ZA HANSARDS

→ Parliamentary → National Assembly - 24 March 2010

« Previous Debate

Next Debate »

National Assembly - 24 March 2010

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2010 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 10:30.

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

                      QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC:

Outcomes of engagements with British government and other stakeholders during official visit

Mr H T Magama (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:

(1) What were the important outcomes of his engagements with the British government and other stakeholders during his official visit to the United Kingdom from 2 to 6 March 2010, and

(2) how has the visit strengthened bilateral relations with the United Kingdom? NO761E

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, let me begin by thanking you and the House for allowing me to postpone Question Time last week so that I could attend the Zimbabwean peace process on 17 and 18 March 2010 in Harare, Zimbabwe, as facilitator.

The time was well spent. The leaders and parties agreed to a package of measures to be implemented concurrently, as per the decision of the Southern African Development Community Troika in Maputo. The implementation of this package will certainly take the process forward. The leaders have instructed their negotiating teams to attend to all questions and outstanding matters during their deliberations on 25, 26 and 29 March, and to report back to the facilitator by 31 March.

I used the opportunity of attending the inauguration of the President of Namibia over the weekend to brief the SADC Troika Chairperson, President Armando Guebuza of Mozambique, as well as the SADC Chairperson, President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

We certainly look forward to a speedy resolution of the impasse to ensure the full implementation of the Global Political Agreement. Hon Speaker, I thought I should thank you for that understanding, together with the House. [Applause.]

With regard to the question of our visit to the United Kingdom, the most important outcome was the consolidation and further strengthening of the excellent relations that already exist between our two countries. There was specific emphasis on co-operation on our priorities, such as education, health, the fight against crime and creating decent jobs.

The visit expressed, unequivocally, our readiness to host the 2010 Fifa World Cup and allayed fears regarding security around the World Cup event. In this regard South Africa and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding with the police and other co-operation partners during the World Cup.

We took more than 200 businesspeople along with us in order to strengthen economic ties and we underlined the importance of this relationship. They met with British companies to discuss opportunities in various sectors. The value of the total trade between the two countries in 2008 was R74 billion, and the United Kingdom is South Africa’s largest foreign investor.

The meeting with the South Africa-United Kingdom Business Forum and other public engagements provided an opportunity to reiterate government’s position on nationalisation. We reiterated that South Africa remains an attractive destination for investment.

On education, the two countries will develop links between further education and training colleges. This will help South Africa to tackle unemployment through skills development. We are also going to establish a South Africa-United Kingdom Next Generation Forum to deepen links between young people.

We resolved to work with Fifa and the Global Campaign for Education in their 1Goal campaign, aimed at harnessing the power of the 2010 Fifa World Cup for the benefit of education for all. This should be one of the greatest spin-offs of the World Cup on African soil. I urge members of this House to support this worthwhile campaign.

The UK reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the fight against HIV and Aids in South Africa, and is supporting our public health system in a new £25 million programme. This is to enable the achievement of key targets, such as cutting the rate of mother-to-child transmission and halving the number of new infections.

With regard to multilateral relations, we concurred that the UK and South Africa would work together towards the reform of international financial institutions to make them more effective, accountable and legitimate. We also welcomed the UK’s support for permanent African representation on the United Nations Security Council. This will enable the UN Security Council to better address issues of peace and security across the world. The United Kingdom and South Africa agreed to work together through the G20 and the United Nations to make 2010 the year of action in combating poverty. This will include agreement on a global action plan on the Millennium Development Goals at the UN Summit in September 2010. Both the UK and South Africa welcomed the new High Level Advisory Group on Climate Finance and called for developed countries to provide finance from 2013.

The state visit has shown that ties between South Africa and the UK are getting stronger, and we will continue to explore areas of co-operation that will help us achieve our developmental goals. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr H T MAGAMA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr President, your reply is indeed a far cry from the reports we received at home about matters that were unrelated and irrelevant to the important tasks which were the primary purpose of your visit.

The issue of Zimbabwe is reportedly one of the biggest areas of interest for the people and the government of the United Kingdom. Do you think the latest developments and signs of progress in Zimbabwe regarding the talks between the parties, facilitated by yourselves, augur well for your attempts to get the international community, especially our partners such as the United Kingdom, to support the peace process?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, well, I think, certainly, it will go a long way. The issue of Zimbabwe was frequently a subject of discussion with different sectors in the UK, particularly with government and business. We debated a great deal, particularly around the issue of sanctions – whether the sanctions were helping the processes in Zimbabwe or not.

Certainly, the British leadership has a very strong view that sanctions are still important and are important in helping. We hold a different view, and we advanced this view very strongly. By the time we left they were saying that they would think about this, because they could see the sense of it and appreciated the fact that as we belong to Southern Africa we have the advantage of knowing the situation better.

I am therefore very confident that the progress we made in Zimbabwe should help the world, particularly those who have applied sanctions, to see the need to help us succeed in Zimbabwe as quickly as possible. So I do believe that the latest developments will certainly be helpful in that direction. I thank you. [Applause.]

Dr D T GEORGE: Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Mr President, for your feedback. Such visits give us an opportunity to showcase the many great things that South Africa has to offer the world in terms of trade and investment. The key issue, however, is the credibility of your message.

Investment bankers followed the visit with great interest. Yet many remain sceptical as to the commitment to push through difficult measures, and also fear that the political difficulties within the tripartite alliance will result in additional spending and tax hikes.

You mentioned nationalisation, Mr President. During your visit you stated emphatically that nationalisation was not on the cards, yet the ANC Youth League president Julius Malema continues with this debate. [Interjections.] What government fails to understand is that investors perceive this and many other statements from the ANC to be an attack on property rights, the basic building blocks for a sound economy and the very reason why people invest in economies such as ours – and we want to attract investment.

Mr President, what steps will you be taking to ensure that the message regarding our economy, emanating from the ANC and its potential future leadership, is coherent, noncontradictory and sends the right signal to investors whose money to fund essential projects, such as Eskom infrastructure, we are hoping to attract? Thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. We have dealt with this question before - very sufficiently – that government policy is not for nationalisation. This is what we explained as well when we were in Great Britain. There is no confusion. The issue is very clear. That is why the response by the financial institutions to South Africa has been positive. I think the issue is very clear.

In our last discussion we separated the question of policy from that of whether South Africans belonging to the ANC Youth League or whatever are entitled to raise their questions and feelings about issues. And I hope the issue was clarified very thoroughly.

We cannot ban people from raising certain issues. I said that was the history in the past: If you talked about nationalisation you would go to Robben Island, even if you were just talking about it. We can’t do that.

I said that those who hold different views, as you do, should engage Julius Malema. Prove to him that he is wrong. He is talking in the media; you talk to the media as well. Engage him. [Applause.] Engage the country and say, “Malema is wrong; this is the correct thing we need to do.” It is a public debate. Debate with Julius Malema. [Interjections.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Speaker, I thank the President for the reply. I want to ask a question about sanctions against Zimbabwe. My question is slightly different from what my colleague has asked.

I want to know why you think that targeted sanctions against President Mugabe and his allies serve only to divide the already fragile power- sharing government, as these sanctions were imposed on Mr Mugabe and his allies before the existence of the power-sharing government. Why do you think it causes division when the sanctions were already in place before the power-sharing government came into being?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, the answer is precisely in what the hon member said. Targeted sanctions were applied to the Zanu-PF government before the unity government came into being. There was then a process of negotiations which led to the Global Political Agreement. Once the Global Political Agreement was made, it meant that the government in Zimbabwe had changed. On the basis of the agreement, it was no longer a Zanu-PF government and was now a joint government between three parties.

I think that distinction is very important for us to hear. If you apply sanctions to a government of one party and you apply exactly the same sanctions to a government of unity, the situation has to change. We are using an instrument that was aimed at a government of one party.

The net effect of that, as President Mugabe has put it across – and I raised this issue even when I was in the UK – is that you have a government of unity that is expected to implement the agreement. However, half of it is functioning, can do everything and can go everywhere to ensure that it works; and half of it can’t function and can’t travel.

The targeted sanctions right now are dividing the unity government. That is the point. It therefore creates a problem for that unity to jell, to work together. This is the reason we don’t need these sanctions now. Give this unity government a chance. It is not exactly the same as it was before. Why apply the same instrument to a new entity that you applied to a different entity? This is the debate that is being put across.

We need the sanctions to be lifted, so that there is a chance for all of us to help Zimbabweans solve their problems. It must function to its full capacity. At the moment the Zimbabweans say it isn’t. That is the debate; that is the difference. [Applause.]

Mr N SINGH: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr President, for your answer. The hon President did indicate that there were 200 businessmen in the delegation. I do trust, Mr President, that they were not government- sponsored and that they paid their own way to the UK and back.

My question, hon President, through you, Mr Speaker, is: Is the hon President aware of any deals – firm deals – that were struck between businessmen of South Africa and foreign investors which would create jobs for people in South Africa? I ask this, because the President did indicate that there was R74 billion worth of trade between the UK and South Africa.

However, in many instances, you find foreign investors investing in companies here in South Africa with the intention of making profits and not with the intention of employing as many people as possible. They come here and create industries which use a lot of technology.

So my question to the hon President is: Would he encourage foreign investors to invest in operations in South Africa which will ensure that people in our country get jobs?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: We will certainly encourage them to do so. In so far as which deals were signed, I don’t know. They did not report to me. There were interactions in respect of which both sides were happy. The interactions helped to lift the level of engagement between the British and South Africans.

I don’t think we could have said, “Come around and tell me what deals were signed.” We didn’t. Certainly, it was successful. They were all happy. I even had an opportunity to meet South African businesspeople who are in Britain, to discuss with them different matters about their own investments. However, I don’t think I would have then said at the end of the discussions, “Please bring everything here.”

There was definitely a report given on the final day of the meeting by both sides, showing areas of agreement and areas in which they believed they would be doing new business. [Applause.]

Particulars regarding recently announced review of state-owned entities

The Leader of the Opposition (DA) asked the President of the Republic:

(1)    Whether the review of state-owned entities which he had
      announced recently would look at the impact of government’s
      propensity to appoint only persons of a certain political
      organisation to public entities; if not, why not; if so, what are
      the further relevant details;


(2)    whether the findings will be tabled in Parliament; if not, why
      not; if so, what are the relevant details;


(3)    whether the review will involve an assessment of each individual
      state-owned entity; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant
      details;


(4)    why was the review of all state-owned entities not announced in
      his state of the nation address?         NO605E

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, as members would recall, the Medium-Term Strategic Framework which we released last year states that we should integrate state-owned enterprises into our planning processes and improve the monitoring and evaluation of their performance.

With that in mind, we have decided to set up a two-pronged review of state- owned enterprises, SOEs, which will culminate in a united government position on the role of SOEs in supporting government’s developmental agenda in the period ahead. The two processes are complementary and will culminate in a single synthesised report for consideration and decision–making by Cabinet.

The first part of the review will be internally undertaken in government under the leadership and oversight of the Interministerial Committee, which is co-chaired by Ministers Barbara Hogan and Pravin Gordhan.

Broadly, this part of the review should make recommendations on a number of issues which include the following: One, how government can strengthen alignment between its development objectives and the strategic role to be played by SOEs in the economy in the period ahead; two, co-ordination of infrastructure investment by SOEs to ensure that the country has the capacity ahead of demand, ensuring that it is co-ordinated with the roll- out of the required infrastructure; three, how to ensure an effective and transparent regulatory process for SOEs; four, strategies for utilising SOE investment as a means of localisation and industrial development; and lastly, the revival of the role of state-owned enterprises in skills development and training.

The second part of the process will be undertaken by an independent panel of experts assisting the Presidency and the interministerial task team. The terms of reference are still being finalised. It is, however, envisaged that this process will, amongst other issues, focus on reviewing current governance arrangements relating to SOEs in South Africa; undertaking an audit of current practices regarding planning and decision-making within SOEs, as well as between SOEs and government; and undertaking a critical assessment of the role SOEs have played in supporting government’s development objectives.

The two complementary streams of work will be overseen and co-ordinated by the Presidency. Once completed, the work will be submitted to the Presidency for synthesis into a final report that will be presented to Cabinet before its recommendations are adopted and implemented as government policy.

In answering some of the specific questions raised by the hon Leader of the Opposition I would say that, one, executives at state-owned enterprises are appointed on merit; two, we have not yet considered the issue of the tabling of the review in Parliament, but will do so once our initial processes have been completed; and lastly, the main thrust of the state of the nation address was to communicate the new outcomes approach and the new way of doing things in government in order to speed up service delivery and change the way government works. We did indicate as well that most of the details of the work would be in departmental Budget Votes. I thank you.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr Speaker, over the past decade the departure of numerous less than competent CEOs from failing South African parastatals has cost the South African taxpayer at least R262 million. The government continues to implement its policy of cadre deployment in state- owned enterprises, despite the fact that this policy has been identified as negatively affecting service delivery at local government levels.

In this regard, a report from the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs says, and I quote: The lack of values, principles or ethics in these cases indicates that there are officials and public representatives for whom public service is not a concern, but accruing of wealth at the expense of poor communities is their priority.

This is not different to state-owned enterprises. I would like the hon President to tell this House whether he will ensure that cadre deployment no longer results in the destabilisation of parastatals. Furthermore, could the hon President tell this House whether he will ensure that the failure of these enterprises is not used as a disingenuous reason to further entrench state-centred control, especially if this is in contrast to the recommendation of the independent panel that he referred to, as well as to outcomes-related evaluations? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, while the ANC has a cadre deployment policy, it deploys capable people in positions, including people who are not from the ANC. At one point we even deployed an American who came and worked in these enterprises. However, even at that particular time the situation did not indicate that we had an employee from the United States who, as well as earning a lot of money, was deployed by the ANC. The problems remained.

The ANC inherited these enterprises and they were not rosy. In the past they had been very exclusively run by a very particular set of people in this country. That’s part of the reason that we are doing the review. We want to deal with a problem that we found there. This is a problem that has been very difficult to resolve.

We will always ensure that people of merit are employed in any situation. We are not going to exclude ANC people simply because they are cadres of the ANC. [Applause.] We have said on numerous occasions that we are looking at deployment in terms of merit, regardless of which party one belongs to. I don’t think people should be punished or not be employed, because they are ANC cadres.

In fact, in other democracies, if a new party comes into power, everybody else is removed and the new party comes in with its own cadres. This happens in democracies. [Applause.] One of those democracies is the United States, one of the leading democracies in the world. As a new party comes into power, others pack their bags and go. There is not even a debate about it.

Let us discuss the issue of merit. What we should be doing is to persuade government to employ people of merit. We should not be concerned about the ANC deployment policy as we currently are. Not every person who is in government is an ANC cadre. I think we must deal with this issue from that point of view.

We agree on the fact that we need to employ people of merit. However, this business of saying that the ANC must not have its own people working for government, as if it is a rule in democracy, is false. We are, in fact, a better democracy than others. In a democracy there is not one standard of what happens with regard to public servants. That issue is very clear and we should be clear about it. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Mr Speaker, we need further supplementary questions.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, we have the following speakers: Mr B H Holomisa, followed by Rev Meshoe, and the last speaker will be the hon Oriani- Ambrosini.

Ms M P MENTOR: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am on the speaker’s list and I pressed the button …

The SPEAKER: Hon member, please take your seat. You are not on my speaker’s list. [Interjections.] I did say that the people I’m going to take are the ones that appear on my screen, not on your screen. The people who appear on my screen are the following: The hon Holomisa, the hon Meshoe and the hon Oriani-Ambrosini.

Mnu B H HOLOMISA: Somlomo, siyamamkela uMongameli ekubuyeni kwakhe eZimbabwe. Besisicinga ukuba uMongameli ebebalekiswa lolu bhukuqo-mbuso beluzanywa apha yiCope kule veki iphelileyo. [Kwahlekwa.] Kodwa ke amajoni akhe amkhusele apha kule veki iphelileyo. [Kwahlekwa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[Mr B H HOLOMISA: Hon Speaker, we welcome back the hon President from his visit to Zimbabwe. We thought that the hon President was running away from the attempted coup by members of Cope last week. [Laughter.] However, his soldiers protected him. [Laughter.]]

My question to the hon President is whether he agrees that the insistence on appointing or deploying ANC cadres to parastatals or obliging investors to team up with ANC-aligned companies will affect investor confidence and create the image that the state is corrupt.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, I think I have just dealt with the issue of ANC deployment policy. I think if ANC people are able to show merit, they should be employed as well. With regard to companies that come to invest, they are encouraged to find local partners. Those partners could come from the UDM; they could come from anywhere. I also don’t think it says ANC people must not be party to that simply because they are members of the ANC.

Once one has been in charge as government or as the ruling party, the ANC, and he or she then interferes in that process, then – if there is information to that effect – that would suggest that one is engaged in corrupt activities. I would imagine they are all encouraged to look around. People are looking around for such opportunities from the inside. All South Africans have a right to do so.

However, if we have somebody who tells a company that is coming to invest here to partner with a particular person and not others, then that’s corruption. I would agree with the hon member that that is not a good practice and it should not be encouraged. Everybody should have an equal opportunity to participate; not because he or she belongs to a particular party. Thank you. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Mr Speaker, the ACDP supports the decision of the hon President to appoint a team drawn from outside Cabinet to review the state- owned entities that have been plagued by leadership and financial crises.

What we would like to know is whether this company has tendered for the contract and how many other companies were interested in doing the job. Furthermore, we would like to know what the estimated cost of the review is as it has been reported in the media that the President has indeed appointed a company. The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, my response to the hon member is that I have not appointed any company to do this job. Furthermore, I did not do this by announcing that there is a job that needs to be done and, therefore, we need companies to apply in order to go through the tendering processes; not at all.

I have said I will appoint, as a President authorised by the Constitution, a group of people or a commission to do this job.

I’m very clear that I want to do this review in an effective manner and not based on who comes forward and says he or she has the skills. I have not yet done so; I’m in the process of doing so. I am currently working on the terms of reference.

The final leg of this process will be people outside of government. Yet again, I have decided as such because I did not want the government to do this kind of work on its own or by itself. I believe that this will ensure that there is a balance, as well as there being people who could be more objective rather than subjective.

However, government’s participation, in the form of the information that will be in the basket for the scrutiny of those specialists, is very important. So, it’s not companies which will be doing the job; I will do the appointment. Thank you. [Applause.] Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr Speaker, we praise the President for the initiative. However, we would like to express a concern that while this initiative will be taking place, the status quo will be frozen.

The question is: How do we explain to people in rural areas that resources meant for them are going to be frozen in order, for instance, to spend R2 billion worth of guarantees for Denel? These are guarantees for obligations that no commercial entity would back. Also, how do we justify that this Parliament cannot have sight of the secret contracts between Eskom and the aluminium smelters for very special prices, which again takes away resources from those who need them?

Isn’t there a replacement or urgent political action which the President and the Minister could take now on matters, such as cutting Denel loose from the financial purse of the state?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, I’m very sorry; I’m not sure whether I understood the question very well. [Laughter.] I might not answer correctly. I couldn’t get it clearly. Could the hon member repeat it for me? I’m trying to …

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr Speaker, in terms of the rules on clarification, I will repeat the question again. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Let’s hear the question.

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr Speaker, pending the review, Denel, our arms manufacturer, which is at a perpetual loss, is going to receive R2 billion worth of guarantees which no commercial bank would extend to it. Pending the review, Sasol is giving electricity away at very cheap prices in terms of a secret contract that this Parliament cannot have sight of with the aluminium smelters.

In light of these points, what explanation can people like us give to people in rural areas and those who will suffer regarding the loss of resources, otherwise available, to attend to their needs by the state?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, I have now clearly heard the question. I think, hon member, that’s precisely the reason that we are doing a review. We want to deal with those kinds of problems. We are not saying that because we are starting a review, everything must come to a standstill. These SOEs have been working and they are continuing to work. We are going to be reviewing them as we proceed with everything else. We can’t stop business because we are doing a review.

It is the review and recommendations that are going to help us to deal with such issues; if those are indeed existent problems. We can’t pre-empt the very task we are giving to those who must do the review. We want recommendations.

There has been a lot of debate about such issues in the past. We are just saying that we must bring closure to that and, therefore, we must do a review. In the end, we will be able to take the kinds of decisions that will satisfy all of us in terms of the manner in which the SOEs are operating. Thank you.

Query regarding awarding of building projects to a certain company and steps to ensure transparency of tender process

Ms A Mda (Cope) asked the President of the Republic:

(1)    Whether, in view of problems surrounding service delivery by
      local government, he has called for an investigation into
      allegations that several municipalities in Limpopo province
      awarded contracts exceeding R140 million to a certain company
      (name furnished); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant
      details;


(2)    whether he has been informed that building projects awarded to
      the said company by the province and certain local governments of
      Limpopo were not completed or collapsed; if so, what are the
      relevant details;


(3)    whether he will instruct the Interministerial Committee on
      Corruption to take urgent steps to ensure transparency of the
      tender process so that communities can know who applied for a
      tender, who had been appointed and why the tender was awarded to
      a specific company; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant
      details?                                                  NO720E

The SPEAKER: Hon members, before the President answers Question 3 asked by the hon A Mda, I would like to restate what I said earlier, namely that a maximum of four supplementary questions are allowed. The member who put the original question gets the first opportunity to ask a supplementary question. The other three questions I take are the ones that appear on my screen. [Laughter.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, one of the key priorities of this government is to fight crime and corruption. Since the fourth democratic administration took office in May last year, there have been numerous examples of actions taken in pursuance of this priority. It is essential that all cases are swiftly, thoroughly and impartially dealt with.

Hon members will appreciate that it is not appropriate for the relevant agencies to announce the details of any cases before investigations are completed. It is important not to prejudice the cases or to undermine the rights of the people concerned. If any member of this House or, indeed, any member of the public has information that would assist in the investigation of any alleged corrupt activity, they are urged to provide that information to the relevant authorities.

I have not been informed of the said building projects relating to the company referred to. The Interministerial Committee on Corruption will, as part of its mandate, look at ways and means of improving tender processes where necessary. It will consider the work flowing from the Multi-agency Initiative on Supply Chain Management which is led by the National Treasury.

Should there be areas that are identified that suggest a lack of transparency in the procurement processes in government, these will surely be attended to. It must be noted, however, that the problem with tender fraud does not generally arise out of a lack of transparency, but from noncompliance with otherwise transparent policies. All the recommendations from the team led by the National Treasury will be considered and decided upon. I thank you.

Ms A MDA: Mr Speaker, while I fully agree with the President that there are issues of compliance – like the ones that we are talking about now, which have been breached – section 217 of the Constitution stipulates clearly that contracts for goods and services must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

This was not the case in the SGL Engineering Projects tenders. Noting that this was not the case, would the President inform us how he will attend to this matter, if, upon investigation, it comes to a point that compliance and the Constitution itself have been breached in this matter.

I would assume that the President, as a custodian of that Constitution, is duty-bound to take this matter as seriously as he committed himself to doing during his state of the nation address last year, and that this year he will root out and fight corruption up to its end. I still count on your word. Thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, certainly I will act where there is corruption. I repeat that. However, I will act with regard to the information before me. I think if there is concrete information of what has happened, let it come to government. We have a lot of agencies to act on and deal with the matter. If the matter is dealt with in the media and accusations are made while we don’t have concrete information, it’s going to be difficult to investigate allegations that are not concretely presented.

For example, I don’t have the details of what happened to this tender that the hon member is talking about. Is what has been alleged true? Those who have the information should bring forward the information in order for the matter to be investigated. I think it would be very important that somebody supplies that information. Thank you.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, the second supplementary question will be asked by the hon Mentor, the third by the hon Holomisa, and the fourth will be asked by the hon Doman.

Ms M P MENTOR: Mr Speaker, my question was related to state-owned enterprises, SOEs. I thank you very much for the opportunity, but I will not ask a follow-up question. Thank you.

Mr B H HOLOMISA: Mr President, seeing that your staff have let you down in collecting the evidence which would have helped you to answer this question, I would like to request you to ask them to provide tax clearance certificates or, rather, let me put it the following way:

Babuze ukuba ingaba le nkampani iyisikwa na isiqinisekiso sokubamsulwa ngokubhekisele kwirhafu. Ndiyamxhobisa kuba uphoxwe ngabasebenzi bakhe. Fundani umbuzo lo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[Ask as to whether this company does receive tax clearance certificates. I am equipping him because he has been disappointed by his employees. Read the question.]

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members!

Mnu B H HOLOMISA: Ngoko ke sicela ukuba ubathume, ubaxelele ukuba bajonge ukuba ingaba inaso kusini na isiqinisekiso sokuba msulwa ngokubhekiselele kwirhafu. [Laphela ixesha.]

UMONGAMELI WESIZWE: Somlomo, ndicinga ukuba le nto isabuyela kwakulaa nto bendiyithethile ukuba maluze ngaphambili olu lwazi. Ukuba bendinokuthi ndithumele abasebenzi bam rhoqo xa kuthe kwathethwa nokuba yintoni nokuba kuphi na ngamaphepha, loo nto ingathetha ukuba bangaligqiba lonke eli lizwe behamba befunana namahem-hem. [Kwahlekwa.] Maluze ulwazi olucacileyo; ndakululandela kwaye ndiluphande xa luzile. Ndiyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)

[Mr B H HOLOMISA: Therefore we request you to send them and tell them to ascertain whether it has tax clearance certificates or not. [Time expired.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, I think this goes back to what I said earlier, that this information must be brought forward. If I were to ask my officials to make a follow-up each and every time things are mentioned in the newspapers, then that would mean they would have to travel throughout the country chasing rumours. [Laughter.] Clear information must be brought to the fore and I will do a follow-up and investigate. Thank you. [Applause.]]

The SPEAKER: Hon members, the next speaker on my list is the hon Doman. The hon Mentor didn’t take her slot; it will now go to the hon Swart.

Mr W P DOMAN: Mr Speaker, Mr President, the failure of this company has dealt a serious blow to service delivery in the Limpopo province. One of our committees last week stood at the bridge in the North West province that was left incomplete. Therefore, we as the DA, request that government does a full investigation into these allegations that the ANC Youth League president Julius Malema and partners irregularly acquired substantial local government tenders in Limpopo.

A full investigation will yield the facts and will clear up the matter. This matter is an opportunity to clearly demonstrate that no one is above the law. A full investigation is necessary because the whole country, and especially the poor in that province, wants to know why this company, SGL Engineering Projects, didn’t properly deliver.

Also, we would like to know the extra costs that that province has now incurred in order to deal with all the incomplete work. Thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, in addition to the public allegations, which the person we are referring to has denied, all we are requesting is concrete information. I’m not certain that we, as government, can follow every story in the newspapers – just every story.

I’m saying: Let somebody provide us with concrete information. The newspapers don’t say: Here is the matter and as this newspaper I’m saying “X, Y, Z”. They give the story for everybody to read. The story could be put in any other way. Other people deny the facts.

Somebody has to go to the police with a case and urge the police to deal with it. The point I’m making is: If the issue is of so much concern, why aren’t we provided with the information that people have? Receipt of that information will then compel us to undertake the investigation. Thank you.

Mr S N SWART: Mr Speaker, arising from the hon President’s response, the Minister of Finance announced during the Budget Speech that a major site of both wastage and inefficiency is in our procurement system. He went on to say that even where there is absolutely no corruption, we sometimes give contracts to people who cannot implement them.

The Minister of Finance also said that greater transparency and accountability in procurement systems will be a key focus of reform in the period ahead. The ACDP clearly supports this, and the President alluded to the steps that would be taken in this regard with the Interministerial Committee on Corruption.

Now, generally speaking, when one has shoddy workmanship or incomplete building projects and the results are collapses, leaking houses and schools, or crumbling roads and bridges, one has legal recourses to take against those companies. Would the hon President give an indication that where this occurs, the state will take legal action to recover damages and repair those deficiencies, particularly given the budgetary constraints and service-delivery protests that we are faced with? Thank you.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Mr Speaker, as the hon member and all the speakers who are very keen on this one have said, this happened in Limpopo. I’m sure the provincial government, in terms of the normal activities of government, will deal with this matter if it is a problem.

The point I’m making is that if hon members say the President should investigate this as a specific issue, then hon members should provide information to help us to do so. Why are hon members having difficulty in helping us? Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Speaker, on a point of order: Before we move to the next question, can I just make sure that the National Assembly Table clears the waiting list on your screen, so that we start on a clean slate.

The SPEAKER: Hon member, I’m looking at the screen and it’s clear right now. I’m not sure what your screen looks like. Mine is very clear. [Laughter.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Speaker, I asked because we all know that, by your own admission, hon member Ms Mentor admitted that she actually wanted to ask a follow-up question on the previous question.

The SPEAKER: Hon member, we are not discussing Ms Mentor; we are discussing the questions here.

Effectiveness of measures contained in Framework Agreement in protecting citizens worst affected by economic crisis

Ms Z S Dubazana (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:

To what extent did the measures contained in the Framework Agreement
that was announced in 2009 succeed in providing a safety net for
citizens who were worst affected by the impact of the global economic
crisis?                                  NO762E

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker and hon members, the Framework Agreement that was concluded a year ago between government and our social partners has provided relief for many citizens who have been affected by the global economic crisis. The measures that have been introduced include the following. In February 2009 government announced that there was an amount of R87 billion for infrastructure programmes. This was increased to R846 billion in the 2010 Budget Speech. Through the Expanded Public Works Programme and other associated measures, many have been able to obtain work opportunities.

You will be aware that South Africa introduced its first ever Training Lay- off Scheme, with R2,9 billion being made available for its implementation. The scheme is aimed at providing companies with an alternative to the retrenchment of workers during a period of industrial slack caused by the recession in order to enable employees to continue having an income, employment security and skills acquisition.

This scheme has been actively promoted as an alternative to retrenchment. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, the CCMA, incorporated the Training Lay-off Scheme into a holistic approach in order to prevent job losses. In total, 15 000 jobs have been saved since the scheme was introduced.

Another key intervention includes R6,1 billion set aside by the Industrial Development Corporation, the IDC, in the form of special loans for firms in distress, and R2 billion has been allocated by the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the UIF, to the IDC to be loaned to firms in distress.

Partners also approved development sector packages through the National Economic Development and Labour Council, Nedlac, for industries in distress, such as the automobile, clothing and textile industries, and the capital equipment, transport equipment and metal fabrication sectors.

The Framework Agreement Leadership Group also agreed to strict conditions for businesses that use state funding in order to prevent abuse. The conditions include constraints in relation to executive pay, restrictions on retrenchment, commitment to local procurement and social dialogue between labour and business at the workplace.

In a move to further save jobs, the SA Revenue Service seized 750 tons of clothing and textile products that had been smuggled into the country from raids on 88 premises. These were conducted as part of a nationwide enforcement initiative. An estimated 1 400 jobs have been saved as a result of these actions.

As a key poverty alleviation measure, the child support grant is now being extended to children up to the age of 18 years. Children over the age of 15 years who receive the child support grant are expected to be at school or college, and measures will be taken to monitor this. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]

Ms Z S DUBAZANA: Hon Speaker and His Excellency, your reply was quite informative and educational. However, the ANC would like to know from the hon President how these measures are going to be monitored, so as to ensure the effective implementation of these stimulus packages. Thank you, hon Speaker.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon member, in my response to the question I did indicate what measures are going to be taken to ensure that we monitor this. I even said that at some point we would take very strict measures to ensure they are not abused, so that is going to be done through the system of the same partnership that we establish together. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Which Swart is this? Is it hon M Swart?

Mr M SWART: Ja, dit is die “swart gevaar”. [Gelag.] [Yes, it is the “swart gevaar”. [Laughter.]]

Mr M SWART: Hon President, in the progress report addressed to you in respect of the Framework Agreement with regard to measures undertaken to improve infrastructure investment, the following statement was made:

The government has recognised that corruption reduces the impact of public programmes, contributes to higher than necessary costs and may also result in poor quality work, which requires construction to be redone.

All parties are committed to rooting out corruption. My question to you, Mr President, is that contracts for infrastructure work in Limpopo were granted to companies of Mr Julius Malema, where he is a director, and where work done by him will have to be redone owing to the collapse of a bridge. Will the increased costs incurred be investigated by the government? If not, why not? And if so, when?

And I want to know whether this company owes money to any other company. Also, there are many default companies that will be placed on the tender register to disqualify them from future tenders, so will such companies be required to pay damages?

It is simply not good enough to say that we must bring the evidence to light, because it is the government’s responsibility to investigate, since it is the government that awarded the contracts. [Interjections.] Thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, with regard to the question of poor workmanship, the government has been acting. If there is a bridge that has fallen down, I am sure that action will be taken. There is no doubt about it. Those companies have been taken to task. This company’s results were in very specific areas that have certainly been reported on, and I am sure that by now the government in the province will have taken action.

Mr S N SWART: Hon Speaker, this is a case of “pikswart” as opposed to “swart gevaar”. [Applause.] Arising from your response, hon President, it is clear that the Framework Agreement wasn’t an entirely unnecessary response to the global economic crisis and clearly the ACDP supports that framework, particularly the notion of the social pact between government, business and labour. However, it is crucial, as you pointed out, that the action plan is implemented and monitored, and we were encouraged yesterday to learn during the Economic Development Budget Vote that the primary phase of the Training Lay-off Scheme will be rolled out more actively.

However, we as the ACDP were concerned to learn that certain companies in distress were unaware of the Training Lay-off Scheme. This followed an oversight visit by MPs. Is there, hon President, sufficient public awareness around the interventions, such as the Training Lay-off Scheme? Is there further action that one can take to make companies that are in distress aware of the interventions that can assist in preventing further job losses? Thank you, hon President.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, I believe that there was sufficient publicity on this matter and if there were companies that were not aware, it is just unfortunate. We announced this in public more than once – at the level of the President as well as in the department and Nedlac.

I am sure those companies that are not aware, must have very poor listening devices to not hear what is happening out there. If they were in trouble, really looking for something, they would have been aware. It was a public matter that was discussed many times.

Here in this Parliament, questions were asked, as they are being asked today, and responded to. I don’t know what else to do, but of course, once we become aware as Members of Parliament, we should help to tell these companies. Certainly, we will help to provide information. Ms C M P KOTSI: Hon Speaker, during the state of the nation address in 2009, Mr President, you promised the poor and the most vulnerable that half a million jobs would be created for them by the end of the year. The Framework Agreement stands on two main pillars: To protect and to expand decent work.

Why then were a million jobs lost during the same period and why, even as we speak today, was intervention not done? Are your Ministers failing you or perhaps not giving you reports as to whether they have done what you have actually asked them to do, Mr President? [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, I think on the jobs that we promised we gave a report here, and it was very clear as to what happened. I don’t think we need to go back to that. Owing to the recession, all companies in all countries suffered job losses.

What I have just talked about here is what we did as a country in a joint agreement to save jobs, and I have indicated the jobs that we saved. This does not mean that there were not jobs lost, and I think we all saw that issue become public, in that we lost more than 900 000 jobs, probably more than a million. It was because of the situation that faced all of us.

Under the circumstances, we did our best. Many countries have been saying South Africa was able to face this crisis in a very unique fashion. No other country was able to do so. I don’t think that we could have done otherwise. We did what we could do. Thank you. [Applause.]

Particulars regarding consideration of applications for pardon and reasons for refusal of certain applications

Mr J H van der Merwe (IFP) asked the President of the Republic:

(1)    In respect of his refusal of 230 applications for pardon and 154
      pending outcomes of the 384 applications that were made to him in
      terms of section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution, what are the
      reasons for the refusal of each of the applications;


(2)    whether he has called for any additional information and/or
      documents other than the information contained in the
      applications themselves to assist him to exercise his powers to
      grant or refuse pardon; if not, why did he refuse the offer of
      additional information by the applicants’ attorney; if so, what
      information and documents were placed before him to enable him to
      exercise his power in each of the applications?     NO758E The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, as the hon Van der Merwe correctly stated, section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa states that the President is responsible for “pardoning or reprieving offenders and remitting any fines, penalties or forfeitures”.

This is a power that has its origins in the prerogative powers of the English monarch, but those powers are exercised by the presidents of many countries, for example the United States of America, the Russian Federation, France, Italy and Ireland.

As the hon Van der Merwe is aware, this is a power exercised by the President as head of state and not as head of the executive. The Constitutional Court has held that this is a power that flows directly from the Constitution itself and, unlike the other powers of the President “they do not derive their authority from and are not dependent on legislative enactments”.

The Constitutional Court has also found that the pardoning power “is not a private act of grace” in the sense that the pardoning power in a monarchy may be.

The court held that –

  It is a recognition ... that a power should be granted to the
  President to determine when in his view the public welfare will be
  better served by granting a remission of sentence or some other form
  of pardon.

Lastly, whilst this power is not constrained by any legislation, the Constitutional Court has made it clear that any conduct by the President in exercising his or her pardoning powers that undermines any provision of the Constitution is reviewable.

With regard to the applications that the hon Van der Merwe has referred to, I considered each application individually, on its merits.

I took into account all the information and documentation supplied by each of the applicants, many of whom were represented by the hon Van der Merwe’s law firm.

I also considered all other relevant factors and information, including advice and recommendations from my advisers and other relevant officials.

I concluded that 230 of the applications for pardons should not be granted. I do not at this stage intend to supply reasons for my decisions. I shall do so at a later stage, should it become necessary.

I will consider the remaining 154 applications at the same time that I work on the applications considered by the Multiparty Reference Group set up by former President Mbeki. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of Mr Van der Merwe. He sends his apologies to you and the President as he is undergoing an operation.

The SPEAKER: Go ahead, hon member.

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr President, although this is a presidential power, we are less inclined to accept that the President does not need to motivate in this regard, and we will take the matter further in terms of section 5 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, which requires all actions to be motivated in writing.

Beyond the legalities is a long process, Mr President, which really begins, inter alia, with all your initiatives. It is the process of catching and solving that which the Democratic Republic of the Congo process could not accommodate, rightly or wrongly. It is a process that arises with regard to the unsolved unexplored aspects of the black-on-black conflict in KwaZulu- Natal.

So, the question, Mr President, is: How do we complete this process beyond the legalities? It is something which remains open in the records of history and since this has taken … [Interjections.] … perhaps you can tell us how we can complete it. [Time expired.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, I am dealing with the issue as it came to me legally and I am responding to it on a legal basis. How could it be tackled differently? It is a matter that needs all of us, not just a single person. You even head a multiparty group that was supposed to help in this regard. I am sure that when we complete all the legal things, we might have to adopt different ways of solving this problem. I don’t think I could provide the answer on my own. As you know, these issues occurred between parties, therefore they will need parties to talk about them.

When people are in prison, they need government interference, but if we want a political solution, then I am sure people will have to discuss that against the background of the information before them. We could generalise the issue – that it was political violence, etc. The provision was made that those who were serving and who undertook this, should then apply. That’s what we are dealing with. It has to be legal and that’s what we are responding to, not the political processes.

I don’t think I would be able to answer your question on what must be done, because I don’t have all the answers. I am sure it needs all of us to come up with a solution to deal with the matter. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J SELFE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the hon President for his very comprehensive reply. I am sure that the President would agree that he has the power as head of state to grant pardons, and while this might advance the public benefit, it also has the potential to undermine the rule of law and the authority of the courts. This is particularly true if the person being pardoned is very controversial.

Mr Speaker, the President was quoted on 2 March 2009 as saying that he would consider granting a pardon to his former financial adviser Mr Schabir Shaik. I want to know whether the President will give the House the assurance that he will not grant Mr Schabir Shaik a pardon.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, I don’t know why we should deal with this pardon before it comes to the President. Why should we? What we said is that any pardon that comes before me, depending on the circumstances and information of any prisoner, comes with supporting information that the particular person must be released.

If the person qualifies to be released in terms of the information given, why is that person not released? Is it because he is so-and-so? That was a question I was answering at the time when this was posed to me, that you can’t deprive a person of a pardon if there is sufficient evidence just because that person is so-and-so. I said: If there was sufficient evidence, why shouldn’t the person be released? I am referring to anyone, not specifically to Schabir Shaik.

We should not prejudge issues. It is unfair even to the individuals, because we begin to influence anyone who is going to be looking at this issue by debating the issue of a person before it comes up for discussion. Let the matter come before the President and the President will exercise his powers according to the Constitution, not according to who the person is or in front of whom he is appearing. [Applause.]

Mr D A KGANARE: Hon Speaker and hon President, while section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution certainly gives the President the responsibility for “pardoning or reprieving offenders and remitting any fines, penalties or forfeitures”, I believe that this is a responsibility that should go with the President having to properly apply his mind and serve the course of justice.

Would the President indicate whether he sees it as his responsibility to pardon his friend Schabir Shaik and, in order to make it palatable to the people of South Africa, then link this pardon to those of prime evil people, such as Eugene de Kock, and the murderers of Chris Hani, namely Janusz Walus and Clive Derby-Lewis, to serve as a diversion? What interpretation does the hon President give to this responsibility?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, I have just answered the Schabir Shaik question. Really I did. I don’t see why I should repeat it. The hon member should have said that his question had been answered. Absolutely. [Laughter.] I don’t think I should repeat it. [Applause.]

Nom J B SIBANYONI: Somlomo ohloniphekileko noMongameli, kwamambala indlela ophendule ngayo iyazwakala begodu iyathokozisa. Ilandelela yombuzo wami nginasi, ngiyayidzubhula: (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[Mr J B SIBANYONI: Hon Speaker and President, the way you responded to the question is clear and I’m satisfied. My follow-up question is as follows:]

If the 230 applications were successful, bearing in mind that they didn’t qualify under the special dispensation, would their release have contributed to any unity or reconciliation in our country?

Concerning the second part of the question, when the President disposed of the cases – the 230 applications – had the Constitutional Court already delivered its judgment, or was it before the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment? Thank you, Speaker.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: There are cases I dealt with and others I didn’t, precisely because the court still had to pronounce on some of them. Therefore, they had not necessarily been dealt with at that time.

Supposing we were to grant all people … You know that there was violence for many years and that those people were in prison and served their sentences.

As to the question as to whether that would have contributed to unity, I can’t give a definite answer. We solved the question of violence. There is no violence now. We are now living in peace. If you were to ask that question, it would be as if there were still some problems.

There are no problems now. Matters were settled, and I am sure if they qualified they would have been released. Their families and their parties would have been very happy as well, because they would not have to come back and do the work.

I don’t think it will make the impact that you are talking about. It would just be a normal kind of reunion with their families and their parties, and we would continue as we are. Thank you. [Applause.]

 Particulars regarding ambit of proposed national debate on morality

Mrs P de Lille (ID) asked the President of the Republic:

Whether the national debate on morality (details furnished) that he
called for will include the morality of persons in and connected to the
Government benefiting financially from tenders; if not, why not; if so,
what are the relevant details?
       NO750E

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, our Constitution promotes the concept of unity and diversity and encourages us to be tolerant and to respect one another’s cultures, languages, religions and other distinctions.

I intend to initiate a national debate on morality, so that we can better appreciate the values that are shared across the diversity of our cultures. It is an opportunity also to understand those practices and values that are peculiar to certain cultures. The content of the debate and the matters that would be raised during the course of the debate will depend on what is important to the people of this country.

In my view, any discussion of a nation’s morality should also promote a culture of adherence to the rule of law, and should strongly condemn the abuse of power in any form, something which we as government promote.

We should also promote a culture of honesty and integrity in all spheres of society. Therefore, the principle we should establish is that no person should be able to derive undue financial benefits from the state, by virtue of the public position they occupy. This applies to elected public representatives and members of the Public Service.

This has been the principle that has guided our efforts over the past 16 years, through legislation and regulations, to prevent the abuse of public funds. We continually examine these measures, and where there are shortcomings, we take steps to address them.

We should be cautious, however, that our efforts to strengthen these provisions do not inadvertently undermine the rights of any citizen to engage in legitimate business activities, including with the state.

We must also be careful not to make sweeping statements that place legitimate business activities in the same basket as those that may be unlawful or unethical. I am certain that in the course of this debate, such distinctions will become clearer, and we will be better equipped as a nation to promote behaviour that we can all agree is ethical and proper.

What has been the problem is that some seem to regard their cultural belief as the only one that is correct, and tend to use this to judge others and impose their value system on them. Where do they get this authority to judge others? Therefore, we need a common conversation to arrive at a commonly shared determination. I thank you, Speaker.

Mrs P DE LILLE: Speaker and hon President, the reason why we are suggesting that these issues must be included in that debate, is that normally the response by the ANC, in the case of Chancellor House where they are benefiting directly from the increase in electricity prices, is that it is legal.

The other response is that when the Minister benefits from state enterprises, it’s legal; when Ministers overspend on accommodation and cars, it’s legal.

Now, let me tell you why it is not illegal. It is because the ANC refuses to live up to its promise to the High Court in Cape Town five years ago, when it said it would enact legislation that would regulate party-political funding. The ANC also refuses to implement its own Polokwane resolution, Mr President. The ANC also refuses to support an ID motion that has been before this Parliament for almost two years now.

Now, your debate on morality, Mr President, will be stillborn if we continue to have one set of ethics and morals for political leaders and another set for the rest of South Africa. My question is: Are you prepared to instruct the ANC to enact legislation that will make all of this dubious behaviour illegal? Thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, I think the hon speaker has, in fact, raised the important point that the matters that she has referred to are not illegal.

It is precisely for that reason that we say: Let us have a debate so that we can ascertain what it is that we all agree are the correct things to do, as South Africans, and what are not the correct things to do. If it suits somebody, then people stand up and condemn others, and if it doesn’t suit them, they don’t do so.

That will include, of course – once the discussions have taken place – whether people think we need legislation and if legislation is a result of what has happened before. I don’t think we should stop doing so. However, let us clarify our minds as South Africans. What is it that we think is right? What is it that we think is wrong?

I think that the very debate I am talking about will even help to deal with those issues. I think that’s what I am saying. Thank you.

Mr T BOTHA: President, political morality would suggest that it is incorrect for the ruling party to be a player and a referee in determining the quality of services and the tariff levels whilst, at the same time, being a beneficiary of such interventions, as is the case with Eskom and Hitachi.

Would the President not agree that a combination of these practices and the continued irregular awarding of contracts to senior party politicians, including members of the executive, are morally wrong and tantamount to corruption? What action would the President take in this regard?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, I think the hon member’s question is almost in the same vein as the last question I answered. He is going to get an opportunity to raise the issues in the debate and then say what needs to be done, so that we establish the standards and a platform from which all of us can agree that if one does this, then one is doing the wrong thing.

This is because you can’t have a practice that has no regulation and no law and, once it is done, you then say it is corruption or tantamount to corruption. You are judging it on what basis? And this is what I am saying: We need to establish this as a country. You will contribute to the debate. The debate is coming.

Mr B W DHLAMINI: Speaker …

… Mhlonishwa Mongameli, kuyiqiniso ukuthi umzabalazo wethu abanye bawubiza ngokuthi umzabalazo womhlaba wonke “internationalised”. Endleleni yokulwela inkululeko sahamba sicoshacosha imithetho yobuqotho “values” neyokuziphatha “morals”. Okunye okungokwethu sakulahla kangangokuthi ezinye zezinto eziwubu-Afrika uma uzihlanganisa nezinto zaseNtshonalanga kubasengathi ubugebengu.

Njengokuthi nje uma uNxamalala edlula KwaPhindangene, bese kuthi inkosi yakwaButhelezi imhlabise imvu, yisintu leso kithi. Kodwa ngokwemithetho yobuqotho yaseNtshonalanga, sekufanele umemezele, ubike ngoba kuzobakhona ukusoleka, kubesengathi kukhona okunuka santungwana.

Siyazibuza–ke ukuthi kule nkulumompikiswano yokuvuselelwa kwezimilo kukhona yini esizokucosha okuyimithetho yobuqotho neyokuziphatha ezokwazi ukuthatha okwase-Afrika, ngoba phela singama-Afrika asibona abantu baseNtshonalanga. Sizithola sisenkingeni nje ngoba ezinye zezindlela esiqhuba ngayo izinto akuzona ezalapha ekhaya kodwa sizebolekile. Ngiyathokoza (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[… hon President, it is true that our struggle for freedom is a struggle of the whole world and is referred to by others as an internationalised struggle. Whilst we were in the struggle for freedom, we adopted some ways of life, namely values and morals. And in the process we discarded some of our values in the sense that if you bring together some of our African values and Western ones, the results become criminalised.

For example, if Nxamalala pays a visit to the KwaPhindangene household, and then the iNkosi of the Buthelezi clan slaughters a sheep as a welcome gesture, to us that is humanity. However, according to Western values, this should be declared in public because there will be some suspicions as if there is something fishy about it.

Therefore, we ask ourselves whether, in this debate on moral regeneration, there might be any values or morals which we can adapt to those of African origin, because we are, in fact, Africans and not Western people. We find ourselves in trouble today just because we deal with certain issues, which are not ours, in a foreign manner. Thank you.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker …

… isikhulumi esihloniphekile, sesiyiphendule ngokwaso inkulumo. Enye yezinto edala ukuthi sithi akube khona ingxoxo yikho lokho - ukuthi kunezinto ezingamasiko ezenziwa abantu abathile, kanti kukhona abathile abazibukela phansi nabacabanga ukuthi uma uzenza usuke ukhohlakele. Kodwa ube ungakhohlakele ngokosiko lwakini. Yikho phela lokhu engikushoyo ukuthi asiyivuleni le ngxoxo ixoxwe le ndaba. Kufanele ukuthi abantu baphefumule basho ukuthi bathini ngalolu daba. Lokhu sikwenzela ukuthi kulungiswe izinto.

Ingabe siyokuhlonipha nini ukuthi uMthethosisekelo wethu uthi siyisizwe esibumbene kodwa esinamasiko nezinto zethu esizenzayo eziyimikhuba yethu ezahlukahlukene? Ngoba sifuna kuhlonishwe okunye, okunye kungahlonishwa.

Le ngxoxo-ke engithi ayibe khona phakathi kwesizwe, ayiveze lezo zinto. Bezwakale abakwaDlamini ukuthi eyabo imikhuba ithini, nokuthi iyahlonishwa yini? Uma ngabe ingahlonishwa, kungani ingahlonishwa? Kungani kuhlonishwa eyakwaSwart? Uyayibona into enjalo nje. Kungani kuhlonishwa eyakwaSingh? Usukhulumile Sibalukhulu, ngikuzwa kahle, ngena engxoxweni zivele lezi zinto. Ngiyabonga Somlomo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[… the hon speaker has already responded to the debate. That is another factor which is the reason for our call to have this moral regeneration debate – that there are some things which are practised as common customs by people, whilst there are other people who look down upon them and think that they are immoral when they perform these customs, even though they would not be regarded as being immoral in their own culture. That is why I am saying we should open this debate and discuss this issue. People need to air their views about this issue. We are doing this to correct issues.

When will we respect the fact that our Constitution states that we are a nation united in diversity, with diverse cultures and customs that are performed differently? I am saying this because we want some people’s cultures and customs to be respected, but not those of others.

The debate I want the nation to engage in should then highlight such issues. Let us hear the Dlaminis tell us about their customs and whether those customs are respected. And if not, why are they not respected? Why do we respect the Swarts’ cultures and customs? You see such things. Why do we respect the Singhs’ cultures and customs? You have said a mouthful, Sibalukhulu, I get you. Get into the debate and highlight these issues. Thank you, hon Speaker.]

Ms L D MAZIBUKO: Mr Speaker, given some of the facts – the revelations – that we have discussed in the House here today about political leaders and members of the executive who have been entrusted with the responsibility of delivering services and opportunities to the people of this country, but who have instead used their political connections for the purpose of personal enrichment, would the hon President concede that this government, and in fact any government, is the last body that should control, seek to dictate and influence people’s so-called morality?

State-led efforts to control what citizens think and believe in the privacy of their own homes are the preserve, actually, of authoritarian governments.

Has the hon President, in fact, only made this call for a national debate on morality as a direct consequence of the negative public reaction to certain revelations about his personal life? If not, why not; and if so, what are the relevant details?

Finally, does the constitutional principle of freedom of speech not empower South Africans with the freedom to hold whatever opinion they choose, without the government attempting to influence those opinions, based on certain narrow provisions? Thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, no, the fact that I say there must be a debate is not influenced by any publicity. I’ve had this view for a long time, and I think I have said it in public when I spoke about this for the first time.

Last year already, I felt we needed to enter into debate and by so doing we are not dictating. The problem is that there are South Africans, from different professions or whatever, who give themselves authority and the right to judge others – that’s a problem – and degrade other people’s practices, beliefs and everything because they hold certain beliefs, and that’s not correct. That’s the point I am making.

Let us debate this. Let us accept what our Constitution says, namely that we live in a country of diversity. How do I get respect if I share a particular belief which you do not share? Should you stand up and say this is totally out of order; this person is wrong, even criminalise the activities of somebody else? We are saying – I am saying – that that is wrong. Let us debate this and agree that this is what has happened.

Also, let us be guided by our history. As you know, in South Africa, some of the things we did as South Africans, were said by some to be were barbaric; that we must be stopped, and other values imposed on us. I don’t think we have had an opportunity to speak. I am saying for the first time: Let us speak. What is it that we do? At times people in this country were forced to do their own thing on the quiet, because they were afraid; because they were declared abnormal, as not being right.

One of the things we did in 1994 was to liberate religion and beliefs, to say everybody has a right to worship, in whatever way. Before that you couldn’t worship anything, except if you were a Christian. Then you were recognised. If you were a Muslim, everything you did was recognised. There are many other things we did not address then. We addressed this aspect.

I am saying the debate must help us to address those issues, so that South Africans should know that what they say publicly about certain cultures at times injures those people who are practising them, and they have nowhere to go. I am saying: Let us set the standard. Let us utilise democracy and free debate to address those issues, and people are going to have every right to express their views in whatever way.

That’s what I am encouraging, so that we do not injure other people’s souls without realizing it, because we believe what we believe in is superior, is everything. What you believe in, I believe is nonsense; I do not like it. That’s what I say we must deal with, as a country, so that we cement the unity and diversity and have cohesion and respect for other people’s beliefs and cultures. All that I am calling for is that we debate and come to an agreement. I think it is the correct thing to do for us as South Africans. I think the time has come to do so. Thank you.