Hansard: NA: Unrevised Hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 16 Nov 2017


No summary available.




The House met at 14:02.

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

The SPEAKER: Hon members, I would like to recognise, in the public gallery, the 20 Eastern Cape retired nurses who are visiting Parliament today. Welcome to Parliament. [Applause.]


Question 43:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, we know only too well where the roots of division, discord and social upheaval in our country come from. They are rooted in a system defined by racism, patriarchy, oppression, inequality,

greed and many forms of intolerance. As a country we have embarked on a journey to build a united, nonracial, nonsexist and prosperous country. There can be no doubt that we have made significant progress since 1994, both in attitudes and in the lived experience of our people.
Society has by and large changed quite dramatically since 1994. Today, we see forms of solidarity where diverse communities join together to advocate for particular courses that have greater societal impact.

South Africans from all walks of life campaign together against gender-based violence, drug abuse and a number of other social ills. In spite of the cases of racism lodged with the Equity Court, there is an indication that South Africans are becoming less tolerant of racism and are using the institutional mechanisms that are available to them to fight racism in many, many ways. These institutions include the courts, various institutions like the Human Rights Commission and the Equity Court.
Instances of racism or violence against women cause outrage across society. Despite our challenges, South Africa still believes in the need for social cohesion and

nation building and South Africans are committed towards achieving this goal.

Government continues to engage South African society in a conversation on how to bridge the historical divisions that our country has had as a legacy of the past. The Department of Arts and Culture has its social cohesion community conversation programme, the Department of Justice has run antixenophobia campaigns and the Department of Women has led the gender empowerment campaigns. These initiatives have taken place right across the country.

Government is looking at ways to strengthen the moral regeneration project through the support of the moral regeneration movement and similar civil society organisations. Both the National Development Plan and the Medium-Term Strategic Framework set out various measures to assess progress in advancing social cohesion. These include increased knowledge and support for the set of values shared by South Africans as set out in our Constitution; reduction of inequality opportunity; implementing language and cultural and economic redress;

increasing interaction among South Africans across race and class; and fostering strong leadership.

Nation building is in the end a multifaceted and multilayered process. It is both about removing the material inequalities that divide our people and confronting the attitudes that allow prejudice and violence still to persist. This places a responsibility to all of us to act with urgency and purpose. It also places responsibility on us, particularly as public representatives, to confront all forms of corruption both in the state and private sectors. Corruption, continued acts of racism and intolerance erode the fabric of our society. They weaken our sense of common purpose and undermine our shared values. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to teach our children the values that are enshrined in our Constitution. It is only in this way as we teach them that we will be able to build a better society where there is less racism, more tolerance, more equity, more justice and more living together as South Africans. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, I have been informed that hon Niewoud-Druchen will take charge of the first supplementary question on behalf of hon Morutoa.

Ms W S NIEWHOUD-DRUCHEN: Madam Speaker, thank you Deputy President for your response. Hon Deputy President, what has been the progress made on the draft national plan that was developed by government to combat racism and deal with questions of discriminations, xenophobia and related acts of intolerance that continue to be practiced in the country? What were the lessons learnt in addressing these societal challenges? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, the plan is being developed and is underway, and in fact, it is being discussed at a fairly high level. The presidential co- ordinating committee as it meets receives reports from our provinces in terms of some of the things that they are doing and are involved with. I remember particularly how the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal made a very thoughtful input about the challenge of xenophobia their province had to face some months and two years ago. That enlightened the work that need to be done in all our

provinces. Gauteng also made an impassioned input at one of our presidential co-ordinating committee meetings. So, a plan is being evolved and finalised, and it should be put before all of us. It involves all disciplines within government including how our security establishment need to act whenever we have acts of xenophobia as well as racism itself.

I know that a lot of thought is being put into what extent pieces of legislation should be put in place on issues of fighting racism in our country. I believe that efforts are being made in government as they should be made as well as outside government to make sure that South Africans become more tolerant, obliterate racism from the face of South Africa and we also obliterate intolerance from amongst our ranks as South Africans. A lot is being done, but obviously all these can be better bolstered by the actions that all of us can take and all South Africans can take through their various organisations of civil society. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms D CARTER: Deputy President, thank you for your reply. However, contrary to the view expressed in the question

the Institute of Race Relations in their latest opinion survey of ordinary South Africans into the state of our race relations, concluded that race relations in South Africa remains sound, that the quite majority of South Africans respect each other and want to work together to build a better country. However, they do note that politicians and other commentators might seek - as is currently evident – to foment racial divisions for political or ideological gain and that the more our economy falters and unemployment grows, the easier this would be to achieve. Deputy President, who, in your opinion, is behind the fomenting of racial divisions and for what ends? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, clearly, yes, one has noted the report that was released by the Institute of Race Relations where they do comment quite positively about the status of race relations in our country.
However, I think we should also note that whenever there is a flare up of racism, of acts of intolerance and of acts wherein people are attacked because they belong to a particular racial group it discolours the landscape that we seek to achieve where there is no racism evident in

South Africa. We have seen quite a number of such acts that are both disturbing and that also demonstrate a bit that rather than moving forward we are moving backwards. Those are demonstrable acts which we should obliterate from the face of South Africa.

I have not directly perceived any acts by leaders of various formations or political parties where they directly foment and agitate for racism, and if they do, possibly it is indirect. However, where they do I think we should all condemn it. We should condemn racism or any manifestation there of in the strongest terms. We should be very firm in our articulation of our rejection of racism. Indeed, our people have been doing so where there have been trials, for instance, where people have been put on trial because of their racist practices or acts.
Many of our people have thronged to those courts, those organisations and institutions to demonstrate clearly that they are against racism. Therefore, by and large I would say that our people have embraced the notion of nonracism, but we need to reinstil the adherence to the values that are enshrined in our Constitution so that all

of us as South Africans do respect those values and the principles setup. Thank you.

Mr M HLENGWA: Madam Speaker and Hon Deputy President, as you also indicated in your response that the issue of social cohesion is multifaceted and one of the aspects of it, of course, is the issue of economic redress in the country. Some commentators have pointed out, and I think that the xenophobic attacks are a point in case, that they flared out, out of the economic inequalities currently facing the country. There is a cosmetic acceptance of one another because of political freedom, but the lack of economic opportunities and economic freedom for the majority of South Africans causes most people to retreat into their respective laagers and then try to deal with the issue.

Fundamentally then, to what extent do you see developed economic growth and economic redress as an important aspect of social cohesion to deal with the levels of inequality and to deal with the barriers to access confining majority of our people because their envy is that the have-nots will ordinarily want to fight those

that have something and then, of course, the defend thereof. So, let us address the issue of the economy as part of social cohesion. Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, I have in the past in this very House alluded to the fact that lack of economic growth and the continued poverty, inequality and indeed unemployment that continues to prevail in our country leads to those who have to be so greedy that they want to hold on to what they have and those who don’t have, reach a state of desperation and in the end this causes fissures within our society. Unemployment and poverty do cause fissures. We all knows what the history of poverty is in our country. In the end poverty really emanates from our terrible and sad past where those who had, the colonialists and those adherents to apartheid, denuded our people of the wealth of this country. Even Mr Steenhuisen who is currently shouting at me saying that I am a have needs to remember the history of this country and where his kind emanates from because it is from that. I would like members of this House to be very careful ... [Applause.] [Interjections.]


The SPEAKER: Can you allow him to finish and then you can rise.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I would like to take a point of order! I’ll like to take a point of order, in terms of Rule 85.

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I find it ironic that the question around racial cohesion is referred to my kind. Is it parliamentary to refer to each other’s kinds in the House? Is this the campaign CR17 wants to run?

The SPEAKER: No, no, hon Steenhuisen, that is not a point of order, please. Please, finish off Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Chair, I do respond like this and it is not the way that I would want to respond, but when an insult is being hailed at one when you are answering a question, as one is answering a question

particularly on an important issue of social cohesion where we are addressing a question of social building and somebody then starts throwing darts at one, they must expect that we will respond and the response will not be very healthy, it will not be pleasing because in the end when you point a finger at one person you must remember that there are three fingers pointing at you. I would say that it is Mr Steenhuisen’s kind who in the end imposed poverty amongst our people. They denuded our people of their land and their assets. When we look historically at where poverty comes from, it is because of what was done by the colonialists and those who were adherent to apartheid in our country.

Coming back to hon Hlengwa I am able to say that yes, indeed, poverty thus play a role in exacerbating acts of intolerance and also is a very negative determinant or cause of lack of social cohesion. Ultimately, we need to address poverty in our country and we need to reduce it so that we can encourage and have more social cohesion in South Africa. When we do reduce poverty and unemployment, I am sure that we will be able to have more social

cohesion and the nation building project will be much more enhanced. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Madam Speaker and Deputy President, yes, I must agree that racism exist not only amongst whites, and not every white person in South Africa has been racist. But let me also add, how can you talk about nation building unless we address the challenges of our people on the ground who had suffered for 300 years at the hands of this apartheid regime? They continue to suffer today, they are marginalised and they still live under the most inhumane conditions. Surely, Mr Deputy President, it must go hand in hand. How do we give back the dignity? Shouldn’t that be the first step in giving back to the marginalised - those that have suffered at the hands of these people - before we even talk about nation building? Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, yes, I could not agree more with hon Shaik that in the end the key challenge for us is to address the questions of poverty, unemployment and inequality because when we do so we give dignity to our people and in the end that will enhance

the whole project of social cohesion and nation building. For as long as our people remain poor, for as long as there is inequality, the type we have in our country, the nation building and social cohesion task that we have on our hands becomes more difficult. It is therefore important that we speed up the process of the empowerment of our people, we speed up the process of reducing poverty and inequality in our country and create more and more jobs. Thus, hon Shaik, you are absolutely right.
Thank you very much.

Question 44:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, the Interministerial Committee, IMC, on State-owned Enterprises, SOEs, Reform is responsible for the implementation of key recommendations of the Presidential Review Committee on State-owned Enterprises. These relate to the overall design of the state-ownership model we want to see to ensure that the state-owned enterprises meet their economic and developmental mandates.

It is not the responsibility of the IMC nor does it have a mandate, nor does it have powers to consider the

allegations of corruption in state-owned enterprises. That is a question that really rests in the relevant Ministries that are shareholders of these state-owned enterprises. As I have said before in this House that corruption in state-owned enterprises is one of the greatest threats to effective governance and economic development in our country.

The National Assembly must be commended for the work, Madam Speaker, it is doing through for example the enquiry into Eskom to uncover the abuse of power and the theft of public resources by well-connected individuals and institutions. Other institutions especially the law- enforcement agencies need to pursue all these allegations with equal vigour and determination.

I have said on a number of occasions that we would like the National Prosecuting Authority, the Hawks and indeed all these institutions that are meant to investigate wrongdoing to immediately commence and in fact proceed with their investigations and ensure that all those who are guilty of any criminal acts should be brought to book and they should be brought to account. This is something

that not only Members of this Parliament are waiting for. It is something that the public as a whole is waiting for because there are perceptions that there has been massive wrongdoing in our state-owned enterprises.

Hon Speaker, it is therefore incumbent on those institutions that have been given the task both constitutionally and in terms of government arrangements to get on with the task and investigate all these acts so that firstly, the money that has been stolen is brought back and secondly, those who are responsible should be brought to book. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, I am sure we join all South Africans when we say; we are all disappointed at the loss of the Rugby World Cup Bid, Deputy President. However, be that as it may the fundamental issue here is that as you say, it is not that the question of perception this issue of an increased corruption. What was clear is that even in this book The President’s Keepers it highlights the high-levels of corruption against the President. [Interjections.]

Now, hon Deputy President, you are the second in charge in South Africa and you are the highest person who could have done something about the issues that are alleged in the SOEs. Now, you are right, only Parliament is doing something. The executive has done nothing up to date including your office. [Applause.]

Now, I want to find out, Deputy President, the Public Protector said let there be a Judicial Commission of Inquiry which the Chief Justice appoints the judge. Will you support that remedial action that the Chief Justice appoints the judge who will preside over a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or will you be one of the President’s keepers? [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be patient enough to listen to the Minister of Sport and Recreation commenting on our failure to win the rights to host the Rugby World Cup Bid in 2023. So, I beg for his patience because the Minister will be doing so and indeed we will all have heard the comments of the President of the SA Rugby Board.

Madam Speaker, the issue of the commission of inquiry and we have addressed this matter over and over and over again. [Interjections.] And we will address it again.
This matter is now in the courts. The courts are deliberating on this matter and all of us have said almost unanimously, we would like to see a commission of inquiry being appointed that to a man and a woman all of us have said so. Right through the length and the breadth of this country because we all believe that that is the best way of getting down to the truth and unravelling the wrongdoing that has happened through this state capture issue. That matter is now being finalised by the courts. Let us hold back with our impatience and allow the courts to determine precisely what should happen.

Similarly the President himself has said yes, he will want to appoint a Judicial Commission of Inquiry and in the end the courts should in a few days or weeks be able to finally determine what should happen. Once the courts have determined what should happen, it will be all systems go. That is when a commission should be appointed and should start investigating this whole issue of the state capture.

So, let us have that patience and wait for the courts to determine. It is no use hurling out insults and insulting one another over a matter that we know is being addressed by a competent institution in our country. So, I know that the hon Maimane may not have the necessary talent of being patient and now I ask him to be patient and wait for the courts to determine. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr M N PAULSEN: Hon Speaker and Deputy President, we have seen with state-owned companies across the world in Europe, Asia and the America’s companies like Airbus owned by France and Germany are listed on the securities exchanges. State-owned banks in China are listed on the securities exchange and this had some impact in reducing corruption by both employees and boards that govern these state-owned companies. Shouldn’t South African state- owned companies like SA Airways, SAA, Eskom, Transnet, Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Prasa, and Denel be listed on the stock exchange and this should not be confused with privatisation, it is not the same thing and Telkom is an example of such a model. Eskom paid well over R3 billion to the National Revenue Fund when it made

profits. It will just help us to catch those skelms [Crooks.] that work in those state-owned companies. Thank you, very much.

The SPEAKER: The hon Deputy President. I did not hear a question, but maybe you want to comment anyway.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, yes, there was an indirect question which one is happy to respond to. Hon Paulsen has raised a very important matter, which I think should be debated and should be fully discussed. He underpins what he is saying by suggesting that it is not privatisation and it should be a way of improving the balance sheet of some of these state-owned enterprises.
Indeed what he is saying happens in a number of countries around the world. From countries such as China, Singapore, Malaysia and even European countries like the Nordic countries. They have done things like that where they have reconstructed or realigned their share ownership of state-owned enterprises to a point where they have invited the private sector in the form of either a listing offering to invest in these state-owned enterprises and that has helped to boost the balance

sheets of those countries. But they have also helped to retain control. The Chinese for instance have floated their state-owned banks. They have listed their state- owned telecoms companies, but they retain control and what that does is to introduce really good governance procedures because you have now invited other shareholders that you should be accountable to.

Telkom is a case in point where the state still owns equity and it is a well-run company because it accounts not only to government, but also to a whole host of other shareholders. Many of whom are institutions including the Public Investment Corporation, PIC, and indeed other private pension funds.

So, it is something that needs to be debated. It is an option that we need to look at and you may well have heard some of us saying here, hon Paulsen, that one of the things the Interministerial Committee that I Chair is looking at is to look at the architecture of the shareholding of the state-owned enterprises. So, we are looking at that and your suggestion may well be one of

those that we consider. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Prof N M KHUBISA: Madam Speaker and the hon Deputy President, in light of the evidence led and in light of the revelations that have emerged in the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises, it seems that these shenanigans have been recurring and they are not from now, the date back to years. So, it might be pointing to failure to exercise due diligence and seemingly some of the systems were broken especially administratively.

Now, in light of all these, hon Deputy President, what do you think the nation can do in a concerted effort to ensure that we constructively deal with these scourge of corruption and other things that are happening within departments? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, to be more direct in terms of what the nation can do, I would say that we should keep on agitating against corruption through the various institutions and the various organisations that we have and demonstrate very clearly that the people of

South Africa will not tolerate any corruption. We must also demonstrate that there are various institutions that would like to see clean government, would like to see corruption free public institutions like state-owned enterprise and all that. It is when we do so that we are able to heighten the calls and the messages that should be heeded by all those who occupy key positions, be they at the board level of the state-owned enterprises, at the executive management level and indeed at the government level as well. It is when corruption is exposed and spoken about that we will be able to deal effectively with it.

However, also to demonstrate that corruption is actually an enemy of the people. [Laughter.] It is be seen as the enemy of the people because in the end it is through corruption that our people are not able to get basic services delivered to them and we must bring that to an end. Our resolve, Madam Speaker, must be very strong when it comes to our stand against corruption. So, I welcome the proposal that is coming from the hon Khubisa, rather than the hauling and the shots that continue to take place here. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Madam Speaker and Deputy President, and following your response, recently the director of priority crime investigation has confirmed that they are busy investigating illicit financial flow out of the country and they are co-operating with the other country internationally including the SOEs. These investigations are known to be complex, time consuming and resource demanding and involves lots of countries multiple companies including state-owned enterprises and beyond.

Can the Deputy President reassure the country and Parliament that efforts will be made to resource the Hawks to successfully prosecute those involved in these types of crime?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Deputy Speaker, I am on record as saying that we would like the institutions that are meant to do the investigative work to be strengthened and not to be weakened and where they lack resources, we would like them to be given resources and where they need personnel, we would like them to be given the personnel so that they are able to execute their work, because they do a very important work on behalf of the nation.

So, yes the answer is definitely a big yes that they need to be strengthened and they need to be given all the resources that they need to execute their functions.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Question 45:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, if we are to overcome these significant economic and social challenges that our country faces, we need to identify those initiatives that have the greatest impact and work together to take them to scale.

The Harambee Solutions Exchange is an example of a platform that gathered multiple stakeholders to come up with a work programme that will deliver on key components of the National Development Plan, NDP, the recently approved Human Resource Development Strategy, and the 2013 Youth Accord.

Over two days of engagements, these stakeholders who came from business, youth formations, the Department of Higher Education and Basic Education, and a number of other nongovernmental organisations shared experiences,

insights and results on ways to bridge the gap between learning and the work place as a way to address the challenge that our country faces of youth unemployment.

Similarly, to the Youth Employment Service initiative that will soon become operational, this was arrived at between government, business, and labour. This speaks not only to the efficient use of limited public and private resources but also to leadership collaboration but more importantly also the spirit of patriotism.

Along side these ongoing efforts through the Human Resource Development Council, HRDC, we also witness the great work that can be attained through collaboration in the higher education institutions. The council champions an initiative that has seen a number of businesses supporting the work and the activities of a number of our Technical and Vocational Education and Training, TVET, colleges and universities. Through these, students benefit by getting bursaries from industry. Employees from industries are able to provide lectures as per their areas of expertise and practice at some of these TVET colleges.

Companies contribute towards building some of the infrastructure, for instance workshops in TVET colleges where they come and mentor young people who are learning in these colleges.

The government alone can’t solve all the challenges that our country faces and it is only by working together through sharing skills, experiences, expertise, and resources that social partners can develop solutions that are effective, sustainable and can have meaningful impact.

I have been on record here and out with regard to calling on the private sector to partner our TVET colleges and in fact adopt them so that we can see a great improvement in the delivery of meaningful and impactful education outcomes. A number of companies have done so and I can cite companies such as Sasol that have adopted some of the colleges near where they operate and we are calling on other companies to do so.

Last week, we were at the Pretoria Automotive section where the Gauteng government has made great strides

together with one of our Sector Education and Training Authorities, SETAs, to ensure that experience and learning in automotive engineering is dispensed to young people and their are partnering with TVET colleges is of great assistance indeed and that is the way to go and we would like at one stage in the future to reach the same levels as countries like Germany where there is a slim less working together between industry and institutions that deliver education of a technical nature or academic nature as well. Thank you, madam Chairperson.


Mr R M TSELI: Ndo livhuwa phindulo yo ṱanḓavhuwaho nga u tou ralo, ro sedza kha zwe vha ṱalutshedza siani ḽa tshumisano na thuso i bvaho muvhusoni.


Why it looks like we not making greater progress in getting programmes between the government and the private sector to compliment and reinforce each other to achieve a better focus on optimal deployment of combined resources and qualitatively greater impact on the multiple challenges we face as a nation?

Does the weakness lie in the design of the programmes or the systems to make them work or the more to do with human resource, individual weakness and attitudes and if this is the case, how do we address this particular challenge?


The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ndi a livhuwa mbudziso ye vha i vhudzisa. Mushumo une ra khou ita ndi wa u lingedza u ṱanganyisa vhoramambindu, ngamaanḓa vhoramabidu vhahulwane na dzikholedzhi dzashu ri ite uri vha shumisane u isa pfunzo ya vhana vhashu phanḓa.


I would not say it is case of unwillingness on the part of some of the role players particularly in the private sector. I think is a question of trying to find a happy medium between the private sector and the public sector, particularly at the education or the institutions of education level. It is where we are able to get over a sense of suspicion, have a sense that possibly the private sector wants to take over and we think that further and deeper interaction between the two entities

is able to bridge this divide or the differences that exist.

We are finding that where we are able to put them together, particularly at TVET college level where there are within a particular proximity, they are able to find one another and begin high levels of cooperation. I have seen and in a number of cases where the cooperation between TVET colleges as well as industry has been so well structured that it achieves the objectives that we have in mind.

We are going to continue on focusing on this to improve the relationship between private sector and department of higher education particularly through their TVET colleges to engender a really good relationship where they will be able to see mutual benefit as they embark on this journey of being able to work together.


Ndi fhulufhela uri arali ra ita ngauralo ndi hone ri tshi ḓo kona u bvela phanḓa sa lushaka, ngauri zwo fanela u

itwa ngauralo arali ri tshi khou ṱoḓou bvela phanḓa, zwihulwanesa kha pfunzo ya vhana vhashu. Ndi a livhuwa.

Mr S C MOTAU: Speaker, you are probably aware of this document here. You were central to it and since you are talking work, let’s continue to do that. Let’s make our future work. Let’s put the youth at the centre of this.

As we speak right now, 60% of the people called youth are unemployed. We have 16 million people employed, however we have 9,4 million unemployed and just in the last quarter 118 000 people lost their jobs.

The issue is here is very simple. We have moved so far away from this NDP which says by 2030 we should have
24 million people employed and that looks like we are not going to make it. So, here is a question, will you champion any intervention to urgently address economic situation in this country to create more jobs that will include even the youth or are you just waiting until you are elected President in December or have you just given up?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, I am able to tell hon Motau that on this side of the House, we will never give up on our young people. We will never stop doing the right thing, day and night we will continue doing whatever we can to make sure that the young people of our country do get work opportunities, and are empowered and we start even right at the bottom.

Our public employment projects are directed towards attracting as many young people as possible. Our efforts with the stakeholders, the unions, the communities, and the private sector are aimed at ensuring that we are creating jobs and if hon Motau were to be a fly on the wall in the meetings we have with these stakeholders he would be able to testify that what we mostly talk about is creation of jobs.

For us, it is job creation, everyday and every night. So, if he has better ideas I invite him to bring them forward and put them on the table and then assess the efficacy of those ideas. But on our side, we will never give up on our young people we will always be advocating what is

right for them and we want to create jobs for them. Thank you, madam Chairperson


Mnu M HLENGWA: Somlomo kube yiphutha bengithi ngicindezela lapha angazi noma ngingaqhubeka yini. [Ubuwelewele.]

USOMLOMO: Qhubeka Bab’uHlengwa.

Mnu M HLENGWA: Ngiyathokoza lungu elihloniphekile Somlomo, engani ngicelile. [Ubuwelewele.] Hawu bengicela.


Chapter 9 of the NDP speaks about education and that it is a long term vision of the country to ensure access for everybody and of course skills development and innovation and so on are central to ensuring a sustainable South Africa.

Now, in order for that to happen, you need to ensure that there is access to institutions of higher learning to go and sharpen the minds, the skills, and the thoughts of

young people in South Africa. Do you think that is going to be possible for all young South Africans to access institutions of higher learning to realise the ideals of the NDP in light of the findings and recommendations of the Heher Commission into the fees must fall?

I am asking this because as long as education remains a commodity, then majority of our people particularly the poor and the previously disadvantage who are presently disadvantage will continue to find themselves in that periphery of the educational discourse. So, what your view around fees must fall and the Heher Commission in light of the ideas and vision contained in the NDP? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, the Heher Commission has been released by the President and it has been released with a specific purpose that it should be discussed by our people. They should see what this commission is recommending and what it dealt with. It is a think report and we from the government side we welcome people getting into this report and reading it thoroughly and understanding it.

Now, education remains an apex priority as far as the government is concerned. We would like the young people I our country to access education and we do this in adherence to the Freedom Charter. It was the Freedom Charter adopted by our forebears, which said we want the doors of learning to be opened to all and therefore we support education for our young people without any reservation whatsoever.

To this end, the government has committed to spend as much money as possible. In fact, if you look at what we spent on a gross domestic product, GDP, basis, you will find that we are amongst the highest spenders in as far as education is concerned and if fact higher education.

When it come higher education, you will find that our universities and our TVET colleges are bursting at seams. The young people have thronged to our universities in great numbers. That is something that we should be grateful for and happy about. Yes, should education become a commodity, I would say I don’t believe that it should be a commodity. Our Constitution says that it is a right and Freedom Charter envisaged that as well.

Now, clearly as we look at all these, we need to make sure that our young people get good quality education and the government must fund the universities and our institutions of higher learning and whiles I am on that, we also supporting the fact the young people should also be directed more towards getting technical education by getting into our TVET colleges because many of them tend to go the universities without going to our TVET colleges. That is what we want to encourage and we want more funding for our TVET colleges.

So, our young people have a right, yes, to education and yes, we would like education not to be a commodity. We would like education to be a right, so that they can be educated as much as possible.

Now, the government is going to be responding to the Heher Report and I would say when it comes to that, let us wait for the response that will be coming from the government. We put out the report for discussion and the government is aware of the demand of young people for free education and at the same time it is aware of the Heher Report and the realities of our economy are another

matter that government has to take into account, as it addresses the legitimate needs and demands of our young people when they demand free education and also what Heher has put forward.

So, a response will be coming from the government shortly, where we will come out with a clearly set out position with regard to our response to that report and how far we are able to go in as far as the demand of young people made over the past few years. So, we are doing this on an active basis.

Let me tell you something, we are being very progressive. We are not looking backwards and trying to stop the wheels of change when it comes to acceding to the rights of our young people to have a decent education. So, we are moving forward and the announcement will be made soon in that regard. Thank you, madam Speaker.


Nk S M KHAWULA: Awuhlehle kancane sisi. Sekela Mongameli imbangela yokwehluleka kwalohulumeni yinkohlakalo nokubhozonyelwa kombusazwe, izinkohlakalo ngaphakathi

nangaphandle ku-ANC. Ngakho ke ungasitshela siyi leNdlu yomthetho ... [Ubuwelewele.] ...ngomthelela kaZuma kanye nama-Gupta akhe emnothweni kanye nentuthuko ebonakala ifadalala kuleli lizwe.

Mr P J MNGUNI: Speaker, point of order.


Nk S M KHAWULA: Yi-“point of order” yani le. Asifune “point of order” awuhlale phansi namajazi aphuzi. [Uhleko.]

USOMLOMO: Kukhona i-“point of order” mam’uKhawula.

Nk S M KHAWULA: Ayikho. [Ubuwelewele.]

USOMLOMO: Ikhona mama

Mnu P J MNGUNI: Somlomo besicela ukuthi ilungu elihloniphekile uma libuza umbuzo kuSekela Mongameli uma likhuluma ngamalungu eNdlu noma uMongameli noma uSekela Mongameli liwabize ngendlela okuyiyona efanelekile.
Sisacela ukuthi ilungu lilungise lokho. Ngiyabonga.

USOMLOMO: Kunjalo mam’uKhawula uma ukhuluma ngamalungu ahloniphekile eNdlu usho kanjalo ngoba umthetho weNdlu, umthetho walapha ePhalamende wenzelwe ukuthi kufuneka sikhulume kanjalo uma sikhuluma la kule Ndlu uma sikhuluma ngabantu abasebenza lapha.

Nk S M KHAWULA: Ngiyabonga Sihlalo lapho ngaphambili, awuve umuhle kulezi zinsuku. [Uhleko.] Awume ke akaze nje ngikhulume mina ngoMongameli wenu. Ngikhuluma ngoZuma ubaba kaDuduzane. [Ubuwelewele.]

USOMLOMO: Cha, mam’uKhawula, cha mam’uKhawula uyazi ukuthi wenzani. Ngicela ungenzi kanjalo ngoba akufanele uphula umthetho.

Nk S M KHAWULA: Ngiyabonga ngisho ke uMnumzane Zuma ubaba kaDuduzane lo omatasatasa obulala izwe ngama-Gupta.
Umnotho uyangokufadalala kulelizwe – abantu abasebenzi.

USOMLOMO: Cha, mam’uKhawula uma ngabe ufuna ukusixoxela indaba yokuthi umosha kanjani yenza ngendlela efanele. Awuveli usukume nje umuntu bese ukhuluma ngaye, ukhulume

kabi ngaye ungazange usinikeze i-motion ecacisayo ukuthi ukhuluma ngani uthi wenzeni. [Ubuwelewele.]
Awalelilwe ukuthi ukhulume kodwa kufuneka ukuthi ukubeke ngendlela efanele.

Nk S M KHAWULA: Cha, ngisho ukuthi ubaba kaDuduzane uMnumzane Zuma ulimoshile lelizwe ngokuletha ama-Gupta nemali iphelile.

USOMLOMO: Cha mam’Khawula ngicela ungenzi kanjalo. Musa ukwenza kanjalo mama. Ngicela ukuhoxise konke lokhu okukhulumayo ngoba njengoba ngisho nje uma ufuna ukukusho kubeke ngendlela ye“substantive motion” ukubeke konke lapho, ukucacise kodwa hhayi uvele usukume nje .


Ms N V MENTE: Speaker on a point of order:

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order, hon Mente?


Nks N V MENTE: Somlomo, umbuzo uthi ingaba ithini imbono kaSekela Mongameli ngegalelo leGuptaz ekubulaleni

uqoqosho lwaseMzantsi Afrika? Wonke umntu uyayazi ukuba iiGuptaz zikhona eMzantsi Afrika ngoko ke ayifuni siphakamiso esineenkcukacha ezithe vetshe loo ntetha.


USOMLOMO: Yebo, ikhona i-substative motion.


Ms N V MENTE: No, that is why Eskom...


... ehleli apha ePalamente uphanda izinto ezenziwa ziGuptaz.       Hayi andivumi, iiGuptaz ziyaziwa ngumntu wonke.


The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, there is a point of order on the basis of what the hon Khawula is saying and she is being corrected based on that point order, that when there is something she wants to say of the nature that she is raising, she must do it correctly according to the rules.

Ms N V MENTE: No, Speaker, the point of order was on reference of Members to Parliament.

The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, please take your seat.

Ms N V MENTE: No, it was on was on reference of Members to Parliament.

The SPEAKER: Take your seat.

Ms N V MENTE: Not on the context of the message.

The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, take your seat.

Ms N V MENTE: We want to know from the Deputy President, what damage has the Guptas caused in South Africa?

The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, take your seat.

Ms N V MENTE: Don’t cover for them.


USEKELA MONGAMELI: Lungu elihloniphekile Somlomo, mam’Khawula bengingathi nje bonke abantu abenza ukuthi umnotho wethu ufadalale ngalendlela obukhuluma ngayo. Sithe makube nalekhomishane elizakubhekisisa zonke lezinto ezimoshwa ngabantu. Ikhomishane kube yilona elizositshela iqiniso. Uma manje ubuza mina ukuthi yini lokhu abakumosile. Nami ngifana nawe ezinye ngizifunda emaphepheni ukuthi kuyamoseka la nalapho nalaphaya.
Yingakho sithi labo abaphethe lemisebenzi abenza uphenyo baqhubeke benze lolo phenyo. Nalabo abanolwazi beze phambili basitshele ukuthi kwenzekani kumoseka kangakanani. Sithi futhi nalekhomishane malibekhona ukuze labo abamosile silkwazi ukubathola kahle. Ngiyabonga.

Nk S M KHAWULA: Siyavuma!

USEKELA MONGAMELI: Nami ngiyabonga, ngibonga kakhulu mam’uKhawula. [Uhleko.] [Ihlombe.]

The SPEAKER: Hon members, before I proceed to the next question, I wish to recognise in the gallery a delegation coming from the Parliament of Poland led by the hon

Marshall. You are very welcome, hon members. They are visiting the NCOP. [Applause.] You are welcome.

Mr T RAWULA: Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Yes, hon member.

Mr T RAWULA: Speaker, I rise on Rule 31, that ...


Siyavuma Sekela Mongameli, enkosi.

Question 46:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Department of Higher Education and Training implemented a five-pronged plan to align the skills planning that we have in our country with the needs of the relevant sector.

Firstly, a sector skills planning framework was implemented in the year 2014. This was done to improve the identification of sector skills. Secondly, partnerships with a number of universities in our country were introduced to support and build the requisite

research capacity in sector education and training authorities, Setas, and the department. Thirdly, the Seta Grant Regulations were reviewed to improve the quality of labour market information submitted to the Setas.
Fourthly, the Labour Market Intelligence Partnership identifies additional interventions to strengthen skills planning and alignment. Lastly, sectoral planning is conducted as part of ongoing research to take into account the occupational and structural shifts that always happen in our economy. These are watched on an ongoing basis, and deep research is done to look at how those shifts take place.

The National Skills Authority and the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation are currently undertaking an evaluation of the skills development strategy in our country, which will indicate the extent to which this approach is successful currently.

On the second part of the question, the quality of Technical Vocational Education and Training, TVET, college graduates is quite variable and is largely influenced by the quality of the curriculum delivery.

Those colleges with good pass rates, coupled with quality practical training, tend to have more extensive and sustainable partnerships with industry and employers. As I was saying earlier, we find those TVET colleges that have forged really good and effective relationships with the various private sectors are the ones that are surging ahead a lot better than those that have not formed such partnerships; hence we are encouraging are our TVET colleges, as well as the private sector, to forge partnerships.

Partnerships, we find, are therefore critical for the absorption of TVET graduates into workplaces, and the department is working on the development of such a database to track the nature and scale of such partnerships. We find that where a TVET college is partnered with a private sector company, the absorption of the graduates from that TVET college is much quicker, much smoother, and they are able to get into the various disciplines that the company often works in. The TVET sector has a goal of being responsive and relevant to the needs of our economy, and we are encouraging them in this regard.

The Minister of Higher Education and Training has opened the doors of the TVET sector to industry so that they can participate and help our TVET sector to revise and to change their own curricula so that the curricula are tailor made towards the industry needs.

I believe we are making headway in this regard. In the next few years, we will see the relationship between our TVET colleges and industry becoming much more effective and productive, and the partnerships will deepen on an ongoing basis. Thank you.


Moh M F NKADIMENG: Sepikara, ke leboga Motlatša Mopresidente ka go fetola potšišo ye thwi le ka bokgwari.

Empa, ...


... hon President, how will the core operations between technical and vocational education and training colleges and the private sector ensure that the curriculum

improves the quality of graduates at TVET colleges? I thank you.


MOTLATŠA MOPRESIDENTE: Sepikara, se ke sona seo ke bego ke bolela ka sona. Kamano ye re rego e be gona magareng ga diTVET kholetšhe le dikhamphani, ke yona ye e tla re thušago kudukudu. Ge go ka ba le kamano ye, e tla thuša le dikharikhulamo gore e se be tšeo di dirwago felafela, eupša e be dikharikhulamo tšeo di lebanego le mešomo yeo e dirwago ke dikhamphani tšeo. Gantši re humana gore dikharikhulamo di ba gona fela; bana ba rutwa se le sela. Efela re humana e le gore se ba se rutwago ga se sepelelane le mešomo ye e dirwago ke dikhamphani tša rena. Kamano ye re rego e be gona ...


... is the type of relationship that we want to encourage so that when TVET colleges craft their own curricula, they should craft them not in a vacuum – they should craft their curricula within the framework of what industry requires in as far as graduates are concerned.

A number of TVET colleges already acceded to this, and we are seeing a great deal of improvement. That improvement is measured by the way in which graduates that come from those TVET colleges is absorbed.


Gantšintši re humana gore ba hwetša mešomo ka pela. Ga ba dule gae fela ka gore ba sa hwetše mešomo. Ba a e hwetša mešomo ka gore ba tla be ba ithutetše seo se hlokwago ke dikhamphani tšeo di lego kgauswi le diTVET kholetšhe tša bona.

Ke a leboga.


Ms D CARTER: Speaker, through you to the Deputy President: Would you agree with me that we need more practical experience? For example, there used to be nursing colleges and teaching colleges. Today, you need a degree to become a nurse. This used to practical experience for a person of a caring nature.

Also, we have not realigned and modernised trade tests, for example. To do a plumbing trade test today, you spend R12 500 on tools for the trade test – tools that will never be used again because the trade test was actually written in the 1960s.

What are we doing to realign, modernise and grow our economy and make artisans employable once they are trade tested? Would you agree that we really need to consider bringing teaching colleges as well as nursing colleges back? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker, I am able to say to the hon Carter that, yes, I agree. We do need to do precisely what you are saying. In fact, the Minister of Health is on record as saying we do not need to go and train our nurses at university. Our nurses should be trained at nursing colleges ...

Ms T STANDER: So, why did you close them?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: ... nursing colleges that are attached to our hospitals. That is precisely what the

Minister of Health has been articulating, and that is the way we are going to roll. That is the way we are going to go.

When it comes to the development of artisans, a lot of work is being done in developing artisans. We are developing them in their thousands. We are modernising, also, the way in which artisans are trained and qualified. The reason one is saying that we want TVET colleges to be partnered by companies is precisely for the reason you are articulating – that they will learn at a more practical level the work they should be doing as artisans. Those companies that come closer to TVET colleges, we have found, are willing to even set up workshops in TVET colleges so that students can learn with the real tools they are going to utilise.

In some of the TVET colleges, the tests are also being done at those workshops that had been set up with the assistance of companies. So, we are moving ahead in that direction, and we will be modernising the trade testing process so that it is not the archaic trade testing

process that belongs to the 1950s. That is moving ahead, and we will keep on improving. Thank you.

Mr A P VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Speaker, through you to the Deputy President: Sir, we appreciate your concern about the quality of TVET education. However, we are worried by the bizarre education funding plan the President’s daughter’s ex-boyfriend has invented. This plan is reported to have found favour with the President. Do you know if this plan provides suitable support for TVET colleges? If you don’t know, are you not worried that you haven’t even seen this plan? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker, as I said earlier, the matters pertaining to the Heher Report are currently being discussed. A number of proposals are being discussed in government, and the Heher Report has now been released for discussion. We should wait for government to respond to this Heher Report. Until then, much of what members are talking about is rumour. It is gossip. Let us wait.

Yes, my friends on the other side have learnt a very important keyword today: patience. Be patient, and there will be a response from government. Thank you very much.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Madam Speaker, through you to the Deputy President: Let me start off by commenting on the issue of higher education where the President is expected to make an announcement soon. It is quite clear that political parties have also been fuelling the protests that have been taking place. The report clearly does not talk about free education, but the President and government talk about providing that free education. So, for me, you have protested, and you have made a big noise. Now, when government wants to give it, it is still a problem. The way I see it, it is a no-win situation for government.

However, my problem, Mr President, is this: In tertiary institutions, there is a 58% failure rate. My view is that it is as a result of the quality of education in the secondary institutions. That is why you find that in some of the privileged areas, those that are now enjoying the fruits of what happened pre-1994 continue to be

benefiting. Quality education is better there than in the poorest areas. That is why you find better results. Will government be willing to take a bold, radical step in being able to take some of the people from the poorest areas and ensure that they attend schools in the privileged areas so that we can have quality education for all our people? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Speaker and the hon Shaik-Emam, our objective as government is to lift everyone, is to lift all our people. Yes, in that regard, it is our clear intention to take bold steps. Those bold steps are clearly demonstrated with the budgetary process that we get involve in.

Mr D J MAYNIER: What budgetary process? It is a disaster. What happened to Michael Sachs?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are deploying quite a lot of money with regard to education. On education, we are taking no shortcuts. We are ensuring that we should deploy as much resources as we possibly can in education so that we lift all our people. There should be no poorer

areas; there should be no better or richer areas. We want to improve all of them.

Indeed, in the end, access is an important aspect of our policy thrust. We want all our children to have access, whether this is where they live or places where there are other schools as well. So, we want education to be lifted all round and our children to have access right across the board. Thank you.

Question 47:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, the President of the Republic informed me in October, this year, of his decision to make changes to his Cabinet. On 17 October, the day on which the changes to the Cabinet were announced, I informed the Speaker, in writing, of such changes, as is required by National Assembly Rule 352.

I am willing, prepared and able to provide the hon member with a copy of my letter to the Speaker. In fact, it is not even necessary because it appeared clearly in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports. If the hon member takes care to read the National Assembly

Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports of

23 October, he will find that the Speaker did make the announcement. She wrote under the heading, Communication of appointment of Cabinet members and Deputy Minister: “A letter dated 19 October has been received from the Leader of Government Business, informing the Speaker ...”, the hon Speaker, who sits right at the top of the Table, there, “... in terms of Rule 352, of the appointment of Cabinet members and Deputy Minister by the President of the Republic.

This was clearly announced and this has been confirmed in the documents that the National Assembly issues.

Mr S P MHLONGO: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: For a number of days, at periodic moments, it has been that when the EFF presses the button to talk to ask questions

The SPEAKER: No. Cha! [No!] Hon member, please take your seat.

Mr S P MHLONGO: No, can you just ...

The SPEAKER: You can’t disrupt a response by the Deputy President by complaining about some technical issue at your desk. You cannot raise that as a point of order.

Mr S P MHLONGO: No, no. Can you clarify that?

The SPEAKER: Yes. Give us your complaint about your desk and whatever it is and I will ask the Table to attend to it, but you cannot just rise in the middle of an answer by the Deputy President.

Mr S P MHLONGO: But it cannot happen ... [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Please, take your seat! The Table will attend to your problem. [Interjections.]

Mr S P MHLONGO: No, man. It is very wrong.

The SPEAKER: Please finalise your response, hon Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, this was clearly set out in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports.

It is for that reason that I am really perplexed and taken aback by the Question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He asks, Why did the Deputy President not communicate the President’s decision to the Speaker of the National Assembly in line with his responsibilities as Leader of Government Business?

Now, I don’t know what is behind this Question, because I did precisely what is set out in Rule 352. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would care to tell us what lies behind this Question. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Speaker, clearly the Deputy President ... you know, you say we must learn the word, “patience”. I’m not willing to be patient with or be complicit with a government that wants to protect people who are corrupt, and I’m not sure why you support that view. However, the Question really speaks to the issue that you were informed and either you agree with the decision, or you are, in fact, complicit with it.

Now, all of us who are sitting in this House, when confronted with the question of state capture, either

choose to fight it or choose to be complicit with it. In here, you support the decisions of this government, which you are joined with, as a Cabinet member. However, outside, in public, you oppose the decision of this government. [Interjections.]

What I want to know, Deputy President, is this: Have you, in fact, actually considered, as an act of moral and ethical leadership, to resign from this Cabinet, or do you support every decision Jacob Zuma makes? [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, I did actually ask what lies behind this Question because I think, as politicians, we do need to be driven, not only by emotion, but also by logic. There needs to be logic and a measure of sensibility in what we do.

Here is the Question. The Question asks: “On which date was he informed by the President of his decision to effect the 12 Cabinet reshuffles since May; and why did he not ...” referring to the Leader of Government Business, “... communicate the President’s decision to

the Speaker of the National Assembly, in line with his responsibilities as Leader of Government Business, as contained in Rule 352?”

Now, here, I demonstrated that I wrote a letter to you, Madam Speaker, setting out that the President had decided to change his Cabinet and I gave you all the names. In so doing, I complied with Rule 352. The question I would ask is: Is there any logic in the Question that has been raised, or in the supplementary question? There is no logic whatsoever, and I remain perplexed. [Applause.] [Interjections.]

Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Through you, hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, the problem is you are a prisoner of your own modesty. [Interjections.] Even when the President has stabbed you like Brutus did Caesar, you continue to wash him of his sins. [Interjections.]

Are you telling us that this reshuffle is in order; and that you agreed with it, as Leader of Government Business? So then, Deputy President, are you part of this

incompetence? Have you endorsed a reshuffle of competent Ministers?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon House Chair, I think the Leader of the Opposition has done this House a great disservice because he has asked a Question that is completely misplaced. I don’t think he wanted to ask that type of Question. [Interjections.] He should have asked a different Question. Perhaps, next time, I might be of greater assistance in helping him how to craft his Questions, because clearly, that is what he needs. [Applause.]

The problem is compounded by the hon Plouamma, who continues along the same line. Hon Plouamma, you should take care to read the Question again, and if you do so, you will find no fault whatsoever in the answer I have given. I have been en pointe. I’ve been very precise with regard to the Question that has been asked. So, do not compound your own mistakes by following in the footsteps of the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you vey much.

Ms D CARTER: Chairperson, Deputy President, during the Zuma Presidency years, he has changed 62 Ministers and 63 Deputy Ministers. Our 38 national departments have been subjected to 172 different directors-general in a permanent or acting capacity.

According to the SA Institute of Race Relations, under President Zuma, the average national department has been subjected to a Cabinet reshuffle every nine months and a new director-general every 22 months. As a result, the time any given Minister and director-general would have worked together has been no longer than 14 months.

Would you agree with the assertion that the consequences have been the collapse of coherent governance and service delivery and an inability to plan for the future? Thank you.


House Chair, on a point of order: Can we also get a body bag for the hon member, as we did for the Leader of the Opposition in terms of relevance?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): There is no point of order on that one, hon Manamela. Hon the Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon House Chair, I have also read that report from the SA Institute of Race Relations. The hon member seems to be a great student of that institute and seems to read their reports carefully.

In their report they have stated that changes that keep taking place, not only at director-general level, but at other key official levels and Cabinet level, do lead to weakening and instability. I have also commented on that by saying that what we need to do is to strengthen our government at various levels – at Cabinet and director- general level. These are challenges that we need to address. In whatever we do, we need to address that because it is when government is stable and government is strong that we are able to address the challenges that face our people. Thank you very much.

Mr M S BOOI: House Chair, I thank the Deputy President for being able to read the Rules of Parliament. We, on

the Rules Committee, are quite excited. Quite clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has not read how the Rules operate.

Given that we are working towards our future and quite clearly, that the relationship between the Leader of Government Business and Parliament is looking very good, what do you think about these good-governance steps that you have taken, at this particular moment? How does our future look?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: House Chair, clearly, the Rules that we have, as the National Assembly, such as Rule 352, have, I believe, been meant to enhance the relationship between the executive and the NA, and indeed, Parliament, as a whole. Those are Rules that we need to enforce.

In this regard, upon the President having effected changes to the Cabinet, I immediately sought to comply with the Rules of the National Assembly, and wrote the letter. So, if we all adhere to the Rules we have set out for ourselves, as the hon Booi is saying, the future should look good. It means that there will be better

governance and better relations between the executive and Parliament. I look forward to this relationship becoming stronger and stronger on an ongoing basis, as we go forward. Thank you very much, Madam House Chair.

Question 48:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon House Chair and hon members, I had no indication from the President of the Republic that he does not intend to establish a judicial commission of inquiry into state capture. All the indications I have received are that he does intend to establish a commission of Inquiry.

As I have said before in this House ... [Interjections.] Yes, be patient. House Chair, I am glad to see that my lessons today are being heeded, particularly when it comes to patience. I might be made a professor soon, so I am quite excited about that.

I have said it a number of times in this House that it is important that this commission should be appointed. It is important for all the reasons that all of us as South Africans have stated, as I have said before. There is

ample evidence of the capture of key state institutions to advance private interests and this is something that should concern and worry all of us.

It is for this reason that we should want this commission to be appointed. The evidence suggests that efforts to divert public resources into the hands of a few families and individuals are continuing. While a commission of Inquiry is necessary to ensure that the extent and the depth of state capture is fully revealed and for us to understand how it happened, the investigation and the prosecution of those responsible does not need to wait for the commission. Every credible allegation needs to be investigated thoroughly by law enforcement agencies and those who have broken the law should be criminally charged and made to account.

If we are to put a stop to corruption and state capture, it is essential that those who are involved are brought to book, and this I have said umpteen times in this very House. I thank you madam House Chair.

Ms V KETABAHLE: House Chairperson, to the Deputy President, the relations between Duduzane Zuma and the Guptas is centred around Mr Jacob ZUma; the relationship between the Russians and the nuclear energy deal is centred around Mr Jacob Zuma; the relationship between South African Airways, SAA, corruption, Ms Dudu Myeni and endless bailouts is centred around Mr Jacob Zuma; the collapse of Eskom and the corruption of Ngubane, Molefe, Trillian and Regiments is centred around Mr Jacob Zuma; and the looting of Transnet pension funds is centred around Mr Jacob Zuma. Is Mr Jacob Zuma the right person to decided on terms of reference and the appointment of a judge for a judicial commission of inquiry into state capture?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: House Chair, this matter has been addressed here before and we have said that the laws of the Republic dictate and state that judicial commissions of inquiry are appointed by the President. That is in terms of our Constitution.

This is where a measure or a dose of patience comes in; this is where patience is called for. This matter is

being addressed by a court of law and let us be patient. I know that it is very difficult to be patient particularly when people are excited and expectant. Let us exercise a measure of patience and wait until the court gives us direction on this matter.

The President himself is patient when it comes to this; he is also waiting for the court to determine what should be done and I think we should also be patient. In the end, if you cannot be patient, just take a deep breath and breathe deeply and then patience will prevail. Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! Hon members, I thought the Deputy President was going to say like when you are waiting for the Telkom call centre they will say “Please be patient your call will be answered.”

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, the last time we were in the House, my right hon friend invited me to come to his office and help him pack up. I have been patiently waiting for the call and it has not come. But I have very good news, I found a little box to

come and help him pack up his office. I thought it would be the perfect size to fit your credibility into after five years as headman’s deputy.

Deputy President, you said that every credible allegation must be probed and investigated. You are well aware that in the book, The President’s Keepers, some very credible allegations are made. Can I ask you today, Deputy President, do you support the State Security Agency and your government’s attempt to stop the publication of that book and charge Mr Pauw the author? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, I am reading the book as well and it is possible that the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition is way ahead because. I think he uses it for bedtime reading and it possibly could even have taken the place of the bible because he holds it in his hand all the time.

I have not had that luxury but I am reading the book. As I read the book, I am finding a number of allegations that are being made and I want to get to the point where he has gotten to so that one is then able ... and hon

Steenhuisen is holding a matchbox – I thought matchboxes are not allowed in Parliament, hon House Chair. I do not know what he wants to do with a matchbox. Does he have a bottle is also filled with petrol because why would he bring matches into Parliament? I don’t know him to be a smoker or maybe he smokes privately and secretly.

Anyway, getting back to the point: Hon Steenhuisen raises an important point about whether books of this nature should be stopped or not. As far as I am concerned, I want to go into the depth of this book and be able to make a judgement on whether it is a credible move to try and stop a book.

I have learned that sometimes we should not muzzle the media because it should be free and fair in terms of our Constitution. I have not reached that point yet where I am able, hon Steenhuisen, to make a definitive type of determination of what you are saying.

I would like to caution hon Steenhuisen about bringing matches into Parliament because he may find that somebody else has brought a bottle filled with petrol and “boom!”

we will have a very ugly situation in our Parliament. We want to protect our Parliament. Hon Steeinhuisen, please desist from bringing matches. Because you say my reputation could fit into that box, I think it is possible that your reputation could fit into the head of the matchsticks. [Interjections.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! Hon members. Is that a point of order?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: It is a point of order. I brought this box of matches in and I want to say that I am not a smoker but he was waving some other things around in this House and I wonder if he has some vices as well that he wants to tell us about. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! I will have to check whether such an exhibit can be brought into Parliament.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: House Chair, to the Deputy President, now that the President has announced that there will be a commission of inquiry, we all know there are allegations prior 1994 – and I have said this before – hundreds of our properties have been disposed of and the paper trail has been destroyed.

We also know that there were 30 and 40 year contracts by the colonial’s government that have been given to businesses. Do you know, Mr Deputy President, if there is a process or any committees - whether it’s public works or finance - that are looking into it and that may be able to lead evidence into that inquiry so that we can establish how much we have lost as a result of the theft of the apartheid government? Thank you.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon House Chair, to hon Shaik, I may not be able to answer you directly on this issue but the audits on the issue of land and property should, in

the end, be able to decipher funny deals that have been made even if documentation or paper trail has been destroyed. If that is found it should be able to come through to this commission of this time.

I found that you can never really hide anything from our people. You can’t wipe-out the memory of our people; our people have great memories and maybe even better than elephants when it comes to how their rights were eroded and subjugated.

On something like property, the memory bank of our people will stand out and come to the fore and they will be able to remember all those things. With great testimony from as many as possible, they will be able to fathom the truth. I have confidence in the memory of our people.
Thank you very much.

Prof N M KHUBISA: House Chairperson, I took some breath, hon Deputy President, to align myself with the dose.
Having said that, in June, the President was here and we asked the same question and he said it was going to be very urgent. We spoke about the danger of perceptions.

Don’t you think the perceptions are destroying the country if the commission is not set up as soon as possible?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon House Chair, I couldn’t agree more with hon Khubusa that perceptions, if not immediately addressed, do turnout to be seen as the truth. In this regard the perceptions that are forming and solidifying in the minds of our people are something that we need to focus attention on. It is for this reason that we have been urging, both privately and publicly, that the commission of inquiry should be established so that it addresses this matter.

Whether there is any truth or not in some of these things that are being alleged, we do need a commission of inquiry that will go to the bottom of all this. As I have said before, it is then that the truth will set everybody free because once the truth is fathomed then people are able to gain their reputations back even reputation that are hidden in matchboxes and they are also able to gain their lives back.

Those who are found to have committed wrong things should become accountable. You are absolutely right; it needs to be done as quickly as possible. Thank you

Mr M HLENGWA: Hon House Chairperson, on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): What is the point of order?

Mr M HLENGWA: Previously, the Speaker made a determination from the chair that on each question we will not take members from the same party. I therefore put it to you if you could please go and check on that because hon Shaik and hon Khubisa are from the same party
- although that is a bit sketchy - but under the circumstances, I would like you, Madam House Chair, to look at that determination as to whether ... [Interjections.]

Prof N M KHUBISA: House Chairperson, point of order.

Mr M HLENGWA: On a point of order? A point of order on another point of order?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Hon Khubisa, I will allow you your point ... [Interjections.]

Mr M HLENGWA: You can’t do ...


... omunye phezu komunye ...


... on me like that. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Hon Hlengwa, finish your point.

Mr M HLENGWA: House Chair, I was making that request that

... and then secondly, I think it is high time that whatever appears on the screens there appears on our screens here because quite frankly the manner in which people are pressing and not being pointed to and there is a constant character who is always getting questions ahead of others, is very suspicious. Thank you.


USOLWAZI N M KHUBISA: Sihlalo, nginephuzu lokukhalima okuphambukayo. Ngicela ukuxolisa kakhulu kuMashasha ukuthi uthe esakhuluma ngavele ngaqhamuka. Bengithi ngifuna nje acacise leli gama lika-“sketchy” ukuthi uchazani ngalo. Bekuyilokho nje.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! Hon members, I am happy that hon Hlengwa raised the point because I was going to come to it. Rightly put, you said it was the determination of the Speaker; there is no rule that says there shall be no members from the same party. It depends on who raises the hand and how they reflected here. Hon Singh did come and check for himself and there was no tempering that was done.

However, if members would like some amendment, let me not say amendment, if they would like there to be a rule that says in a question, no more than one hand from a each party should be taken, I think it should be said as such.

I always want to remind members that at times where such a determination has been made by a presiding officer,

members have come to the Table and complained that their hands were first and we have taken somebody else.

I think it is a matter that we will have to look into and address appropriately. Hon Radebe had quietly raised the same point by coming to the Table complaining about such. So, I was going to address that mater hon Hlengwa. Is there another point?

Mr M HLENGWA: No, House Chairperson, I intended not to enter into a dialogue but the slippery slope we are running into now is that previously as well presiding officers have said that their determination set precedent and convention. So, now I am not sure where we are but I take what you are saying - as sketchy as it is. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): It is not sketchy. Maybe I can help you define your sketchy that is why I have raised what has also happened where a presiding officer had made the determination – we have been accused by members of not going according to the order of people who have raised their hands. That is why I am suggesting

that the appropriate committee that must resolve this matter once and for all is the Rules Committee.

Mr N SINGH: Hon House Chairperson, I can confirm that I saw the list there and I was number six. I think the point we need to address in this House hon House Chairperson ... firstly with the Deputy President’s answers today, he kicked for touch. I think the rugby influence came in here; he kicked for touch ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): That’s a new issue. [Interjections.]

Mr N SINGH: ... but the point I want to make is that we do not know ... I as a matter of courtesy and I think many other members, as soon as the Deputy President rises to give the answer, we press the button. Others press the button when he is answering the last one. That is what the Table is failing to do in the front there. I have been told that when you are answering the fourth question to the previous question, members press and that gets recognised. I think we have to sort that out but I agree

with you that it is something we have to look at. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Thank you very much. I appreciate your understanding and for you to come and check with the National Assembly Table what might have happened. With all that and with the suggestion I have made to members as to how we resolve this question once and for all, I now adjourn the House. Thank you very much.

The House adjourned at 15:53.



No related