WEDNESDAY, 3 MARCH 2010 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 15:03.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                      QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT:

The SPEAKER: Hon Members, I have been informed that the “to talk” button is faulty and members must please indicate by raising their hands – it doesn’t matter which one, left or right – if they wish to ask a supplementary question. I will be assisted by the Table staff to identify members. I would also like to remind members that a maximum of four supplementary questions is allowed. The member who put the original question gets the first opportunity to ask a supplementary question. The first question has been asked by the hon A J Williams. I recognise the hon Deputy President. [Applause.] Findings and outcomes of Public Participation Week

1. Mr A J Williams (ANC) asked the Deputy President:

   (a) What are the key findings and outcomes of the government Public Participation Week which took place from 9 to 15 November 2009 and (b) how will issues raised by communities at these events be addressed to ensure that our people’s quality of life is improved? NO384E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker and hon members, 85 events were held during the government Public Participation Week, which took place from 9 to 15 November 2009. Apart from Ministers and Deputy Ministers, provincial and local executive members in all provinces actively participated during this period, over and above their usual planned public engagements.

There was, unfortunately, less participation from members of Cabinet than usual, as the week had to be postponed from the last week of October, and many Ministers had already incurred prior engagements. Issues raised included service delivery challenges, crime, allegations of corruption, unemployment, drug abuse and the state of the roads. A number of events were planned, taking into account matters raised at previous public engagements and complaints logged with the presidential hotline.

A particular highlight of the week was the extent to which issues were solved on the spot, as service delivery drives of government took place together with the events. It was clear that government programmes to address concerns in these areas are not being implemented as swiftly as expected, hence the need for constant feedback and ongoing public participation processes of this kind. There is also a need to improve co- ordination between the provincial and national spheres regarding matters of concurrent jurisdiction.

A number of issues raised by communities were attended to on the spot, as some research had been conducted before the events to identify the issues that communities were likely to raise. Those issues not attended to or resolved on the spot were documented for further action. This process is being overseen by intergovernmental structures and action taken by the relevant departments is being monitored through monitoring and evaluation units in the Offices of the Premiers. Overall, provincial directors-general are responsible for monitoring the feedback and resolution of issues raised during public participation events and taking up the matters with the appropriate departments where necessary.

Over and above the strengthening of intergovernmental relations and public liaison structures in all departments and spheres, the Minister in the Presidency responsible for performance monitoring and evaluation will also add impetus to our efforts. This is a direct response to lessons learnt from this and previous public engagements. Government is also emphasising the need to give regular feedback to communities on all issues, whether resolved or still being processed. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr A J WILLIAMS: Thank you, Deputy President. Bearing your comprehensive response in mind, what is the executive doing when local governments fail to implement the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular? An example of this is that in the recent public hearings on service delivery it came to light on two occasions that the trickle system used to deliver water to the poorest of the poor leads, at times, to a situation where there is no water for the Muslim community to perform their ritual washing before prayers.

This community is situated in Mitchells Plain, and it is here where the City of Cape Town puts more emphasis on their income than on the people’s right to pray. This is a clear violation of Muslim people’s human rights and a violation of the South African Constitution. By doing this, the City of Cape Town has knowingly taken away the rights of the Muslim people. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker and hon A J Williams, I am sure that I am not expected to answer, because it was more of a declaration. [Interjections.] So, I can only thank the hon A J Williams, because I am really unaware of this happening. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs M WENGER: Mr Speaker, numerous demonstrations have rocked the country due to government’s failure to deliver. In light of this, the ruling party has committed itself to a year of action. Will timeframes be set in each of the cases to ensure that concerns raised will be attended to, especially in Mpumalanga, Limpopo and the Eastern Cape, and how will such progress be communicated to the affected communities? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon member, the response I gave the hon A J Williams covers this question, because the public participation week processes highlight delays in the implementation of government programmes. That is why I made the point that we need to improve on co-ordination between the spheres of national, provincial and local government, and also to ensure that where concerns have been raised, the evaluation and monitoring point persons in the premiers’ offices are charged – that is apart from the directors-general – with the responsibility to ensure that nothing should fall through the cracks, and that where commitments to address concerns are still being processed, such communities should be kept posted at all times. There should be feedback on that. I thank you.

Mr N SINGH: Mr Speaker and hon Deputy President, one cannot fault the response that you have given on how one is going to deal with this matter. However, it is common knowledge that especially during times of election, just before an election, Ministers and politicians cannot resist the temptation of making promises to the people on the ground. What follows is that the promises are not kept. Now, we are glad that you have said that the offices of the premiers would follow this and also the Ministry in the Presidency on performance monitoring and evaluation.

What I would like to know is the following: Is the Ministry in the Presidency already working out mechanisms to deal with regular feedback and ensuring that we do not lead people up the garden path when we make promises, especially like the one made in the area of Jozini, where last year people were promised water and electricity, which is still manna from heaven for them. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon member, yes, the Minister in the Presidency responsible for performance monitoring and evaluation has been given the mandate by the President to ensure that the implementation of the programmes of action is given effect to without any further delay. The hon member wants to know whether the mechanisms have been developed. I can say that the performance audits are meant to throw up and reveal any delays or challenges in terms of implementation and that is the responsibility of the Minister in the Presidency responsible for performance monitoring and evaluation.

Mr D A KGANARE: Mr Speaker and hon Deputy President, in the light of serious large-scale service delivery protests, characterised by violence, what has been the role of the different intelligence-gathering agencies in helping government to understand the nature of the problem and, thereby, helping it to be proactive in seeking a solution? Furthermore, are these protests not in themselves sufficient to let government know what it is that it needs to do, rather than to have these public participation weeks, which seem unnecessary?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker and hon member, most of the causes of these demonstrations are well known. Intelligence structures are not really required to gather that information. For instance, in Orange Farm, with regard to the latest protest that happened a few days ago, a section of that community had been identified for the installation of a sewerage system. The work was then allocated to an engineering company, which installed the main pipes as well as the toilets and the systems, but without connecting the households to the main pipes.

This means that that community is still without a sewerage system. That community is well aware that other sections, which had been identified much later and the work allocated to different engineering companies, had their sewerage system installed and it was working. So, whereas they were first in the queue, they are still waiting for the connections to be completed. What really riles is that they know the company that did this shoddy work, and that, since then, it has been given a contract to do similar work in another section of the same community. It doesn’t really need an intelligence agency to dig up the information. The community knows and it is willing to share that information with government. Thank you. [Applause.]

    Proposed sanctions on Ministers failing to reply to questions

1. Mr M J Ellis (DA) asked the Deputy President:

   Whether, with reference to his reply to oral Question 16 on 4 November 2009, he proposed any sanctions to Cabinet on Ministers who failed to reply to questions in the National Assembly in 2009? NO386E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, hon members, a large number of parliamentary questions were unfortunately not answered before the deadlines set by Parliament last year. As far as I am aware, replies to most if not all the questions were finally compiled, but the parliamentary Rules, as we all know, do not provide for any late answering at the end of the year.

So even if replies were submitted, if that happened after the deadline, they would be reflected as unanswered, and therefore Parliament will not accept the reply. I have taken the initiative to write to all Ministers who had unanswered questions and request an explanation for each unanswered question. I also asked which steps they were taking to ensure that they answer all parliamentary questions submitted to them this year.

I will then report to Cabinet, where further discussions on the matter will take place. Feedback to this House will be given through the Speaker, hon Sisulu. As I indicated in my reply to oral Question 16 last year, it is also up to this House to discuss the matter and decide if they want to institute sanctions against Cabinet Ministers who do not answer parliamentary questions. Thank you.

Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Deputy President very much indeed for, again, a very positive response. You will know, sir, that this is the third time we have raised this matter in the House and it is really one of great concern. However, Mr Deputy President, there are still 100 unanswered questions from last year. A backlog of some 500 questions this year is now building up, and the matter is becoming more serious.

We have proposed before that making Ministers apologise is one way of dealing with it. We have proposed this to the Rules Committee, but regrettably it hasn’t met for so long that we have not had the opportunity to push this matter further, and I would like to ask the Deputy President if he would take that matter up as well.

Mr Deputy President, if some of your Cabinet colleagues continue to refuse to carry out your instructions, surely you must start to wonder whether, in fact, they take you and your position seriously, sir. And isn’t it, therefore, time for you to consider taking real action against these Ministers - these serial offenders - and even consider firing them if they continue to hold you in contempt? [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Can I just indicate that the Deputy President does not answer on behalf of the Rules Committee.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, hon Mr Ellis, I am heartened by the response I received from some of the Ministers to the letter that I dispatched once I became aware that there were all these questions that remained unanswered. As I said, I intend to share that with the House through the Speaker, and it may be helpful for us to have a meeting with presiding officers and the Chief Whips to look at this issue in more detail. I thank you.

Mrs L S CHIKUNGA: Let me thank you, hon Deputy President, for your response, but going forward, how do you propose to deepen the culture of accountability, openness and transparency amongst the executive members?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon members, one way of ensuring that there is accountability is really to respond to questions, as posed by members of this august House. As I proposed, I believe it would be useful for us to have a meeting, and I would write to the Speaker and the Chief Whips to convene a meeting where we look at this issue and at what steps can be taken to ensure that questions are responded to so that there is transparency and accountability. However, as I said, the responses that I received from some of the Ministers have actually heartened me. Indeed, this is a problem that we can resolve without resorting to any draconian measures. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S N SWART: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, the ACDP appreciates the steps you are taking to address this issue, but clearly unanswered questions remain a problem. Given the importance that has been given to performance delivery agreements, and should the steps you have suggested not bear fruit, should consideration nor be given to making this issue part of the performance delivery agreements entered into by the President and Cabinet Ministers? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon member, I think we should throw that suggestion into the basket and look at it. I am quite open to it. Thank you.

Mr C D KEKANA: Mr Speaker, and hon Deputy President, section 95 of the Constitution reads as follows:

Before the Deputy President, Ministers and any Deputy Ministers begin to perform their functions, they must swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution, in accordance with Schedule 2.

Section 92 subsection 2 of the same Constitution reads as follows:

Members of the Cabinet are accountable collectively and individually to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.

Notwithstanding the above, Deputy President, it has been reported that some 116 questions in 2009 have not been replied to. Would you agree that Ministers who have failed and continue to fail to heed your formal request, that by 15 December 2009 all questions should have been replied to, are in fact in contempt of their own oath of obedience to the Constitution, as well as section 92, subsection 2 of the Constitution?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon member, yes, indeed, we agree that that is the constitutional obligation under which we operate and that we are in fact obliged to respond to questions. That is why we are not ducking and diving about it and, as I said, I’ve requested explanations of why these questions had not been answered. I will share those responses with the Speaker so that the House can be informed.

There are instances where the responses or explanations are cogent, but the system is just not working properly. We would also be able to identify that and deal with it. Once again, my proposal is that we should have a meeting with presiding officers and Whips to look at this issue. I am quite confident that even from the Cabinet’s side we will be able to correct this slackness. Thank you.

The SPEAKER: We thank the hon Deputy President. This is certainly an important matter, and I would like to thank hon members and welcome their suggestions, which shall be noted by the Office of the Deputy President, as will the Deputy President’s keenness to attend to the matter. I would like to remind members that the oversight model at Parliament is being worked on and also has this as an item. Indeed, the independent panel of experts, who still have to be considered, also has recommendations to this effect.

Position of Cabinet on adoption of a lifestyle audit and on closer scrutiny and transparency in awarding state tenders

1. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) asked the Deputy President:

(1)    Whether the Cabinet will adopt a lifestyle audit to include
      assets and business interests including an audit of (a) spouses,
      (b) children and (c) personal business partners; if not, why not;
      if so, what are the relevant details;


(2)    whether Cabinet has taken any decision on closer scrutiny and
      transparency with the awarding of state tenders; if not, why not;
      if so, what are the relevant details?
                                    NO390E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, if I may ask for your indulgence. My response to this question is a bit long. If you’ll allow me, I’ll race through it.

The SPEAKER: How long is long, Deputy President? Continue, hon Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon members should remember that there are indeed measures already in place that both regulate what Cabinet members can do and require them to disclose their assets and business interests: Firstly, Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers who are members of the National Assembly are required to disclose particulars of their financial interests, assets and gifts in terms of the Rules of Parliament. This also applies to Members of Parliament and their spouses or permanent companions and dependent children. I must add that the Ministers and Deputy Minister who are not members of Parliament have made a voluntary disclosure to Parliament in this regard.

Secondly, the executive ethics code requires all Cabinet members, in addition, to disclose their liabilities. This code also stipulates that a Minister must declare any financial or business interests that he or she may have in a matter that is before Cabinet, or in relation to which the Minister is required to take a decision as a Member of Cabinet. Where the Minister holds a business interest in a company that may give rise to a conflict of interest in the execution of his or her duty as a Member of Cabinet, he or she must either dispose of the interest or place the administration of the interest under the control of an independent person or agency. The same code stipulates that Ministers may not receive remuneration for any work or service other than for the performance of their functions as members of Cabinet.

With regard to monitoring compliance with these provisions, details of Ministers’ assets are available on the parliamentary website along with those of all other Members of Parliament. Violations of the parliamentary code are dealt with by Parliament and have been dealt with effectively in the past. Complaints against violations of the executive ethics code can also be dealt with by the Public Protector.

Let me also remind hon members that the SA Revenue Service conducts investigations into people who appear to be living beyond their means. These investigations start on the basis of information obtained from various sources, including the Sars anticorruption and fraud hotline, income tax returns submitted by a taxpayer to Sars and reports of suspicious activity from members of the public. A lifestyle questionnaire is one method of obtaining information from a taxpayer and, together with other information sources, assists Sars in matching the lifestyle trends, income streams and asset base of a taxpayer to what has been declared in an income tax return. The accumulated wealth has to be explained by the taxpayer for tax purposes. Any unexplained wealth is taxed. The compliance and risk unit within Sars conducts the risk analysis of taxpayer information. If there is a mismatch between what the taxpayer has declared and what Sars has found, the case is referred to an audit.

If it is confirmed that the taxpayer has evaded tax, penalties are levied, interest is charged and additional tax of up to 200% of the evaded tax is charged. Depending on the circumstances, the case may then be handed to the criminal investigation division of Sars, which then engages the SA Police Service and a specialised tax unit for criminal prosecution within the National Prosecuting Authority. More than 10 000 such audits have been conducted by Sars over the past two years.

The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2003 also provides for an investigation into a person who appears to own property disproportionate to their income. This is in addition to strict Financial Intelligence Centre Act, Fica, requirements, which compel individuals to disclose sources of income when they make big financial transactions. In light of the above, Cabinet has not considered lifestyle audits, as it is clear that all these measures are already in place.

The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Corruption that the President referred to in his state of the nation address is considering ways in which to improve scrutiny and transparency in the awarding of state tenders. The committee is supported by multidisciplinary task teams on issues of government procurement. One team focuses on compliance in respect of tenders, while the other team focuses on systems improvement in respect of government supply chain management. The task teams comprise officials from the Department of National Treasury, the SA Police Service, Public Service and Administration, South African Revenue Service, the Auditor-General, the Financial Intelligence Centre and the Special Investigating Unit. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Mr Speaker, thank you to the Deputy President. It is interesting to note what he has quoted; what we have in place in terms of a regulatory framework. However, the Auditor-General recently reported on an increase in instances of insider trading involving senior officials trading with government departments and other public entities. On this side of the House, we believe, as Cope, that political leaders should lead by example and should stop this trend.

Does the Deputy President agree that the apparent irregular awarding of tenders in Limpopo to Mr Julius Malema of the ANC, as well as the shares that the governing party holds in the company that will supply boilers to the new Eskom power stations, is setting the wrong trend, and does he not believe it could border on promoting corrupt activities? Thank you. [Applause.] [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, hon member, my belief is that we have in place all measures necessary to stamp out crooked ways of adjudicating over tenders and so on. However, as we know, human beings are difficult animals. There are rules, very simple rules, and life would be easy if we all followed them. You find traffic lights on street corners, yet many fatal accidents happen simply because we do not observe them. So, I will not get into the matter of Mr Julius Malema and tenders and so on, because I suppose it is a matter that is being attended to elsewhere. I’m not familiar with those facts.

It is a moot question whether or not Chancellor House and the stake it holds in the company contracted to construct power stations could lead to, or borders on, sending a negative or wrong message to the public. The reason is simple: As I understand it, once a corporate company is incorporated, it is free to pursue any opportunity. If there is a conflict of interest, then we must say so, and I will be the first one to say there is a conflict of interest here and this matter stinks to high heaven. That is, if there is. I’ve heard arguments to the effect that even the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, Nersa, determined tariffs … [Time expired.]

Dr D T GEORGE: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon Deputy President for clarifying the position relating to members of Cabinet and Parliament. However, the issue of other politicians must be addressed, because positions are being abused. We are seeing evidence of that in the tender process and there is also growing support from various organisations, including Cosatu and nongovernmental organisations, for the DA’s call for lifestyle audits to be conducted on politicians who are not Members of Parliament or Cabinet who are awarded state tenders.

Can the Deputy President please confirm whether or not these politicians will be identified and whether or not they will be subjected to the appropriate lifestyle audits and tender scrutiny processes to ensure that they are not receiving preferential treatment and/or evading the tax they are legally obligated to pay? Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, my sincerest apologies, because of the murmurings I missed the first part of the question.

The SPEAKER: Start with the second part you heard, hon Deputy President. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, the second part I heard was when he was saying, “Will these politicians be identified?” I don’t know which politicians. That’s my difficulty, otherwise I would have responded to the question.

The SPEAKER: Briefly, hon member.

Dr D T GEORGE: Mr Speaker, I’m closer to the microphone now. There are politicians who have been awarded state tenders and we know the process is being abused. So, the question is quite simply whether these politicians who have been awarded state tenders, who might not be Members of Parliament or Cabinet, are being or will be investigated. Will they go through this lifestyle audit process, because they are evading the tax they’re supposed to be paying and taking advantage of the positions they have?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon member, the difficulty with this question is that I have indicated what laws are in place and what structures are properly authorised to investigate anybody. Sars, for instance, has a hotline where a whistle-blower can indicate suspicious activities which would then be investigated immediately by the units authorised to follow up on those matters.

So, if the hon member is of the view that these measures are inadequate, and that the House would like to come up with legislation to target politicians specifically, outside of what already exists, then that’s a matter that this House can take forward, I suppose. For now, the whole tender system, in my view, is not foolproof. It’s not a system that cannot be undermined, unless there’s rotation in the application structures or in the tender boards themselves, or something like that. I don’t know. My sense is the system is not foolproof. I’ve just shared with this august House the basis of the demonstrations in Orange Farm, because there was a company that should have failed being awarded a second tender. That in itself is inexplicable. Thank you. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Mr Speaker, Deputy President, the reported overwhelming evidence of corruption in the processing and awarding of state tenders - this whole tendering process - demands closer scrutiny and transparency. To make this tendering process foolproof, as the Deputy President has suggested, the ACDP believes it should be depoliticised in order to benefit all our people and not just a few privileged and well-connected members of the ruling party.

We want to know why millions of rands are being paid to companies that won state tenders without any checking of the quality of their work. Does this mean that those people who award tenders are inefficient themselves, or are they just doing their comrades a favour by paying for shoddy work?

We believe all tender applications should be closely scrutinised by an independent, apolitical and objective panel of experts, one that does not just comprise members of the ruling party. Politicians and civil servants or their relatives should not be on the panel that processes the applications. This, we believe, will restore the credibility of the tendering process. If the Deputy President agrees with what I’ve just suggested, when is the earliest that we can expect a response from him? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, hon members, indeed, I agree that there’s a need to bring about better efficiency in the manner in which tenders are adjudicated. That part I agree with unreservedly and I think that it’s absolutely necessary. However, I think it is being a bit too liberal with the truth to suggest that tender boards consist of members of the ruling party. [Applause.]

Because this is a serious matter, I think we should resist the temptation to do that, so that we can deal with the problem. After all, once a tender is awarded to people with no capacity to deliver, it is the people who suffer in the end. We must seriously find ways of resolving this problem.

I had a discussion with the President on Monday about the need to have a way of independently monitoring tenders after they have been awarded. If, for instance, it’s the installation of a sewage system, government must have an adjudication process in which the Ministry of Human Settlements and local government, for example, can appoint persons who go out there on a monthly basis and check whether the work is being done according to specifications. This will mean we don’t become aware of the problem only when all the money has been spent, yet the quality of the product borders on the criminal. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr P F SMITH: Mr Speaker, colleagues, the IFP is very worried about perceptions of corruption in this country, and I think it’s fair to say that perhaps, although Cabinet per se is not the problem, the issue here is perception. We think Cabinet needs to send a strong signal to the country that it’s serious about addressing the issue. In that light, a lifestyle audit would be appropriate. The broader issue is clearly one of state tenders being a major problem, throughout the country, frankly.

At local level, corruption is rife. At provincial level, it’s also rife. I must say I’m a little surprised by the Deputy President’s comments on Chancellor House and Eskom. In our view, it is morally wrong for the ruling party to rake in R5 billion or so in profits from an Eskom price increase for the rebuild programme. It sets the wrong example and should not happen.

My question to the Deputy President, then, is this, and I say this without impugning the integrity of anyone in this House: What is government going to do to combat perceptions by more and more people – ordinary people outside this House – that South Africa increasingly resembles a cleptocracy run by crooks? Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, hon members, perceptions are a reality and there’s only one way to correct them; that’s by taking steps to ensure that the basis of such perceptions is corrected. Cabinet must lead by example and I’ve said that the inter-ministerial committee that will focus on anticorruption measures has been established.

I’ve also tried to explain, at length, how Sars conducts lifestyle audits, because it’s a term that is in vogue now. However, if the mechanisms to conduct such lifestyle audits are not in place, we can create other difficulties, and public representatives are already subjected to all those measures.

Where we are aware, or if a member of the public is aware of an individual or group of individuals with ill-gotten wealth, the measures are there, the agencies are there, there’s even an Asset Forfeiture Unit that can seize or impound such ill-gotten wealth.

The point I’m making is that the measures are in place. What is required is the resolve to implement them and to act in a concerted manner that would send the right message. If anyone, and it shouldn’t matter whether that person comes from this or that party, is found to have stepped on the wrong side of procedures, the law must take its course. They should be brought to book, and I don’t see why we should not follow that route to deal with such problems. Thank you. [Applause.]

Position regarding the composition, mandate, focus and action plan of the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee

1. Ms S C N Sithole (ANC) asked the Deputy President:

   What (a) is the (i) composition, (ii) mandate and (iii) focus of the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee that was announced by Cabinet in November 2009, (b) action plan has been identified by the committee and (c) will be its relationship with law-enforcement agencies? NO383E

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Speaker, unfortunately this question also deals with the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee, but I’ll answer it.

The Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee is co-ordinated by the Minister in the Presidency responsible for performance monitoring and evaluation, and comprises the Ministers of Home Affairs, Justice and Constitutional Development, Public Service and Administration, State Security, Police, Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Finance, and Social Development.

The mandate of this committee is to ensure co-ordinated anticorruption efforts; promote policy coherence and alignment on cross-cutting anticorruption programmes of government; develop and enhance technical measures to curb corruption in both the public and private sectors; review procurement practices; address weaknesses in the criminal justice system to ensure that efficient prosecution takes place; and ensure political co- ordination of anticorruption efforts in the international arena.

The focus of the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee is to ensure a co-ordinated and efficient fight against corruption. The committee is finalising an action plan. Broadly, the action plan will deal with role clarification between departments, co-ordinating efforts and ensuring that structural and policy alignment take place for heightened impact on both the public and private sectors.

As I have already said, the Ministers of State Security, Justice and Constitutional Development, and Police are part of the committee. This will ensure that the law-enforcement agencies play an active and integral part in the co-ordinated fight against corruption. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms S C N SITHOLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, often corruption is detected by government itself. This leads to the suspension of alleged corrupt officials …

The SPEAKER: Hon member, maybe there is too much noise in the House. We can’t hear you. Could you raise your voice, please?

Ms S C N SITHOLE: Certainly. Often corruption is detected by government itself. This leads to the suspension of alleged corrupt officials with full pay. These cases take years to finalise, while the suspended officials earn their full salary.

Also, one finds that officials resign just before disciplinary processes commence. What means is the interministerial committee considering to address this problem? [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon member for the points she raised. We have the recent example of the former CEO of the SA Social Security Agency, who attempted to resign instead of facing the music. The Minister has declined the resignation in order to ensure that … [Applause.] … the said person indeed answers to that case. That is an example of how such resignations could be handled in a manner that does not undermine accountability.

Ms A M DREYER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since July last year, numerous task teams have been established to probe service delivery at the SABC and Sentech. There was also the Caster Semenya support task team. None produced results. However, there are numerous laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Public Service dealing with corruption, and Ministers already have executive powers to appoint and dismiss directors-general. By simply exercising these powers they will send a clear message that corruption is not tolerated. For example, nine months after taking office in the Western Cape, the DA is already implementing anticorruption measures. It is clear that the root problem related to corruption is the nonimplementation of existing laws.

Now, Mr Deputy President, when – in what year – will you stop planning more meetings of yet another interministerial committee and simply begin to apply the law? [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon member, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think we should apply the law. That is the point I have been trying to convey throughout. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr V B NDLOVU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Deputy President, what if some members of the interministerial committee, or one of their relatives, are involved? What will happen? That is the first question.

The second question is: Will the Minister recuse himself or herself if he or she is involved?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon member. Yes, I believe that if a Minister or any of the Ministers is conflicted, they should really recuse themselves from participating in an investigation and/or the handling of any matter. Yes, I agree with you. Thank you.

Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deputy President, the Anti- Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee is not new. There have been previous interministerial committees similar to this one. What is not clear is what has been done in terms of the continuation of the work on fighting corruption.

Secondly, what would you say, Deputy President, if South Africans, given what I have just indicated, say that nothing has been reported in terms of what action has been taken; what has been done. The action plan and the anticorruption strategy exist as a plan for government to implement, but what has been happening before now? And what would you say if South Africans say that this is another PR exercise by this committee, given that even the Scorpions, which South Africans believed dealt with corruption without fear or favour, have been dissolved? [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon member. If, indeed, as the saying goes, practice is more powerful than precept, the only way to address perceptions is through practice. I believe the time will come and the day will come when we’ll assess the work of this committee on the basis of what it has done. If we are still here, you’ll have the opportunity to say, “But this is what you said, and look at what this committee has done.” So, all I am saying is that we have to take it all in good faith. And if it doesn’t work, we will have the opportunity to say so. Thank you.

                         PEACE AND SECURITY
                              Cluster 1

MINISTERS:

Position regarding declaration on the magisterial jurisdiction of Ekangala and opening of new magistrate’s court

1. Mr J B Sibanyoni (ANC) asked the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

   When will (a) he make a declaration on the magisterial jurisdiction of Ekangala and (b) the new Ekangala magistrates’ court be officially opened? NO357E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for raising this question as it speaks to one of the core mandates of the department, namely providing an accessible and transformed justice service, committed to the promotion of constitutional values for all. One of the injustices of the past is the fact that branch courts, which were not equipped to provide essential services such as child maintenance, protection orders, deceased estates, adoption orders and legal remedies in civil disputes, were established in townships and rural areas. This resulted in many people, mostly the poor, travelling vast distances to main courts where these services were provided.

One of the projects the department initiated to make access to justice for all a reality is the redesignation of these branch courts as full-service courts. Ekangala is one of the 15 areas that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has proclaimed as a separate magisterial district with effect from 11 August 2009. This effectively means that the area has, with effect from that date, been excised from the Mkobola magisterial district, under which it fell before the proclamation, and made into a full-service court. Prior to the proclamation, the people of Ekangala had to travel to Mkobola for some of the services.

This government is promoting access to justice by bringing courts closer to the people. It must also be noted that Ekangala is less than 10 km from Bronkhorstspruit and forms part of the Mkobola magisterial district solely on the basis that it was part of the old KwaNdebele homeland in the apartheid era. The proclamation also seeks to correct this anomaly.

It is also important to mention that Ekangala is currently a circuit of the regional court, which sits in Mpumalanga. This implies that the regional magistrates from the Nelspruit or Mbombela court must travel from Nelspruit to a court in Ekangala.

I have been informed that the department is in the process of finalising the consultation process with the view to changing this position, with effect from June 2010. The regional division of Gauteng will then have jurisdiction over Ekangala. This will further increase access to justice for the communities in that area.

I have been informed that the building of the new court will be completed by 31 March 2010, after which a date for the official opening of the court will be determined in liaison with the Department of Public Works. I thank you.

Mr J B SIBANYONI: Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your valuable answer. I would like to point out that Ekangala became part of Mkobola magisterial district in 1985, when it was incorporated by the apartheid government into the KwaNdebele homeland, despite resistance and opposition from the residents. When new provincial boundaries were drawn, Ekangala was mistakenly demarcated into the then Eastern Transvaal province, which is now Mpumalanga.

My follow-up question is: How will the Ministry or the department inform the Ekangala residents about the proclamation that was gazetted on 11 August 2009, to assure them that Ekangala is now part of Gauteng, notwithstanding the presence of the Mkobola and Witbank court officials at the Ekangala court? Due to literacy levels, the Government Gazette does not reach the majority of the residents. Thank you.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, the government notices giving effect to this development will be published in the first week of April 2010. This will be followed by an extensive awareness campaign. The opening of the court will, in fact, mark the launch of this awareness campaign. On the day of the opening of courts, pamphlets will be distributed, the SABC will be invited to televise the event and national and community radio and print media will be used to communicate these changes. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs N W A MICHAEL: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been informed by the Department of Justice acting directors-general and the present director- general that there is a severe backlog in the appointment of magistrates. The situation was so dire that in the response to a parliamentary question that I asked, I was told that the number of cases abandoned or dropped in 2008-09, due to various reasons, but including the shortfall of magistrates, amounted to 286 837.

The implementation of the Children’s Act, which comes into effect on 1 April 2010, requires an additional 20 magistrates. Can the Deputy Minister please inform us how many magistrates will be employed at the Ekangala magistrate’s court and how will these magistrates be sought? If they are sought from other magistrates’ courts, will they be replaced or will they leave a vacuum in those courts?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, a big part of the question the hon Michael has posed is in fact a new question. Let me try to clarify. It is true that the process of appointing magistrates is a very lengthy one. We have raised that with the Magistrates’ Commission. We are happy to say the process is speeding up. In fact, the last meeting of the Magistrates’ Commission made recommendations in respect of many of the outstanding vacancies.

What’s important to clarify is that even where there is a vacant magistrate’s position, it does not mean there is no warm body sitting in that position. Those positions are all filled by the appointment of acting magistrates. There is no single position that is vacant in the true sense of word, where someone is not sitting there and hearing cases.

In the case of the Ekangala court, it’s also important to point out that it is indeed a functioning court. There are magistrates sitting there. Where there are vacancies, there are acting magistrates and, should the need arise for additional posts, those will be filled on recommendation of the Magistrates’ Commission.

Mr D A KGANARE: Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has the power to appoint acting magistrates. Can the Deputy Minister give this House a solemn undertaking that the Minister has not used, and will never use, that power to appoint individuals as acting magistrates simply as a payback for the misuse of a Public Service office to benefit the ANC, as happened with acting Judge Mpshe?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, again I think that is a very different question. Should the member wish to pose that, he can do so. Let me clarify to him and the House that the power of appointing acting magistrates does rest with the Minister, but he has delegated that power to the Deputy Minister. I can give the member the assurance that acting magistrates are appointed in terms of the provisions set out in the law, most often on the recommendation of chief or senior magistrates. Thank you. [Applause.]

Particulars regarding investigation into conduct of VIP Protection Unit in relation to arrest of UCT student

1. Mr T W Coetzee (DA) asked the Minister of Police:

   Whether he has launched an investigation into the conduct of the VIP Protection Unit with regard to the arrest of a certain University of Cape Town student (name furnished); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO358E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the answer to the question is that we are unable to comment on this matter, as the individual has stated that he has launched a civil claim against the department and we regard the issue as sub judice. Thank you.

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of hon Coetzee. The Minister was quoted as having said that the young man concerned had apologised and so the matter should thus be considered to be closed and yet, what we saw here was reminiscent of apartheid-era policing.

Mr Maxwele was allegedly arrested at gunpoint, had a bag pulled over his head, was then subjected to a torrent of insults and intimidation from police and intelligence officials over a 24-hour period and NIA officers raided his house.

These are the tactics of a police state, not a democracy, and the so-called apology was released a week after the incident, but was part of his initial coerced statement. This is reminiscent of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, which of course the ANC is increasingly trying to emulate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, what is the question?

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: I’m asking it now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, okay.

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: As much as the Minister might wish it away, there’s no way on earth one might consider this matter closed. So, I’d like to know how far the investigation is into this shameful event and I would like an assurance to this House that the Minister will apologise to this young man personally at the conclusion thereof. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, we can only comment on this particular matter once the court processes have been concluded. [Interjections.] Any comment before that is pre-empting the conclusion of the matter, which is sub judice. Our comments will come after that process. Thank you. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Deputy Speaker, while the ACDP does not condone the actions of the UCT student who was arrested by the VIP Protection Unit, we nevertheless deplore the conduct of the police officers who arrested him. The student’s right to be protected against torture was violated by the members of the VIP Protection Unit, who acted like they were trained by the apartheid security branch. [Interjections.]

Regardless of their claims that the student resisted arrest, there can be no justification for suffocating a person by putting a plastic bag over their head. This is evil and one of the worst forms of torture any person can suffer.

My question to the hon Deputy Minister is: After the court proceedings have been exhausted internally, is there anything that the department will do as an assurance to the public that, in future, no such activity will be tolerated from the VIP Protection Unit? Thank you.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a daily basis, any case of abuse by any individual not for political purposes is investigated. So, once this particular process comes to a conclusion, it will be subjected to the normal procedural processes within the SA Police Service and the Ministry, and they will be in a position to give a report on this.

At the present moment the matter is sub judice. This is the rule of law. [Applause.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I just need clarity as far as the sub judice rule is concerned. A sub judice rule applies before a court of law. I am not aware that this is at present before a court of law. It may be an internal inquiry. The sub judice rule does not apply to an inquiry, but only to a court of law. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have explained, the individual concerned has stated that he has launched a civil claim against the department. So, in this particular instance, what the sub judice rule means – and I am not a lawyer and will be unable to explain the point fully – is that we must allow the due processes of law to be concluded so that we are able to deal with the matter in its totality. [Interjections.]

Ms M C DUBE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m sitting next to Mr Schneemann’s microphone and maybe that’s why it registered his name. The VIP Protection Unit was involved in a number of incidents that drew media attention and criticisms. Will the Minister consider conducting an investigation to determine whether there is a real problem, and if there is, what it might be? If it is just a perception, how can it be corrected?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I explained earlier on, we will be in a position, once the processes have been concluded, to present the report and allow the processes to unfold.

It would be a mistake for us to undertake one process at the expense of another. It is important to deal with the matter in its totality. Thank you very much. Particulars regarding steps to be taken against police officers and other agents who infringed the constitutional rights of a certain student

1. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) asked the Minister of Police:

   Whether the public will be informed about steps (a) implemented to investigate the matter and (b) that will be taken against police officers and other agents who infringed the constitutional rights of a certain student (name furnished); if not, why not, if so, when, in each case? NO375E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the question seems to be the same. We are aware that the individual has decided to bring a civil case against the police and we are therefore unable to comment on this matter. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise again on a point of order: I do request that the Table give us an accurate description of what the sub judice rule is, because I don’t think the member is actually indicating correctly what it is. We need clarity and a ruling from yourself in that regard, because, otherwise, I’m afraid, much could be hidden behind the sub judice rule when it actually doesn’t apply.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, any supplementary questions? Mrs J D KILIAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is actually rather difficult now, because if the hon Deputy Minister is again going to hide behind what he calls a sub judice rule, which is not a sub judice rule, it means he will refrain from responding to the questions.

Answer the simple questions. We have a problem with the conduct of the VIP Protection Unit and we have a problem with the actions taken by the police in this regard. There clearly is an intention, but as far as we know, nothing has so far been filed. So, will the hon Deputy Minister please tell us whether he agrees with the conduct in this instance, or does he agree with the vice chancellor of UCT’s view, when he said: “We want you to use your powers as a police force and not bully citizens that display their frustration at government’s lack of response to their needs.” [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before the Deputy Minister answers, can I appeal to the House and those hon members who would like to ask questions, to take the word of the Deputy Minister for now. I will then look at that particular rule and come back with a response. I don’t have a response in front of me now. So, I am saying we should take the word of the Deputy Minister. Those people who would like to ask questions must ask questions, but we cannot say that the Deputy Minister’s application of the sub judice rule is wrong. Can we do that, until we have the interpretation of the rule in front of us?

Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: In addition to that, I thought that one of the rules of the questions to Ministers mentions the fact that there should not be two questions that are substantially the same on an Order Paper. That is part of the problem we are confronting here.

The Minister of Police, through his deputy, has been asked to answer the same substantial question twice. I also think that if we follow the procedure you’re requesting – where we look over what is done –we will also find a problem in the way the questions have been tabled. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ngonyama, is yours a point of order too?

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No … Hon Ngonyama, I have a list in front of me. Hon Kilian had a follow-up question, and if you would like to ask another follow-up question, just raise your hand so that I can be made aware.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on an issue?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, you have asked us to accept the word of the Deputy Minister until the matter has been cleared. This matter is of great importance in terms of the way in which the country generally sees the role of the police protection units. I would like to recommend that this question be held over until this time next week, so that we actually have the opportunity to investigate the matter. The Deputy Minister could be here and we could actually add this as an extra item for Question Time during the course of next week. I urge you to consider that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What does that proposal mean - that the question must not be put to the Minister now?

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. We should delay the answering of the question today so that we could investigate the matter and put it to the House next week.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I was consulting with the Table. Now, the question has been put and there were some answers. If we stop the question now and shelve it for next week, the cluster that was supposed to be dealt with next week will suffer.

So, rather than adjourn the questioning now, so that we can repeat the same questions next week, the recommendation is that we should continue with this question. Hon members who are not satisfied can still ask supplementary questions in the form of a letter.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I rise and point out one thing? We have to be consistent in terms of our rulings. You will recall some time ago there was a ghastly incident at the University of the Free State. It involved the Reitz Four. An inquiry was instigated. It didn’t stop this House debating at length what should have happened to those individuals and the consequences thereof. We have to be consistent. We must either say, if it’s an investigation, it is part of the sub judice rule, or not. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF BASIC EDUCATION: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have consulted with the Table, and you have been advised. Their advice is sensible and it offers all of us an opportunity to await that determination. So, I think hon Davidson should not proceed with it.

Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, could I then also ask you … [Interjections.] The fact that they are unhappy with the responses provided by the Deputy Minister is not material. [Interjections.] We have completed the first question that relates to this matter. Could I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule on the other substantive point of order that I brought, which is that this question is substantially the same as the preceding question. [Interjections.]

It is against the procedures of Parliament to ask the same question twice and to table them. Could I ask you for a ruling in that regard?

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on two points of order. Firstly, if I understood you correctly, a point of order was raised by the DA colleague and you ruled that you will respond to that point of order once properly advised. I would like to point out that, in terms of the Rules, you bear the responsibility of ruling on any point of order which affects the conduct of the debate, as this one does. If this debate is to continue, I submit to you that it is incumbent upon you to rule whether or not it is legitimate for the Deputy Minister not to respond on the basis of the matter being sub judice. So we cannot delay the debate.

The second point of order, Madam Speaker, is that you should not be able to entertain the exception of a sub judice situation without you and the House having been provided with specific information, whether the case is pending or not; it is an affirmative defence. The burden is on the Deputy Minister to tell us that it is pending. It is not sufficient to stop a parliamentary debate on the mere possibility that the person might have announced that civil action might be brought at a future time. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, the Chairperson cannot determine the correctness or otherwise of any answer. The Deputy Minister has answered here and has responded by saying that there is a lawsuit against the police. Now, the response of the Deputy Minister is being questioned by hon members who say that the sub judice rule does not apply in this instance. I have ruled earlier that we should complete the question. In fact, I think there are only one or two speakers who haven’t asked their questions.

We will look at what the sub judice rule is saying and clarify for ourselves whether it applies to what the Deputy Minister is saying. I really think we are going to delay this matter because the responses have been given by the Minister already. There is no other response that he is going to give on this matter. Moreover, because I am not able to rule now and say that that particular rule is inapplicable and the Minister must answer differently, I am really not able to help you in this instance.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, can I just seek clarity here. If indeed the response from the Table, after getting legal advice, is that this matter is not sub judice, what happens then? How do we get the answers? What mechanism is there to get answers in this House?

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can add to that, I think we are placing the Deputy Minister in an invidious position. We are asking him to answer a question to which he has been given certain advice. He has said to us that it is sub judice. We are questioning whether it is sub judice. He – and I am not pointing fingers at him – is in an invidious position. We are trying to make it easy for all concerned.

If I look at Rule 109, for example, it states that if a Minister or a Deputy Minister is absent on the day, 30 minutes can be added on to the Question Time the following week. I know that nobody is absent today, but I am saying that there are opportunities, if we create them ourselves as Parliament, for this kind of thing to happen. I would really urge again that you consider making time available before 3 o’clock next week, if necessary, for us to deal with this matter. It is important.

Mr M S BOOI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there is a particular way in which we should be cautioned about this matter. The purpose of this exercise is for Members of Parliament to raise questions which have to be responded to by the relevant answerers. They are not entitled to the kind of answer they want. The Minister has chosen … no, no … [Interjections.]

Can I finish? You don’t predetermine the answer. The hon Deputy Minister has responded. If we allow this ruling to continue the way it is now, it will not be sustainable, because, on a future occasion, somebody will say that they are not happy with the answer given then. The Minister has given a response and that’s the way he has chosen to respond.

Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. The point is that they don’t agree with the responses that have been given by the Deputy Minister. They are entitled to disagree with his responses but that is not a point of order. That is a point of disagreement. Therefore, they are completely out of order to raise a point of order around issues with which they don’t agree.

Therefore, I really beg of you, Deputy Speaker, firstly, to move on, and not to defer the matter and so on, because the hon Deputy Minister has answered. They don’t like the answers, but he has answered.

Secondly, I really request once more for you to rule on the second issue, the second point of order that I have brought, which is that the question that we are now standing on is substantially the same as the preceding question.

Therefore, can you please rule that, in fact, this question should fall away at this point?

Mrs J D KILIAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, I will allow all your points of order, but can I just remind you that the time for questions is running out. Therefore, all the points of order that you are raising now are eating into the time for other important questions that have been asked. So, just don’t complain when the time expires.

From the Chair, I have made a ruling which states that whether this matter is sub judice or not will be investigated, and we will come with a ruling on that.

The second suggestion - that we should defer this matter to next week – I will not be able to agree to because I am not a member of the programme committee; I am a Chairperson of this session. The programme committee must do that. You are putting me, as the Chairperson, in this difficult position.

So, do I allow all the points of order to take the time of other questions? Is that what you want?

Dr T S FARISANI: Madam Deputy Chair, I rise on a point of order!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it is a point of order, let me go according to …

Mr J H DE LANGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, as the ANC, firstly, we strongly support Deputy Minister Cronin on his point that the question has been placed on the Order Paper twice. He is clearly correct. We will ask a ruling that it be removed.

Secondly, I am absolutely amazed. This is obviously coming from what happened last week. It is clearly an attempt to disrupt this House on every single occasion and to put pressure on a presiding officer of this House to make rulings because they want to play political games.

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr J H DE LANGE: There is one person, hon Ellis, who has been in this Parliament for so long, probably 30 years. He knows the Rules. He knows exactly when we created these Rules and that there are three clusters that rotate. The only occasion on which a question can be moved to the next Question Time is when there is absence of an answer; not when the answer has been given. You cannot do what the hon Ellis has done when he said: Give us a week because we want to go and check what the case is here.

The Rules are clear: When you do not like a question … No Minister is entitled … He can answer what he wants to. No Minister, once he has answered the question, on the basis of not liking or wanting to get further evidence … There are other mechanisms to deal with it. If you are unhappy with the answer in terms of its veracity, you bring a request to the House to have an investigation. If you do not like the question, you can ask another, either an oral question on the next occasion, or you can ask a written question. Those are the mechanisms.

We would ask that, on both these issues, you please rule and do not allow the House to be disrupted in the manner that the DA is doing, particularly if those disrupting are senior members of the House. [Applause.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to suggest the hon De Lange first studies the Rules of this House before he speaks, because there is nothing wrong. Maybe he can sit in this House for 30 years and he will still not know the details.

As to Deputy Minister Cronin, there is nothing that prohibits… in fact, I would suggest the hon Minister of Police should have argued that the two questions are pretty much the same. For us to know that when we submit questions is clearly impossible. So, these questions were submitted to the Minister and he could have responded by saying that the matter is sub judice. We would then have been alerted and could have placed other questions higher up.

I believe this is nothing but a way of not responding. Therefore, today, we know what the answer is: Hon Mbalula supports the bullying tactics of the VIP Unit. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Dr T S FARISANI: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The House maintains an unequal hierarchy of authority. I speak from here and you, Deputy Speaker, speak from where you are. It is not equal. In other words, once you make a ruling, all of us, without exception, without fear or favour, must accept that ruling. If we are unhappy about that ruling, it is natural and human that we would find ways of challenging it.

In conclusion, you did not stifle any debate today. You only indicated that you wanted to study that Rule and come back to us. So, be firm and decisive, and close this issue until you come back to us.

If people are allowed to behave the way some people are behaving in this honourable House, we will never make progress. Decide, and we shall obey. [Applause.]

Mr H P CHAUKE: Madam Deputy Speaker, my point is that an hon member from Cope referred to the Deputy Minister of Police as supporting the bullying tactics of the police. That is not parliamentary. Can the member withdraw that bullying tactic?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon member who said that like to say something?

Mrs J D KILIAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, if it came across that I said he supports it, I meant to say it appears that he supports it. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What exactly did you say? Did you say he supported it?

Mrs J D KILIAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be difficult for me now because it was said in the course of debate. I cannot recall exactly what I said.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Kilian, since you cannot recall, do you mind withdrawing what you said?

Mrs J D KILIAN: I withdraw. [Interjections.]

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Kilian…

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Madam Deputy Speaker!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see you. I am still talking to the hon Kilian.

Mrs J D KILIAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I’ve said, if I directly accused him of supporting that, then I withdraw. But, if I have said … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no, thank you, hon Kilian, that’s all I wanted. Thank you very much. What’s your point of order, hon Ambriosi?

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, it’s Ambrosini, I would appreciate you pronouncing it correctly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ambrosini, yes. Sorry, that’s not my mother tongue. [Laughter.]

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am rising because this is an important matter of freedom of speech in this House. I remember what the hon member said and we all heard it. She said: “The bullying tactics of the VIP Units - are they being supported by the Minister?” [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ambrosini, thank you very much. The hon member has withdrawn already.

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Madam Deputy Speaker, she could not have withdrawn what she did not say. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, can we proceed? By now, I’ve given everybody a chance. In fact, I do not think we have a lot of time left for questions. My ruling still stands that this question has been answered but if there is any member who feels strongly that it must come back, that member must definitely bring it back as an urgent question or motion. Then, automatically, the programme committee will take it for next week. Can we move to another Question, not question 34?

Particulars regarding purpose of, and attendance at, police function in Bloemfontein

1. Mrs L S Chikunga (ANC) asked the Minister of Police:

   (a) What was the purpose of the police function in Bloemfontein and (b) how many police officers attended the function? NO352E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the South African Police Service Act, Act 68 of 1995, was promulgated on 27 January 1995. Given the anniversary of the SA Police Service, SAPS, we should consider the essential role it plays to provide safety and security for all people in South Africa. In honour of the sacrifices members make in providing this service, Cabinet declared 27 January, annually, the day to celebrate National Police Day for South Africa.

The National Commissioner of Police, in consultation with his national and provincial management, took a decision to celebrate National Police Day for 2010 on 29 January 2010. We hosted this day, among other considerations, to thank members of the SA Police Service for their dedication and hard work. We understand the kind of environment in which they work, especially those members who served the country during the 2009 festive season.

The event was hosted in Bloemfontein at the Vodacom Park Stadium. Its theme was: South African Police Service Members: My Family. Approximately 42 000 members of the provinces and divisions attended this event on 29 January

1. Thank you.

Mrs L S CHIKUNGA: Madam Deputy Speaker, the two unions in the Department of Police told the portfolio committee that they were looking forward to yet another event. Was the country’s security compromised in any way at any time in the run-up to the event, during the event or after the event? If not, why not? Thank you.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: The country’s security during the event was not compromised at all. The event was decentralised. Most of the police officers who attended are those who took leave because they were on duty during the festive season. Their attendance at the centralised event in Bloemfontein was part of an agreement with management in different provinces.

When the police gathered in the Vodacom Park Stadium in Bloemfontein, there were police officers manning police stations on the ground. They were on duty as agreed. We are convinced that the security of the country was well planned for in view of those who would be absent, and it was certainly not compromised.

Mr D A KGANARE: Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Deputy Minister explain why food ran out, but liquor continued to flow when 50 000 police officers were celebrating in the Free State? Was this the best method of showing appreciation for their services? Does the Deputy Minister not have any other programme to acknowledge excellence in the police force or to incentivise other members to emulate those who performed excellently? Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, there are various methods in the Police Service to acknowledge excellence. In the days preceding that gathering, there was an evening event where we were honouring police offices who had excellent performance in the Police Service for 30 years. This preceded that event. It’s only that it was not publicised. Only the actual big celebration was publicised.

Regarding what came first, before food - liquor or cooldrinks - it’s an operational question. If drinks were exhausted before food, that is another question. The budget and everything was the same. Everything supplied at that event was equal for everybody. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, one in three of our SA Police Service, SAPS, members were ordered under penalty of disciplinary hearings to drop their duties and undertake a long and often chaotic trip to Bloemfontein. Many arrived after this party was over. No one will believe for a moment that removing 50 000 of our police officers from our stations to go to the party did not leave our citizens extremely vulnerable over a three- to five-day period: two days, travel, one day party, during which food ran out and no ablution facilities or accommodation was provided, and then two days to recover. In many instances two days were needed to recover from excessive drinking at the town’s bottle stores.

Your spokesperson from the Ministry promised to reveal to the DA the total cost of the event before the event, during the event, and after the event, and has now lapsed into silence. We have asked you exactly how much was spent on the party and from which SAPS programme the money came. The country still does not know where their tax money went. Tell us now: What did the party cost the nation when it could have been held effectively, efficiently and safely for the citizens of this country in the provinces?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: The question of the cost of the party will be addressed. We need an overall report, which we are still awaiting. The question of the cost of the party and how much exactly cost it the SA Police Service’s budget is a matter that will also be addressed. There are many people who came to the fore to support the party and the efforts of the police, and to recognise them on that day. Costs did not only come from the SA Police Service’s budget; they also came from the corporate sector that was saying thank you to the police for rendering a wonderful job. We take only one day to say thank you to the police officers, not every day. On that day, many people came to the party, and we are grateful for that. [Applause.]

Regarding the report, we are open to scrutiny. In the budgetary processes, this information will come up and we will be in a position to share how much the party cost.

Regarding the ablution facilities and the drunken behaviour of the individuals, and whether or not people were hung over for another day, it will require a detailed scientific analysis to determine if people were still suffering from a hangover the following day. Whether or not we are better placed here, or if we have a neurologist, I don’t know.

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I believe that the Deputy Minister has already informed us he is not a lawyer. May I ask if he is a scientist? [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Whether one is a scientist, a lawyer or something else, one applies different tools of analysis to arrive at particular conclusions about people. [Applause.] My school of thought is the university of wisdom, which teaches me that, logically, you cannot, from far away, make a determination about the social behaviour of an individual unless you have tested that person. In this instance we cannot come to that conclusion because we are responding to hearsay.

The most appropriate way to respond to that would be to come with empirical evidence that, indeed, people were tested and were hung over. In this instance, we do not have that report. [Laughter.]

    Query regarding constitutional basis for shoot-to-kill policy

1. Mr V B Ndlovu (IFP) asked the Minister of Police:

   On which provision of the Constitution does the shoot-to-kill policy rely? NO380E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: The South African Police Service does not have a shoot-to-kill policy. “Shoot to kill” is in fact the invention of the media. The policy of the South African Police Service and the Ministry is as follows: If the life of a member or of any other person is in danger and there is no other way for the member to protect himself or herself, or the other person whose life is in danger, but to shoot at the person who is posing the danger, the member may use his or her firearm to shoot at the person posing the danger.

Should this result in the death of a person posing the danger, the action of the member will be justified as self-defence in terms of the law. This is in line with section 11 of the South African Constitution. Police officers who are confronted or faced with violent armed criminals have been instructed to defend themselves and citizens where necessary. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mnu V B NDLOVU: Ngiyabonga Sekela Somlomo, Mhlonishwa ngiyakuzwa ukuthi uthini. Inkinga yokuqala enginayo ukuthi uma i-ICD isiqala ukwenza uphenyo kutholakala ukuthi iphoyisa yilona elidubule labulala kungafanele kwenziwa njani? Okwesibili, emndenini, umuntu omunye engashayeka ongahlangene nalo okufanele kudutshulwe kubhekiswe kuyena, oseceleni nje ethinteka, uzonxephezeleka kanjani kulesi simo okhuluma ngaso? (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Mr V B NDLOVU: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what you are saying. The first problem I have is what happens when the ICD starts doing its investigations and discovers that it is the police officer who shot and killed unnecessarily? Secondly, if someone else in the family, who has nothing to do with the one to be shot at, is hit by a stray bullet, how will that person be compensated with regard to the condition you are talking about?]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, where the police officers have acted recklessly in the execution of their duties for the protection of the citizens, the law has taken its course, and the law must take its course.

When we say people must act in self-defence in protection of ordinary citizens that is not a licence to kill ordinary citizens who are actually innocent, and that is the application of the law. By law, the use of deadly force is guided by section 49. In this particular respect, most police offices have upheld the law. Where they have not, the law has taken its course and, we reiterate, this is what must actually happen.

In instances where innocent people and civilians have actually been shot, some of these cases have been referred to the Independent Complaints Directorate, ICD; there have been reports; and strong action was taken against those who performed those actions. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms D KOHLER-BARNARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA has watched with great interest the Ministry’s publicity campaign in relation to section 49 and the National Police Commissioners’ announcement that this section would be changed to give police more firepower.

It is already crystal clear in that section that the SAPS may not shoot unarmed citizens, and citizens who are fleeing, in the back. So, the conclusion is that our Minister wanted to go back to apartheid-era policing. Now, as a result of this shoot-to-kill puffery, citizens have died. Even a little three-year-old, whom the police officer thought had held a gun, has died. Now the Minister makes a 180 degree turn, saying there are just one or two technical changes he wants to make. This would suggest that a full bench of judges somehow got it wrong when this legislation was moved away from the apartheid-era format.

Now one wonders if one is disagreeing with the statements made by the National Police Commissioner, or perhaps realising that the statements made by the then Deputy Minister, Susan Shabangu, who said, “Shoot and kill the bastards and don’t worry about the regulations”, might have encouraged SAPS members to become law breakers. And I want to know what right the Minister had to run such a publicity campaign; one that has caused so many police offices to become confused about what previously was crystal clear regarding their rights to “shoot and kill” … [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: The amendment to section 49 is not a major amendment. It has been blown out of proportion and exaggerated. It deals with ambiguities in terms of the law. And I suppose that in the near future the amendment would come before us and we would debate it. What we encouraged is – and this is what the national commissioner has always said and done - that the police must apply the law in their own self-protection. Words have been put in the national commissioner’s mouth - basically, much of what he says is interpreted out of context.

We are not going backwards. What we have been telling our people is that when you are confronted by dangerous criminals, use the law, use deadly force, in self-protection and the protection of the innocent. The law permits you to do that. So, there is no retreat into the past in this regard. This is what has actually been said over and over again. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly, let me thank the Deputy Minister for turning around. At least you realise the mistake you have made with “shoot to kill”. I must say, Deputy Minister, it’s good that you are beginning to learn that what you were doing was dangerous.

The question is: If you’re now saying no, you were just telling the police what was in the Act and in the Constitution, why did you shout about it as if you were bringing something new?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Madam Deputy Speaker, what I have said and what we are saying is: There is no turnaround strategy; there is no going backwards. Forward ever, backward never. [Applause.] And what we are saying is we shall not retreat when we are confronted by the most dangerous armed criminals. Police officers must use the law to protect themselves. That is what we have said and we will continue to say that, even if we sound like an old broken record because this is what our country needs. This is what’s required by our people, because criminals are running amok. This is what we are doing and this is where we are going.

So, we have never been beyond the law and we have never said anything outside the law. It might be the harsh-sounding voices and the language that made you think this is a war. This is a war against criminals. The innocent must stay where they are, we will protect them. This is what we are encouraging police officers to do. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Dr M J PHAAHLA: Madam Deputy Speaker, Minister, you are on record as saying that there is no such policy and that there is no licence for any police officer to disregard the Constitution and the laws of the country. What more does the Minister think is necessary to explain this issue to the opposition Members of Parliament and to stop them from misleading the public? Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: We will request all hon members to actually support us in our endeavour to rid South Africa of dangerous criminals. What this means is: Don’t always take everything that was said by the Ministry from third parties, meaning the media, the fourth estate. It is only right to engage with us. The processes of talking to the opposition parties and Members of Parliament, including leaders of the opposition, about some of our actions are a step in the right direction, as is engaging with the media in South Africa about our statements. The war against criminality is not a political one, it requires all-round active participation. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, the time allocated for questions has expired. Outstanding replies will be received and printed in Hansard.

See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr G R MORGAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I intend moving the following motion on behalf of the DA:

That the House debates the problems of enforcement and general compliance in the medical waste industry in South Africa and any interventions that may be required by government and the private sector to avert a major environmental disaster.

Thank you.

Mr L S NGONYAMA: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I shall move:

That the House debates the ruling of the Labour Court in favour of Captain Renate Barnard against the Department of Police, on the basis that the policy of affirmative action was abused by the SAPS as a measure to promote unfair discrimination.

Mr P D DEXTER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I shall move:

That the House debates the impact of the impending Eskom tariff hikes on households as well as the agricultural sector, as the hikes could have a detrimental impact on food security and job creation in the country.

Thank you.

Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I shall move:

That the House debates the ruling party’s involvement in public tenders and other business transactions with the state, including its share in Eskom through Chancellor House, all of which have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the poor.

Mr D A KGANARE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I shall move:

That the House debates the failure by government to implement the sector- specific wage increases for medical doctors, which might now result in industrial action by doctors, with serious disruption of the public health system.

     ONE HUNDRED DAYS TO THE KICK-OFF OF THE 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House —

(1) notes that 2 March 2010, was the 100-day mark for the World Cup kick-off;

(2) further notes that with less than three months before kick-off, we are more determined than ever to make this World Cup a success: the infrastructure, security and logistical arrangements are on track and the last 99 days will be used to put the finishing touches on all preparations;

(3) recognises that these 100 days signify years of planning and hard work and not only have our stadiums been built to world-class standards, but also the infrastructure, which includes roads, is undergoing a massive facelift - a legacy that will remain beyond 2010;

(4) is encouraged by the results of the African Response latest survey showing that a record 85% of South Africans believe that the country will be ready for the World Cup when the first ball is kicked off on June 11;

(5) congratulates Fifa, particularly the 2010 Local Organising Committee, for a job well done in preparing the country to host the world’s most prestigious sporting event and assures them that the nation is ready to give the world a proudly South African World Cup; and

(6) urges all South Africans to rally around Bafana Bafana to make sure that the World Cup stays on African soil!

Agreed to.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, before we begin, I think the hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party is going to propose a motion on the Parliamentary Interfaith Council. I would urge him not to put it today. Although we discussed it briefly at the Chief Whips’ Forum this morning, we really haven’t had a chance to look at it; it has just been put on our desks now. I think, in fairness to the other opposition parties – it is a convention we have – he shouldn’t put it today.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I agree with hon Ellis. We were told at the Chief Whips’ Forum that the motion would come later, and it has just arrived. Therefore, I agree with him: we won’t put it. That’s what I was going to do.

         DANGER ASSOCIATED WITH UNGUARDED RAILWAY CROSSINGS

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House —

(1) notes that on 2 March 2010 six people died, among them high school children, when the minibus in which they were travelling was hit by a train in Welgeval outside Rustenburg;

(2) further notes that there are still over 7 500 railway crossings in South Africa and these railway crossings are often open or uncontrolled and sometimes without warning lights to warn of approaching trains;

(3) further notes that 95 per cent of crashes at railway crossings are caused by driver error;

(4) expresses its sincere condolences to the families of the casualties of this accident; and

(5) calls upon the government to improve the infrastructure of railway crossings to reduce the risk and calls on road users who make use of these railway crossings to follow the road rules and signs and pay attention to their environment when approaching a railway crossing.

Agreed to.

       OUSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT OF PROTEAS CRICKETER HASHIM AMLA

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr L S NGONYAMA: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House –

  1) notes with pride the outstanding achievement of Proteas cricketer
     Hashim Amla, who was named Man of the Series in the recently
     completed cricket test matches played in India;


  2) further notes that Hashim Amla, in scoring an undefeated 253 runs
     at Nagpur, achieved the highest score by a South African batsman at
     number three; and furthermore, that on account of his being
     dismissed only once in the series he recorded an average of 494
     runs for the test series making him only the second player after
     the great Wally Hammond to achieve such a rare feat;


  3) acknowledges that he is a worthy role model for all South African
     sports representatives and a great ambassador for South Africa; and


  4) conveys its sincere appreciation to him for his contribution to
     South African sports.

Agreed to.

                   DEVASTATING EARTHQUAKE IN CHILE

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr N SINGH: Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the IFP I move without notice:

That the House –

  1) notes that on 27 February 2010 Chile was struck by an 8,8 magnitude
     earthquake, resulting in the death of more than 700 people and
     causing widespread damage, destroying buildings, bridges and roads
     in many areas;

  2) further notes that at least eight aftershocks were also recorded,
     the largest being of 6,9 magnitude, which then set off a tsunami,
     hitting countries with waves higher than usual;


  3) expresses its sincerest condolences and  deepest  sympathy  to  the
     government and the people of Chile; and


  4) urges all nations, including South Africa, to send assistance to
     the people of Chile to help them rebuild their lives and their
     country as a whole.

Agreed to.

EXHUMATION AND REBURIAL OF THE REMAINS OF ANC STALWART JOHNSTONE MFANAFUTHI MAKHATHINI

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House –

(1) notes that the African National Congress’s Head of International Affairs, Johnstone “Johnny” Mfanafuthi Makhathini, passed away on 3 December 1988, while exiled in Zambia;

(2) further notes that Makhathini’s remains were exhumed in Lusaka, Zambia, and repatriated to South Africa, where they were reburied in Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal on Saturday, 27 February 2010;

(3) remembers that Mr Makhathini was born in Durban on 8 February 1932. He was a gifted, bright and talented debater with an aptitude for languages and he attended school at Adams College where he trained as a teacher, after which he went on to teach at Mzinyathi, in the Inanda area;

(4) further remembers that the late Makhathini became politically active when Bantu Education was imposed on African schools and subsequently resigned from the teaching profession, rather than continue to serve under the Bantu Education system and pursued part- time studies at the University of Natal;

(5) recalls that as a result of the brutal suppression of political activity and arrest of political activists by the apartheid regime in the 1960s, in 1962 Johnny joined the first group of volunteers from Natal to be sent out of the country for military training in the then Tanganyika where they met Comrade Nelson Mandela;

(6) further recalls that Mr Makhathini had sterling qualities, which led to his appointment as head of the ANC mission to the United Nations in 1977 and, subsequently, in 1983, as head of the ANC’s department of international affairs; and

(7) pays tribute to this gallant fighter who contributed immensely to the birth of a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa.

Agreed to.

            CANCER ASSOCIATION TO HOST SEVENTH SHAVATHON

                         (Draft Resolution)

Ms D CARTER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes that on 5 and 6 March 2010, the Cancer Association of South Africa, known as Cansa, will be hosting the seventh Shavathon; (2) further notes that cancer is a life-threatening disease which affects millions of South African men and women, irrespective of age or status;

(3) recognises that there are more than 200 different kinds of cancer and it affects the lives of one in four South Africans, with more than 80 000 dying from the disease each year;

(4) acknowledges that Cansa is one of the largest funders of cancer research in South Africa, and the country’s largest charity dedicated to cancer research, facilitating care and support to those who are diagnosed, as well as their families; and

(5) calls on all South Africans, especially the leaders represented in this House, to show solidarity with and support for this effort by shaving or colouring their hair.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 17:19. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly

The Speaker

1. Membership of Committees

(1) The following changes to membership of Portfolio, Joint and Joint Standing Committees have been implemented by the ANC:

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson

(a)     Strategic Plan of the South African Human Rights Commission
    (SAHRC) for 2010/11 – 2012/13.


(b)     Strategic Plan of the Independent Electoral Commission for
    2010/11 – 2012/13.


(c)     Medium Term Strategic Plan of  the  Public  Service  Commission
    (PSC) for 2010/11 – 2012/13.


(d)     Letter from the Acting Minister of Finance dated 03 March 2010,
    to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of  the
    National  Council  of  Provinces  explaining  the  delay   in   the
    submission of the Update of the National Treasury Strategic Plan.

    REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF THE UPDATE OF THE NATIONAL  TREASURY
    STRATEGIC PLAN

    The National Treasury is in compliance with section 10 (1)  (c)  of
    the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act  (No  9
    of 2009). This requires  each  national  department  to  submit  an
    annual Strategic Plan to the Legislature.

    Since we operate  in  a  dynamic  environment  it  is  critical  to
    periodically update  the  Strategic  Plan  to  ensure  that  it  is
    relevant and that it covers the strategic areas which would  enable
    a department to reach its strategic objectives.

    The Minister of Finance has recently presented the National  Budget
    to the National Assembly. The majority  of  the  National  Treasury
    staff was engaged in this process. Hence it  was  not  possible  to
    meet the deadline as set by the Deputy President for the submission
    of our Strategic Plan. Accordingly, I hereby  wish  to  request  an
    extension for the submission of the National  Treasury’s  Strategic
    Plan update.

    Kind regards

    (Signed)
    Mr. G Nkwinti, MP
    Acting:  MINISTER OF FINANCE
    Date:  03/03/2010


(e)     Letter from the Minister of Economic Development dated 03 March
    2010, to the Speaker of the National Assembly and  the  Chairperson
    of the National Council of Provinces explaining the  delay  in  the
    submission of the tabling of Strategic Plans in terms of the  Money
    Bills Amendment procedure and Related Matters Act, 2009.

    TABLING OF STRATEGIC PLANS IN TERMS OF THE  MONEY  BILLS  AMENDMENT
    PROCEDURE AND RELATED MATTERS ACT, 2009.

    The Office of the Leader of Government Business requested two weeks
    ago that, in terms of  the  Money  Bills  Amendment  Procedure  and
    Related Matters Act, 2009, strategic plans must be tabled after the
    fiscal framework is passed on 2 March 2010.

    Six agencies report to the Minister of  Economic  Development  with
    effect  from  1  April  2010  (the  Competition   Commission,   the
    Competition  Tribunal,  the  International   Trade   Administration
    Commission (ITAC), Khula Enterprise Finance  Limited  (Khula),  the
    South African Micro-Finance Apex Fund (SAMAF)  and  the  Industrial
    Development Corporation (IDC).

    In terms of the PFMA and Treasury  Regulations,  only  SAMAF  as  a
    trading entity was required in the  past  to  table  its  strategic
    plan.

    The new Act,  however,  requires  that  all  entities  table  their
    strategic plans. We have taken immediate steps to have all agencies
    comply fully with the requirements.  I  am  happy  to  report  that
    significant progress has been made and that draft plans  have  been
    submitted to the department.

    Some of the entities  have  requested  an  opportunity  to  further
    engage their Boards regarding the Strategic Plans. In addition,  it
    will be necessary for the Economic Development Department to engage
    the entities on  their  Strategic  Plans  prior  to  submission  to
    Parliament.

    I would therefore request permission to postpone tabling in respect
    of the abovementioned agencies until the end  of  June  2010.  This
    would allow time for the necessary engagements  with  the  agencies
    and finalisation of plans by their respective boards.
    Thank you for considering my request.

    Kind regards

    (Signed)
    MR EBRAHIM PATEL
    MINISTER
    Date:  03/03/2010


(f)     Letter from the Minister of Communications dated 03 March 2010,
    to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of  the
    National  Council  of  Provinces  explaining  the  delay   in   the
    submission of the Strategic Plan of Sentech.

    TABLING OF CORPORATE AND STRATEGIC OF PUBLIC ENTITIES

    In compliance with the requirements  of  section  10(1)(c)  of  the
    Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, 2009  (Act
    No 9 of 2009), Sentech has submitted its  Corporate  and  Strategic
    Plan to me. However, their  Plan  represents  the  entire  business
    strategy which they  regard  as  highly  confidential  due  to  the
    competitive nature of the market in which Sentech operates.  It  is
    therefore requested that Sentech’s Corporate Plan not be circulated
    to Parliament. I propose that Sentech be requested  to  remove  the
    market sensitive information and resubmit their Plan  that  can  be
    made public.


    Your kind consideration of my proposal will be appreciated.


    Kind sincerely

    (Signed)
    GEN (Ret) SIPHIWE NYANDA
    MINISTER
    Date:  03/03/2010    2. The Presidency

 a) Strategic Plan of the Presidency for 2010/11 – 2012/13.

1. The Minister in The Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

(a)     Medium Term Strategic Plan of the Government Communication  and
    Information System (GCIS) for 2010 – 2013.


(b)     Strategic Plan of the International Marketing Council (IMC) for
    2010 – 2013.


(c)     Strategic Plan of the Media Development  and  Diversity  Agency
    (MDDA) for 2010 – 2013.

1. The Minister for the Public Service and Administration

 a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Public Service and
    Administration for 2010 – 2014.

1. The Acting Minister of Mining

        a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Mineral Resources for
           2010/11 – 2012/13.
   

2. The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries\

   a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for 2010 – 2011, including the Strategic Plan of the Marine Living Resources Fund for 2010 – 2011.

   b) Strategic Plan of the Agriculture Research Council for 2010/11 – 2014/15 [RP 20-2010].

   c) Business Plan of the Agriculture Research Council for 2010/11 – 2014/15 [RP 32-2010].

3. The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs

 a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs
    for 2010/11 – 2012/13 [RP 70-2010].


           b) Strategic Plan of the South African Weather Service for
              2010 – 2013.


           c) Strategic Plan of the South African National Parks for
              2010/11 – 2012/13.


 d) Strategic Plan of the South African National Biodiversity Institute
    (SANBI) for 2010/11 – 2012/13.


 e) Strategic Plan (Corporate Strategy) of the iSimangaliso Wetland
    Park Authority for 2011 – 2015.

1. The Minister for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

 a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Cooperative Governance and
    Traditional Affairs for 2009 – 2014.


           b) Addendum to Strategic Plan: Deliverables to be completed
              by 31 March 2011.    9. The Minister of Trade and Industry

 a) Medium Term Strategic Framework of the Department of Trade and
    Industry for 2010/11 – 2012/13.


 b) Medium Term Strategic Framework of the Companies and Intellectual
    Property Registration Office (CIPRO) for 2010/11 – 2012/13.   10. The Minister of Home Affairs

           a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Home Affairs for
              2010/11 – 2012/13.

 b) Strategic Plan of the Government Printing Works (GPW) for 2010/11 –
    2012/13.

           c) Strategic Plan of the Film and Publication Board (FPB)
              for 2009 – 2014.

1. The Minister of Labour

          a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Labour for 2010 –
             2015.
   

   b) Strategic Plan of the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) for 2010/11 – 2012/13.

          c) Strategic Plan and Business Plan of Productivity SA for
             2010 – 2015.
   

   d) Strategic Plan of the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) for 2010/11 – 2013/14. e) Strategic Plan of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) for 2010/11 – 2012/13.

          f) Strategic Plan of the Compensation Fund for 2010 – 2015.
   

2. The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Rural Development and Land
    Reform for 2010 – 2013.


(b)     Strategic Plan and Budget of the Ingonyama Trust Board for 2010
    – 2011.

1. The Minister of Police

(a)     Strategic Plan of the South African Police Service for 2010 –
    2014 [RP 08-2010].


(b)     Annual Performance Plan of the South African Police Service for
    2010 – 2011 [RP 09-2010].


(c)     Strategic Plan of the Independent Complaints Directorate for
    2010 – 2013.

1. The Minister of Communications

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Communications for 2010 –
    2013.


(b)     Strategic Plan of the National Electronic Media Institute of
    South Africa (NEMISA) for 2010 – 2011.


(c)     Strategic and Business Plan of the Universal Service and Access
    Agency of South Africa (USAASA) for 2010 – 2011.


(d)     Strategic Corporate Plan of the South African Post Office for
    2010/11 – 2012/13.


(e)     Strategic Plan of the South African Broadcasting Corporation
    Post Office for 2010 – 2013.

1. The Minister of Public Enterprises

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Public Enterprises for 2010
    – 2013.

1. The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of International Relations and
    Cooperation for 2010 – 2013.

1. The Minister of Higher Education and Training

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Higher Education and
    Training for 2010 – 2015 and Operational Plans for 2010 – 2011 [RP
    17-2010].

(b)     Strategic Plan of the National Skills Fund (NSF) for 2010 –
    2013.
(c)     Strategic Plan of Safety and Security Sector Education and
    Training Authority (SAS SETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(d)     Strategic Plan of the South African Qualifications Authority
    (SAQA) for 2010 – 2013.


(e)     Strategic Plan of the Tourism and Hospitality Sector Education
    and Training Authority (THETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(f)     Strategic Plan of Agricultural Sector Education and Training
    Authority (AGRI-SETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(g)     Strategic Plan of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) for
    2010 – 2013.


(h)     Strategic Plan of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme
    (NSFAS) for 2010 – 2013.


(i)     Strategic Plan of the Media, Advertising, Publishing, Printing
    and Packaging Sector Education and Training Authority (MAPPP) for
    2010 – 2011.


(j)     Strategic Plan of the Mining and Minerals Sector Education and
    Training Authority (MQA) for 2010 – 2011.


(k)     Strategic Plan of the Health and Welfare Sector Education and
    Training Authority (HW-SETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(l)     Strategic Plan of the Chemical Industries Sector Education and
    Training Authority (CHIETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(m)     Strategic Plan of the Clothing, Textiles, Footwear and Leather
    Sector Education and Training Authority (CTFL-SETA) for 2010 –
    2011.


(n)     Strategic Plan of the Energy Sector Education and Training
    Authority (ESETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(o)     Strategic Plan of the Insurance Sector Education and Training
    Authority (INSETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(p)     Strategic Plan of the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry
    Sector Education and Training Authority (FOODBEV-SETA) for 2010 –
    2011.
(q)     Strategic Plan of the Transport Sector Education and Training
    Authority (TETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(r)     Strategic Plan of the Banking Sector Education and Training
    Authority (BANK-SETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(s)     Strategic Plan of the Wholesale and Retail Sector Education and
    Training Authority (W&R-SETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(t)     Strategic Plan of the Local Government Sector Education and
    Training Authority (LG-SETA) for 2010 – 2011.
(u)     Strategic Plan of the Public Service Sector Education and
    Training Authority (PSETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(v)     Strategic Plan of the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related
    Services Sector Education and Training Authority (MER-SETA) for
    2010 – 2011.


(w)     Strategic Plan of the Construction Education and Training
    Sector Education and Training Authority (CETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(x)     Strategic Plan of the Education Training and Development
    Practices Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP) for 2010 –
    2011.


(y)     Strategic Plan of the Financial and Accounting Services Sector
    Education and Training Authority (FASSET) for 2010 – 2011.


(z)     Strategic Plan of the Information Systems, Electronics and
    Telecommunications Technologies Sector Education and Training
    Authority (ISETT-SETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(aa)    Strategic Plan of the Forest Industry Sector Education and
    Training Authority (FIETA) for 2010 – 2011.


(bb)    Strategic Plan of the Services Sector Education and Training
    Authority for 2010 – 2011.

1. The Minister of Finance

(a)     Strategic Plan of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) for
    2010/11 – 2013/13 [RP 206-2009].

1. The Minister of Social Development

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Social Development for
    2010/11 – 2014/15 [RP 25-2010].


(b)     Strategic Plan of the South African Social Security Agency
    (SASSA) for 2010/11 – 2012/13 [RP 1414-2010].


(c)     Strategic Plan of the National Development Agency for 2010 –
    2013 [RP 18-2010].

1. The Minister of Tourism

(a)     Strategic Plan of South African Tourism for 2010/11 – 2014/15.

1. The Minister of Basic Education

(a)     Strategic Plan of the South African Council for Educators
    (SACE) for 2010 – 2013.

(b)     Strategic Plan of the Council for Quality Assurance in General
    and Further Education and Training (Umalusi) for 2010 – 2013.

1. The Minister of Correctional Services (a) Strategic Plan of the Department of Correctional Services for 2010/11 – 2014/15.

2. The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Defence and Military
    Veterans for 2010/11 – 2012/13 [RP 27-2010].

1. The Minister of Transport

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Transport for 2010/11 –
    2012/13.

1. The Minister of Energy

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Energy for 2010/11 –
    2012/13.

1. The Minister of Science and Technology

(a)     Strategic Plan (Corporate Strategy) of the Department of
    Science and Technology for the Medium Term 2010 – 2013.

(b)     Strategic Plan (Corporate Strategy) of the Technology
    Innovation Agency for the Medium Term 2010 – 2013.

(c)     Strategic Plan for the Africa Institute of South Africa (AISA)
    for 2010-2012.


(d)     Strategic Plan for the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC)
    for 2010/11-2012/13.


(e)     Strategic Plan for the Council for Scientific and Industrial
    Research (CSIR) 2010/11-2012/13.


(f)     Strategic Plan for the National Research Foundation (NRF)
    2008/15.

1. The Minister of Sport and Recreation

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Sport and Recreation South
    Africa for 2010 – 2014.

1. The Minister of Public Works

(a)     Strategic Plan of the Department of Public Works for 2010/11 –
    2012/13.

1. The Minister of Health

(a)     Strategic Plan of the National Department of Health for 2010/11
    – 2012/13.

National Assembly

1. The Speaker

(a)     Consolidated Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on
    Inspections of Service Delivery Sites: South African Police Service
    [RP 251-2009]. COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly

CREDA INSERT - T100303e-insert1 – PAGES 321-322

CREDA INSERT - T100303e-insert2 – PAGES 323-338