WEDNESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2009 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

                                ____

The House met at 15:02.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

       WELCOMING OF DELEGATON FROM PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The SPEAKER: Hon members, I wish to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mr Wang Zhaoguo, the first Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, and his delegation. [Applause.]

                      QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT:

       Position regarding land claims in Kruger National Park

1. Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) asked the Deputy President:

   (1) Whether he has been informed that the former cabinet had resolved the land claims in the Kruger National Park; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,

   (2) whether he has been informed that there are interested groups who are campaigning to reopen the issue of land claims in the Kruger National Park; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,

   (3) whether he will support the protection of the Kruger National Park; if not, what are the future plans with regard to land claims in the Kruger National Park? NO1438E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker and hon members, following deliberations over a number of months, in December 2008 Cabinet approved the use of equitable redress as the only option for the settlement of land claims against the Kruger National Park. This option is provided for in terms of section 34 of the Land Restitution Act. In terms of this section, claimants receive fair and equitable financial compensation for the loss of their land rights. This option was chosen because restoration of title on this land in the National Park was not feasible.

However, Cabinet decided that the community’s expectation of taking possession of their ancestral land is a deserving and reasonable expectation. That is why Cabinet felt we need to address this matter in a manner that would create a win-win situation, because the requirements of maintaining the park for biodiversity purposes are as important to the country and the nation as a whole as the rights of the claimants to that land, hence the decision to compensate them.

In addition to financial compensation, the claimant families of land within the park will have rights to ancestral graves or traditional site visits on agreed calendar days for commemorations or any ritual that they need to observe; acknowledgement of the history of communities when naming facilities and camps; environmental education for children and youth; job opportunities; and preferential procurement opportunities. These are some of the elements built into this package.

A community levy will be charged to all visitors, and it will be channelled into a community trust fund which will be used to fund future community development projects, broad-based black economic empowerment opportunities and equity in commercial concessions. These options were considered and the decision was taken by Cabinet on merit to create this win-win solution. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N J J VAN R KOORNHOF: Hon Deputy President, I thank you very much for that reply. I think you are bringing back certainty to the Kruger National Park. It is one of our world heritage sites and a valuable asset, not only to South Africa, but to the whole world. I thank you very much for that. I just need clarity: You say today that the decision that was taken by Cabinet in 2008 is the decision that still stands today.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I confirm that that is the decision that still stands. I thank you.

Mr M M SWATHE: Thank you very much, Speaker. Deputy President, considering the backlog of paying landowners, what money has been budgeted to ensure that claimants are compensated? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker and hon member, that is a matter of detail. I would not be able to give you the figures right here. That is a matter that the Department of Rural Development would be responsible for. Thank you.

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Speaker, I pressed the hon Sibhida’s button by mistake. I am H F Matlanyane. Thank you, Deputy President, for the response. I would like to know whether there are different circumstances in the claim by the Makuleke community in the Kruger National Park and in the outstanding claims resulting in a different approach by government in settlement of these claims? If so, what are the different circumstances? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon member. The Makuleke arrangement is a leaseback agreement to a private company that comprises a section of the Kruger National Park, and that has its own problems. As government is trying to attend to those problems, it was felt that this is not a model to be replicated. A big difference here is that the Makuleke community is one community, whereas the others were diverse communities. It would have meant that if we went by the Makuleke model, the park itself would cease to be a national park.

    Progress in implementing Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement

1. Mr H T Magama (ANC) asked the Deputy President:

   What (a) progress has been made by the Sudanese government in implementing the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement and (b) role will the (i) African Union and/or (ii) Government play to ensure that the 2010 election and national referendum are conducted peacefully? NO2611E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, hon members, there’s been progress in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, since its signing in January 2005, between the government of the Sudan and the government of Southern Sudan. Some of the main highlights are that the ceasefire is generally holding well, despite a few clashes that have been reported in areas such as Malakal and Abyei.

The government of national unity and Southern Sudan have adopted interim constitutions and established various key state institutions that commenced the process of postconflict reconstruction and the development of Southern Sudan and other war-affected areas.

The Sudanese interim national assembly and the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly have been formed. The national electoral Act was passed in July 2008, which established the national electoral commission and set the date for the Sudanese general elections for February 2010.

The governments of national unity and the Southern Sudan continue to share the oil revenue. However, notwithstanding the aforementioned progress, challenges still remain. There are some contentious issues whose resolution remains imperative for the success of the implementation process.

The demarcation of the border between the north and south is yet to be completed. The SPLM, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, and the NCP, the National Congress Party, have indefinitely suspended consultation on the matter, but have urged the government of South Africa, under the auspices of the AU, to assist in finding a solution to these difficulties.

The slow pace of preparing for the national elections in 2010 is a matter of concern. The electoral commission has started demarcating constituencies according to the results of the fifth national population census. However, the government of Southern Sudan has rejected the census results.

The referendum law, which was to be passed in terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by the beginning of 2008, has not been finalised yet. More fundamental, though, is the acknowledgement by both parties that they have failed to achieve the critical objective of making the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, that is the provision for unity, attractive to all and sundry both in the north and the south.

The African Union is a guarantor of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and is represented on the Assessment and Evaluation Commission. As South Africa, in our capacity as chair of the AU Ministerial Committee on Postconflict Reconstruction and Development in the Sudan, we have engaged both the SPLM and the National Congress Party to encourage the effective implementation of the peace agreement.

The Sudan electoral commission has invited international observers to observe the elections, and South Africa will respond to the African Union if we are asked to be part of the team of AU observers. We will work with the parties and our international partners to encourage progress on the preparations for the 2011 self-determination referendum in the south. We will abide by whatever decision the people of Southern Sudan take, and we will assist them to prepare to take responsibility for whatever option they choose. Thank you. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Deputy President, for your reply. In the bilateral talks held in Juba between the delegation of the Republic of South Africa, headed by you, hon Deputy President, and the delegation from Sudan, you promised to support technically Southern Sudan in preparation for the upcoming elections and referendum.

The UN’s chief electoral affairs officer in Sudan, Ray Kennedy, told a news briefing that Sudanese organisers were facing a series of problems. One challenge was the complexity of the elections, with six votes running at the same time, using a range of voting methods.

In light of the hon President’s promise of technical help and what Ray Kennedy said, what is government going to do to ensure that the complex electoral arrangements, with six votes running at the same time, are simplified so that the people of Southern Sudan are not confused, but are able to choose candidates of their choice? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Rev Meshoe. Indeed, the elections procedures are very complex, because each voter would be expected to vote 12 times in the north and eight times in the south. And for people who are participating for the very first time in such an election, it is quite a challenge.

We would encourage our NGOs that have accumulated experience in voter education to assist, particularly in the areas that are not that stable. You will no doubt know that there is even a section of the Sudanese population that is nomadic, and therefore doesn’t stay in one place forever.

So, technically, we will try to encourage all of our institutions that can play a role in assisting to ensure that the electorate is sufficiently empowered to ensure that these elections produce outcomes that will be a true reflection of the will of the people. That’s what we believe we ought to do, but I must say that the challenges are quite serious. Thank you.

Mr K S MUBU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement suggests that Southern Sudan will have to decide whether to remain part of the greater Sudan or to secede.

If they decide to secede, what implications do you think this will have on stability in the region? Secondly, what kind of support can the South African government render to such a new territory, if you like? Thirdly, what is the position of Darfur in the whole equation? Thank you.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, there should only be one supplementary question, and not a number of them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Mubu, for the question. Speaker, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement indeed provides for this referendum that would be conducted in the south, on whether the south wants to go it alone or to remain part of one integrated Sudan.

We cannot pre-empt the outcomes of such a referendum. In our engagement with the governing party in the Sudan and the governing party in the south, all we can do is to make clear the pros and cons of secession.

We believe that more advantages lie in the Sudan remaining one united entity rather than for the south to go it alone. This is precisely because, as I indicated earlier, there are still very big issues to be resolved. For instance, the border between the south and the north has not been determined, and if you add to that challenge the fact that this border is likely to be drawn across oil fields, then you have an ingredient there for instability and conflict going forward.

The situation in Darfur is a work in progress. As we know, former President Mbeki led the Committee of the Wise, which made its report available to the AU on 29 October 2009. We are still waiting for the AU’s assessment of the report and the steps that will flow out of the recommendations of that report. For now, all we know is that all efforts are being made to try to get all people who are not Darfurians out of that area in order to enhance peace and stability in Darfur itself, which we hope will hold. Thank you.

Mr V B NDLOVU: Thank you, Speaker. Your Excellency Deputy President, I want to know about the contentious issues, because you have said that the ceasefire agreement is holding. There is a case against the presidency of Sudan. What is going on with these contentious issues? Thank you very much.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker, the real contentious issues between the north and the south include the determination of the border between the two.

Of course, there is also the challenge that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement makes provision for the establishment of one central bank. However, at the moment there’s a conflict between the north and the south around this very matter, because the north follows the Islamic banking system, whereas the south follows the normal banking system that allows for interest to be charged and so on.

They have not agreed on how to address this difference by establishing one central bank with perhaps two systems: One system accommodating profit- making and the charging of interest and the other system servicing mainly Islamic investors. So that is one of the problems.

A census has been conducted which is used for demarcating the constituencies. But this census has been rejected by the south, which may mean that the elections that are planned for next year will be affected by the failure to resolve this difference.

The very fact that there has been a census conducted which is then used for demarcating the constituencies, but is rejected by the south, may mean that the elections that are planned for next year will be affected by failure to resolve this difference. Those are the contentious issues.

The matter of the charges against President al-Bashir is a matter that the Committee of the Wise, of the AU, is attending to. The AU has taken a stance that there should be a stay of prosecution to allow for the culprits to be brought to book and also for peace and stability to be attained without allowing for impunity. Thank you.

Mr L S NGONYAMA: Thank you very much, hon Speaker, for your indulgence. Hon Deputy President, one of the most important issues that seem to be emanating from this conflict, according to the media, is the lack of impartiality of the judges. This is a very important aspect in resolving the conflict in Sudan.

Is there anything that the government can do to try to resolve this? There seems to be some resistance on the part of the government to what is being recommended, that is the use of foreign or outside judges to try to find an effective solution to this problem. I thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Ngonyama, for the question. In our discussions, the Vice President of the Sudan, His Excellency Osman Taha, indicated that – and I met him before the Committee of the Wise submitted its report – his government accepts the recommendations and that although they have reservations about certain aspects, overall they accept the report because they believe that it will serve as a basis for consolidating peace and for moving forward.

It may very well be that the part that they have reservations about is the recommendation to include foreign judges in hearing the cases against the perpetrators of violence and crime in Darfur. It may very well be that that is the source of their reservations, but overall he did say that his government accepts the report as is. Thank you.

Effect of government social assistance in encouraging economic productivity

1. Mrs Y R Botha (ANC) asked the Deputy President:

   To what extent does the current basket of social assistance offered by the Government to vulnerable groups like the poor and unemployed encourage them to become active participants in all spheres of society to make them economically productive and less dependent on government social relief programmes? NO2613E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Mrs Botha, the South African government has adopted a social protection package for families as an approach in its effort to alleviate poverty.

This social protection package for families in poverty includes no-fee schools and school fee exemptions; free health care services for pregnant mothers and children under the age of six, and free primary health care services for people without medical aid; social grants for the elderly in the form of old age pensions; for children in poverty, the child support grant and foster care grant; and the disability grant for people with disabilities.

There is also social relief of distress for temporary relief aimed at people in desperate need. This is paid in cash or in the form of vouchers.

There’s the indigent policy which provides for free basic water and electricity in some municipalities.

There’s the school feeding scheme for primary schools in poor areas and there is also the provision by social development departments in provinces, partially to fund NGOs to deliver a range of social welfare services to poor children and families, including partial care in crèches and early childhood development services; prevention and early intervention services, including home-based care, counselling and linking families to the full social protection package, with protection services for children in need of care and protection, for youth in youth care centres.

With regard to the social assistance grants, it needs to be noted that the unemployed do not receive any specific grants. The mothers or caregivers of children receive their grants on behalf of the children.

The other largest groups of recipients are the aged who are out of the labour market, as well as people with disabilities who are unable to work for themselves. Therefore, it is not possible for the social assistance grants to have a discouraging effect on employment.

There’s considerable evidence that shows that the social protection package for families approach is having numerous positive effects in poor households. For example, children who are recipients of social grants are shown to have higher participation in school and are, generally speaking, healthier.

All the assistance that government provides both in cash and in kind to poor households definitely assists other members of the household to seek employment. This, therefore, allows members from poor households the opportunity to become more economically productive and ultimately, to become less dependent on government’s social relief programmes. I thank you.

Mrs Y R BOTHA: Hon Speaker, the extension of the child support grant by government to the age of 18 years for all eligible children is widely welcomed. The question that I would like to pose is: Has government anticipated the measurable impact this extension will have on its poverty reduction targets for South Africa, as well as its impact on the socioeconomic rights of our children?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, yes, indeed we have looked at the impact of this extension, and we believe that it will be positive. As I said, we‘ve identified education as the key to lifting these households and families out of the cycle of poverty, and the extension is aimed at ensuring that these youths remain in school and attain education as well as skills, in order to serve as change agents in their families and households to prevent the transfer of poverty from one generation to the next. Thank you.

Mr N SINGH: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, thank you for your response, and I think we have no doubt in this House that given the economic recession, there’s certainly a need to provide a safety net for the poor and vulnerable in our society. However, we believe that if it goes unchecked, a culture of dependency could entrench itself.

My question is: Would the Presidency encourage all government departments to include, in their programmes, specific projects that would promote self- help and self-reliance amongst our communities? I am asking this, because I have no doubt that many people in our country would like to work and have a sense of pride, rather than rely on handouts. Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Singh, I totally agree with you and yes, indeed, we would, as we are already doing under the pilot project of war on poverty, ensure that we encourage all departments to empower our people as a way of restoring their dignity, so that they don’t depend on handouts and these grants. Thank you.

Mr S N SWART: Hon Speaker and hon Deputy President, the ACDP is fully supportive of social welfare grants to protect the poorest and most vulnerable, particularly during this time of domestic recession.

However, this is clearly not sustainable in the long run. The creation of jobs, particularly amongst millions of relatively unskilled South Africans, remains the country’s greatest economic challenge. The Medium-Term Budget Policy statement announced last week mentions a number of commendable options available to government to protect existing and create new jobs.

Of particular interest is the restructuring and recapitalisation of further education colleges with an accumulative target of 350 000 industrial and related apprenticeships and scarce learnerships having been set by the Minister of Higher Education.

Whilst my question is not directly related to social assistance, it does go to the heart of job creation and economic productivity, and it is whether this target is sufficient, given the high levels of unemployment and the shortage of skills which we are experiencing, and the fact that it is to be achieved over a five-year period. Is there scope for revision of this figure should there be a sufficient budget? Clearly the possibility … [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, indeed, there is scope for revision of the budget if the economy recovers fully and Sars is able to collect sufficient revenue; more will be allocated, because education is indeed one of our key priorities. Thank you.

Rev H M DANDALA: Mr Speaker, I would like to say how much we really appreciate the extensive support that is given to the poorest of the poor, and I want to appreciate more the help that is given, particularly for education.

I am interested in knowing whether we have a tracking system through which we could determine if any of the young people who have been helped through these programmes, in the various families, actually break through to become active economic players? Wouldn’t it be helpful if we had a system whereby we could keep track of this? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Dandala, I couldn’t agree with you more that it would be very helpful to have a dashboard to track progress made by those who are beneficiaries of this kind of assistance, and the impact of their progress on their families and households.

Unfortunately, at the moment such a system does not exist. We do not have that kind of system; progress is tracked at a localised level, and it would indeed be important for us to have a system that can assist us to monitor that progress on an ongoing basis. Thank you. [Applause.]

Measures to ensure timeous and adequate responses by members of executive to questions

1. Mr I O Davidson (DA) asked the Deputy President:

   (1) Whether he has implemented any measures and/or mechanisms to ensure that members of the executive uphold their constitutional obligation by responding to questions within the required timeframe and in an adequate manner; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,

   (2) whether he will take action against members of the executive who are not upholding their constitutional obligation by failing to reply to questions within the allowable timeframe and in an adequate manner; if not, why not; if so, what action;

   (3) whether there will be any consequences for members of the executive for failure to answer questions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO2616E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Davidson, as I indicated in my reply to your deputy, the hon Ellis, in this House on 19 August this year, the Rules of this House provide mechanisms for ensuring that questions to the executive are answered. As these Rules are adopted by this House and not the executive, I believe it would be up to the National Assembly to decide whether there is a need to tighten up these Rules or to strengthen them in some way.

The hon Ellis made a suggestion during that exchange in August that if Ministers did not reply to their written questions within the time limits, they should have to stand up in this House and explain why not. I indicated in my response that if the National Assembly decided to introduce this rule, I would support it. I am not aware of such a proposal having been made to the National Assembly Rules Committee.

As I indicated in my reply to hon Ellis’ question, as Leader of Government Business, it is both my duty and my responsibility to ensure that Cabinet Ministers are reminded of their obligation and I do so by regularly reporting, in detail, to each meeting of Cabinet, the number of questions each Minister has outstanding. Even this morning I did that.

I do that religiously and I am quite confident that we will arrive at a point where there will be no outstanding questions to Ministers. We are, on an ongoing basis, reminding Ministers of outstanding questions. We supply them with the number of the question, the date and everything, and I’m quite confident that there will be an improvement. Thank you.

Mr I O DAVIDSON: Mr Speaker, thanks to the hon Deputy President for that reply. I am very well aware of the fact that you did have that interchange with my deputy, but I address you in that capacity of the Leader of Government Business. We don’t want to treat Ministers like schoolchildren and get them to stand up and tell us why. I think they have a responsibility to actually answer these questions.

Indeed, in terms of the oversight and accountability model, there’s a duty to answer those questions, as indeed there is a duty on ourselves to ask those questions, exercise oversight and bring Ministers to account. It’s in that context that I hope the Deputy President is aware that as of 2 November there are 510 questions outstanding, and that’s a record as far as we are concerned – 510 questions! Now, you can wish them away, you can use all sorts of sophistry, but the fact is that there are 510 questions outstanding.

I’m very happy to hand over to the Deputy President a record of those questions, which I hope as Leader of Government Business he would follow up and make sure they are responded to, otherwise we may have to treat Cabinet Ministers like schoolchildren. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Davidson. I agree with you that it is the responsibility of members of the executive to respond to questions. That very point was made even this morning in Cabinet and as I’ve assured you and this Assembly, you will see improvements. I don’t have the sum total of the outstanding questions because we break them down per Minister, and I’ve furnished each Minister with a set of questions that are still outstanding.

I hope we will not come to a point where Ministers are treated like schoolchildren, I agree with that. Thank you.

Mr T BOTHA: Hon Speaker, given that it is the oversight responsibility of Parliament to ask questions, and that, in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, members of the executive are accountable, collectively as well as individually, to Parliament for exercise of their powers and functions, does the Deputy President not agree that Ministers not answering questions posed by the hon members of the House are in fact undermining the very Constitution, the House and some portfolio committees, which are an extension of the House? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Botha. Yes, indeed I agree that if this institution is to function as our people expect it to, all of us have to meet our obligations, and indeed it is the duty of members to ask questions, which must be answered by members of the executive. We shall not in any way deliberately undermine that, hence the commitment that we will indeed see an improvement in that regard. Thank you.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Mr Speaker, I think it must be very embarrassing for the hon Deputy President to have to answer this question today, because I’ve never heard of a place where more than 500 questions were outstanding. But the reassuring part is that the hon Deputy President clearly is embarrassed and he’s trying to do something about it, and we laud you for that.

I want to add, however, hon Deputy President, that some Ministers also do not answer their correspondence. I have reported a certain Minister to the President and that didn’t help either. We’re now going to issue a summons in the High Court against that Minister for not doing her work. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order, order, hon members!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Van der Merwe. While that wasn’t a question, I can indeed confirm that I’m embarrassed for myself here. [Laughter.] It was a comment that I can confirm. Thank you.

                              ECONOMICS
                              Cluster 4

MINISTERS:

Number and nature of small enterprises assisted by Tourism Enterprise
                              Programme

1. Mr D M Gumede (ANC) asked the Minister of Tourism:

   (1) How many small enterprises have been assisted by the Tourism Enterprise Programme;

   (2) (a) how many were from (i) historically disadvantaged communities and (ii) rural areas and (b) what kind of assistance was given in each case? NO2592E

The MINISTER OF TOURISM: Speaker, since the incorporation of the Tourism Enterprise Partnership, TEP, as a section 21 company on 1 April 2008 to date, 1 842 tourism small enterprises have been assisted. Two thirds of the small enterprises that TEP has assisted since that date – 1 233, that is 66% – have been from historically disadvantaged communities. About 736 – that is, 40% – of the tourism small businesses that TEP assists are from the rural areas.

Historically disadvantaged enterprises were assisted with the following TEP interventions: The Business Development Fund; South African host training mentorship; business skills training; toolkit training; market access; and the craft programme; as well as the cluster programme related to the grouping and linking of products to create bigger and more market- significant products.

Mr D M GUMEDE: Hon Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you very much, hon Minister, for the response. Perhaps, hon Minister, it would be interesting to hear from you as to how many jobs are in rural areas and, in the process, how many sustainable livelihoods have been created, especially in rural areas and especially for the historically disadvantaged groups such as the youth, black people, the disabled and rural people. Thank you very much, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM: Mr Speaker, in terms of the answer provided I pointed out that 40% of those businesses are from the rural areas, but we can certainly provide the hon member with a more detailed breakdown in terms of jobs created.

I would also like to extend an invitation to the hon member and to the portfolio committee: They are more than welcome to visit these projects. We are closely monitoring the funds that we are investing to ensure that they are not just once-off support, as we really want these enterprises to survive and be sustainable.

Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for that answer. I would like you to be a little bit more precise if possible. We note that good intentions have not always led to good implementation of various government plans and programmes. Examples have been reported with respect to the SMMEs assisted by the Tourism Enterprise Programme that are now derelict or dysfunctional.

In the light of this, could the Minister give this House some indication of the sustainability of this project? For example – and this is where I like it to be more precise, Minister – are you aware what percentage of the SMMEs so assisted are still viable three years after being assisted?

The MINISTER OF TOURISM: Mr Speaker, we certainly can provide that information. Obviously, with any venture of this kind there is a percentage of failure, but we would like the success rate to be as high as possible. I will table in Parliament – I have it available – a more detailed breakdown that will answer that question.

Can I say that the TEP programme in my view is one of the most successful public-private partnerships that we have. Apart from the funding that we provide from the side of government, the business sector – the private sector – also provides funding and we are jointly managing and monitoring the project. But I will table the detailed answer that the hon member required here. Thank you.

Mrs M A A NJOBE: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Minister, the Tourism Enterprise Partnership has identified a number of the most common constraints faced by small enterprises, for example a lack of access to information, a lack of access to credibility and reputation, a lack of critical size – some being too small to warrant attention by tour operators – and a lack of access to finance being one of the most significant barriers to the growth of small enterprises and, therefore, a barrier to the transformation of the industry.

In your budget speech in June this year you promised to finalise a tourism growth strategy with the provinces and a toolkit to assist local government with tourism development. How relevant will such a toolkit be, hon Minister, to address constraints faced by small enterprises? I thank you.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM: Speaker, obviously we are doing the best that we can. There are also other funds available for some of those enterprises that the hon member referred to – quite a variety of them. That’s a discussion that we in government are having at the moment to see if it’s not more proper and more appropriate to start consolidating some of those funds.

But let me just give an indication of the kind of money we are investing, and I am quite sure that the hon member will appreciate that although we can make some useful interventions, it is impossible to help each and every business and person that applies.

In 2004 we started off with R27 million in that financial year. In 2007-08, from the side of government, it went up to R100 million, But these must be enterprises that qualify in terms of the definition of small businesses, and obviously there are some businesses that fall outside of that scope and should rather approach their local governments or their provincial governments.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, hon Minister. Aspects of my question have been answered, but I also want to know what capacity the programme actually had in terms of following up to ensure that small businesses have the best possibility of succeeding, what the challenges are from the programme’s point of view, and what the department is able to do about this. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM: Speaker, that answer I provided to the question of the hon Krumbock. I will table the answer here in Parliament and it will give a detailed breakdown of each of the programmes in terms of success rates, examples of success, problems experienced and where we need to improve. So, I will table a fully comprehensive answer for the benefit of the member.

     Programmes and projects to promote implementation of Nepad

1. Mrs F Hajaig (ANC) asked the Minister of Trade and Industry:

   What programmes and projects are in place to promote the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) (a) in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and (b) on the African continent? NO2593E The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Deputy Speaker, at the SADC level, South Africa is closely involved in a number of cross-border infrastructure projects, which are driven mainly through the Africa bilateral Spatial Development Initiative, SDI, programme. The SDI methodology was developed in South Africa in 1996 as an integrated planning tool aimed at promoting investment in regions which are underdeveloped, but which have potential for growth.

The methodology involves a process in which the public sector develops or facilitates conditions conducive to private investment and public-private community partnerships. It is also an integrated process of identifying economic potential in specific geographical areas and the requisite infrastructure necessary to promote trade.

Initiatives currently receiving assistance from the South African SDI support programme are the Maputo Development Corridor, the Limpopo Valley SDI and the Beira Development Corridor SDI that has been suspended, but will pick up again when the political situation in Zimbabwe improves. Other SDIs we are involved in include the Zambezi Valley, the Nacala Development Corridor, the Mtwara Development Corridor, the Central Development Corridor and the Great Lakes – Bas Congo – SDI. They are all at various stages of implementation.

At a continental level, the implementation of Nepad programmes and projects is guided by the African Union-Nepad African Action Plan. The Department of Trade and Industry provides technical support to the Nepad Spatial Development programme through the Nepad Secretariat. The department also works through the Nepad-OECD Africa Investment Initiative to assist African countries’ efforts to strengthen their investment environment for growth and development.

In terms of the programmes and projects for the strategy for the implementation of the action plan for Accelerated Industrial Development of Africa, the DTI has participated in developing an implementation strategy that sets out seven clusters of action. The implementation of this strategy is monitored by the Conference of African Ministers of Industry, of which South Africa is the current chair and is providing leadership in the implementation of agreed projects. Thank you.

Mr B A RADEBE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, yesterday a successful binational meeting was held between South Africa and Namibia. What projects were identified by both countries to promote integration between the two countries?

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Thank you for that follow-up question. In fact, there were a number of SDI projects which were under discussion. The most important one was the Trans-Kunene project. This would be a communication link basically through central Angola, central Namibia down to the Trans-Kalahari route. This would, if completed, provide the shortest route between the DRC and South Africa by road or rail.

In terms of the framework of the Angola-Namibia-South Africa alliance, which we have been developing, we have commissioned a most gifted technician on these matters who will be doing some scoping work to present to the governments of the three countries. We hope that we can co-operate and push this very important corridor programme further forward. Thank you.

Mr S J F MARAIS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, all of us embrace the strategic importance of developing trade and agricultural opportunities and relations in Africa. We are also aware of the current Economic Partnership Agreement, EPA-driven threats to the existence of both Sacu and SADC as economic development zones, which might in the process defeat the objectives of South Africa’s involvement in Nepad and SADC.

Could you please qualify and quantify for us the current trade benefits for the South African economy derived from intra-Africa and intra-SADC trade? Also, could you please give specific reference to the business sectors and product categories that are affected? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Deputy Speaker, the member will have to put that question in writing so that we can come with the latest statistics. But, I can say to him that our trade with Southern Africa and with the rest of the African continent is very significant and disproportionately so for our manufacturing industries. We export value- added products to neighbouring countries, and a very sizable part of our value-added products go to other countries in Africa.

Generally speaking, there is a trade balance in our favour in our trade with other African countries. This is not a matter which we are happy about. We think there should be a narrowing of the trade gap. That is why we have committed to a process of trying to promote developmental integration, because we do not believe that the barriers lie wholly in the existence of tariffs.

As far as SADC is concerned, there are really no tariffs in application for over 98% of products coming from other SADC countries at this moment in time.

We think that the problems are underdeveloped production structures and inadequate infrastructure. That is why we are working quite heavily on the SDI approach, because we think it is a very important complement in promoting a more balanced and equitable pattern of interregional trade.

Mr L S NGONYAMA: Hon Minister, there is an article that reviews Nepad titled “Nepad at the Crossroads”. It says: Hailed as the hallmark strategy to revitalise the continent, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development still retains much of the optimism that greeted its launch three years ago. But, it faces an emerging crisis of credibility as key supporters question the Nepad Secretariat’s strategy and its failure to turn grand intentions into gainful initiatives.

I want to ask the Minister if there is any strategy of trying to take this valuable and very noble project to the lower levels of our society, because it does seem that it is not owned by the ordinary people in rural areas? I thank you.

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Deputy Speaker, I think the problems that Nepad faces were the expectations at the beginning that this was going to attract massive funding from the donor community, and unfortunately those expectations have not been realised.

But, I think that the fundamental point about co-operating around infrastructure development remains. We believe that the spatial development initiatives methodology does offer us a way forward, which does not depend on all these projects being funded by donor funding. That is why we are working to try to promote this methodology.

Basically, we started an infrastructure programme and used it as the basis for crowding in a whole series of investments. We think the methodology has been fairly successful in a number of cases. We are trying to identify some of those with potential and those on the West Coast. I think the Trans- Kunene SDI case is of major significance, and that is what we’re trying to do. Thank you.

          Plans to avert water crisis at Medupi power plant

1. Mr J Schmidt (DA) asked the Minister of Public Enterprises: Whether she has any plans to avert the looming water crises at the Medupi power plant; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO2556E

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Deputy Speaker, in answer to the question, there is currently no water shortage being experienced at Medupi power station, and that is primarily because Medupi power station is still being developed. The power station is going to be a dry-cooled power station, which means that it will have lower water requirements than normal power stations.

However, perhaps what the member is referring to is that in the Medupi area, it is envisaged that there is going to be a massive build going forward, not only by Eskom but by Sasol as well, and there will be considerable water requirements in order to meet that build. In view of that the Departments of Public Enterprises and Water and Environmental Affairs have engaged intensely on doing various development scenarios about water requirements going forward, looking at what water augmentation possibilities there are for this matter and also at what risk mitigation measures there will be, should it reveal that the potential build is prejudicial to the entire water system.

At this stage, we are not in a position to say what the water augmentation will be, precisely because there is not yet commitment on the actual build in that area, but we do acknowledge that water is a crucial component here, but it is not an immediate issue.

Mr J SCHMIDT: Hon Minister, thank you for the answer. I think you have read me correctly. From internal Eskom documents addressed to the chief executive officer, Mr Jacob Maroga, it is clear that there were serious problems with the whole tender process at Medupi.

To give you a few examples – and I will quote from the document – there were procurement processes that did not adhere to the supplier pack, detailed cost estimation was thin, water capacity is constrained, Eskom committed to detailed boiler specification without coal being succeeded, and so on. I can go on, Madam Minister.

In light of the above, does the Minister consider appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate this whole process, as it seems to be another example of bad management by Eskom?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an entirely new question. It is very different from the question that was asked. All I can say is that I have no knowledge, and it would have been preferable if you had posed this question as a separate question. However, if you do have information to this effect, please feel free to forward it. I obviously can’t commit to an answer in this context.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, hon Minister. Just in terms of the possible risks, not only of this particular power station but at other situations like it, what precautions does the department take to ensure that any possible crisis doesn’t particularly impact on the surrounding area and the people in the community, and what are the relevant details? Thanks.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: As I have said, the so-called risk that one might be potentially exposed to is dependent on what the commitment to the build is going forward, and that has not yet been established.

So, at the moment we have an extensive engagement with Water and Environmental Affairs to look at various developmental scenarios, to look at what ways water can be augmented from other water systems, and to look at what risk mitigation there is. At this stage, yes, we are on top of those issues, but we cannot yet fully comment until there is an actual development scenario that has been committed to.

Mr L W GREYLING: Minister, I think this opens up a broader issue, because I recently attended a conference on South Africa’s looming water crisis, and I must say I was shocked at some of the presentations that I heard there. Of course, there are numerous factors behind this looming water crisis, but one of the ones that was singled out, in fact, was the continued exploitation of our coal resources, whether that be from mining, from power generation or our coal-to-liquid plants.

What I want to know is whether the government has undertaken a strategic assessment of our water resources in the country, and whether that assessment has been used to underpin some of the decisions around Eskom’s new build programme, as well as the issuing of mining licences, because, clearly, our water resources cannot sustain all of these activities, and there are some hard choices that need to be made. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: I am not the Minister of Water Affairs at this stage, so you will forgive me if I’m not able to comment comprehensively on this issue. But, let me say in our engagements with the Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs, I think intense attention is being given to our future build programme in South Africa and what the consequences for water will be. I agree with you that those are issues that require very intensive attention from government, and I assure you that that is taking place.

Mr S M PILLAY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a well-known fact that there is a power struggle at Eskom at the moment and, as such, there are a whole lot of disinformation campaigns and documents going around like the document here.

In the naivety of not recognising these power struggles and the disinformation campaign, the opposition has been fooled and is gullible enough to give a statement which says that the Medupi power station will lead to irreversible environmental damage and that the power plant will suck up all the water in the area and the surrounding areas, including the Hartbeespoort Dam, etc.

It is my understanding that before any project of this nature can be embarked upon, you would need to do an environmental impact assessment. During the assessment you have experts who’ll look at this thing and give an expert opinion. You also have public participation during that process. All I want to ask the hon Minister is that before this Medupi power plant was commissioned, was there EIA approval or not? Thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: No build on this scale can be done without an EIA and, certainly, yes an EIA was done, and Medupi is being built. [Applause.]

Guidelines on remuneration packages for top officials of parastatals

1. Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) asked the Minister of Public Enterprises:

   (1) Whether there are any guidelines on remuneration packages for the top officials of parastatals; if not, why not;

 (2)    whether she will consider appointing a remuneration committee to
       set guidelines and to make sure that these remuneration packages
       are more moderate in future; if not, why not; if so, what are
       the relevant details?        NO1827E

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Deputy Speaker, the question is whether there are any guidelines on remuneration packages for the top officials of parastatals. Yes, there are remuneration guidelines. These were approved by Cabinet in 2007 and apply to both the remuneration of senior executive and non-executive members of the board.

The Minister of Public Enterprises is responsible for the appointment of board members and, in turn, the board appoints members of board subcommittees as may be necessary, including the members of the remuneration committee. The board and that remuneration committee must ensure that the remuneration of executive and non-executive directors is in line with those remuneration guidelines.

However, we have moved on in this world since 2007, and the debate about executive remuneration has become an international debate. So, a further comparative benchmark and exercise has been conducted and is in the process of being conducted to update the guidelines since 2007, and the report will be presented to the oversight committee before being submitted to Cabinet for approval.

Mr N J J VAN R KOORNHOF: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much, hon Minister, for that reply. In terms of the report by the Commission on Growth and Development, one of the strategies they have named for successful countries that have achieved growth of 7% each year for 25 years, was that they had capable governments that held public agencies to account.

Now, could I ask the Minister whether she would consider when she proposes the new guidelines to Cabinet, not paying any bonuses if there is no performance by these parastatals?

Secondly, could the Minister remind some of these officials that although they, obviously, can be appropriately remunerated, they are performing a public service. Somebody must remind them that they cannot ask for the same bonuses as the private sector.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Deputy Speaker, I think the member is asking important questions that are part of the national discourse at the moment. I cannot comment at the moment on what the recommendations are that we would come up with. But, obviously, performance-based bonuses are based on performance and we would expect that that is adhered to. So, I will await the outcome of those matters.

Whether state-owned enterprises executives should be remunerated on a scale comparable to that of the private sector, is a difficult issue.

We do understand and we do expect that when people run state-owned enterprises they are also doing that as part of their public service to the country. However, we have to be realistic – we are competing for very scarce skills in this country. And if that means that we have to provide at a scale that is similar to that of private enterprises, then we must consider that - if it means that we can’t employ the people who have the requisite skills.

But let me say that the issue of remuneration is an important issue. Eskom, for instance, has stopped all bonuses for this year pending the outcome of the interim results, because they feel so strongly about this matter – and I must congratulate them on that.

Mr N SINGH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Thank you, hon Minister, for that response. I would like to know if this House could have sight of the approved remuneration guidelines, because as we peruse the annual reports of departments, I think there will be many questions.

Talking about questions, I would like to know, Madam Minister, who decides on these bonuses that are paid? Because I have a document in my hand which is an extract from an SOE – and I will not mention which one it is – where the executive remuneration guaranteed for one official was R4 million for the year, and the bonus for that same year was R2,825 million.

Now, when people earn something like R7 million to R10 million per year, they are either superhuman or really super capable to earn that kind of salary. We would hope that this new package will deal with these issues.

Further, I would like to know if the Minister would make a comment on the number of board members that should serve on state-owned enterprises and the packages that they should get, because, in perusing the annual reports, you find that some of the entities have a number of board members that we don’t think are necessary for overseeing the affairs of that organisation. Thank you. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Thank you. I am certain that you can have those executive remuneration guidelines, bearing in mind that they are going to be updated. I cannot comment on that particular remuneration plus bonus, because I don’t know which state-owned enterprise it is and whether it falls in my stable, but if you could forward me the details I would be happy to receive them.

The question of how many board members per state-owned enterprise depends on the size of that enterprise and the particular skills mix, and is established in terms of the articles of association. As you know, most articles of association have a range number that you can have from, say, one to 15, and it is up to the Minister’s discretion to decide what the appropriate skills mix is.

So, yes, we do pay attention to that when we look at appointments to boards. I think the issue is that of board members that sit on too many boards, which makes them not able to function properly on any board – an issue which we are certainly paying attention to.

Mr P VAN DALEN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Given that the remuneration of top officials at parastatals is internationally benchmarked, then it is safe to assume that the standard of service delivery should also be of an international standard. Clearly, this is not the case. Mr Maroga earns four times as much as President Zuma, and yet Eskom is failing dismally in meeting its mandate to provide cheap and reliable electricity to South Africa.

Various internal Eskom documents have shown that Maroga has been thoroughly warned about the problems in the parastatal which he ignored and which ultimately led to the load shedding in 2007 and 2008. The need to triple the price of electricity over the three years is another result of this incompetence. My question is: Could the Minister make sure that the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, there is a point of order. What is your point of order?

Mr S M PILLAY: My point of order, Madam Speaker, is that I think the hon member also serves on the committee on Public Enterprises and it is … [Interjections.]

Mr P VAN DALEN: What is your point?

Mr S M PILLAY: If you would be patient you would know. It is unfair to mislead this House and say that we don’t provide the cheapest electricity in the world. Everybody knows that Eskom charges the cheapest electricity rates and he knows this. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Pillay, would you allow the member to ask his question. Mr P VAN DALEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The need to triple the price of electricity over the next three years is another result of this incompetence. [Interjections.] My question is: Could the Minister make sure that the salaries and bonuses that these CEOs receive are coupled with performance indicators and strict targets and deliverables set by this government? Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: I do not think it is wise to simply cast aspersions on state-owned enterprises in blanket terms. Please bear in mind that the issues at Eskom are issues that arise out of a long history of decisions that were made around Eskom, and that Mr Maroga is not the only person that has to take responsibility for that. And I think you are being unfair when you place the entire dilemma of the Eskom build on one individual.

Secondly, if you do have these numerous complaints and whatever, please make them available to me, because I think it is unfair for any individual to be publicly accused in the public domain without having an opportunity to respond to those kinds of accusations. [Applause.]

Let me say, too, on this notion that state-owned enterprises are just the worst-performing in the country, that one can take, for instance, SA Express. Does anyone look at it? It has a woman who is a chairperson; a woman who is the chief executive officer. That state-owned enterprise has consistently delivered, performed financially brilliantly and runs with an incredibly efficient schedule.

Now, you know, just painting state-owned enterprises as these useless things does not help us in the debate. I think we need to be tackling this debate in terms of looking at the particular issues confronting each state- owned enterprise and not just laying it at the door of individuals – it’s a long-term issue.

Regarding bonuses at Eskom, you might not have heard that at Eskom all bonuses were suspended pending a review of the interim results. So, they have taken those proactive steps. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr H P CHAUKE: Chair, I have a point of order. I want a ruling to be given to the House on the following matter. Yesterday, when I arrived at the airport, I saw a board saying: “Welcome to the Republic of Cape Town.” Now this confirms that we live in two different worlds as far as the DA is concerned. Could the House be given a ruling on that matter? [Laughter.]

Dr G W KOORNHOF: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for your reply. As far as I understand it, the Department of Public Enterprises is not a policy department but rather a shareholder in various state-owned entities. Maybe the department and we as Parliament should look more broadly than just at the remuneration packages of CEOs of state-owned entities, and rather engage ourselves in the future about the role and functions of SOEs, including the funding models and the entities as going concerns.

We should really determine whether the boards and directors are indeed the best mechanism; and, regarding the oversight role, determine what the best practice is for the shareholder and for Parliament to oversee state-owned entities. That is a broader picture I think we need to engage with in future. And I would like to ask the Minister whether she agrees with that. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES: Deputy Speaker, the issue of shareholder compacts is extremely important, and I thank the member for raising this issue. Mr Van Dalen did raise the issue of key performance objectives. There is, in my view, a need to revise the shareholder compacts that we have as state-owned enterprises at the moment. We have been in the process of looking at several of them in the past couple of months. So, I do believe that shareholder compacts with boards are an extremely important and valuable oversight tool.

Contribution of SumbandilaSat satellite to poverty alleviation and economic growth

1. Mr E N N Ngcobo (ANC) asked the Minister of Science and Technology: How will the SumbandilaSat satellite contribute to (a) the enhancement of poverty alleviation and (b) economic growth in South Africa and the region? NO2597E

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Deputy Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows. Remote sensing data is identified as a fundamental data set for planning and sustainable development, and is especially important for Africa and developing countries. Remote sensing satellites acquire and provide data that benefits a very broad user community.

For our satellite, Sumbandila, the information acquired will assist in, but not be limited to, the following areas: agricultural mapping, health promotion, air quality management, urban planning, communications, and water resource management.

The satellite will provide earth observation data for a wide range of applications in our country and in the region broadly, data which will ensure that we minimise the current costs of purchasing data from satellites of other countries.

The successful operation of Sumbandila and of future build missions that South Africa will undertake, will put South Africa in a position which will attract international investments that will stimulate and develop our local space industry.

We believe that revenues, at a minimum, which have a return ratio of around 4:1, will and can be realised in our space industry sector. We will, as a country, work hard to strengthen our existing technological capabilities and our space resources in order to create more opportunities in terms of employment and especially human capital development for the youth of our country. [Applause.]

Mr E N N NGCOBO: Hon Minister, in advancing the African continent’s agenda on matters of climate change at the international level, how will the department use the Sumbandila satellite to enhance South Africa’s participation in relevant international, scientific and technological co- operation programmes such as the World Climate Research Programme, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme, the Global Ocean Observing System, the Array for Real- Time Geostrophic Oceanography, and the International Polar Year? Thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon Ngcobo has a very strong involvement in global matters of climate change, hence the interest in this aspect of the data we will be able to secure from the Sumbandila satellite.

We as a country, play a very important role in a number of bodies that are concerned with issues of climate change. The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, as well as the Department of Science and Technology have senior officials who serve on a number of international bodies that are concerned with what is called geographic earth observation. These bodies look at a range of aspects relevant to what is now being called global change and, which, in a narrow reference, would be referred to as climate change.

We believe that the data that we will secure from the Sumbandila satellite will assist our officials and the leaders of our country in making very concrete contributions to the geographic earth observation committee discussions, and advancing the work we are doing in Antarctica – which is looking at the oceans and the impact of climate change on the oceans – as well as looking at agricultural and other impacts of climate change.

So, in all, the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, the Southern African Development Community and other bodies are concerned with matters of climate change. I believe that South Africa and SADC will be well served by the data that they will receive from our latest technological development, which is this satellite.

Each of these bodies will receive contributions from South Africans who are better informed, based on real data that we would have collected from our own instrument. [Applause.]

Ms M R SHINN: Deputy Speaker, could the Minister please state what return in investment the taxpayer will get from the R26-million investment in this satellite within the next six months? Would the Minister tell this House by what scientific methods the performance of this satellite’s earth science applications will be measured, and which state entities will undertake this evaluation?

We ask the Minister to report back to this House before the end of the first parliamentary session next year – that is, before the Fifa 2010 World Cup kickoff – on what the Sumbandila satellite has achieved for the socioeconomic development of our land, the value of that scientific research, and the taxpayer’s return on the investment.

We welcome the Minister’s assurances that the satellite will be used only for scientific research, but now we want to see research turned into tangible benefits on the ground. Since 2006, the taxpayer has waited for payback from the Sumbandila satellite. Its launch was delayed mainly, we believe, by a dispute with Russia, the launch nation, over the cancellation of an earlier, shady, multibillion-rand Defence Force deal.

Where have we heard this before – that the citizens’ benefits come second to the ANC cadre get-rich-quick agendas? We need a return on this investment in the satellite soon, Madam Minister. I hope you will be able to give it to us by next year. [Time expired.] The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon member spoilt a very good question by trying to be political against cadres of the ANC. This is often a sad fault of the DA.

We certainly will be ready, I think, to report back in the year 2010, as the hon member has indicated. I think I can commit to that.

As to what instrument, well, there are various parts of the satellite and I can’t name all of them now. But I can indicate to the member that we have had a successful launch. Our satellite is in orbit. The instrumentation is currently being set to allow us, in around three weeks’ time, to begin to have the first of the images from the satellite. So, we are very exited about that.

In terms of what return, I’m reliably informed that, as a country, we currently spend over R60 million in payments to countries that have satellites, and from which we purchase data for the work that I have referred to in agriculture, health and so on.

I’m hoping that when I come back in 2010, I will be able to give you a definitive report as to the savings that have been made. At this point, we haven’t as yet been able to provide any department with data to replace data they are currently securing from other countries’ satellites. But I hope that when I return in 2010, I will be able to give the hon member and the House a full report. [Applause.] Ms S K MOLAO: Thank you, hon Minister. Hon Minister, how much has been achieved so far in fulfilling the mission of the project, in particular with providing satellite data for application addressing the needs of society? Thank you, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Deputy Speaker, I thought I had answered that question. Let me indicate that a few years ago there was an attempt by the University of Stellenbosch, through a space company, to place a satellite in orbit. The satellite was successfully launched. However, it did not last in orbit and actually, essentially, collapsed.

So we have had several years of reworking the creation, the building of a satellite by South Africa. The company we’ve used, SunSpace, as well as the facilities at the University of Stellenbosch, have led to where we are today – which is that we’ve had a successful launch.

We now have a satellite which has been in orbit for five weeks. We have to wait a short period in order for us to retrieve the data, because once the satellite is in orbit, it must remain in orbit. As it orbits, you then begin setting the various instruments in place to work in order to ensure, one, that it remains in orbit; and, two, that it is able to use the cameras set within the satellite and all the various instrumentation that makes it up. So, all of that is manipulated from a remote site here in Stellenbosch.

Once we begin to gather data, given its quality and so on, and the ability to transmit it to other departments and to use it ourselves, we will then have a measure of our success. But the fact that we have a South African- built satellite, launched it successfully, and that it is staying in orbit and is currently looking very promising, is in itself an achievement for this country. [Applause.]

Mr N SINGH: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, I think it is remarkable that South Africa has been able to achieve such great success in launching this satellite.

I would like to know from the hon Minister whether any thought has been given to how easily accessible the data and satellite imagery is going to be, in terms of cost and availability to government departments and to other users that may want to utilise the information. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Thank you, hon Singh. I must say that the effort has been an effort of government, and in particular we have benefited from the Department of Communications with technological support in this particular initiative.

As to how accessible the data will be, well, obviously, the intention has been to improve both data quality and access for South Africa. So, once we begin to get the first images, I think departments will then be able to secure the necessary imagery that they want.

As you know, as the satellite orbits, it is not always orbiting over areas of the earth or South Africa that we may want information on. So, we would have to secure from departments their particular needs and then, based on that, will begin to provide the necessary data.

I am also going to have to examine whether I can make some money from my department, given what departments were spending on data they were securing from other countries. But, once we get the first images, I think we should come back and inform the House of that immediately. And then, as I have said, on the basis of the hon Shinn’s question, we should come and give a full report in 2010. [Applause.]

     State funds spent on settling land claims in KwaZulu-Natal

1. Mr J H van der Merwe (IFP) asked the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform:

   What amount in state funds was spent on settling land claims in KwaZulu-Natal in the 12 months before the 2009 general election? NO2580E

The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Madam Deputy Speaker, according to information at my disposal, the response to hon Van der Merwe is that the amount is R794 021 313. Thank you.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you to the hon Minister for the answer. It is almost R800 million. Could the hon Minister kindly tell us what percentage that is of the total amount that was spent that year?

The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Madam Deputy Speaker, that’s a good question. I’m prepared to return to the hon member later on. I cannot provide that information right now. Thank you.

Mr M M SWATHE: Thank you very much, hon Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, what is the meaning of settlement in terms of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, and how many agreements have been signed with landowners and fully paid? There are about 1 652 outstanding claims, which must be settled in KwaZulu-Natal, and the budget for 2009-10 is almost exhausted. Therefore, where will the department get the money to settle all outstanding claims? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Hon Deputy Speaker, we are on record as having said in this House that the budget for this financial year to settle restitution has been exhausted. In fact, it was exhausted during the first quarter. We did report that until we got another allocation, we would be unable to settle any other claims. Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, I was also going to say that since the budget is inadequate, how do we see these outstanding claims being settled and when will we see them being settled? What are the current challenges that are being discussed by Cabinet at the moment? Are we seeing any kind of light at the end of this tunnel? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Hon Deputy Speaker, we have been able to look at our own budget in the department with a view to settling some of the claims which have been processed and signed. We are working on that, and we will report to this House as to how much we have done. With regard to how broadly we will deal with the matter, we will deal with the matter progressively as we get allocations through the budget, because that is the only way and the only source of funding that we can rely upon. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Nk P P XABA: Sihlalo, Ngqongqoshe ohloniphekile, ngicela ukubuza ukuthi kule mali eyasetshenziselwa ukubuyiselwa kwemihlaba kubanikazi bawo. Ngabe yimalini eyathenga umhlaba? Yimalini eyanxephezela umphakathi, endaweni yokuthola umhlaba Kanye naleyo eyakhishwa njengo xhasomali ukuze isize labo abafuna ukulima? Nokho siyazi ukuthi uyabiza umhlaba kodwa babewuthathe mahhala. Siyambonga ke uhulumeni ohholwa yiANC, uKhongolose, ngokusiza abantu bakithi babuyelwe ngumhlaba wabo awathathwa nguhulumeni wengcindezelo. Sibonile eBabanangu KwaZulu-Natal ukuthi abantu bakithi bawutholile umhlaba. Mhlonishwa ngicela usichazele ukuthi ungakanana umhlaba KwaZulu-Natal ongakabuyiselwa kubanikazi bawo? [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Ms P P XABA: Chairperson, hon Minister, if I may ask: What happened to the money that was used for land restitutions? How much was spent on purchasing land? How much was spent to compensate the community who did not get land, as well as that which was paid out as a subsidy in order to help those who want to farm?

Nevertheless, we know that the land is expensive but they took it free of charge. We thank the ANC-led government, the congress, for assisting our people to get back their land which was taken by the apartheid government. We have seen in Babanango, in KwaZulu-Natal, that the land has been returned to our people. Hon Minister, will you please explain to us how big the land in KZN is that has not been returned to its rightful owners? [Applause.]]

UMPHATHISWA WEZOPHUHLISO LWAMAPHANDLE NOBUYEKEZO LWEZEMIHLABA: Sekela- Somlomo ohloniphekileyo, ndicela imvume kule Ndlu ihloniphekileyo nakwilungu elihloniphekileyo ukuba khe ndinikwe ithuba lokuya kucwangcisa kakuhle iimpendulo zale mibuzo ibaluleke kangaka ukuze ndibuye nazo kule Ndlu nakwilungu elihloniphekileyo zingaphelanga iintsuku ezisixhenxe. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Hon Deputy Speaker, I request permission from this august House and from the hon member to award me some time to go and prepare the answers for these important questions and bring them back to this august House within seven days. [Applause.]]

       Measures regarding renewable energy target set for 2013

1. Mr L W Greyling (ID) asked the Minister of Energy:

   (1) Whether she is considering increasing the renewable energy target set for 2013; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

   (2) what progress has been made in reaching this target;

   (3) whether any measures have been proposed to ensure that the target is reached; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what measures? NO2582E

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (for the MINISTER OF ENERGY): Deputy Speaker, the question is whether the Minister is considering increasing the renewable energy targets set out for 2013. Now, in the short term, the department intends to meet the 2013 targets, whilst reviewing the Renewable Energy White Paper to determine medium- and long-term targets.

Beyond 2013 the review process will be consultative, and inputs from stakeholders and the general public will be taken into account in determining the next renewable energy target.

The answer to the second part of the question is that since the report of the Renewable Energy Summit in March 2009, less than 10% has been achieved. Nonetheless, the Renewable Energy Feed-In Taroff – REFIT – scheme provides incentives that will increase renewable energy uptake above the 10 TWh level.

The answer to the final part of the question is yes, measures have been proposed to ensure that the target is reached. The new-generation capacity regulations were promulgated in 2009, and will enable the procurement of power from independent power producers, including those using renewable energy sources. This regulation defines the institutional arrangement within which this procurement must be controlled.

The aforementioned regulation is expected to expedite the procurement process of the independent power producers, IPPs, as well as ensure that all future electricity plans are streamlined to correspond with the country’s position on the primary energy mix in general. Clean energy production is prioritised in that plan.

Furthermore, the department, through Nersa, the National Energy Regulator of SA, is implementing the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff – the REFIT, as you know – which is an incentive scheme for the procurement of renewable energy at a very attractive tariff level. Thank you.

Mr L W GREYLING: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, it is clear why government is not prepared to increase the paltry renewable energy target of 10 000 gigawatt hours by 2013. It is because you have not even reached 5% of this target, and it is clear that with the current plans, we won’t even get to half of it.

This is in contrast to many other countries that are steaming ahead on the renewable energy front, as they have indentified it as a major growth industry. China, for instance, has already exceeded its 2020 target for wind energy and has created thousands of jobs and new industries in the process.

I often hear rhetoric from government around the need for clean energy, but unfortunately the facts speak for themselves. The feed-in tariffs don’t work, because no cost-recovery mechanism has been put in place to force Eskom to sign power-purchase agreements with renewable energy producers. The latest National Integrated Resource Plan allegedly also has targets for renewable energy which will only see us achieving half of our renewable energy target by 2013. In addition, the new build programme of Eskom has also made provision for only 1% of it being from renewable energy.

Minister, renewable energy can be more rapidly deployed than either coal or nuclear energy. Will you therefore direct some of the billions of rand across to renewable energy? [Time expired.]

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (for the MINISTER OF ENERGY): Thank you very much. Let me state – and, I think, I have stated this with Mr Greyling on many occasions – that government is very committed to renewable energy. Any country that is not committing to renewable energy is being suicidal economically.

In terms of Eskom’s build programme on renewable energy, I think the intention is really that we involve independent power producers in a much bigger way. There the hon Greyling’s question on the power-purchase agreements becomes very relevant. I think the ability of an agency such as Eskom to conclude power-purchase agreements needs to be reviewed. I would agree with you on that. Perhaps one needs an independent agency, because one is almost having a conflict of interests. These are matters that we are taking up with Eskom in that regard.

We are very encouraged to see that Sasol is now making a major investment in clean energy, and we are encouraging other independent power producers to join in.

But bear in mind that the feed-in tariffs are very expensive, and if Eskom were to do that to that agreement, Eskom would be purchasing power at a much higher rate than they could sell that power. That places Eskom in a very difficult position.

I do fully endorse your concerns and that of the Minister of Energy around renewable energy, and we do sincerely hope that in the next year we will be able to demonstrate very decisive action on the clean energy front.

Mr J SCHMIDT: Thank you, hon Minister, for that answer. I would like some more information on the answer you have just given and also on what the hon member Greyling said.

As you said, the REFIT 1 and 2 tariffs are considerably higher than the price that Eskom, as the sole producer, currently pays to buy or gets paid to produce energy. Therefore, I would like to know if the Ministers see these REFIT 1 and 2 tariffs as restraining factors in the government meeting its targets. Alternatively, does the government plan to subsidise these independent power producers that want to invest in renewable energy?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (for the MINISTER OF ENERGY): Your observation is correct. I think it would be inappropriate for me to be commenting on a decision made by the regulator. I don’t want to be seen to be contesting what the regulator is saying on these matters, but it does pose problems.

We are back to the issue of Eskom having to provide energy at incredibly low costs. This prohibits it from being able to purchase from independent power producers – not only clean energy, but other power producers.

That is one of the realities that we are facing when Eskom approaches Nersa to request a tariff increase. This is not only because we need to have independent power producers, but it’s primarily because Eskom has to meet its operating costs. But, until the issue of the appropriate tariff level for the purchaser of power is firmly established, there are going be problems around that.

In terms of promoting the renewable energy industry, there are discussions with the Department Of Trade and Industry. This is an industry, and we need to seize the possibilities there for creating jobs and going forward. So, yes, there is that kind of engagement, but the tariff issue is a problem.

Mr G J SELAU: Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. The ANC supports the Minister in her endeavour to change the lives of the people of South Africa through the energy mix. We believe it is not proper to stand back and criticise when we all have interests as members in the people of South Africa.

The ANC manifesto reads:

Our priorities will specifically target the needs of the youth, women, workers, the rural poor, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

Hon Minister, how will the renewable energy targets, as outlined in your response, impact on this? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (for the MINISTER OF ENERGY): There are many ways in which renewable energy impacts in a very positive way on any country. Firstly, it reduces the level of carbon emissions, and that has a considerable consequence for climate change.

Secondly – and, I think, very importantly for poor people who often live in the areas that are most polluted – it does impact on their quality of life in terms of environmental pollution.

Finally, in terms of the economy, it is extremely important that this country follow a very committed path to renewable energy. This world is changing very fast. With Copenhagen coming into effect, any country that is not cognisant of the damaging purely economic consequences of not being seen to commit to renewable energy will face the economic consequences thereof. Thank you.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, hon Minister. A lot of what you have said has taken care of my questions, because we hear government talking clearly about prioritising renewable energy and that is encouraging, but then again we see how slowly the process is moving. So there are obvious blockages and obvious challenges. You have elaborated on some of those challenges and perhaps you could elaborate some more.

When it comes to the independent power producers, what incentives will drive this process and get it happening? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (for the MINISTER OF ENERGY): Deputy Speaker, my firm belief is that independent power producers will come in when they believe that, firstly, there is a market for their product; and, secondly, that they will be able to secure a purchase agreement for their energy that covers their operational and other costs. Until such time that that power-purchase agreement is able to be sealed, the coming in of independent power producers will always be prohibited.

That is why this debate about the cost of our electricity and the costs that we are requiring Eskom to pay to purchase power from independent power producers, which costs are way above what they are selling that power for, becomes a critical strategic issue. Thank you.

See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr G R KRUMBOCK: I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I intend moving on behalf of the DA:

That the House –

1) debates the state of dereliction and unkemptness of many of our
   national and local monuments and other important tourist sites in
   South Africa; and


2) proposes urgent solutions to this state of affairs for implementation
   well before the 2010 Fifa World Cup.

Mr L S NGONYAMA: Deputy Speaker, I give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House-

(1) notes that the theft of luggage at our airports should be regarded as a matter of national importance, seeing that South Africa will be hosting the Soccer World Cup in 2010 and will want to leave a positive impression on our visitors;

(2) notes that the disclosure by the Acsa airport operations manager, Bongani Maseko, that 30 bags are stolen or tampered with daily at the country’s biggest airport until recently is a matter that deserves urgent attention by the government;

(3) therefore calls on the Department of Transport and the government, in general, to introduce legislation in this regard.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say that we will take advice on the last notice of motion, to see if it’s a notice of motion or not.

Mr W M MADISHA: Deputy Speaker, I give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House, noting that –

   1) cable theft in Kwa-Thema and Langaville in Ekurhuleni has reached
      a crisis point;


   2) the health, welfare and livelihood of ordinary people are being
      seriously compromised owing to the interruption of electricity,
      rail and telephone services; and

   3) the estimated direct cost of cable theft in South Africa as a
      whole exceeds R500 million per annum

  calls on the government to intensify police efforts to prosecute all
  those buying stolen cables, tighten legislative measures ...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, a notice of a motion is a notice for something to be debated at the next sitting.

Mr W M MADISHA: Exactly, that is why …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then don’t elaborate. Thank you.

Is there another notice of motion? No. We then move to motions without notice.

           VISIT OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA DELEGATION

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House –

(1) notes that a People’s Republic of China delegation visited the South African National Parliament to strengthen ties between the two nations on Tuesday, 3 November 2009;

(2) further notes that the First Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People’s Congress of China, Wang Zhaoguo, and his delegation interacted with Parliament’s Presiding Officers from 3 to 4 November 2009;

(3) recalls that the official visit stems from a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2006 between the two legislatures, committing the two nations to exchange views and update each other on the implementation of agreements between the two governments;

(4) acknowledges that trade between the two nations stood at about R118 billion last year with South Africa’s exports accounting for about R35 billion; and

(5) believes that this strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China will assist in consolidating the African Agenda, as well as strengthening South-South relations.

Agreed to.

                   INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR TOLERANCE

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House –

1) notes that 16 November will mark the 14th annual International Day
   for Tolerance, an initiative originated by Unesco in 1995;


2) further notes that the core purpose of this initiative is to build
   tolerance and trust in diverse communities mainly through education;


3) recognises that intolerance is often rooted in ignorance and fear of
   the unknown and of the “other”, such as other cultures, religions and
   nations, and that intolerance is also closely linked to an
   exaggerated sense of self-worth and pride as well as notions taught
   and learned at an early age; and
4) acknowledges that the promotion of tolerance should be the priority
   of not only the government but also that of every citizen and that in
   order to promote tolerance public awareness should be generated with
   emphasis on the dangers of intolerance.

Agreed to.

ACCIDENT INVOLVING DEPUTY MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND HER DRIVER

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House –

 1) notes with regret the accident involving the Deputy Minister of
    Human Settlements, Zoe Kota-Fredericks, and her driver, Mr
    Sikhumbuzo Nqamqele, on Sunday, 1 November 2009;

 2) further notes that the Deputy Minister was on her way to Cape Town
    after attending an O R Tambo lecture in Beaufort West, when the car
    in which she was travelling, collided with a bakkie, 20 km outside
    Leeu-Gamka;
 3) recalls the tragic death in the accident of a father and a son who
    were on their way to Beaufort West from Cape Town when the accident
    happened;


 4) acknowledges the news that the Deputy Minister is recovering from
    minor injuries in a hospital in George;

    5) wishes the Deputy Minister a speedy recovery; and

 6) extends its condolences to the family of the father and son who
    died in the accident.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 17:08. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Calling of Joint Sitting

   CALLING OF JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT

   The Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr M V Sisulu, and the Acting Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, Ms T C Memela, in terms of Joint Rule 7(2), have called a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament for Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 14:00 to debate the preparations for the FIFA 2010 World Cup.

   M V SISULU, MP T C MEMELA, MP SPEAKER OF THE ACTING CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly

The following report replaces the report published in the ATC on 28 October 2009:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology on the consideration of a shortlist of candidates for appointment to the Board of the South African National Space Agency Board, dated 28 October 2009:

   The Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, having considered the shortlist of candidates for appointment to the South African National Space Agency Board in terms of section 7(1)( c ) of the SA National Space Agency Act (Act No 36 of 2008), referred to it on 7 October 2009, reports as follows:

   The committee held meetings on 21 and 28 October 2009 on the above subject. The department received 94 applications and shortlisted 25 of the candidates.

   During the committee’s deliberations on 21 October 2009, members raised their concerns about the lack of shortlisted candidates who fall within “vulnerable groups with special needs”, such as persons with disabilities. The committee subsequently requested the department, in future, to consult organisations working with persons with special needs to identify potential candidates for inclusion in the shortlist.

   Subsequent to the meeting of 21 October 2009, the following transpired: a) Ms Justine Limpitlaw, a shortlisted candidate, withdrew her application due to personal circumstances. b) The department approached the organisation Disabled People South Africa, who recommended the following candidate for inclusion on the shortlist: Mr Vincent Gore.

   The committee subsequently agreed to include Mr Gore on the shortlist. The committee therefore recommends that the House approves the following shortlist:

1) Mr Francois Anderson 2) Mr Leeandran Annamalai 3) Mr Themba Buthelezi 4) Prof Gideon de Wet 5) Mr Zola Fihlani 6) Dr Elizabeth Gavin (Adam) 7) Ms Joy-Marie Lawrence 8) Mr Vincent Gore 9) Mr Rudolph Louw 10) Mr Maurice T Magugumela 11) Mr Potlaki Maine 12) Ms Nomfuneko Majaja 13) Dr Jan Göttlieb Malan 14) Captain Mpho Mamashela 15) Dr Lee-Anne McKinnell 16) Ms Louisa Mogudi 17) Mr Nepfumbada Mbangiseni 18) Mr Tsheko Ratsheko 19) Dr Robert Scholes 20) Ms Rosey Sekese 21) Ms Simangele Sekgobela 22) Ms Carla Sharpe 23) Dr Kwanele Benett Siziba 24) Ms Vangile Brenda Titi 25) Mr Mthobisi Clyde Zondi

Report to be considered.