National Assembly - 03 November 2010
WEDNESDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2010 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____ The House met at 15:02.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
PASSING AWAY OF MRS MACHEJANE ALINA RANTSOLASE, MP
(Announcement)
The SPEAKER: Hon members, before we commence with the proceedings, it is with deep sadness that I have to announce the passing away at eleven o’clock today of one of our members, Mrs Alina Rantsolase, who was the chairperson of the ANC caucus. Mrs Rantsolase died after a long illness. I now ask hon members to rise in memory of our colleague.
Thank you, hon members. A formal motion of condolence will be adopted by the House within the next few days.
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT:
Development of programmes to capacitate and empower households and
communities
13. Ms F E Khumalo (ANC) asked the Deputy President:
To what extent has the Government developed programmes that capacitate
and empower households and communities to take themselves out of
poverty? NO3705E
Ms F E KHUMALO: Hon Deputy President, to what extent has the government developed programmes that capacitate …
The SPEAKER: Hon member, I asked the Deputy President. [Laughter.] Hon Deputy President … [Laughter.] Order, hon members! Order!
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon speaker, hon members, there are a number of government programmes aimed at capacitating and empowering households and communities to take themselves out of poverty. Our programme relating to education is one example.
However, as a co-ordinated programme in the fight against poverty, government has developed the War on Poverty Campaign, as well as a comprehensive antipoverty strategy. The former is being scaled up to cover 1 128 of the most deprived municipal wards of the country by 2014, whilst the latter is currently undergoing consultation in the National Economic Development and Labour Council, Nedlac, after receiving support from the National Antipoverty Civil Society Colloquium held in December 2009.
The antipoverty strategy focuses on the following nine pillars that seek to capacitate and empower households and communities to take themselves out of poverty with the help of government and its social partners: one, the creation of economic opportunities; two, investment in human resources; three, the provision of income security to the most vulnerable members of society; four, the provision of social and individual asset accumulation, such as housing, land, working capital and infrastructure; five, environmental sustainability; six, the provision of a social wage, such as subsidised electricity, water and sanitation services; seven, the provision of preventative and curative health care; eight, social inclusion; and nine, good governance.
It can be seen from the nine pillars that the antipoverty strategy uses most of the existing government programmes as key instruments. What is different about the antipoverty strategy is that it identifies the most deprived wards in the country using the Provincial Indices of Multiple Deprivation which have mapped all poverty areas in each province. The strategy profiles the communities and households that live in those deprived wards; collects and stores such community and household profiles in the national database; develops referrals that it sends to national and provincial departments and social partners to address the needs of those households and communities; advises national and provincial departments to develop service delivery plans that should be included in the municipal integrated development plans; and monitors and verifies the impact of service delivery performed by departments on the progress and graduation of households and communities out of poverty.
The War on Poverty programme was piloted in 2008 to 2009 by covering a ward in each province. Cabinet in May 2009 called for the scaling up of the programme to cover a total of 1 128 of the most deprived wards or a third of all the wards in the country by 2014, with an estimated three million households and an estimated 15 million people who live in extreme poverty. I thank you for your attention. [Applause.]
Ms F E KHUMALO: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Deputy President, is progress being made in forging integration between the state, private capital and other forms of social ownership in order to eliminate poverty and foster shared growth? Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, hon member, part of the approach is to funnel a co-ordinated menu of services to empower communities and families who are indeed in affected wards. This programme was debated and discussed extensively and endorsed at the civil society colloquium and, as I have stated, is now been processed through Nedlac. Thank you.
Mr N SINGH: Hon Speaker, for a moment, when the hon Khumalo stood up, I thought there had been another Cabinet reshuffle, but I’m glad that there hasn’t been a reshuffle. [Laughter.]
Mr Deputy President, thank you very much for the response. Mr Deputy President, we currently have roughly 14 million people who claim some sort of social benefit or welfare in this country. I’m sure you would agree with me, sir, when I say that this number is both extremely high and possibly not economically sustainable in the medium to long term.
You have, sir, enumerated some examples of how government develops programmes and is assisting the poor, but I would like to know, hon Deputy President, if what we are doing – if I may use the old adage – is teaching our citizens to fish rather than giving them fish? Because, as we drive through rural areas in particular, Mr Deputy President, you would note that even subsistence agricultural activity is becoming something of the past. We don’t see it.
We urgently need to see more self-help and self-reliant communities developed. I’m sure, Mr Deputy President, Mr Speaker and members, that we hosted a very successful Fifa World Cup, which was the result of a concerted effort. We need a similar resolve now. Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker, I would very much like to thank the hon Singh. Yes, indeed, the 13 million people who depend on welfare grants are too many. I think the aim of the antipoverty approach is to reduce that number by getting more people to eke out a living on their own without being dependent on social grants. I could mention many examples of people whose lives were changed through this programme but, on a much larger scale, the rural development Ministry is also attending to those communities, particularly in the rural areas, who need assistance in how to till the soil, who need tractors, seeds, and so on.
In this way, we believe, we will be able to not only reduce the number of those who are dependent on social grants, but also improve food security. That’s the main thrust of all of these co-ordinated efforts. Thank you.
Rev K R J MESHOE: Thank you, Speaker. Deputy President, while we appreciate what government has done to capacitate our people through the development programmes to which you have alluded, we nevertheless believe that government can do more.
An area which government needs to give attention to is the facilitation of access to microfinance in the form of small loans to those who need some capital to start their own businesses. So, what I want to know from the Deputy President is whether government can help to facilitate these small loans without collateral and at subsidised interest rates on behalf of qualifying poor people. Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Meshoe. I agree that government can do more and we are indeed pulling out all stops to try to do more.
Concerning access to micro finance, I can say that there are a number of funding agencies that address precisely this need for microfinance loans that can be accessed by communities and households without the collateral that is demanded by commercial banks. There are such dedicated agencies. As you know, in most communities people have stokvels, burial societies and so on. On a small scale, they are already, in a way, practising the management of loans and repayments. So, indeed, the Mzansi account was opened precisely to cater for these kinds of people.
The fourth chamber in Nedlac, the community chamber, pushed very hard for the opening of the Mzansi account to ensure that even those who can save very little should be able to do so.
Therefore, they are already participating in the money economy and the microfinancing of whatever projects. In fact, the agencies to which I have alluded also take care of assisting with training and the putting together of proposals if people want to engage or improve their small-scale business activities and so on. Thank you.
Mrs S P KOPANE: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Deputy President, thank you for the response that you have just given us.
Do you agree that the National Development Agency, the NDA, is not fulfilling its mandate to eradicate poverty and its causes? The 77 projects funded by the NDA only managed to create 2 444 direct job opportunities for poor household families and 8 005 indirect opportunities within communities, with a value of R95 million, when we are faced with six million unemployed people in our country.
According to the Polokwane resolutions, the ANC would make sure that poor people graduated out of poverty. When will this government start to realise that only quality education and the creation of sustainable jobs will enable people to graduate out of poverty? [Applause.]
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Kopane very much. No, indeed, as government we agree with you that quality education is the main equaliser in society. But, of course, given the fact that education itself is acquired over an extended period of time, we can’t take a view that is, in a sense, sequential, meaning that we start off with education and leave everything else. We can’t do so because the needy are needy here and now and today.
Therefore, whatever intervention is required has to be made to sustain those who are no longer trainable and no longer able to go back to school, and so on.
On Saturday, I was in Nkomazi in Mpumalanga, in a very poor area that is also a catchment area for people who live in Mozambique and Swaziland and who walk in and out of that area, and so on. I came across the mayor who shared with me an account of one gentleman who lives all by himself in a house. The roof and the walls of this house have collapsed. This gentleman, instead of doing something about the collapsed shelter, dug a hole like a chicken. At night he creeps underneath this roof without walls that is almost resting on the ground, and in the morning he creeps out and goes drinking.
So, there are those kinds of cases that are, in a sense, real welfare cases. They are beyond repair. That gentleman can’t be taken to any training institution; he can’t be assisted in that fashion. But we agree with you that quality education is the main equaliser. Whilst we are doing everything else to ensure that quality education is accessible, we also, in the interim unfortunately, have to take care of even those hopeless cases. Thank you.
Government’s position on demands by Tibetans for greater autonomy
-
Mr K S Mubu (DA) asked the Deputy President:
(1) What is the Government’s position on the demands by Tibetans for greater autonomy from Chinese rule;
(2) whether the Government will support Tibet’s demand in the spirit of ubuntu; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO3712E
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker and hon Mubu, South Africa adopted the “One China” policy in 1998. This position was formalised through the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of South Africa and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, signed on 30 December 1998. This position is also consistent with international law and diplomatic practice.
The “One China” policy is an international principle, namely that there is one China and that mainland China, Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are all part of China. [Applause.] This position is also recognised by the United Nations. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs S V KALYAN: Mr Speaker, the hon Mubu is ill and I am asking the follow- up question. The SPEAKER: Yes, please go ahead, hon member.
Mrs S V KALYAN: Thank you. Mr Deputy President, the November 2008 Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People is the basis on which the people of Tibet are basing their request for autonomy. It is not a call for independence or separation, but rather a middle-way approach to secure autonomy for the Tibetan people within the scope of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.
Deputy President, given that this memorandum has been presented to South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Co-operation in that the People’s Republic of China has recognised the Tibetan nationality as one of the 55 minority nationalities in China, would South Africa not consider following the resolution of the European parliament, the codes of the United Nations and the United States of America to encourage both sides to engage in substantive discussions in an effort to secure genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the scope of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China? If yes, what would your intended plan of action be, and if not, why not?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, the position of South Africa is that wherever there are national conflicts, we encourage people of those countries to engage in dialogue in order to find a resolution to their challenges. This also applies to China. China has 56 nationalities. As I understand the facts, so far the Dalai Lama has been in contact with the government of China more than 10 times. We are quite confident that a resolution will be found within the understanding that China is one integrated country and that Tibet is an integral part of China. It is not for us to support the separation of Tibet from China, because, as I said in my initial response, China includes Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as part of one integrated China.
Within that context, our position is that, indeed, the Chinese government and Tibet, as an autonomous authority, must continue to have dialogue and engage with each other until they find a solution. Thank you.
Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr Deputy President, through you, Mr Speaker, this issue is not about the “One China” policy. It is about human rights and human rights violations. There have been extensive human rights violations in Tibet. There was the kidnapping of the Panchen Lama, which is the most famous child kidnapping case in history. There have been extensive violations throughout the world, and the ANC government is not responding. And now, Mr Deputy President, there are no negotiations and there have not been negotiations. There is no statement from the South African government that I or anyone else is aware of that encourages China to negotiate. The negotiations broke down right after the Olympic Games. Before then, they were set up as a showcase.
The question, Mr Deputy President, through you, Mr Speaker, is that when we say never, never again, do we mean never, never again in South Africa or anywhere else in the world? If we mean the latter, where are the condemnations of the human rights abuses in Tibet, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Iran, in East Timor to which the South African government sold weapons, and everywhere else where human rights violations take place?
I urge, through your leadership, Mr Deputy President, the government to rise to the challenge to become the human rights conscience of Africa and perhaps the world. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Speaker. Hon Ambrosini, basically you were not asking a follow-up question, but referring to a different issue of human rights all over the world. I don’t know what is expected of me, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: You are correct, hon Deputy President.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, we regard ourselves as a country that has a Bill of Rights and a Constitution which enjoin us to respect and promote human rights. Now, I don’t understand what the hon Ambrosini expects of us beyond that.
Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Speaker. Arising from your response, hon Deputy President, will the government be using South Africa’s seat on the United Nation Security Council to address human rights violations, particularly the issue of human rights aggressions that occurred or are alleged to have occurred in Tibet, as well as support …? Well, you have already mentioned the issue of autonomy.
Secondly, hon Deputy President, did the South African government in any way recognise the Nobel Peace Prize award to imprisoned writer Liu Xiaobo, who stands out for his support for Tibet and the Tibetan government in exile and who has been described as China’s conscience and a courageous advocate for democracy and human rights in China? Will the government be joining other governments in calling for his immediate release? Thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Swart. Regarding the role of South Africa on the UN Security Council, as I understand it, there is a Human Rights Commission of the United Nations which is where human rights issues are dealt with. The Security Council deals with security issues that confront the world. I think we will proceed within that understanding in participating and making a meaningful contribution within the UN Security Council.
With regard to the question on the Chinese prisoner who has been conferred the Nobel Peace Prize, that is a reality. He has been conferred that prize and the whole world recognises that, because all human rights laureates are recognised by the entire world, including South Africa. We can’t be the ones who undermine that honour. It is an honour that is accorded to all across the world, but the selection committee in Oslo follows its own criteria and honours those who it believes are deserving.
The actual issues of the gentleman’s imprisonment and so on is a matter I will not go into. Thank you. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Thank you, Deputy President. Please take your seat.
Mrs S V KALYAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, I wish to reiterate that the Tibetans are not seeking independence or separation; they are looking for genuine autonomy which is compatible with the principles of autonomy in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. The Tibetan nationality lives in one contiguous area on the Tibetan plateau. They have lived there for years and are therefore indigenous. The main aim is to preserve culture and language. I have the Memorandum of Understanding which I would like to forward to you.
I would like to go on to the second part of the question posed to you in the spirit of ubuntu, sir. The Dalai Lama was denied a visa in 2008 when he was requested to attend a meeting of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Will you, sir, assure this House that he will be granted a visa should he wish to visit this country at any time - perhaps next year when the City of Cape Town offers him the key of freedom to the city?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Kalyan. As I understand the point of impasse in the negotiations between the Dalai Lama and the government of China, it centres not so much on the issue of autonomy, but on the issue that the government of China is expected to withdraw all its law enforcement and troops from Tibet, and all known Tibetan natives who have lived there for centuries should be relocated. The government of China says that won’t happen.
However, Tibet is recognised as an autonomous, integral part of China. That is why we say that they must continue with discussions until they have a common understanding. This is not a case of secession, as it were, but a case of autonomy. And we believe that they can very easily find a resolution to that dispute.
As I understand the spirit of ubuntu, by definition it simply means “You are because I am”. That’s what it means. I don’t know how it becomes a factor in how applications for passports are processed. [Laughter.] I really don’t understand how the connection comes in, because anybody who seeks to travel to any country applies for a visa and, in our country, Home Affairs processes that application. I don’t see how that must be influenced by the spirit of ubuntu. Thank you. [Applause.]
Government’s position regarding preparations for referendum in Sudan
-
Dr G W Koornhof (ANC) asked the Deputy President:
What is the Government’s position with regard to the preparations for the referendum in Sudan on 9 January 2011? NO3707E
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Speaker. Hon Koornhof, we are reasonably satisfied that preparations for the referendum are progressing fairly well.
As the hon member is aware, Sudan was mired in conflict for many years. Through mediation efforts, mainly by the African Union, the main political parties signed the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement on 9 January 2005.
In terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the National Congress Party and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement agreed to work together to address the causes of conflict in different parts of the country. Indeed, the two parties have formed a government of national unity to govern the Sudan as a whole, whilst the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement also governs Southern Sudan. Part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is that a referendum be held to give the people of Southern Sudan the opportunity to decide whether to remain part of the Sudan or to secede. Thank you.
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Deputy President, for your answer. My question is: Will the President consider appointing a special envoy to Sudan to enable South Africa to contribute towards achieving a peaceful Sudanese referendum, reflecting the will of the people of Sudan? Secondly, could the Deputy President indicate what is the role of the African Union panel on Sudan in this regard?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Koornhof. The President has already appointed a special envoy in the person of former Minister Charles Nqakula, who has already been dispatched to Sudan.
The role of the African Union panel is to facilitate peace, particularly in the area of Darfur, which is not quite part of the South. Thank you.
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, I was just wondering exactly what South Africa’s involvement will be in the preparations, logistically and otherwise. Does it mean we will send members of the Independent Electoral Commission, the IEC, personnel or soldiers there or will it be in the form of other logistical assistance? Are we going to have to pay? What is it going to cost South Africa? If you do consider a second envoy, I suggest you send Dr Koornhof. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Speaker. As we all know, Sudan has just held elections and, therefore, the machinery that was set in motion to conduct the elections will also take charge of the referendum in the South. So, most of the logistical questions have already been addressed.
As a country, we would indeed assist if approached. In the past the Sudanese Electoral Commission had extensive discussions with our IEC and they drew a lot from the experience of the South African IEC. But, because this is a referendum, at best we can send observers to ensure that it is conducted in the spirit of peace. Thank you.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Deputy President, will the South African government support the will of the people in the government to organise the Sudanese referendum, where the Sudanese people will in peace, it is hoped, be able to decide for themselves whether they want to be part of one Sudan or not?
If their will is disregarded, what steps will the South African government take to ensure that their right to self-determination and to live and let live in the spirit of ubuntu is protected in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement proposed by the United Nations on this matter?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Trollip. This referendum is provided for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and the understanding of all parties is that the outcomes of this referendum must not ever lead to conflict, because they are part of the peace agreement and the operative word here is peace. Whatever the outcomes are, for instance if the South decides to secede, it is not going to be possible to take that part of the country and locate it elsewhere. They still have to live together as neighbours, at peace with each other, because there are still a number of outstanding issues that they will have to address. The possibility exists that, perhaps in the next hundred or two hundred years, they may want to reunite and form one country, if they do vote for secession. So, the outcomes, regardless, must serve to buttress peace in the region.
Mr L S NGONYAMA: Thank you, hon Deputy President. If, by some chance, a country could implement the prosecution of President al-Bashir, that would have an impact, one way or the other, on the process of the referendum. What is the position of South Africa on the prosecution of al-Bashir, and what should be the articulation by Members of Parliament, internally and externally, on this issue?
I also want to ask the Deputy President whether the government will be in a position to support a delegation from this Parliament to Sudan to assist in the process of the referendum. I thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Ngonyama. The position of the South African government is that we are part and parcel of the International Criminal Court, the ICC, and are therefore bound by the decisions of the ICC. We are also part of the African Union, and in this regard the AU asked for deferment of the prosecution of President al-Bashir in order to allow time for the AU panel, amongst other challenges, to find a resolution to the conflicts in the Darfur region. The AU’s position was premised on the understanding that it does not condone or promote impunity and that those who must face charges must face charges.
The only request that the AU made, which we subscribed to, was that time must be allowed for peace and stability to be obtained in the Darfur region. Whoever the ICC wishes to charge and whoever is identified as suspect for having perpetrated atrocities must face those charges.
I am not quite qualified to respond to the question of sending parliamentary committees and so on. I think the Members of Parliament and the Speaker can deal with that issue, and ours will be to facilitate. If the parliamentary team has been selected, we will issue you with passports and ensure that you travel safely to Sudan. Thank you.
Position regarding Government’s endeavour to create a nonracial South
Africa
-
Dr G W Koornhof (ANC) asked the Deputy President:
Whether the Government remains on course in its endeavour to create a nonracial South Africa which is premised on the principle that South Africa belongs to all who live in it? NO3708E
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker and hon members, we must continually reiterate that South Africa comprises people who originate from many parts of the world who have brought with them values and cultures that over the intervening years have been blended into one rich tapestry of diversity.
Perhaps our greatest challenge in this country is not merely striving to be tolerant of this diversity, but to actively explore it, engage with it, and ultimately to understand and harness it.
In this way, a central vision that defines the parameters of progressive and critical discourse is one that says we as South Africans are one people with one destiny. And, it is this galvanising vision that will sustain our spirit in the course of fighting poverty and inequality, and that will keep us as a people focused on building a nonracial future for all.
It, therefore, remains our collective responsibility to keep championing the vision of building a united, nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa. I thank you.
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, this will be the last question. Thank you, Deputy President, for your reply. I agree with you and I think so should every member of this House – that is, agree with your reply.
In your address during the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation lecture on 1 October 2010, you identified a few developments which are accountable for the dimming of our nonracial aspiration. My question, Deputy President, is: How do we redirect or reverse such developments to make our nonracial aspiration a flame that burns in every heart, so that we live out the wording on our national coat of arms of “unity in diversity”? I thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, hon Koornhof. There are a number of efforts that would have to be made in order for us to ensure that this vision of creating a nonracial society in our country is realised. Key among these are improving the education system -ensuring that we give access to education institutions, and ensuring that all of our messages, including the secondary messages, do not undermine this effort of attaining a nonracial society.
Through word and deed we must always be communicating the message that it is important for all of us to contribute towards the creation of a nonracial society. This is because many people in our country tend to emphasise points of difference, rather than the areas that bring us together as a people.
The richness in our diverse backgrounds and cultures is a strength that we must all appreciate and build on, rather than emphasise that we are different groups, we are different people with different interests, and so on. I think this requires an all-round ongoing effort because those who are conservative, and want to hang on to the past, will also latch on to opportunities, from time to time, to try to divide. But if those of us who have access to public platforms can utilise these platforms to communicate this message, I believe we will be able to succeed or to lay down a foundation, at least, for a truly nonracial society to be created in our country. Thank you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Mr Deputy President, one of the laws that fundamentally underpinned the apartheid government was the Population Registration Act. Now that had many consequences: we had to declare our race and that led to a divided society and a racialised society – and we know what the consequences are of that. Notwithstanding the fact that that law was repealed in 1991, why - if you really want unity, if you really want nonracialism - does government still insist that we declare our race on many applications that have to be made on official documents?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for that point. I think it’s a rather vexed question in the sense that we are in the early days of transition. Sixteen years is nothing; it will take 100 years for us to bridge this divide, because the material basis for discrimination was the expropriation of the land. That was the basis, and the consequences thereof we will live with for some time. That is why it is important that we strike the right balance, because we can very easily start on a new footing and pretend that all historical factors must be forgotten and that we are now this wonderful rainbow nation, and we move forward.
However, our Constitution is a transformative Constitution. It directs and inspires us to build this nonracial society on an ongoing basis, taking along everybody. We mustn’t steam far ahead of our people. You know, it would be very simple for government to declare, but we know now that social engineering doesn’t work like that. We know now that people have to create and grow to become a united people, and they must have a sense of belonging.
I want to cite one example. Recently, just before the Fifa World Cup tournament, the Blue Bulls qualified to play in the semi-finals and the finals of the Super 14. And because Loftus, which is their home base, had already been handed over to Fifa, they had to search for an alternative home ground. Orlando Stadium, which has been upgraded, met their demands, their requirements, and they saw that as an opportunity to go to Orlando Stadium. The provision of the physical infrastructure enabled them – because some of them had never been in a township - to integrate.
If we had addressed, for instance, the social and economic infrastructure needs in the underdeveloped and depressed parts of the country, we would have achieved provision of the physical infrastructure for integration, because then people would settle and move anywhere, enrol in schools anywhere, and so on. So there are these limitations that we have to take into account.
This was a bit of a peroration. Now, coming to the specific question, why is there insistence on race in registers? Why is that still the case? I suppose it is the easiest way of finding or getting the data that would speak to the demographics. The existence of different people or races is in itself not a problem; the problem is when it is used for chauvinism. The existence of tribes and so on is not a problem. It is when tribalism is elevated to policy that it then becomes a problem. That is why we say we appreciate the rich diversity of nationalities in South Africa as they are a strength of this country.
Many other nations look to South Africa to solve problems of racism because we are better positioned to do so. I believe that if it serves no useful purpose, we must discard it. If the underlying rationale is that it only serves to maintain the division and separation of people, then we must discard it. But I don’t think that’s the intention. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N SINGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Deputy President, we have to agree that we require an all-round and an ongoing effort to ensure and promote the principles of nonracialism in our country. Certainly, the Constitution and other pieces of legislation provide the broad framework and principles for us to achieve that.
However, Mr Deputy President, speaking as one who comes from the ground and links up with people when I’m in my constituency, we know very well that amongst the affluent and wealthy in this country we have little cause for racial tension as money is truly a great leveller of the playing field. A rich person of whatever colour who wants to buy a particular service will go and buy that service. However, we have a problem with the lower-level income groups where the causes of racial tension are the limited supplies in terms of employment and government assistance to the poor.
Whilst in health, education and social welfare arenas there is equality in the provision of services, my observation is that in the area of government- promoted job-creation opportunities and, in particular, the provision of state-assisted housing – the Minister of Housing is here – there is a reality which leads to tensions as only certain groups of our society qualify in the main for state-assisted housing.
Now, Mr Deputy President, this happens with those that live in informal settlements who get priority over the backyard dwellers and those who live under a joint family system in crowded … [Time expired.]
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Singh. As I understand it, the Ministry of Human Settlements is no longer in charge of the Reconstruction and Development Programme. It provides human settlements and therefore anybody who falls within a particular category can apply and they do qualify to access these houses. It’s no longer the case that the poorest of the poor found in informal settlements are black people only.
As I said in my last response here: I gave an example of what happened in Kroonstad where 70 white families moved into Marabastad – there were houses that were provided. They applied like everybody else, precisely because in terms of the means test they qualified and they were able to move into those houses.
The issue of people who move into informal settlements, jumping the queue ahead of the backyard dwellers, is a problem that the Ministry of Human Settlements is attending to, because they are also concerned with this phenomenon. I hope that a solution will be found. These are some of the problems that come with democracy and the removal of legal restrictions on the movements of people, because today people can move to the Western Cape and occupy a piece of land and before you know it they have applied, they are on the list, and so on. It may very well be that the same people have applied for a house in Mpumalanga and actually received it. These are some of the challenges that the Ministry of Human Settlements is attending to, and I hope that we will be able to find a solution to them. Thank you.
Mr L W GREYLING: Hon Deputy President, I’m sure you will agree that the building of a nonracial South Africa is a task that is not limited to government alone. It is something which we all need to be involved in, and we will be judged by our words and actions - not just by society at large – and, most importantly, by our political leaders.
In that regard, I was extremely shocked to hear over the weekend that the President of the ANC Youth League referred to the leader of the opposition as a cockroach that needs to be driven from her office. Surely, you would know, hon Deputy President, that this term is a weapon and is reminiscent of genocide and has absolutely no place in our political discourse. Given that, as we go into the election period, what measures will you be putting in place to ensure that such words and actions are not used to divide our population even further? I thank you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, hon Greyling. I do agree with you. In fact, I really don’t like the fact that, even though human beings are part of the animal kingdom, we tend to use other animals to insult each other. [Laughter.] I don’t like that because some of these animals are really good animals, although nobody takes offence when it is said you are a lion or a blue bull. [Laughter.]
So, in a manner of speaking, we should, of course – and I know that the Independent Electoral Commission does monitor this from time to time - not be disrespectful when we campaign and we must not use insulting language. We must put our points across without trying to demean each other. I also think the fact that the gentleman you alluded to referred to a good lady as a cockroach is a bad thing. I think it’s simply downright bad manners. Thank you. [Applause.]
GOVERNANCE
Cluster 3
MINISTERS:
Position regarding noncompliance of Strategic Plan for the Presidency with Treasury Regulation 5.2.3(d)
- The Leader of the Opposition (DA) asked the Minister in the Presidency - Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Administration:
(1) With reference to the comments made by the Auditor-General in
the Presidency’s 2009-10 Annual Report, why did the Strategic
Plan for the Presidency not include measurable objectives,
expected outcomes, programme outputs, indicators (measures) and
targets for all of his department’s programmes, as required by
Treasury Regulation 5.2.3(d);
(2) (a) why was the strategic plan signed off if it did not comply
with Treasury Regulation 5.2.3(d) and (b) who was responsible
for signing off on the strategic plan;
(3) whether any steps will be taken against the persons responsible;
if not, why not; if so, (a) what steps and (b) what are the
further relevant details;
(4) whether any steps have been taken to remedy these defects in the
Presidency’s strategic plan; if not, why not; if so, what steps?
NO3688E
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you, hon Speaker. In response to the first part of the question, the matter of inadequate content for the strategic plan was noted. In order to correct and remedy this inadequacy, plans were developed and approved in October 2009 using the same process that was adopted for the 2010-13 period.
In response to part (a) of the second part of the question, the strategic plan for 2009-12 was not signed off. A letter which was sent to Parliament, by the accounting officer, informed Parliament that there were no changes made to the strategic plan for 2008-09 to 2011-12. The letter further informed the House that a new plan would be submitted after the revised Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, of the Presidency which incorporates the new electoral mandate.
With regard to part three of the question, no steps were taken. The accounting officer is no longer in the employ of government. Secondly, with regard to the weaknesses which we have observed within the administration, processes are under way to build the capacity of our human resources to ensure that we are able to deal with the issues that we are supposed to deal with.
With regard to part four of the question, yes, steps have been taken to remedy the noted defects. Firstly, the Presidency has tabled a strategic plan for 2010-13, in Parliament, in compliance with Treasury Regulation 5(1)(1). The current strategic plan for 2010 to 2013 contains measurable objectives, expected outcomes, programme outputs, indicators and performance targets for the organisation in compliance with Treasury Regulation 5(2)(3)(d). Thank you.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Minister, the Presidency’s core responsibility is the implementation of government’s strategic agenda through planning, co-ordination, oversight and support. It is deeply ironic that the body tasked with driving government’s strategic objectives has failed, as per the Auditor-General, to develop a coherent strategic plan of its own. Your explanation of a strategic plan straddling one year to the next displays a serious paucity of ideas about what you need to do. It also exposes fundamental deficiencies in government’s most powerful department, and highlights a need for greater oversight of the Presidency.
The Presidency should be setting an example for the rest of government. However, despite the Presidency’s alleged numerous initiatives to improve accountability and oversight of government, it has not applied the same measures to itself.
My question to you, hon Minister, is this: What steps are being taken to ensure that the Presidency is held to account and is subject to the same degree of oversight as all the other government departments? How far has the proposal tabled by the DA to establish a Presidency portfolio oversight committee progressed? The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATION: As we said, we are in the process of improving governance, and not only in the Presidency, in order to fulfil the responsibility to provide support to government administration, and we are doing that. As for progress with regard to the proposal by the DA to establish an oversight committee, that cannot be an issue of the Presidency; it is an issue of Parliament. I think that question should be posed to the Speaker.
Mr T BOTHA: Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Is government annually issuing an updated checklist of the Public Finance Management Act requirements, Treasury Regulations and Public Service Regulations to ensure that those who sign off on the strategic plans, and other similar documents, acknowledge, in writing, that all the essential requirements listed on the checklist were fully complied with and ticked off accordingly? This would mean, therefore, that the person who signs off could be held personally liable if the Auditor-General found otherwise. Alternatively, are government annual review issues updated per PFMA requirements, Treasury Regulations and Public Service Regulations?
What systems are being followed to ensure that those who sign or sign off on strategic plans and other similar documents comply fully with these laws and are accordingly held personally liable if found out by any audit being undertaken by the Auditor-General? Thank you.
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - PERFORMANCE MONITORING, EVALUATION AND ADMINISTRATION: Hon Botha, as a former director-general yourself, I think you are quite aware of the challenges that the administration is facing. I am sure that even you, when you were still a director-general, might have contravened that area. Nevertheless, as you would see in the audit reports of various institutions in government, there are challenges with regard to compliance with the various regulations and laws which we are supposed to comply with in the work that we do.
We are working closely with the Auditor-General and other institutions to improve the systems in government. We have indicated that, after the performance delivery agreements have been agreed upon and signed off, our next task is to team up with institutions that are relevant to provide support to government to ensure that we improve government systems and service delivery outputs as quickly as we can.
That process has commenced and, it is hoped, we should be able to begin to implement it, if everything goes well, by the beginning of the next financial year. Obviously, it is going to take a bit of time, but we hope that we will be able to make an impact in the shortest possible time. Thank you.
Position regarding mechanism to measure impact made by municipal
infrastructure grant spending 223. Mr A J Williams (ANC) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance
and Traditional Affairs:
1) Whether his department has any mechanism to measure the impact
made by the municipal infrastructure grant (MIG) spending; if
not, why not; if so, (a) what mechanism and (b) what is the form
of this impact;
(2) (a) how much money has not been spent by municipalities who
received MIG funds and (b) what is his department doing to
ensure that this does not occur in the 2011-12 financial year?
NO3686E
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Deputy Speaker, yes, we do have the mechanisms and instruments regarding what has been raised in terms of the municipal infrastructure grant, the MIG.
The other question is about how we measure the impact. There are two things that we look at. One, we go to the people on the ground and check whether - as intended beneficiaries - they see a difference, and whether the quality of their lives has been improving. That’s the first thing that we do. The second thing is to look at whether the backlogs that are there, in terms of infrastructure development, are being dealt with and addressed. Those are the two things that we look at.
The second question raises an issue around how much money was not spent on the MIG. As of June 2010, R926 million was not spent. Now, the question that is being raised is: What interventions are we undertaking as a department? The first intervention is to give support to municipalities. The second intervention is to ensure that we deploy experts to assist where there is a shortage of skills, particularly of engineers. However, what we find a challenge is the lack of forward planning. People don’t plan projects on time so that when the money comes - the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework is for three years – the projects aren’t ready. People don’t do that. Therefore we are dealing with that issue; we are addressing it.
However, we believe that we are supposed to look at the long-term solutions. Something we are coming up with is a special purpose vehicle: a centralised structure at the national level that is going to ensure that whether you are in Messina or Johannesburg, you can get the same services at the basic level. We will be able to assist struggling municipalities that are not able to do that.
We believe that in the coming years the issue of the unspent MIG will be something of the past. But we are going beyond that. We are saying that the grants that are given to municipalities in South Africa are too many, unco- ordinated and disorganised. Therefore we will be co-ordinating the grants in the way they are supposed to be done to ensure that there is a single window where things will be undertaken. That is what we are doing as a way of addressing this issue. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker.
Mr A J WILLIAMS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, the ANC is asking these questions because we are concerned not only about the money that is being spent but also about the quality of the spend. It is important that MIG funds are spent on the actual infrastructure on the ground. Therefore, Minister, what is going to happen to the unspent MIG funds? Are they going to be channelled to the poorest municipalities?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Deputy Speaker, the first thing we agreed not to change relates to when a municipality has not spent, and you take that money and give it to another municipality. It means the people of that area will remain perpetually poor and underdeveloped. Our view is that we must deal with the problem, roll up our sleeves and ensure that we remove the obstacles and blockages there. Therefore, in that respect, we do not want to shift funds. We want to ensure that the people who were intended to benefit do benefit.
Quality spend is what we are talking about when we talk about the impact. That is: Is it doing what it is supposed to be doing? We have found that in some areas people are using the money for operational costs, and we are dealing with those things. In some areas you find that the quality that is there is not satisfactory and we are intervening in those areas. In some areas you find that people are doing extremely well. In fact, in the majority of areas people are doing very well. Therefore all those areas and issues are being dealt with and addressed. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker.
Mr J R B LORIMER: Deputy Speaker, would the Minister agree that when municipalities fail to spend any of their municipal infrastructure grants, it is the poor who suffer the most, and that the 10 ANC-run municipalities which failed to spend even 1% of their grant have failed the poor?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Well, I don’t want to politicise development because there are DA-led municipalities that are performing very poorly … [Interjections.] … extremely poorly. Therefore I want us to talk about development. Anybody who is not spending what has been given is not assisting the poor, irrespective of political parties. I am saying: Let’s agree that development must not be politicised. Let us focus on what has to be done. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr T BOTHA: Hon Minister, the special purpose vehicle that you referred to seems not to have a budget and the SA Local Government Association, Salga, believes that this is actually encroaching on the role of the district councils. How are you going to proceed with this body if you have opposition from Salga and do not have the budget for it to implement its task?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Deputy Speaker, on 2 December 2009 Cabinet approved the Local Government Turnaround Strategy which includes, amongst other things, the special purpose vehicle. Salga has been part of that. I do not understand why people suffer when there is money that, at times, is not spent, and sometimes when people build infrastructure, you find that they build “Bermudas”. A Bermuda is trousers that do not reach where it is supposed to. [Laughter.]
When government is trying to assist the poor by intervening and ensuring that infrastructure everywhere in South Africa is at the same level and Salga says that it is wrong – something which I don’t believe they said - that is not helping the country. Government and Cabinet have taken a decision, and all of us must toe the line and implement it. Even Salga is going to implement what government has taken a decision on. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Prof C T MSIMANG: Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, the reason – in most cases – that the MIG funds are not used is the lack of capacity. As a result, many of the municipalities then engage consultants. A lot of money that should go towards making an impact on the project then ends up in the pockets of these consultants. What is the department doing to capacitate the municipalities so that they can spend better? Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the same message is going to be conveyed to the IFP-led municipalities because when the national or provincial government comes, they resist. They say: “This is our territory and we can’t allow the ANC to come here; we want to run these things on our own.” We would be happy if the same issues that are raised at this level are taken to the ground so that your message sinks in with your members in municipalities.
However, having said that, the issue of building capacity is what we are focusing on. We have been involved in an audit of skills across South Africa so that we know where to intervene and where not to. We have taken a decision through the Local Government Turnaround Strategy that municipalities must have at least six positions: the municipal manager, the chief financial officer, the town planner, the town engineer, a person who deals with communication, and a person who deals with human resources. The intention is to ensure that we address these ills and shortage of skills in municipalities so that delivery can happen and there is an improvement in our people’s lives. Thank you very much.
Position regarding inclusion of terms of turnaround strategy in municipal budgets
-
Mr S L Tsenoli (ANC) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs: [Standing over in terms of Rule 115]
Whether his department has assessed if municipal budgets included the terms of the turnaround strategy; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO2513E
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the issue of the turnaround strategies being adopted by municipalities, I can assure you that many municipalities, if not all, have adopted the issues of turnaround strategies that are specific to their areas, integrated with the Integrated Development Plan, IDPs, because we said municipalities must have their own specific turnaround strategies as from the beginning of the year. Therefore, from our point of view, we believe that the budgets that were implemented from 1 July were based on the turnaround strategies.
However, the area that is still very weak, which we believe must be addressed in years to come, is the consciousness of our communities. They must know that they must ensure that municipalities are turned around and that the municipalities are their own entities. They must ensure that they have an interest in whatever happens at that level and they must make a contribution. That is what is happening in relation to that. We hope to deepen that consciousness as we go forward. Thank you.
Mr S L TSENOLI: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, thank you very much for that response. How much co-operation is received from provincial departments who have a contribution to make to those specific municipal turnaround strategies, especially the provincial departments of public works who pay rentals to municipalities?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the issue of provincial departments, I must say that the bag is varied and mixed. Mpumalanga, for example, has already signed the delivery agreement and performance agreement between the MEC and all municipalities in Mpumalanga - between the MEC, the mayors and also the municipal managers. That tells you what happens, but it is not the same in other provinces.
Therefore, provinces play a supporting role in these issues because they are supposed to be driven by them at that level. Our task at a national level is to give support to provinces and to municipalities.
In relation to co-operation of these departments, particularly the Department of Public Works, with the payment of municipalities, I must say that it is still a challenge. Municipalities are being owed by provincial governments and national government, particularly the departments that are involved.
What we are finalising, which I hope will be finalised before the end of this month, is to disaggregate the debt. We want to establish who owes who, so that we can ask provincial departments, provincial government, national departments, and national government to pay. You cannot afford to say you are supporting yourselves as government through municipalities and undermine yourself at the same time by not paying the bills that are supposed to be paid to municipalities. Therefore, the situation of payments is still a big challenge. Thank you.
Mrs M WENGER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you agree, Minister, that the turnaround strategy can only succeed if the necessary funding and skills are made available? Unfortunately, district municipalities in provinces have failed ailing municipalities in the past. Where is the Minister going to find the additional competence and skills to assist these ailing municipalities, and what steps are being taken to source these scarce skills?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, we are very glad that you are raising that question about the skills. We are concluding the auditing of the shortage of skills in municipalities because the information and the data that were there were not too reliable. What is going to happen thereafter? We have engaged and we are engaging with the Department of the Public Service and Administration, the DPSA, to look at what they have done and where their engineers that they utilise are. Similarly, we are talking to engineering organisations and doing all that we think is important to be done.
We are looking at and engaging with the planning fraternity. We are also speaking to the Auditor-General. We were shocked and dismayed when we found that the Auditor-General had the capacity of over 900 finance people, who could be deployed in municipalities. These are people who are graduating and who are doing their final internships in the Auditor-General’s office that we can use. I believe that in the short term, we have the skills. The issue is the deployment of skills and the utilisation of those skills going forward.
We are categorising municipalities because municipalities in South Africa are not on the same level, have not developed the same way, and their needs, conditions and objectives on the ground are not the same. Therefore, we must know which ones require extensive support and assistance, which ones require less support and so on. Having done that, we will then be able to say which ones we must deploy and what capacity is required. We believe that we are equal to the task. We will be able to do that and ensure that it is undertaken.
Provinces and districts might not have helped a lot or the help might have been varied and different, but we are doing these interventions at a national level as a short-term measure. We believe that provinces, in terms of the Constitution and the laws, are supposed to play the supportive role, the monitoring role and the intervention role when things are not going well. For now, we believe that we are going to address the issues that are being raised. Thank you.
Mr L S NGONYAMA: Hon Minister, you are public record as stating that 95% of the 283 municipalities had developed municipal turnaround strategies. Furthermore, you indicated that these municipal turnaround strategies will ensure optimal co-operation among the different spheres of government. If that is so, has the provincial government, on the one hand, and the national government, on the other, closely interrogated these plans to ensure sound planning in the co-ordination of action at all levels of government, effectiveness of budgeting and legitimacy of procurement processes that are to be utilised? If not, why not; if so, what are the details?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will forgive my colleague there for raising issues of procurement now, which are not supposed to be asked here, but you could hear that somebody said: Ask these questions. I will be able to respond to those issues. What is happening is that it is true that we have raised issues, as you put them across. With the development of these turnaround strategies, we deployed across the country our own officials, working with the officials of provinces, so that they can assist, in each and every municipality, with the development of these strategies. When they were developed, there was no need to double check whether they are speaking to our needs, because the three spheres of government, at a conceptual initial stage in the development, were part of the process. Therefore, when these matters were developed, we were happy about them.
However, the issue of procurement is a big challenge and a big issue because that is where corruption happens – at the procurement level. We have agreed with the National Treasury that we are working on amending the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act and also on ensuring that the procurement process of supply chain is addressed. At times, people take even the policies that are there, put them aside, take the law, put it aside and decide ngendlela yesintu ukuthi [in an African way] that we are now going to do this thing in this way. We want to ensure that all those practices are uprooted and dealt with. Thank you.
Prof C T MSIMANG: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, we are happy that members of your department went to the municipalities to help them in drafting these turnaround strategies. However, we still want to know whether these strategies are credible. We ask these questions because municipalities did get help in drawing up their IDPs, but these were still found not to be credible. As a result, they were never implemented. Therefore, we would like to know whether there has been any assessment with regard to credibility. Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the colleague heard when I was responding to hon Ngonyama umphumela [with the results]. When we were developing these municipal turnaround strategies, they were done by the three spheres of government in each and every municipality. Therefore, we are satisfied with the credibility.
The issue that is still a concern is the involvement of the people and the ownership of these turnaround strategies by the people. If a municipality veers off, in terms of what is expected, people can intervene and say: Come back into line in terms of what we are doing. That is the only concern. But, in relation to credibility, we are happy. We hope that in the intervening years we will be able to ensure that the people are part of it. We deepen democracy in a real sense. Thank you.
Position regarding aims of Clean Audit Campaign and achievement thereof
-
Mr W P Doman (DA) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs: [Standing over in terms of Rule 115]
(a) What were the aims of the Clean Audit Campaign for its first year since its inception and (b) which of these aims have been achieved? NO2523E
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will mention things that we said we want to achieve. One of them is to ensure that provinces and municipalities receive a clean audit by 2014. As a provincial government, we are very happy to say that the Western Cape is our first achievement in ensuring that it is possible to receive a clean audit. Yes, your Western Cape has received a clean audit as a province.
However, there are still challenges in municipalities even in the Western Cape, and we are working on that. That is the first thing we are happy about. When we set the targets for clean audits we said that we wanted to launch the programme nationally and provincially in all provinces, which was successfully achieved.
At the same time, we wanted to create provincial co-ordinating committees that will continue to drive these processes, even when we are gone, so that they are owned by these provincial structures in which the Auditor-General, provincial treasuries, provincial co-operative governance and traditional affairs departments, the premiers’ offices, the SA Local Government Association, Salga, and the Development Bank of Southern Africa are supposed to participate. The ambassadors of Operation Clean Audit, people who have achieved clean audits, must be able to share their own experiences in those structures so that we are able to ensure that best practices are emulated by other municipalities.
The other thing we want to achieve is to ensure that from now onwards we avoid the issue of municipalities which don’t submit their financial statements to the Auditor-General three months after the financial year has ended. We believe that to a certain degree about 95% have been received from the municipalities. Thank you.
Mr W P DOMAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, the three Cs are the problem with audits: cadre deployment, capacity and corruption. The human resources manager in Nelson Mandela Bay was dismissed after the controversial purchase of golf shirts at R560 apiece, but left with a golden handshake and later emerged as municipal manager at the Sundays River Valley Municipality. He was again dismissed after multiple charges of tender irregularities, but was later reinstated by the province. However, the dismissal was confirmed by the courts. Now the Eastern Cape has appointed him to lead Operation Clean Audit. [Interjections.] How can Operation Clean Audit succeed with people like this leading it, Minister?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the first thing is that we have taken a decision as a department that any person who is about to be charged cannot be allowed to resign. It means one must face the consequences of one’s actions. Secondly, we have taken a decision that when there are allegations against one, one must not be paid a golden handshake. We have stopped that in many municipalities.
Therefore, what we are raising is that those two practices have been eliminated. The person who is leading Operation Clean Audit in the Eastern Cape will check the facts. We will be able to look at that and begin to deal with it.
However, on the matter of cadre deployment, that is done by all parties, including your party, hon Doman. I have the minutes of when people campaigned for your elections and you said you wanted to compensate them; you wanted to pay them by deploying them here in this municipality. Now, because they were campaigners - we are going to give you the information if you want it - we are saying it is not correct when you argue that cadre deployment is done by only one party.
I think we must agree that all of us, as parties - who are governing and who might have the potential to govern - don’t accept the issue of cadre deployment. However, cadre deployment in a way is a concept and there is nothing wrong with it, as long as you deploy capable people and on merit.
We must discuss and agree upon governance principles, and they must be followed by everyone, irrespective of party, when one governs a particular institution of the state. Thank you. [Applause.]
Nkosi Z M D MANDELA: Camagu, ndiyabulela Somlomo kakhulu ngeli thuba endilifumanayo. Le nto ibuzwa lilungu elibekekileyo, ubawo uDoman icace okwekati emhlophe ehlungwini. Uyibuza njani ibhasi ibhaliwe? (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Nkosi Z M D MANDELA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity. What the hon Doman is asking is crystal clear. How could you ask such an obvious question?]
This is an obvious question, a campaign which is intended to create clean governance and which the ANC fully supports. Deputy Speaker, through you to the hon Minister, my question is therefore: What other additional measures are in place to make the Clean Audit Campaign a success and sustainable? Camagu. [Thank you.]
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the most important thing when one does anything is to allow the users, the operators, to own the campaign. That means that municipalities must be able to own it. The first thing we believe must done by the municipalities is to establish municipal public accounts committees so that politicians can be empowered and able to ensure that they ask the right questions of the administration in terms of accountability.
The second thing is to ensure that capable and competent people in the finance section are employed. Thirdly, the audit committees, which are structures of people coming from outside, must be established to be able to do their work in municipalities. The audits and risk units must be in place. From our point of view, we believe that those things will assist in ensuring that all municipalities deal with the issues.
The question we are faced with is: Can we establish municipal public accounts committees now, on the eve of the elections, or do we wait for the elections to take place next year and then establish these structures? It is a vexing question. We are still dealing with it, but we believe that we will be able to find the answer and be able to take a particular view on what has to be done. In that way we believe that these matters are going to be dealt with and that the additional managers I have been requested to employ will be in their positions. Thank you.
Mr N SINGH: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, the whole concept of a clean audit campaign was one which was wholly and heartily supported by everybody who listened to you. You have mentioned the question of municipal public accounts committees, MPACs. I know I can ask you how many of these have been established and you may say, “Put it in writing and I’ll give you an answer.” However, I also know, hon Minister, that you have a hands-on approach in your department and that you will be able to answer the question.
What do you think about the establishment of MPACs? And, maybe, hon Minister, we shouldn’t wait. Local government elections may be in May or June, but circumstances could postpone them. I think we should expedite the establishment of municipal public accounts committees so that monitoring and evaluation can take place in these municipalities before the term of office expires. I would like your comment on that. Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be able to tell the officials and the Deputy Minister that the matter has been raised; we have been asked and there have been pleadings that we establish these municipal public accounts committees before the elections, and we will take your views forward. Thank you.
Mr W P DOMAN: Deputy Speaker, I think a big problem is that a lot of municipalities have paid no regard to competence. They have a lot of power and appoint just who they want to. I want to ask the hon Minister: How far is his department in issuing regulations so that we at least have minimum requirements for financial positions so that we can get clean audits in the end?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon Doman, you will recall that a party in a province - I don’t want to mention names - when regulations were developed in 2006, employed a person who had only passed Standard 4 to be a municipal manager. This person was a taxi driver and had no experience in municipal issues. When the MEC challenged this, the party went to court and the regulations were found to be unlawful.
Now what we are doing to address that problem is to introduce the Local Government: Municipal Systems Amendment Bill in which we will be able to address the weaknesses that were raised by the court. This means if there are managers who employ unskilled people, the MEC can intervene. If the MEC doesn’t intervene within 14 days, the Minister will intervene. The Bill was in Parliament with the portfolio committee, which took it to Nedlac, and Nedlac was supposed to give a report at the end of last month.
Therefore, we have done our part. We have introduced the Bill and we are ready to roll out the regulations once the law is passed to ensure that we address this very same question. Hon Doman, you can ask yourself as a parliamentarian. Thank you.
Position regarding formulation and implementation of national
anticorruption strategy
-
Mr L Ramatlakane (Cope) asked the Minister for the Public Service and Administration:
Whether his department has (a) formulated a national anticorruption strategy and (b) begun to implement this strategy across the whole spectrum of government; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO3698E
The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Hon Deputy Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that there is a Public Service Anticorruption Strategy that provides a mechanism for fighting corruption in the Public Service, which was approved by Cabinet in 2002. The strategy encourages an integrated and coherent approach in the fight against corruption with elements of prevention, detection and combating.
The strategy contains nine considerations, which are: review and consolidation of the legislative framework; increased institutional capacity; improved access to reporting wrongdoing and protection of whistle- blowers and witnesses; the prohibition of corrupt individuals and businesses; improved management policies and practices; managing professional ethics; partnerships with stakeholders; social analysis research and policy advocacy; and awareness training and education.
With regard to the implementation, the answer is yes. The process of implementation across the spectrum has actually commenced. I want to stress that this is actually so in all three key sectors that are party to the development of the strategy, which are the government, business and civil society. Thank you very much.
Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Thank you very much, Minister, for the reply. I want to know if out of that the strategy has been implemented. You will remember that the Public Service Commission report cited that over R600 million was appropriated by officials in various departments, including those that were in state employment.
With regard to the implementation, what is it that we can say tangibly on the recovery rate, with respect to the money we have found that has been siphoned off by officials? Can we say that we’ve recovered that money, or how many cases can we say we have already referred to the police? Are they now in the process of recovering this money in terms of the strategy?
How many officials from local government are beginning to report, in terms of the Treasury regulations, those who have been at least confirmed to have been involved in corruption or corrupt practices at a local level? What are the statistics that can be shown in those categories or areas in terms of real implementation and results? We all support the strategy. I thank you.
The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. What you said is true, hon Ramatlakane; the Public Service Commission submitted a report which talks to quite a number of areas. It is clear that one thing we must do is take steps to deal with all those issues. If I were to come to the issue of statistics - I wish this question was based on that - I would have provided statistics.
However, the reality is that, in different departments, there are actions and cases that are being taken in terms of which public servants, who find themselves in violation of the code of conduct and who have committed acts of misconduct, are being dealt with across the three spheres and in all government departments. It is just that the question of statistics requires one to raise only those things. If the question was based on that, one would be in a position to deal decisively with that.
It is very clear, as we as government indicated, that whereas we note what we do in all sectors and all the departments, we are not complacent and we do not say it’s enough to do that; hence we bring about ways of making sure that there is a co-ordinated effort in as far as the question of dealing with such acts of corruption is concerned. We have policies and strategies, but we have indicated that that is not enough. What is actually called for is action. Thank you very much.
Ms A M DREYER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister, as expected, mentioned the various anticorruption strategies that have been announced over the years and anticorruption units that have been instituted. But what did the Public Service Commission find?
Firstly, they found that offenders do not have to pay the money back and that criminal charges are not laid. In other words, offenders get away with misdemeanours. Moreover, according to the Public Service Commission, over the past two financial years the cost of financial misconduct has risen by 78%. Minister, why don’t you insist that criminal charges be laid against offenders and that they pay the stolen money back?
The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Dreyer is very clear, of course, in that today the Public Service Commission gave the report to the portfolio committee on the investigation it conducted and the findings it made and so on. We will actually subject that report to discussion and it is then that we will go into details because there are recommendations that are in the report. With regard to the point of taking action, that’s exactly what we are insisting on. We are working closely with the Special Investigating Unit and law-enforcement agencies to make it a point that where violations and corrupt acts are actually committed that action must be taken.
We are not saying that we are waiting for that stage. At government level, that corruption is the highest level of a situation in which public servants find themselves on the other side of the disciplinary code, but it starts right from the question of ethics.
That is why we then say that we need to nip it in the bud, so we don’t have to wait for that. We appreciate that the law-enforcement agencies are actually doing their best. However, we also say that at the public service level, in terms of implementation, we need to make sure that we use the strategy to deal with issues related to various forms of manifestations of corruption as they arise and also prevent the corruption. Thank you very much.
Mrs J C MOLOI-MOROPA: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, in line with the anticorruption outline that you have already given and the practical implementation of the anticorruption strategy campaigned by government and all other institutions, is there any practical implementation that you can outline to this House, with a specific indication of how you are dealing with Sector Education and Training Authorities, Setas, in areas that show wrongdoing? Thank you.
The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Hon Deputy Speaker, the question by the hon Moloi indicates specific actions that we are taking, with specific reference to Setas, if I heard the question clearly. What we do is clearly as instructed - as you would remember – in that that area is one of the areas where talk of corruption is rife and high.
We have instructed the board to deal with issues related to investigating the environment to find out what is going on and for action to be taken. As we speak now, there are disciplinary hearings going on, where we have even senior managers from that area being brought to book and having to account for the actions they have taken.
This is one of the practical ways of showing our zero tolerance of corruption, and it is not just rhetorical, but a commitment in that we are actually prepared to walk the talk. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Position regarding challenges identified by demarcation process with regard to 2011 local government elections
- Ms D G Nhlengethwa (ANC) asked the Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs: [Standing over in terms of Rule 115]
With regard to the 2011 local government elections, (a) what
challenges have been identified by the demarcation process and (b) how
are these challenges being dealt with by the relevant stakeholders?
NO2514E
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to respond regarding the issues of demarcations, in relation to inner and outer boundaries in preparation for elections, in many areas we addressed. There were two late requests in the North West, Matlosana, in which the area called Molopo raised the issue that it was not happy with the merger of those municipalities. One municipality has a population of about 6 000 people. It is called a municipality because of the past. Kagisano and Molopo are very small areas. They raised these issues very late in terms of the preparations for elections.
The other area was Mangaung in the Free State where it was felt that they were not ready to be made a metro because there were areas that must be addressed. Even at that level - in August when the wards were supposed to be submitted by 1 September to the Independent Electoral Commission, the IEC, for the IEC to do its work submitted by the Demarcation Board - it became clear that it couldn’t happen because that condition could not be met.
Areas that we believe are not related to local government elections, but that can destabilise if they are not handled, are cross-boundary areas or areas where people want to move from one province to the other: Ga-Mothibi, Balfour, Moutse and Matatiele. Those are the areas that we believe need to be attended to and be addressed soonest, so that when we go to the elections, there won’t be challenges and problems. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms D G NHLENGETHWA: Hon Minister, thank you for your response. With all the processes undergone that you have mentioned and the stakeholders’ involvement through the continual communication with the affected communities, could the Minister assure the House that people now understand all those processes, that there is stability, and that people are ready to register in preparation for the 2010 local government elections? I thank you.
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say that to me there is an issue when you deal with demarcation, because that affects people’s lives. The consciousness of the communities is supposed to be built so that they are able to contribute in terms of which area they want to fall under and for what reasons. Public representatives, parliamentarians, members of provincial legislatures and councillors must be mobilised because they have constituencies where they are able to assist in the building of consciousness.
I cannot stand here and say that everybody in South Africa is happy where these demarcations have been made and that the process went very well. I would be misleading this House if I said so. What I can say is that from our point of view, reasonable work has been done, and the wards have increased from 3 895 to 4 277 and have been handed over to the IEC. Today the IEC handed over the maps to the leaders of parties.
Therefore, we are on course, providing we can address a few areas. However, I don’t think that the South African nation has managed to be on board in dealing with the issues of demarcation. I think it is an area that we must address, that we must ensure we improve on in years to come. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr J R B LORIMER: Madam Deputy Speaker, during the demarcation process there was an admirable degree of consensus and consultation, but this stopped when the first maps came out in July, and thereafter there was no consultation with all affected parties on changes brought about by objections. Could the Minister tell us why there was no consultation between July and September?
The MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member, my colleague, knows very well that the Demarcation Board is independent and I cannot tell them what to do and what not to do. My task is to ensure that we give support and that we are able to perform our oversight role. However, I must say that we, as the department, are not happy with the way some areas have conducted themselves. We are raising an issue of demarcation. Why should South Africa be demarcated every five years? It changes everything because things must be realigned all the time; even the political parties get affected when they must change their structures and so on. We believe that the issue of demarcation is something that this nation must debate, but not only that. Do we need a structure so big with a board to deal with the issue of demarcation?
That question is an issue that has to be debated and looked at. Now I can say to you, colleague, that on the issue of consultation, the Demarcation Board says it has done that, but there are areas where we believe they are not happy. We cannot tell them what to do because they are independent. I think that all of us must agree that we have to review the issue of demarcation in South Africa and ensure that it assists with planning, service delivery, stability, and the credibility of what we do. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M M SWATHE: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DA:
That the House debates the role of the private security industry in South Africa and comes up with measures to ensure that this industry is appropriately regulated to ensure that it contributes to the overall goal of providing safety and security to all South Africans.
Mr M S F DE FREITAS: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DA:
That the House debates the reasons why Transnet Rail Freight should fall under the Department of Transport and the advantages of doing so.
Mrs L E YENGENI: Hon Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the challenges surrounding employment equity, particularly with regard to the fishing industry.
Mr S E KHOLWANE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the establishment of the national youth radio stations according to the Triple Inquiry Report adopted by this House.
Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Deputy Speaker, I herby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of Cope:
That the House debates the tenders, corruption, irregularities and the role of Bosasa within the Department of Correctional Services.
Mrs F F MUSHWANA: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the expansion of school feeding schemes to all deserving high schools and improving the implementation of the feeding schemes to all deserving primary schools.
Mr A M FIGLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DA:
That the House debates the underspending of the budget of the Department of Human Settlements, its effect on service delivery and the need to improve capacity in the provincial governments with regard to the provision of housing.
Mr G LEKGETHO: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the upgrading of police stations, especially in rural communities, and aligning the demarcation of police stations with local government demarcations.
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN JAPAN AND SOUTH AFRICA
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House —
(1) notes that Japan/South Africa centennial celebrations are taking place this year;
(2) further notes that these celebrations mark 100 years of diplomatic relations between Japan and South Africa;
(3) recognises that Japan and South Africa interact through various bilateral and multilateral forums and that there are regular ministerial level discussions on issues of trade, investment, economic co-operation and cultural matters; and
(4) conveys its gratitude to the government of Japan for 100 years of excellent bilateral relations. Agreed to.
SOUTH AFRICA’S SUCCESS IN ASTRONOMICAL FIELD
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House —
(1) notes that the South African Astronomical Observatory has successfully modified the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT), the largest optical telescope in the southern hemisphere, ahead of its recommissioning early in 2011;
(2) further notes that SALT is South Africa’s trailblazer in large- scale international astronomical partnerships and will be the testing ground for best practice in cost-efficient collaborations and leading-edge astronomical research;
(3) acknowledges that SALT will complement the ground-breaking radio astronomy expected from MeerKAT, near Carnarvon in the Northern Cape, which is the demonstrator project so essential to South Africa’s bid to host the world’s largest telescope, the Square Kilometre Array; (4) congratulates the South African Astronomical Observatory’s staff at SALT on repairing, onsite, the telescope’s unique and highly specialized spherical aberration corrector, thus proving that South Africa has a wealth of exceptional technical skills that are equal to the best in the world; and
(5) further congratulates SALT and MeerKAT and the HESS gamma-ray telescope in Namibia for giving South Africa an outstanding opportunity to establish its international reputation in the field of multiwavelength astronomy.
Agreed to.
MAKHAYA NTINI’S RETIREMENT FROM INTERNATIONAL CRICKET
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House —
(1) notes the announcement by South African cricketer Makhaya Ntini of his retirement from international cricket;
(2) recognises that Ntini holds the South African records for the best bowling figures in test cricket, a match return of 13/132 versus the West Indies in Trinidad in 2005, in ODI cricket and of the most 10-wicket hauls in tests and that he is also the only South African bowler to take 10 wickets in a test match at the Mecca of cricket, the famous Lord’s cricket grounds in London; and
(3) wishes Makhaya Ntini well in his future endeavours.
Agreed to.
INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR PREVENTING THE EXPLOITATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN WAR AND ARMED CONFLICT
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House —
(1) notes that Saturday, 6 November, marks the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict;
(2) further notes that this day was initiated by the United Nations in 2001 to raise global awareness of the effects of armed conflict on ecosystems and natural resources;
(3) acknowledges the efforts by the United Nations, its member states and all other role-players that strive to include the plight of the environment in measures to prevent conflict; and
(4) calls upon all nations to do their part in furthering this cause.
Agreed to.
ACADEMY OF SCIENCE FOR SOUTH AFRICA ANNUAL AWARDS
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House —
(1) notes that the Academy of Science for South Africa (ASSAf) annually awards up to two ASSAf Science-for-Society Gold Medals for outstanding achievement in science that benefits society and that ASSAf is the official national Academy of Science which represents the country in the international community of science academies;
(2) further notes that Professor Hildebrandt from Wits University received the Science-for-Society Gold Medal, was the recipient of the 2009 African Union Scientific Award, winner of the 2009 Woman Scientist of the Year Award and the co-recipient of the ASSAf award along with Professor Eugene Cloete; and
(3) congratulates Professor Diane Hildebrandt on receiving the highest honour awarded by ASSAf for her exceptional contribution to the field of science.
Agreed to.
SOUTH AFRICAN GOLFER LEE-ANNE PACE WINS FITH LADIES EUROPEAN TITLE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House —
(1) notes that on Sunday, South African golfer Lee-Anne Pace won the 2010 Ladies European title, her fith such title, by being victorious in the Suzhou Taihu Ladies Open in China;
(2) further notes that with victories in Switzerland, Wales, Finland and the recently held Sanya Open in China, Pace now tops the renowned Henderson Money List;
(3) acknowledges that Pace is not only one of the greatest icons of South African women’s golf, but is also internationally respected as an acclaimed professional golfer; and
(4) congratulates Pace on her astounding performance and wishes her the best of luck for all upcoming events.
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at 17:19. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
-
Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159
1) Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Amendment Bill, 2010, submitted by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.
Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development.
-
Introduction of Bills
(1) The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
a) Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of
Communication-related Information Amendment Bill [B 38 – 2010]
(National Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of
Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
Government Gazette No 33719 of 29 October 2010.]
b) Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 39 – 2010] (National
Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 33619 of 7 October 2010.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Justice
and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly, as
well as referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification
of the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three
parliamentary working days.
National Assembly
The Speaker
- Withdrawal of letter on vacancy in Public Service Commission (PSC)
The letter dated 25 October 2010 from the President of the Republic,
informing the National Assembly of the expiry of the term of office of
the chairperson of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and requesting
the House to proceed to fill the vacancy, is hereby withdrawn. (See
Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p 3360)
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Finance
a) Amendments to Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Control
Regulation, 2002 in terms of section 77 of the Financial
Intelligence Centre Act, 2001 (Act No. 38 of 2001).
b) Amendments to Schedule 1 of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act,
2001 (Act No. 38 of 2001).
c) Amendments to Schedule 2 of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act,
2001 (Act No. 38 of 2001).
2. The Minister of Police
a) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on Police Cooperation,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
National Assembly
- The Speaker
Report in pursuance of a House resolution on 26 May 2010 on the
implementation of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related
Matters Act, No 9 of 2009:
On 26 May 2010 the National Assembly adopted the Report of Standing
Committee on Appropriations on the Appropriation Bill (Announcements,
Tablings and Committee Reports, 21 May 2010, p 1615). The report
recommended that: “A detailed project plan (schedule) for the
implementation of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related
Matters Act… be tabled in the House within 30 days by the Office of the
Speaker”.
In accordance with the resolution, this report outlines what has been
done to date to implement the Act, but also sets out planned activities
and processes moving forward. It is necessary to note that a decision
was made to extend the date by which this report would be tabled in
order to allow for the necessary deliberations.
1. Introduction
The South African Constitution grants Parliament the power of the purse
and stipulates that executive revenue and spending plans must be
approved by the legislature. The Constitution nevertheless limited
Parliament’s role in state finances in so far as it was unable to amend
money bills without a procedure set out in law. To give effect to the
Constitution, Parliament passed the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and
Related Matters Act, 2009 (Act No 9 of 2009), which was promulgated by
the President on 16 April 2009. The Act provides for a procedure to
amend money Bills before Parliament and for norms and standards for
amending money Bills before provincial legislatures.
The Act itself was designed on the basis of a number of constitutional
principles. First was the understanding that Parliament’s power to
amend to money bills would have to be exercised responsibly. The Act
therefore safeguards fiscal discipline in different ways, including
providing for the introduction, and for the first time adoption, of a
Fiscal Framework which sets key budgetary parameters for a particular
financial year. Second, the Act had to give effect to the separation of
powers in a parliamentary system of government. Accordingly, Parliament
should not attempt to introduce new policy – the prerogative of the
government. Amendments to money bills should rather be, under normal
circumstances, motivated by concerns identified and documented during
the legislatures oversight work. Third, any procedure should not unduly
comprise the functioning of the state. Stringent timeframes were
therefore set down for deliberations on the different bills. Fourth,
the legislation should respond to the constitutional imperative of
public involvement. Finally, for Parliament to amend budgets it would
have to have sufficient institutional capacity. The Act therefore sets
the foundation for a Parliamentary Budget Office with a mandate to
undertake research and analysis and provide technical support and
advice.
Given the above, it was clear that the Act would have a wide-range of
implications for Parliament – for the passage of money Bills and other
instruments, the capacity of the institution, and the roles and
responsibilities of both the political and administrative spheres.
Indeed, as many members have since observed, the Act represents a new
chapter in the life of Parliament.
In August 2009, the Speaker of the National Assembly (NA) and the
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) established a
Political Task Team with a mandate to develop a strategy for the
implementation of the Act and report to the Presiding Officers who
would, in turn, report to the appropriate parliamentary structures.
This Task Team was led by the House Chairpersons for Committees and
included the chairpersons of the committees on finance and
appropriations in both Houses, the chairpersons of the subcommittees on
the review of rules and a programming whip from each House. The
Secretary to Parliament also appointed a Technical Support Team. This
team was led by the Deputy Secretary and consisted of representatives
from the relevant divisions and sections within Parliament. As key
stakeholders, the Office of the Leader of Government Business and
National Treasury were also invited to contribute.
The Political Task Team identified various areas that needed to be
developed and brought in line with the Act. These included:
• Development of Regulatory Framework: Parliamentary Rules and
Procedures;
• Design of an Orientation and Training Programme; and
• Establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office.
This report conveys progress made in each of these areas and, where
possible, sets out how activities are expected to proceed. It should be
borne in mind that some of these measures are subject to the input of
various parliamentary forums.
2. Development of regulatory framework: Parliamentary rules and
procedures
The full implementation of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and
Related Matters Act will necessitate extensive regulatory reforms and
enabling rules and protocols. In the absence of transitional
arrangements and the required rules, however, interim measures will be
considered from time to time to ensure that legislative prescripts can
be met.
After an initial appraisal, the Political Task Team identified a number
of procedural challenges with the Act, specifically with some of the
timeframes and sequencing, such as those pertaining to the Division of
Revenue Bill and the national adjustments budget. Preliminary proposals
have been drafted in this regard to deal with these challenges in the
rules and through legislative amendments. The National Assembly has
referred the Act to the National Assembly Rules Committee, who in turn
referred it to the Subcommittee on the Review of Rules. The
Subcommittee will need to identify the rules, draft and agree to
specific amendments and report to the Rules Committee in due course. At
present the Subcommittee is considering rules relating to the
establishment of the committees established by the Act.
In terms of the statutory requirements, the National Assembly has set
up standing committees on finance and appropriations – and disbanded
the former Portfolio Committee of Finance and the Joint Budget
Committee. Section 4 of the Act stipulates that each House must create
committees on finance and appropriations, with specific powers and
functions as conferred by the Constitution, legislation and standing
rules. The responsibilities of the committee on finance are broadly to
review macro-economic and tax proposals contained in the Fiscal
Framework, the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) and other
documents; whereas the committee on appropriations is tasked with
considering appropriation Bills and the division of revenue between the
spheres of government. This committee also monitors government
expenditure. The National Assembly has also processed various bills and
instruments in accordance with the legislation, most notably the MTBPS
2009 and the budget 2010/11.
Importantly, the Act prescribes certain preparatory procedures for
Parliament, and the Assembly in particular, should it wish to consider
amendments to a specific budget. These include a structured review of
departmental budgets to be carried out by portfolio committees and an
overall assessment of budget projections by the respective standing
committees.
Section 5 of the Act provides that the National Assembly, through its
committees, must annually assess the performance of each national
department. The section therefore requires that committees must
annually submit budgetary review and recommendation reports (BRRR) to
the Assembly – after the adoption of the budget but prior to the
adoption of the report on the MTBPS. As these BRRRs may include
recommendations on the forward use of resources, they form one critical
part of Parliament’s engagement with budget the following year.
Another critical part is the reports on the MTBPS which may make
recommendations on the fiscal framework and the proposed division of
revenue of the following year. When the budget is introduced, together
with the fiscal framework, the Division of Revenue Bill and the
Appropriation Bill, the Minister of Finance must report on how previous
resolutions in respect of the BRRR and the MTBPS have or have not been
taken into account. National Treasury has also added a new annexure in
the Budget Review, published with the budget each year, entitled
“Report of the Minister to Parliament” which presents the Minister’s
responses. While the procedures relating to the BRRRs could not be
fully implemented during the previous year the intention is to put them
into practice in 2010.
With the new mechanisms and procedures, the Act has also led to changes
both to the Parliamentary Programme Framework generally, in terms of
session and committee periods etc, and the National Assembly Programme.
These changes have been documented and will be implemented by the
programming structures as the need arises. To assist with long-term
planning and co-ordination the option of a five-year programming
framework has also received attention.
3. Orientation and training
As noted in the introduction to this report, the implementation of the
Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act will involve a
range of actors in the political, administrative and public spheres,
actors within but also well beyond the precincts of the legislature. It
was therefore recognised that these actors would have to sensitised and
trained on the provisions of the legislation.
As an initial measure, the Political Task Team initiated orientation
workshops on the Act, first for committee chairpersons and whips in
2009 and then all members of Parliament in May 2010. For the purposes
of information dissemination, a detailed manual and a leaflet on the
Act were produced. The Office of the Leader of Government Business also
conducted a number of workshops, initially for the Parliamentary
Liaison Officers but later for other relevant staff in the different
departments. These interventions are ongoing. While these workshops
were relatively successful in so far as they served to introduce
members and other role-players to the legislation and associated
procedures, there remains a patent need to conduct more intensive
training – a fact highlighted by members during the workshops. A
proposal for a comprehensive training programming has been developed in
this regard. In addition, Parliament has resolved to arrange training
on budget analysis.
4. Establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office
It is clear that for Parliament to engage meaningfully with and amend
budgets it must have sufficient institutional capacity and specialised
personnel, including procedural and administrative staff, researchers
and economists. The Act therefore requires Parliament to create a new
agency, a Budget Office, with a mandate to undertake research and
analysis of all budget proposals and provide independent advice,
principally but not only, to the standing committees. The Act also
stipulates that there must be a cooperative relationship between the
Budget Office and other structures in Parliament.
The establishment of the Budget Office is a priority for the
institution. Despite this, it remains a relatively complex undertaking
and involves, inter alia, the appointment of the Director, the study of
international best practice, and administrative and budgetary planning.
To ensure that the Budget Office will operate efficiently and meet the
expectations of members and the public, the work of the office must be
underpinned by a common understanding between different actors within
Parliament – an understanding reinforced through appropriate
institutional policies and protocols. Consultations on this matter have
taken place although these must be broadened.
The appointment of a Director will be fundamental, as he or she will be
responsible for the design of the office, the recruitment of staff and
all other administrative affairs. In terms of the Act, the Director
must be appointed by a resolution of Parliament on the recommendation
of the standing committees. However, the Act does not detail the
relationship between the Director and the Executive Authority of
Parliament, namely the Speaker and the Chairperson of the National
Council of Provinces, nor does it specify the relationship between the
Director and the Secretary to Parliament as the Accounting Officer.
While it is envisaged that the Director will be appointed on the basis
of a performance contract, the details of this contract should address
such issues.
Based on these and other concerns, the Presiding Officers have agreed
to a study tour of relevant countries to explore the role and capacity
of legislatures in budget proceedings. This study tour will comprise
representatives from different political parties and take place this
year, if Parliament’s programme permits. The intended outcomes include
consensus amongst parties on the role of the Budget Office within
Parliament and the responsibilities of the Director.
5. Concluding comments
In conclusion, it should be highlighted that the Money Bills Amendment
Procedure and Related Matters Act has been in operation for a year. It
is indeed a powerful tool, one that will allow Parliament to perform
its oversight role more effectively. This report noted some of the
procedures and mechanisms contained in the Act that are complex and
will require careful implementation moving forward. As was emphasised
during the debate on Parliament’s budget, the challenge will now be for
committees and members to put their shoulders to the wheel to turn
theory into practice and potential into concrete results.
M V Sisulu MP
Speaker of the National Assembly
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
CREDA INSERT - T101103e-insert1 – PAGESE 3623-3633
CREDA INSERT - T101103e-insert2 – PAGES 3634-3651
-
Report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations on the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill, dated 02 November 2010
HAVING CONSIDERED THE DIVISION OF REVENUE AMENDMENT BILL [B35-2010], THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:
- BACKGROUND
Section 12 of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, No. 9 of 2009 (the Act) requires the Minister of Finance to table the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill together with the revised Fiscal Framework if the adjustments budget effects changes to the Division of Revenue Act (DoRA) for the 2010/11 financial year. This is intended to foster transparency and ensure smooth intergovernmental relations. The Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act (1997) prescribes the process for determining the equitable sharing and allocation of revenue raised nationally. Sections 9 and 10 (4) of the Act set out the consultation process to be followed with the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC), including the process of considering recommendations made with regard to the equitable division of nationally raised revenue.
In enforcing section 77 of the Constitution, the Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act, No. 9 of 2009 was enacted. This budget reform empowers Parliament to amend the government budget and therefore plays a greater role in ensuring that the most urgent needs of South Africans are addressed. It provides Parliament with necessary instruments to oversee government actions and monitor its fiscal discipline. While this reform is widely welcomed, the Standing Committee on Appropriations (the Committee) is mindful that this legislation will be phased in over the years. The Committee’s concern and focus is on the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office that will provide more support to enable the Committees on Finance and Appropriations to fulfil their legislative responsibilities.
The Division of Revenue Amendment Bill was tabled in Parliament on 27 October 2010 by the Minister of Finance during the submission of 2010 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS).
Clause 1 (the focus of this brief) of the Bill provides for the substitution of Schedules 1 to 8 of the Division of Revenue (DoRA) for Schedules 1 to 8 of the Bill. The Schedules to the Bill address the following matters: • Additional unconditional and conditional allocations to provinces and municipalities; • The allocation of unallocated conditional allocations to provinces and municipalities; • The re-allocation of conditional allocations in terms of section 18 of the DoRA; • Roll-overs of conditional allocations to provinces and municipalities not transferred by national departments during the 2009/10 financial year; • Increases to a conditional allocation to a province or municipality through virements under section 43 of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999) or section 28(2)(d) of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 56 of 2003), as the case may be; and • The re-allocation of conditional allocations that were not correctly reflected in the Schedules to the DoRA.
- Equitable division of revenue raised nationally among the spheres of government Table 1: Schedule 1 | |Column A |Column B |Column C | |Sphere of | | | | |Government | | | | | |2010/11 |2010/11 |Amount | | |allocation |adjustments |adjusted | | | | | | | |R’000 |R’000 |R’000 | | | | | | |National | | | | | | | | | | |527 001 492 |519 980 624 |7020868 | |Provincial |260973745 |265139448 |-4165703 | |Local |30167706 |30558566 |-390860 | |Total |818142943 |815678638 |2464305 |
National Treasury (2010) [adapted]
The adjustments ended up in a net reduction of R2.4 billion whereby expenditure estimates levels decreased from R818.1 billion to R815.7 billion. The total allocations to national departments decreased by R7.0 billion, allocation to provinces increased by R4.1 billion and allocations to local government increased by R0.3 billion. In effect the general decrease will not impact on provincial and local spheres of government like on the national sphere of government where allocations were reduced. It is clear the reduced allocations are due to shortfall in expected revenue. In terms of section 6(1) of the DoRA if actual revenue raised nationally in respect of the financial year falls short of the anticipated revenue set out in Schedule 1, the national government bears the shortfall and in terms of section 6(2) of the DoRA if actual revenue raised nationally in respect of the financial year exceeds the anticipated revenue set out in Schedule 1, the excess accrues to the national government, subject to subsection (3).
- Determination of each province’s equitable share of the provincial sphere’s share of revenue raised nationally
Table 2: Schedule 2 | |Column A |Column B |Column C | |Province | | | | | |2010/11 |2010/11 |Amount | | |allocation |adjustments |adjusted | | | | | | | |R’000 |R’000 |R’000 | | | | | | |Eastern | | | | |Cape | | | | | |40134424 |40789918 |-655494 | |Free State |15959310 |16217212 |-257902 | |Gauteng |45134335 |45869090 |-734755 | |KwaZulu |56742834 |57632201 |-889367 | |Natal | | | | |Limpopo |33237814 |33766574 |-528760 | |Mpumalanga |21323198 |21640037 |-316839 | |Northern |7101615 |7201470 |-99855 | |Cape | | | | |North West |17314124 |17567122 |-252998 | |Western |24026091 |24455824 |-429733 | |Cape | | | | |Total |260973745 |265139448 |-4165703 |
National Treasury (2010) [adapted]
The current adjustments resulted in the expenditure level estimates in provinces increasing from R260.9 billion to R265.1 billion with each province, KwaZulu Natal increased by R0.889 billion, Gauteng R0.734 billion, Eastern Cape by R0.655 billion, Limpopo by R0.528 billion, Western Cape by R0.429 billion, Mpumalanga by R0.316 billion, North West by R0.252 billion and Northern Cape by R0.099 billion respectively. There are however no changes in forward estimates expenditures for the outer financial years.
- Determination of each municipality’s equitable share of the local government sphere of revenue raised nationally
Table 3: Schedule 3 | |Column A |Column B |Column C | |Province | | | | | |2010/11 |2010/11 |Amount | | |allocation |adjustments |adjusted | | | | | | | |R’000 |R’000 |R’000 | |Eastern Cape |4450185 |4453126 |-2941 | |Free State |2805978 |2831056 |-25078 | |Gauteng |5445197 |5445197 |0 | |KwaZulu-Natal |5533344 |5712667 |-179323 | |Limpopo |3666434 |3678434 |-12000 | |Mpumalanga |2803310 |2909548 |-106238 | |Northern Cape |909198 |929810 |-20612 | |North West |2563886 |2599921 |-36035 | |Western Cape |30167706 |30558566 |-390860 | |Total |58345238 |59118325 |-773087 |
National Treasury (2010) [adapted]
Except for Gauteng, all provinces experienced total increases in allocations to municipalities even though not all municipalities received additional allocations. Although the Committee welcomes this level of increase; there is still a need for more clarity to further explain the circumstances leading to such selective additions especially with regard to equitable share that is supposed to support extension of free basic service to the indigents. On the other hand, the Committee need to ensure that additional allocations target critical needs such as indigents, repairs and maintenance of ageing infrastructure. In Eastern Cape, four municipalities received increased allocations- Sunday’s River Valley Municipality received increased allocations from R25.7 million to R26.1 million, Nxuba Municipality increased allocations from R16.2 million to R16.3 million, Inxuba Yethemba Municipality received increased allocations from R32.8 million to R34.2 million, Senqu Municipality received increased allocations from R66.4 million to R66.8 million.
In Free State, five municipalities received increased allocations – Kopanong an increase from R72.7 million to R78.0 million, Mantsopa an increase from R53.9 million to R55.1 million, Motheo District an increase from R 152.3 million to R152.7 million, Phumelela an increase from R44.2 million to R45.1 million and Metsimaholo an increase from R79.0 million to R143.9 million.
In KwaZulu-Natal, seven municipalities received additional allocations – Vulamehlo an increase from R24.5 million to R25.6 million, uMuziwabantu an increase from R30.3 million to R31.3 million, Zululand District an increase from R198.6 million to R215.4 million, Jozini an increase from R48.5 million to R54.1 million, Hlabisa from R39.2 million to R43.7 million, KwaDukuza an increase from R50.9 million, and Ubuhlebezwe an increase from R35.4 million to R42.3 million.
Limpopo’s total allocations increased from R3.6 billion to R3.7 billion where three municipalities received additional allocations – Makhuduthamaga received an increase from R107.3 million to R111.8 million, Molemole an increase from R57.0 million to R61.3 million and Thabazimbi an increase from R45.1 million to R48.2 million.
In Mpumalanga, municipalities received additional allocations from R2.8 billion to R2.9 billion whereby four municipalities received additional allocations as follows – Mkhondo an increase from R73.3 million to R80.8 million, Thabachweu an increase from R59.5 million to R62.6 million, Mbombela an increase from R247.6 million to R295.9 million and Bushbuckridge an increase from R339.7 million to R387.1 million.
Northern Cape received an additional R612 million whereby five municipalities received additional allocations – Hantam received an increase from R15.6 million to R17.4 million, Karoo Hoogland received an increase from R10.1 million to R12.1 million, Ubuntu received an increase from R13.9 million to R16.7 million, //Khara Hais received an increase from R40.5 million to R45.4 million, and Sol Plaatjie received an increase from R121.7 million to R130.9 million. North West received an additional R360.3 million whereby five municipalities received additional allocations – Moses Kotane received an increase from R179.2 million to R186.4 million, Mafikeng received an increase from R96.3 million to R102.4 million, Kagisano received an increase from R42.8 million to R49.4 million, Ventersdorp received an increase from R35.2 million to R37.6 million and Tlokwe received an increase from R69.0 million to R82.8 million.
Western Cape received an additional R390.8 million whereby four municipalities received additional allocations – Matzikama received an increase from R27.1 million to R31.3 million, Bergrivier received an increase from R18.7 million to R20.9 million, Overstrand received an increase from R26.9 million to R28.0 million and George received an increase from R58.2 million to R59.3 million.
- Allocations to provinces to supplement the funding of programmes or functions funded from provincial budgets
This Schedule comprises of a number of conditional grants and the only grant that has changed is the Further Education and Training Colleges Grant which received an additional R31.2 million during the adjustment period. According to the National Treasury 2010/11 First Quarterly Reports, there was no spending for Further Education and Training grants as at 30 June
-
While the Committee welcomes the increase, the Committee is concern that less expenditure in the first quarter would negatively impact on the second quarter expenditure projections.
-
Specific purpose allocations to provinces: Schedule 5 Grants
Out of approximately nineteen grants in this category, only three grants received additional allocations – Comprehensive HIV and Aids Grant, Human Settlements Development Grant, and Devolution of Property Rate Funds Grant.
The purpose of the Comprehensive HIV and Aids Grant is to enable the health sector to develop an effective response to HIV and Aids, to support the implementation of the National Operational Plan for Comprehensive HIV and Aids treatment and care, and to subsidise in-part funding for the antiretroviral treatment programme. This Grant was allocated R6.0 billion for the baseline, during the adjustment the grant received an additional amount of R40 million.
The purpose of the Human Settlements Development Grant is to provide funding for the creation of sustainable human settlements. Although, in total, this Grant received additional allocations of R15 000 million only Gauteng received an increase from R3.7 billion to R3.8 billion while North West had its allocations reduced from R1.2 billion to R1.1 billion. There were no changes in allocations to other provinces.
The purpose of the Devolution of Property Rate Fund Grant is to facilitate the transfer of property rates expenditure responsibility to provinces, and to enable provincial accounting officers to be fully accountable for their expenditure and payment of provincial property rates. The grant received an increase from R1.0 billion to R1.8 billion. The Public Work report shows that 49 per cent of the allocation was spent as at the 30 August 2010 in this regard. This grant could be the main source of revenue generation for municipalities and can also reduce the current debt by government departments to municipalities. While the Committee welcomes the increase in this grant, there is a need for the relevant Committees and other stakeholders to ensure that there are systems and plans in place that will enable provinces to spend the additional allocations efficiently and economically. This will assist the government to be able achieve value for money in such expenditure and required outcomes.
- Schedule 6 Grants: Specific purpose allocations to municipalities
Two grants in this category received additional allocations and they are the Water Services Operating Subsidy Grant and Municipal Drought Relief Grant.
The purpose of the Water Services Operating Subsidy Grant is to subsidise water schemes owned and/or operated by the Department of Water Affairs or by other agencies on behalf of the Department. The grant received additional allocations amounting to R8.3 million. However, it will be important to provide a detailed explanation for allocations to specific projects to the Committee so that the expenditure of these additional funds can be effectively monitored.
The purpose of the Municipal Drought Relief Grant is to provide capital finance for basic water supply in municipal infrastructure for affected households, micro enterprises and social institutions. The grant received an additional allocation of R92 million which is specifically allocated to the Mossel Bay Municipality for drought relief.
-
Conclusion In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Appropriations will monitor the utilisation of these additional grant allocations through the in-year monitoring process which forms part of Parliamentary oversight. This will enable the Committee to be able to check whether financial legislations such as Division of Revenue Act (DoRA), Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) are adhered to by the spheres of government. The Committee will also monitor the efficiency of administration in compiling and spending various schedules so that schedules are not incorrectly recorded, classified or misplaced in the process. This will assist the Committee to identify challenges and, enhance the level of accuracy and compliance in all levels of government through making relevant recommendations during the in-year monitoring process.
-
Sources The following source documents were used by the Committee when considering the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill: • National Treasury (2010). Division of Revenue Bill [B4 – 2010] • National Treasury (2010). Division of Revenue Amendment Bill [B35 – 2010] • National Treasury (2010). Press Release. Provincial Budgets: 2010/11 Financial Year. First Quarter Provincial Budgets and Expenditure Report. 11 August 2010
-
Recommendation The Standing Committee on Appropriations, having considered the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill [B 35 – 2010] (National Assembly – proposed sec 76), recommends to the House that it be adopted.
Report to be considered.