WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 2008 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
                                ____

The Council met at 14:05.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                          NOTICE OF MOTION

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

That the Council –

(1) notes that Nomvula Williams, a self-confessed gambling addict, made headlines in March this year when she left her seven-month-old baby with her helper for over two weeks while she went gambling;

(2) further notes that after this incident, her child was taken by the Thembisa social welfare officers but returned only two days later;

(3) is shocked to learn that Williams has again abandoned her baby and left her with a friend;

 4) realises that Williams is in desperate need of help and is
    neglecting her baby, and


 5) pleads with the relevant authorities to intervene and take the
    necessary action needed to ensure that Williams’ baby is not
    neglected and that she receives the love and attention she
    deserves.

       COMMEMORATION THE 32nd ANNIVERSARY OF 16 JUNE UPRISING

                         (Draft Resolution)

Ms D ROBINSON: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council—

(1) notes that June is Youth Month, which reaches its height on 16 June, Youth Day, in commemoration and celebration of the 32nd anniversary of the 16 June 1976 uprising; (2) further notes with concern that the majority of recent xenophobic violence experienced in South Africa was perpetrated largely by people being classified as youth, according to police reports;

(3) recognises that a large number of our youth, one of the groups most severely affected by the social problems in our society, are still victims of poverty, lack of opportunity and violence;

(4) acknowledges the selfless role stakeholders in civil society and in local communities have played in campaigning for the advancement of the youth of South Africa, and in alleviating some of the more devastating impacts of said social problems; and

(5) calls on all South Africans to stand together to ensure that our youth are able to realise the 1976 dream, to have opportunities in safe and sustainable communities, so that they can enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy which they so rightly deserve.

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

 PERMISSION GIVEN TO SELECT COMMITTEE FOR ENQUIRY INTO AMENDING ACT

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council, in terms of Rule 169(1)(b), gives permission to the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs to enquire into amending other provisions of the National Environmental Laws Act of 1998.

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

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

                           (Policy debate)

Vote No 21 – Justice and Constitutional Development:

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, hon members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, ek gaan nie kole gooi nie [I am not going to stir]. Good morning, good afternoon.

I commence with a sincere apology for the absence of Minister Brigitte Mabandla who is abroad.

Chairperson, I present the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s budget to this House at a time of national trauma, upheaval and shame for our country. The recent criminal, and in some instances orchestrated, attacks on foreign nationals is one of the most painful events that can happen to any nation and is a terrible indictment of our country. None of us can and should attempt to justify these attacks. Poverty and its legacy cannot be used to turn on desperate people who are seeking refuge in our country, for economic or whatever reason. No amount of economic hardship and discontent can ever justify the criminal activity and bigotry that these attacks represent, and any suggestion that poor service delivery and the rising cost of living is to blame for these attacks must be rejected with the contempt it deserves.

Equally, any suggestion that foreigners alone are responsible for the high crime levels in our country is totally misplaced and detracts from the fact that many South Africans are involved in criminal activities. Therefore, I for one will not provide these cowardly and dastardly criminal acts with any veneer of legitimacy by considering or proffering any excuse or explanation for them, and will not even refer to this criminality as xenophobia.

Have we as South Africans so quickly forgotten that it was our brothers and sisters across the borders that gave our leaders and others refuge when we had to flee into exile from the apartheid forces? Do we forget the ravages rent upon these countries by the apartheid state for their support of our liberation struggle? Shame be upon us, and I would like to add my sincerest apology for the barbarity of a small number of thugs amongst us.

Hon members, what are the rights of non-nationals seeking economic opportunities or even refuge in our country? Our cherished Constitution is premised on the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms. Chapter 2 contains the Bill of Rights which defines the human rights of all the people in South Africa. The Constitution guarantees most fundamental rights to all individuals, whether they are citizens or non-citizens. The Constitution expressly uses the word “everyone” to connote this reality.

There are, however, exceptions where certain rights apply only to citizens. Rights pertaining to voting, political party formation, standing for public office, obtaining a passport, entry into the country, freely choosing a trade, occupation or profession, and benefiting from state measures relating to access to land, housing and other socio-economic rights are expressly limited to South African citizens. So any debate on these issues has already been resolved by the Constitution and I do not think there is any cause for us to enter that debate further as some people are trying to do.

Chairperson, last week during the Budget Vote debate in the National Assembly, Minister Mabandla announced the creation of certain special regional courts in the affected areas in order to expedite all the criminal cases arising from these murderous attacks. Attacks were reported in seven of the nine provinces. Most of these were in Gauteng and the Western Cape. In this regard, three special regional courts will commence sittings on this coming Monday in Khayelitsha, Wynberg and Atlantis and in other provinces similar arrangements are being made. These courts will have dedicated prosecutors and judicial officers and the main goal is to fast- track these cases as much as possible through the criminal justice system.

Chairperson, in order to facilitate the realisation of the department’s three strategic goals of improved access to justice, transformation of the legal and justice system and organisational efficiency, a total budget of R9,7 billion is allocated for the 2008-09 financial year. The allocation covers the following programmes: R3,4 billion for court services; R2,1 billion for the National Prosecuting Authority; R1,4 billion for judges’ and magistrates’ salaries; R191 million is allocated to the SA Human Rights Commission, the Gender Commission and the Public Protector; R941 million for administration; R660 million for the Legal Aid Board and R503 million for state legal services.

The allocation reflects an 11% increase from the previous allocation. The increase in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, includes an allocation for major policy priorities such as building new court infrastructure in areas of need; the maintenance and the upgrading of existing infrastructure in the amount of R140 million; reduction of case backlogs from an amount of R98 million; implementation of legislation envisaged to be promulgated during this parliamentary session, for example the Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Amendment Act, the SA Judicial Education Institute Bill and the Child Justice Bill for an amount of R74 million; increasing the legal research capacity in government - R45 million; implementation of the Victims’ Charter, R10 million; transformation of the judiciary, R15 million; review of the criminal justice system, R10 million; and improving the management of cases, R10 million.

It is pleasing that the department has managed to substantially increase its financial performance with a 5% increase in overall spending. The improved spending was a result of the timeous identification in the quarterly budget reviews of the department of possible savings and the virement of savings to other priority areas. These reallocations of projected savings were confirmed through parliamentary approval during the adjustment estimates, approval by the accounting officer, and by National Treasury approval as prescribed in the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA. Funds were reallocated in August and November as prescribed by the budget management framework of the department. Considering the spending priorities of the department, the NPA and Legal Aid Board, LAB, spending increased from 92,7% to 97,7%, a 5% increase over the previous year. In the last financial year one of the primary focuses was to provide the much-needed human resource capacity in all the sections of the department in order to improve efficiency. In that period we were able to reduce our vacancy rate from 23% to 12%.

Chairperson, the review of the criminal justice system, which is one of the Apex Priorities endorsed by government earlier this year, is under way in partnership with Business Against Crime, BAC. Cabinet has approved a package of seven fundamental and far-reaching transformative changes to the criminal justice system as a whole.

The seven are, firstly, the adoption of a single vision and mission leading to a single set of objectives, priorities and performance management targets. Secondly, the establishment of a new co-ordinating and management structure for the criminal justice system at all levels. Thirdly, the establishment of an integrated and seamless national criminal justice system IT database, containing all the information relevant to the criminal justice system, and reviewing and harmonising the template for gathering information relating to the criminal justice system. Fourthly, the modernisation in an integrated and holistic manner of all aspects of the system and equipment of the criminal justice system. Fifthly, making substantial changes to the present court processes in criminal matters. Sixthly, the implementation of all the proposed key priorities identified for the component parts of the criminal justice system which impact upon the new court process, and lastly the introduction of changes to the community police forum regime, including expanding their role to deal with all matters in the criminal justice system and making them financially independent.

The President has now given the go-ahead to commence with the implementation of this seven-point plan and to report progress to the July Cabinet lekgotla.

Hon members, to give effect to our undertaking to bring justice facilities closer to the poor and marginalised, we continue to commit a substantial amount of our budget towards building additional courts and service delivery points for the office of the Master to ensure that we reach out to the rural and remote communities.

We continue to build, in ever-increasing numbers, court buildings where there were none before. Not only have we built 23 new courts and refurbished and upgraded 58 courts since the inception of democracy, we have also improved the architecture and design of these courts to meet the service level standards befitting our constitutional era. These courts are more accessible to the users, including people with disabilities, and have in-built facilities commensurate with the work of the courts, such as archives to safeguard court information and libraries to provide adequate capacity for legal research. The courts in Tembisa near Kempton Park, Khayelitsha in Cape Town, and Motherwell near Port Elizabeth are examples of the modern architecture, which compares with courts in much more advanced democracies. In the five courts that are currently under construction and the eighteen that will be built in the next few years we will retain this modern architecture that I speak of.

We are also proceeding with our review of the spatial distribution, racial and geo-political separation of courts, which is the cause of the vast disparities in the court infrastructure and resources between the former white and black areas. Twenty-three of the 90 branch courts will, in the current financial year, be redesignated as full courts. The designation of these courts will be effected gradually, commencing on 01 August 2008. By designating branch courts as proper courts, the communities in the rural and former Bantustans and black townships will enjoy the same access to the civil and criminal justice system as their counterparts in the towns and suburbs. This will alleviate the hardship they have endured for many years by having to travel long distances from remote areas in the former Bantustans or townships to obtain services in the old so-called white areas. For example, the people from the Poffader branch court in the Northern Cape commute more than 230 km to its main court in Kenhardt to obtain civil services, such as maintenance, deceased estates benefits and protection orders.

Similarly, during this financial year, the 116 of the 127 periodical courts located on private farms, in police stations and prisons will be replaced with accessible courts within the community settlements. The one problem we have, of course, is obtaining adequate alternative accommodation in those areas at the moment. The system of periodical courts benefited largely the beneficiaries of apartheid. This system does not have a place in a constitutional state where the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial are the cornerstones of our constitutional order.

Hon members, one of the important developments in our efforts to ensure improved access to justice for all our people, especially the poor and those in rural and outlying areas of our country, is not only the building of new court facilities, but also giving the courts in these areas new jurisdictional mandates in certain civil matters. In this regard, we are preparing for the implementation, in anticipation of the expected passing by the National Council Of Provinces, of the Jurisdiction of Regional Courts Amendment Bill, which confers civil jurisdiction on the regional courts. The regional courts, despite being the intermediate court between the district and the High Courts, were not given civil jurisdiction by the apartheid regime. The exclusion of civil jurisdiction in these courts results in the denial of access to civil justice to the majority of our citizens who cannot afford to pursue legal redress in civil matters at the High Court level. The immediate impact of this intended legislation will be able to ease the hardship of the vulnerable and poor members of our society who are compelled by the current system to seek civil legal redress in remote courts, sometimes beyond the provinces where they reside. In particular, this legislation will correct the jurisdictional areas of the country’s divorce courts. For the entire Republic three divisions of the black divorce courts were established in 1929, namely: the North East Division with its seat in Durban, the Central Division with its seat in Johannesburg and the Southern Division with its seat in King William’s Town. Regardless of where people stayed they were expected to file their cases at one of the seats of the courts even though they had no connection with those areas declared as seats of these courts. In 1997 the divorce courts were deracialised to bring them in line with our constitutional order. However, their demarcated areas were left unchanged. The pilot Family Court Centres established at some of the major towns did not remove but minimised the hardship endured by people in far-flung areas from such courts. Through this Bill the divorce courts and the pilot centres of the Family Court Centres will be integrated into the regional courts.

Rumours abound, especially in the magistracy, about how we are planning to implement this Act. Many of these are wrong. So let me spell out clearly what our intentions are.

We have allocated funds for the creation of additional, new judicial, registrar and administrative posts to deal with the extended civil regional courts jurisdiction provided for in this Bill. The creation of the additional judicial posts for the civil jurisdiction regional courts will ensure that the current criminal jurisdiction regional courts are not diverted from the current heavy criminal case load. In line with the incremental approach advocated in respect of this Bill, when and where the need arises, civil jurisdiction may also in exceptional cases be conferred on the regional courts which are currently dealing with criminal cases only.

Appropriate judicial education programmes will be designed, through the envisaged SA Judicial Education Institute, to provide for the incremental training of the current regional magistrates in practical civil law. This will address the current potential vacuum caused by the fact that most of the current regional magistrates have mainly a criminal law background. This will also allow the current regional magistrates dealing with criminal matters only to apply for permanent appointment to the new civil jurisdiction regional courts’ posts or to be appointed in an acting capacity in such courts, or to be capacitated for appointment to deal with cases if civil jurisdiction were to be extended to a specific existing regional court with criminal jurisdiction only.

Chairperson, the improvement of the functioning of the Small Claims Courts is one of our key priority areas. The department has developed a national action plan, NAP, and has done so to re-engineer the Small Claims Courts, and has done so through donations particularly from our Swiss benefactors through which the poor and the vulnerable members of society are able to access civil justice in respect of claims at the lower end of the spectrum. The NAP has led to an increase in the number of requests for the creation of additional Small Claims Courts. We have in total 168 established Small Claims Courts in the country and our long-term target is to establish at least one Small Claims Court in every magisterial district, and maybe even in subdistricts.

Hon members, as you are no doubt aware, the sheriffs’ profession is one of the most important role-players in the civil justice system. One of the major challenges we have identified in the transformation of the profession is the lack of any accurate database or baseline information relating to the profession. For example, there was no accurate data in respect of the number of vacancies; the number of magisterial districts for which a sheriff holds an appointment; the number of deputy sheriffs; the number of resignations and retirements, and so on, to facilitate proactive planning and to guide or assist the Minister in the transformation of the sheriffs’ profession.

Although the audit of the profession has unfortunately taken longer than anticipated, the department is now in a position to advise the Minister on the way forward. As of 31 March 2008, there were 546 sheriffs, of which 462 were for the lower courts and 84 for the superior courts. Of all the sheriffs, 74% are white and 26% are black. Women comprise only 13% of all sheriffs. We are ready to advise the Minister to commence with the advertisement of at least 126 vacant posts and to propose various other aspects of the rationalisation of the profession. This will no doubt impact significantly on the race and gender composition of the sheriffs’ profession and therefore its transformation, not a minute too soon.

The department has also drafted amendments to the regulations relating to the sheriffs, inter alia, with a view to streamlining and establishing uniformity in the appointment process and to redesignate administrative functions that previously resided with magistrates.

Chairperson, the department will, during the course of this year, finalise the consolidated policy framework to address outstanding aspects of transformation of the judiciary, which formed the basis of the Superior Courts Bill, introduced into Parliament by the previous Minister. These aspects include the affirmation of the Constitutional Court as the apex court in the Republic; the establishment of a single judiciary which is geared toward the full integration of the magistracy into the judiciary; the establishment of a single High Court with divisions, the harmonisation and integration of the Magistrates’ Commission and the Judicial Service Commission; the creation of a single rule-making body; the language usage in courts; and court administration and policy relating to the administration of justice to be vested in the executive.

Honourable members, the Legal Services Charter, which could become one of milestones in the transformation of the legal sector, is nearing completion. To mark this milestone, in December 2007, the Law Society of South Africa presented the Minister with the second draft of the Legal Services Charter, which is the culmination of the work of a multisectoral steering committee co-ordinated by the director-general which produced the first draft. The full participation of the legal profession in this Legal Services Charter process, through the Bar, the side Bar and the paralegal formations, is a reflection of the commitment of the legal sector towards the establishment of a transformed justice system founded on the values of equality and human dignity.

The Charter will, among others, provide sustainable programmes to redress the imbalances of the past in the provision of legal services and for the transfer of skills to new entrants into the legal profession. The Minister will soon take the charter to Cabinet and Parliament before it is published. With the finalisation of the Charter, it is imperative that we expedite the finalisation of the Legal Practice Bill. This Bill will bring us closer to the regulation of all practitioners under a single statutory framework. The process of regulating the profession into a unified, independent legal profession, which will serve the interests of justice, the public and members of the profession, has been a complex and protracted debate. The Bill will hopefully bring this debate to a close. Finally, hon members, let me also just list our legislative programme for the rest of the year. As you are aware, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Bill has been passed and has come into operation. At the moment many of the aspects of implementation are taking place and I hope that by the end of this year the Bill will be totally operational. The following Bills which are intended for finalisation during this session also require special mention. As you are aware you have just passed the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill and at the end of this week we will be passing the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Act, which introduces the long-awaited complaints handling procedures for judges.

At the moment the NA is also processing the Child Justice Bill, the Traditional Courts Bill, the Customary Law of Succession Amendment Bill and the Renaming of High Courts Bill. The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill and the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill are presently being introduced into Parliament and three Bills dealing with the prohibition of floor-crossing will be introduced as soon as the 30-day period has expired - which I think is in this week. And then, as you are aware, there are two further Bills being introduced to deal with the dissolution of the Directorate of Special Operations. This is the General Law Amendment Bill, which establishes a new Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation within the police under and accountable to the National Commissioner of Police and this will take the place of the DSO. The SA Law Reform Commission and the Rules Board for Courts of Law continue to support our endeavours to transform the justice sector. In particular, the SA Law Reform Commission has undertaken a project whereby they are looking at all pre-1994 legislation to test it for compatibility and consistency with the Constitution. The Minister has requested the rules board to undertake a similar task to get rid of all rules which are an impediment to the access to justice or are inconsistent with the Constitution. We hope those processes will be completed within a reasonable time. The new Legal Aid Guide will also be finalised in the course of this year for tabling and adoption in Parliament.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the select committee chairperson, Kgoshi Mokoena, and all the members of that committee for the excellent role they play. We understand that they do their task under very difficult circumstances, trying to perform the functions of many departments, and we want to thank them for their very vigorous role and particularly the oversight functions they fulfil very enthusiastically. The information that we get back helps us in the department to rectify problems in the department. So once again, thank you to Kgoshi and all your members for the wonderful work you do.

Hon members, I am indebted to this House for supporting this Budget Vote of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. I thank you. Mr D A WORTH: Hon Chairperson, Deputy Minister and hon members, firstly I would like to thank all the departments, and in particular our committee chair, the hon Kgoshi Mokoena, for arranging the detailed presentations.

Chairperson, the criminal justice cluster, namely Justice and Constitutional Development, Safety and Security and Correctional Services, all interlink with one another to a certain degree. However, it is difficult to do oversight with the budget without the latest Auditor- General’s report, which will be introduced only later this year. For example, there is an amount of R4,5 billion in the Guardian’s Fund. The Guardian’s Fund has failed to get an unqualified audit report since 1998. In the auditor’s report for 2006-07 the auditor states and I quote: “There is doubt over the completeness of the opening balance amounting to R3,4 billion. I am therefore unable to confirm the completeness of the opening balance”.

Chairperson, if you don’t know the opening balance, how are you ever going to balance? How are you going to know what the balance should be at the end? The Guardian’s Fund continues to employ temporary staff to supplement the shortage of skilled personnel. Whilst progress has been made, it would be interesting to see what and if any theft or fraud has taken place from the fund.

Chairperson, the Legal Aid Board, like other departments, struggles to retain and attract specialist skills, with many legal personnel being attracted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office or joining various attorneys. In addition, the Legal Aid Board complains that the Legal Aid Guide, the LAG as it is known, as the hon Deputy Minister alluded to, has not been passed or reviewed since 2002, despite five LAGs having been submitted to the Justice department, but still not being ratified. The board provides legal aid to some plus-minus 400 000 people through its 58 justice centres in 41 satellite offices and, to a lesser extent, its Judicare facilities.

Chairperson, when our committee visited various provinces, complaints were received from the SAPS that the Justice department had cases withdrawn or struck from the roll to boost their successful prosecution figures. The prosecutors, in turn, complained that the SAPS had not prepared or done their homework properly on the dockets. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. However, at the end of January 2007, a total of 875 000 cases were enrolled by Justice, of which some 587 000 - that’s over 60% - were then removed or scrapped from the roll. In addition, there are 186 vacancies for magistrates as well as the 50 new posts for the regional courts civil jurisdiction, and this brings the total shortages to more than 240 magistrates.

We only hope that these shortages will not lead to a lowering of entry standards for magistrates on new incoming magistrates, as has been rumoured.

Chairperson, with regard to maintenance payments, some 30-40% of South Africa’s population of working age is unemployed. Whilst it is relatively easy to obtain a garnishee order on an income of a person in steady employment, it is virtually impossible to trace and keep track of persons who are unemployed or obtain odd jobs from time to time, often in different provinces. Many of their ex-wives, however, apply for a child support grant up to the age of 14 from the state, whilst at the same time receiving payments from their ex-spouses which leads to fraud, as apparently the Department of Social Development does not liaise or work in conjunction with Justice. Whilst the electronic transfer scheme has helped speed up the maintenance payments, long queues are still to be found, particularly in Bloemfontein’s court anyway, on the 15th and at the end of the month.

Chairperson, the National Prosecution Authority generates its own annual report and financial statements. Some R1,4 billion is allocated to it. The NPA has identified the need for two prosecutors per existing court. At the end of November 2007, the NPA had an average of 1,2 prosecutors per district and 1,34 prosecutors per regional court. As the number of courts is increasing, it is even more difficult to attain this target if the vacancy rate of between 18-25% is also taken into account.

To compound the problem, special courts are to be held to prosecute the offenders in the recent wave of xenophobic violence in the country. Already, apparently some 105 cases are reported in the Western Cape alone. The Special Investigating Unit states that this unit is emerging as a forensic investigation service provider of choice for the state, and reverses accounting firms’ hold on the Public Service … I mean the public sector, rather. Their development is to be welcomed and I have a long list of municipalities that will certainly need their service.

Chairperson, the Minister has let the Directorate of Special Operations, known as the Scorpions, down. With a conviction rate of 85% and with 13% of their cases accounting for 60% of the value of the cases of the Asset Forfeiture Unit, the decision to dissolve the DSO is a tragedy. If the Scorpions are disbanded and moved to the SAPS, this will lead to a massive loss of expertise and skills, as members leave as a direct result of the unit being disbanded despite the Khampepe commission’s recommendations. Already it has been stated that some 100 members of the unit will be resigning, even at this early stage. The Special Investigating Unit will have to be very careful that they are not too successful; otherwise their emblem of the snake will go the same way as that of the scorpion. [Interjections.] The separation of powers, of which the independence of the judiciary is an essential component, together with the Constitution, obliges the executive and the legislature to protect and ensure the independence of the judiciary. It is the only protection we have against the abuse of state power, and must be defended vigorously. We await, therefore, in great anticipation, the Judicial Services Commission’s investigation into the allegation surrounding the Judge President of the Western Cape. And I sincerely hope that the Deputy Minister will be here on Friday for our debate with regard to the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, let me thank the Deputy Minister for outlining the strategic plan for the departments and the purpose thereof. Sometimes it is good not to stoop too low, because people might not notice the difference. But the debate about the Scorpions and other things is still coming, so I want to reserve my energy for that time.

During the oversight visits to the provinces of Mpumalanga and KwaZulu- Natal, we visited many magistrates’ offices. It was pleasing to note that, regardless of all challenges faced by these judicial officers and their staff, they were still willing to go the extra mile. We also experienced this when we met senior officials of these departments during the budget hearings a few days ago.

It is true that the championship is a shift from desire to duty; from belief to behaviour; from plan to performance; and from awareness to action. To all these officials, all I can say is: Just follow the saying that says plant the seedlings in times of planting and enjoy the fruits in times of scarcity.

Let me now deal with some of the challenges raised by magistrates and officials in these provinces. Amongst other things, magistrates complained that they are overworked because there are only a few of them who have to deal with many cases. In order to deal with these backlogs that we are crying about, they said they have to work overtime. At times they knock off very late.

Another challenge faced by these magistrates is the shortage of interpreters in their courtrooms. We discovered that in some offices there are four courtrooms but only two interpreters. That means two of those courtrooms will not be used because of the shortage of personnel. If this anomaly is not addressed expeditiously, it will contribute to the case backlog we are trying to address. The department should look into this, please.

This brings me to the language policy in our courts. For example, one will find that the magistrate is Sotho-speaking, the prosecutor is Sotho- speaking, the accused is Sotho-speaking, the lawyer is Sotho-speaking, the interpreter is Sotho-speaking, but all of them … … ba bolela ka sejahlapi. Taba ke gore a batho ba gešo ba tla ba kwa bjang? O hwetša kgorotsheko e tletše ka bona fela, go se motho yo a sa kwego leleme la gešo efela ge ba ahlaahla melato ba bolela ka leleme la sejahlapi. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)

[… speak in English. The question is: How will people understand them? You find that the courtroom is full of people who speak the same language but, when they deal with cases, they use English.]

Who are we trying to impress here? I would understand if we use English for record purposes but it does not make any sense in those particular courts where everybody understands that language. It is about time that our languages also get preference and are used in our courts, unless someone wants to tell me that there are no words that they can use when calling themselves “Your Honour”, “Your Worship” or “my learned friend”. But I think we have these terms in our languages as well.

There is one other issue that is causing some discomfort to members and that pertains to plea bargaining. When Parliament passed this into an Act, it never thought it would be as abused as it is today. For example, let’s at look at what happened to Mark Thatcher; what happened to Agliotti; what happened to Malan. As if that was not enough, let’s look at what happened to Adriaan Vlok. The question that is in the minds of all those who are sober politically is: What criteria have been used by the NPA when deciding on this plea bargaining? I know the Minister will comment about this because he understands the law better than some of us. What would be the comments, hon Minister, when people conclude that the NPA is selective in deciding who must benefit from this Act?

Let us now look at what people are saying about the department, especially about the magistrate’s courts. There is an outcry by communities that cases in many instances are withdrawn unceremoniously without their knowledge. One typical example is that at the KwaMhlanga Magistrates’ Court. It has been given a new name, namely that of ``the withdrawal court’’. People are complaining that they are not getting good service from these courts. To make matters worse, police officers in that area have also complained that they are arresting dangerous criminals but, to their surprise and amazement, those cases are just being withdrawn without their knowledge. Hon Minister, this situation needs to be arrested before it explodes.

People complain that at times they will be summoned to these courts to appear at 09:00 and they will sit there without being called. They will be called at 15:00 only to be told that their cases have been cancelled or withdrawn or postponed. Just imagine someone having to travel a distance of not less than 60 kilometres to these courts. I want this situation to be reviewed and be addressed expeditiously. Chairperson, through you to the hon Deputy Minister, there is one serious issue that needs attention and that relates to the commercial courts. There are no permanent magistrates in these courts; there are no permanent staff in these courts. What we have are magistrates who are being rotated. That is why there are so many backlogs in these courts. Let’s do something about it because the situation really is skewed.

It is sad to realise that in this country, in this time and age, we still have some judicial officers who are practising racism in their offices. There is this one magistrate who refused to allow his black colleagues to use his toilets. All those black officials and interpreters had to rely on toilets provided by the community in the neighbouring villages.

Of course we cannot paint everybody with the same paintbrush, because there are very good white judicial officers out there. But to those who are still practising this racism, we want to say: You had better change now before you are flushed out.

The matter of sentencing is still a cause for concern. There are inconsistencies when some judicial officers impose sentences for, for example, the following crimes: rape, domestic violence, murder and sexual offences. What can we do, hon Minister, to address this anomaly, because very soon people are going to explode? I want to call upon the department to monitor this situation and ensure that it is addressed expeditiously.

In conclusion, let me take this opportunity and thank my colleagues from the different political parties for their support and understanding during these budget hearings, especially when dealing with this department that has so many entities. We sat for two weeks dealing with this department only. It is true that successful people do what failures don’t like to do. I know I can rely on their support at all times.

I want to move that this House doesn’t disappoint the department. Let’s allow them to use these budgets and implement their strategic plans. With these words, Chairperson, I want to thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr M A MZIZI: Sihlalo, nePhini likaNgqongqoshe ngithi okuhle kodwa. [Chairperson and Deputy Minister, I wish you all well.]

Today’s budget should not present a view of the size of the budget, but rather how much justice we have dispensed to the people of South Africa. We should take stock of changes brought about over the 15 years since our new democracy came into operation for the people of South Africa. We have to ask some tough questions: Have we done enough to enable citizens to access justice? Are our court services user-friendly? How far are we with transformation? Let me hasten to cite an issue that is crucial. New courts have been built but they are not enough. The new court building in Madadeni in Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal, is an outstanding court, and the best court structure that I have ever visited. All the court services are under one roof - the district court, regional court, circuit court, maintenance court and many others to serve the surrounding rural areas, as well as CCTV recording facilities for the children’s court.

Phini likaNgqongqoshe, okuhle kodwa! Ayikho into enhle engake ngayibona ngoba noma kuthiwa zikhona ezinye izinkantolo kodwa le yaseMadadeni izulu elincance. Ezokuvikela ziseqophelweni eliphezulu. Awukwazi ukwedlulela le lapho kuhlala izimantshi khona. Wedlula ezikhiyeni eziningi kabi. Uzothini- ke ngamagumbi ahlala iziboshwa? Uphuma lapha, ungene la bese ushona emgodini. Asikho isikhathi lapha sokuthi ukukhwabanisa kungaba khona. Siyakuncoma lokho. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Hon Deputy Minister, I am truly grateful. I have never seen a court setting as beautiful as the one at Madadeni. It is a small heaven on earth. Security is of a high standard, to the extent that you cannot easily go through to the magistrates’ chambers. You first have to go through many security checkpoints. And what about the prisoners’ holding cells? They are just out of this world. One simply goes through a zigzagging alley and there is no chance of thinking of corruption there. We admire that.] I should not forget my province of Gauteng. In Alberton, where I live, the court buildings do not belong to the Department of Justice, and therefore no renovation can be done. Germiston Court has the same status. One particular problem at the Germiston Court is the condition of the walls as well as the roof and ceiling of this building, which leave much to be desired. I did speak to the provincial department of public works to look into the matter. This was not the first time that this problem had been brought to their attention, and yet nothing has yet been done. We were told that a place between Zonke Izizwe and Palm Ridge was earmarked for the construction of a district and regional court and other court services, though this has not yet been realised.

The IFP is looking forward to the training of magistrates and other judicial officers so that justice can be dispensed as expected. I hope that the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill will be fast-tracked to enable the process of training to get off the ground.

Another issue of concern is the relationship between the department and the Department of Public Works. I have a question with regard to the level of co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Works regarding court constructions and court maintenance. It seems to me that the Department of Public Works does not always honour its duties 100%. If this is the case, it should be rectified as soon as possible. Angikusho nje lokhu, Ngqongqoshe, ukuthi udaba lolu loFezela, noma sizofika isikhathi sokuthi sixoxe ngalo, lokuthi ngabe Ofezela laba batinyele bani lona osha amashushu ngempela osebona nokuthi abasuke endleleni ngoba bekuyibo ebengibona sengathi bayasebenza.

Uzovumelana nami lapha Phini likaNgqongqoshe ukuthi ngesikhathi sasenza lo Mthetho, sasihamba silala sivuka umthwalo usobhokweni sifuna ukuthola uphiko olwaluzokwazi ukuthi lusebenze lungenakho ukunanaza futhi lungasabi muntu.

Namhlanje sesiyezwa-ke sekuthiwa sekufanele balahlwe ngaphandle. Angazi-ke ukuthi empeleni ngabe sibhekephi uma sisusa Ofezela lapho behleli khona sithi abaye emaphoyiseni. Ngiyakhumbula mina ukuthi ngake ngathi kungani singaqeqeshi wona la maphoyisa akhona konokuthi senze olunye uphiko?

Kwathiwa, cha, lawa akhona awazi lutho ngoba ayadubula, ayabulala futhi awaphenyi amacala. Kufuneka nje uphiko olusha sha, salwenza-ke. Seniludilizelani-ke? Hawu madoda, sekuyaphela njalo? Siyasixhasa isabiwomali sakho, Ngqongqoshe. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Let me say, hon Minister, that even though I know that the time will come when we will discuss the issue of the Scorpions, it would be interesting to know who it is that has been stung by the Scorpions so that he or she is now so anxious that the Scorpions be disbanded. This is the unit that I was convinced was doing its work well.

You will agree with me, hon Deputy Minister, that when we were making this legislation, we took a long time looking at it from all angles, in the quest to find a unit which could work without fear or favour.

And all of a sudden, today we hear that they should be disbanded. I don’t know then where we are heading if we remove the Scorpions from where they are and say that they should be incorporated into the police force. I remember that at some stage I asked the reason for us forming a separate unit instead of us training the existing police force.

This question was brushed aside with the answer that the existing police force does not know anything about its work. It was said that it consists of police who shoot and kill and they don’t even investigate cases. I was told that there was a need for a completely new unit, and then the Scorpions were formed. But now, why do you scrap it? Gosh! Is it really over with them? We support your budget, hon Minister.]

Mr W M DOUGLAS: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister, hon members and guests, the 2008-09 budget of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development makes provision for spending R429 million on the crime-fighting unit this year. That is 15% more than last year’s budget of R373 million, which is questionable in light of the fact that they are going to be shut down.

The ACDP welcomes the R10 billion pledged by hon Minister Manuel for the fight against crime over the next three years and the improvement of correctional facilities and building of the overall capacity of the administration of justice. I believe that this will bring justice closer to the people in the areas where it is most needed.

The R250 million allocation for upgrading of the SA Police Service’s forensic laboratory equipment is also welcomed, and the ACDP believes that this will assist the backlog of cases on the roll. The expansion in the amount of police officers to 200 000 by 2011 and the allocation of R1,3 billion towards the upgrading of the ICT infrastructure of the police is also a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, the ACDP recognises that overpopulated correctional centres are not contributing to proper rehabilitation and must be addressed urgently. I am particularly concerned about Pollsmoor, being from the Western Cape, and the conditions at Pollsmoor which are not changing rapidly enough, especially for awaiting-trial prisoners.

Moreover, the lack of respect for human dignity and the need to reduce crime in South African prisons and the successful reintegration of offenders into the community are some reasons why the ACDP supports the Department of Correctional Services’ plan to spend 33% of its R11 billion budget for the 2008-09 financial year on security.

The ACDP trusts that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, with this financial contribution, will achieve its aim to uphold and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, and to provide accessible, fair, speedy and cost-effective administration of justice in the interests of a safer and more secure South Africa.

The ACDP wants the state, whichbears the traditional sword of justice, to carry out its role successfully, namely to protect all the citizens of the country. The ACDP supports this Budget Vote. [Applause.]

Mr Z SISWANA (Western Cape): Chairperson of the NCOP, Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, MECs present, Members of Parliament and delegates to the NCOP.

During our interaction with our community at izimbizo and public meetings, we are often confronted with certain complaints by our people on the issue of the prompt release of suspects who, according to communities, have committed a crime that does not necessarily warrant bail.

Communities take a swipe at government and the police, especially when a suspect who has committed a crime can be seen walking on the streets, hours after he or she was arrested. This has been a common complaint from communities and it has created an atmosphere of frustration in the communities.

Therefore, it is also very encouraging at the same time to note that the Justice department in the Western Cape has rolled out programmes to our community that address this challenge.

As a pivotal partner of the criminal justice cluster, the Justice department has demonstrated through its work and activities in the province that it is on the right track in delivering justice to all.

We have noted that it has been doing this work guided by three strategic goals, namely: access to justice for all, transforming the justice system in line with the democratic values of our Constitution and thus enhancing its organisational efficiency.

We are encouraged to notice that the justice department has adopted a collaborative and synergised approach to service delivery by working together with the entire criminal justice system’s partners and stakeholders to ensure service excellence for the people of the Western Cape.

This is without a doubt the right course to follow as it further confirms that tackling crime requires not only police but the partnership of all criminal justice institutions, working together in an integrated manner such as we have been seeing in the Western Cape.

At the same time, this institution is also rolling out programmes that enhance the programme of the Western Cape Provincial Government focusing on established community cohesions. Strategic partnerships have been formed with communities and nongovernmental organisations to build community cohesion.

Access to justice for the disadvantaged community is a commendable effort as it also brings these services to the areas where our people previously never had access to such services.

Today communities of Vredendal, Mitchell’s Plain, Montagu, Blue Downs, Phillipi, Ceres and Bishop Lavis have new court buildings. Mobile court units have also been installed and rolled out in the Southern Cape and on the West Coast to add to court accommodation needs. All these courts have been equipped with burglar bars.

It cannot be contested that defaulting on maintenance payment is a trauma and a harsh experience for a mother whose life, and that of the child, depends on this money to survive. Since 2005 the Western Cape justice system has therefore launched the provincial leg of national Operation Isondlo to place a special focus on child maintenance.

This campaign is now also focusing on unblocking the systemic challenges that limit the justice department’s ability to ensure that eligible child maintenance beneficiaries get their money as quickly as possible.

It is encouraging to report that efforts have been undertaken to speed up the process and transfer money to the beneficiaries more quickly, using the latest electronic banking systems.

When the remier of the province announced that 21 areas have been identified as those needing priority government interventions, the Justice department also wasted no time in rolling out programmes in these areas to highlight the rights of women and children to maintenance.

These events contributed significantly to building community cohesion and sensitised the community to report crime and on how to make use of the courts to enforce their constitutional right.

To improve access to justice for disadvantaged communities, the following were taken into consideration by the province to provide access to justice for the deep rural communities. New service points at Touwsrivier, De Doorns, Leeu Gamka, Lamberts Bay and Plettenberg Bay have been established. These new service points allow the disadvantaged communities access to justice services within walking distance, whereas in the past some of them had to travel more than 200km to access court services.

The saying that ‘‘Justice delayed is justice denied’’ is the truth when you experience the huge court backlogs. Hence we commend the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice in rolling out the court backlog project. It is a programme aimed at speeding up the completion of court cases.

In the Western Cape, this programme has been implemented through the appointment of acting regional magistrates. Twelve acting regional magistrates were appointed to preside in these courts: in Blue Downs, two acting regional magistrates; in Atlantis, one acting magistrate; in Khayelitsha, one acting regional magistrate; in Bellville, one acting regional magistrate; in Paarl, one acting regional magistrate; in Worcester, one acting regional magistrate since 1 November 2007; in Goodwood-Parow, one acting regional magistrate since November 2007 and in George, one acting regional magistrate since 1 November 2007. Therefore, I’m pleased to say that as a result of these appointments, a total of 1 329 cases were finalised by these courts from November 2006 until 28 February 2008.

The intention is to have the project expanded to the district courts in the 2008-09 financial year and make application for the backlog court in the Cape Town District Court.

In striving to achieve the President’s vision of the war against poverty programme, the regional office in the Western Cape has identified the maintenance services at our courts as a critical component in implementing this vision.

Over the last year, from 1 March 2007 till 31 April 2008, the Western Cape has received approximately 25 878 new applications for maintenance orders for the year. In responding positively to these requests for maintenance, the following amounts were paid out to maintenance recipients during the course of the year. Approximately R1,5 billion per month was paid to the beneficiaries; and approximately R332 million per month to beneficiaries in respect of unclaimed money. That is, 7 738 beneficiaries were traced during this year. This average clearly shows there is a great number of children in the region whose wellbeing depends on the maintenance services.

For this reason, the regional office has taken an initiative in the spirit of the war room on poverty in identifying the need to manage quality control with regard to the maintenance services rendered in our region.

During the 2008-09 financial year, a key aspect for the regional justice system will be established through a war room in respect of maintenance. The objective behind this project is to reduce the turnaround time in maintenance payouts from 6-12 months to between four weeks and two months. An impact assessment of the Operation Isondlo project will also undertake to ascertain the success of this project.

Coming to community courts, three Western Cape community courts were established in November 2005. These courts are situated at Cape Town, Fezeka in Gugulethu and in Mitchells Plain.

The main objective of the courts is to assist in alleviating the overburdened court roll of the district courts for the relevant communities that they serve by fast-tracking the matters and diverting petty offences from the criminal justice system. These courts do assist with minor drug possession as well as drunk and disorderly behavioural matters.

It is our assertion that the Justice department has been playing a critical role and has made a sterling contribution towards creating a better life for our communities through rolling out its Justice For All programme. It can only be through such programmes that the government can bring about relief and hope to our people. I thank you.

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, the Deputy Minister has referred to xenophobia as a period of shame and shock for South Africa. What aggravates the situation now is the unfortunate incident regarding Judge President Hlophe.

Hlophe se beweerde optrede is uitdagend teenoor die Minister, die Parlement, die Regterlike Dienskommissie, die regsgemeenskap, die publiek en, les bes, die Grondwet. Aan die een kant is daar regter-president Hlophe, wat sê hy is onskuldig totdat hy skuldig bevind word. Van belang hier is die persepsie daarbuite. Die een groep sê “innocent until proven guilty”, terwyl ‘n ander persepsie is dat hy nie meer ‘n geskikte persoon is om die hoë amp van regter te beklee nie. Laasgenoemde is veral onder ‘n groot groep regsgeleerdes en regspraktisyns.

Die eerbare ding vir regter Hlophe om te doen, sou wees om homself uit eie beweging te onttrek, hangende die uitslag van die ondersoek deur die Regterlike Dienskommissie. Of hy grootmoedig genoeg sal wees om dit te doen, is ‘n ander vraag. In enige litigasie hoef die litigant bloot ‘n persepsie aan die kant van die voorsittende beampte te bewys dat daar teen hom benadeel kan word. Dit is ‘n objektiewe toets en dit is baie maklik vir regter Hlophe om homself te onttrek, wetende die werklike implikasies. Of hy dit sal doen, weet ons nie. Dis ‘n eenvoudige ding; óf Hlophe vertel nie die waarheid nie, óf die regters van die Grondwetlike Hof vertel nie die waarheid nie. Dit dompel ons in ‘n groot probleem, want sou bevind word dat die aantygings teen Hlophe vals is, dan het dit verdere implikasies op die regters van die Grondwetlike Hof wat kwelsugtig en inkriminerend teen Hlophe opgetree het. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Hlope’s alleged conduct is defiant towards the Minister, Parliament, the Judicial Service Commission, the legal fraternity, the public and, last but not least, the Constitution. On the one hand, you have Judge President Hlophe who claims that he is innocent until proven guilty. Of interest here is the perception on the outside. One group says “Innocent until proven guilty”, while another perception is that he is no longer fit to hold the high office of a judge. The latter perception is especially prevalent amongst a large group of jurists and legal practitioners.

The honourable thing for Judge Hlophe to do would be to withdraw voluntarily, pending the result of the inquiry by the Judicial Service Commission. Whether he will be magnanimous enough to do so is another question. In any litigation, the litigant only needs to prove a perception to the presiding officer that he is being prejudiced against. It is an objective test and it is very easy for Judge Hlophe to withdraw, being fully aware of the real implications. Whether he will in fact do so, we do not know. It is a simple issue; either Hlophe is not telling the truth, or the judges of the Constitutional Court are not telling the truth. It puts us in a difficult position, because should it be found that the accusations against Hlophe are false, then it will have further implications for the judges of the Constitutional Court who took action against Hlophe in a meddlesome and incriminating manner. [Interjections.]]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order! Does the hon member have a point of order?

Mr R J TAU: Madam Chair, I just wanted to check with the hon member whether this is a Budget Vote on Justice Hlophe or the Budget Vote of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development?

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, is that a question? I thought it was a point of order, but if that’s a question, I can answer it. Is it a question or a point of order?

Mr R J TAU: I thought the learned advocate would be quick to interpret exactly what I was doing. Nevertheless, let him answer the question.

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: The point is that what needs to be established now, Madam Chair, is who governs South Africa. Is it the African National Congress or the African National Cover-up? Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mr N J MACK: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister and hon members…

Ek weet nie of ek kole moet gooi nie, maar kom ons kyk wat gebeur. [I don’t know if I should stir, but let’s see what happens.]

The Freedom Charter is unambiguous regarding judicial transformation in that the Freedom Charter declares that “All shall be equal before the law”.

Nou wat sê ons van hierdie wetgewing? Dit is waar sake rakende beginsels inkom. Jy is onskuldig tot jy in ‘n hof skuldig bevind word. Dis snaaks, vir ‘n geleerde vriend van ons, dat my agb kollega dit nie verstaan nie. As ons alles op persepsie moet oordeel, waarheen gaan dié land dan? Kom ons gee elkeen die demokratiese reg dat ondersoek sal plaasvind, dat daar die nodige kommissies is, en dan gaan ons hof toe.

Die ding wat egter sy kop in Suid-Afrika uitsteek, is dat die koerante ‘n klomp goed skrywe en jy skuldig bevind word nog voor jy in die hof kom. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Now what do we say about this legislation? This is where issues regarding principles come into play. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court. It is odd that, as a learned friend of ours, my hon colleague does not understand this. If we were to judge everything according to perception, where is this country heading then? Let’s give everyone the democratic right to an investigation, putting the necessary commissions in place, and then go to court. The phenomenon that is cropping up in South Africa though is that the newspapers write a lot of things and one is found guilty even before you appear in court.]

So, equal before the law should be interpreted correctly, and not in the way that we, as individuals, would like it to be. The National Democratic Transformation Programme of the ANC is underpinned by the strategic objective to build a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa. In this regard, the ANC is firm that

“No one shall be imprisoned, deported or restricted without a fair trial … The courts shall be representative of all the people … All laws which discriminate on grounds of race, colour or belief shall be repealed.”

The process of transforming the Department of Justice was, and still is, fraught with difficulties. The post-1994 unified department inherited prosecutors from the old SA Department of Justice, where most prosecutors were white. Prosecutors steeped in the values of the old authoritarian order had to be convinced of the intrinsic values of the new democratic dispensation. During the aftermath of becoming a democratic government with new values, the Department of Justice had to spend millions of rands on human rights books and literature as a part of human rights training in the training programme for prosecutors and other departmental officials.

According to our Minister, the key objective of the department is to provide access to justice and this is proving its capacity to deliver justice to all. With our current budget it seems like the department has prioritised ensuring universal access to justice.

The select committee raised a fundamental aspect that needs attention, namely that the department should improve its information management system. Cases should be easily traceable as they progress along the chain of the criminal justice system. We are informed that the department is developing a more efficient and reliable management system. It is indeed welcomed that the bulk of the budget went to corporate services and personnel remuneration, to boost the morale of our staff.

There is another perception regarding the Legal Aid Board … Ah well, these perceptions … And that is that the lawyers of the Legal Aid Board are weak and inferior because they are young. This perception is not always true. There is also the suggestion out there that these lawyers persuade clients to plead guilty and to plead for mitigating circumstances so as to erase the backlog of cases. One problem I have had with the Outreach Programme of the Legal Aid Board is that they don’t use our parliamentary constituency offices. I said they could use them for their pamphlets and posters to raise awareness about their area of work among our people in the rural areas. I am very glad to hear that the Legal Aid Guide will be finalised this year. As a previous speaker has mentioned, there was some concern about that, but this will surely help.

Daar is die persepsie dat alles wat jy verniet kan kry, ook minderwaardig moet wees. Ons het ‘n ou historiese opvatting dat alles wat verniet is, minderwaardig moet wees. Nou wil ons mense liewer betaal vir hul eie prokureur voordat hulle na die Regshulpraad gaan. Dit is nog ‘n persepsie wat ons moet regstel, want ek is seker daarvan dat die Regshulpraad goeie werk doen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The perception exists that everything that one gets for free has to be inferior. We have an old historical view that everything that is free of charge must be inferior. Now our people want to pay for their own lawyer rather than making use of the Legal Aid Board. This is another perception that we have to rectify, because I am sure that the Legal Aid Board is doing good work.]

I also want to express my thanks and congratulations for the unqualified input received from the Legal Aid Board. We also welcome the increase in capacity from R10 million for 2008-09 to R13 million for 2009-10 and to R17 million for 2010-11. That will surely help the Legal Aid Board with its capacity.

The Freedom Charter’s clarion call remains: “All shall be equal before the law.” The department has an imperative to fulfil that mandate of the conquerors of the people. Although much is being done by the department to ensure accessible and affordable justice for all, the department clearly has some binding constraints which slow down the tempo of implementation. Some of these constraints are structural, some systemic and some intersectoral in form and content.

Daar is so ‘n groot neiging by my om te wil praat oor die Scorpions, want almal praat dan daaroor. Ek moet my net daarvan weerhou. Die ANC steun dié begrotingspos. [I have such a strong urge to comment on the issue of the Scorpions, as everyone is talking about it. I just have to restrain myself. The ANC supports this Vote.]

Ms B L NTEMBE: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, today we are debating the Budget Vote on Justice and Constitutional Development. When we debate this, are we looking at ourselves also to establish whether we are just persons, as we are promoting justice in the courts? Or are we only debating because we are politicians?

Hon Chairperson, to uphold the name “honourable”, it is important when we respond to members’ speeches not to distort or purposefully misinterpret what the members are saying, just for the sake of winning an argument. What we say here affects people’s lives. Let us look at the following figures. The department’s budget increased from R7,5 billion in the 2007-08 financial year to a total of R8,3 billion in 2008-09. Does this amount include the salaries of judges and magistrates, especially as a direct charge against the National Revenue Fund? If not, can the hon Minister please give us the amount in relation to the main appropriation for 2008- 09.

If, in nominal terms, the allocation for 2008-09 increased by 10,7% in comparison to 2007-08, am I correct when I say that in real terms the appropriation for 2008-09 increased by 3,3%? When we look at the spending trends of the department, there was underspending in the past year. Does that mean that the department has in fact underspent for 2007-08? If that is so, what is the amount? Are there plans in place, hon Chairperson, to rectify this trend? If there are plans in place, may this Council please hear it from the hon Minister?

When we look at a court conviction of a 10-year sentence, but between 10 and 13 mistakes are found and the Appeal Court finds the accused not guilty, surely we have to look at our courts more intensively. The independence of the courts surely does not exclude the human factor, which includes human weaknesses.

In conclusion, that is why the death sentence is such a sensitive issue. I thank you.

Mr S SHICEKA: Well, I must congratulate the chairperson for pronouncing my name and surname so well. Clearly it means that she is undergoing some lessons in this matter.

Chairperson, Deputy Minister, colleagues, comrades and friends, I’m shocked and astounded by the fact that my learned friend Dr Van Heerden talks about a matter that is sub judice. Dr Van Heerden is the person who in this House is expressing a view. The matter, as he knows, is the matter that will be in front of the Judicial Service Commission.

Now Dr Van Heerden is a member of the Judicial Service Commission and in essence it means that Dr Van Heerden has already taken a point of view. It means then when he goes to that forum he must recuse himself because he will not be able to speak on the matter because here he is requesting …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M HOLLANDER): Thank you, hon member. Is that a point of order?

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: May I ask the hon member a question?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Will you take a question?

Mr S SHICEKA: You are welcome, hon Van Heerden. After my speech. Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Is the hon member …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): He says that he will take a question after his speech. Please take your seat.

Mr S SHICEKA: I’m saying that Dr Van Heerden is falling into the trap of allowing a trial by public opinion. As a member who will be participating in the forum that will be dealing with the matter, he is not supposed to be carried away by the media and ensure that he does not express opinions without any facts on the matter. He has not actually accessed facts, instead being reliant on the media and on what they have outlined.

I’m saying, Dr Van Heerden, in future you must avoid these things. The ANC as a party has not commented on this matter. Now when you say that you want to know whether it is an ANC cover-up or something we are not sure as a movement what you are trying to address and what you want to do in this regard. The ANC has said that it will allow processes that are due to take their course and we are not protecting anybody in that respect.

The other thing, Chairperson, is that I’ve heard my learned friend from the Free State, Mr Worth, raising an issue around the Scorpions. It is a favourite topic the IFP has also raised it. Mr Worth is quoting the Khampepe Commission. I am not sure if he has seen the report, or whether he also bases his speech on what he has read in the media. The issue of the Scorpions was raised a long time ago in the ANC. If I remember very well it was in 2002 when the ANC expressed a view on this matter.

At the same time the ANC is very clear that the Scorpions must be able to ensure that investigators are located within the Police Service. We are talking about a single Police Service. We don’t want to see police being dispersed all over the show. One finds that the Scorpions, based on that fact, involve themselves in illegal activities and involve themselves in intelligence matters, which don’t belong to them. If you go to the police they have what you call crime intelligence. They are able to gather intelligence and at the same time, on issues beyond that, we have the National Intelligence Agency, and also the SASS is in place to deal with foreign intelligence.

Now we are saying on this matter of the Scorpions that the problem that was also identified was the undermining of the issue of the separation of powers. We have the judiciary on the one hand, dealing with the issue that is being linked to this issue of the Scorpions. The matter of the Scorpions is going to come before this House and this House is going to deliberate on the matter and I don’t think we must actually speculate about the outcome.

Members should not talk about something that they did not see because it is merely fashionable to do so. Therefore, we want all of us to express our views, and, Mr Worth, fortunately you are a member of the committee, as well as you, Sebale, and you will be able to express your opinion in that respect on these issues. I don’t think then that it is correct that you express the views as you just did.

I want to raise other issues relating to what we think, Deputy Minister, must be taken up. The issue of the redemarcation of magisterial districts is a matter of importance to us. It deals with the access to justice and it is at the core of that. In some areas the police station that is involved in dispensing service delivery in that area is in the geographical area, but you find that people have to leave some courts in that area and go to a court in another place.

Therefore, we feel that this matter must be taken up with serious urgency and it must be dealt with speedily. The other issue is around the infrastructure. We think that it is important for the department to develop some idea on the infrastructure backlog and quantify it. So, when you talk about the courts that must be built, we must know how many courts are required, and how much they cost. Not only that, but as you pass laws dealing with justice, we must be able to quantify that also so that we are able to know how we phase in these issues. As we visit provinces we are experiencing a situation where there is a shortage of office space. There is not only the shortage of office space, but in some areas people with disabilities are unable to access the offices so they are able to be taken care of and dealt with in that respect. Therefore, we are requesting the Deputy Minister to take this matter up.

The other issue that is a matter of importance is, as we are reliably informed, that we are leading the transformation of the criminal justice cluster structure, as has been stated in the President’s state of the nation address. The issue of the co-ordination, particularly also of our intelligence services, is important because they relate to the issue of cases that must be looked into. This we have seen when the state was exposed during the recent xenophobic situation and was not protected.

That matter must be dealt with. The co-ordination between the prosecutors and investigating officers should also be dealt with so as to ensure that when they develop a case, that case is watertight and airtight. There is no situation where it is thrown out of court because of lack of evidence because the statement that was written did not have sufficient and requisite information that is supposed to be taken up in that respect.

We request then that those matters must be taken up as well as the automation of docket cases so that they don’t disappear. You find that cases are thrown out because the dockets have been lost in that respect. The last point is that we want to appeal to the judicial officers that the black life should be seen as being as valuable as and as equal to the white life in this country when these matters are taken up. I thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Thank you, Chairperson and thank you, members. I appreciate the inputs. Obviously it is difficult to answer every issue raised but my staff is here and they have taken down notes. If you want us at any stage to come and respond to it, we will do so. I think the important thing, though, is that we must be a bit careful when we look at systems, to pick on particular anecdotal issues and ascribe them to the system. There is no problem taking the anecdotal problem and saying that it must be fixed up. We must be very careful in the debate not to say that that was the problem with the whole system.

I had this debate in the NA where one of the members there, the hon Van der Merwe, said that the justice system was collapsing. The problem with that is the following: Firstly, it is just a lie because your problem is that every single day of your life, hundreds of thousands of individuals get up out of their beds, they shower, they get dressed and they go to work and they serve the criminal justice system – admittedly to different degrees. In some areas they do it very well, in other areas not so well. They go to work every single day. They finish thousands and thousands of cases every single day. There may be problems with the system and it may work better. There may be a particular magistrate or a particular judge or a particular prosecutor that is not very competent. As a whole the system holds together and it works. And I think that what we should be looking at more is to systemically look at those issues, which brings me to the issues that the hon Shiceka - let me try and pronounce it correctly, Shiceka … [Laughter.] … has raised and that is the issue of this whole criminal justice system.

It is so that we have taken a year to look at it. And we went to the grass roots and we took the top people in each department with us together with Business Against Crime. We went to the grass roots and we looked at what the problems were there. We did not study a book.

You know, we have a lot of books already in this country where people have written books on us, about the problems with the system. But they are always desktop things. We went there; we looked and we actually spoke to them about solutions. Cabinet then agreed to seven major changes which I read earlier - the seven big major changes in the system. Of course, there are smaller changes within each of those, but some of these changes have to take place in the courts.

One of the problems that we have identified in the courts is that the police have no stake in the courts – none at all. They go to the front door; they put down the docket; they walk away. They have got no stake in what happens with that docket. So what happens? The prosecutor looks at it, writes in it, and sends it back to the police. The police drop it off at the front door again.

So, there is no quality engagement on whether the docket is good enough and so on. And the prosecutor has no authority over the police to instruct them to do things. So what we are thinking of, as one of the solutions in the system, is, firstly, at regional court level and then district court level

• so at the ten regional court levels - to create a very senior post for a detective, one of the most top detectives, for each province, with one of the top prosecutors. They will screen every docket that goes into the regional court and sign off on it and say it is trial ready. If they have not signed off together, then we won’t get these things any more where they are blaming each other - the one saying you are doing it for your statistics, the other one saying you are not. The police must be there with the prosecutors; you sign off together. And we want to create that system at all levels of our courts, so we start getting a system. It is quite correct. There has been a lot of criticism and correctly so.

Today, if you look at any given year, about 700 cases that go to court get withdrawn out of the courts again. So the prosecutors and the magistrates must deal with 700 cases, but nothing ever materialises from it. It just gets out of the system. Now we are saying that it is not going in the system any more. You stay with the police till the police have got their dockets ready and they sign off on it.

The other thing that goes with this is that we have got this terrible system where every time witnesses have to come to court, even if you postpone the case fifty times. The witnesses must come to court; sit there; be bullied by the accused; be bullied by the families and so on. With this screening from now onwards, it will be so that you subpoena a witness when there is going to be a trial. So to try … [Applause.]

So, that is one of the ways we have to look at to try and get the system to work more efficiently. The judges, magistrates and prosecutors can concentrate on trials and not on administration. Then, before the dockets come to court, we want to create a system where the Legal Aid Board gets informed very early on, when someone has been arrested, that there is a client or a potential client so that they get involved early on. At the moment, they only get involved later: You come to court, you postpone the case five times, then you come to court for trial and the person says, “I have not got a lawyer”. Now you have to go back, get a lawyer and wait on him. So we want to do it much earlier.

We also want the prosecutors to be involved with the police and guide them with their investigations at a much earlier stage, so that there are some prosecutors that do not sit in the court, and work and do cases. They are actually there to help the police to make sure they are building good cases.

So you can see that what we are starting to think of is a holistic system which is performance-driven, which is orientated towards quality and that we then, in that way, generate the kind of work we need.

There are several other suggestions as well. If you want, at some stage, I can come and give an input on the whole structure.

Then there are a lot of issues around capacity. You know, all of us watch CSI Miami and so on. It is very fancy and has very nice and pretty people and so on. In the real world it is not like that, but what they are portraying is the forensic capacity of a country. If you have to rely on witnesses, you could have a situation where the witness’s husband beats her almost to death and then the husband comes and sweet-talks her, and she then withdraws the charges. Then you are relying on eye-witness evidence and not forensic evidence such as blood, DNA, hair, or semen, and those types of things when you rely on that you do not need eye-witness evidence. You can get Kgoši just on where he left his blood or whatever he left behind. [Laughter.] I did not say anything about semen. [Laughter.]

In our country we only have 1 700 forensic experts. If you take into account that, in any given year, there are almost 2 million crimes reported, of which 19 000 are murders, 20 000 are attempted murders and then you can see our forensic capacity is almost nonexistent in the bigger scheme of things. So, that forensic capacity needs to be beefed up tremendously. I mean, when you engage with the police, that is where we must engage, not on visible policing, where you see a policeman on the street. The issue is: What capacity do we have to find criminals and put them in prison? That is the capacity we need in the police, not to see police on the streets. That has never worked anywhere in the world. So, that is one issue we need to push.

Of all the policemen we have, only 14% are detectives. So it is a minute number of police who are detectives. That number must swell enormously. I mean, we do not need visible police, we need detectives. At least, in my view, a quarter or a third to a half of our policemen must be detectives.

They must go and find criminals and so on. We have to change the salary dispensation of detectives and forensic experts. Listen to me carefully. I am saying detectives and forensic experts because those are the people that must find the criminals for us. At the moment, they get the same salary as any other police personnel. There is no incentive in the system to be a detective. If I am a detective with 5 years experience and this comrade is a policeman with 5 years experience, we get exactly the same salary. So why must I catch criminals, spend 24 hours a day looking for criminals, when I can have a desk job, go home after 8 hours and not worry about my job?

So a whole new salary dispensation for detectives and forensic experts and the building of that capacity must become our focus. The major consideration is to push for our capacity to find criminals, to keep them and to find evidence to put them in jail.

Then you will find that there are weaknesses in our system. There are a lot of weaknesses and we need not debate this, but if we look at the statistics, there are very many weaknesses in the performance of our system.

The problem is, in this country, the debate is always about the number of crimes. The number of crimes is important of course; and of course they are going down. But the issue is, that what we have never debated is: What do we do with those crimes? Do we get convictions? Do we actually put people in prison and so on and so on? The debate must change. Your focus has to change and we should look at those things and see which policemen, which prosecutors and so on are actually producing the goods in that area.

So, on a lot of the issues you raised here, we need to start changing some of the simple things. The criminal justice system has a vision and mission. The Department of Justice has a vision and mission. The NPA has a vision and mission. The police have a vision and mission. But sometimes, if you go and look at them, they contradict each other. The police say: “Get all your dockets to court”. The prosecutor says: “Get the high conviction rate, therefore throw out the bad cases”. So we do not have a vision and mission where we say: “This is the criminal justice system. All of us, we fit into that one and that is what we push”. We do not have it.

The other thing is that we have departments that are governed through laws. The police Act governs the police. We have got nothing in between that governs where they have to work together. The touching points are completely unregulated and unaccounted for. As I said, a policeman can walk to the front door of the court, put the docket down and walk away. The prosecutor writes on it. The policeman may or may not fix it up. The prosecutor has no authority to say: “You must sort this out. Go and collect the DNA”. You know, they have not got the authority to do so. So when you start creating the synergies and letting in accountability where they touch, you create mechanisms of accountability, such as in the case of the screening mechanism. Now you start to create a system that is accountable. At the moment it does not exist. That is why when you call the police, they blame the prosecutors; you talk to the prosecutors, they blame the police. There is no accountability in the system. There is nothing built into the system.

Secondly, there are no structures to co-ordinate and manage the criminal justice system. We manage the Department of Justice, we manage Police, but we do not manage the criminal justice system, which is something that works without me and you. Every day people go to court and they just do their work. So, some of them do it well and others do it very badly. But no one manages that system. Those issues in the system are not escalated upwards as cluster issues and not as a departmental issue.

So, that whole review that Shiceka was talking about has got to do with us trying to create those seven major changes in the system. We have to do all of them. Some of them will be shorter-term, some of them medium-term, and some of them long-term. The whole idea must be to get that system to work differently from what it is now. If it works the way we work now, then, at the time of your children’s death, they will still be complaining about the criminal justice system because the major issues have not been dealt with - the major issues of a vision and mission, of structures, of capacity, and of the court processes changing.

If I kill someone today, my case is allocated a case number, M5/8, and each department after that keeps that number. When it goes to the next stage, they have got their own number; when it goes to the next department, they have got their own number. So, the whole system at the moment, remember, has been manual, for all these years. So, for me to find out what happened to the murder case of Johnny de Lange, I have to go to each unit and physically go and look through the manual system, then go and look at the other unit, hoping that they kept the same name, then go to the next and the next. We do not have a national database that says, “Johnny de Lange killed someone. This is the result. Piet killed someone. This is the result”. Therefore, we make policy in this country without having a scientific basis for doing so.

So, therefore, some magistrates will tell you, “We work very hard, get more magistrates and so on”. If you look scientifically at the numbers, it tells you that in our regional courts and magistrates’ courts, if we take all the cases every day and divide the total amongst them, on average magistrates only sit between three-and-half and four hours. A day is eight hours long. So, half a day, if you take all cases and average them, half a day is missing in every single court in this country. So the issue is not more magistrates. The issue is the system is not effective in keeping the magistrate busy for seven or eight hours a day. That is the problem; that is the problem we have.

We can create 50 more magisterial posts but all that will happen is that the figure will stay exactly the same. If the system continues underperforming, it can only produce work on average in its court for three- and-half to four hours a day. That is what the system produces as we sit here now. And remember, most of that is admin, it is not trial; it is admin because 700 000 cases go into the system and get removed every year without landing in front of a court.

So, yes, we have problems with our system; it is not unique. In most parts of the world if you go and look at it, it will be more or less the same. The difference is, we have identified them and we have come up with concrete ways of actually trying to change that. And we are going to need your help; we are going to need your help in doing so and we are going to need your help in then overseeing the system sp that it gets done.

I quickly want to say something on the Guardian’s Fund. It is very unfair that you tackle something such as the Guardian’s Fund, because that fund has been dysfunctional since the Queen used to govern this country. Now the last time the Queen was in charge of this country was 1961 when we created a republic. This Guardian’s Fund has always been manual and has never had an unqualified report because their system has never worked. We did not create it. When we got there it was like that. We have been trying now for more than a decade to get the Auditor-General and Treasury to find a solution for that.

They have now got a solution where we are trying to look at a whole managing trust plan that we have done with Treasury to draw in the private sector to try and sort this problem out, but it is a problem that is very unfairly put at our doorstep. About the issue of Judge Hlophe, the hon Judge Hlophe, I think, we must be very very careful about, whatever we want to say about it. I have views on it. But my views, like everyone else’s, are formed by the media. I do not have any single shred of independent information about that case. Now I respect all the people that have been involved in this process. And it is easy to jump to conclusions on the basis of what has happened here. But you know, what irks me is that the JSC has acted very quickly. They say we are going to meet by either Friday or Saturday this week. We are then going to start processing the matter.

And the problem is, firstly, I have no place in it. Secondly, I have to vote on that one day, maybe. If you want to remove a judge, we in Parliament have to vote on that matter. If we are jumping up and we are pre- empting the issue, then quite luckily we will be able to get up and say to Dr Van Heerden: ``Please will you recuse yourself. You from the beginning showed a particular …’’ That is why we in Parliament should let this process run its course. If the JSC had not moved quickly on this matter, then we would have had the right to complain and the entitlement to criticise. But where they moved quickly and only they have the right to deal with this matter, let it run its course and bear in mind that we in Parliament will one day have to vote on this matter, maybe. We must, therefore, be careful how we intervene in these processes.

And I would say, only if there was something untoward, for example, if the JSC did nothing, then we in Parliament could start saying, “Why are you not doing something?” But I think, in a situation where things are happening, let us respect the process; let us respect the institutions we have created; and let us respect then the outcome of that.

Lastly, on the issue of plea bargains, plea bargains are a very touchy issue, because on the one hand we have created a law that allows plea bargaining. And remember, every plea bargain is not only agreed to by the prosecuting authority, but a judge or a magistrate must also approve of the plea bargain, otherwise it cannot happen. So you will always have a judge or magistrate that agrees with whatever the plea bargain is.

Having said that, I think that it is very difficult again on plea bargains to judge; you know, on some of them I have felt: Why did these people plea bargain? When I found out the true facts, I said, okay, I understand. But we must take the criticism. There are some cases as well where I would never accept that the plea bargain is right. I understand when they do it with Thatcher and so on. What I do not understand is a case like Agliotti’s case. There is a man who admits that he helped import R300 million or R280 million of heroin into this country. He helped people to get it in the country, which means our children are using that stuff and it is killing them. I would never accept that a man like that should walk scot-free. I do not care what evidence he gives. I want that man to go to prison.

And if you look at how plea bargain systems work correctly, when you get cases, involving the bosses, the criminal Mafia bosses, and you get evidence against them, you do not let the Mafia boss walk, and prosecute the minions; you take the minions’ evidence and use it against the boss to make sure the boss goes to prison.

Now I think that that is where we should have the debate, not criticising every plea bargain because, as I say, sometimes we do not understand the facts. If you listen to the prosecuting authority on the Thatcher case, then you will say, “Well, we agree with you. There was no other option for you but to do it”.

You know the case where the little boy was killed because the farmer thought he was a dog? If you go and listen to the facts of that case, that farmer and that little boy were like this. What was portrayed is not true that he thought that the kid was a dog. What was happening on the farm is that they were looking for a dog; and the aunt of this little boy called the farmer and said, “We have seen the dog. We have seen the dog. It is down there”. All of these people went with the farmer. When they got down there, they said, “There, there, there”; and he shot at the dog. When they got there, they saw that it was this little boy whom he had a very close relationship with. Everyone understands, in that case, there is no way you will put that farmer in prison. But the way the media portrayed it is that this farmer compared this kid to a dog and so on. It is a terrible indictment. So, plea bargaining is a very difficult issue. The only test in the legislation must be a just sentence which a judge or magistrate must approve.

But at the end of the day, there are some plea bargains, for example, the Agliotti one, which I will never accept. I will not accept that a country should allow criminals like that who import drugs into this country to walk away scot-free. I do not care who they give evidence against. I will never accept a plea bargain like that. And the fact that a judge has also accepted it, does not matter to me. I think the judge is wrong and I think the prosecutor was wrong in that case. That person should never have been given that plea bargain.

So, as I said, with plea bargains it is very difficult to find the right balance, but I do think, in some instances, our prosecuting authorities are overstepping it badly.

There is the Legal Aid Board and perceptions. You know with a criminal, it does not matter whether he is the most wonderful criminal in the world, whether he is black, pink or purple. It does not matter whether it’s a man or woman; just find me one criminal that is happy about the system. [Laughter.] You will never find a criminal that is happy about the system. So why would they find that the state lawyers are good enough? Of course, there are weak lawyers; of course there are and so on. But at the end of the day, we are creating a legal aid system that caters for people who cannot get their own lawyer. If they can get their own lawyers, by all means, let them get their own lawyers. If you cannot, then be happy with what the system provides you. And I think that is it.

So, thanks once again for the debate. I think it has been a very good one. And if there are issues we can take further in your committee, I am very open to coming to the committee. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

DEBATE CONCLUDED

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP(MS P M HOLLANDER): We thank the hon De Lange for his input. That concludes the debate. We thank him for his comprehensive advice.

                  TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AGENCY BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, hon members, the Bill before us is the Technology Innovation Agency Bill. The aim of this Bill is to stimulate and intensify innovations and inventions. Hitherto in our country we have had scientific ideas not being developed into final products that can actually develop our country economically, because there has been no vehicle to deal with those types of ideas.

Most of our scientific ideas in our country have been developed elsewhere in the world and been brought back as scientific products that are sold to South Africa. If we had had this type of vehicle, that would not have happened.

Therefore, this Bill creates a vehicle which will be in a position to develop ideas into final products that can actually be sold in the country to develop the economy of our country. I want to say that this is a section 75 Bill and because it is a section 75 Bill, as a committee we did not see fit to actually go to some public hearings. We are satisfied that the consultation which was done by the department and the consultation that was done also in the other House was extensive enough to be in a position to cover us as well. Therefore, we feel and want to implore this House to adopt this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP(Ms P M Hollander): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties the opportunity make their declaration of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed with the voting on the question. Those in favour say “Aye”; those against say “No”. I think the “Ayes” have it. The majority of the members voted in favour; I therefore declare the Bill agreed to.

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

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (MS P M HOLLANDER): Hon members, I have been informed that there is one speakers’ list for the Third and Fourth Orders. The Secretary will read the Third and Fourth Orders of the day.

                    TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
                 TAXATION LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

           (Consideration of Bills and of Reports thereon)

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Chairperson, hon members, tax proposals made in the February 2008 Budget are aimed at democratising South Africa’s tax regime. This implies that the proposed tax regime is designed to support the objective of alleviating poverty and delivering services on a sustainable basis.

This legislation legitimises some of the main tax policy changes announced in February 2008 by the Minister of Finance. This includes measures calculated to assist small businesses, to encourage companies to develop the skills profile of their employees, to close loopholes in the current tax regime and to encourage individuals to save for both their deferred consumption needs and their retirement benefits.

The legislation provides, inter alia, for personal income tax relief. Individuals earning less than R46 000 will not be taxed. In February 1996 only individuals earning less than R14 600 per annum were not required to pay tax. This strategy is key to the ANC-led government’s drive to alleviate poverty. The tax-free benefit threshold for bursaries granted to employees’ dependents increases from R3 000 to R10 000 a year for employees earning up to R100 000 per annum.

To further improve corporate compliance, the corporate tax rate has been reduced by 1% to 28%. This is a significant change because a lower rate is one option among many that seeks to promote voluntary tax compliance. Lower rate yielding and higher compliance is the most effective and cost- efficient means of expanding the revenue base. Voluntary compliance is the antithesis of arbitrariness in assessing tax liabilities; cohesion in the collection processes in the absence of any representation for taxpayers, with tax policies decided. Sars embraces a more contractual approach whereby there is an adequate measure of an explicit change of tax revenue for services and a tax process characterised by a non-negotiable method of assessing and collecting revenue.

The motivation for Sars consensually is that taxpayers will know their future tax obligation and have confidence that their rights are always respected. In this case both government and taxpayers are beneficiaries. Sars’ approach to voluntary compliance is through improvement in client service. The majority of taxpayers prefer compliance over non-compliance, provided they are aware of their obligation or educated about tax, customs and other obligations.

Sars, therefore, seeks to reduce the administrative burden by increasing accessibility and responsiveness to taxpayers. Sars will be revolutionising tax arrangements through the development of an e-filing tax return system with effect from July 2008. An e-filing tax return system is one prepared by Sars for the taxpayers using the third-party information reports, for example IRP5 and detailed insurance company information.

Sars seeks to simplify the administrative process and thereby reduce compliance cost by providing complete or largely complete tax returns to taxpayers. Taxpayers are required in the case of non-salary income - and I think that applies to the hon Adams - and undisclosed expenditures only to do so, and in addition, Sars will assist taxpayers to comply by improving the quality of assistance provided to taxpayers. This relates to the promptness with which queries and outstanding issues are resolved.

This legislation further reduces the administrative burden on small businesses for advocating a presumptive turnover tax as an alternative to income tax for businesses, with turnover of less than a million rand a year. That registration threshold is raised from an annual turnover of R300 000 to R1 million.

The interests and dividend exemption for individuals in the age group below 65 will increase to R19 000. In 2000 it was R3 000 and the exemption for other individuals will increase to R27 000; in 2000 it was R4 000.

In 2007 the tax laws were amended to introduce a limit of one year to the tax exemption for employers providing housing, and for expatriate employees. This Bill extends the one-year tax free period to two years and a monetary limit of R25 000 per month was placed on the monthly rental. The reason why the two-year period was introduced was to provide tax relief in cases where an expatriate is most likely to retain a house in his or her home country. An expatriate on an extended assignment, for example of four years, is not likely to retain a house in a country of origin. The exemption is not a tax incentive but to offset a likely dual expense not experienced by local employees.

This Bill is commensurate with key ANC policy proposals as articulated in the Reconstruction and Development Policy. The White Paper is explicit that the democratic government should raise state revenue by expanding the tax base, rather than by permanently raising the tax rates and the reference is the White Paper on the RDP, in the Gazette of November 1994.

These Bills are explicitly about revenue collection, and expenditure considerations such as type and volume do not fall within the ambit of these Bills. Our democratic government must, therefore, ensure that it collects all revenue due to it.

The surplus budget announced during the last two financial years and the collection of revenues in excess of expectations for the umpteenth consecutive year create a false perception that the democratic government has collected all its revenue legally due to it.

This is not the case as is demonstrated by the tax avoidance opportunity created by inter-and-cross border route transactions. Because of the rapid speed at which the nature and volume of transactions change over time and the speed at which types of organisations change, this restructuring of companies creates new opportunities for tax avoidance.

The democratic government needs continually to demonstrate the political will to track all new avoidance opportunities as they occur in order to ensure that the government recovers the revenue due.

The development thrust of the ANC government is compromised when dangers are prone to affect the revenue base. The Select Committee on Finance appeals to the National Council of Provinces to support the tax legislation. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bills be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties an opportunity to make their declaration of vote if they so wish. In the absence of any declaration, we shall now proceed to the voting on the question. Those in favour will say: “Aye”; those against will say “No”. I think the “Ayes” have it. The majority of members voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bills agreed to.

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

Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS - AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE AFRICA INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS AND OTHER WASTES

Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson and hon members, the generation of hazardous waste has a direct impact on human health and the environment which are exposed to such waste. However, usually long-term exposure is required before harmful effects can manifest themselves. Unfortunately, in most cases, by the time the effects manifest themselves, it is either already too late to restore people’s health or the conditions of the environment, or the treatment of such cases will be too costly.

In most industrialised countries, toxic waste management only began to be really addressed by governments during the 1970s. Increasing awareness of the detrimental effects on the environment due to the careless disposal of waste, be it through uncontrolled dumping and/or discharges into surface and ground water, careless storage and transportation or inappropriate treatment, became the main stimuli for the passing of new legislation on hazardous and other waste management.

A policy for toxic waste management must be consistent with policies developed to control the use of toxic substances, to conserve resources, to preserve health and to protect the environment. Most of the legislation and programmes to protect hazardous waste in cities are based on, and are clearly articulated in Chapter 20 of Agenda 21 which was adopted at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, which is managed by the UN’s Division for Sustainable Development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationaly and locally by organisations of the UN, governments and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment.

Despite international conventions to control the importation and transboundary movement of hazardous waste, African countries still struggle with huge problems of pesticide dumps and the illicit trade in hazardous waste. It is against this backdrop and under the auspices of the UN’s Basel Convention that 11 English-speaking African countries signed an agreement in April 2004 to establish the Africa Institute for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous and Other Wastes. Present at the signing was the Deputy Minister of South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, DEAT, Ms Rejoice Mabudafhasi, the environment Minister of Tanzania, Mr Arcado Ntagazwa and the chairman of the UN Environment Programme’s Governing Council.

The establishment of the Africa Institute for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous and Other Wastes is a commendable initiative on the part of African countries including ours, and for the continent to manage and address hazardous and other waste issues as the poor management of these wastes impacts negatively on our environments and people’s daily lives. With the assistance of the Bamako Convention and the UN’s Basel Convention, it is hoped that the institute’s capacity-building and technical expertise on waste handling will be enhanced.

Chairperson, I place this report before this House to be adopted.

Debate concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the Fifth Order. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their votes. In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Eastern Cape?

Mr A T MANYOSI: Eastern Cape supports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Limpopo e ya dumela. [Limpopo supports.]

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

Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Mpumalanga sihlehletela nayo sicedze Lubombo. [Mpumalanga supports.]

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

Mr A L MOSEKI: Kapa-Bokone re dumelana go menagane. [Northern Cape supports.]

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

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West in favour. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?

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

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

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with Section 65 of the constitution.

CONSIDERETAION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND   ADMINISTRATION – NEWCASTLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND AMAJUBA AND UMZINYATHI
                        DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

Mnu M A MZIZI: Angibonge, Sihlalo. Sihlalo ungafisa kuze phela sithole ukuthi sihlangene ngani. Kuyazeka ukuthi uNgqogqoshe wesifundazwe sakwaZulu- Natali wafika lapha ezobika umbiko wokuthi usezengenelela koMasipala abathathu laba esebaliwe, Amajuba District Municipality, Umzinyathi District Municipality ne-Newcastle Local Municipality.

Isizathu kwaku ukuthi-ke ingenelela nje lapho kwakuthi iThukela Water Board kwakunezinkinga ezazibonakala ukuthi zikhona-ke insizakala kubantu zingasayi, amanzi abantu bengasawatholi. LaboMasipala-ke abathathu bayambandakanyeka labo ngoba yibona abanikeza amanzi kubantu babo noma imphakathi elapho.

Kwase kubonakala ukuthi kuyadinga ukuthi leli komiti liye-ke liyokhuluma nabantu abathintekayo. Sithe mase sifika lapha sathintana nalaboMasipala abathathu nabasebenzi babo nayo iBhodi yeza yazothula konke ebabefuna ukukhuluma ngako. Sithe uma sibuya-ke sesicwaninga-ke sesijula ngomqondo ikomiti lafikelela kulezi zincomo-ke kule nkulumo ebesikhuluma ngayo ukuthi ikomidi leli-ke li ncoma ukuthi … (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Mr M A MZIZI: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, I know you are anxious to know what we will be discussing here today. We all know that the provincial Minister from KwaZulu-Natal came here with the report stating that he will be intervening in the three municipalities as mentioned earlier on, which are Amajuba District Municipality, Umzinyathi District Municipality and Newcastle Local Municipality.

The reason for the intervention arose as a result of problems within uThukela Water Board. It was alleged that these problems hugely hampered service delivery in the areas mentioned. People were no longer getting services such as water. And these three municipalities were also affected because they were supposed to be giving water to the people populating them.

We then saw the need for this committee to go there and speak to the people involved. When we got there, we engaged with these three municipalities, their officials and the Board also gave a report on issues it wanted to address. We then came back here and we revisited these issues. And the committee came up with the following recommendations.]

The committee supports the interventions and makes the following recommendations: firstly, that the interventions should be approved and remain in place for a period of not more than six months.

Secondly, that the future of the uThukela Water Board should be looked at with respect to its ability to plan, budget and provide quality, clean potable water and sanitation to the communities in a sustainable manner.

Thirdly, that the administrator who is in charge should promote the culture of corporate governance and consult with all stakeholders on issues of the entity.

Fourthly, that when the six-month period lapses, the MEC should provide a report on the termination of the intervention to the Chairperson of the NCOP.

Fifthly, and the last one, the committee recommends that the House to approve the interventions as issued by the MEC for Local Government and Traditional Affairs.

Sihlalo sicela lokho-ke ukuthi lo mbiko wemukewe. Ngiyabonga. [Chairperson, we therefore ask that the report be adopted. Thank you]

Debate concluded.

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

HON MEMBERS: Yes.

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

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Eastern Cape supports.

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

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Supports.

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

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

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

Mr Z C NTULI: In favour.

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

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Limpopo e a dumela. [Limpopo supports.]

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

Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: eMpumalanga sitsi liduna. [We supports]

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

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Ra dumela. [We support.]

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

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [Supports.]

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

Mr N J MACK: Elethu. [We support.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with Section 65 of the constitution.

 CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
            ADMINISTRATION - MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Mr D A WORTH: Deputy Chair, hon members, I’ve never had 10 minutes before, so I am going to read so slowly, but I know you have all had a long day so if you cheer and clap at the end of my speech, I will go faster.[Laugther.]

Deputy Chair, hon members, the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration conducted a fact-finding visit from 17-19 March 2008 on the basis of the notices tabled to the National Council of Provinces in terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Constitution by the Mpumalanga MEC for housing and local government to intervene in the Mbombela Local Municipality.

Having conducted the fact-finding mission and having met various stakeholders, the committee supports the intervention and recommends the following: one, the intervention must be procedurally correct on issues discovered that warranted intervention; two, the intervention must be allowed for a period of six months; three, the new leadership must develop a programme to deal with divisions at political level; four, the MEC should provide a report on the termination of the intervention; five, the municipality should fill all vacant positions within 90 days; six, the office of the MEC for Local Government and Housing should put in place early warning systems on interventions in terms of section 139(e); seven, the political leadership should take appropriate measures to ensure staff members work in harmony and proper employment procedures are followed; eight, the provincial portfolio committee on local government and housing should assess the performance of all municipalities in the province on a quarterly basis and report to the office of the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, and lastly, nine, the committee recommends that this House approves the intervention as issued by the MEC for Local Government and Housing and also the other recommendations. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate Concluded. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber.

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

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

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Siyaxhasa. [We support.]

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

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Supports.

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

Mr E M SOGONI: Supports.

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

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

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

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports.]

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

Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: iMpumalanga iyasekela. [Mpumalanga supports.]

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

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Northern Cape supports.

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

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

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

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

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION – MPENDLE AND KOKSTAD LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES

Mr N J MACK: Thank you, House Chairperson. The Select Committee on Local Government and Administration considered the notices of directives referred to the NCOP in terms of section 139 of the Constitution by the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Department of Local Government, Housing and Traditional Affairs to intervene in the Mpendle Local Municipality and the Greater Kokstad Local Municipality.

This decision follows persistent maladministration, financial mismanagement, one lack of an asset register, fraud and corruption, negative cash flows, noncompliance with legislation, government policies and procedures, poor human resource management systems and persistent receipt of qualified audit opinions and disclaimers. I will be short, members, don’t worry.

In conducting the fact-finding visits and interacting with the major stakeholders in line with its objectives, the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration supports the intervention with the following recommendations and the report is tabled in the ATCs for members to read.

This report will also be circulated to all stakeholders. The committee recommends that the House approves the intervention as issued by the MEC. Thank you.

Debate Concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any province that wants to make a declaration?

We shall now proceed to the voting in alphabetical order. Eastern Cape?

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Siyaxhasa. [We support.]

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

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Supports.

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

Mr E M SOGONI: Supports. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?

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

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

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports.]

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

Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: iMpumalanga iyasekela. [Mpumalanga supports.]

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

Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Northern Cape supports.

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

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

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

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

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

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

The Council adjourned at 16:30 ____

           ANNNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Introduction of Bills

 (1)    The Minister of Trade and Industry


      a) Competition Amendment Bill [B 31 – 2008] (National Assembly –
         proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice
         of its introduction published in Government Gazette No 31101
         of 29 May 2008.]


         Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Trade
         and Industry of the National Assembly, as well as referral to
         the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms
         of Joint Rule 160.
         In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification
         of the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three
         parliamentary working days.


 (2)    The Minister of Transport


      a) National Railway Safety Regulator Amendment Bill [B 32 – 2008]
         (National Assembly – proposed sec 76) [Explanatory summary of
         Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
         Government Gazette No 31062 of 15 May 2008.]


         Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on
         Transport of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the
         Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of
         Joint Rule 160.


         In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification
         of the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three
         parliamentary working days.

1. Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159

(1)    National Health Amendment Bill, 2008, submitted by the Minister
     of Health.  Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health and the
     Select Committee on Social Services.


(2)    Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Bill, 2008, submitted
     by the Minister of Health.  Referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Health and the Select Committee on Social Services.

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

(1)    Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 4 June 2008:


      a) Technology Innovation Agency Bill [B 49B – 2007] (National
         Assembly – sec 75).


      b) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 13 – 2008] (National Assembly
         – sec 77).

      c) Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 14 – 2008] (National
         Assembly – sec 75).

1. Withdrawal of Bills

The Minister of Defence withdrew the following Bill on 4 June 2008:


(1)    Castle Management Act Repeal Bill [B 9 - 2008] (National
     Assembly - sec 75).

1. Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)

(1)    The JTM on 4 June 2008 in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified
     the following Bills as section 75 Bills:

      a) Liquor Products Amendment Bill [B 22 – 2008] (National
         Assembly – sec 75)


      b) Air Services Licensing Amendment Bill [B 25 – 2008] (National
         Assembly – sec 75).

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Arts and Culture

   (a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Arts and Culture for 1 April 2008/09 – 31 March 2010/11.