Hansard: NCOP: Unrevised Hansard

House: National Council of Provinces

Date of Meeting: 07 Nov 2017


No summary available.




The Council met at 14:00.

The House Chairperson: Committees, Oversight, Co-operative Government and Intergovernmental Relations took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.


Mr C HATTINGH: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move:

That the Council –

notes that, in view of the latest international incident caused by the blue light brigade of North West Premier

Supra Mahumapelo, forcing Botswana President, Ian Khama, off the road in Botswana;

also notes that North West members of this House recently were transported, not only at speeds exceeding 12Okm/h in a 60km/h zone, also involving solid line overtaking and not stopping at stop streets or red traffic lights; and

calls that this House debates the legality and risks involved not only for members but also for the in the travel of elected public representatives in blue light brigades.

Mr O S TERBLANCHE: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of the DA:

That the Council debates the spillage of untreated sewerage in the Vaal River System and the detrimental impact that it has on both humans and animals dependent on this water resource.

I so move.



(Draft Resolution)


move without notice:

That the Council –

notes that yesterday, 6 November marked the 53rd commemoration of the death of a gallant fighter of the National Democratic Revolution and incisive trade unionist, Vuyisile Mini, who was one of the first ANC members to be executed by the apartheid state, when he was executive on 6 November 1964;

further notes that Vuyisile Mini who was also a prolific organiser and secretary of the SA Congress of Trade Unions, Sactu, and the secretary of the ANC Cape region, was hanged together with Wilson Khayinga and Zinakile Mkaba;

in 1952, he was jailed with Govan Mbeki and Raymond Mhlaba for three months in Rooi Hel or North End Prison in Port Elizabeth, for participation in the campaign of defiance against unjust laws in what was famously known as the Defiance Campaign;

he was also one of 156 defendants in the famous Treason Trial of 1956; and

takes this opportunity to pay homage to this gallant fighter of our movement for his selfless service to our nation.

Thank you, Chair.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms Z V NCITHA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes that the remains of the 12 United Democratic Front martyrs were returned to their families during a ceremony in Port Elizabeth yesterday;

also notes that all were buried in paupers burial without consultation with their families;

further notes that their remains were exhumed as a result of the painstaking work of the National Prosecution Authority’s Missing Persons Task Team;

also notes that these gallant fighters were executed in Pretoria in the last days of apartheid system where comrades dedicated their lives to the liberation of the oppressed masses of South Africa; and

therefore sends our heartfelt condolences to their families, friends and comrades of the martyrs, and wish them strength during the reburial that will take place on Saturday 11 November.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr G MICHALAKIS: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council –

notes that today would have been the 100th birthday of antiapartheid icon, Helen Suzman;

Ms Suzman was the Member of Parliament for Houghton from 1953 to 1989, 13 of those years being the lone voice against apartheid in Parliament itself;

Ms Suzman is often criticised by those who wish to deny her legacy, that she gave legitimacy to the system by sitting in the old Parliament, but in her own words, those critics were all too willing to make use of her work in order to fight the Nationalists, Nats;

her contribution to bringing about the end of apartheid is undeniable;

President Mandela himself had this to say about Ms Suzman:

Her courage, integrity and principled commitment to justice have marked her as one of the outstanding figures in the history of public life in South Africa; and

in the spirit of unity, in which icons such as Ms Suzman alongside people like President Mandela set out to build a democratic South Africa, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying our respects to this remarkable South African.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms T MOTARA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council –

notes and welcome pronouncement by the Nelson Mandela Foundation together with other relevant stake holders that the late Nelson Mandela’s primary residence in Houghton, Johannesburg, is set to be transformed into a presidential five star tourism product;

also notes that the centre is set to consist of nine bedrooms and will be a boutique hotel that will attract a primary market of high-end business travellers, the diplomatic corps and scholars from around the world as well as secondary group of leisure travellers;

further notes that, Nelson Mandela was a walker and a traveller who made a difference in the lives of those he met and those he travelled with;

that this unique project with iconic status will offer an experience inspired by Madiba's life while he resided and worked at the property, and will attract more people to explore tourism offerings in South Africa; and

therefore applauds the foundation and the stake holders on the initiative that also contributes to the preservation of Mandela’s legacy.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr J M MTHETHWA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council –

notes with utmost concern the brutal killing of the chairperson of the Sizwe Taxi Association, Mr Sibusiso Obed Nkomonde which is embroiled in an ongoing conflict with the Klipriver Taxi Association over the lucrative Ladysmith - Johannesburg route;

further notes that the killing of Mr Nkomonde follows a shootout in Ladysmith last Tuesday, which left 10 people dead, including Klipriver Taxi Association deputy

chairperson Muzikayifani Ngobese, his daughter Nozipho, two bodyguards and his driver;

takes this opportunity to convey its heartfelt condolences to the Nkomonde family and condemns in the harshest possible terms the violence and senseless killings between members of the Sizwe Taxi Association and the Klipriver Taxi Association; and

calls on the Minister of Police and the Minister of Transport to intervene and bring to an end these senselessness killings that continue to rob families of their loved ones and breadwinners.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms B T MATHEVULA: House Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House —

notes that Oscarine Masuluke from Nwana Nkena Village in Giyani Limpopo was nominated for the Fifa Puskas Goal of the Year Award;

further notes that Masuluke represented South African and African football at a global stage, one of the only three South African players to ever been nominated for the award;

recognises his talent and determination to do sports, in particular soccer;

also notes that, even though awards have passed and Masuluke was not successful, his nomination on its own was an achievement and he must be congratulated; and

congratulates Masuluke for this achievement and world recognition.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr M T MHLANGA: House Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House —

notes with profound concern the national taxi strike that is aimed for Wednesday;

also notes that this activity happens during our critical examination period that could affect the learners who are sitting for their exams, more especially the Grade 12s;

appeals to parents to take precaution and prioritise safety during the national taxi strike on Wednesday, and urges all the necessary stakeholders to resolve the disputes without inconveniencing the people.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr D L XIMBI: House Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House —

notes with great shock, the cold-blooded murder of comrade Siyabulela Thwalani outside a friend’s home in Khayelitsha last Saturday;

also notes that the 41 years old, the Head of Cape Peninsula University of Technology, CPUT, who resided on the Cape Town campus sustained gunshot wounds to his head and face and nothing was stolen from him;

further notes that he was an activist that prominently involved himself in Nehawu, the ANC and the alliance, at large, in the Western Cape;

also notes that his memorial service will be held at CPUT, Mowbray campus and later at Thusong Centre in Khayelitsha on
9 November 2017, starting at 12:00 and 17:00 respectively;

also notes that his untimely departure is not only a loss to his family and our glorious movement but to the entire nation; and

sends its prayers to his family and friends in these trying times and may his soul rest in eternal peace!

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms E PRINS: House Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House —

notes that the remains of Michael Lucas, a young man from Oudtshoorn, were reburied on Saturday 4 November after being executed in March 1988;

further notes that Michael Lucas was executed as a young principled and religious Christian who refused to give information despite the threat of a death sentence;

also notes that the trial in the Western Cape Supreme Court was presided over by Justice Deneys Williamson who was then known as the hanging judge; and

calls on the state and public in general to view the story of Michael Lucas and all its nuances in order to ensure that we never return to a death penalty in future.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr O J SEFAKO: House Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House —

notes with great sadness the passing of Mr Sizwe Vilakazi, the SABC’s Head of Legal Services last Saturday night;

also notes that Mr Vilakazi was shot dead in Tsakane on the East Rand after three armed men entered his store before

fleeing without taking anything from the store, and that the police says that three armed men entered his store and shot him before fleeing;

further notes that he was hired as a senior legal advisor on 1 December 2008, and on 1 September 2016, he was appointed as the Head of Legal Services and had served the SABC in various capacities;

also notes that his meaningful contribution to the SABC will remain and continue to inspire all who knew him in his personal and professional space. He will be deeply missed;

believes that the law enforcement agencies will work tirelessly to bring the murders to book; and

sends its condolences to his family and friends, and may his soul rest in peace.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr O S TERBLANCHE: House Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House —

notes the allegations made against President Jacob Zuma by Mr Jacques Pauw in his book The President’s Keepers;

further notes that any allegation of corruption is very concerning; and

calls upon the Minister of Police and the National Prosecuting Authority to investigate the respective allegations and consider them for further action, in accordance with the prescripts of the law.

In light of the objection, the motion without notice will become a notice of a motion.




Mr A S SINGH: Chair, as the co-chair of the Ethics Committee, I report on behalf of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests, on the alleged maladministrations dated ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Singh, my apologies. Please allow me to deal with the point of order. Hon Koni?

Ms N P KONI: Am I protected, Chair? There’s a threat coming from my right.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): No! You are protected.

Ms N P KONI: Thank you. Chair, I just wanted to welcome the hon Singh back. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): That is not a point of order. Hon Singh, you are protected.

An HON MEMBER: This thing is just wasting our time, Chair. Throw her out! [Interjections.]

Mr A S SINGH: The Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests, at its meeting of 16 March 2016, made the following recommendations on the complaints against the following member, hon Mabe.

The background to the report reads as follows. On 13 October 2015, the Office of the Registrar received a complaint against hon Mabe emanating from the Public Protector’s report into allegations of maladministration against the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Prasa. The report is published as Report 3 of 2015-16 and is available for viewing at the following website address: http://www.publicprotector.org/librarylinvestigationreport/investiga tion report.

In terms of the complaint, it is alleged that a company in which hon Mabe serves as a director, KG Media, was improperly awarded a tender by Prasa to produce the Hambanathi magazine and that this contract was unlawfully extended. The Prasa report, at page 28, paragraph d,

further referred to hon Mabe as the owner of the Kwela Express newspaper. It was further alleged that hon Mabe, who was the former executive corporate affairs manager at Prasa, was improperly paid a salary after his resignation from Prasa in 2008-09.

A consideration of the code in respect of the allegation reveals the following. Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 of the Code of Conduct require members to, inter alia, uphold the law, and discharge their obligations in terms of the Constitution, to Parliament and the Public at large, by placing the public interest above their own interest.

Section 6.1 of the code prohibits members from receiving any benefits including but not limited to a tender or a contract with an organ of state. Members are also required to declare their directorship in terms of section 9.3.3 of the code.

The investigation procedure followed was as follows. In terms of section of the code, correspondence was sent to hon Mabe on
13 October 2015, informing him of the complaint and requesting that he responds to the following questions: Does your resignation as a director at KG Media still stand? Do you have any financial interest in any form in KG Media and, if so, what are the particulars of such

interest? Do you, or any company that you associated with, own the copyright for Hambanathi or Kwela Express? If you have disposed of your interests in KG Media or Hambanathi or Kwela Express, can you please indicate when the interests were disposed of and to whom?

On 20 October 2015, hon Mabe requested additional time to respond to the allegations against him. This was agreed to.

In his response, hon Mabe confirmed his resignation as a director of KG Media on 11 May 2015. His 2014 disclosure reflects his interest in KG Media.

Hon Mabe indicated that the shares to KG Media were initially owned by KG Media Project Management and are currently held by Kedibone Mabe Trust, of which it is established that hon Mabe is a trustee and his minor children are the beneficiaries.

In his correspondence, hon Mabe explained that Hambanathi and Kwela Express are newspapers for which he owns the trademark. He has submitted documents confirming this. The Registrar further requested clarity on whether the extension of the contract constituted business with the state.

Hon Mabe, in his response, explained that KG Media does not produce a newsletter for Prasa but produces a newspaper in which Prasa buys advertising space. He included in his response a copy of the Audit Bureau of Circulation document for Kwela Express and copies of the newspaper which also reflect other advertisers. He alleges that the agreement with Prasa is not a tender but a contract as it is merely for advertising space.

The following was considered in respect of the complaint. The alleged additional salary payments took place in 2008-09 which was prior to hon Mabe’s appointment to Parliament and thus falls outside the scope of the committee.

On the allegation on the appointment of KG Media to produce the Hambanathi magazine in 2012, this matter is also outside the scope of the committee as the contract was entered into prior to hon Mabe’s appointment as Member of Parliament.

On the extension of the contract in March 2015, the Public Protector found that Prasa’s supply-chain management policy and Treasury regulations were contravened. She also found that there was maladministration and contravention of section 217 of the Constitution, which requires that state institutions create

transparent, fair, competitive and equitable system of procurement. Regardless of the fact that a fair tender process was followed by Prasa, it still remains that hon Mabe benefitted from a contract between Prasa and KG Media. Hon Mabe’s contention that the purchase of advertising space does not constitute a tender is refuted as section 6.1 of the code in any event applies not only to tenders but to any contract with an organ of state.

Hon Mabe disclosed his interest as required in terms of section 9.3 of the Code of Ethical Conduct. In relation to the disclosure of interest, hon Mabe had in the 2014 Register of Financial Interest disclosed his directorship in KG Media. In 2015 he had resigned and did not disclose the interest as he was no longer a director. He had disclosed details of the Kedibone Mabe Trust.

The finding is as follows. The allegations of improper payment to hon Mabe refers to events that purportedly occurred in 2008-09 prior hon Mabe’s appointment to Parliament and is thus outside the scope of the committee.

The allegation that hon Mabe benefited from the award of a contract by Prasa to produce Hambanathi and Kwela Express in 2012 occurred

prior to hon Mabe’s appointment as a Member of Parliament and is thus also outside the scope of the committee.

On the disclosure of financial interest related to KG Media, hon Mabe did disclose his directorship in 2014, before his resignation as a director of the company. The Kedibone Mabe Trust which holds the copyright to Hambanathi and Kwela Express is disclosed in the 2015 Disclosure of Interests.

On the matter of a benefit being received from the renewal of the contract by Prasa with KG Media in 2015, the Registrar notes that the Kedibone Trust holds 100% of the shareholding of KG Media. Hon Mabe is a trustee of the trust and a beneficiary and accordingly benefited from the proceeds of the contract.

Hon Mabe submitted a letter of appeal in which he indicated that he had erroneously disclosed that he is a beneficiary of the Kedibone Mabe Trust and that it is in fact his minor children who are the beneficiaries of the trust.

It is the view of the joint committee that, as legal custodian of the minor children, hon Mabe benefited from the contract.

Alternatively, hon Mabe’s children benefited from same in contravention of section 6.2 of the code.

The penalty decided upon is the following. In terms of section, the joint committee imposed the following penalty on hon Mabe: A reprimand and a fine of 15 days salary.

The next complaint is an allegation of non-disclosure of interest by hon S M Gana. The complaint was based on media reports that hon S M Gana had failed to disclose sponsorship received in support of his campaign for federal chairperson at the 2015 electoral conference of the DA.

The resignation and replacement as of 25 May 2017 ... Mr S M Gana, DA national, resigned with effect from 14 November 2016. As Mr Gana resigned his membership of the National Assembly, the joint committee does not have jurisdiction over him, as he is no longer a Member of Parliament.

The finding is as follows. In light of the above, the joint committee reports to the National Assembly that it cannot proceed with the complaint against Mr Gana, as it lacks jurisdiction over him due to his resignation.

The next part of the Report of the Joint Committee on Ethics’ and Members Interests concerns an alleged breach of the Constitution, dated 14 June 2017. The background to the report is as follows. The Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests received a complaint from hon Steenhuisen in which he alleged that hon Mabe breached the Constitution by being sworn in as a councillor without resigning from Parliament and assuming a seat in the National Assembly without resigning as a councillor.

The complainant alleged that, by so doing, Ms Mabe breached clauses 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 of the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests. Clause 4.1 of the code deals with the standards of ethical conduct and provides as follows: Members must abide by the principles, rules and obligations of this code; by virtue of the oath or affirmation of allegiance taken by all elected members, uphold the law; act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them; discharge their obligations, in terms of the Constitution, to Parliament and the public at large, by placing the public interest above their own interest; maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of Parliament and thereby engender the respect and confidence that society needs to have in Parliament as a representative institution.

Hon Mabe requested an extension to respond to the complaint, which extension was granted.

On 13 October 2016, hon Mabe responded to the complaint. In her response, she advised that the same complaint was raised by the complainant in the National Assembly for a ruling on the matter. Further, that she and her party were awaiting the ruling by the National Assembly. Consequently, she was unable to respond to the complaint.

A report was obtained from the National Assembly and the following is apparent. At a Joint Sitting of Parliament on 25 August 2016 and at subsequent sittings of the National Assembly, various Members of the Assembly raised points of order regarding the validity of the membership of hon Mabe. The relevant Presiding Officer sought legal advice before ruling on the matter.

In a letter dated 13 September 2016 addressed to the Speaker, hon Mabe wrote to the Speaker regarding her membership of the National Assembly. In the said letter, she advised that she had been nominated to serve as Mayor of Mogale City by her party and, because she was committed to the decision, assumed office at Mogale City.

She further stated that —

... in the midst of all this it is quite apparent that an important administrative error was committed in that my resignation as a Member of Parliament was never rendered.

Hon Mabe stated that she had no intention of retaining dual membership of both the Mogale City council and of the National Assembly.

A legal opinion on the matter was apparently sought and obtained from Adv Wim Trengove, SC. His legal opinion could thus be summarised as follows. Sections 158(1)(d) and 158(2) of the Constitution read together mean that a Member of the National Assembly may be a candidate for election or appointment to a municipal council, but may not hold dual membership of both the National Assembly and a municipal council.

Further, in terms of sections 47(1)(b) and 47(3)(a) of the Constitution, a Member of the National Assembly loses his/her membership if he/she becomes a member of a municipal council whilst a Member of the National Assembly, and that such loss of membership occurs automatically by operation of the law.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Singh, please try to deal with the summary of your final report, because it is not necessary for you to go through everything. You do, however, have to deal with the summary of the report.

Mr A S SINGH: The last report I have is quite lengthy as well. This report relates to the late disclosures that ... of members who have disclosed their ... of members’ interests ... forms late. It’s quite a long report, Chair. Can I table the report?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Report of Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests — alleged maladministration be adopted.


Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

Question put: That the Report of Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests — alleged breach of the constitution be adopted.


Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

Question put: That the Report of Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests — late disclosures for 2016 be adopted.


Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.


Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: Hon House Chair, I hold no ambition to become a Minister, neither do I want to become a proxy to Minister Davis.

Hon House Chair, the ANC has observed that apartheid South Africa had very poor records of consumer protection and much needed to be done in this area.

Consumer protection is an important matter which requires urgent attention to shield people of our country from unscrupulous business practice. It is these reasons that the ANC-led government has introduced legislation whose object is to protect the rights of consumers against unlawful and unscrupulous business practices by credit providers and employers.

Banks in South Africa process approximately 56 million debit orders a month and from these, close to a million interbank debit orders including non-authenticated early debit order and these are disputed every month. The dispute ratio for non-authenticated debit orders is between 4,5% and 6% according to Fin24.

Some of the victims of unlawful deductions indicate that even if they get their money back, the banks continue to charge for processing their debit orders. This may raise an argument that the unlawful debit order deductions seem to be profitable to the banks. It would seem that the banks do not have measures in place to detect unlawful deductions.

Hon House Chair, South African Social Security Agency reported in 2016 that it has received 40 000 queries of unlawful deductions in February alone. Most of these deductions were related to cell phone airtime. This problem was prevalent in all the major cell phone network operators. A ministerial task team was establishes on deductions to curb illegal, immoral and unauthorised deductions of social grants.

This matter must be of serious concern to all of us as it works against the resolve of the democratic government to provide social security to the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly, people living with disability, young and old and these people survive on these social grants.

There is a high report of incidences of R99 scams where our people experience deduction of R99 from their bank accounts on a monthly basis. Unscrupulous marketing companies are reportedly making these unlawful deductions, depriving our people the pleasure of enjoying their hard-earned income. Again on this matter the banks could not detect the unlawful deductions.

The turning point on this issue of unlawful deductions by employers was brought to light by the in the case of Stellenbosch Legal Aid

Clinic and others v Minister of Justice and others. This was a matter where the applicants were subjected to unlawful deductions by their employer as a result of emolument and garnishee orders of the court issued against them. The court found, among other things, that the constitutional right of access to court for the applicants was violated. The right to access the courts is fundamental to the rule of law in the constitutional democracy.

The respondents obtained judgement and emolument attachment orders against the applicants in a court far from their homes and in places they could not reach.

The court ruled that the right of access to courts was seriously jeopardised if not effectively denied. The court further found that the whole process of obtaining emolument attachment orders was driven creditors without any judicial oversight whatsoever.

This case led to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development drafting a new Magistrate’s Court Amendment Bill in a bid to curb illegal garnishee orders.

Our democratic government has, over the years, developed legislation to protect the rights of consumers. The Constitution of the Republic

in the chapters on the Bill of Rights provides for the right to privacy which includes the right not to have the privacy of their communications infringed upon. In addition, the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.

The many incidences of unlawful deductions by credit providers and employers in the contrast to the above mentioned constitutional imperative, our people as consumers enter into credit agreements which bind them to provisions which allow the credit provider to share their information with their business partners. This happens because the information leading to signing a credit agreement may not have been made simple and understandable to the consumer prior to the signing of the agreement.

As found by the University of Pretoria research, some consumers are made to sign blank pages as part of their credit agreements. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act provides that an employer may not make any deduction from an employee’s remuneration unless subject to subsection 2 of the Act, the employee in writing agrees to the deduction in respect of the debt specified in the agreement and (b), the deduction is required or permitted in terms of a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award. These provisions seem

to have been violated in the majority of the incidences as was confirmed by the Cape High Court judgement.

The issues which arise out of these observations is that banks muct play proactive role to save our people from unscrupulous and unlawful deductions by credit providers and employers.

There is a need for a concerted awareness campaign about consumer rights by government, credit providers as well as banks to educate consumers about their rights when entering into credit agreements. The banks must engage with a view to develop mitigating measures against this unscrupulous behaviour by credit providers and employers. I thank you Chair. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Thanks to hon Mthimunye for raising this matter in this debate. Let me say that I am mostly going to focus on attachments of salaries, emoluments orders and the like. Some of the other practices that he mentioned I will take back and ask our Consumer Commission to investigate as well because I think these are critical matters.

Let me start by saying we should all understand that credit is a means of enabling people to make purchases of items which they can’t

afford to pay the full cost of outright, but can afford them if they are able to make the payment over a period of time. It is a critical tool of commerce which enables purchases of various items of a consumer durable nature. But, of course we are operating in a society driven by profit and that means these facilities are not made available for free.

There is also a considerable imbalance between many of the credit users and providers in favour of the credit providers. This means that the credit providers are often able to extract extortionate terms out of those who need and depend on credit. It is for that reason that we, in South Africa, have taken a view that this needs to be a regulated activity. There was a pre-existing Usury Act enforced in South Africa before 1993. That Act was subject to revision and review, and it was changed to the National Credit Act which gave rise to the establishment of the National Credit Regulator. That Act came into force in 2005.

The National Credit Act seeks to regulate the conduct of credit providers in a number of ways: firstly, by setting ceilings on the credit levels that can be charged, and in addition the various associated fees which are often a way of wiggling out of ceilings on interest rates; and secondly, it is intended to act against reckless

lending, i.e. the provision of credit to low-income people without taking any account whatsoever of their ability to afford it or the impact of that credit on the lives of those people.

Now, you might ask why anybody would want to provide credit to somebody who can’t afford it. It is, in fact, not irrational. If you can turn that credit into security and you can sell that security to somebody else, which is what happened in the United States - there is something called light touch regulation – you can find that their huge bubble can be created in for example, property. People thought they were buying property securities. Probably many people thought they were buying the underlying property asset, but they were simply buying the right to receive the mortgage payments of people whom the prime lender had no interest in capping their number because they could sell it and pass on the risk. That is what happened.
Therefore, it is not just damaging to the individuals, but it is also damaging to the system creating a bubble and, in fact, a world global financial crisis in 2007 and 2008.

In our own country we didn’t have so much of that, but what we do have is reckless provision of credit to low-income people and that is mitigated by ensuring that those people’s deductions happened, in the first instance, by holding their bank cards, IDs and ensuring

that when payday comes, they go to the ATM and deduct before the person gets it. When that was banned, then there were garnishee orders and various facilities which meant that very often people were leaving work with a pay packet and they were getting some insignificant proportion of their total salary. Of course, that has an impact on the people concerned but it also has an impact on social relations.

Let me give a concrete example. At the time just after the tragedy in Marikana in 2012, the National Credit Regulator went to Marikana and found that there were 13 credit providers nine of whom were not, in fact, compliant with the National Credit Act. Many of the workers there had 80 to 90% of their salaries encumbered in decree payment purchases through the garnishee order system. So, under those circumstances the salary increase of CPI plus a bit doesn’t crack it. Your financial circumstances do not change and this is a dramatic and fundamental change in your income situation.

Where are we in South Africa now? According to the figures I have received from the National Credit Regulator, we have 24 million credit active people in South Africa. The total volume of credit that is deployed in South Africa is R1,7 trillion which is about a third of the GDP. Of those 24 million people who are credit active,

around 41% of those are – what I call – stressed. That does not mean you are subjectively feeling stressed about your credit situation, but it means you have not made your credit payment for three months. In other words, you are in arrears; you have a judgement against you or you have an adverse listing at the credit bureau. Therefore, it is an objective assessment. That 41% is about 10 million South Africans who find themselves in that situation. Given the fact that you are not allowed to get credit until you are 18-years old and that we have a very young population, that is probably a third of the adult population of this country which has a stressed credit record. That is the situation we are in.

What we have been doing, and is always a moving target is to address: one, the interest rate ceilings on the charges; secondly, we have been addressing the question of credit bureau amnesty basically and that was on the initiative of this House at the end of the last term. People’s records in the credit bureaus were cleaned on a once-off basis because we said that people who were in that position were often there for life unless they made an extraordinary effort to get themselves off. If your circumstances changed, the record didn’t change. That also meant that credit providers were not actually undergoing and undertaking an affordability assessment.
They were handing out this credit and often the tool they were

deploying was a garnishee order or deduction at source so that you never saw it in your salary. All kinds of devices were there including, of course, what you signed off for when you got the credit agreement in the first place.

We have seen that this is a seriously-undesirable situation. At one stage there was a significant part of the public servants who were subject to this situation. Therefore, what we have been doing through some of the legislation that hon Mthimunye have just mentioned now, but in particular the Courts of Law Amendment Act, Act 7 of 2017, is that there is now a cap on emolument attachment orders. An emolument attachment order can no longer exceed 25% of an individual’s salary or wage bill.

These orders have to be issued in a court where the consumer lives or works. They must be presented to a magistrate and the consumer must appear before a judicial officer and not the clerks of the court. Then the magistrate is going to assess the validity or otherwise of claims for such orders. Therefore, there is a limit and a cap on these orders. But there is also other work that is going on
- as hon Mthimunye mentioned - through the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa and the Ministerial Task Team on Deductions to make sure that deductions are not taking place for airtime, electricity

accounts and all sorts of other matters before the individual receives their payments.

Then, there is work led by national Treasury to review the Payment Systems Act and payroll deductions and garnishee orders more generally. This is something that we all need to support, but I would also suggest that – and I think in a way I responded to the first set of points – we need Members of Parliament to tell us where this is not happening. Why do we see people being subjected to deductions from payrolls which are beyond the 25% limit? Why is this happening? Let us know about it and we can ask the National Credit Regulator to follow up on these cases because it is no longer legal in this country.

Let me mention one other thing that is happening - and I said that this House had spearheaded the credit bureau amnesty. We have a situation now – if you look at the figures I gave you earlier on, of the level of indebtedness in this country. If you start translating that down into income categories – and I haven’t been able to get that information but I am sure we can all understand that - that must include people who are unemployed; people who have no income; and people who have no assets.

There are clearly people who are not going to be able to service a debt any longer. I understand that the National Assembly and the portfolio committee will be publishing a Bill for public comment next week - but it is their call – which will be seeking some sort of an amnesty for the people who were subject to that debt. We want to call on credit providers to understand that this money is not going to be repaid. It cannot be repaid and it is a millstone around the neck of people whose circumstances are extremely stressed. There are many countries around the world that have embarked on this exercise particularly for no-income-no-asset people, Ninas. This is something that we need to also support.

While access to credit remains important; and while we want to ensure that people are able to purchase things other than the things they can afford this month over a longer period of time, we also need to make sure that this happens in a responsible way that does not result in credit providers preying on low-income people through predatory credit practices; and there are plenty of those around.
The other experience is that we were partly spared systemic financial crisis because of, among other things, the National Credit Act in place. And right after the financial crisis there was a considerable amount of international interest in that Act.

We need to make sure that the National Credit Act is effective in protecting people and also that this is something the Financial Services Board and other parts of the market conduct-regulatory family ought to deal with. Where people are subject to an illegal deduction and those are subsequently reversed, there shouldn’t be a payment. They should reverse the payment as well. We would be more than happy to hear the details of that, and pass that on to the National Consumer Commission as well. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr J J LONDT: Chairperson, hon Magwebu I really appreciate the welcome, hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the topic for today’s debate is extremely relevant to the current day South Africa. It is a situation faced all too often by hundreds of thousands of workers in all sectors, all areas, all ages and all races. It also affects millions of unemployed South Africans on a daily basis. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to ensure the necessary legislation is in place to protect our workers and also to protect the millions of consumers who buy on credit on a daily basis.

I am satisfied that on this issue, we do have a common goal that we want to achieve. The debate today could easily have been divided up

into two parts. The first part could have focussed on those who have, and the second on those who have not. Those who have a job are blessed to use their skills, knowledge, abilities to look after themselves, their families and their loved ones. For the haves it is pretty clear when employers may or may not deduct money. The Minister touched on many of that so Minister thank you for shortening my speech somewhat, but I do want to raise some of the points that Minister did not touch on.

Firstly, an employee must be responsible for the damages in the losses that he or she caused and that is clear. The responsible person who cause the loss or damage must then be held accountable, it cannot be attributed to a group or all the workers, it must the individual that gets held accountable. As the Minister said, an employer may not deduct more than a quarter or 25% per pay run. The employee must also give that written consent. It cannot just be a one sided action that gets taken by the employer. The employer must also just deduct the actual loss; there may not be any penalties. In certain instances interest may accrue. But that is pretty straightforward.

The issue that I wanted to touch on is that those who have opportunity to provide for their loved ones must be protected and

must not be the target of predatory credit providers. Those who prey on individuals who are in vulnerable situation provide them with a quick escape when they in fact get themselves into bigger trouble.
There should be some critical questions we must ask ourselves. The first of these questions is how is it possible that so many South Africans get into a situation where the old credit provide us millions if not billions often way beyond what they can afford to repay forcing thousands into a crippling debt spiral, unable to get out of cycle and start building their own financial security.

The education of South Africans in personal financial management should start at the young age where the value of money is better explained, understood and appreciated. The risks surrounding reckless lending and the real cost of repaying loans should be taken into consideration before people fall into the debt trap. But this is an education issue that we should start at a young age. This should in fact be taught at schools, in communities and must become second nature for South Africans to work more wisely with their money. Luxuries and treating ourselves should only come after the essentials are looked after. It is unacceptable that parents and guardians would rather buy alcohol, cigarette, branded clothing, luxury items yet kids go to bed hungry.

There should be a joint responsibility by government and every individual to work better with the limited funds available in this country during this tough economic climate. There is however a much bigger question and a problem, although what we are discussing today is extremely important, there are close to 10 million of South Africans who are currently unemployed. They are the haves not as I referred to above, people who should be given the opportunity to earn a living wage and look after their loved ones.

The economic growth we are currently experiencing would never be enough to address the crippling unemployment we are facing in this country. There needs to be a radical change in our approach to how we are doing business, how we are treating businesses and how we are supporting businesses. I am not talking here just about big businesses, although they must do their share in lifting millions of unemployed, it cannot be just their role and their job alone. I repeat - it cannot be the job of government to also provide the millions of unemployed the opportunity to do the job. Government is incapable of doing that. It is the responsibility of government to create an enabling environment to look after the millions of potential entrepreneurs out there so that they then be the job creators for South Africa.

It is time that every single one of us starts focusing on supporting thousands of potential entrepreneurs we do have. The entrepreneurs who have a dream of providing for the family, the entrepreneurs who have a dream of providing jobs for other South Africans because it is only through them being able to achieve their success and their goals that millions of unemployed South Africans will also be lifted out of this debt trap that they are facing and stuck into. The role of government should be the enabling environment to provide political stability, clear policy direction, and corruption-free governance and inspires the confidence that the hard earned money of investors, of those who are working day in and day out will not be put at risk by self-serving political decision-making.

It is our responsibility to look after every South African so that we do not have to talk about the have nots in the country anymore.

Mr E MAKUE: Chairperson, hon Minister hon Rob Davies, hon members, the overarching purpose of the national credit Act 34 of 2005 is to promote and advance the social and economic welfare of South Africans, by amongst other, protecting consumers from unfair conduct from credit providers. The unlawful deductions by credit providers are one such unfair conduct.

The promulgation of progressive legislation is not an end in itself. Education and awareness of and compliance with laws are imperative. For workers and consumers, especially the poor and vulnerable people the National Credit Regulator, NCR, and the National Credit Tribunal, NCT, has been established by government.

The National Consumer Tribunal and the National Credit regulator, which is responsible for the regulation of the South African credit industry, are entities of the Department of Trade and Industry.

During the current financial year, the Department of Trade and Industry, in collaboration with its regulatory entity, the national credit regulator has conducted education and awareness campaigns in the following seven provinces: namely; Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West and the Free State. Further education and awareness campaigns are scheduled to take place in the Western Cape during the month of November and Gauteng Province in February 2018.

The National Credit Regulator working jointly with local tribal authorities in rural areas of most provinces conducted community outreach programmes, known as “Izimbizo”, aimed at mainly pensioners to create awareness relating to their rights and responsibilities as

consumers in the credit industry. The NCR tells us that repeat visits will be made to all provinces.

Under the National Credit Act, the Department of Trade and Industry has amended and implemented the following legislation. The National Credit Amendment Bill that Minister Davies referred to earlier is also something that the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry within the National Assembly is developing this year.

Proposals of this Draft Bill are to provide debt relief measures, to reduce the impact of high over-indebtedness for certain over- indebted households in this severe economic circumstances; in which we as South Africa and the world find itself. Secondly, criminal prosecution for contraventions of the National Credit Act 2005, for punishment and deterrence for unlawful conduct by credit providers and redress, for example, banks and other lending-institutions for reckless lending to consumers are being considered in the Draft proposals.

Let me provide some examples of unlawful deduction in terms of the National Credit Act. We have what we call unlawful set-offs.

In the matter that was launched by the National Credit Regulator against a registered bank, a consumer complained to the National Credit Regulator that he become unemployed for a year and duly informed his credit provider about his predicament. He subsequently became employed again earning a salary of R5 000 per month. When he got paid at the end of the month, the bank deducted R3 863 from his account – where he earned R5 000 - which money was meant for groceries and school fees. So, it’s right that when we see these atrocities it is increasing poverty.

In another example, a consumer complained again that the same bank deducted money from his savings account without prior notice or authorisation as required by the National Credit Act. Both these unlawful deductions prejudiced the consumers. The National Credit Regulator and the National Credit tribunal successfully intervened on these matters in favour of the workers, thus setting a legal precedent.

However, the banks continue to apply the common law principle of set-off on accounts opened after 1 June 2007, despite the provisions in the National Credit Act. This may all change with the announcement by the National Credit Regulator that it has brought an application against a bank in the North Gauteng High Court to obtain

legal clarity on the effect of section 124 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 on the common law set–off.

The National Credit Regulator is seeking an order from the High Court that the common law set-off has been superseded by section 124 of the National Credit Act.

Chair, enough has been said about the unlawful cards and the retention of the people’s pension cards and their pins. In spite of section 91 of the National credit Act stating clearly that it is unlawful for a credit provider to retain possession of a consumer’s bank card or identity document.

Since April 2017 a total of 3084 banks or Sassa cards have been seized from various credit providers, after the National Credit Regulator conducted raids in the Gauteng, Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces. In addition, a total of 17 persons were arrested for these unlawful bank and Sassa cards and pins retentions.

In the previous year, 2016, raids were conducted in Gauteng, Free State, Limpopo, and the Northern Provinces. Bank cards, pins and IDs documents were retrieved and a number of credit providers were arrested. This is the work that is being done by institutions

established by this government to protect and promote the best interest of the poor people of this country.

The National Credit Consumer Tribunal derives its mandate from the National Credit Act and, as such, hears all sides of a case before making a decision. A decision by the National Credit Tribunal has the same status as the one made by a High Court. And we want the consumers out there to notice this and hear the message that there are authoritative powers that this government has given to the institutions that are promoting the interest of the consumers.

We in the NCOP, encourage consumers to be cautious when engaging in credit agreements. Should consumers feel aggrieved by the credit arrangements and especially when consumers are unable to service their debts they are at liberty to approach the National Credit Regulator for assistance and advice.

We call on people to desist from borrowing any money from loan sharks and illegal credit bureaus. We all have the responsibility to report such illegal agencies to the National Credit Regulator. And in this way we will be creating a better life for all.


Mme N P KONI: Modulasetulo, ke dumedisa Aforikaborwa ka bophara. Go utlwisa botlhoko gore maloko a mantsi a a tlileng go bua fa, ke a ANC, bone ba ba leng mo pusong. Ba tlile go ema mo ba re rasetsa ekare ke dipidipidi mme ba le mo pusong. Bone jaaka puso, ba dira eng kgotsa ba dirile eng go fitlha ga jaana fa ba lemoga gore go nale bothata bo re tshwaraganeng le bona gompieno mo?


Let us begin by making a fundamental, often misunderstood, but an important clarification. It is incorrect to say it is unlawful deductions. What is happening is stealing, it is thievery, it is greed, and given the bloodsucking nature of capitalist system, this is what will happen when profit matters over all else. Majority of the so-called credit providers are not legitimate businesses, but fake service providers who operate under the pretence of selling one financial product or other services. What the majority of the so- called credit providers do is prey on the workers, and take advantage of a banking system that is designed to exploit workers and steal from them the very little that they earn.

But most importantly, majority of these so-called credit providers are in collusion with the banks, and it is banks that make such illegal deductions possible. Banks are not bothered by the stealing,

thieving and greed that is going on with these R99 deduction schemes because they make profit when the deduction happens and they make profit when deduction is reversed. For banks, the more deductions for them, the better.

While the stealing, thieving and greed that happen at a very small scale, if one adds all those R99 together, stolen from thousands if not millions, is millions every year. The sad reality is that those who suffer the most are the workers, the poor and social grants beneficiaries. Some of these deductions happen in accounts that have nothing less than the amount of deduction, the only money left in the account.

What is more concerning is that, while we are debating the problem of illegal deductions from customers’ accounts, it is also a reflection of financial crimes that are happening in the financial sector, especially banking. Those with power and access are exploiting customers, exploiting their own workers and exploiting gaps that should not even exist to begin with.

As the EFF, we have proposed in the FICA Bill and the Financial Intelligence Centre Bill that if there is an unauthorised deduction in customer’s bank accounts, it must be the bank’s responsibility.

It must be bank that pays the money back into the customer’s account. It must be the bank that reports the matter to the police. It must be the bank that through their lawyers, take the matter to court and make sure that culprits are apprehended. It must be the bank that guarantees safety of the customer’s money because customers are paying premium price on banking fees for safety of their money.

Unless banks are made to feel what the customers feel, unless they start losing some of their money and unless banks do not make profit from these deductions, debating it here in the council will not solve the problem. It is our people, the workers, the poor and the social grants beneficiaries who will continue to suffer the most.

It is unfortunate that the Hawks and the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, are in permanent leave of absence and sleeping while lawlessness prevails. Other people are exposed to all sorts of crimes and the law enforcement agencies are nowhere to be found. I have known hon Mthimunye for more than two years but since I have met him until to date, I have never heard him speak any sense, but today, fortunately he did and I agree with him. Thank you very much.

Mr M RAYI: Hon House Chair, hon Minister and hon members, let me thank hon Mthimunye also for initiating this debate. Just to inform the speaker before me, that the ANC is coming to lament that the ANC has actually done a lot with regard to addressing this matter. I will invite the hon member when she has time to read the Consumer Production Act ... [Interjections.]

Ms N P KONI: Chairperson, on a point of order. The point of order is from the matter that the speaker on the podium just referred to. Can he just mention two of the many that he is referring to? Can he just mention two interventions from the many that is mention?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Koni, allow me to make a ruling. Take your seat. You know very well that is not a point of order. You are debating with the speaker on the podium, refrain from doing that. Let us allow hon ... [Interjections.]

Mr J J LONDT: Chairperson, I just want some clarity because it is now debate after debate that people stand up on points of orders and it is seldom a point of order. What will you as the Chairperson, do to start preventing that and making sure that there is action against those that keep on raising frivolous points of orders?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Leaders of various delegation and parties must prevail to their hon members in terms of making them to understand the Rules. My role is to preside and I have made a ruling that, that is not a point of order. Hon Rayi, can you continue.

Mr M RAYI: Hon House Chair, I was inviting the hon member – when she has time - to read the Consumer Protection Act, the National Credit Act, the Basic Condition of Employment Act and also the Regulations on Social Assistance Act. Those documents will at least clarify what is it that the ANC government is doing to deal with the matter. I also invite her to follow the processes that are initiated by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the Debt Relief Bill.

Hon House Chair, for us as the ANC it is a situation of what we normally call; many voices one message. You will find that the message that we are taking out there to the communities is one.
In preparation for the inevitability of assuming the responsibility to lead a democratic South Africa, the ANC in 1992, developed a document called Ready to govern. That document among other things the ANC outlined that the democratic state will introduce mechanisms to encourage private sector financial institutions to channel resources into productive investment. The development of basic needs

sector and to end discrimination in lending against blacks, women and informal sector or very small scale producers. The point of discrimination in lending against black women and informal sector or very small scale producers led the ANC government to introduce legislation which will protect the rights of consumers amongst other things.

The preamble of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, state that the apartheid and discriminatory laws of the past have burdened the nation with unacceptable high levels of poverty, illiteracy and other forms of social and economic inequality. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and employ innovative means to among other things; protect the interests of all consumers, ensure accessible, transparent and efficient redress for consumers who are subjected to abuse or exploitation in market place. The question of unlawful deduction by credit providers and employers is a serious concern.
This issue is in large measure occurs as a result of among other things; emoluments and garnishee orders by our courts and magistrates courts.

There are many court cases where emoluments and garnishee orders have been found to be unlawful, for example, the Stellenbosch case. According to a research done by the University of Pretoria in 2008,

the one that hon Mthimunye referred to, titled; The incident of and undesirable practices relating to garnishee orders in South Africa, reports that there were 16 million active consumers at the end of 2007 September. These 6,3 million of 37,7% had an impaired credit record. In May 2007 alone 105 427 summons were issued for death and
54 755 judgement granted. The research report went further to indicate that in some cases which involve what we could argue to be unlawful deductions, the research found that the debtors never signed consent to judgement even though judgement was granted on such basis.

In some instances the debtors alleged; duress, misrepresentation, cases of blank consent, incomplete documentation and forgery of signatures are reported on. The research also found that unlawful and burdensome charges are added to the capital amount of the original debt in numerous cases. This shows that our people are taken for a ride by these credit providers and debt collectors. In 2016, following the reported unlawful deductions mostly by cell phone network companies – a bond that also hon Mthimunye referred to
– which were unlawfully deducting airtime from old age pensioners, depriving our pensioners who are the most vulnerable in society their social grant provided by this government for their own livelihood and sustenance.

Again, depriving our social grant beneficiaries their little income and therefore subjecting them to poverty. In response to this inhumane practice, the Minister of Social Development published a revised regulation to the Social Assistance Act. According to the Minister, these were unauthorised and unlawful deductions. Among the measures outlined by the Minister to deal with these acts of criminality includes 24-hours seven days a week toll free to report suspicious and unlawful deductions among South Africa Social Security Agency, Sassa, beneficiaries, to provide onsite Sassa commissioners of oath to assist in completing dispute forms as well as a team of Sassa officials to deal with deductions disputes. These unlawful deductions among Sassa beneficiaries stand in contrast to our policy as ANC of implementing our comprehensive social security net to provide a targeted and impeccable approach to eradicate poverty and unemployment.

Unlawful deductions on consumers by credit providers and employers negatively affect consumer’s personal disposable income. The logic of economics is premised on demand and supply principle where producers produce goods and services to be sold to consumers in market. This logic reflects two sides of the same coin. Economic growth requires a continuous interaction of demand and supply. This exchange of goods for income is dependent upon consumer’s disposable

income. If the consumer’s disposable income is unlawfully reduced as in the case of unlawful deductions the demand for goods and services will decline leading to productions without sale and ultimately recession. The Public Service Commission undertook a study on the indebtedness of public servants in 2007. The relevance of the research by Public Service Commission is in relation to the in part of unlawful deduction in the form of emoluments and garnishee orders on the economy in general and productivity in particular. The Report found that these emoluments and garnishee orders create an administrative burden on the public service as these ordersmust be implemented by the public service through its persal. This means that some public servants will endure the responsibility of implementing the orders. This takes them away from their employment responsibility.

There are associated health risks due to financial distress. The public research by consumer interest annual indicates the relationship between health and personal income. The research argues that financial difficulties are among the known causes of stress and anxiety. The Public Service Commission sick leave trends listed depression or stress-related illness to be among the top five illnesses that resulted in the highest number of days sick leave taken in public service during 2002. Again, productivity is also

affected due to ill health, absenteeism and poor performance. This affects state capacity to deliver on its promise of better life for all. Other effects relate to the issue of double employment with the hope of raising income ... Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]


MnuM KHAWULA: Ngiyathokoza Sihlalo ngibingelele kumhlonishwa uNgqongqoshe, egameni leqembu leNkatha Yenkululeko ngiyathokoza ukuthi ngibambe iqhaza kulesi sihloko esibalulekile esimayelana nokukhula kwezinga lokuqolwa kwabantu bakithi ngokubanjwa ngokungemthetho kwezimali zabo. Lona umkhuba omubi kakhulu futhi wubugebengu okufanele uHulumeni enze indlela yokuba kusondele Umnyango wamaPhoyisa kulobu bugebengu ukuze buqedwe.

Abantu izikhathi eziningi bazifumana sebekhokhela izikweletu zezinto abangakaze bazithathe nhlobo. Kuyenzeka kube nomuntu obanjelwa imali kwi-akhawunti yakhe ebhange ngento angayazi. Kokunye umsebenzi abanjelwe imali yakhe nge-stop order emholweni wakhe ngento angayazi nhlobo. Kokunye umuntu azifumane enomshuwalense wakhe, noma wendlu noma wemoto kodwa engakaze nakancane abe yingxenye yokuwuxoxa lowo mshwalense.

Angisayiphathi ke Sihlalo eyomkhulu nogogo laphaya ezimpeshenini zabo ngoba sebeqothuliwe yilemikhuba. Bajoyiniswa omasingcwabane abangabazi. Bakhokhele ama-airtime abangawazi. Bakhokha izikweletu zogesi abangabazi. Indlela lobu bugebengu obenzeka ngayo ikhomba ukuthi kunokuxhumana okukhulu phakathi kwamahhovisi asayinela ukuthathwa kwemali kanye nalezo zigebengu ezisuke ziletha amaphepha asayinelwe ukuba kuthathwe lenkence. Kungako Sihlalo iqembu leNkatha lithi uma lomkhuba ungekasukunyelwa ngabezomthetho ebese kuboshwa bonke labo abathintekayo kusho ukuthi usazoya kude. Kwesinye isikhathi kuthathwa lenkence yakho ungazange ugunyaze lutho, uma usuya ebhange uyocela ukuba bavimbe lemihlola, bakutshele ukuthi hamba uyoxoxisana nalapho kuya khona inkence ngoba bona ngeke bayivale bengakagunyazwa yilabo abayithathayo. Lona wumhlola oxaka ukwenza ukuba kuthiwe angiyoxoxisana nesigebengu ukuba sivume sona ukungabe sisayithatha inkence yami.

Ngiyafisa ukudlulisa ukuncoma kuMhlonishwa uMthimunye okunguye osinikeze lesi sihloko esibaluleke kangaka esikhuluma ngezinto ezibakhathaza ngqo abantu esibamele. Omunye umkhakha wabantu abahlukumezeke kakhulu ngaloluhlobo lobuqola abasebenzi bakahulumeni okuhlanganisa othisha, onesi, abasemahhovisi njalo-njalo. Kukhulu kakhulu ukukhohlakala okwenziwa ngamaqili emiholweni yabasebenzi bakahulumeni bona bebe bengayinikanga imvume. Kunalaba abacuthela

nje ukuthi uma beke baba ne-persal number yomsebenzi kanye nenombolo kamazisi, hawu sekushile. Isihambile inkence ngoba usuthathelwe umshwalense obungazange uwucele.

Omunye umuntu engakuthatha kalula nje ngokuthi uma kwenzeka loluhlobo lobugebengu abantu abavuli ngani amacala. Kokunye Sihlalo ukuvula icala uhamba nezinkantolo kukubiza inkence eningi ukwedlula lokhu obuthi uzama ukukulungisa. Kubiza nesikhathi sakho esiningi ngalendlela yokuthi abantu abayizisulu zalomkhuba kabavamisile ukuba babe nomdlandla wokuvula amacala ngenxa yalezi zizathu. Enye inkinga ukuthi kakufinyeleleki kalula kulabo National Credit Regulator, NCR, okukhulunywa ngabo ikakhulukazi kubantu abasezindaweni zasemakhaya.

Mhlawumbe iPhalamende kufanele kelibuke ukuthi kungebe nomthelela ophusile yini ukuba kube nomthetho oshaywa yilo ozokwenza kube wumnqansa ezinkampanini zenkence ukuwaka abantu kalula kanje.
Nanokuthi uma inkampani eyenza lomkhuba isibanjiwe kuvimbani ukuba ifakwe ohlwini lwabangenzi kahle [Black listing] ukuze iphelelwe yigunya lokusebenza.

Olunye uhlangothi noma umkhakha lapho abantu bakithi bebhubha khona ngokukhokhela izinto abangazazi yilapha ezinkampanini zomakhalekhukhwini. Kunabantu abahlale befona ongazi ukuthi

izinombolo zabantu baziqoqa kanjani. Bafona nje banemininingwane yakho yebhange neminye. Kuba ukuluphendula nje ucingo kube wujoyiniswa into ongayazi. Kufanele uphele lomkhuba wokuthi uma unikeza imininingwane yakho ngesivumelwano osuke usenze kwenye indawo ebese idluliselwa nje kalula kunanoma ngubani. Yikho lokudluliswa kalula kwemininingwane yabantu okuqhubezela phambili lobugebengu. Liyakhuza ke Sihlalo iqembu leNkatha. Baphela abantu yizi-stop order mbumbulu. Ake kufunwe amasu okulwa nalesi sihlava. Ngiyathokoza.


Mr W F FABER: Hon Chair, members and fellow South Africans, this debate on illegal and unlawful deductions by credit providers and employers is welcomed. But first, hon Mthimunye and hon Rayi the ANC government is not succeeding to protect customers through the Consumer Commission as this practice is still on the rise under this ANC rule. If the ANC work successful, we would not have this debate here today to be quite honest.

There are two basic words, we should look at. What is illegal and what is immoral? In the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997, it is clear that employers may only make deductions on a worker or employee’s salary if they agree in writing to the

deduction of a debt or by a collective agreement, such as an Unemployment Insurance Fund, UIF, or Court Order deduction and as the Minister also said not exceed 25% of the workers pay. If not - this is illegal.

In South Africa there are more than 16 million pensioners’ receiving social grants and half of a million pensioners affected by unlawful deductions by ruthless loan sharks who charge high interest rates and repayments -deducting money from pensioners who receive just more than R1400 per month by the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, to live on is both illegal and immoral - taking it from these elderly.

Financial services providers have a duty not to provide credit recklessly, especially when selling life policies to elderly people and providing micro loans to families, as these poor families, then find it excruciatingly difficult to afford and to put food on the table. This is not made easier by the fact that many more people are starting to buy food on credit - digging themselves a deeper credit hole.

I believe that Sassa should play a leading role with community development workers and social services to help prevent these types

of practices taking place, and harsh penalties should be instated to credit providers who take advantage of our elderly people. I believe that Sassa and these people should help exploit these legal providers.

Credit providers who keep up with these practices should be blacklisted, have criminal charges instated against them and prohibited to trade in the financial sector. Why doesn’t the government take more drastic action against these practices? If the government acted ruthlessly against these thugs - these practices would show a drastic decline - this should tell the story. Let’s act, specially help our elderly and poor people from being exploited. I thank you.

Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: Chair, I think hon Hattingh must be called to order; he said I am a liar. [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon members, refrain from anything that you know it has got nothing to do with the decorum of the House. Okay, hon Hattingh, let me first ascertain: Did you say hon Mthimunye is a liar? [Interjections.] No, I want hon Hattingh to respond.

Mr C HATTINGH: I said he should not lie again.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): It will be attended accordingly. Can you continue, hon Mthimunye?

Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: House Chair, just listen to this one. “I came home with R70 of my R1 140”, says a social grant beneficiary. This is s a message I got from one of my source that I will not reveal here. So, at the centre of this debate, it is not just unscrupulous credit provision activities that are taking place; it is the brutality of capitalism that we are dealing with here. [Interjections.] Perhaps, hon Parkies is correct that socialism is the way and socialism must be built now.

The hon Minister makes reference to the fact that 41% of the credit records are those that are referred to ‘stressed’. These come in the main from the poor of the poorest that we have in this country. I want to appreciate the fact that hon Londt agrees with me amidst certain reservations that the bigger chunk of these poor people are unfortunately black people who do not find themselves in that situation out of their own will.

They happen to find themselves at the lowest point of our economy because of the brutality of apartheid. These are the people that hon Rayi refers to and these are people who are dying of diseases that are stress related, caused by these debts. These are people who die of kwashiorkor as opposed to dying of sugar diabetes, the disease of the rich. So, this should suggest to us that this matter – the debate before the House today – is no matter of political gimmick.
It is a real matter that affects our people. Hence, we agree with hon Khawula.

Another matter that hon Koni made reference to was responded to by hon Rayi. Hon Koni wanted to have at least two things that the ANC- led government has done in addressing the problem. Hon Rayi gave her two plus one, which is a bonus. But, I think ... [Interjections.]

Ms N P KONI: Hon Chair, the last time I checked hon Koni is a she. The hon member on the podium says, “Hon Rayi referred to him ... ”. He is not saying to her. I am a she. Can he please withdraw that?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): The point of order is sustained. Hon Mthimunye, the hon Koni is a she.

Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: I have corrected that inside myself, hon Chair. [Laughter.] Over and above the legislation that it has put in place; the ANC-led government has established organisations such as the National Credit Regulator, NCR, which deals with credit issues on daily basis. These are some of the instruments that the ANC-led government as put in place.

I think hon Rayi makes reference to a very important point, that it is significant for Members of Parliament to be informed and be equal to the issue at hand. For hon Koni to be so much ignorant on such an important matter when she comes from a party that claims to belong to the left ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Koni, why are you standing? Hon Mthimunye, can you take your seat whilst I am dealing with the point of ... [Interjections.]

Ms N P KONI: Chair, hon Mthimunye must not underestimate my intelligence. He must not undermine me to that level. Yes, he is not done. If he is not done and he is continuing, I will also continue to stand on points of order to correct him. He is misleading South Africans out there. If he is taking this personal, let’s go toe to toe; it is fine.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Koni, this is not a point of order. You can’t be debating with him while he is at the podium. Can you continue, hon Mthimunye.

Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: I think ignorance on the part of Members of Parliament must be declared a crime against humanity. Let me share with you some of the characters of a developmental state, among others. These are some of the things that the ANC is doing. The ANC- led government intervenes in the economy. It levels the playing field. However, this playing field must also be understood in a context that ours is an unequal society. The ANC therefore should unapologetically be biased to the poor people in its interventions.

Hon Faber made reference to the fact that the ANC is not succeeding in preventing the practice. However, I think the ANC-led government may not have done it all in this particular space but the ANC would have done more in this space should it have not been the DA that represents and defends capitalism in this Parliament. On behalf of the office of the Chief Whip, I think I must appreciate ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Mthimunye, let me take hon Julius. Hon Julius, why are you standing?

Mr J W W JULIUS: I just wanted to know whether the Chief Whip will take a question.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): I don’t know whether you are making a mistake or not. Do you want to talk to the ... [Interjections.]

Mr J W W JULIUS: Sorry, I want to know if hon Mthimunye will take a question. You confused me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Okay. Let me ascertain: Hon Mthimunye, are you ready to take a question from hon Julius?

Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: Not from the representative of capitalism! [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): He is not ready to take a question.

Mr J W W JULIUS: Point of order!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Okay, hon Mthimunye, let me take the point of order. What is your point of order?

Mr J W W JULIUS: Chairperson, the speaker is deliberately misleading the House and South Africans. If he says ... [Interjections.] Can I continue? If he says that the DA came with capitalism and they are defenders of capitalism house, it is a programme and it is a policy of the ANC that they keep on denying. The Minister can tell us whether you have capitalist policies ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Julius, take your seat!

Mr J W W JULIUS: I don’t know where or what the ANC [Inaudible] [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon Julius, this is the very same point that was addressed by hon Londt, that if a person arises and raises a point of order, it must be a point of order. Yours is not a point of order; you are now debating with him. Can you continue, hon Mthimunye? Hon Smit!

Mr C F B SMIT: Hon House Chair, just on a point of clarity: is tenderpreneurship not also a form of capitalism?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): That is not a point of order. Take your seat. Continue and conclude hon Mthimunye.

Mr S G MTHIMUNYE: Hon Chair, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr Rob Davies, for gracing this debate in person. On behalf of the office of the Chief Whip, of course, can I also thank all the members of this House who participated in this debate? I also thank the office of the Chief Whip for agreeing to place this particular debate, which is so important and cardinal to our people, on record/schedule of this House. Thank you very much, Chair. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr A J Nyambi): Hon members, allow me to join hon Mthimunye on behalf of the Chair, the leadership and the Chief Whip in thanking you and the Minister for being available to deal with the debate of, Proliferation of Unlawful Deductions by Credit Providers and Employers.

Debate concluded.

The Council adjourned at 15:48.