Employment of Professional Cubans, Xenophobia Hearing, Zimbabwe Election Committee Reports

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

19 October 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
19 October 2005
EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CUBANS, XENOPHOBIA HEARING, ZIMBABWE ELECTION COMMITTEE REPORTS

Chairperson: Mr D J Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Employment of Professional Cubans Report [available at Committee Reports]
Xenophobia Hearing Committee Report
Zimbabwe Election Report
South African Human Rights Commission Draft Report

SUMMARY
The Committee did not have the necessary quorum to adopt these Committee Reports. There was some discussion on the reports. It was agreed to merely note the Employment of Professional Cubans Report which was actually the responsibility of the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee. He suggested that the Committee Report on the Zimbabwe Election Report state that the Committee had noted the report and its contents but they believed that the different parties in Parliament held different views on the matter. It was agreed that there needed to be an in-depth debate on xenophobia in the National Assembly.

MINUTES
The Chairperson stated that because only a few members of the Committee were present, members could either continue with the meeting, or adjourn.

Mr D Gibson (DA) remarked that his colleague, Mr S Haasbroek (DA), had passed away on Sunday 16 October 2005. Mr J Seramane (DA) was in London on parliamentary business, Mr L Labuschagne (DA) was on study leave and Ms S Camerer (DA) was at the Judicial Service Commission. Mr Gibson said he would be the only DA representative at the meeting. He commented on the fact there were no other parties present and only a handful of ANC members. He opined that if the members of the Committee who were present had come to discuss the important reports, that was one thing, but there was a probability that some "cannon fodder" would enter the meeting just to vote and pass the report and the Committee was therefore wasting its time. Mr Gibson stated that if the members were not interested in the meeting, the Committee should re-schedule the meeting, with proper notice, at a later stage.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Gibson for his input, saying that he wondered who the "canon fodder" could be unless he (Gibson) had been referring to journalists. He noted that all members on his side of the table (six in total) were members of the Committee, so Mr Gibson must have meant that journalists were cannon fodder but they were not able to vote.

The Chairperson informed the Committee that Ms M Njobe (ANC) was in London with Mr Seremane and the Speaker, and Ms F Hajaig (ANC) was in Tanzania for election observation with a team from the SADC parliamentary forum.

Mr Ramgobin (ANC) stated that he had a different approach to the matter of the meeting being adjourned. He believed that the reports to be discussed were fairly controversial and it would be better for the members not to discuss them in a small group, with the expectation that other missing members would vote on them without fully understanding the nuances of both reports. He suggested that for the integrity of Parliament it would be proper for the Committee to have an clear understanding of whether there was consensus or disagreement before voting took place. He did not want people to vote in ignorance of the real facts without first debating them. Had it not been for the controversial and topical nature of the reports that would make "media meat", it might have been reasonable to discuss them at the present time. Intelligent and rational debate should be had before the votes were placed. He added that the Democratic Alliance would of course be defeated, but the ANC would not be accused of not having entertained a reasonably intelligent debate on the matters.

Zimbabwe Report
The Chairperson said that the Speaker had referred to the report on Zimbabwe as being controversial when it had been tabled in the House, but he was confused as to what extent the Committee would want to regard it as controversial, more so than when it was tabled in the House. He proposed that the Committee should send the Zimbabwe Report back to Parliament, noting that there was not any substantial value that the Committee could add to the report. It was not a matter of whether the Committee accepted it or not, as it had been presented and debated before Parliament and Parliament had accepted it. He supposed that it was because of a ruling that the report had been put before a Committee to process further and, based on that, he did not believe it necessary to begin a new debate. The Committee should note and accept that its members would continue to hold different perspectives on Zimbabwe. It should be accepted that the Committee was not going to force people into a collective view of the situation. Members needed to accept that people were going to have different views and interpretations of Zimbabwean events as they unfolded. He suggested that the Committee report to Parliament that they had noted the referral, as well as noting the report. The final report had in any case been debated and voted on by Parliament.

Mr Gibson remarked that he did not believe that Parliament had voted on or debated the report. The report had only been tabled in Parliament and was therefore with the Committee. He suggested that the Committee note its contents and say that the parties did not hold the same views. Parliament should also be told that the Committee did not wish to add to the report and it should be debated in due course when everyone could express their view.

Mr Ramgobin interjected that, if that were the case, then the Committee could get other Members of Parliament to vote on the reports and would not need to adjourn the meeting. The debate could then be taken to Parliament if needs be.

The Chairperson admitted that he might have been mistaken in saying that the report had been debated in Parliament and asked whether the Committee could work on the premise that the report had moved to the Committee but should still be debated in Parliament. He suggested that the Committee Report state that the Committee had noted the report and its contents but they believed that the different parties in Parliament held different views on the matter and the Committee recommended that the House make the opportunity for parties to engage and take it from there.

Xenophobia Hearings Report
Mr Sithole noted that the members had received two report – one from the Human Rights Commission and the other by the Secretary - about the hearings that had been held in November 2004. He reminded them that the Committee had shelved the report once before to give members an opportunity to read the report. He suggested that the Committee consider holding a debate in the House on the issue of xenophobia.

An ANC member agreed that the Xenophobia Hearings Report should be treated the same way as the Zimbabwe Election Report and should be sent to the National Assembly to be debated.

Mr Sithole said that he found that the debate around xenophobia was a bit skewed. Parliament had not reached the essence of the debate but had reduced it to administrative problems such as someone not receiving identity documents or the length of queues which were peripheral arguments. Xenophobia was as an issue that impacted on the implementation of foreign policy. He reminded members that the foreign policy of SA was based in the African continent and that when one moved from that perspective one had to face the challenges of dealing with xenophobia. Xenophobia needed to be debated as a policy matter. This involved debating racial discrimination on the basis of darker or lighter skin. It should not be reduced to whether an official took a R100 bribe or not. The Committee needed to go deeper into the debate.

Mr Sithole noted the conference on citizenry he had attended in Nigeria, dealing with the same issues of how to create ‘African citizens’ as opposed to geographical citizens. He questioned how one dealt with ‘ourselves as Africans.’

Employment of Professional Cubans Report
Mr Sithole explained that this report had in fact been referred to the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee who had been asked to confer with the Foreign Affairs Committee on the employment of professional Cubans. The responsibility of the report was with the Public Service and Administration Portfolio Committee and it was that Committee's duty to submit it to the House. He suggested that this Committee should merely report that it had noted the report. The report detailed where and how many professional Cubans were employed in South Africa, what South Africa's misgivings were about them, how much they were paid, their education levels and so on.. Mr Sithole then invited members to comment.

Mr Gibson said that he supported the position of Mr Sithole. The issue of professional Cubans in South Africa was not within the realm of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He was not sure why the Public Service and Administration Committee had conferred with them .

It was agreed that the Committee was merely noting the report and sending this to the House.

Mr Sithole noted that one of the Committee's members, Mr S Haasbroek had passed away and funeral arrangements were discussed.

Meeting adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: