the pride of the nation - has become a source of division in the nation. We will forever disagree on who is responsible for what in this saga and how we have come to this. But we have, and we cannot continue like this. We have to move on; we must. We have learnt our lessons, let us heed them.
Let us be clear. None of us in the ANC says the new organised crime- fighting model is perfect. But enough of us say this unit is workable. Give it a chance. Let it develop. This is work in progress. We have not been too prescriptive. We have provided the basic features of the new model. We can improve on it. It will have to be considered further in at least three contexts: the finalisation of the proposed new integrated criminal justice system; the pending overhaul of the South African Police Service Act as a whole; and a report from the Minister of Safety and Security to Parliament within three years on the performance of this new unit and the need for any legislative amendments. In any case, the nature, scope and methods of organised crime change constantly. So, obviously we will regularly have to review our organised crime-fighting unit and its methods.
It’s not as if we must stress that we came to this new model lightly. We didn’t just blindly and hurriedly implement the Polokwane resolution. Parliament is not some subcommittee of the ANC. [Interjections.] Let’s agree to disagree. We refuse to abandon our legislative role. We had extensive public hearings. We spent some 190 hours on the Bill in formal meetings of the committee and the subcommittee and at least another 100 hours in informal exchanges with key stakeholders. We unanimously, as my comrade co-chair Maggie Sotyu said, rejected the weak and limp South African Police Service Bill that the executive offered us, and we rewrote it to ensure a more effective and organised crime-fighting unit.
We tried to find three balances. Firstly, we tried to find a balance between providing a firm framework for the new unit and not being too prescriptive. Secondly, we tried to balance the unit between being independent and being a part of the SAPS in a way that avoids replicating tensions between the DSO and the SAPS. Thirdly, we tried to find a way of both recognizing the specialty of organised crime and ensuring that it is located as part of our fight against crime as a whole. These balances, we insist, are right for now, given the specific circumstances we are in. But what’s there to stop us from altering the balance, if we have to?
Again, based on the DSO experience, to avoid the new unit being political biased, we provided for an independent complaints mechanism for now. But, we can’t just focus on the new unit without considering the SAPS as a whole. So, in our report we suggested to Parliament that the ICD be strengthened or a new mechanism be created to attend to all forms of complaints about the SAPS generally when the South African Police Service Act is overhauled.
In response to the many points I have made, an election is coming up. We understand that people have to grandstand politically, and I am doing that too. But there are limits to which you can do that. Let me start with the Khampepe Commission of Inquiry. A significant number of the opposition members recognised that the Khampepe Commission, in its substantial proposal, is not workable. You have investigators answerable to the Minister of Safety and Security and prosecutors answerable to the NPA. We asked them in the committee to explain to us how that would work. There was a sullen, deafening silence. So, they themselves acknowledged that the Khampepe Commmission can’t always work.
Secondly, there is no obligation in any democracy anywhere in the world for a commission report - even by a judge - to be accepted necessarily by the executive or by Parliament. Democracies all over the world allow for that.
Thirdly, there are 10 substantial improvements on the Bill that we set out in section 6(6) of our report that was published on Tuesday morning in the ATC.
Fourthly, regarding the national commissioner, I do not understand why people are still looking at the old Bill. We made it very clear that the national commissioner will not appoint a divisional commissioner as the head of this unit who will be answerable to the national deputy commissioner, who will be answerable to the commissioner. No! We provided for a national deputy commissioner to head this unit. That national deputy commissioner is appointed by the Minister in consultation with Cabinet and in consultation with the national commissioner as it happens with other national deputy commissioners.
May I also add that it is not as if the head of this unit cannot initiate cases. This was in the old Bill. Please, we have gone far beyond this on day one. We now have a policy framework in which Parliament will play a role, after which the Minister, the national commissioner and the head of this unit will determine the framework to deal with cases. But at the end of the day, let us be absolutely clear that neither Maggie Sotyu nor I said 98 000 signatures don’t matter. This is on record, and it is being used by Mr Glenister. So, ask him for the tape. We said they were of limited significance in processing a Bill because they blindly said “don’t dissolve the Scorpions”. None of those people read the Bill. What particular clause of the Bill could we actually draw on from their petition - a generic petition - to process the Bill? So, in this sense we said the signatures were of limited value, and we still stand by that. Let Judge Pius Langa and the Constitutional Court hear this, and I repeat: They were of limited value. But you see, at the end of the day it does not matter what Maggie Sotyu and I said. What matters is what happened. We are bound by the same Constitution that binds Judge Pius Langa, the Ministers and the President of this country.
What did we do? We had 7 200 people participating in hearings, and we had at least 190 hours in the committee - I will not cover that ground. In respect of cases, Minister Surty has been very helpful and saved me time so that I can batter some of the opposition members. You have given a very good reply. You set it out, and it is in the Bill.
May I also add that it is astonishing that the DA, this market fundamentalist society, is pleading for the cause of the working class. Did they in fact support – I would like to know - the Labour Relations Act when it was put to this House? Since when are they supporters of the working class?
Now, let me stress too, that Prof Cheadle, who I understand drafted the Labour Relations Act and is currently the adviser of the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, came in at the last minute and ensured that we would not undermine the labour dispensation that we have. The Minister of Safety and Security said this very afternoon that he would like as many as possible of these people who have the skills they have to come into the SAPS. He went on record, may I add, in the newspapers - Sunday Times and I think City Press - shortly after he was appointed to say that he would focus on crime in every form, not least of which would be organised crime and corruption.
May I also add, Koos van der Merwe, that you are very proud of the number of years … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Koos van der Merwe! Mr Y I CARRIM: Hon Koos van der Merwe! But it raises the question of how honourable he is when I raise this point. He loves saying that he has been in Parliament for over 30 years. It is clear that he is unreconstructed. Once again it is the “rooi gevaar” – the SACP is behind the ANC!
I wish, hon Jeremy Cronin, that we were behind the ANC in the way they make out; that we were able to do the things we want to do; and that you or Blade Nzimande would be the President of this country. Remember that “swart gevaar” in the old era was very close to “rooi gevaar”! So, we must be very careful. [Applause.]
Dianne Kohler-Barnard says … [Interjections.] I won’t respond because I don’t have the time.
I want to stress this that prosecutors are involved, but they are in the NPA. They will work with investigators as necessary. Moreover, let me stress that the legal officers within the SAPS who are currently there are meant to be beefed up. They are meant to advise investigators to ensure that when they proceed with investigations, they are legally tenable and will not be challenged in court.
May I also say, before I am forced to end … I wish I had more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, because really there are so many misrepresentations here that I have another half an hour of notes to use and draw on. But let me thank the department officials and Maggie Sotyu in particular for the co-operation we had. I think we don’t need two separate committees anymore, Chief Whip. Let us make them a single committee on safety and security, constitutional development and justice. We don’t have any turf issues.
May I also, on behalf of Pieter Groenewald, thank myself for giving him an extra two minutes.
Finally, let me say that we must be very clear. We are simply not going to allow our wonderful country to be handed over to organised criminals - absolutely not. [Applause.] You can bet your life on it, it is not going to happen. Do you know why? Mainly, you have to trust us. The main victims of organised crime, corruption and crime in general are the working class and the poor. For once I am putting on my Marxist hat - I am a Marxist, unapologetically. I have been one since I was 16 years old. [Interjections.] I cannot allow organised crime. Who are the main beneficiaries of crime? It is mainly the bourgeoisie and the capitalist class. Of course they have their underlings. So, I cannot agree to this.
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, your time has expired.
Mr Y I CARRIM: There are six seconds left, but that is okay. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, the DA calls for a division.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, I don’t think I need to hear those kinds of voices that are saying “what about the amendments”. Let me refer the House to its own Rules - Rule 254(3). This Rule is very clear about when we entertain amendments. Nobody said we were going to stop that.
A division has been called. I just want to go back to the earlier problems we had in the House related to the voting machines. We will then take a break in order to allow the technical team of Parliament to look at what happened earlier on. So, instead of ringing the bells for 5 minutes, which was the initial intention, we will ring the bells for 20 minutes.
Question put: That the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill be read a second time.
The SPEAKER: Order! We allowed a 20-minute break in order to attempt to fix the technical problems we have. Hon members, I wish to indicate that given the technical problems that occurred earlier on, we asked the technical team to look at the matter. But we have not yet fixed the problem that was there earlier on. We have some seats that are affected. We would like to say that when we reach the voting stage, those members who are not able to vote should come forward to cast their votes so that we don’t have any errors. [Interjections.]
It looks like we are going to have a long day. The main system is locked. It just locked itself.
Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Madam Speaker, we propose a secret ballot.
The SPEAKER: We managed to get our main system running, but the other members will then come forward so that we can record their votes.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, don’t you think it would be a good idea for them to go home – those people who can’t vote?
The SPEAKER: I think it would be a wonderful idea if you would go home now and allow us to do some work. [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Thank you. I will do that.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 252: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabudafhasi, T R; 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; 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; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburi, I F; Matsomela, M J J; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbete, B; Mbili, M E; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B; 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, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; 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; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shiceka, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Sizani, S; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Surty, M E; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; 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, S C; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 63: Bekker, H J; Bhengu, M J; Bici, J; Blanché, J P I; Boinamo, G G; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Camerer, S M; Cupido, H B; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Dudley, C; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; George, D T; Greyling, L W; Groenewald, P J; Holomisa, B H; Hoosen, M H; Jenner, I E; Joubert, L K; Julies, I F; Kalyan, S V; Kganyago, N M; King, R J; Kohler-Barnard, D; Labuschagne, L B; Lebenya, P; Lee, T D; Marais, S J F; Masango, S J; Minnie, K J; Morgan, G R; Mpontshane, A M; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A H; Nkabinde, N C; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Roopnarain, U; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau, S N; Simmons, S; Singh, N; Smuts, M; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M; Trent, E W; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Weber, H; Zikalala, C N Z.
National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill accordingly read a second time.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, there was a little confusion earlier on as to where amendments have to be placed. There were no amendments for the earlier Bill. The amendments proposed by Dr Delport are for the Bill that we are going to be dealing with now.
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, I put the amendments.
Amendment to the South African Police Service Amendment Bill by Dr J T Delport, as printed on the Order Paper (p 504) put, namely:
Amendment of the long title
-
To amend the long title, as follows:
BILLTo amend the South African Police Service Act, 1995, in order to-
• enhance the capacity of the South African [Police Service] law enforcement agencies to prevent, combat and investigate national priority crimes and other crimes, by establishing a [separate Division in the South African Police Service, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• provide for the transfer of [powers, investigations, assets, budget and liabilities] special investigators and administrative and support personnel of the Directorate of Special Operations, established in terms of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998, to the [South African Police Service] South African Bureau for Investigations; • provide for the appointment of the Head of the [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• ensure a prosecution-led multi-disciplinary and integrated approach in the prevention, combating and investigation of the above crimes by providing for the secondment of personnel from other Government departments or institutions to the [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• provide for the security screening of and integrity measures for personnel of the [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• provide for the designation by the President of a Ministerial Committee to oversee the functioning of the [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• provide for the establishment of an Operational Committee comprising senior officials to facilitate, review, monitor and improve inter-departmental co-operation;
• provide for Parliamentary oversight in respect of the activities of the [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• provide for the establishment of a mechanism to deal with complaints of a serious nature pertaining to the [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations;
• provide for transitional arrangements, including the selection of personnel to implement the Act; and
• provide for matters connected thereto.
Amendment of Clause 1, which amends section 5 of Act 68 of 1995
- Clause 1 to be amended by amending paragraph (b), as follows:
b) by the addition of the following paragraph:
(d) members appointed to the [Directorate for Priority Crime
Investigation] South African Bureau for Investigations
established by section 17C;
Amendment of clause 3, which amends section 16 of Act 68 of 1995
- Clause 3 to be amended by-
a) deleting the heading to CHAPTER 6A and substituting it as follows:
[DIRECTORATE FOR PRIORITY CRIME INVESTIGATION]
SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU FOR INVESTIGATIONS
b) deleting the definition of “Directorate” in the proposed new
section 17A and substituting it with the following definition:
‘South African Bureau for Investigations’ means the [Directorate
for Priority Crime Investigation] South African Bureau for
Investigations established by section 17C;
c) amending the proposed section 17B as follows:
Application of Chapter
17B. In the application of this chapter the following should be
recognised and taken into account:
(a) The need to establish a [Directorate as a Division of the
Service ] South African Bureau for Investigations to
prevent, combat and investigate national priority offences,
in particular serious organised crime, serious commercial
crime and serious corruption.
(b) The need to ensure that the [Directorate] Bureau—
(i) implements, where appropriate, a multi-disciplinary
approach and an integrated methodology involving
the co-operation of all relevant Government
departments and institutions and implementing
prosecution-led-investigations;
(ii) has the necessary independence to perform its
functions;
(iii) is equipped with the appropriate human and financial
resources to perform its functions;
(iv) is staffed through the transfer, appointment, or
secondment of personnel whose integrity is beyond
reproach.
d) amending the proposed section 17C as follows:
Establishment and composition of [Directorate] Bureau
17C. (1) The [Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation] South
African Bureau for Investigations is hereby established [as a
Division of the Service].
(2) The [Directorate] Bureau comprises—
(a) the Head of the [Directorate] Bureau, [who shall be a
Deputy National Commissioner appointed by the Minister in
concurrence with Cabinet;] appointed by the President upon
the recommendation of Parliament and who shall be appointed
at the rank of a Director-General;
(b) persons appointed by the [National Commissioner on
the recommendation of the Head of the Directorate] Head of
the Bureau on the basis of the required level of
experience, training, skills, competence or knowledge;
(c) an adequate number of [legal officers] experienced
prosecutors qualified to lead investigations appointed to
the [Directorate] Bureau; and
(d) officials from any Government department or
institution, seconded to the [Directorate] Bureau in terms
of laws governing the public service.
(3) The Minister shall report to Parliament on the appointment
of the Head of the [Directorate] Bureau.
- The following consequential amendments to be made:
Consequential amendments
The following words and terms are substituted wherever they appear in
the proposed new Clauses 17D to 17L and in Clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill:
a) The word “directorate” is substituted with the word “Bureau”;
b) the term “Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation” is
substituted with the term “South African Bureau for
Investigations”;
c) the term “National Commissioner” is substituted with the words
“Head of the Bureau”;
d) the words “National Commissioner and the Head of the Directorate”
are substituted with the words “Head of the Bureau”;
- The proposed Clause 17J1(a)(i) and (ii) to be amended as follows:
(i) the [National Commissioner] Head of the Bureau, as chairperson;
(ii) the [Head of the Directorate] National Commissioner, as deputy
chairperson;
-
The proposed Clause 4 (Amendment of section 24 of Act 68 of 1995) to be deleted.
-
The proposed Clause 6(2)(c) to be amended as follows: c) the allocated budget and assets and liabilities of the Directorate of Special Operations as agreed upon between the accounting officers of the [South African Police Service] Bureau and the Directorate of Special Operations respectively must be transferred to the [South African Police Service] Bureau in accordance with section 42 of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999).
Declarations of vote:
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, the amendments I introduced are elementary. They also create the same unit but it is called the South African Bureau for Investigations, Sabi, which I believe relates to the word fear - “saba” in isiZulu. They place the unit in the Ministry of Safety and Security, but the head of the bureau will be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of Parliament. The head of the bureau will have the rank of a director-general, responsible to Parliament through the Minister and not through the commissioner. The head of the department will also be an accounting officer in a separate item in the budget of the Department of Safety and Security.
The amendments will give the unit the degree of independence it needs. They retain the multidisciplinary composition and the concept of a prosecution- led investigation. Of course, they can have experienced prosecutors in the unit, hon Jeffrey, because we have discussed the difference between investigating prosecutors and prosecuting prosecutors. There is no problem with that.
May I explain that we have not proposed any amendments to the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Act. Why is that? This is because we voted against the amendments. Our idea is that - and we think - the Scorpions should have coexisted with the new unit, been phased out as they finished pending investigations and then been disbanded through legislation when they were finished with their work.
I also put the amendments so that South Africans would know that there was and there is a proper alternative to what was proposed by the ANC. Furthermore, I also put these amendments as a last chance to many ANC members, who honestly do not agree with the Bill in their heart of hearts, to vote for the amendments. Finally, I want to point out that you have the authority to refer these amendments back to the committee for discussion before we vote on the main Bill as it stands. I suggest you do that to give my hon colleagues a second chance of thinking about the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, we will be supporting the amendments proposed by the hon Dr Tertius Delport. The main reason is that the Bill before the House removes the independence of the NPA, and the proposal by Dr Delport, to a large degree, protects that. This is why we will support the amendments.
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, chairperson Yunus Carrim referred to the “rooi gevaar”, but here is the “Swart gevaar” standing before him. So, if you would allow me a few words.
The ACDP is on record as supporting model 1. We believe that the amendments proposed by Dr Delport support that model which has a strong emphasis on the independence of the unit. The committee accepted the principle of independence for the new unit. In our view, the new unit does not have the required independence that the Scorpions had. The head, as it was pointed out, would be a line function of the commissioner who also controls the budget. We are particularly concerned about that aspect of independence.
In particular, one of the issues we raised related to the interim transitional period and the fact that, with the Fidentia case, for example, 73 000 claimants are going to suffer almost irreparable damage. These are some of the aspects we are very concerned about and we believe that one should have looked a bit closer at this legislation. For that purpose, we will support these amendments. Thank you.
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, we do not support the amendments. They are not at all well thought through. Dr Delport talks about establishing them under the Ministry and as an independent body. But if you look at his amendments, he goes and puts them under the SAPS. He is amending clause 5 of the South African Police Service Amendment Bill which says that the service shall consist of (a), (b) and (c), and he wants (d) - this bureau. So, it is not consistent with what he is trying to achieve.
Secondly, he raises the issue of prosecutors. In my speech I started referring to the fact that you can’t have prosecutors outside of the NPA. The Constitution is very clear. There is a single NPA. So, if you take prosecutors out of the NPA they won’t be prosecutors anymore. [Interjections.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Will the hon member take a question?
Mr J H JEFFERY: No.
The SPEAKER: The hon member said no.
Dr J T DELPORT: You will not because you are scared. You are scared to take a question.
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, we have considered these issues in the committee. So, there is no need to refer it back. Mr Swart is concerned about the cases and we feel this has been adequately dealt with by the mechanism in the Bill that we have just passed. So, there is no need for that to be done.
I think the last point is the other main change that Dr Delport makes. He wants to call this a bureau. When you think of bureaus and the state security operators you think of the Bureau of State Security or Boss - Mr Van der Merwe’s body. I think this reflects where Dr Delport and the DA are coming from. Thank you. [Applause.]
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 59: Bekker, H J; Bhengu, M J; Bici, J; Blanché, J P I; Boinamo, G G; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Camerer, S M; Cupido, H B; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Dudley, C; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; George, D T; Groenewald, P J; Holomisa, B H; Joubert, L K; Julies, I F; Kalyan, S V; Kganyago, N M; King, R J; Kohler- Barnard, D; Lee, T D; Lowe, C M; Marais, S J F; Masango, S J; Mfundisi, I S; Minnie, K J; Morgan, G R; Mpontshane, A M; Nel, A H; Nkabinde, N C; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Roopnarain, U; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau, S N; Simmons, S; Singh, N; Smuts, M; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M; Trent, E W; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Weber, H; Zikalala, C N Z.
NOES - 251: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; 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; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabudafhasi, T R; 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; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburi, I F; Matsomela, M J J; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbete, B; Mbili, M E; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B; 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, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngculu, L V J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; 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; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shiceka, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Sizani, S; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Surty, M E; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala- Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.
ABSTAIN - 4: Greyling, L W; Hoosen, M H; Jenner, I E; Nefolovhodwe, P J.
Amendments accordingly rejected.
Question put: That the South African Police Service Amendment Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
House divided:
AYES - 252: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlamini- Zuma, N C; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Gore, V C; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, C B; Johnson, M; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, C D; Khauoe, M K; Khoarai, L P; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Maake, J J; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabudafhasi, T R; 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; 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; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe- Casaburi, I F; Matsomela, M J J; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbete, B; Mbili, M E; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse- Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B; 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, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; 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; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shiceka, S; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Sizani, S; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Surty, M E; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; 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, S C; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 63: Bekker, H J; Bhengu, M J; Bici, J; Blanché, J P I; Boinamo, G
G; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Camerer, S M; Cupido, H B; Davidson, I O;
Delport, J T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Dudley, C;
Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; George, D T; Greyling, L W; Groenewald, P J;
Holomisa, B H; Hoosen, M H; Jenner, I E; Joubert, L K; Julies, I F;
Kalyan, S V; Kganyago, N M; King, R J; Kohler-Barnard, D; Labuschagne, L
B; Lebenya, P; Lee, T D; Marais, S J F; Masango, S J; Minnie, K J;
Morgan, G R; Mpontshane, A M; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A H; Nkabinde, N
C; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Roopnarain, U; Sayedali-
Shah, M R; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau, S
N; Simmons, S; Singh, N; Smuts, M; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M;
Trent, E W; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Waters,
M; Weber, H; Zikalala, C N Z.
ABSTAIN - 1: Mfundisi, I S.
South African Police Service Amendment Bill accordingly read a second time.
REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(First Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, hon members, I don’t know what I did to cause this exodus. [Laughter.]
The Revenue Laws Amendment Bill is before the House. Last year we passed legislation that simplifies a complex formula for taxing lump sum withdrawals on retirement. These Bills now simplify the taxation of lump sums from retirement funds before retirement. The two sets of rules are aligned. Firstly, to provide relief, especially when a person becomes unemployed, the first R22 500 of preretirement withdrawals will be tax free. However, the withdrawals will be taxed on an accumulative basis. So, subsequent lump sum withdrawals will be added in tax at a higher rate.
New rules will provide for a default approach that will trigger tax only when amounts are actually withdrawn from the funds. The tax liability for the unwary who keeps their contributions within retirement funds when changing jobs has been eliminated. In terms of divorce, the new rules enhance a clean-break principle. Spouses can now fully divide their retirement savings upon divorce with taxes applying only if a spouse makes a withdrawal.
A second amendment proposed in this Bill before the House is the Secondary Tax on Companies, STC - the dividend tax. This Bill marks a milestone in switching from the STC at a company level to a dividend tax on shareholders, thereby making our tax system more globally compatible.
Thirdly, the Minister of Trade and Industry would want me to mention that there are a series of incentives for industrial policy projects to improve the competitiveness and energy efficiency of our manufacturing sector. Did you know that this is in the Bill, Minister? [Interjections.] Good. The purpose of this initiative is to promote new industrial investments, as well as to upgrade our existing manufacturing asset base and skills. The Bill makes provision for incentives to the value of over R5 billion for both capital investment and skills training.
Fourthly, at the other end of the scale, there are small businesses. Although microbusinesses can be significant contributors to reducing poverty, they face a number of hurdles. Part of what this Bill does is to deal with the venture capital initiative to support micro and small businesses.
The Minister of Housing was distracting you a moment ago, Minister Mphahlwa, because there is a provision in here that deals with low-cost housing. As government, we committed significant resources on the construction of low-cost housing. Well, this effort resulted in substantial progress. More needs to be done. This legislation provides incentives for employers and landlords to invest in low-cost housing. Qualifying low-cost housing will be depreciable at a 10% annual rate.
In respect of urbanisation - the urban development zones - we introduced this as an amendment in the Income Tax Act a few years ago. It has been extremely successful to work at the revitalisation of decaying urban areas. It will be extended for a further five years. In addition, the accelerated depreciation for new buildings in the designated zones will be announced.
Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in placing the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill before the House. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr B A MNGUNI: Madam Deputy Speaker, Ministers and hon members, I would like to quote Laurence J Peter when he said:
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.
Surely if economists could predict fairly accurately, we would not be experiencing the current global credit crunch due to the global economic meltdown and, subsequently, the revenue shortfalls we are likely to experience in years to come as company profits are likely to be grossly affected by this phenomenon.
The Bill before us this evening merely fulfils the words the Minister of Finance said during his Budget speech earlier at the beginning of the year. He alluded to some of the things - I will just mention a few and some of my colleagues will add the rest. On the taxation of withdrawals from retirement funds, benefits payable to retirement fund members were partly tax free and partly taxable. The tax free amount was merely R1 800 of any lump sum withdrawal from a retirement fund or an amount equal to contributions to the fund which did not qualify for a tax deduction when the contribution to the fund was made. This was flawed in the sense that the amount of R1 800 was too little and that the formula that was used to calculate the other tax free amount was too complicated for an ordinary man like me to understand, and it was not easily accessible to fund members. This has now been changed. Subsequently, the tax free withdrawal of a fund member that can now be made is R23 000, which is half of the tax threshold during this current year. This will undoubtedly be of great relief to fund members. For those with maintenance orders and recurring withdrawals for such purposes will also be exempted from tax. Hopefully this will not have unintended consequences.
The current legislation was also a bit lopsided when coming to job-hopping individuals or professionals for that matter. The legislation automatically triggered a tax liability on the fund member even if the member was not withdrawing anything. As a result, this discouraged members from transferring their monies accrued from one job to the other to another fund or to a provident fund. The proposed change is that it should no longer trigger off a tax liability if a member transfers money to another fund or to a preservation fund. This will hopefully encourage such members to save for rainy days. In the long term, it will reduce the state’s bill on social security network by limiting old age pension grants to those who really could not have provided for their old age. It is proposed that the accrual event be postponed until such time the member elects to receive payment in cash.
The current legislation was also unfair to members who transferred money from one pension fund to a provident fund because such a transfer was taxable. As the department puts it, this was contrary to the policy of rationale for tax treatment of contributions to pension funds and provident funds. The new proposal wants the transfer from a pension fund to a provident fund to be deemed accrual to the member and create a lump sum withdrawal benefit in the hands of a member.
Again, this Bill provides for an increase in benefits related to developmental initiatives such as increased deductions from broad-based employee share schemes. A survey conducted by the private sector on participatory level indicated that a R9 000 threshold was too low for the scheme to work out due to high costs. Thus, the threshold has been increased to R50 000. Furthermore, the shares issued have to be kept for a minimum of five years before they can be disposed of. The sticky end of it is that the employer has an option to exclude unproductive employees from the scheme. Well, the indirect expected outcome of this clause is to improve productivity and inculcate a working culture among employees of that company participating in the scheme.
As South Africa enters a global economic stage, it ensured that it capitalises on its terms of trade and that tax systems remain competitive to other countries. The reform of the STC was therefore inevitable if you were to move with the times in order to deliver a better life for all.
According to the department, internationally, dividends are generally taxed at shareholder level. Therefore, South African companies are at a disadvantage to their international counterparts because profits are reduced by dividend tax that companies pay themselves. STC is not generally catered for by tax treaties which are premised on a tax shareholder level. Foreign investors are unfamiliar with STC, and it raises the cost of equity financing. Therefore, a new dividend tax will be levied directly on individuals as opposed to companies. However, companies will be required to deduct the tax portion when declaring dividends.
As we struggle in this business of making a better life for all, let us always remember that our attitudes form one of the cornerstones of the success of this business. I might as well quote Sir Walter Scott when he says:
Success or failure in business is caused more by the mental attitude even than by mental capacities.
The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S J F MARAIS: Chairperson, these two Bills we are dealing with tonight - the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill and the Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill
- have far-reaching implications and give effect to the 2008 Budget proposals by Minister Manuel earlier this year.
First of all, the Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill will deal specifically with amendments to the Estate Duty Act of 1955, the Income Tax Act of 1962 and the Customs and Excise Act of 1964.
Voorsitter, die konsepwetgewing handel oor die belastingvoorstelle soos in die Begrotingsoorsig aan die begin van die jaar. Dit is belangrik dat ons ’n belastingstelsel daar moet stel wat ons kompeterend maak en waar ons globale mededinging nie verwater word nie. Tog moet ons inkomstebasis en die waarde–vir-geldbeginsel te alle tye beskerm word.
Hierdie wetsontwerp handel, onder andere, oor die vervanging van sekondêre belasting op maatskappye, met die belasting op dividende van aandeelhouers in die hande van aandeelhouers; die verdeling van pensioenvoordele aan pare wanneer hulle skei, asook die bepaling van die belastingaanspreeklikheid; en die kwytskelding van byvoordelebelasting op die gebruik van bates vir besigheidsdoeleindes waar dit deur die werkgewer voorsien word, dit sluit in rekenaars, selfone, modems, ens. Dit raak elke lid van die Parlement en ek weet nie of mense dit besef nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, the draft legislation deals with the tax proposals as laid out in the Budget Review at the beginning of the year. It is important that we put in place a tax system that makes us competitive and does not weaken our global competitiveness. However, our income base and the principle of value for money should be protected at all times.
This Bill deals with, amongst others, the replacement of secondary tax on companies with the tax on dividends of shareholders in the hands of shareholders; the division of pension benefits between couples when they obtain a divorce, as well as the determination of tax liability; and the waiver of tax on fringe benefits on the use of assets for business purposes when provided by the employer, including computers, cellphones, modems, etc. This affects every Member of Parliament and I am not sure whether people realise this.] We support the proposal that the words “handicapped” and “physically disabled” be replaced by “person with a disability” as this dignifies the condition of the affected persons. I am however concerned that the yearly deductions will now be determined by a subjective and pre-selected list of allowable deductions. This in my opinion is unrealistic and unfair discrimination, and I am supported here by various groups of organised people within the disability fraternity. Clearly, one size doesn’t fit all.
Furthermore, there is an introduction of a presumptive tax - a turnover tax option for small businesses. This tax applies to both incorporated and unincorporated enterprises and it will certainly reduce administrative and compliance burdens and costs. Furthermore, there is an accelerated depreciation for urban developmental zones as an incentive to rejuvenate inner cities.
Die uitdaging van dié wetgewing is om die bates van ons ekonomie te beskerm, terwyl ons wetgewing akkommoderend moet wees vir moderne eise en globale vereistes om dit te kan ondersteun. Die DA sal die aanvaarding van hierdie wetsontwerp steun. Baie dankie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The challenge of this legislation is to protect the assets of our economy, while our legislation should be accommodating towards modern demands and global requirements in order to support this. The DA will support the acceptance of this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]] Mr N SINGH: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment. As a fellow South Coast citizen, it’s good to see you sitting right up there, looking down upon us.
The two Bills being debated translate the tax proposals made by the Minister of Finance in his 2008-09 Budget into law. As a general observation, I would like to comment on the role of the finance committee in processing these Bills. The committee created an opportunity for public experts to make submissions for our consideration, which were then carefully scrutinised by members and officials from the National Treasury and Sars. This was a very thorough process and I do not think that any interest group that had made submissions could fault it. Our chairperson, the hon Nene, deserves praise for this phase of public consultation.
I must also mention the positive and professional role played by Treasury and Sars officials who briefed us and commented in great detail on proposals contained in the public submissions. While they, of course, had their instructions, they tried their best to be accommodating and, in many instances, accepted the public advice and our recommendations.
The IFP will support these Bills, but I just want to make reference to a few of the provisions in the Bill. The business incentives related to the acceleration of urban development, the simplified 5% depreciation regime for residential housing units, and, more importantly, the accelerated 10% depreciation regime for low-cost housing are welcome. Any tax regime to promote housing development must be supported.
Secondly, the incentives and the VAT zero-rate for land purchases for reform purposes – I think the Deputy Minister will be happy - lessen costs associated with land reform and should make more land and money available to previously disadvantaged farmers.
We support the amendment dealing with preretirement withdrawal benefits. But, Hon Minister, initially we welcomed the original proposal exempting life insurance from estate duty. But there were subsequent amendments, and this is now being removed. We do hope that this will remain on the agenda and that one could possibly look at a cleaner way of increasing the threshold in the future because at the death of an income provider, a surviving spouse and dependent children rely on these savings to alleviate poverty. We should consider these beneficiaries. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill draws the attention of many people as it affects the finances of day-to-day life.
In view of this 2008 Bill and the matters it deals with, I would, however, enquire as to how accessible this information is to the ordinary man on the street. Furthermore, acknowledging the challenge of minimal education, another concern is how educated the average citizen is on revenue laws and taxes. The MF calls for greater in-depth awareness and understanding of revenue laws so that greater adherence to these laws may be accomplished and greater awareness of the people may be created.
The MF finds the provisions of this Bill fair and appropriate to securing state taxes and administering public affairs. The MF supports the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Dr D T GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the tax regime reflects economic policy choices. Included in the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill are several provisions pertaining to retirement funds. Although the retirement reform process has not clarified government’s intentions regarding the compulsory preservation and compulsory annuitisation of retirement funds, the amendments have highlighted the issue.
Taxation of preretirement withdrawals from retirement funds is a complex matter. In principle, retirement funds are intended for a specific purpose
- to provide funding in old age. If used for this purpose only, it would not be necessary to tax withdrawals from retirement funds. Under the current arrangement, individuals can remove their retirement assets from the system prior to retirement. The principal reason this occurs is to provide members with finance for immediate survival needs when they become unemployed.
Although an attempt has been made to develop a formula that does not punish an individual who must access retirement monies early through absolute necessity, the question is not resolved. Compulsory preservation, where a member can only access retirement assets at retirement, must be considered in the reform process within a framework that addresses the question of how an unemployed person can survive without accessing their retirement nest egg.
On transfer from a pension fund to a provident fund, tax will become payable on the member’s contribution to the pension fund. This raises the question of what will happen with provident fund monies if compulsory annuitisation no longer permits lump sum payments.
Discussion on retirement reform has been on the table for several years. Although the tax regime applicable to retirement funds is evolving, the retirement reform process itself appears to have stalled. This has created uncertainty in the industry and uncertainty for members. Government must clarify its intentions regarding retirement reform and ensure that the applicable tax regime encourages members to provide for their old age.
During deliberations on this Bill, it was stated that our tax system is unstable because tax laws have been amended on a piecemeal basis. It was also stated that our tax laws have become complicated to the extent that even experts are unable to fully understand how they should be applied. Amendments on amendments result in unintentional breaches of tax laws. A law that cannot be implemented is not a good law and it is not helpful in the development of the social contract that includes financial contributions to society in the form of taxation. For this reason, an evaluation of our tax regime should be undertaken so that it can be simplified as far as possible to ensure that the rules are clear. This will ensure that noncompliance, inadvertent or otherwise, can be minimised to the benefit of us all.
The DA supports the amendments. Thank you.
Ms N R MOKOTO: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, in 1955, at the launch of the document called the Freedom Charter, when South Africans from all walks of life pronounced that the wealth of our country shall be shared amongst those who live in it, a few understood the positive effects of this assertion as it rang in their ears. For the apartheid regime, this sounded terroristic. The only solution to this rhetoric was detention, banishment, imprisonment and elimination in some cases.
Today, as South Africans and in unison, we need to congratulate our thoughtful and visionary forebears who gave birth to this empowering instrument of our democracy. We cannot fail to express this gratitude as we look into this Bill amending the revenue laws. Our tax policy, since the dawn of democracy, has been very instrumental in shaping and putting into reality this ideal that all shall have equal access to land, wealth and other resources within our country.
Many argue that tax has never been a good redistributive tool to address major issues such as poverty, the imbalances of wealth, access to education, provision of health, reducing crime, promoting equality and effective development. However, the South African tax policy is one example of a system that promotes all those, particularly equal distribution of resources, development and the growth of our economy.
Minister Manuel, in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement of 2008, strongly and correctly stated that government has been able to reinforce the progressive character of our tax system. It is against this background that the ANC welcomes the proposals as made in the Bill. In terms of these proposals, small businesses are able to register for presumptive taxes. This proposal recognises the massive impact that can be made by small businesses in reducing poverty, creating jobs and in their potential to grow the economy.
Sars concluded a process of amnesty and tax registration for small businesses last year - an effort which is to be appreciated and an effort that has contributed to our booming economy today. This current proposal, therefore, affords small businesses that have an annual turnover of R1 million an opportunity to be exempted from paying multiple taxes with the view of reducing tax liabilities that might eventually result in the collapse of their businesses. In this case, small businesses shall have the choice to register for this tax, which is a stand-alone tax and replaces the Capital Gains Tax, Secondary Taxes on Companies and Value-added Tax for companies that are registered under it. Companies can also deregister as they outgrow the R1 million turnover bracket. This is important because the tax acts as a relief measure for deserving businesses but not as a trap for businesses within this category.
A specific clause has been added to deal with tax avoidance at this level, and exclusion applies to certain groups as identified in the legislation, such as personal service providers, professional services and businesses with interests in other companies.
There are other proposals that are made within the Bill which will encourage job creation and skills development. These proposals provide for the relief of apprenticeships registered under the Manpower Training Act in terms of which the minimum period of learnerships or internships is more than 12 months. The proposals seek to treat these multiyear learnerships as a series of annual learnerships. These proposals will apply to pre-existing employees, new employees and disabled employees. The proposals will in fact allow the employer to claim about two deductions in a year for each year of apprenticeship.
Attached to these proposals is a reporting mechanism that serves as a requirement for monitoring purposes on the overall progress of this apprenticeship or learnership. Companies must therefore submit reports to Setas which will further be aggregated to the National Treasury to determine their viability.
In terms of low-cost housing, the Minister has explained in detail the benefits of this relief. It is very important to highlight that there are inherent risks that exist within the property market. The construction and provision of low-cost houses is also a challenge for government within the current scenario. While government has many outreach programmes, we have to appreciate that a supportive tax environment will be beneficial to these proposals.
A simple and comprehensive regime is needed for easier compliance and monitoring. In this case, buildings and apartments trading as hotels are excluded from the definition of residential units and low-cost residential units which are introduced in these proposals. For example, for a house to qualify as a low-cost residential unit, its cost must not exceed R250 000, and the owner must not charge rental above a percentage of that cost. The monthly rental charge that is referred to above can be increased up to 10% per annum at a cumulative cost. For example, if you built a house worth about R250 000, you must be charging about 1% by 2011 to qualify for this proposal. In this case, by 2012 you will have to charge about 1% plus 10% of the cost of the same house that you built at R250 000. By 2013, the value of the rental will be about R3 025, which is about 1% plus 10%, and the house will be worth about R275 000 at the time. [Interjections.]
The ANC supports the amendment. Thank you. 7[Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the speakers’ list reflects that I have 37 minutes, and I intend to use all of them.
The Bill is broadly supported. In fact, what this Bill does is to support the reality that this money Bill is amended by Parliament. It is very different now from the time it came in. I think all members would confirm that.
Perhaps just one issue I would like to touch on, and that is in response to what the hon Marais raised. The way in which we operate in respect of public benefit organisations is in fact to produce a list. There is no contradiction. The probing that we have done, both through Sars and the Treasury with a range of organisations, would indicate that they actually prefer a list. It takes out subjectivity. This is an objective list that these organisations need to comply with. With the fullness of time, I think it is possible to look at this.
If you examine the list of public benefit organisations in the schedules of the Income Tax Act now and look where they were 3 years ago, 5 years ago or 7 years ago, you can see that evolution. I think the same thing will happen here with organisations for the handicapped. I’m sorry, not the handicapped, but a person with a disability. [Interjections.] No, the Act says a person with a disability. There will be an evolution of these concepts as well.
Thank you very much for the support. I hope that we can now deal with the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill and the Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a first time.
REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a second time.
REVENUE LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a second time.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND (CONDONATION OF INTERRUPTED SERVICE) BILL
(First Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a first time.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND (CONDONATION OF INTERRUPTED SERVICE) BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a second time.
FINANCE BILL
(First Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a first time.
FINANCE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a second time.
Eskom Subordinated Loan Special Appropriation Bill
(First Reading debate)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister, there is a suggestion that I take two minutes of your time.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I will give it to you, Deputy Speaker.
I think one must just provide the context on this Bill because in February we announced that we would support Eskom with an amount of R60 billion. Initially it was going to be back-loaded over a five-year period, but we had to front-load it. The first R10 billion was included in the adjustments appropriation that Parliament voted on this afternoon. There will be R30 billion next year and R20 billion in 2010-11. So, R60 billion will be provided.
But as I said this afternoon, we are not a bank. We cannot provide a loan. This subordinated loan to Eskom requires a piece of legislation. Basically the legislation here is a very complex one. It is two clauses long. I ask Parliament to support it. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr K A MOLOTO: Deputy Speaker, hon members, Eskom is undertaking a massive infrastructure expansion programme that will require R343 billion. This programme will deliver an additional 16 304 megawatts by 2017 and increase Eskom’s generation capacity from 40 000 megawatts to 80 000 megawatts by 2026.
A R60 billion loan is advanced to Eskom to support its investment in electricity generation capacity, and it is allocated over a period of three years. The loan is repayable over a 30-year period, and Eskom will pay interest on the principal only when it is in a sound financial position. I am stating this information because underinvestment in infrastructure is detrimental to our efforts to grow this economy.
South Africa has been experiencing robust economic growth over a number of years, and Eskom’s generation capacity has not kept up with this robust economic growth. Eskom has to finance this R343 billion through appropriate price increases, capital injection from government and borrowing from both the local and international capital markets. It will be difficult for Eskom to finance the whole amount from its own internal funds.
The financial position of Eskom has come under pressure due to increases in primary costs. These costs were not matched by an appropriate pricing structure. There was an increase in demand for coal by China and India. These export opportunities for local suppliers exposed Eskom to high international market prices.
The current crisis in global credit markets has increased the cost of borrowing. We have been informed that a year ago, South Africa was able to borrow at a spread of 0,65 percentage points above the rate of the United States government. The situation has now changed. The spread has increased to more than 4 percentage points. We can take comfort in the fact that the South African capital markets are deep and well developed. In actual fact, the Bank for International Settlements rank the Bond Exchange of South Africa higher than even some of the developed countries’ bond exchanges.
Standard & Poor’s - a rating agency - placed Eskom on a credit watch. This had major implications for Eskom’s ability to borrow from both the domestic and international capital markets. This R60 billion loan to Eskom will assist in strengthening Eskom’s balance sheet. We have been informed that the credit rating agency will view this loan as capital injection by the shareholder and that it will help Eskom to borrow from capital markets at a lower cost. I thank you.
Dr D T GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the global financial crisis is working its way through economies across the world. This has presented an opportunity for commentators to conclude that this event exposes fundamental flaws in the market system and that increased government control over economies is required to avert similar events in future. The reality is, however, that regulatory failure and the failure to implement the principles of good governance lie at the root of this crisis. This event demonstrated the role of government as a lender of last resort and a participant in the economy that intervenes when it is necessary to restore balance to the economic system when it experiences disequilibrium. Who would balance the system if government were the dominant player?
After several outages, resulting in relatively minor disruptions to our economy and daily lives, the magnitude of the crisis at Eskom reached startling proportions in January when our mines stopped operating. When the golden heart of our economy stopped beating, it was obvious to all observers across the world that the electricity supply in South Africa was unreliable and that doing business in South Africa presented increased risk. The system had failed. Our economy has paid a heavy price for this failure.
If Eskom had been a private monopoly, it would have been necessary for government to intervene to ensure that the economy was not damaged beyond repair because it had been starved of energy. The question would have then arisen as to why Eskom held a monopoly. That question should be asked now. If the potential damage to the economy is high enough, government has no option other than to intervene.
Eskom is not just any company. We rely on Eskom to assure our electricity supply. It is insurance for our economic growth and it needs to be financially sound. Our economy cannot withstand continual failure at Eskom. Effective regulation and good governance are crucial.
There are several ways in which companies can access capital. Whatever source is chosen, there will be a price to pay. Fortunately for Eskom, government will be providing R60 billion over the next three years - R10 billion in the current financial year, R30 billion next year and R20 billion the year after. Eskom needs to raise a further R283 billion.
The terms of agreement are very soft. The loan is subordinate to other debts and it is regarded by rating agencies as equity. Interest is around 9,4% and needs only to be paid when Eskom is in a sound financial position in terms of criteria set by Treasury. The capital sum is only payable in the year 2030.
The people will pay for this cash injection, and they will pay twice. Monies now advanced to Eskom will be taken from the public purse and Eskom will be required to repay it along with other possible loans. The only way that Eskom can repay the loan is to ensure that its pricing generates sufficient profit to fund the repayment. This profit is likely to be generated from price increases.
This subsidy to rescue Eskom also carries an opportunity cost of crowding out a meaningful investment in innovative and technological development into new forms of energy generation, especially renewable energy. The full cost of the nuclear programme is not clear.
Senior management cannot expect to continue to enjoy the benefits of corporatisation without being held accountable for their failure to deliver. The R60 billion must not find its way into their pockets. The business model requires reconsideration. Eskom is not an attractive investment option.
In the absence of other funders, the DA supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.] Mr N SINGH: Madam Deputy Speaker, at last members of this House are no longer in the dark with relation to the conditions of the loan given to Eskom because this Bill clearly documents the terms and conditions. So, we can say there is light at the end of the tunnel.
At the beginning of this year, unplanned power outages caused havoc in our country’s major industrial sectors. Manufacturing and mining were particularly hard-hit by the outages and forced power rationing and supply shortages. South Africans have lived with uncertain power supply for a number of years, but the events of January 2008 underline the fact that our country was faced with an economic disaster if a timeous, corrective intervention was not forthcoming.
We know that Eskom has embarked on a massive infrastructure expansion drive and that they needed this kind of funding and injection from government. The projected cost for Eskom’s expansion plans run into hundreds of billions of rands. They will perhaps even reach a trillion by 2025 if input costs continue to rise as they have done over the last two to three years.
We know that Eskom will be able to fund most of the costs as electricity tariffs will increase significantly in the future. But we want to sound a word of warning and caution to Eskom that they must keep their rates affordable because many thousands of people, particularly in rural areas, now use Eskom services. Therefore, they must ensure that their rates are affordable. We are in favour of the Bill as the IFP, which sets out the details of the loan over the next three years. We also welcome the provision that the loan is subordinate to Eskom’s other debts and that repayment should take Eskom’s balance sheet position into account.
The IFP is, however, concerned that Eskom might find it difficult to raise sufficient capital in the current credit environment. We need an assurance from the hon Minister that government will consider providing further financial assistance to Eskom if it is needed in the future. We will support the Bill. Thank you.
Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the energy crisis that turned our country upside down has stabilised to some extent as people strive to preserve energy. However, the cost of electricity is compromising many households and is challenging an already poverty-stricken South Africa.
The MF hopes that this loan made to Eskom shall sustain correcting the energy crisis and servicing our needs. The MF, however, wonders whether South Africans will be relieved from the exorbitant cost of electricity when this happens. We, in the first place, believe that the extra tariffs placed on citizens in energy cost should not have been an option in an already exhausted economy.
With all these, the MF supports the Eskom Subordinated Loan Special Appropriation Bill. Thank you, Madam. Mme N R MOKOTO: Motlatsa-Mmusakgotla le maloko a a tlotlegang, mokgatlo wa ANC o netefaletsa baagi botlhe ba Aforika Borwa gore ga o ise o ikgatholose maikaelelo a ona a go tlisa botshelo jo bo botoka go botlhe, mme kgaogo e le nnye fela ya motlakase ga se yona e ka kgaolang kgolagano e e tiileng ya mokgatlho wa ANC mo baaging. Ke tshepa gore tshwetso ya puso ya ANC go neeletsa Eskom ka kadimo ya madi a a fokoditsweng e tla tswala bontsintsi jwa bomaratahelele melomo. Thulaganyo e e tla jaaka tshegetso ya puso go Eskom go netefatsa gore peeletso ya lephata la tlamelo ya motlakase le kgona go fitlhelela nngwe ya dipeeletso le tshireletsego ya tlamelo ya motlakase e e tibileng le kgwetlho ya motlakase mo nakong e telele.
Lefapha la Bosetšhaba la Matlotlo, National Treasury, le bone go le botlhokwa thata go itlhaganedisa kadimo e ya madi ya dibilione tsa diranta di le 60, R60 billion, mo ngwageng wa kgabagano e, bogolo thata e lebile go sireletsa seriti kgotsa maemo a Eskom a a fetogileng mme e bile a ka reteletsa Eskom go kgona go adima madi go tlaleletsa peeletso ya yona ya diporojeke tsa maatlafatso ya motlakase. Thebolelo e ya kadimo ya madi e rulagantswe jaana: Ka ngwaga wa 2008-09 re solofetse go bona puso e naya Eskom dibilione tsa diranta di le 10, R10 billion; ka 2009-10 e tla rebolela Eskom dibilione tsa diranta di le 30, R30 billion; mme ka 2010-11 e e neye dibilione di le 20, R20 billion.
Re le mokgatlho wa ANC re itumelela kgato e kgolo e, e e tserweng ke Lefapha la Bosetšhaba la Matlotlo, National Treasury, e e nayang Eskom sebaka sa dingwaga di le 30 go duela madi a kadimo. Re amogela seelo sa morokotso sa 9,4% se se tsamayang le kadimo e. Rona re se tsaya jaaka karolokgolo ya puso mo go netefaletseng badirisi tlamelo e e sa kgoreletsegeng ya motlakase go botlhe; baagi le bagwebi ka go tshwana. Re itumela thata ka gonne seo se tla tlisa tharabololo bogolosegolo ka e imolola tuelo e e kwa godimo ya motlakase go tswa kwa badirising.
Mo godimo ga moo, dintlhatumalano magareng ga Eskom le puso ke gore Eskom e tla simolola go duela kadimo eo ya madi fela fa seemo sa yona se sena go fetoga kgotsa go tokafala, le gona se bontsha fa e ka kgona go busa madi ao a kadimo. Go botlhokwa thata gore jaaka Maloko a Palamente re tswelele pele go baya leitlho le le ntšhotšho mo tsamaisong ya matlotlo, bogolosegolo mo ditheong tsa rona tsa puso tse di ikemetseng, di tshwana le Eskom, go netefatsa gore diporojeke tse go dumalanweng ka tsona di a direga e bile ga di salele kwa morago le gore diabo tsa matlotlo tse di ntshitsweng di dirisediwa tiro ya tsona. ANC e dumalana le go fetisiwa ga Molao o. Ke a leboga. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana speech follows.)
[Ms N R MOKOTO: Deputy Speaker and hon Members, the African National Congress would like to assure all the citizens of South Africa that it has not given up its intention of bringing a better life for all, and that the minimal load shedding cannot interfere with the strong ties between the ANC and the people. I believe that the decision taken by the ANC government to lend money to Eskom will bring an end to all the gossip. This arrangement shows the government’s support to Eskom, in order to ensure that the investment from the Department of Minerals and Energy that deals with the supply of electricity is accessible and safe, and the challenges that they face in the long term.
The National Treasury has deemed it ideal to expedite this loan worth R60 billion, from the previous year, especially when considering the protection of Eskom’s image or integrity, which could make it difficult for Eskom to be in a position to make a loan in order to supplement it’s projects for beefing up electricity supply. This loan has been planned as follows: in the year 2008-09 we expect to see the government giving R10 billion to Eskom; in 2009-10 it will allocate R30 billion; and in 2010-11 it will give R20 billion.
As the ANC we are happy with the huge step taken by the National Treasury, which gives Eskom a 30-year term to pay the money back. We give consent to the interest rate of 9,4% that goes with this loan. We consider it as the government’s obligation to ensure the undisrupted supply of electricity to all; both the community and businesses equally. We are very happy because that will bring about a solution, especially as it provides relief to consumers with regard to their payments.
Furthermore, the terms of agreement between Eskom and the government are that Eskom will only begin to pay that loan when the situation has changed or improved, or when they are in a position to refund that loan. It is very imperative that, as Members of Parliament, we should continue to keep an eye on the management of funds, especially in parastatals, such as Eskom, to make sure that projects that were agreed upon are up and running; that they are not behind schedule and that all fundings are used for the intended purpose. The ANC supports the passing of this legislation. Thank you. [Applause.]]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two issues I would like to deal with. The hon Singh asks for an assurance that we will be ready to support, come what may. To arrive at the figure of R60 billion, we had to interact very, very closely. But I think what we must understand about this kind of support is that you have to take it from somewhere to put it into companies. Eskom’s wonderful achievement over a century - with one exception - is that they have been self-financed. So, it is not a record that we seek to change. When people talk of hundreds of billions of pounds or dollars to bail out banks and so on, this has to come from somewhere. You have to take it from the fiscus. This means that you must then take it away from public services. These are the trade-offs, and I think it is very important that we do not delude ourselves about that reality.
Secondly, the hon Rajbally raises issues about the costs of electricity. I think there is a mistaken impression here. Hon Rajbally, I am saying that we mustn’t delude ourselves into believing that this country will be able to return to a time when electricity was plentiful and exceedingly cheap. Apart from living through these issues, there are environmental concerns. There will have to be price changes. If you look at the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, you will see that the ideas we propose, and these ideas need to be worked through in Parliament, are that the services must have attached a utility cost. These services don’t come from the air. It is very important that in our communication with people we don’t kind of fall into this trap that says that it’s only because somebody forgot to buy a week’s supply of coal at Eskom in January that we are living through all of this.
There is a very significant and important change in economic development, and I think we have a collective responsibility to communicate this to all South Africans. Thank you very much for you support. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a first time.
ESKOM SUBORDINATED LOAN SPECIAL APPROPRIATION BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill read a second time.
MONEY BILLS AMENDMENT PROCEDURE AND RELATED MATTERS BILL
(Consideration of Report)
Order disposed of without debate.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
MONEY BILLS AMENDMENT PROCEDURE AND RELATED MATTERS BILL
(Second Reading debate)
Mr N M NENE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I’ve been asked to be very brief. [Interjections.] Unless you put a chair here, I’m not going to stop.
In terms of section 77(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, “all money Bills must be considered in accordance with the procedure established by section 75”. It goes on to say that “an Act of Parliament must provide for a procedure to amend money Bills before Parliament”. The Bill before this House today gives effect to this injunction and reaffirms our commitment as Parliament led by the ANC that we take oversight seriously. This was perhaps one of the outstanding pillars in our legislative and governance toolkits of ensuring total accountability of the executive arm of the state as envisaged in our Constitution.
I am truly humbled to have been part of the team of midwives that brought to life this offspring of a democratic and developmental state. Allow me to give a little bit of background to this piece of legislation which most of us are familiar with. I am aware that as early as 1997, the National Treasury drafted a Bill which sought to give effect to this constitutional requirement. Parliament could not accept this as its powers to draft legislation were going to be abdicated to the executive.
My information is that in 1999, a task team was established to look at the question of oversight in its totality and to research the enactment of this legislation in the process. The process took its course, and there are volumes of documentation and information that came from it. I must admit that we benefited tremendously from the research. In 2004, the Joint Rules Committee established a task team to take the process forward under the auspices of the oversight and accountability task team. This task team had three focus groups, namely the focus group on projects, the focus group on committees and the focus group on budgeting processes. The mandate of the focus group on budgeting processes was none other than giving effect to section 77(3) of the Constitution that I spoke about. Having commissioned research of our own, we ended up being overwhelmed with the information and documentation. But the biggest challenge was for the focus group members to be able to prioritise the focus groups’ tasks above other committees’ work.
It is the culmination of these focus groups’ hard work that produced the draft Bill that was ultimately presented to the oversight and accountability task team, subsequently tabled before the Joint Rules Committee. Just when I thought I was done with this daunting task, the draft Bill was also tabled in Parliament and was referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance for consideration and for report. Today the committee reports as directed by this House.
The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill seeks to establish a procedure to amend money Bills before Parliament within the context of oversight findings and the adoption of the fiscal framework. It also provides for the establishment of a parliamentary budget office to provide research and technical support to Parliament and its committees, pursuant to maintaining oversight over the budgeting process and the possible amendments to money Bills.
Section 77(1) of the Constitution defines a money Bill as a Bill that does the following: appropriates money; imposes national taxes, levies, duties or surcharges; abolishes or reduces, or grants exemptions from any national taxes, levies or surcharges; or authorises direct charges against the National Revenue Fund except a Bill envisaged in section 214 authorising direct charges –the Division of Revenue Act.
Therefore, it is understandable why the first people’s Parliament, when drafting the Constitution, put in a clause that requires a different procedure for the amendment of money Bills. By their very nature, money Bills tend to be at the centre of the entire governance system such that if not properly handled, they would upset the entire state machinery.
There are a number of principles that guided us when we drafted this legislation, and they are as follows: we have a legitimate democratic state based on the will of the people as envisaged in our Freedom Charter; our budgeting process has undergone an extensive reform that is transparent and participatory; the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework presents Parliament with an opportunity to influence the Budget and other money Bills; the advances that we made in relation to physical stability should not be eroded; and the amendment of money Bills is an oversight tool that must be used as a last resort in parliamentary processes.
This Bill makes provision for the establishment of appropriations committees in both Houses that will deal with appropriations and other money Bills and amendments thereof. The finance committee will continue to play its role in terms of the broad mandate of oversight over the macroeconomic policy, including the fiscal policy. The establishment of these committees is provided for in clause 4.
In terms of this Bill, parliamentary committees will be required to assess the performance of government departments by adopting budgetary review and recommendation reports. This is meant to strengthen the current annual reporting of departments as required by the Public Finance Management Act.
One of the key features of this Bill is that Parliament will be required to vote on the fiscal framework which should be part of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement. In terms of this Bill, the fiscal framework will be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance, and the committee must report to Parliament after 30 days of its tabling.
Some sections of the MTBPS that relate to spending priorities of national departments and the division of revenue will be referred to the committee on appropriations. The committee on appropriations will be required to consult with other committees in its deliberations on spending priorities and the division of revenue.
Section 7 of this Bill reaffirms compliance with section 27 of the Public Finance Management Act when tabling the national annual Budget. But in addition to section 27 requirements, it includes a number of other things, which are as follows: the proposed fiscal framework for the financial year; the key macroeconomic assumptions underlying the fiscal framework over the short, medium and long -term; the key fiscal ratios for the financial year and subsequent two years, including revenue expenditure, primary and overall balance and outstanding general government and public sector debt at the end of the financial year as a percentage of gross domestic product; tax and other revenue proposals, including the contribution of different revenue categories to national revenue for the financial year and the subsequent two years; taking into account the cyclical factors in the formulation of the fiscal framework as presented; and any other information as may be required by the House from time to time.
We also set out a clause for adopting the fiscal framework, which my colleague Ms Sibhidla will be talking to, and requirements that have to be reported to Parliament within 16 days. Should the need arise to amend the fiscal framework, utmost care should also be taken that Parliament does not undermine macroeconomic stability. The same caution should also be exercised when amending money Bills or taking any decisions in terms of this Act. These considerations are outlined in clauses 8(5)(a-g) and 8(6)(a- c).
As members would have noticed, the bulk of the Bill deals with budgeting processes and the amendment of the Budget because of its importance among money Bills. But provision is made for the procedure to amend other money Bills, and that is spelt out in section 13 of the Bill. Even in this section, emphasis is placed on the committee on appropriations being at the centre of these amendments and being consistant with the fiscal framework whilst ensuring compliance with section 8(5).
The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill proposes the establishment of the parliamentary budget office with the main objective of providing Parliament with independent, objective and professional advice and analysis on matters related to the Budget and other money Bills. Again, my colleague will be dealing with this in more detail. In reporting the Bill, the committee also tables the recommendations of amendment to Rules to make provision for the establishment of this office.
Allow me to take this opportunity to thank everybody that has played a role in seeing this Bill to this stage. The Portfolio Committee on Finance, the focus group, the task team on oversight and accountability, Parliament’s support staff, outside assistance in the person of Ms Folscher, the parliamentary legal support team –particularly Adv Jenkins - and all stakeholders that made submissions. A particular thanks to the Joint Budget Committee and members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts who attended, and to the former chair of the Standing Committee on Auditor- General, Ms Hogan, who has taken a new position, and all my predecessors.
On behalf of the committee, I present this draft Bill for adoption. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S J F MARAIS: Chairperson, as we heard, section 77(3) of our Constitution requires the establishment of a procedure to enable Parliament to amend money Bills that have been introduced by the Minister of Finance. Money Bills relate to the raising of revenue and the appropriation thereof between spending programmes, of which the most important Bills are the annual Division of Revenue and Appropriation Bills.
It is also implied by the Constitution that there must be a clear separation of authority, powers, accountability and oversight between government and Parliament.
Belangrike aspekte wat in die proses vasgevang is binne die wetsontwerp, sluit in dat komitees in beide die Nasionale Vergadering en die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies ingestel sal word vir beide inkomstebestuur en die verdeling van fondse. Hierdie komitees sal uiteraard veelparty komitees wees. Die verantwoordelikheid vir die proses sal in die uitvoerende gesag van die Parlement gesetel wees, en ‘n begrotingskantoor moet ingestel word, om die komitees van diens te wees. Die Parlement sal sy eie begroting saamstel met fondse wat van die Nasionale Tesourie verkry word. Hoewel ongespandeerde fondse nie aan die Tesourie terug gestuur word nie, moet die finansiële resultate van die Parlement aan die Nasionale Tesourie gerapporteer word vir konsolidasie. Hoewel rapportering aan die Nasionale Tesourie nie plaasvind nie, is die oorsigverantwoordelikheid in die Parlement en sy uitvoerende gesag gesetel. Belangrik, is die verantwoordelikheid van die Parlement om te verseker dat begrote fondse in ooreenstemming met die begrotings en die strategiese en meetbare doelwitte bestee word. Hierdie oorsigrol is nie noodwendig gesetel in die Minister van Finansies, Nasionale Tesourie of die Ouditeur-generaal nie. Dit is gesetel in die Parlement, die genoemde finansiële komitees, en veral die onderskeie portefeuljekomitees wat moet toesien dat effektiewe en verantwoordbare bestuur verseker word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Important aspects that are captured in the process within the Bill, includes that committees will be established in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces for the management of revenue as well as the division of funds. These committees will of course be multiparty committees. The responsibility for the process will be vested in the executive of Parliament, and a budget office should be established to be of service to the committees. Parliament will draw up its own budget from funds that are acquired from National Treasury. Although funds that were not spent are not returned to the Treasury the financial results of Parliament must be reported to National Treasury for consolidation. Although reporting to National Treasury does not take place, the oversight responsibility is vested in Parliament and its executive authority. Of great significance is the responsibility that Parliament has to ensure that funds budgeted for is spent according to the budgets and strategic and measurable goals. This oversight role is not necessarily vested in the Minister of Finance, National Treasury or the Auditor-General. It is vested in Parliament, the above-mentioned financial committees, and especially the different portfolio committees that must ensure effective and responsible management.]
A very important and significant responsibility is the determination of the accepted fiscal framework, which will guide the responsibilities and tasks of the respective committees. In this process, a strong and well-understood relationship must be established between the respective committees, the Minister of Finance and National Treasury. The fiscal framework must give effect to the national executive’s macroeconomic policy and include estimates of revenue, expenditure, borrowing, interest and debt servicing charges, contingency reserve, etc.
This Bill sets out the procedure to deal with any proposed revenue and appropriation Bills which will most certainly require from every effected party, specifically the respective portfolio committees, to align their tasks and responsibilities properly to assure that the consequences of this Bill will not burden or delay the implementation of money Bills introduced by the Minister.
Voorsitter, hierdie konsepwetgewing is nodig om die nodige oorsig en aanspreeklikheid aan die Parlement te gee. Hierdie verrerkende magte en implikasies kan misbruik word, wat die verantwoordelikheid en aanspreeklikheid op elke verkose lid van die Parlement net soveel groter maak. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Chairperson, this draft legislation is necessary to give the required oversight and accountability to Parliament. These far-reaching powers and implications can be abused, which make the responsibility and accountability that rest on every elected Member of Parliament that much bigger.]
You can’t blame the civil servants in the various departments anymore. The buck stops with you the elected representatives of the people of South Africa. The DA supports the adoption of this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N SINGH: Madam Deputy Speaker, it has taken a very long time for this piece of legislation to come before this House. But when one realises that it deals with a highly sensitive issue, it is perhaps understandable that 12 years have passed since the adoption of South Africa’s Constitution in 1996, which underpins this legislation.
When I got here in August 2007, one of the first questions I put to the hon Minister of Finance was during the time when he was going to introduce legislation to give effect to section 77(3) of the Constitution, not knowing that it had already been done and that the matter was under consideration by a focus group.
I would consider this piece of legislation as one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House is going to pass. It is common knowledge that those of us who serve on portfolio committees interrogate Budgets that are presented by the hon Minister during appropriation. We question heads of departments as well as Ministers, and there is very little we can do to effect any changes to the amount of money that is allocated to departments.
For the first time now, we, as parliamentarians, sitting in this House, can propose amendments and even withhold funds and certain line items that are related to any particular Vote through our appropriations committees. I think this is a significant step and that it gives this Parliament and us a lot more teeth in ensuring that heads of departments and Ministers spend their money effectively and efficiently.
We do know that when the Joint Budget Committee made recommendations - the hon Mabe made recommendations recently on behalf of the committee - there were a number of departments that were found wanting. This is now going to correct that kind of situation because we can change the way they operate.
But I think the success or failure of this piece of legislation, and its implementation, is going to rest on the output of the parliamentary budget office. Parliament needs to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to make sure that there are human resources - qualified and skilled personnel
- that work within the parliamentary budget office. This is because it is going to be the responsibility of the skilled economist to provide nonpartisan analysis and advice to us as Members of Parliament and to our committees. We do know that National Treasury will be consulted all the way. We also know that it is very difficult to get trained economists and finance people in the South African market. We do hope that there will be no poaching of people working within the department of the hon Minister at this moment in time by the parliamentary budget office.
Having sounded this general note of warning, that the parliamentary budget office needs to support us as parliamentarians all the way, we would like to see the implementation of this piece of legislation as work in progress. As we go along, I think we as Parliament will decide whether we need more skilled staff and how we should function as appropriation committees.
The IFP will certainly support this Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill. Thank you.
Mr J BICI: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, the Bill before us is one of the longest outstanding matters of this House. The Constitution of the country provides for the amendment of money Bills by Parliament. Realistic oversight and control of budgetary allocations is indeed the lifeblood of most established democratic parliaments. It is in the consideration and amendment of budgets that public representatives can most tangibly express the policy mandate endorsed by their voters. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member. Is the timer working? [Interjections.] Thank you. You may proceed.
Mr J BICI: You have taken two minutes of my time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill creates a complex framework of processes to address the various types of money Bills that come before Parliament. It also sets out a series of interlinking timeframes for these processes to be completed. It is the duty of this House to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure full and meaningful public participation. Therefore, we trust that organised civil society institutions and NGOs are already keenly awaiting the opportunity to participate. The UDM supports the Bill. Thank you.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Just before the next speaker, can I address you on a particular issue which I think is of interest to the House?
We are sitting very, very late tonight. It is going on and on and we are all very hungry. I would like to propose that the hon Minister of Finance who is delaying us here this evening with his Bills allow us to get food from Mr Delivery. We could all put an order in very quickly and … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr M J ELLIS: No, it is not a point of order. I thought it was in the best interests of the members present that if the Minister of Finance could allow this to happen, we could get Mr Delivery in very quickly.
Ms N N SIBHIDLA: Deputy Speaker, hon members, good evening. The Constitution of the Republic mandates Parliament to pass an Act that outlines procedures in terms of which money Bills can be amended. This piece of legislation will go a long way towards empowering Parliament to exercise its oversight responsibility more comprehensively by holding government accountable for both nonfinancial and financial performance.
The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill seeks to establish a procedure to amend money Bills before Parliament within the context of oversight findings and the adoption of a fiscal framework. It further establishes a parliamentary budget office to provide research support to Parliament and its committees in maintaining oversight of the Budget process and possible amendments to money Bills.
During the past 14 years, Parliament managed to change a lot of racist apartheid laws that excluded the majority of people of this country. But when it comes to the oversight role over the executive, the approach has not been the same and it has not lived up to expectations. You have a situation where some committees are willing to ask the executive difficult questions in ensuring that the monies appropriated to them are spent accordingly. On the other hand, you have committees that have chosen the easy route of becoming the spokesperson of the executive and ignoring their political responsibility as outlined in the Constitution. The behaviour can be attributed to lack of capacity in committees to analyse strategic plans and budgets presented to them by government departments. Therefore, the establishment of the budget committee, with all the resources it requires, will respond directly to this challenge.
Section 9 of this Bill prescribes a clear procedure on passing the Division of Revenue Bill. It says that any amendment to the Division of Revenue Bill must be consistent with the adopted fiscal framework and section 214 of the Constitution and that the Standing Rules must, amongst other things, provide for the participation of chairpersons of other committees and civil society by means of public hearings. These Standing Rules must also provide for provinces and local governments affected by the amendments to respond to the proposed amendments.
In ensuring that Parliament exercises its rights responsibly, the Bill proposes that Parliament consults with our institutions that enhance democracy and transformation. In this case, we are talking about the Financial and Fiscal Commission, which gives advice to organs of state on fiscal matters.
Regarding the passing of an appropriation Bill after the adoption of the fiscal framework, the appropriation Bill must be referred to the committee on appropriations of the National Assembly. This clause proposes that the Minister table proposals setting out strategic priorities, measurable objectives and other performance information for each department, public entity or institution against expected revenue and proposed expenditure according to their plans.
After the appropriation Bill has been referred to the NCOP, it must be referred to the committee on appropriations of the Council. The House must then consider the recommendations of the committee on appropriations to release funds within seven days after the committee has reported to the House.
Regarding the passing of revenue Bills, they must be referred to the committee on finance of the National Assembly for consideration and report. In amending revenue Bills and revenue proposals, Parliament and its committees must ensure that the total amount of revenue raised is consistent with the approved fiscal framework and the Division of Revenue Bill. Parliament must also consider the impact of proposed changes on the composition of tax revenue with reference to the balance between direct and indirect taxes and also consider regional and international tax trends. Standing Rules, in relation to this section must provide, amongst other things, for the committee on finance to consult with other committees and to report to the House in terms of subsection 7.
At the beginning of my input I mentioned that one of the objects of this Bill is to establish a budget committee. This committee will focus mainly on providing Parliament and its committees with independent, objective and professional advice and analysis on matters relating to the Budget and other money Bills. Its core function is to support the implementation of this Act by undertaking research and analysis for the committees. The function also includes the following: providing reviews and analysis of the documentation tabled in Parliament by the executive; and providing advice and analysis on proposed amendments to the fiscal framework, the Division of Revenue Bill and money Bills and on policy proposals with budgetary implications.
In conclusion, this is such a powerful piece of legislation which we have been waiting for for quite some time. We hope that committees will use this space that is being created by this Act to address the socioeconomic conditions of our people effectively. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the MF acknowledges the importance of following procedure in every crevice of administrative action and government business.
The MF is pleased at the provisions of this Bill that serve to administer the money Bills process. We are further pleased at the establishment of a parliamentary budget committee. This will clearly allow Parliament to fulfil its constitutional duty to oversee government and to ensure that it upholds the values of democracy in every corner of South Africa and that it does this in accordance with legislation and policy.
At the moment, however, we are all praying for the rand to stabilise and hope that the changes that have rocked the market in Wall Street will be overcome. South Africa’s potential should not rest on the stability of other markets.
The MF is pleased at the outcome of this Bill and the committee it wishes to establish. The MF supports the draft Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dr D T GEORGE: Deputy Speaker, government does not have any money of its own; it all belongs to the people. The people should therefore have a voice in what happens to their money.
Although our Constitution provides for Parliament to establish procedures to amend money Bills, the enabling legislation was not pursued. Parliament has, for several years, not been empowered to influence the application of economic policy significantly. Three important aspects must be considered in evolving a system to cater for public interaction with the important process of resource allocation, and they are as follows: the overall economic policy objective must remain in focus; fiscal prudence must be maintained; and an expert understanding of how changes that are proposed will impact on the economy is required.
The fiscal framework forms the core around which macroeconomic policy is developed. It gives effect to government’s macroeconomic policy and includes an estimate of financial expectations. This fiscal framework and revenue proposals must be referred to the finance committees of the National Assembly and the NCOP. Committees must then conduct joint public hearings. This will provide an opportunity for participants to grasp the overall economic policy objective and the numbers involved.
The fiscal framework budgetary allocation to government departments and the division of revenue between different spheres of government will be subject to scrutiny and input at parliamentary public hearings. When amending the fiscal framework, a money Bill or when taking any decision in terms of the Act, Parliament and its committees must take various factors relating to fiscal responsibility into consideration. These factors include those measures that ensure that fiscal prudence is maintained. In particular, debt levels and interest costs must be reasonable. Fiscal prudence sometimes appears to be in the eye of the beholder, and it may be necessary to clarify what “reasonable” actually means.
Although the Bill boosts parliamentary oversight and opens the process of national budgeting to public influence, it will be important to ensure that we do not evolve a system where our scarce resources are allocated on the basis of who screams the loudest. If this happens, the noise will be amplified everywhere and the sight of overall economic objectives will be lost.
To ensure meaningful participation, information is required. Parliament must boost this capacity by creating a budget office that will assist committees and Members of Parliament with research and expertise. This office must be technical and not political in nature.
The Bill provides for a coherent focus, maintenance of fiscal prudence and the provision of expertise. The DA supports it. Thank you.
Mnu S E ASIYA: Ndiyabulisa Sihlalo. Phambi kokuba ndithethe, ndiza kwenza ilizwi lovelwano kootishala ababini bengingqi endiyimeleyo eNoupoort abathe bafumana ingozi yemoto basweleka ngoko nangoko. Imiphefumlo yabo inga ingalala ukuphumla.
Mandithezele emnxebeni. Ngokubhekisele kuMqulu weNkululeko, i-Freedom Charter, bathetha ookhokho bethu nootat’omkhulu besithi akuyi kuba kho rhulumente ngaphandle korhulumente oya kuthi usekwe phezu kweziseko zoluntu, oya kwanezisa iimfuno zabantu. Ngoko ke, siyayicela le Ndlu ibekekileyo ukuba iwamkele lo Mthetho uYilwayo kuba ufezekisa ezinye zeemfuno zabantu.
Inkqubo yePalamente ithetha ngokukhuthaza ukuthatha inxaxheba kukawonke- wonke. Njengokuba namanye amalungu ebesetshilo, le yeyona Ndlu imele abantu, ngoko ke yeyona Ndlu inokukwazi ukuthi ibize abantu ukuza kuxoxa ngezezimali. Iphelile laa nto yokuba kuthi xa kuxoxwa ngezezimali, kuphelelwe nje phaya kuNongxowa okanye kuMphathiswa wezeziMali. Namhlanje sinika le Ndlu igunya okanye sicela ukuba le Ndlu izinike igunya ukuze ingenelele ixoxe ngezeziMali.
Kodwa kuyo yonke loo nto, ndihlaba ikhwelo kumalungu ale Ndlu ngelithi lo Mthetho uYilwayo angawusebenziseli ukuphazamisa iinkqubo zikarhulumente. Kufuneka kujongwe kakuhle ukuba iinkqubo zezimali zihamba njani na, njengoko sele betshilo oogxa bam. Kukho amasebe esithi gqolo siwanika imali, kodwa afumana ukulan dulwa yiOfisi yoMphicothi-ziNcwadi. Kambe thina asikwazi, sibopheke izandla neenyawo ngenxa yokuba sihloniphe uMgaqo- siseko.
Ngoko ke masizame siguqule izinto kula masebe. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo uyasivumela ukuba senze kanye loo nto, ngokoMgaqo-siseko.
Kambe njengamalungu, asisinyanga isixhobo esinaso, zininzi. Kodwa asizisebenzisi ngokufanelekileyo ezinye zazo, ezinjenge-Public Finance Management Act, i-Treasury Instructions nezinye. Xa siqulunqa lo Mthetho uYilwayo, songeza kwezo zixhobo ukuze sifumane amandla.
Loo nto ayithethi ukuba le komiti okanye iikom iti ezikhoyo apha ziza kuthatha umsebenzi kaNondyebo. UNondyebo uza kuthi gqolo esenza umsebenzi wakhe. Thina njengabantu abase iso kumasebe nezinye iziseko, kufuneka sithi gqolo sijonga ukuba ngaba izinto zenzeka ngokohlobo ebekufanele ukuba zibe zenzeke ngalo na.
Kwakhona, ndifuna ukuhlaba ikhwelo kwiKomiti yoHlahlo lwAbiwo-mali, lokuba xa amasebe esiya kuyo esithi afuna imali eninzana, kufuneka iwancede ingajongi into yokuba la masebe anemali angakhange ayisebenzise - ezi mali kuthiwa zii-roll o ver.
Ngoko, ndiphakamisa ukuba, nokuba isekiwe laa komiti kunye nala ofisi yohlahlo lwabiwo-mali, kufuneka sithathwe sisiwe kuqeqesho olufana noluya kubonelelwa ngalo i-Standing Committee on Public Accounts nguMphicothi- ziNcwadi. Siza kutsho sazi sonke siziikomiti ukuba iimali zamasebe ziluxanduva lwethu, aziloxanduva lwe-Scopa okanye lweSebe lezeziMali okanye lweKomiti yoHlahlo lwAbiwo-Mali.
Ngoko ke, thina kufuneka sithathe inyathelo, nePalamente isincedise, sikwazi ukulwa le nto. Ndifuna ukuphinda nditsho koosihlalo, ukuba bangasebenzisi esi sixhobo ukuze bazame ukufumana imali eninzana kuba kuseza kufuneka ukuba baxambule kuqala phambi kokuba kuguqulwe imicimbi yezezimali.
Ndiyayicela le Ndlu yoWiso-Mthetho ukuba ijonge kakuhle ngoba sinaso isixhobo sokukhawulezisa iingxelo nezigqibo esiye sizithi thaca apha. Kodwa oko akwenzeki. Ngaloo magama, umbutho wesizwe uyawamkela lo Mthetho uYilwayo uthiwe thaca kule ndawo.
Xa ndivala, mandivale ngelithi onke amasebe okanye zonke iikomiti kufuneka zijonge ezi zinto ndiza kuzibiza ngokuba ziingxelo zonyaka ze ekomiti, i- strategic plans nee-key performance indicator. Zizo eziza kukwazi ukusichazela ukuba isibane esibomvu siyalayita na, oko kukuthi, eli sebe lisebenzisa imali kakhulu okanye hayi, ukuze nikwazi ukuwabiza.
Masingalindi de babhu …- ndiza kuthi kuyabhudwa xa ndingenawo amanye amagama okuchaza le meko - ukuze emveni konyaka babizwe kuthiwe hayi apha anenzanga kakuhle; apha nenze kakuhle. Kanti ukuba besihamba nabo inyanga nenyanga, besiya kukwazi ukulungisa izinto phambi kokuba zibe sisifo. Kufuneka unyange umkhuhlane ungekenzi ubhubhane. Enkosi. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa speech follows.)
[Mr S E ASIYA: Greetings Chairperson. I would first like to pass my condolences to the families of the two teachers from my constituency in Noupoort, who were involved in a car accident and died instantly. May their souls rest in peace.
Let me go straight to the point. Regarding the Freedom Charter, our forefathers mentioned therein that there wouldn’t be any viable government without the involvement of people’s civic structures; a government that is aiming at providing for people’s needs. Therefore, we urge this House to pass this Bill as it fulfils some of the needs of the people. Parliamentary programmes encourage public participation. As some of the hon members pointed out, this is the more representative of the two Houses, and therefore the House that should call for people’s participation when financial issues are discussed. These discussions should not be the sole preserve of the Treasury or the Minister of Finance. Today we are mandating this House or rather we are urging this House to use its powers by participating in budget discussions.
Be that as it may, I appeal to members of this House not to use this Bill to disrupt government programmes. As my colleagues have already stated, we should monitor the monetary policies. There are departments that we recommend for funding, but which are then denied funding by the Auditor- General’s office, and there is nothing that we can do because our hands are tied in terms of the Constitution.
Let us turn things around in these departments. The Constitution allows us, through this Bill, to do just that.
However, as members, this is not the only tool that we have at our disposal, we have plenty of other measures. But, some of these measures we do not use efficiently, such as the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury Instructions and others. With this Bill, we are adding to those measures and also empowering ourselves. That does not mean that this committee or other committees of Parliament will take over the duties of the Treasury. The Treasury will continue with its duties. We, as people who have to perform oversight duties over departments and other structures, have to continue monitoring that things are going according to plan.
Furthermore, I would like to appeal to the budget committee, that when departments approach it with an increased budget, to assist them instead of looking at the fact that they are asking for an increased budget, yet they are underspending and having roll-overs.
I therefore suggest that even if the committee and the budget allocation office are put in place, we should be provided with the same training as that offered to members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This will ensure that as committees we all realise that departmental finances are our responsibility, and not only Scopa’s responsibility, or that of the Department of Finance or of the finance committee.
We therefore have to take the initiative, with the help of Parliament, to take up this fight. I would also like to urge the committee chairpersons not to misuse this opportunity by asking for increased budgets because they will still have to motivate for them before the issue of their finances is reviewed.
I also urge this House to take note that we do have measures speeding up the implementation of resolutions that have been taken here. But that is not happening. And when we want that to happen, we will not be able to do so. With those words, the ANC supports the Bill tabled before this House.
In conclusion, all the departments and the committees will have to keep an eye on the annual reports, strategic plans and key performance indicators. These are the things that will tell us whether or not we should start pressing the panic buttons with regard to overspending.
We should not wait until there is a huge problem; and then after a year, they are hauled over the coals and told where they have done well and where they haven’t. If we worked closely with departments on a monthly basis, we would be able to curb some of the problems as soon as they appear. Prevention is better than cure. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Debate concluded.
Mr N M NENE: Chairperson, I move the amendment to the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill, as printed on the Order Paper (p 504):
CLAUSE 10
On page 8, from line 5, to omit paragraph (a).
Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, read a second time.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill)
Order disposed of without debate.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair, I move:
That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, passed.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Order disposed of without debate.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair, I move: That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Order disposed of without debate.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair, I move:
That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Order disposed of without debate. The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair, I move:
That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.
ELECTION OF MEMBER OF THE PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT
(Announcement)
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, I would like to advise the House that the election of a member to the Pan-African Parliament will stand over. It was on the Order Paper.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF DRAFT NOTICE AND SCHEDULE DETERMINING THE RATE AT WHICH SALARIES ARE PAYABLE TO CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGES AND JUDGES ANNUALLY, WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 2008
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF DRAFT NOTICE AND SCHEDULE DETERMINING THE RATE AT WHICH SALARIES ARE PAYABLE TO MAGISTRATES ANNUALLY, WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 2008
Orders disposed of without debate.
Draft Notice and Schedule determining the rate at which salaries are payable to Constitutional Court Judges and Judges annually approved.
Draft Notice and Schedule determining the rate at which salaries are payable to magistrates annually with the exception of the references to the President: Divorce Court and Presiding Office: Divorce Court contained in schedule 1 of the Notice approved.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - LEGAL AID GUIDE
Order disposed of without debate.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chair, I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION BY PARLIAMENT OF LEGAL AID GUIDE FOR 2008
Order disposed of without debate.
Legal Aid Guide for 2008 ratified.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF CONVENTION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME AND ON CAPITAL
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME AND ON CAPITAL
Orders disposed of without debate.
Convention between the Republic of South Africa and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital approved.
Protocol Amending the Convention between the Republic of South Africa and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital approved.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Order disposed of without debate.
Treaty of Friendship and Partnership between the Republic of South Africa and the Russian Federation approved.
BOOK LAUNCH
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): The Chairperson of the NCOP still invites members to the book launch on the 10th anniversary of the NCOP in the Old Assembly dining hall. He said even if you can come just for meals, it will be fine. I heard you said you were very hungry; you can go there now. But please, if the buses leave you behind, I won’t be responsible.
The House adjourned at 20:45. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
-
Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent (1) Bills passed by National Assembly on 23 October 2008:
a) Skills Development Amendment Bill [B 49D – 2008 (Reprint)] (National Assembly – sec 75). b) National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B 35B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 76(1)). c) National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill [B 40D – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 76(1)). d) National Environmental Management: Waste Bill [B 39D – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 76(1)).
National Assembly
The Speaker
-
Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly in respect of Bills passed by Council and returned to Assembly:
1) Bills, subject to proposed amendments, passed by Council on 23 October 2008 and returned for consideration of Council’s proposed amendments:
a) Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill [B 10D – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 22 October 2008, p 1972). The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council. b) Broadcasting Amendment Bill [B 72 – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 17 October 2008, p 1920). The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Communications of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council. c) Companies Bill [B 61B – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 17 October 2008, p 1918). The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed by the Council.