Hansard: NA: Unrevised Hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 07 Nov 2017


No summary available.




The House met at 14:01.

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


Mr M Q NDLOZI: Speaker!

The SPEAKER: What are you rising on, hon Ndlozi?

Mr M Q NDLOZI: Speaker, sorry, with all due respect, we have always raised the issue of the temperature of this room with table staff, it never helps. Can you ask them

to make it warm in here, it’s too cold. [Interjections.] It is extremely cold and it’s wrong.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Ndlozi.

Mr M Q NDLOZI: Hon Speaker, please. We leave here sick.

There was no debate.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.


(Second Reading debate)


AFFAIRS: Hon Speaker, hon members speaking at the first

presidential inauguration on 10 May 1994, the father of our nation had this to say and I quote:

We understand it still that there is no easy road to freedom. We know it well that none of us acting alone can achieve success. We must therefore, act together as a united people for national reconciliation, for nation building and for the birth of a new world.

These words have guided us in building this democracy into a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it. Central to this have been the adoption of the Constitution in 1996 that recognised the institutions, status and roles of traditional leadership.

In 1997, Parliament adopted the Council of Traditional Leaders Act, which was replaced by the National House of Traditional Leaders Act, Act 22 of 2009. During the implementation of both these laws, various limitations and implementation challenges were identified while certain traditional structures and leadership positions have been recognised by law in compliance with the constitutional prescripts.

There has never been before statutory recognition of the Khoi-san. In late 1990, the National Khoi-San Council was established to assist the government with all matters concerning the Khoi and San communities. This council consist of representatives of the five main groupings, namely; the Cape Khoi, the Griquas, the Korana, the Nama and the San.

Together with the National Khoi-San Council, the government conducted research over many years into the history of the Khoi-San communities and developed criteria to be used for the official recognition of Khoi- san communities and leaders.

It was therefore, decided to prepare as single Bill that will recognise the Khoi-San and replace the Framework Act and the National House of Traditional Leaders Act. This will have a number of benefits including ensuring an integrated approach in dealing with all matters relating to traditional affairs. It will also enhance the uniform manner in which matters relating to traditional affairs are dealt with across the country.

The Bill will also address legal uncertainties and gaps that have been identified in the two pieces of legislation.

As stated in the report presented by the portfolio committee Chairperson recently, this Bill has been in the making for a long time.

The National Khoi-San Council played an important role in the drafting of the clauses related to the Khoi-San and also accompanied departmental officials during extensive community consultations which started in 2011 and 2012.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Khoi- San Council under the capable leadership of Cecil Le Fleur, for their leadership and support throughout this process.

Hon members, this Bill makes provision for the recognition of headmanship and headwomanship, which is one of the gaps identified in the existing Framework Act. It makes provision for the effective monitoring of traditional leadership councils. It also promotes fair

administrative justice by making provision for proper investigations in cases where, for example, there is an allegation that a community leader does not meet the criteria for recognition. It also makes provision for greater accountability of the national house.

Provision is also made for the effective regulations of partnerships and agreements to ensure that such are beneficial to the relevant communities. Existing partnerships and agreements will have to be reviewed to test whether they comply with the requirements of the new law.

Of particular importance is that the Bill addresses the existing gaps in respect of financial systems, accounting systems and the auditing of leadership councils. It is trusted that this amendment Bill will also ensure more effective participation of traditional and Khoi-San leaders in municipal council proceedings.

As far as the Khoi-San is concerned, the Bill is of historic value as for the first time ever, statutory provision is made for the recognition of the Khoi-San

communities and leaders. During the initial recognition process, the government will be assisted by a Commission of Khoi-San matters. It is important to note that the public will be requested to nominate persons who can serve on this commission. The commission will include experts in Khoi-San customs and customary law.

Recognised Khoi-San communities will have to establish Khoi-San councils for such communities similar to traditional councils.

The Bill makes provision for the integration of recognised Khoi-San leaders into the house of traditional leaders, which will in future be known as Houses of Traditional and Khoi-San Leaders. This Bill enjoys the institutions of traditional and Khoi-San leadership to promote democratic governance and the values of an open and democratic society to progressively advance ... [Time expired.]

Mr E M MTHETHWA: Speaker and hon members. The discussions on the future transformation of the institution of traditional leadership began in the late 1980’s in

response to the distortions that Colonialism and the Apartheid regime had introduced into cultural norms and practices.

Post the establishment of a democratically elected government in 1994, both the Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP, and the final Constitution in 1996 gave expression to the philosophical vision of the ANC and its government to the transformation and support to the institution of traditional leadership in accordance with the constitutional principles of democracy and equality.

A critical role for the ANC government was to transform “old order authority structures” into a “new order authority structures” in accordance with the Bill of Rights and the stipulation of Chapter 12 of the Constitution.

Hence today we are talking about Traditional and Khoi and San Leadership Bill, in which its essence is to acknowledge that the Khoi and San are indigenous to the Southern African region. This Bill is to recognise all

those that were marginalised such as Korama, Grique, Khoi, Nama and the San; particularly their language, culture and tradition.

This Bill also recognise the role of Traditional leaders, their leadership structures and communities which have not yet been recognised in law; and to combine government laws on traditional leadership into one law and address all problems, as the Minister has just alluded.

The Bill redresses all the past injustices. It will make provision for the establishment of Khoi and San council for each recognised Khoi and San community.

Speaker, these structures are similar to the traditional councils that are established for recognised communities.

This Bill will further make provision for the recognised leaders to participate in municipal affairs, as provided currently by section 81 Municipal Structures Act, which provides for participation in the proceedings of municipality council. Traditional leaders will be in a

position to uplift the standard of living of their people.

And this Bill, at the end of the day, it’s going to repeal the main Bill and synchronize all the other Bills into one leadership Bill for traditional leaders.

We, therefore, believe that this Bill is going to assist the country at large. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr K J MILEHAM: Speaker, this House recently passed the Traditional Leadership Governance Framework Amendment Bill. It now appears that, as we warned repeatedly during the processing of that Bill, it has been overtaken by events and the adoption of this more far-reaching legislation addressing exactly the same issues. In fact, in some provinces, the plan is for the public participation processes at provincial level for both Bills to run concurrently!

Speaking of public participation, the parliamentary processes for the Traditional and Khoisan Leadership Bill left much to be desired. In many of the public hearings

conducted by the portfolio committee, translation was provided by members of the community. Copies of the Bill were only made available in English, and were only provided on the day of the hearing. Now, when you consider that the final Bill runs to 95 pages, you will appreciate that communities did not have an opportunity to meaningfully engage and consider the legislation.

At least one meeting was cancelled because of the late arrival of the committee. And in many instances, notice was only sent out a day or so beforehand. Given the recent debacle over the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill, where the Constitutional Court found that parliamentary public participation was distinctly problematic, one would expect parliament to do much better.

Speaker, while this final draft of the Bill is far better than the original, mainly because of hours of committee work and inputs, it is still a bad legislation.

It is bad because it discriminates between so-called “traditional” leaders and communities, and the Khoisan

leaders and communities, by enforcing different recognition criteria.

It is bad, because it perpetuates the apartheid spatial boundaries allocated to various “tribes” by requiring that premiers entrench these boundaries through publication in the government gazette, without consulting the communities affected.

It is bad because the cultural identity of traditional communities is determined by where they live, rather than through affiliation, as is the proposed process for the Khoisan people.

It is bad because it still promotes traditional and Khoisan leaders into a quasi-governmental role, by giving them seats in municipal councils (albeit without voting rights), a privilege that no other stakeholder group receives, be it religious, business or civic.

It is bad because the traditional councils and leaders are still able to transact and enter into partnerships and agreements regarding communal property, despite the

impassioned pleas of many during the public hearings that this was contrary to the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act.

Now, all that said, there is some good in this legislation. The Bill for the first time recognizes the Khoisan people and their leaders, and brings them into the broader fold of traditional leaders as identified in chapter 12 of the Constitution. It does require that the community be consulted before any decision to enter into any agreement or partnership is concluded, although it fails to define the nature and extent of that consultation.

It further requires that all existing partnerships and agreements be reviewed by the relevant provincial premier within three years of the Bill being signed into law.

It requires that all finances of traditional and Khoisan councils and communities be audited, and that the Auditor General have the final decision as to any audit finding.

And it rules out, on similar grounds to public representatives, the right of any traditional or Khoisan leader criminally convicted and sentenced to jail of more than 12 months without the option of a fine to return to office.

But is this enough? The answer, sadly, is no. This Bill was an opportunity to radically redress the imbalance of power between traditional communities and their leaders. It was a chance to ensure that the communities were the rightful beneficiaries of communal property. It was the opening needed to ensure proper rural democracy and economic development.

Instead, the Traditional and Khoisan Leadership Bill is little more than another ANC ploy to keep the kings and chiefs onside, and supporting a party which does little for their people.

It does little to remedy the many issues affecting traditional councils, to the extent that 14 years after the Traditional Leadership Framework Act was first passed, many traditional councils have still not been

established, and where they have, many are illegal and fail to meet the criteria.

This Bill fails in even its most basic objective, namely to provide representation for Khoisan communities as they have, to a large extent, rejected it. [Interjection.]

Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Hon Speaker, can the hon member take a question of traditional courts?

The SPEAKER: Hon member, would you like to take a question?

Mr K J MILEHAM: Yes, I’ll take a question. Go for it.

Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Can you tell this hon House about traditional structures and the modus operandi of traditional structures thereof, in relation to courts and administration, generally. [Interjections.]

Mr K J MILEHAM: In relation to what, Chair? I didn’t hear the question. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Hon member, can you repeat the question. [Interjections.]

Mr K J MILEHAM: Sorry, in relation to? [Interjections.]

Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Okay, thank you madam Speaker. Can the hon member tell this august House about the traditional system – how it works – in relation to administration and the modus operandi thereof?

Mr K J MILEHAM: Well, let’s start by the fact that traditional communities are not properly represented on traditional councils, that many of those traditional councils are illegal, [Applause.] that those traditional councils that have constituted have not done so properly and met the criteria that was set out in the Traditional Leadership Governance Framework Act.

Let’s start with that and when we deal with that, and then we can start talking about the modus operandi and the administration of traditional communities.

So, Chairperson, for these reasons, the Democratic Alliance opposes this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr Z R XALISA: Speaker, one of the most critical questions we need to ask at this moment is, what must be done to standardise systems of governance so that rural people are fully entitled to rights that all South Africans have and not made subjects to leadership institutions that are not democratic? The Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill is one of their many ill-fated attempts to re-enforce apartheid tribal boundaries and lock rural people into unworkable forms of governance.

We welcome the recognition of the Khoi and San communities in this Bill and we re-emphasise that the Khoi and the San are fellow black people who must refuse all attempts to make of them a group of people distinct from other Africans in this country. The Bill is supposed to replace all other laws governing traditional leaders and in particular the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act which this House amended earlier this year. Our rejection of the amendment to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act was

based on empirical research that the Bill in essence shows the fundamental failure in every conception of the governance of the institution of traditional leaders across the country. The Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill falls into the same trap. It lacks the imagination necessary for proper democratisation of governance in rural areas. Out of the 22 public hearings held in the process of developing the Bill we had over
500 people coming to present.

Among other issues, they all raised the following; rural people need to have a right to decide on the use of their own land, they need to see accountability of revenues earned off their land and they need to have a say on the boundaries that defined their identities. Rural people want to be consulted when decisions that have a direct impact on their lives are taken and these decisions should be based on their evolving customs on the law and on the Constitution, that chiefs are not private owners of the land. They are custodians of the land for their entire communities but successive laws since 1994 have given immense power to chiefs to control, make deals and even sell the land for their own personal benefit.

Seen against these submissions from a myriad of people, the Bill has particularly failed to respond to some of the most pressing issues raised by rural people. It only provides what can be best described as a cosmetic attempt to reconfigure the constitution of traditional leadership and leaves rural people locked into second-class citizenship where they are condemned by feudal lords who are used by politicians and unscrupulous mining companies. As in the case with the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act which has spectacularly failed democratised traditional leadership, this Bill also fails to constitute traditional councils in a way that will be representative of the people.

Royal appointees will still dominate traditional councils with only 40% of the members elected by the communities themselves. This will ensure a continuing domination a small, feudal and man-made rural oligarchy. This will perpetuate the exclusion of women from decision-making processes. This will further entrench the power of ... [Inaudible.] traditional leaders to sell off pieces of land and make deals with multinational companies as in the case with the Amadiba community in the Eastern Cape,

ignoring the concerns of the locals. [Time expired.] The EFF rejects this Bill. [Appplause.]

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: Speaker, this Bill makes provision for the recognition of traditional and Khoi-San communities, leaders and councils. It seeks to create a single law from the plethora of existing traditional leadership laws as well as correct problems that currently exist in such legislation. The move to recognise Khoi and San communities is to be applauded as well as the lengths the department went to in conducting its extensive public hearings and consultations on the Bill.

It is of great importance and relevance that the Bill addresses issues pertinent to the aborigines of South Africa, namely our Khoi and San peoples who seem to have been forgotten by this government. Importantly the Bill seeks to restore traditional leadership, which as in African history and culture, was and still is, so necessary for the maintenance of peace, law and order amongst communities. These powers as we all know were removed under apartheid and colonial governance regimes,

whilst indigenous communities were oppressed, exploited and lost ownership of their ancestral lands. Many of these individuals became destitute, relying on rations whilst providing cheap labour on farms. In respect of specific issues on the Bill, argument still exists for the Bill to be split and separated. One dealing with Khoi-San leadership and another with traditional leadership as grouping divergent needs has proven challenging in the past. Such challenges will have to be dealt with as and when they arise. In respect of boundaries there is another challenge as these are dictated by the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act rather than in terms of ...


... Inkosi yinkosi ngabantu ...


... which emphasizes the fact that traditional leaders are meant to gain the authority and legitimacy from the people they lead. There is also argument that the Bill will re-entrench tribalism and divided citizenship by taking us back to apartheid era classifications rather

than promoting the unification of all peoples of South Africa. Concerns also remain over community consultation as it appears that the Bill excludes ordinary citizens from being consulted on decisions that may affect them and does not mandatorily provide for notifications to be made to people living in traditional communities. This will leave the door open for legal challenges. In conclusion, the Bill is a necessary step in the right direction. The litmus test will now be in its practical application. The IFP supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]


Prof N M KHUBISA: Madam Speaker, hon members, The Bill before us is at least six years in the making and is the first major review of the rules since the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act was enacted in 2003. The NFP has consistently expressed the view that empowering our traditional leaders will assist in achieving one of the major objectives of this Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, namely, to restore the integrity and legitimacy of the institution

of traditional leadership in line with customary law, cultural jurisprudence and practices.

Whereas the Bill in its current form adequately addresses the overall framework regulating kingships, queenships and succession to office, it falls short of requirements in several aspects which the NFP is concerned about.

On previous occasions we stated that the NFP would like to see that our traditional leaders be given more direct powers of governance at municipal and district level. The current Bill still falls short in addressing the concerns and needs of traditional leaders such as their role in government, their powers and functions. The Bill does however put the scope of traditional leaders in local government but it falls short of dealing with the concerns that traditional leaders have been clamouring for, for many years. We also suggested that traditional leaders need to be assisted financially to go about their way of representing the interest of the people living in their jurisdiction and to be the conduit for meaningful rural development. None of these concerns have been adequately addressed in the Bill.

We, however, consider the Bill as work in progress as there is a lot that still needs to be done to address the scope of traditional leadership and the functions thereof. In addition, the NFP believes and accepts the fact that traditional councils must be more democratic, representative and more accountable than they have been since the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act came into force. The NFP is also aware there is an inclusion of the provisions to recognise traditional Khoi-San leadership. Our Khoi-San brothers and sisters have been shamefully excluded from recognition for far too long and we believe that it is imperative that they receive equal status and benefits as others who are affected and governed by the Bill. They were victims of dispossession and human indignity. The recognition of the Khoi and San communities and their inclusion to the House of Traditional Leaders must not be viewed as if, we have arrived. The question should be what urgent mechanisms have to be taken to improve the day to day life of the Khoi and San people who were for many years marginalised and were subjected to all injustice and indignity. It is a fact there were misgivings with regard to public hearings. The Bill is not the end in itself. It comes

with complex terminology that comes with a lot of overlaps in roles and functions. As mentioned earlier on, the Bill must be seen as not a destination but as a work in progress. The NFP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M L W FILTANE: In supporting the Bill the UDM would like to make the following comments for consideration. We have noticed that over the last 20 years there has been a recognisable efforts to ensure that the constitutional recognition of the traditional leadership system find practical expression as part of our constitutional democracy.

The current Bill, once passed into law, will replace the existing Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003 and of significance, will accommodate the recognition of the Khoi-San Traditional Leadership Bill, which was omitted before, this is a welcome move. In a sense, this should be a consolidation of the role and function of the customary system within our constitutional democracy. The proposed changes to the Traditional Courts Bill make provision for people and

communities to decide which court will hear their disputes.

Accordingly, and in the same context, the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill should recognise the right of people and communities to be consulted; this right to be factored into the envisaged partnerships in the Bill.
Customary law must be grounded on direct participation of the affected communities. People must be given sufficient space and time to negotiate their daily lives in response to the changing social and economic conditions affecting them.

This Bill and its regulations must therefore introduce clear steps to ensure that rural people are playing a significant role in negotiations of partnership and that they share in profits deriving from their land.
Developmental monarchs must be characterised by development initiatives and projects through increased partnership between traditional councils and government as well as with nongovernmental businesses, like mining companies. The revenues must accrue for the communities.

This Bill should therefore reassert traditional leaders as essential political, social and economic structures for maintaining the sociopolitical order that is a prerequisite for stable rural development. Government should therefore make use of the intrinsic strength of traditional leaders in order to create a full democratic society. On the same vein, the institution of traditional leadership should, through this Bill, be transformed to move with the times and demands of the changing world.

Given that both the President and the premiers head political institutions, it is recommended that withdrawal of kingship or queenship or principal traditional community should only be effected by a court of law. This would ensure the neutrality of such a decision. Finally, traditional leaders must refuse to be drawn into party politics. We witnessed a very scary scenario last weekend in Sekhukhune, Limpopo. Traditional leaders were coerced to take sides with a factional slate within the ruling party. It was disgusting to watch that shame. Thank you.

Mr W M MADISHA: Hon Speaker, Cope notes that the Constitution makes provision for the recognition of the

institution, status and the role of traditional leadership according to customary law. Cope notes the intent of this Bill. Speaker, whilst there is a need to give effect to the Constitution in respect of traditional matters, Cope is on record in this House, expressing our concern at the bantustanisation and the making of ethnicity of our rural communities in the democratic South Africa.

In this regard, Cope concurs with the view of University of Cape Town’s Land and Accountability Research Centre when it stated that, “this Bill is fundamentally inconsistent with the promises made to citizens during the transition to democracy and the rights and values enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa.”

More particularly, Cope notes the following. One, as it is, the Bill entrenches tribal boundaries derived from colonial and apartheid distortions of customary governance systems. Two, that the Bill imposes apartheid era tribal identities that were forced upon communities at that time. Three, the Bill does not address the problems experienced to date in the democratisation and

transformation of traditional leadership structures. Those of us who were born and grew up in rural areas understand exactly what we are talking about and as a result of this; we call on the committee to work more and make sure that they improve that which has been put on paper here. Thank you very much.

Mr M P GALO: Hon Speaker, this Bill is a function of our society, deeply fractured and condescending to the institution of the Khoi and San communities, including traditional leadership. The repeal of the current regime on traditional leadership has been long overdue. It is our considered view that this regime has not advanced the rights and interests of traditional communities. In the main, they have been eccentric and Eurocentric.

The proposed Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill is by comparison a national blueprint through which the AIC values are founded on. The latter cherishes the autonomy of traditional leadership, including the right to self- determination, of the Khoi and San people. The Bill epitomises a united front that the Constitution envisages, entrenching the rights of traditional

communities and the Khoi and San people alike. The Bill recognises the Khoi-San communities.

This is in recognition of the fact that the Khoi-San community has endured the full might of colonialism and apartheid to the detriment of their values, culture and institutional memory. The Bill introduces a constellation of leadership positions, including the king or queen, the principal traditional leader, the senior traditional leader, the headman or headwoman; and the senior Khoisan leader.

Since Clause 18 of the Bill establishes the Khoi-San council, there is a semblance of hope that the current government has listened to the cries of the San and Khoi people. The AIC pins its hope against the established council for the Khoi and San people, recognising their role in elevating the interests of their respective communities.

The AIC further commends the established Advisory Committee on Khoi-San Matters. The committee will be the mouthpiece of the Khoi and San people. We hope that it

will ensure that the best interest of this community is advanced, protected and promoted.

We wish to implore the Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs to prioritise the Khoi-San leaders, in respect of the allocation of resources. In terms of the Bill, the Minister is to “determine the resources to be made available to leaders as may be needed to enable them to perform their functions. This is necessary to ensure uniformity in respect of tools of trade.”

The AIC supports the Bill and respects the traditional leadership in this country. We are the subjects of our traditional leaders. We are from the rural communities and there is no way that we cannot support this kind of a Bill. Thank you.


Mna C D MATSEPE: Mohl Sepikara, ke kgopela go itebanya le Mme Kgoši Mothapo ge a be a hlohla mošomikanna a re a bolele gore ke tsela efe yeo e šomišwago go sepetša dilo kua magaeng. [Tšhwahlelo.] Naa o botšiša gore ke tsena

kae? Ke tšwa mošate le nna. Molaokakanywa wo o lego mo pele ga rena ga o bolele selo ka mathata ao a lebanego le setšhaba kua magaeng. Ge re be re ralala le diprofense


... on public consultation, many of the issues that they raised there are not catered for in this Bill.


Taba ya mathomo, ke itebanya le wena Mme Mothapo; batho ba lla ka gore lena magoši kua magaeng le dira dilo tše dintši tšeo di sa lokago. Ba re se le se dirago ke go saena dikontraka le borameepo batho ba lena ba sa tsebe selo. Le dira bjalo le nnoši; ke ka lebaka leo go nago le mathata a mantši kua magaeng a a hlolwago ke lena le le magoši. Taba ya bobedi yeo le e dirago ...


Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Madam Speaker! On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Hon Matsepe, please take your seat. Yes hon member, on what point are you rising?

Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Madam Speaker, hon Matsepe is misleading this House and the honourable public.

The SPEAKER: No, hon member. No, no, no. There is nothing unparliamentary even if he was misleading the House. He is only out of order when he is deliberately misleading the House. Please proceed, hon Matsepe. [Interjections.]


Mna C D MATSEPE: Ke tla mo fologa gannyane, Sepikara. [Tšhwahlelo.] Ke tla mo fologa gannyane ke boele mo tabeng yaka. Go na le ditumelelano [concessions] tšeo Molaokakanywa wo o di dirilego, efela tšeo setšhaba se llago ka tšona ga di gona ka mo gare ga Molaokakanywa wo.

Ms S C N SHOPE-SITHOLE: Hon Speaker! Hon Speaker!

The SPEAKER: Yes, hon member. Please take your seat, hon Matsepe. Yes, hon member, on what point are you rising.


Moh S C N SHOPE-SITHOLE: Rre Matsepe a re o tla fologa mme, ke ne ke botsa gore a o mo nametse?


The SPEAKER: No, please hon members, this is not the time to be joking.


Mr M Q NDLOZI: Hon Speaker, let me translate. They mean



... omunye phezu komunye. [Uhleko.]


Mr C D MATSEPE: No, no, no, no! [Interjections.] No, no, no, no! [Interjetions.] [Laughter.]


Wena o mpotšišago ... [Tšhwahlelo.] Mme ke Mopedi, o tseba Sepedi, o kwešiša gore ke ra go reng ge ke realo.

Ke ra gore ke tla mo tlogela, ka se sa hlwela ke bolela ka yena. [Tšhwahlelo.] Bjale rena ba DA, ka ge tšeo setšhaba se belaelago ka tšona di se gona go Molaokakanywa wo, ga re o thekge. Batho kua magaeng ba a lla; ba lla ka gore lena magoši le a ba gatelela. Magoši ga a dire tšeo setšhaba se di kgopelago. Eupša, nna lehono ke le botša gore ... [Tšhwahlelo.] Ke tšwa mošate le nna, bjale ka wena, mma. Go swana le ge ... [Tšhwahlelo.] ... Ke yona! [Tšhwahlelo.] Ke yona!


The SPEAKER: Hon Hlengwa, on what point are you rising?


Mnu M HLENGWA: Mhlonishwa Somlomo bengifisa ukucosha ukuthi ngabe ilungu elihloniphekile lingawuthatha yini umbuzo.


The SPEAKER: Ntate, are you prepared to take a question?


Mna C D MATSEPE: Aowa, nka se kgone go tšea potšišo. Ga ke na nako ya go tšea potšišo ya gago.


USOMLOMO: Cha, akazimisele.


Mnu M HLENGWA: Uzohamba usinda.


Mna C D MATSEPE: Bjale ge ... [Tšhwahlelo.] ... ga se ka ikemišetša. Ke bolela yona taba ye ya gore ditumelelano[concessions] tše di dirilwego ke Molaokakanywa wo ke tša gore magoši ba ka se hlwele ba kgona go dira ditumelelano [agreements] le dikhamphani tše di tlilego go dira dipeeletšo metseng ya bona. Ke yona feela tumelenano[concession] ye e lego gona. Efela taolo yeo magoši ba nago le yona ga se le bolele ka yona ka lebaka la gore lena magoši - ka gore lena ANC le thekga ...[Nako e fedile.]. Ke ka lebaka la gore ANC ga e bolele selo. Ke lena le laolago. Ke ka lebaka la eng le sa fetišetše taolo [authority] ye setšhabeng? Le gona

Molaokakanywa wo ga o re selo ka taolo ye le nago le yona. [Tšhwahlelo.] [Legoswi.]


Mnu M R MDAKANE: Mangibonge Somlomo, ngibonge kuwo wonke Amalungu ePhalamende akhona, emaKhosini naseziNgonyameni zonke ezikhona nakubo bonke abantu abahleli ezindaweni zasemakhaya. Lo Mthetho lona esiwuVivinyayo wumthetho osemqoka kakhulu ukwenza ngcono izimpilo zabantu bakithi abahleli ezindaweni zasemakhaya. Sonke siyabazi, nabo futhi bezile kuzo zonke izingqungquthela ebesizibizile izigcawu zonke bezobeka imibono yabo ngendlela abazi ngayo izindawo zobukhosi.

Sesivumelane ngakho ukuthi amakhosi emvelo wonke asemqoka kakhulu ekwakheni kangcono kabusha izwe lokhokho bethu ngoba [because] yibona okade babakhona ngisho [even] ngaphambi kokuba kube nombuso wentando yeningi. Kade kwase beyibambile ukuba bakhulule izwe lokhokho babo.
Ngaleyondlela-ke siyabahlonipha kakhulu. Lo Mthethosivivinyo lona esiwuthulayo namhlanje kuleNdlu yeSishayamthetho wuMthethosivivinyo ozama ukwenza ngcono izimpilo zabantu abaphila ezindaweni zasemakhaya.

Siyakwazi ukuthi loMthethosivivinyo awuzuqeda zonke izinsizi zabantu bakithi esezihlale iminyaka ngeminyaka zingazange zixazululwe yimibuso yangaphambili ikakhulu umbuso wobandlululo. Yingakho nje sithi lona wumzamo wokuqala wokusiza amakhosi wonke akhona la ezweni lethu okubalwa (“aquka” is Xhosa) nabaThwa bekhona. Sithi ukubambisana nazo zonke izinhlangano [organisations] ukwakha ngcono le mpilo kuzofanele siqhubekele phambili.

Izingonyama zonke esixhumane nazo ziwuxhase kakhulu lo Mthethosivivinyo zasho zathi, masiqubeke nawo ngoba lokhu esikwenzayo ukuzama ukuba sixazulule izinkinga ezingenziwanga yithi esizithole sezenziwe. Ngaleyo
ndlela-ke siyathemba ukuba sonke njengamaLungu ePhalamende sizokwazi ukuba siyixoxe lento siwuvume lo Mthethosivivinyo bese kuba wumthetho wezwe ozokwazi ukulawula kahle izindaba zombuso wasemakhosini. Amakhosi- ke wonke esixhumane nawo athe ayawujabulela nawo futhi ayobambisana nathi ukuba lomthetho lona ube wumthetho ozosebenza uqhubekele phambili ezindaweni ezahlukene.
Ngaleyo ndlela-ke, siyawezwa amalungu ezinye izinhlangano, ikakhulu-ke ...


... A question that we have always been posing to them is what are your policy positions on a traditional leadership system of governance in our country? Many of them do not have policies on this important area in our society. Hon Steenhuisen, we tried our level best to read it but you are not saying anything about the important structure in our society — the sector in our society.

We have been requesting all the parties that if you want to engage with us meaningfully, present your patty position ... your policy. All of them used their natural intelligence to address a very complex question of traditional leaders in our country.

That’s why all the traditional leaders took a view that they understand that this Bill is not going to solve all their problems but it is a work in progress, with an intention to ensure that it addresses their historical grievances that have been there for hundreds of years.

This Bill is a work in progress. It’s not intended to solve all the problems that have been created for

350 years but we are trying to lay the foundation to start addressing the questions that have been raised by the Khoi and San communities in our country ... their recognition.

I think all Members of Parliament, MPs, must be very happy that for the first time we are recognising the Khoi and San communities. They will participate fully in the democratic process in our country. Therefore, you shouldn’t just simply reject it because it is presented as a Bill.

Our understanding is that the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill is the first piece of legislation in the entire history of our country to provide for the formal recognition of Khoi and San communities, Khoi and San leaders and Khoi and San structures.

In this sense the Bill gives full expression to the spirit ... in the light of chapter 12 of the supreme law of our country as it realises a vision of transforming traditional and Khoi and San leadership institutions in line with the Bill of Rights.

The Bill is an examination of a complex process that began in 1995 with the Department of Constitutional Development which was the first to deal with the issue of the formal recognition of Khoi and San communities.

In 1996, the department undertook an investigation into the history, social structure and leadership of the Griqua community which led to the establishment of the National Griqua Forum in July 1997. This paved the way for the May 1998 conference which resolved on the establishment of the national body representative of all Khoi and San groupings in South Africa. We talk about the Khoi, the San, the Griqua, the Korana and the Nama in South Africa.

Established formally in May 1999, this body became the Khoi and San national forum and later the National Khoisan Council.

This body has been very helpful in engaging with the committee in dealing with this Bill. They participated fully in resolving the problems that they encounter in

their own community. In fact, the Khoi and San community is very happy with the Bill.

They are very happy with the Bill. What they said is that it’s a work in progress. We will resolve some of their problems. In fact, of all of them who attended the meeting, the majority said they were happy. In fact, they told us go ahead and implement the Bill, sooner than yesterday. [Interjections.] You were not there. You were not there. Of course, if you are throwing bones you will have answers. You are busy throwing bones ... you were not there so you don’t understand exactly what the community was saying. [Interjections.]

The department tabled this Bill in the National Assembly in September 2015. In most instances there was an agreement, with the support of the principal, of providing for the formal recognition of the Khoi and San. There were always different opinions, mostly concerning the modalities of such recognition.

In the deliberation on the Bill, the committee took a view and strived to accommodate, where possible, all the

relevant concerns raised during the public hearing. The members of the committee — even members of the DA — participated fully in the committee session. Of course, they reserve their right when they are in the Chamber to say what they want to say. Of course, saying something without a policy is very difficult. You can say whatever you like when there is no policy because I don’t think you take the role of traditional leaders in the transforming of our country seriously.

An HON MEMBER: Where is your policy on corruption?

Mr M R MDAKANE: The policy on corruption is already there. In fact, you must read it tomorrow. It’s here. It’s here. I can give you this one. We are fighting all corruption. [Interjections.] In fact, we are fighting all corruption. We are fighting corruption everyday.

In fact, the point I am raising is to address the concern around the poor financial accountability of traditional councils and the lack of consequences. The Bill now provides for the accounting officers of provincial

departments responsible for providing financial support to traditional councils to withhold financial support.

The accounting officer is also empowered to impose any other appropriate sanction should the traditional council be in breach of their financial accounting obligations.

The Auditor-General may also review the audited financial statements of the traditional council in instances where
... [Inaudible.] ... service provider conducts the audit.

That is the point that is very important ... the point that was raised by hon Matsepe. I thought we had agreed
... general that in whatever happened in traditional communities, they will be consulted. If there are companies that come to these traditional communities and they want to establish, they want to open a mine, they will sit down with the community, the kings, chiefs, amakhosi and have a discussion. Once all of them have agreed they can move and establish some of those companies.

We think the issue that had been raised by the traditional community was about that. The Bill exactly addresses their concern. If you read the Bill you will agree that the Bill is very progressive in addressing the issues of the Khoi and San, and traditional leaders in our country.

To affirm that the Khoi and San are equal in status to other recognised traditional communities, the Bill now provides for the establishment of the operation of the full commission on Khoi and San matters; not just an advisory committee as was proposed. The committee took the decision that we must establish a Khoi and San commission rather than just an advisory committee.

The Commission on Khoi-San Matters will be equal in status to the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims and will function in the same manner because we are taking this community very seriously. They can’t be discriminated against as a community.

This Bill is trying to address the historical grievances of this community. The community is happy with that. They

have wholeheartedly given us the go ahead. We were not forced by anyone. They participated and said go ahead. Please don’t delay it. Move as soon as possible. Today we are doing exactly what they requested us to do — to present this for consideration by this House. We think the House is going to adopt the Bill and then the President ... [Inaudible.] ... in terms of the NCOP’s processes and other processes.

The statutory recognition of the Khoi and San means that Khoi and San leaders will also become public office bearers, similar to other recognised traditional leaders.

The Bill also makes provision for the recognition of the new position of headmen chief and headwomen chief, which is absent in the current legislation. Within three years of the commencement of this Bill as an Act, the premiers must conduct investigations to determine whether headmen chiefs or headwomen chiefs, as well as recognised headmen and headwomen, do in fact meet recognition criteria. Of course, there will be consequences for headmen and headwomen who do not meet the recognition criteria.

To accommodate the few concerns that were raised by many people ... That’s why we are trying today to engage with communities. Hon Minister, many of them have raised the issue that was raised by all communities, which is the question of land. They raised the issue that you can’t have traditional leaders who don’t have a piece of land. They said their historical grievance first and foremost is land dispossession. If you address the question of land they will be very happy, and to start addressing some of the issues. This is what they want us to do — address some of the issues that were raised.

There is one issue that I want to raise. All parties talk about apartheid boundaries but have never come forward to present what it is that can address the apartheid boundaries that they are talking about. You have never
... [Interjections.] In fact, you have never said anything about that. You have never said anything about that.

Talking about apartheid boundaries, you have never made proposals that are very cogent ... that would convince all of us that these are apartheid boundaries and this is

what you are proposing for us to address apartheid boundaries.

I hear hon Matsepe and colleagues from the EFF talking about these boundaries. These boundaries are there and we are transforming these boundaries. We are moving forward and building a new society driven by the overall understanding of the governing party. Therefore, to tell us that you have no history ... therefore is to simply wake up early in the morning ... all the boundaries that you have created will have disappeared. It can’t work that way. How is it going to work that way because you have no view on how to address that issue?

It’s very nice to come here and say apartheid boundaries, apartheid boundaries. When we say to you provide evidence on how you can address those apartheid boundaries, you say no, we don’t know how to do it. But present it then. [Interjections.]

2019 will come and go. You won’t win. Giving yourself this hope is a false hope because you know very well that you’re not going to win. ... Your seats there are very

good for you ... forever sitting there, but the point that I’m raising is that its very wrong for MPs who have been given a platform ... to say make a cogent reason why you think we must do this that way ... and when members are unable to present very cogent reasons to address some of the issues there, then that doesn’t assist us to come here and start raising that way.

Of course, freedom of association was raised by hon Filtane, that ...


... amakhosi mawangangeni kwezombangazwe.


The point that he was raising was that everyone has freedom of association. Then you can’t say they mustn’t be actively involved in political areas if they want to do so. You will be denying them their basic human right. It can’t be right that you are saying that. We think it is wrong for anyone to consider some of these issues.

Our view is that the Bill that is presented today is a Bill that we will never claim is perfect. It’s a work in progress ... [Inaudible.] ... is to address the historical grievances of the Khoi and San communities in our country. We think this is going to assist us. It is going to ensure that they are part and parcel ... As we talk about social cohesion, as we talk about human solidarity, this community themselves want to be part and parcel of this progressive South African society that we all seek to build. Of course, the governing party’s policies that are very superior that everyone is arguing against.

Therefore, we will request the House to consider this Bill and vote positively for the Bill because voting against the Bill can’t be a very progressive step to take. It will be the most reactionary step anyway. But the Khoisan people have been complaining about this matter ... at a day when they have to celebrate ... and you run away from their house and do some of these issues. Away with some of these issues.

Comrades and hon Speaker, the ANC supports this Bill and we should move. Members of the ANC are here and are willing to vote positively on this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]



leboge maloko a tlotlegang ka ditshwaelo tse ba di dirileng. Ke leboge bogolosegolo Modulasetulo wa komiti ya rona ntate Mdakane, ka go araba dipotso tse dintsi tse maloko a di boditsweng.


Let me just take this opportunity, hon Speaker, to clarify one thing, end in July this year, we held a very successful Traditional Leadership Indaba with all the traditional councils in our country for the first time. [Applause.]

One of the things that they made very clear is an understanding that this Bill is important to restore their dignity. This Bill is also important to ensure that

we harmonise the traditional leadership sector. They said we must move with speed to give effect to this Bill.

The question that we need to ask - because all the political parties were also invited to that Indaba, and only the IFP and the ANC responded positively; the DA and the EFF were not there.

The question that we need to ask is why are you – if you are really concern about the effect of the apartheid system on the traditional leadership sector, why are you not supporting this Bill?

If this Bill is meant to restore the dignity of the Khoisan people why are you not supporting it? The answer is clear, DA you are not supporting the Bill because among you, there are people who idolise the architectures of apartheid, like P W Botha.

We understand you are not going to support this Traditional Leadership Bill because the reality of the matter is that, this is meant to reverse the apartheid mess that was created in our country.

I’m surprised why the EFF are not supporting this Bill, because you claim to be pro-poor. Why are you not supporting this Bill? You are not supporting this Bill because you are hypocrites. You can lie to our people but you can’t fool them forever; very soon they will expose you for what you are. I think we are going to move with speed to implement this particular Bill after its enactment. I thank you, hon Madam Speaker. [Applause.] Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.

Division demanded.

The House divided.

[Take in from Minutes.]

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.


There was no debate.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party, Economic Freedom Fighters, National Freedom Party, United Democratic Movement, Congress of the People and African National Congress.

Declarations of vote:

Ms E R WILSON: Hon Speaker, the portfolio committee has done dozens of reports, whether they be on budgets or oversight reports. All of them have asked for immediate intervention or action by Minister Dlamini who is accountable for the performance of this department. Her total disregard for her position and the poor and vulnerable resulted in the report submitted being ignored in the entirety.

Two of the entities namely SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, no surprises there and the and the National Development Agency, NDA, reflected a sad state of affairs under Minister Dlamini with serious regressions.

While the department itself received an unqualified audit, the Auditor-General, AG, remained damning. Of particular concern is the fact that the effective leadership in the department and its entities had progressively regressed. But then, when they are led by a Minister who continually shows the poor and vulnerable a finger, closes her eyes to the crisis she has willingly created at Sassa and leads the portfolio committee on a merry-go-round with her lack of honesty and transparency, how can we be surprised?

She has blatantly lied to written questions and has been reported to the Public Protector for her lack of ethics. The NDA despite spending money did not meet their targets. However, despite this dismal lack of performance, got paid out huge performance bonuses to their leadership. Minister how is this allowed? What part did you play in this?

The department and its entities have millions of rand in irregular expenditure. Most of them because of deviations in supply chain management. What action has been taken?
Nada! Zip!


Ms E R WILSON: Whether we accept or reject this report is actually irrelevant. As long as the President is protecting a Minister who has proved that she is incapable of delivering her mandate or uplifting the vulnerable South Africans. Enough is enough people must come before back pockets and grants debacleBring on 2019, so the DA that does care, can ensure a better life for the poorest of the poor. Ke nako. [Now is the time.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]


Mnu M HLENGWA: Ngiyathokoza kakhulu Mhlonishwa Somlomo,



... well the bottomline is that the biggest issue as far as this department is concerned has been the total failure to manage the issue of the migration of payments from the corrupt Cash Paymaster Services, CPS, because SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, is hellbent on maintaining the bosom friend relationship it has with CPS.


Inkinga nje enkulu ukuthi kunezigebengu ezitshontsha izimali zabantu, ama-airtime, bathengelwa ugesi yile nkampani yakwa-CPS.


For a year, the department has been found wanting in terms of dealing with this thing. The Constitutional Court had to be roped in. In fact even this clean audit


... ekukhulunywa ngayo, eMnyangweni Wezokuthuthukiswa Komphakathi yinganekwane nje, uma ngempela ngempela ubuka umonakalo nenhlekelele ezokwenzeka ngomhlaka zi 1 Apreli 2018, uma labo abacosha impesheni nesondlo seyingane

sebengasayitholi imali yabo ngoba uMnyango kanye no-Sassa yizithupha ziya ogwayini bahlangene ngobugebengu nenkohlakalo no-CPS Net1 bafuna ukumbuyisela ngewindi.
Ngakho ke ...


... this House must take a decision on how to deal with this thing, because the department has failed zero out of
10 to deal with this thing. The portfolio committee has been trying to get them to toe the line and they are not toeing the line.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, has tried to get them to toe the line; they are not toeing the line. I have never seen people who even fail to be committed to their own commitments. They cannot even adhere to their own timeline in terms of what needs to happen. We are almost 90 days to 1 April 2018, yet there is still no solution.

So, we can speak all these niceties, the bottomline is that the Department of Social Development and Sassa are engineering a crises and ...


... uma yihlokoza ngomhla lulunye ku-Apreli uyobonakala ngoba sasho sathi kusazokwenzeka ngoba nihlangene nezigebengu ezintshontsha imali yabantu. Lento niyoyiphendulela eZulwini maniqhubeka nayo.

Ms N V MENTE: Hon Speaker, just to put it on record, we are the third largest party in this House. Minister, Bathabile Dlamini has not paid the fruitless and wasteful expenditure and I do not understand why they today enjoy unqualified audit when they still have debt in their name. The despicable behaviour by the Minister and the acting chief executive officer, CEO, Pearl Bhengu, to frustrate the process is opportunistic and is nothing but attempts to bring back the corrupt Cash Paymaster Services, CPS, by the back door.

Ms Bathabile Dlamini has held the country at ransom before and the Constitutional Court was left with no choice, but to extend the CPS contract with a year. She is deliberately now trying to do the same, sidelining and sabotaging the Post Office and Parliament must now allow

that to happen and it is not going to happen. You are not going to outsource under our watch!

If the ANC is going to sit around and watch Minister Bathabile bringing her friends, we are going to take you to court and you are going to be liable on your own not with Parliament and not with the department. The only concrete and meaningful recommendation should have been made as support for the Post Office to deal with the grants of the people, pay it on all the four services not give them one. You want to take the other three services and outsource them to your friends again.

We cannot afford to be spending R170 million per month, when we can spend less with the Post Office. This deliberate delay you are doing is to undermine the Post Office, to disempower it so that the Post Office cannot put any systems in place. I do not know in your own department - how do you deal with advertisement?

The SPEAKER: Hon member, your time has expired.

Ms N V MENTE: For in this government, when you advertise for employment you must at least have three months. Do not delay the Post Office they are going to pay the grants full stop! [Applause.]

Mr M L SHELEMBE: Hon Speaker and hon members of the House, this department do not inspire confidence and this is a direct result of a department being led by a Minister who does not inspire confidence.

The observations of the committee contain several damning observations that in a normal functioning democracy with an emphasis on accountability would have resulted in the fall of the Minister.

How can a department justifies spending 99,8% of its budget, yet only achieve 80% of its social delivery targets? Equally disturbing is the observations that the department’s financial health regressed in the area of accruals and the committee expression about the manner in which the department implements virements.

These flags raised by the committee paunched the underlying problems in the financial managing systems of the department and needs to be addressed with haste. We also support the observation and recommendations contained in this report relating to the entities of the department. In particular we share in the concern of the committee that a trend is developing and its agencies to make late payments. Not only do these late payments of the invoices affect its achievements of performance targets, but it is also to the detriment of those providing the services and goods to the department.

We also share the concern of the committee and support its condemnation of the continuing lack of consequence management at both the SA Social Service Agency, Sassa and the National Development Agency, NDA. This is indeed a worrying trend but not surprising, since their mother body the Department of Social Development similarly has no internal consequence management. If they were, the incompetent Minister would have made an exit from the political seen a long time ago. [Applause.]

Finally, we support the report tabled here today and we urge the department to implement the recommendations as a matter of the highest priority. I thank you.

Ms C N MAJEKE: Hon Speaker and hon members, the UDM support this report, but would like to make the following declaration. One of the most devastating evils is the unlawful deductions by unscrupulous credit providers from beneficiaries of the government social grants. Pensioners are left distressed and unable to make a living from the mega R1,600 per month granted by the state.

On 17 March 2017 the Constitutional Court ordered that the SA Social Agency, Sassa, is under a duty to ensure that the payment method it determines contains adequate safeguards to ensure that personal data obtained in the payment process remains private and may not be used for any purpose other than the payment of grants. Yet as recent as September 2017, poor pensioners those in particular of the rural areas are still being victimised by these inhumane thieves who take advantage of their ignorance and their illiteracy.

Massive amounts of monies are deducted without the consent and the knowledge of the pensioners, disguised as the purchasing of airtime, electricity and unwanted insurance policies. Illegal deductions to the tune of R500 million per month was taken from the grants paid via the Cash Pay Master Services, CPS, over the period of the first contract with government.

Speaker, this leaves beneficiaries and in many cases extended beneficiaries with less money to live on for long periods because of these illegal deductions. It is unbelievable that the most vulnerable people in our society are exploited in this way.

Social grant recipients were essentially coerced into taking loans with Moneyline which has a dimension with possible floating of the credit regulations. The pensioners’ monies that have been unlawfully deducted must be refunded immediately. In many cases the unfortunate circumstances would have arisen where the elderly and other defenceless persons had passed away, in which case, the grant monies should be awarded to the beneficiaries of the deceased.

Speaker, although the Constitutional Court was not clear on the monies deducted illegally, it was unequivocal ...

The SPEAKER: Hon member, your time has expired.

Ms C N MAJEKE: ... on its judgement that the practice must stop.


Imali zamaxhegwazana mazibuyiselwe. Siyabulela.

Declarations of vote:

Mr W M MADISHA: The SA Social Security Agency was established in the last 20 years for the sole purpose of doing exactly what the Cash Paymaster Services, CPS, has been contracted to do. Twenty years later, Sassa is still not in a position to carry out its function; and South Africans will never forget that it took the Black Sash and the Constitutional Courts to intervene in order to ensure that the constitutional rights of millions of South Africans to social assistance was not disrupted and imperilled by the actions of the Minister and her department.

What we have witnessed, more recently in this House and in the joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, and the Portfolio Committee meetings on Social Development meetings regarding the latest impending grants crisis, point to the blatant and brazen attempts by the Minister and her departmental minions to purposefully ensure that no deal is reached with the SA Post Office, Sapo, and Postbank, that much is clear.
Frankly, it is hard not to conclude that Minister Dlamini appears to be unlawfully interfering in supply chain matters and that corrupt activities lie at the centre of this mass.

There is the hidden hand of the Minister’s handler, Mr Zuma, who happens to chair the inter-ministerial committee tasked with the matter. The Cope notes that nowhere in the committee ...  Time expired. Thank you very much.

We can’t agree with her anyway.


Nks R N CAPA: Somlomo ohloniphekileyo, malungu eNdlu, nesizwe siphela, ndiyanibulisa ngale njikalanga. Ndifuna ukuthi I-ANC iyayixhasa le ngxelo iphambi kwayo kuba idandalazisa izinto eziye zathethwa. Kuyabonakala ukuba amalungu ale komiti aye ahlala ayihla amahlongwane, aphuma nale ngxelo kuthethwa ngayo apha namhlanje yama- 2015-16.

Kukho imiba ekuxoxwe banzi kakhulu ngayo nebandakanya imicimbi yonyaka yama-2017-18. Le miba idandalaziswayo yokungalungi kwesebe neminye imingeni elijongene nayo siza kuxoxa ngayo xa sisenza le ngxelo kunyaka ozayo kuba intwashlobo ikhawuleze yangena. Siyabulela ukuba siyazi into ekuza kuthethwa ngayo kwixesha elizayo.

Mandazise iNdlu nelizwe liphela ukuba eli sebe asililo isebe ekuthiwa yi-Department of South African Social Security Agency, Sassa. USassa yi-arhente esetyenziswayo ukuba yenze imisebenzi yezophuhliso loluntu, ngokunjalo no-National Development Agency [iArhente yoPhuhliso yeSizwe]. Kuyabonakala ukuba ezi arhente zinalo ulawulo esingaxoxa ngalo nesicinga ukuba kungekudala kufuneka kuxoxwe ngalo kule Ndlu. Eyona nto ekufuneka kuxoxwe

ngayo yindlela ehamba ngayo ingxaki kaSassa xa kulandelelwa izigqibo zeNkundla ePhakamileyo. Andithandi ke ukuba ndibe ngumntu ophuma emxholweni, ingakumbi xa sithetha nesizwe. Isebe eli siyalixhasa kuba eminye misebenzi engeyiyo ye-arhente yenziwe kakuhle.

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.


Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party, National Freedom Party, United Democratic Movement, Congress of the People, African Independent Congress and African National Congress.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

There was no debate.


please address you? We agreed in the National Assembly Programming Committee last week that we’d shorten the time for declarations, that there will be declarations on these reports. Generally in the House we follow the principle of proportionality. It would be very odd if, for instance, you were to put the DA ahead of the ANC speaker in a debate. The precedent has always been that where declarations are requested, we do follow the proportionality rule in Parliament. It prevents some of the problems experience this morning and so we would humbly request that it follows that order.

The SPEAKER: We follow the usual sequence, yes hon member. Agang is in the list.

Mr M A PLOUAMMA: No, I did not say Agang must be in the list.

The SPEAKER: You don’t want an opportunity to make a declaration; that is fine. So, we will start with the DA.

Declaration(s) of Vote:

Mr I M OLLIS: Speaker and the hon Bagraim over there… The Parliamentary Research Unit has stated in their report that the unspent budget of the Department of Basic Education has increased from R160 million in 2014 to  R937 million in 2016-17. That is almost a billion rand that was not spent and one should ask, why? Well, some things are not working so well in the department. The continuing professional training development for what is called PL1 educators, or ordinary teachers, are supposed to have 268 000 teachers in additional training. We only have 102 000. That is 38% of the target. The Southern Association of Counselor Education and Supervision, Saces, the body that is supposed to vet teachers before they get placed in schools, came to Parliament and told us that they really are unable to vet teachers who have been convicted of sexual offences before they get re- employed in another school. So, if someone commits rape, Saces cannot wake up and vet that teacher and stop them being appointed in a different province in a school again. It is not working.

The annual building targets for schools under the Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Delivery Initiative, Asidi, programme were supposed to build 59 schools, they only build 16. They were supposed to connect sanitation to 265 schools, they connected 30, they were supposed to connect 280 schools with water, and they only connected
29. They were supposed to connect 620 schools to electricity and they connected zero.

Forty percent of teachers are regularly absent for periods of time, especially the first lesson of the day, which is maths; twenty five percent of teacher absenteeism is to attend union meetings or memorials. For far too long, this department has escaped enough scrutiny because everyone thinks the Minister is nice. Well, the DA is going to put a stop to that. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms N R MASHABELA: Speaker, on 29 November 2016, all public schools in South Africa had to have access to water, electricity and proper sanitation, and were not to be made of inappropriate materials. This is according to the legally binding minimum standards for school

infrastructure set out by the Department of Basic Education.

One year later, none of these standards have been met nationally, hon Minister Motshekga. The department has tried to meet these standards with the Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Delivery Initiative, called Asidi. In the 2016-17 financial year, these are Asidi’s successes: zero schools provided with electricity out of 620 targeted.

Minister Motshekga, the failure to meet even 10% of targets is a result of corruption, mismanagement and lack of capacity in a department that did not spend
R937,4 million of its budget and had irregular expenditure of R621,3 million. Listen, hon Motshekga, you are failing! [Interjections.] You are failing this department.

This is the ANC playing with the future of our children, while they send their children to private schools. For this and their corrupt activities, they must be held

accountable. This includes you, Minister Motshekga. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr K P SITHOLE: Hon Speaker, basic education is the foundation stone upon which a free, fair, productive and prosperous South Africa will be built. The solemn mandate of this department is to ensure that the children of this country are educated to a standard that will equip them to boldly face, and grapple and succeed with the challenges that are facing our country, our continent and our world today.

Access to lifelong learning, education and training opportunities are a vision that must be actioned. Learner performance must be increased across all grades and the quality of teaching and learning must be improved. Well- maintained school infrastructure, improved curriculum delivery, retention of learners until they matriculate, adequate support for special-needs learners and the provision of quality meals to learners is imperative.

Recurring findings of irregular, unauthorised, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, poor management of procurement

and contracts, misstatements in submitted annual financial statements, and inadequate consequence management will not assist the department to achieve its goals. Teacher absenteeism and teaching positions remaining unfilled are unacceptable. There are schools in KwaZulu-Natal that have no teachers in classrooms for up to and sometimes more than 30 days. Learners cannot get through their curriculum in such instances and are at a distinct disadvantage at their year-end examinations.

Through meticulous and sound governance practices, this department will go a long way in delivering on its promises to the people of South Africa. The IFP supports this Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report. I thank you.

Prof N M KHUBISA: Chairperson, this department should be an absolute priority for government, for it is this department with which we entrust our greatest national asset - the education of our children, the future leaders and captains of industry of our country. For the department to succeed in this vital mission, it needs,

first and foremost, to be managed effectively and efficiently.

We support the call of the committee to fast-track the implementation of interventions designed to improve performance in respect of targets set for school infrastructure. It is unacceptable that we still have children being taught under trees. Some of the schools’ buildings are dilapidated. Some schools do not have laboratories or libraries, and the school curriculum is not in line with the job market.

The setting of targets is of vital importance when monitoring overall progress, productivity and performance of the department. In other words, it tells us where a department is doing its work, or not; whether it is succeeding in implementing its planning, or not. In light of this, we urge the department to fast-track the implementation of the recommendations to ensure that accurate monitoring and evaluation of the department’s performance is adhered to.

We are worried about the molestation and sexual abuse of our children in schools. The department must attend to this, and those educators who are found to be doing this must be taken off the roll.

We identify with the recommendation of the committee that the department must ensure that the issues around schools’ sports needs, such as resourcing and the need to integrate sport education into the curriculum, are addressed. There is an old saying to the effect that a healthy body houses a healthy mind.

The NFP believes that sport in our schools is of great importance and that there should be development of sports. Schools must work with the committees, sports bodies must assist our schools within the communities, and municipalities must work together to ensure the development of sport. Not only is sport good for the body and mind, it encourages the learners to balance their interests between academics, sport and social life. Thank you, Chairperson. We support the report.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, I would like to recognise the hon member from the UDM. The hon member is unable to come to the waiting bench, so she will make her declaration from there.

Ms C N MAJEKE: Hon Chairperson, hon members, the UDM supports the report. However, it is unacceptable that the department has underspent to the amount of R699 000 under Programme 1. It cannot be that there were fewer volunteers who responded when unemployment is sky- rocketing at 27,7%. The department should have known and done better, had it planned with the interests of the people at heart.

The department has underspent to the amount of

R1,6 million under Programme 3, as well. This is when our education system needs regular teacher and institutional development.

During the year under review, the department incurred irregular expenditure to the amount of R621 million because it failed to follow the supply chain process, as required by law. It is disastrous, given that this year’s

irregular expenditure is at 43,3% - more than that incurred in the previous year, which is still under investigation, with no report of consequences for those who broke the law.

The department is slow to spend money on programmes of value. Yet, it is quick to overspend on fruitless and wasteful expenditure, especially during this economic dark hour in our country. Breaking the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act seems to be foremost in our department. Hence it incurred a whopping R2,11 million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

The problem of scholar transport has been compounded by departmental policy on closing schools with very few learners. When these learners are taken to other schools, matters such as scholar transport, safety and security should also be considered. If not, it encourages learner dropout.

Finally, hon Minister, please pay urgent attention to this matter, so that when next year starts, these programmes are resolved. Otherwise, if the Minister is

not able to act in the interests of the country, South Africans must entrust ... I thank you. [Time expired.]

Mr W M MADISHA: Chairperson, one must question what value can be placed against the receipt of an unqualified audit. According to the Auditor-General, whilst the Department of Basic Education received an unqualified audit for the 2016-17financial year, R621 million was incurred in irregular expenditure.

Whilst the department spent most of its infrastructure budget, in terms of the Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Development Initiative, only 16 out of the
59 schools targeted were developed. Only 30 out of 265 identified schools received toilets. Only 29 out of 280 received water infrastructure. None of the 620 targeted schools were electrified.

Our development as a nation and education are inextricably linked. Basic education provides the foundation. Whatever goes wrong influences the children’s likelihood to go on in life to attend tertiary

institutions and to go and get better jobs, to have a proper future.

South Africa is one of the highest contributors to education, in the world. However, we remain at the bottom, at the bottom – I want to emphasise that – right at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality education. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, Cope wonders what progress the department has made in giving effect to the recommendations in the jobs-for-cash report, and in particular, to a number of favourites. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] Bottom! [Interjections.]

Mr L M NTSHAYISA: Hon Chairperson, this is the reflection of what was discussed in the portfolio committee. We as the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education have discussed the performance of the Department of Education in accordance with our mandate. We made some observations and recommendations which we think will be considered by this department.

Transformation and democratisation of education in accordance with the values of humanitarian, rights, equality, etc is of paramount impotence. Doors of learning should be open to all as it is stated by the Freedom Charter. There are some issues that need immediate attention to improve performance of this department.

Strategic priorities, measurable objectives, expenditure trends and recommendation of Auditor-General must be thoroughly looked into. One of the strategic outcome orientated goals is to improve the quality of teaching and learning, quality infrastructure, learner-teacher support material. It is also important that there non- negotiable like teachers should teach and a learner should learn. Those negotiable should be considered.

The recurring findings of irregular, unauthorised, fruitless and wasteful expenditure in this department must come to an end and the department must have a proper action plan to meet all this objectives and targets. It is however appreciated that the department has recovered

and amount of 281 million that was fraudulently received by the Kha ri Gude programme volunteers.

We also appreciate the effort by the department to effect the tracking of teachers’ absenteeism from schools because this often impacts negatively on our children. It is however disheartening that South African Democratic Teachers Union, SADTU had not yet signed the quality management system that was signed in 2014. We support this report. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]

Ms T XASA: Chairperson, in the aim of ensuring that the doors of learning and culture are open for all South Africans, we as the ANC-led government has taken great stride to ensure that all children have access to quality basic education irrespective of the location. Basic education remains an apex priority for the ANC-led government. As the ANC, we have correctly identified key functions which greatly affect learners, teachers and the overall work of the education system.

This Budget Review and Recommendation Report, correctly reflect the budget that ensures a holistic approach to

basic education. It reflects a budget that ensures equity and wide access to the education service. The education sector faces a variety of challenges which includes but not limited to infrastructure and infrastructure backlogs, implementing agents’ disputes, teacher absenteeism; improvement of Grade R practitioners’ qualifications and generally the development of the Early Childhood Development, ECD, centres.

In his recent speech during the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement, MTBPS, the Minister referred to the importance of prioritising National Development Plan: Vision 2030.
In so doing, as the portfolio committee we are very encouraged that the departments’ Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report, BRRR, reflects the alignment with the National Development Plan: Vision 2030 particularly the outcome one of the Medium Term Strategic Framework which seeks to ensure that all learners have quality basic education. We urge the department to fast track the implementation of all the recommendations in that case we support the report. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.


There was no debate.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Declarations of vote:

Ms T M MBABAMA: House Chair, it is now widely accepted, even among ANC loyalists, that land reform under the ANC- led government has failed dismally. When one considers the government’s performance in terms of the three pillars of restitution, redistribution and tenure security, one is confronted with the cold reality that our people, 23 years into democracy, continue to be denied their enshrined land rights.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform initiates a plethora of programmes that, in theory, is meant to address past failures. In practice, however, these programmes are beset by maladministration, corruption and a general lack of concern for the landless masses. The Recapitalisation and Development Programme is one of the programmes that requires further scrutiny. The programme was developed with the aim of assisting beneficiaries who had been settled on transferred land by providing post-settlement support. However, there appears to be no budget allocated to implement this project.
Again, there is no correlation between theory and practicalities.

At the same time, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights has commitments worth R8,46 billion – this being the backlog of land claims lodged before 2009. They are about 7 000 in number. However, there appears to be no funding model that is necessary to fulfil these obligations adequately. The Constitution intended enhancement and upgrading of land tenure, but once again there is a wide gap between the vision of the

Constitution and the realities that millions of vulnerable South Africans experience every day.

The DA remains committed to advancing the interests of those who are dispossessed. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr N S MATIASE: House Chair, the EFF rejects the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report on Rural Development and Land Reform. It is fair to say that, two decades after the attainment of freedom, this department has reached a cul-de-sac in as far as the policies it has adopted are concerned.

They know as well as we do that, based on the current policies, they cannot do anything more than what they have done to redress colonial and apartheid land inequalities. Almost 20 years after the closing date for land claims, the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights has not settled all the lodged claims. In instances where some claims are said to be settled, like the Ndabeni land restitution case here in Cape Town that was supposedly settled 13 years ago, the community still cannot make use

of the land because the department had stoked intercommunity squabbles. Moreover, in some cases, the department had bought land and failed to transfer the land to intended beneficiaries, leaving the department with ownership of more than 4 000 farming units that lie fallow.

This is all because of gross ineptitude by the department, on the one hand, and chronic legislative and policy failures on the other. This is to such an extent that we can no longer trust the ANC with any radical programme of land reform. Even with a change in policies, we would still have the same corrupt and inept government and governance of this very important portfolio.

It is common knowledge that, since 1913, various successive regimes have supported and sustained growth of white commercial farmers, sanctioned land theft, and continued to maintain accumulation of wealth by white capitalists. The ANC regime maintains the same policy trajectory. For these and many other reasons, we reject this budgetary review and recommendation report. [Time expired.]

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: House Chairperson, the department is progressing well in terms of its mandated land reform and development programme. Challenges remain, though, in land restitution and land restoration, where there are many instances of opportunities for unscrupulous departmental staff to act in collusion with landowners in escalating property prices.

Success has been achieved in some measure by the Land Claims Commissioner: National Office who has, in some areas, managed to finalise research on the history of forceful removals and restore such farms to the previously dispossessed.

However, in certain provinces, corruption continues to deprive land beneficiaries of land through misleading advice being dispensed by departmental officials. There are also numerous instances of farm failures on land that had been returned to its previously dispossessed owners who then sell the land back to the former owners. Such failures must be militated against through continued skills training and oversight of farms for new owners.
Strategic partnerships can also be used although, in some

instances, this has also been the cause of farm failures. This misuse of recapitalisation funds remains one of the principal threats and agitators for slow land reform in South Africa.

The above challenges aside, the IFP continues to support this process, the department, and this budgetary review report. Thank you.

Prof N M KHUBISA: House Chairperson, the NFP believes land reform is very important for the growth of our economy. The department’s vision is based on three pillars: restitution, redistribution, and land tenure. This all adds up to reformation.

We are talking about reversing the harm, the pain, the torture and the human indignity that indigenous communities suffer as a result of apartheid and other draconian laws that came about because of colonial rule. Even before the Natives Land Act, Act 27 of 1913, many traditional indigenous communities were dispossessed of their land. The wars fought by the kings, Amakhosi and Zinduna, and various tribes were all against

dispossession and displacement. Some of the communities were taken away from their fertile lands and left in harsh places where they could not grow anything. Many tribes were forcefully removed from the land of their forefathers. This meant that upcoming generations would be landless in the land of their forefathers. The attempts of the department to repeal certain laws are welcome.

To say those who did not form part of the 1998 organisation to have them reclaiming their land – the NFP would welcome that, but the process is very slow due to bureaucratic incompetence within the department. There is a scourge of corruption and maladministration within the department, which must be dealt with immediately. For example, in regional offices, some of the officials are bribing people before they can claim their land.
Brutality and human degradation on farms must be dealt with immediately.

This then calls for the department to work hand in hand with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Let us be more vigorous in assisting emerging

black farmers with the skills they need to do agribusiness and be involved in entrepreneurship. We support the report. Thank you very much.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Chairperson, the UDM supports the report. In doing so, we welcome the department’s performance improvement to 76%, which is an improvement on the 71% achieved in 2015-16. Government must consciously deliberate and thoroughly build a new layer of successful food producers from within the black farmers.

There are a few constraining factors, such as the department’s failure to give satisfactory attention to solve complaints by beneficiaries of the land restitution programme. The department is hurt by inadequate legislation in its attempts to deliver on the ANC policy. Confusion over the location of the mandate to deliver on the Recapitalisation and Development Programme, RCAP, continues to hurt the intended beneficiaries of said programme. We appeal for the urgent resolution of this matter. The question is whether there has actually been a Cabinet resolution to transfer this function to the

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The department continues to battle with the 1998 claims.
Thousands of them remain unsettled. It is a matter of lack of efficiency on the part of the department. Do it now or step aside.

On finance, the department continues to falter. It is just criminal to commit irregular expenditure where this has increased from R7 million in the previous year to almost R40 million 2016-17. It is scary to even think of transforming the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights to a Chapter 9 institution at a time when a time it is not even able to finalise the 1998 complaints.

On the Ingonyama Trust space, there is a looming political crisis as a result of policy uncertainty regarding mineral rights on its 2,9 million hectare land. It is a shame that the department continues to fail to manage its own programme on the skilling of the National Rural Youth Service Corps beneficiaries. This is the second year in succession. This has to be sorted out with immediate effect. Otherwise, we do support the report.
Thank you.

Mr P J MNGUNI: House Chair, the ANC welcomes this budgetary review and recommendation report. There are several highlights.

In the year under review, the Office of the Valuer- General, established in this term, has saved the department or government R138 million from unscrupulous land sellers. That is one point that we welcome with strong emphasis, as this money would have been stolen – openly, with no-one suspecting – from the fiscus.

Secondly, the Recapitalisation and Development Programme is a function initiated to close the grey area between land reform and programmes to make sure that the farms are sustainable. Historically, due to that being a grey area, top slicing was done by the department. Currently, and in the year under review, there is engagement between the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to appropriately locate that particular function and, therefore, the qualms that have been raised here are merely located in that context.

Quickly, about restitution, notwithstanding the R8,46 billion that was raised by the hon member who spoke, the fact of the matter is the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights has outperformed its own
target – 814 claims have been settled against the target of 615. A total of 662 claims have been finalised, more than the 448 targeted.

Lastly, 1 558 out of ... In short, the committee – the ANC – welcomes the report and supports the work as well as the budgetary review and recommendation report. Thank you. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting). Report accordingly adopted.


There was no debate.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Declarations of vote:

Adv G BREYTENBACH: Hon Chair, the Office of the Chief Justice was primarily established to support the Chief Justice and the administration of superior courts. The Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration was allocated its first Budget Vote in 2015 and its functions, broadly speaking, are to provide legal and administrative support to the Chief Justice and to support the judicial function of the Constitutional Court.

The Office of the Chief Justice reports serious resource and capacity challenges at the superior court level, provincial centres and its national office. It is the responsibility of this office to inter alia administer the court role in regional and High Courts. The National Prosecuting Authority in its annual report raised challenges with placing cases on the court role, the information of pre-trial hearings and the utilisation of court hours. The committee was unable to get any

comprehensive answers to these questions due to insufficient time being allocated to the interaction with the Office of the Chief Justice. The Auditor-General has given the Office an unqualified audit with findings. And some of the concerns raised were quality of annual performance reports, effective HR management and proper record keeping.

Concerns that the portfolio committee has relate to unresolved issues in the lack of progress in resolving land claims in the land claims court and the slow implementation of the action plan of the Office. It remains unclear as to who has the function of reporting on poor performance. The result is that no one does. Each department in turn lays the responsibility at the door of the other. And the result is that there is insufficient information available to determine if there is progress in this regard, but if decline in court hours are anything to go by, then there is not.

The interrogation of the extension of this report remains unsatisfactory. Too little time was allowed, which has resulted in a superficial report that does not deal

sufficiently with the serious issues at hand. The DA does not support this report.

Mr G A GARDEE: House Chairperson, in the Judicial Service Commission, the EFF sits there and our President, hon Julius Malema, sits there, and there is no way in which we will not support this budgetary review and recommendation report. We support it, because it is the only pillar of democracy that has not been captured, like Treasury, Eskom, you can make mention of them, including Minerals of hon David Mahlobo. We have to support it and hope that more money can be allocated to it so that it can speed up the dispersion of justice so that we don’t have crowded jails so that they can quickly deal also with the 783 counts of charges of corruption by uBaba kaDuduzane.

If we support that institution, give it more money. We can rest assured that we will have a very safe South Africa that we can look upon and a safe South Africa that we have actually committed ourselves to and not on this thing of taking R13 billion to give to SAA. In fact, we should have taken that R13 billion and given it to the

Office of the Chief Justice so that it can build capacity to the magistrates, the judges, build more magistrates’ courts and other institutions of the judicial service so that it can deal with the issues of justice efficiently.

We speak to our fighters and commissars inside and outside this House to say that this is the only if not amongst the few budgetary review recommendations which the EFF must and should support. And not these other ones whereby the money is being allocated to be looted by the Gupta family together with its marksman in the Union Buildings, uBaba kaDuduzane. Thank you.

Mr M HLENGWA: Chairperson, the Office of the Chief Justice, since its inception in 2015, has lived up to its mandate in strengthening judicial governance, protecting and promoting the rule of law and thus ensured the transformative promise as contained in our Constitution.

To achieve this it requires an independent judiciary of uncompromised and appropriately qualified judges. The gateway to judgeship being having to have served as an acting judge and then via appointment by the Judicial

Services Commission, a challenge in this process being that obtaining acting judgeships, which appointment is made by the respective judge presidents of each division. This process should be made more transparent.

An efficient court system requires not only judiciary-led court administration, but also skilled human resources and logistical capacity. The Office of the Chief Justice remains, in our view, underfunded, which significantly constrains it in achieving all of its targets. It is also unable to fill any new posts in order to increase much- needed capacity in providing support to our courts.

In terms of transformation, progress has been made, but efforts must be continued in this regard. The IFP supports the committee recommendation for additional funds to be made available for the operationalisation of the Mpumalanga High Court and, in conclusion, and subject to our concerns raised, the IFP supports the budgetary review and recommendations report. And we just want to say to the Chief Justice: Keep up the good work. I thank you.

Mr S C MNCWABE: Hon Chairperson, the success of the Office of the Chief Justice is of the utmost importance if we are to strengthen independent judicial governance and the rule of law in accordance with the transformative promise of our Constitution.

We note that the Office of the Chief Justice has received an unqualified audit with opinion. It is obvious that there are still teething problems in the financial management of the Office of the Chief Justice, resulting in unnecessary misstatements, which in turn lead to a lack of reliable reporting on its performance. This weakness and others were highlighted in the Auditor- General’s report and should be easy to attend to and rectify.

We share the concern expressed by the committee on the chronic underfunding of the Office of the Chief Justice. In particular we are concerned that the underfunding will hamper the implementation of the Superior Courts Act of 2013. This must not be allowed to happen. The transformation of our judiciary is inseparable from the implementation of the Superior Courts Act and any delay

in the full implementation of the Act will arrest the transformation of the judiciary. Equally alarming is that budgetary constraints are currently causing a delay in the filling of vacant posts, with the priority of funding being given to building capacity of the Office of the Chief Justice to support the courts. No department can function optimally if it is understaffed. And we support the recommendation of the committee that Treasury makes more funds available to the Office of the Chief Justice.

In conclusion, the NFP acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Justice is recently established, and despite the financial constraints placed upon it, the Office is performing admirably well. In light thereof, we support the adoption of this report. Thank you.

Ms M R M MOTHAPO: House Chair, let me start by welcoming a new member from the EFF, hon Gardee. You are welcome to our committee.

The Office of the Chief Justice ...

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Chairperson, on a point of order: ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, would you just take your seat, please? What is your point of order, hon member?

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Hon House Chair, the hon member is deliberately misleading South Africans. The hon secretary-general of the EFF is among the first generation of Members of Parliament of the EFF. She must withdraw her misrepresentation to the House.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, that is not a point of order.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Don’t say it’s not a point of order! Don’t promote wrong information.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, that is not a point of order.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Don’t promote wrong information!

Mr J S MALEMA: Chairperson, on a point of order: What is the modus operandi of the committee? [Interjections.] [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, that is not a point of order.

Ms M R M MOTHAPO: Chairperson, the Office of the Chief Justice is still a very young department. It was allocated its first Budget Vote as from 1 April 2015.

This means that the 2016-17 financial year was only the Office of the Chief Justice’s second year as a fully- fledged department. In executing its mandate, the Office of the Chief Justice supports the judiciary and the superior courts. This means a focus on reducing court administration, inefficiencies, promoting judicial accountability and providing training to the judiciary through the SA Judicial Education Institute. The Office of the Chief Justice’s role in ensuring a transformed justice system which is accessible to all citizens and which is efficient and effective is critical. The radical transformation of our justice system must be accelerated.

On audit issues, although the Office of the Chief Justice has received an unqualified audit in the 2016 financial year, this was with findings. The committee would have preferred a clean audit opinion. It is a concern that in 2017-18 all performance indicators and targets for the programme that addresses court performance have been removed, leaving only those that relate to quasi-judicial performance. As the ANC we respect the doctrine of the separation of powers and rule of law. However, going forward, the committee intends to engage with the judiciary about an appropriate mechanism to address accountability to court performance. Apparently judicial committees have been formed this year to develop a framework for monitoring and reporting of judicial functions. As the ANC we support this budgetary review and recommendation report. Thank you.

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.


There was no debate.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Declarations of vote:

Adv G BREYTENBACH: House Chair, the Department of Correctional Services essentially committed to focus on three strategic outcome-oriented goals, to effectively manage remand detention processes to ensure that sentenced offenders are held in safe, secure and humane facilities, and to ensure the successful reintegration of released offenders.

In reality, they were not successful in any of these. A number of challenges continue to be experienced. These include the continued failure in filling critical occupational posts, the failure to achieve its target in reduction of overcrowding and a failure to achieve its

target of the number of offenders involved in social work programmes.

A particularly worrying statistic shows that for the year under review, there were 110 children under the age of 18 in remand detention while 148 children were sentenced.

While prisons, such as the Maximum Security Prison of St Alban continue to exist, few, if any, inmates will be successfully rehabilitated. Here, inmates are incarcerated in what can only be described as a gross contravention of human rights. Cells are constantly damp, filthy and totally inadequate. Electric wires hang from the roof in conditions that are constantly cold and wet.

Inmates are let out for 30 minutes a day and are fed all their three meals in one sitting. Rival gang members are incarcerated in a fashion that forces them to literally face off against each other on opposite sides of a small quadrangle.

While we have conditions such as these in prisons, inmates will remain abused, the recidivism rate will

remain sky-high and the department will not succeed in rehabilitation programmes.

That being said, the department has had some significant successes. A thorough and effective interrogation of this report was held by the committee and the DA supports this report.


Vho T E MULAUDZI: Mufarisa Mulangadzulo, EFF i khou hanedza hoyu muvhigo ngauri Tshumelo dza Vhululamisi dzashu a dzi fari vhafariwa zwavhuḓi. Tshadzo ndi u vha shengedza na u vha ita uri vha vhe zwigevhenga hafhu u fana na zwiḽa nga muvhuso wa tshiṱalula.

Phesenthe dza 97 dza vhathu vho fariwaho dzhele dzashu ṋamusi ndi vhathu vhatswu, ndi vhaswa, ndi vhathu vha muvhala vhane vha vha vhanna. Zwi khou itiswa nga mulandu wa tshaeho ya mishumo, vhushai na u sa eḓana nga nṱhani ha masiandoitwa a muvhuso wa tshiṱalula.

Ri khou dovha ra ri vhunzhi ha vhathu vhane vha vha dzhele dzashu vho fariwa vho ita milandu fhedzi Muhasho

wa Tshumela ya zwa Vhululamisi a i iti tshithu uri vha lulamisee vha dovhe vha vhuyelele tshitshavhani fhedzi yone i dovha ya ita uri vha vhe zwigevhenga.

Dzhele dzashu dzi dovha hafhu dza vha na mimbete miṱuku ngauri kha mimbete ine ya vha hone ya 119 000, ine vhathu vho fariwaho vha 161 000 a vha koni u lingana ngauri dzhele nnzhi dzashu dzi na vhafariwa vhanzhi nahone dzo ḓalesa. Vha ya dzhele ya Polokwane, vha dovha vha ya dzhele ya Makhado, dzhele ya Tzaneen na ya Maṱatshe, vha ḓo wana vhaṅwe vhafariwa vha tshi khou eḓela fhasi nga mulandu wa uri Tshumelo ya Vhululamisi a i khou vha fara zwavhuḓi.


In Western Cape, in 2016, the Western Cape High Court found that the conditions in Pollsmoor detention centre were so bad that they were declared unconstitutional.
This is the reality of the prisons and the prisoners in South Africa today. It is very difficult for the EFF to support this report.

What is needed, Minister Masutha, is a criminal justice system that punishes but also rehabilitate offenders so that they can become functional members of the community. The EFF rejects this report. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Inkosi E M BUTHELEZI: Hon Chairperson, in support of the Department of Correctional Services, DCS, mandate to contribute to the just, peaceful and safer South Africa through the effective and human incarceration of inmates, the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders with the overarching goals of building a safer South Africa, where all people feel safe, it is imperative that sound administrative practices together with full use of budgetary allocation is achieved.

Underspending on core programmes, like rehabilitations continued, vacancies unfunded but unfilled posts and increased irregular expenditure leads to target not being met. Legal actions against the department are rising and only 62%, such as rates in defending claims are signed off the department slowly losing control of its mandated environment.

Degradation of the department in obtaining a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General of South Africa, AGSA, must not be permitted to become a trend. Collective action must be immediately taken. Irregular expenditure in the sum of R707 million on one improper contract must be investigated and all found to be improper be prosecuted.

Overcrowding in prisons remains a concern and this must be addressed through additional infrastructure and intelligence planning. The change to alternative energy supply must be investigated by the DSC as this will contribute greatly to reduce its expenses. The IFP support this budgetary review and recommendation report, BRRR. I thank you.

Mr S C MNGWABE: Chairperson, the cost of punishing crimes is very high in our country. At the end of 2016, South Africa’s inmate population stood at 157 000 people of whom at least a quarter were remanded detainees or in other words are awaiting trial.

It is estimated that it costs approximately R136 805 to house a prisoner for a year. This translate to R11 150 per month or a staggering R366,60 per day. Considering the high number of our inmate population, this adds up to R21 billion for the year.

When we analyse the report tabled here today, it becomes apparent that the department is big on spending its budget allocation but falls dismally short on delivery when it’s performing targets.

The NFP notes the concerns which the committee has raised in this regard. We fully support remedial recommendations which the committee has made. We also support the committee in expressing regret at the regression of the department from an unqualified audit opinion in 2015-16 to a qualified audit opinion in the current fiscal year.

We agree that the department’s capital work in progress has been and remains a source for concern. We agree that the department must be held accountable for this regression.

Finally, the NFP is of the opinion that the financial management of the department leaves much to be desired. We recognise that the department is facing many challenges, some of which are beyond the control of the department, such as overcrowding, which is largely due to high proportion of remand detainees in overall inmate population, yet, issues of financial management and sound institutional governance can and must be addressed by the department as these are the matters which fall squarely within the jurisdiction and competency of the department. We support the report. Thank you.

Mr W M MADISHA: House Chair, Cope knows the regression in the Department of Correctional Services’ audit opinion 2016-17. Cope agrees with the committee that the department’s internal audit and control units need to be fully capacitated to ensure an improvement in the department’s audit outcomes.

Cope knows that two presidential proclamations have been gazetted for investigation by the Special Investigating Unit, SIU, into irregularities in the department’s procurement processes and decisions.

It is further noted that the department had paid all outstanding invoices within the requisite 30 days. It would again have incurred unauthorised expenditure of R336 million.

Cope notes with concern the exponential increase in irregular expenditure. Cope puts it to all concerned that given the department’s inadequate financial management performance, contract management, adherence and compliance with procurement laws and achievement of performance targets, it is difficult to support any request for additional funding. We don’t agree.

Mr M S A MAILA: House Chair, hon members, the ANC rises in support of the BRRR of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on the Department of Correctional Services.

The structural challenge of the Department of Correctional Services must be taken into consideration.

The ANC-led government inherited penal institutions, prisons and not correctional centres. It has been the

mission of the ANC to convert these structures into correctional centres, premised on the Freedom Charter’s calls for imprisonment to be aimed at re-education and not vengeance.

The ANC’s position is one of rehabilitating offenders, equipping them with necessary skills, reintegrating them back into the society and having them contribute to the economy.

The mission of the Department of Correctional Services is to contribute to a just, peaceful and safer South Africa and the rehabilitation and social integration of offenders. The ANC supports the budget. [Applause.]

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters and Congress of the People dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.



There was no debate.

Declarations of vote

Adv G BREYTENBACH: The Department has had some success in expanding justice services. The establishment of the new High Court at Polokwane and Mpumalanga High Court is at an advanced stage. These newly established courts should have a very positive effect on the communities they are intended to serve. Aspects of court performance, however, remain a concern. Fewer cases are being enrolled; court hours are down; and there are fewer case finalisations in the Lower Courts.

It is impossible to determine whether or not the department is succeeding in its endeavours since the majority of the indicators have been removed from the annual performance plan. We are not satisfied with the explanation for removing these indicators, all of which are significant. For instance, the department claims that

100% of indicators on the Criminal Justice System business plan were achieved. However, no information was provided to the Committee on what those indicators measure. This is just meaningless gobbledygook, and takes the matter nowhere.

Furthermore, the department has received a qualified audit. After working many years to achieve an unqualified audit it is gravely disappointing that the departments audit has regressed in 2016-17.

The process followed by the Portfolio Committee in respect of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development report was to say the least, most unsatisfactory. Much too little time was allocated to the process, the result of which is that 90% of the questions posed remain unanswered. An undertaking was given that written replies would be given, none of which have been received. The result is a half baked report, lacking in content with no credible answers to questions posed. The DA does not support this report.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Chairperson, it had become clear that Mr Shaun Abrahams is suffering from some form of prosecuting fatigue because he must forever fight for the Guptas and the Zumas families. The National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, Special Investigation Unit and the Public Protector have been rendered toothless puppies when it comes to doing their mandated jobs. Like vicious hyenas, when it comes to dealing with political opponents of Zupta, factions inside and outside of the ANC.

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: House Chairperson, I rise on a point of order in accordance to Rule 87 just to request the speaker to focus on the speech and not reflect upon the . . .

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, that’s not a point of order. Hon member, Rule 87 doesn’t say what you said. [Laughter.] [Interjection.]

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Chair, it is just hon member wants to be seen on Television today. She just like ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon members. You are disrupting your own member now.

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: It is Rule 88. Sorry Chairperson. [Interjections.]

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: I think you must take back ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, calm down. Hon member at the podium, take your seat. Why are you rising hon member?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I rise in terms of Rule

88. The hon member who took the point of order should know that the removal of the ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member that point of order was not sustained.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: ... requires the removal on both Houses.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Steenhuisen, the point of order was not sustained. Will you continue hon member?

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: I will come and take your doctorate because you must go and study again. It is clear your researcher has done your thesis for you. [Laughter.] Weeks have passed since the Supreme Court of Appeal ordered the reinstatement of charges against Zuma but because of political interference the NPA ...

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Let the member focus on her beautiful speech in accordance to Rule 88

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member. Take your seat hon member.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: We understand House Chairperson that her faction must see her today on Television, TV, so that’s why she is like that. Despite facing 883 charges and could be more, on constitutional issues the Report criticises the rate and pace of land redistribution. But it makes no credible recommendation.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development needs to play a guiding role in changing the Constitution of the country to make expropriation of land possible and to change the constitutional entrenched mandate of the Reserve Bank so that it plays a more developmental role in the economy.

It is because of this that we reject this Report outright; we will not support the report of the Guptas and ubaba ka Duduzane that they have clearly captured this institution. We will it today and tomorrow. Thank you.

Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN: Chair, the independence of our judiciary, the impartiality and nonbiased of our National Prosecution Authority and Special Investigation Unit and a follow through upon mandate and undertakings by the Human Rights Commission as well as the physical state of our courtrooms across the country. These are key issues and concerns that the IFP wish to raise as regard to this Portfolio.

Service delivery in this department has a quest to provide National Development Plan, NDP, alliance saver communities, fight corruption and strengthen judicial and government and the rule of law, requires not only good government with a budgetary framework but also more importantly, a political uncompromised execution of tasks.

Prosecution discretion remains a serious concern under this present leadership regime. There is no easier way to erode the rule of law than through compromise exercise of prosecution discretion.

The Human Rights Commission has seen as playing lip service to complaints and request for investigation. Establishing such a platform and holding any dialogue in this critical manner must be investigated.

The IFP supports this budget review and support it political uncompromised independent and unbiased system of justice. Thank you.

Mr S C MNCWABE: Chairperson, the department has the principal task of keeping the wheels of justice oiled in our country. It is important to note that justice not seemed to be done is justice denied. The majority of South African legal disputes and criminal prosecutions are dealt with in our Lower Courts and this is the coalface of the justice. The NFP believes that if you fail to dispense justice fairly and equitable at grassroots level, the rule of law will collapse and government will lose its legitimacy.

The Report tabled here today gives rise to both optimism and concern. We share in the dismay expressed by the Committee at the recreation of the department’s audit opinion, particularly so, since it could have been averted had the department followed upon on previous attributes recommendations of the Committee. Herein lies the crux of the dilemma, our Portfolio Committee have the responsibility of Oversight. But very few mechanisms will enforce such Oversight over the executive.

The NFP therefore firmly supports the recommendations that there should be consequences for poor performance

and transgressions as these are key to improving the audit outcomes. The NFP also shares the concern of the Committee with regard to the noticeable increase in irregular expenditure. Once again, we agree that consequence management must be applied to ensure that management complies fully with prescribed fiscal procedures and regulations.

Whilst we are also encouraged by the improved delivery in the context of capital works projects by the Department of Public Works and Independent Developing Trust, we acknowledge the concern of the committee regarding the lack of funding for new courts infrastructure. A matter of even more grave concern for the NFP is the inability of the committee to pronounce on the overall improvement in the performance of courts due to lack of information. This situation is unattainable and we urge the department to comply with recommendations of the committee contained herein. I support the Report.

Mr W M MADISHA: Chair, Cope knows the regression in the department’s audit opinion and agrees with the Auditor- General that management must ensure that there are

consequences for poor performance and transgressions as these are key to improving the audit outcomes. Cope knows the increase in irregular expenditure that the quantum of this irregular expenditure may well increase and that no disciplinary action was taken against officials who incurred irregular expenditure.

Cope congratulates Legal Aid SA on receiving an unqualified audit for the past 16 years, the Special Investigation Unit, SIU, on obtaining an unqualified audit opinion and the SA Human Rights Commission, SAHRC, which maintained its clean audit outcome. Cope notes the regression in the audit outcome of the Public Protector and agrees with the committee that as an integrity institution, the Public Protector should prioritise attaining a clean audit.

Cope has great difficulty in supporting the Appropriation of additional funding for the Office of the Public Protector and the National Prosecution Authority, NPA, who both seen intent on protecting those sabotaging our country. We don’t agree. Thank you very much.

Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: House Chairperson, the ANC supports the Report and we place high premium on access to justice and we therefore would like to see the passage of the paralegal legislation as possible and also support for advice centres. We also would like to see indigenous African languages making compulsory for law students; we also want to see appointment of permanent judges to the Land Claim Courts so that our people can have their land claims settled as fast as possible.

We also want to support the Civil Society Organisations in particular the National Land Human Rights and Heritage Forum which is working together with government departments to make sure that proposals are generated for the amendment of the Restitution Act to make sure that the bureaucratic arrangements are eliminated to ensure that this process is speeded up.

We also want to see the briefing patterns in the Office of the State Attorneys changed so that black lawyers also get briefs because it is from the ranks of black lawyers that we can get a pool of new lawyers who can be eligible for appointment to the judiciary. I thank you.


Adv L B MPUMLWANA: These are the Rules for the Promotion of Administration of Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000, PAJA, which is a legislation which gives effects to the rights contained in section 33 of the Constitution.

The right to just administrative action where some feels that a decision by administrator is unlawful, unreasonable or that the procedure was unfair, they can approach a court for judicial review of the decision.

The PAJA sets out procedures and grounds for challenging administrative action. The existing procedure for judicial review is governed by Rule 53 of the uniform rules. Section 7 of PAJA sets out the procedure for judicial review of administrative action and requires the Rules Board for Courts of Law that is the Rules Board to make rules of procedures for judicial review subject to the approval of the Minister and Parliament.

Section 7(3) of the Act provides that the Rules Board for Courts of Law make rules of procedures for judicial review. Section 7(5) of the Act provides that any Rule made under subsection 3 must before publication of the gazette be approved by Parliament and this is why we are here.

Pursuant to its mandate, the Rules Board made the first PAJA rules which were approved in February 2009. In the matter of Lawyers for Human Rights versus Rules Board for the Courts of Law and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the court therein declared certain provisions of the PAJA rules unconstitutional.

Subsequent to this judgment, the rules were revisited, redrafted and approved by the board with some amendments from the Office of the Chief State Law Advisors. The revised rules were therefore approved by the Minister.

The pertinent underlying principles are: Retention of existing review procedures embodied in the High Court Rule 53; nonadoption of special procedures for the PAJA reviews; alignment with existing procedure rules in both

the High Court and the Lower Courts, and addressing shortcomings identified in the stated Pretoria High Court judgement.

Therefore, these rules are in line with the spirit of the Constitution and the stance of the ANC on just administrative action. We request that this House adopts and accepts them. The ANC therefore supports. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

There was no debate.

Declarations of vote:

Mr N S MATIASE: House Chairperson, the public and this House will recall that the ANC on various occasions has attempted to reuse the country and the state into a secrecy republic by various attempts of introducing Secrecy Bill and Bills which thought to undermine our democratic system and this amendment of the draft rules and procedures seeks to put above such attempts, which are sinister of the ANC and bring to justice the right to access to the promotion of administrative justice.

Section 33 of the Constitution of the republic guarantees everyone the right to administrative action which is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. A right which shouldn’t be determined by how much money or power one has but by the mere fact that you are a human being and live in a constitutional democracy.

We don’t object to the revised rules, which make it easier for an applicant to access documents and their records in a judicial review and stop the abuse of administrators, who declare documents confidential with no grounds.

This has taken far too long for these revised rules to be approved, the reason being that, the ANC government is using the courts and their procedures to slow down and to sabotage all attempts by the people of the republic to expose their corrupt dealings, deliberate mismanagement and incapacity.

These revised rules would make it harder to classify information as confidential and would prevent captured administrators and officials from hiding valuable

information from the public and applicants in judicial reviews. More still that needs to be done is to ensure that information is freely available and that procedures don’t prevent the people of the Republic.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Matiase, there is just a point of order. Will you just take your seat, please?

(Mr J H Jeffery): The hon member seems to be reading out the speech for the next set of Rules to be adopted in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: On a point of order. That is not the point of order.

(Mr J H Jeffery): He is talking about the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Rules.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: That is not the point of order, hon Chairperson.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you hon member.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: That is not the point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, I didn’t recognise you. Will you take your seat please? Hon Matiase will conclude now, please.

Mr N S MATIASE: These kinds of frivolous point of orders are unnecessary. Perhaps it explains why you are not referred as an advocate. You will have to enrol once more. But more still needs to be done.

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Hon Chairperson?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Matiase, will you just take your seat? Why are you rising, hon member?

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: I rise again on Rule 84. The manner in which hon Matiase is addressing the Deputy Minister, ask him to withdraw.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Continue hon Matiase.

Mr N S MATIASE: Well, I don’t know what is it that I said to hon ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Matiase, just get on with your speech, please.

Mr N S MATIASE: ... but more still needs to be done to ensure that information is freely available and that procedures don’t prevent the people of South Africa from being able to access administrative justice in the future. This House must rise in support of these revised rules and ensure that the safety and security of the Republic and access to information of all our people is guaranteed under the law. Thank you so much.

Mr S C MNCWABE: House Chairperson, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act is a cornerstone of our constitutional guarantee of a government that is accountable and transparent. Since its promulgation, the guidelines and prescripts of the Act has formed a bulwark defence against the excesses of the government and continues to function as both checks and balances against abuse of state power.

In essence, the Act gives effect to right of every South African to just administrative action protected in the Bill of Rights, which includes, the right to fair, lawful and reasonable administrative action and to have access to reasons for administrative action that affects them negatively.

The NFP believes that any initiative which aims to strengthen the operation and effects of the provisions of the Act should be supported in principle.

The draft rules of procedure of 2015 aims to ensure that the provisions of the Act are given more effect inadvertently extending the reach of the protection of

the Act and ultimately ensure that the government is confined to administrative action, which is just equitable and transparent. In light of the above, the NFP supports the recommendations. Thank you.

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: House Chairperson, our Constitution in terms of section 33 thereof ensures that everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, as stated, is intended to promote an efficient administration and good governance by creating a culture of accountability, openness and transparency in public administration.

It is a part of our general administrative law, which not only applies to and binds our entire administration at all three levels of the government but also sets out the general rules for proper performance of all administrative action and the judicial process and steps to be followed when interested parties approach our courts for review proceedings in this regard.

The review of these procedural rules has been considerably informed by key role-players submissions, judicial pronouncement and internal observation and discussions of the Rules Board and the Secretariat.

Since the first PAJA rules were approved in February 2009, there have been subsequent necessary changes, which have all culminated in the revised rules, we find therefore in this House today. Therefore and in accordance with section 75 of the PAJA Act, which provides that any rule made under subsection 3, must before publication in the gazette be approved by this Parliament. The IFP supports the report and request. I thank you, Chairperson.

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Hon Chairperson, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act continues to promote access to justice. Where someone feels that the decision by an administrator is unlawful, unreasonable or that the procedure was unfair, they can approach a court for judicial review of the decision, which actually tells us that we are living in a constitutional democracy that really provides various types of freedoms and liberties

to the extent that nobody will be unfairly treated and this is why today we are actually looking at the Rules.

What surprises me is my colleague, hon Matiase, who continues instead of coming to inform the public about these laws that are actioned, rules and regulations that are always passed to continue to ensure that South Africans are promoted.

He comes here ... And it is unlike him to be name calling. I do believe that what is important is sending a clear message to South Africans without really grandstanding talking about capture of administrators because how do administrators get captured when laws of this nature actually get passed by this Parliament?
Please do continue to inform South Africans correctly when you get the opportunity of standing on this podium.

The pertinent underlying principles in this regard are retention of existing review procedures embodied in the High Court Rule 53, nonadoption of special procedure for PAJA reviews, alignment with existing procedural rules in both the High Court and Lower Court and addressing

shortcomings identified and stated in the Pretoria High Court judgement. I thank you, hon Chairperson. [Applause.]

Agreed to.


Adv L B MPUMLWANA: Hon Chairperson and hon members, I present to you and respectfully request that you accept the draft revised Rules of Procedure for Application to Court in terms of section 79(5) of Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000, is intended to give effect to the constitutional right of access to information, in terms of section 32 of the Constitution.

This Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in private and public bodies - a far cry from the secretive and unresponsive culture of the apartheid era, which led to an abuse of power and human rights violations. The Rules Board for Courts of Law proposed amendments to the rules of procedure for application to court in terms of the Promotion to Access to Information Act.

The purpose of these amendments is to bring uniformity to court rules in all courts, including the magistrates’ courts in respect of litigation on access to information in the country. Section 79(5) of the Act empowers the Rules Board for Courts of Law to make the Rules of Procedures for Application in terms of section 78 and expert representations in terms of section 80. These rules are subject to approval by the Minister and subsequent approval by Parliament before they are published in the Government Gazette.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act and Rules Committee of the Rules Board identified certain shortcomings with some traditional pronouncements and

this resulted in the need for extensive revision of these rules. The consultative process led to the draft revised rules, which were submitted to the Rules Board for approval. The revised rules make provision for the existing procedures of the High Court Rules, Rule 6, and the magistrate’s court Rule 35 with regards to the application for access to information.

Court fees have now been abolished. An applicant now has

180 days to bring an application to court for appropriate relief. The rules have been simplified and aligned to both the higher and lower courts. The proposed rules are expected to provide practical and well-understood arrangements that will not serve as a barrier to people who wish to exercise their constitutional right of access to information. Hence, I present this to this august House for adoption.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you. Are there any objections to the request for approval by Parliament of the draft revised rules of procedure for application to court in terms of section 79(5) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000?

Declarations of vote:

Mr T RAWULA: Chair, section 32 of the Constitution of South Africa gives every citizen the right to access any information held by the state - a constitutional right that must not only be reserved for those who are rich and have access to lawyers; a constitutional right that does not discriminate against the unemployed, poor, the aged and workers, especially when the information concerned is necessary for our people to exercise their right to freedom, belief, opinion, human dignity and the right to life.

While we do not object to the draft revised rules of procedures for application to court access to information, as the EFF our position is that the state has the obligation to make the information easy to access for all. However, because the ruling ANC Ministers and deployees treat the state resources as their own, they don’t respect the Constitution and don’t value good governance. It is in their interest to make it extremely difficult to access information. It took over a year and a half for the court to rule on the corrupt nuclear deal, because government made it their priority to delay and

use dirty tricks to undermine the process and the Constitution. Now the Minister of Social Development, Bathabile Dlamini, is using the same dirty tricks to delay appointments at the Post Office to make social grants payments. Even Parliament cannot get some of the most basic information about Sassa dealings, because they all know if you get the information today, tomorrow they will be in jail. If accessibility of information were easy, we would know why Ms Bathabile Dlamini is not appointing the Post Office to pay social grants. We would know why the President is so pressured to sell our state to the highest bidder, which happens to be the Guptas.

Access to information is a constitution right ... but because of a corrupt government ...

Mr B A RADEBE: Chair, on a point of order: I’m rising on Rule 85. The member has just said the President is selling the state. He is impugning on the motivations of the President. Can he please withdraw?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, did you say that?

Mr T RAWULA: I referred to the President. I did not refer to any person. I referred to the Office.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, then you must withdraw that remark.

Mr T RAWULA: Withdraw what?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): you said you referred to the President.

Mr T RAWULA: Which rule are you referring to?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, I’m asking you to withdraw the remark.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: House Chairperson, ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, I am dealing with this point of order. I will recognise you when I am finished with this. Hon member, will you withdraw the remark, please? [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: [Inaudible.] You must tell me before you switch off my mic. Why did you switch off my mic? [Inaudible.] You are breaking the House Rules. Why do you switch off the mics? You must tell me first that you are going to switch off my mic. [Inaudible.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, I want you to withdraw the remark.

Mr T RAWULA: No, you must refer me to the rule. I have said that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, it’s Rule 85. It’s quite clear.

Mr T RAWULA: What does it say? Read it to me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, I am not here to read rules to you.

Mr T RAWULA: Read it to me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, if you do not want to withdraw the remark, you must leave the podium. [Interactions.]

Mr T RAWULA: I am referring to the Office, not to the member.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, if you do not want to withdraw the remark, then you will have to leave the podium.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: No, this is a political debate!

Mr T RAWULA: As I conclude, hon Chairperson, ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member,


Mr T RAWULA: I’ve concluded.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): You’ve concluded? Thank you.


(Mr S P Makwetla): Chairperson, on a point of order: ...

Mr M Q NDLOZI: House Chair, on a point of order: Can you be consistent? The rules do not allow you to switch off the mics without giving us an indication beforehand. You must withdraw what you just did and apologise to me, as a rightful member of this House. I should be treated properly, in line with the rules. You are out of order.
You can’t just switch off the mics as and when you feel like it.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you. Take your seat, hon member.


(Mr S P Makwetla): Chairperson, on a point of order: ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member. I am switching your mic off now as well. You see? The rules state that when a member rises on a point of order and the presiding officer is still busy making a ruling, no other point of order can be taken. So, I ignore you when

you do that. Right? That is what the rule clearly says. I don’t need to inform you that I am switching off your mic. That is how we apply the rule. Why are you rising, hon member?


(Mr S P Makwetla): Hon Chair, I am covered.

Mr J S MALEMA: Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon member raised a legitimate point with you. You either take a decision to agree with him or disagree with him, but you cannot just proceed as if nothing has happened. [Interjections.] Because the point he is raising is correct.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No. Thank you, hon member. I don’t agree with him. I have made the ruling and I stand by my ruling. You can pursue the matter in the Rules Committee.

Mr S C MNCWABE: Hon Chair, the Promotion of Access to Information Act is another defence against government excesses. Like its sister Act, the Promotion of

Administrative Justice Act. The Promotion of Access to Information Act gives effect to section 32 of our Constitution, which provides for the right of access to any information held by the state to any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any other right. As we can see, the Act aims to bring balance between the interests and rights of a request of a record on the one hand and the public or a private body that holds the record on the other hand.

The purpose of the amendment recommended in the report is to bring harmony to the court rules in all courts in respect of litigation on the request for access to information in South Africa. Such uniformity of rules governing our courts is of paramount importance if we are to ensure that justice is dispensed equally.

The NFP is in agreement with the sentiment that any efforts to remove obstacles to applicants bringing Promotion of Access to Information Act applications before courts are vital to strengthening openness and

transparency in our country. As such, we do not hesitate to support any initiative to achieve this objective.

Inasmuch as we are in support of the adoption of amendments that will facilitate the flow of justice, the NFP is also aware that to improve access to litigation and to enforce access to litigation will increase the workload of courts, in particular the magistrates’ courts. It is therefore important that the department is forewarned and puts in place mechanisms to attend the training and designation of magistrates to deal with the Promotion of Access to Information Act litigation in the magistrates’ courts. Closely linked to this is the insurance that magistrates’ courts are capacitated to deal with potential noticeable increases in the access to information-related litigation.

In conclusion, the NFP supports the adoption of this report. I thank you.

Mr M HLENGWA: Chairperson, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000, gives effect to the

constitutional right of access to information in terms of section 32 of the Constitution.

In the current crisis that South Africa finds itself in, with state capture allegations abounding in many of our government departments and entities, it is imperative that such legal challenges to access information in both public and private entities remain open and easy to navigate through our legal system.

It must also, importantly, be remembered that litigation through the Promotion of Access to Information Act is currently the sole mechanism through which the appeal against the decisions of private or public bodies can be asserted. To this end then, a timely uniformity of rules between our High Court and magistrates’ courts has been sought to not only create certainty and ease of access, but also to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 79 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

What was once a drawn-out and onerous procedure of approaching our courts has now been simplified by diverting applicants to the rules of the court the

applicant is approaching. The eight kilometre rule which required respondents to provide an address within an eight kilometre distance of the court has now been extended to 15 km.

In conclusion, this is a welcome revision of the rules of procedure for the application to court in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act and is supported by the IFP. I thank you.

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Hon Chairperson, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000, is intended to give effect to constitutional rights of access to information in terms of section 32 of the Constitution. The Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in private and public bodies - a far cry from the secretive, unresponsive culture of the apartheid era, which led to the abuse of power and human rights violations.

With Acts like these there is absolutely no reason for South Africans to be suspicious of anything. There is no reason for South Africans to develop paranoiac tendencies as if they don’t understand what government is actually

doing. Government and the ruling party, the ANC, have actually come up with laws that state that our business is open and if there is anything that you are actually doubting, there will be laws like the Promotion of Access to Information Act that will allow you to know exactly what is happening. So, let’s stop being suspicious and giving South Africans an impression that there is something that is grossly wrong that could be happening in some corner in South Africa, because the ammunition is today actually endorsed to say to South Africans there is accountability in the country. [Interjections.] You have laws that will actually help you to manage to have information. Never think that anything that is said at rumour level is something that is actually taking place. [Interjections.] Ask the question: Are you utilising the laws that are enacted in Parliament? For harmonisation and simplification of court processes, the Rules Board for Courts of Law proposed amendments to the rules of procedure for ...

Ms N V MENTE: Chairperson, would the member take a question on why do ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, let us first check if the member is prepared to take a question. Are you prepared to take a question, hon member?

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Chairperson, I will take the question.

Ms N V MENTE: Why are we having an inquiry on Eskom, if there is nothing wrong happening in South Africa pertaining to information? [Interjections.]

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Chairperson, what I am actually emphasising here is that we have an Access to Information Act that promotes accountability. So, you are talking about an inquiry, and that inquiry is about opening business through access to information to say that we are our business open so that you can actually look at it. As South Africans today, unlike during the apartheid era, there is no information that is hidden and probably this is why there is so much that is being investigated; there is so much that is taken to courts, because we are actually laying our business there to everybody.
Remember, this is Parliament of the people, for the

people. We are not representing ourselves here when we are in Parliament, but we are asking to opposition to stop giving South Africans the impression that there is something wrong happening when there is absolutely nothing wrong happening. [Interjections.] We are here to help develop and advance the lives of South Africans, which is what you need to learn to do instead of coming to the podium all the time, name-calling, reflecting on members of the executive, reflecting on people occupying the state institutions. It does not help. [Interjections.] You’ve got to come here and actually encourage them to help build the country.

With access to information, what we are actually saying is that there is a further continuation of access to justice ...

Mrs M S KHAWULA: Chairperson, on a point of order: ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, would you just take your seat, please, Why are you rising, hon member?


Nk M S KHAWULA: Bengifuna ukwazi uyazi yini ukuthi ukushafula [reshuffling] kuphelile noma angenzenjani sekufana nokuthi uthela amanzi ngokuganga. Nisale kahle[Uhleko.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, that is not a point of order.


Nk M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Mam’uKhawula ngiyabonga.


This has got nothing to do ...


... nokushafula sengiyasho nje ukuthi nginichazele kahle nge-Access to Information Act ukuthi isebenza kanjani ukuze abantu baseNingizimu Afrika ...


...ba tshwanetse ba itse gore molao o teng o o tla ba tlhokomelang. Ga go na sepe se se direlwang ka fa tlase ga tafole. Le tlogeleng go tla go emelela fano le bolelela batho dilo tse di seng teng. Ke a leboga, Modulasetilo. [Legofi.]

Agreed to.


(Subject for Discussion)

Mr J S MALEMA: Thank you very much, we stand here as the EFF for nationalisation of banks without compensation. We make this call because it is one of cardinal pillars of the Economic Freedom Fighters as contained in our manifesto. Cardinal pillars in the EFF are non-negotiable and constitute the true future of South Africa. We make this call fully aware that the financial services sector is currently the biggest sector in the South African economy. The South Africa’s financial sector controls about 12 trillion worth of assets, which is four times the country’s gross domestic product, GDP, and

contributes about 21,6% of the country’s GDP and over 15% of corporate income tax per annum. The financial services sector employs more than 250 000 people. The South African economy has become highly financialised since 1994. The financial services sector had grown from contributing seven per cent of the GDP in 1994 to the present 21,6% surpassing government, which contributes about 17,2% of GDP per annum.

According to the SA Reserve Bank 2016 figures, the banking subsector manages 4,8 trillion assets, or about 120% of the country’s GDP and has 16 local banks - from
40 in 1994 - 15 local branches of foreign banks, 36 representative offices of foreign banks, two co-operative banks and two mutual banks. These banks own and control the houses, cars and properties of so many people in South Africa. The banks own land and huge commercial properties, such as malls and industrial parks. Banks control and run the lives of so many people. Despite running our lives, banks in South Africa refuse to transform. They don’t even comply with the less courageous targets of the sitting government.

There is no bank in South Africa that has meaningful ownership by black people. The mutual banks that exist are not serious role-players in the whole banking sector. It is for this reason why we as the EFF call for state ownership of the banks so that they are made to play a meaningful role in the lives of all the people. Our view is that the state ownership should be prioritised, but should not completely close out the other forms of ownership, particularly institutional, public, co- operatives and private ownership. We should state that in the EFF Founding Manifesto, our call for nationalisation, state ownership, appreciates that the other forms of ownership can and should exist. The manner in which the nationalisation of banks should happen must be through the passing of legislation by Parliament, which will be called Banks Ownership Act. The Banks Ownership Act will stipulate that all banks should have a minimum of 51% state ownership. The remaining shares will be owned by institutions, such as pension funds institutions, co- operatives, and private individuals with a guarantee that no single individual or single investor will own more than 10% in a single bank.

This model of combined ownership that is anchored by the state will ensure that the banks are democratised, serve the real interest of the people, and protected from any potential form of capture. Additional to the antitax avoidance legislation which the EFF will table in the 5th Democratic Parliament, we are going to develop and table a Banks Ownership Act, which will clearly outline the objectives and methods through which banks ownership will be shifted to the state without compensation. Additional to this, the state should create a fully functional
state-owned bank, which will offer banking services to government and private individuals who choose to use the state-owned bank. The state-owned bank will be a platform through which government distributes social grants to the people. The state-owned bank will be a platform through which government pays its own employees at all levels.
The state-owned bank will be a platform through which government provides affordable finances for houses and cars. The state-owned bank will be run by qualified professionals, and not deployees of political parties. The state-owned banks exist in other parts of the world and they have played an important role in driving

development. We want to make sure that we share the resources of our country.

Britain has a long history of state-owned companies which include banks playing a significant role in the economy. After the World War 2, the Britain state-owned companies were given a task to revive the economy. The Britain state-owned bank after the World War 2 were instructed to mobilise the necessary resources and told where to make investments. The Chinese owns more than 20 banks at a central, subnational and municipal level. Amongst the banks, include one of the biggest banks in the world, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, ICBC. The ICBC has in shares in Standard Bank and what this means is that the proceeds of banking services here in South Africa end up benefiting the Chinese. They use this to drive development. They use their banks to fund massive infrastructure programmes. They use their banks to fund massive industrial programmes. One important aspect about the state-owned banks in China is that they are listed on the security exchange, and a very small portion of their shares is publicly traded. This is one aspect which South

Africa should look into, the aspect of listing state- owned companies at the securities exchanges.

The state should have shares at the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, JSE, the company and then list all state-owned companies. The listing of state-owned companies might add to their stabilisation and prevent them from capture in the same way Eskom, Transnet, SA Airways, Denel were captured. [Applause.] The success of Telkom is the reason enough on why listing should be considered as an option for state-owned companies. Telkom contributed more than R3 billion to the National Revenue Fund over the past financial year because it governed properly. The listing of companies is not the same as privatisation, it can be and should be a mechanism of increasing the efficiency and profitability of the state-owned companies. The South African state should maximise and perfect the art of generating and non-tax revenue because the current tax structure and many instances of tax avoidance and evasion makes it impossible for the state to meet all its obligations without creating huge public debt. Many governments around the world own and control huge corporations, which are listed and South Africa should

use the state-owned banks to excellently illustrate that the state has got capacity. Engen is owned by the Malaysian government, it does business in many parts of the world. Fly Emirates is owned by the state. There are many other strategic assets owned by the state all over the world and South Africa can learn from those. We therefore stand here as the EFF to give a clear view on why the state should take charge of the banks.

Nationalisation of banks is not a call for chaos. It is a call that is founded on principle and one which will add value to the lives of so many South Africans. I thank you.

Mr A J WILLIAMS: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members, guests, friends and most importantly, my fellow South Africans. The motion before this House today is a very important one. It is not one that should be engaged with lightly or in an emotional way. This House needs to engage on this question in a calm and thoughtful manner.

The implications of nationalising the banks without compensation are quite extensive. There are good and bad implications, and this House needs to find the best possible way forward, so as to put the interests of the South African people first.

So the question is: Will the South African people benefit from the nationalisation of the banks without compensation?

Many people see nationalisation as the silver bullet that will cure all our problems - problems in the mining sector, nationalise; problems with land reform, nationalise; problems with the banks, nationalise.

Some people are left with a warm toasty feeling when we talk about the nationalisation of the banks, but that feeling isn’t rooted in facts, that feeling isn't supported by any actual information; it is just a subjective feeling.

When it comes to a decision around such an important motion, we should look at the facts, and we must engage

in the consequences. We cannot simply use our feelings that may be rooted in a cut and paste populist ideology that was invented by the EFF in 2013.

There are real and substantial implications for all South Africans if this government was to nationalise banks without compensation.

Is this motion suggesting that the massive debt that South African people have, estimated at around
R1,6 trillion, be nationalised? The banks have the ability to lend such large sums because they borrow money.

The banks are mainly borrowing from South Africans. Are the public that has savings and the pension funds just going to say that it is all right? Are they just going to say that South Africa has changed its Constitution and nationalised the banks without compensation and that they will just have to give up the money that they have in the banks? They are not going to do that; they are going to force this government to pay back that money.

South African banks borrow a third of their monies from international banks. South Africa doesn't exist in a vacuum. When it comes to international finance, we are just a cog in the capitalist wheel.

So, the question that should really be asked is: In our current phase, has capitalism failed the South African people? When I say we must ask this question, I am not referring to the members of this house, I am referring to the South African people.

As a nation, we need to collectively see what will happen if we nationalise the banks without compensation. The General Secretary of the South African Communist party, Dr Blade Nzimande, said and I quote: ”Putting privately owned assets in the hands of the state are not inherently progressive, as it depends on which class’ interests are being advanced."

Now, we have just heard from hon Malema that after we have nationalised the banks, we then going to start privatising the state-owned enterprises. So, this seems a

bit odd and peculiar. We need to ask: Which class’ interests are being protected there?

So, let us look at these implications and let us also engage on the reason why nationalising the banks without compensation is being proposed today.

While I was preparing this speech, I came across a large amount of information about banks around the world that have been nationalised and in some places, privatised again after some time. The facts that stuck out was that, within a capitalist system, the banks for the finance sector were in the private sector’s hands and the best banks for development were in the public sector’s hands. This was the case where there was enough implemented regulation to ensure best banking practices.

Regulation of the private banks is vital in a capitalistic system. We all have seen what happens when the banks are left to do what they want. The Great Depression and more recently, the 2008 financial crash are two such examples. More implementation of banking

regulations is needed and stiffer penalties must be imposed on banks that fail to implement the regulations.

So, let us take a look at some banking history around the world when it comes to nationalisation. In Nigeria, the federal government took controlling interests in the major banks in the mid-70s. More state banks were created in the 1980s. The entire Nigerian banking system was insolvent by 1994.

In Ghana, the state took over the banking system in 1975. By 1984, bank deposits had fallen by 62%. By 1986, the amount of credit available to the private sector had fallen by 63%. It costs 4,4% of Ghana’s total national income in 1991 to recapitalise the country’s banks.

Tanzania nationalised its banks in 1967. Just like in Ghana, savings declined sharply and the private sector found it almost impossible to obtain credit. Service fell apart and by the mid-80s, Tanzania’s monopoly state bank had even lost the capacity to process cheques. It took 11% of GDP to recapitalise the bankrupt Tanzanian state bank in the early 1990s.

The people of Brazil had to absorb an expense of 6% of GDP in 2001 when its two biggest state-owned banks failed.

In Uganda, the government created a state banking monopoly in 1972. By the early 1990s, this bank was struggling to provide even the most basic banking services, 75% of its loans had gone bad and its monthly wage bill had to be paid directly from the Ministry of Finance. In 2002, as part of its programme of financial liberalisation, the government of Uganda sold this bank to Standard Bank.

It seems from all these events that the people once again bore the brunt of these actions. In a capitalist society, it is the people that always bear the brunt.

So, which class will benefit if we nationalise the banks without compensation in a capitalist system? It is clearly not going to be the working class and the poor.

There are examples worldwide where nationalisation of the banks has been a success. These successes have however

taken place in socialist countries where the people care about one another and where the general motto of the people is we, the collective, and not me, the individual.

It is easy to put a motion like this on the Order Paper and make headlines. It is much harder to justify the implications of such a motion, where it will ultimately be the South African people that pay for this. [Applause.]

So, when our tax monies are being diverted to pay debt that the private banks used to pay, services that a government traditionally spends its money on will come under immense pressure - services like social grants, health, and education. Every service that this government provides will have less money because that money will be spent on money that is owed to the banks. [Interjections.]

The thing is that, although there may be no compensation for South African debt, which means that local savings will be lost, in other words all the money that we are saving in the banks will not be there anymore, the

international banks that lend our banks money will still be owed. And this debt will be paid by you and I, South Africa, because that debt will be paid by the fiscus South Africa, it is you and I that pay for that fiscus.

This is what happened in 1994 when our democratic breakthrough took place. The international banks that had lent the apartheid government money to pay for their apartheid regime and their defence force had to be repaid by the democratic government. We could not just say that that was a different system, so we are not going to pay. The international banks said that they don’t care what system it was. They lent the money to South Africa and now South Africa must pay it back.

Again I ask: Which class’ interests will be advanced by this motion? It is not yours, South Africa.

Let’s turn to the current depositors within our banking system. If the government were to nationalise the banks, this would mean that the government would assume all the assets and liabilities of the banks. The current deposits in the banking sector are around 87% of GDP or some

R3,99 trillion. It is this amount that government would directly put at risk if this motion was successful. This includes all money in the banks, yours and mine.

There is an argument that says, well the poor people of South Africa don't have any money in the banks and that only the rich will suffer. This may be the case in the short term, but when the government is forced to pay back the money, every South African will suffer.

Again I ask: Who benefits when banks are nationalised within a capitalist system? Believe me, it won’t be the vast majority of the South African people.

I am not standing here to defend the banks; I am standing here to defend the people. [Applause.] In our current situation, within our current capitalist system, the privatisation of banks without compensation will benefit our people the least.

It is a sign of political immaturity to attempt to bring an economic principle from one economic system into another different economic system and expect them to

work, even after they have been tried and failed. Political maturity comes when the economic systems are challenged directly.

The debate around whether or not capitalism is failing our people is a debate for another day in this House, but you at home should be asking this important question. You in tertiary education should be asking the question. The working class should be asking this question. The media, importantly, should be asking that question. The entire nation should be working toward a system that will benefit all of us.

The nationalisation of the banks without compensation will not benefit the working class and the poor, as they will ultimately pay for this nationalisation in our current economic system. That is why the ANC will not support this motion. I thank you.

Mr D J MAYNIER: House Chairperson, we are in deep economic trouble with 9,4 million people who do not have jobs or have given up looking for jobs in South Africa.

So, we need to consider every proposal that would give hope to these 9,4 million people.

The Commander-in-Chief, the hon Julius Malema, has made such a proposal which is to nationalise the banks without compensation in South Africa. The idea of nationalising the banks is hardly original and is shared by the Minister’s economic advisor, Professor Chris Malikane, who seems to have attended the “Hugo Chavez School of Economics”; the boardroom communists, who talk like workers and who live like bosses inside the South African Communist Party; and the thugs who act as the Guptas’ “storm troopers” from Black First Land First.

Let me be clear from the start: The idea of nationalising the banks without compensation is not just a bad idea but a mad idea that would crush the hopes of the 9,4 million people who do not have jobs or who have given up looking for jobs in South Africa.

The EFF who, like their hero, Hugo Chavez, wants to nationalise the banks without compensation which means seizing ownership of 16 domestic banks, 15 foreign banks,

three mutual banks and two co-operative banks and seizing the assets of the banks whose loans and advances totalled R3, 7 trillion and whose assets totalled R4,9 trillion in 2016-17.

This, in a sector which is actually creating jobs - with

140 000 jobs created year-on-year in South Africa. The fact is that, when it comes to nationalisation of the banks without compensation, the EFF has clearly not thought through its proposal and has not done its homework.

First, the nationalisation of the banks without compensation would be unconstitutional ... [Interjections.]


Moh M R M MOTHAPO: Modulasetulo!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Maynier, please take your seat. On what Rule are you standing, hon member?


Moh M R M MOTHAPO: Ke ema go ya ka molawana wa 84, woo o ganetšago motho go diriša dika ge a bolela tše di tšhošago. Bjale ke tšhaba gore nkgapele go tlile go ema Tlouamma mo, a tla a bina kiba ya Bochum.

MODULASETULO WA NGWAKO (Moh M G Boroto): Go lokile, mma; re go kwele. Ga se ntlha ya tokišo. Tšwela pele ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Maynier, please continue.

Mr D J MAYNIER: First, the nationalisation of the banks without compensation would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal in South Africa. Second, the first objection to the nationalisation of banks without compensation will not come from “white monopoly capital”, as he surely hopes it will, but from his best friends in Beijing, who are significant owners of the biggest bank in South Africa.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China will surely not take kindly to the nationalisation of their
R53 billion investment in Standard Bank and it will not be long before they come knocking on his door.

Third, the second objection to the nationalisation of the banks without compensation will again not come from white monopoly capital as he hopes but from the thousands of hardworking contributors and thousands of beneficiaries of the Government Employees Pension Fund who are significant owners of banks in South Africa.

So let the hardworking people, like the thousands of policemen who protect us, know that the EFF wants to seize part of the R66 billion of their savings invested in Standard Bank.

Let the hardworking people know, like the thousands of nurses who take care of us, that the EFF wants to seize part of the R35,7 billion of their savings invested in First Rand.

Let the hardworking people, like the thousands of teachers who educate us, know that the EFF wants to seize part of the R18 billion worth of their savings invested in Nedbank.

Let the hardworking people, like the thousands of social workers who take care of us, know that the EFF wants to seize part of the R12,8 billion of their savings invested in Investec.

Finally, let the thousands of pensioners, who rely on us to protect them and to protect their savings which they have accumulated over years of hard work, know that the EFF wants to seize part of the R10,3 billion of your savings invested in ABSA.

Fourth and most obvious, the nationalisation of banks without compensation would trigger an economic meltdown which will ultimately result in recession, massive job losses and even greater poverty in South Africa.

Of course, what is terrifying about this debate, is not just that political formations like the EFF want to

nationalise the banks, but that the banks themselves are silent about this, preferring to bury their heads in the sand, wave their white handkerchiefs or more often than not, jump up and lick their opponents like grateful Labradors.

Whatever the case, the fact is that the nationalisation of the banks without compensation is not just a bad idea but a mad idea that will crush the hopes of the 9,4 million people who do not have jobs or who have given up looking for jobs in South Africa.

In the end, to give hope to the 9,4 million people who do not have jobs, we need to boost economic growth by announcing a package of structural reforms to build business confidence and stimulate private sector investment; we need to stabilise public finances by implementing a haircut on all mandatory cost containment items and implementing a comprehensive spending review; we need to support the independence of financial institutions by making a strong statement in support of financial institutions like the South African Reserve Bank, the Public Investment Co-operation and National

Treasury; we need to reform “zombie state-owned enterprises” by putting the national airline into business rescue with a view to stabilising and then privatising South African Airways; and we need to mitigate the significant long-term fiscal risks by terminating the nuclear build programme ... [Interjections.]

Ms M C C MAJAKE-PILANE: Hon Chairperson?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Maynier, please take your seat. What are you rising on hon member?

Ms M C C MAJAKE-PILANE: Is the member ready to take a question?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Maynier, are you ready to take a question?

Mr D J MAYNIER: I am happy to take a question in Barney’s after the debate which is usually where the member normally resides.

In conclusion, we hope that the next debate will be on proposals that will grow the financial sector and not proposals that will crush it so that we can find ways to extend banking services to more and more people especially poor people in South Africa. I thank you.

Mr M HLENGWA: Hon House Chairperson, the IFP welcomes the opportunity to engage in this debate this afternoon. At the out set we want to be very categorically clear that we do not support the agenda of nationalisation. Since hon Malema has indicated that a Bill will be brought before the House, we will take the time to interrogate it accordingly moving forward for as we are in a dire situation now in South Africa, every proposal, no matter how concerning it is, deserves at the very least to be looked at.

The IFP is not convinced that nationalisation is the anvil in which the trajectory of inequality and poverty will collapse. The banks themselves are not innocent in this regard and reforms need to be meted out to ensure that the banking sector serves the collective interest of

national development, but nationalisation is certainly not the route which we think we should take.

The capacity of the state in running state-owned enterprises, SOEs, because hindsight is the best sight, is the biggest lesson in which we now need to be in as South Africa. There is a culture of the collapse these entities, corruption and incompetence. The question then becomes: Does the state have the capacity to even begin to run these banks? It is an emphatic “No”. Therefore, do we run the risk of collapsing the very least, the collective dreams, hopes and aspirations of South Africans with an experiment that is not tried and tested during such a difficult economic time? We certainly cannot afford to do that.

Let us create a conducive and an enabling environment for businesses to operate and ensure that there is a healthy public-private partnership for development which will include the banking sector. But an overhaul as suggested, through nationalisation, will take us back and back is not where South Africans want to go.

The socialism communism outlook has no success in history. China, the biggest proponent of modern day communism, has unleashed the biggest capitalism project across the world.

As we grapple with the challenges and burdens of white monopoly capital we must, as South Africa, ready ourselves for Chinese monopoly capital.

We are not saying that capitalism is not without its faults, Winston Churchill puts it that, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings but the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

In a country with a strong economy, high employment and consistent growth we could put measures in place to fight inequality and raise the poorest of our people out of poverty. A free market economy can create those conditions and that’s the kind of economy that the IFP champions.

On the contrary, socialism weakens the country’s economy and where poverty is almost universal equality is fairly meaningless. Adrian Rogers puts it that, “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving” then surely you are bound to run into problems.

The IFP will not be supporting this motion. I thank you.

Mr M L SHELEMBE: Chairperson, South Africa’s road to democracy is not a social experiment. Our hard-won freedom was bought in blood, a heavy price paid by countless South Africans over decades. The NFP believes that it would be a betrayal of those who won us our freedom if we are to start dabbling in socioeconomic experiments, embracing radical and so-called revolutionary economic models which have failed miserably when implemented elsewhere in the world.

We simply cannot afford the luxury of experimenting, gambling with the life-blood of our economy. We have only one chance to make our democracy work, to make it

succeed. If we fail, future generations will pay the price and the shame will be ours.

Our position is clear. We need a vibrant, modern economy if we are to meet any development goals we might set. We cannot deny that South Africa is part of the global village, and our economy is linked to the global economy. If we want to participate meaningfully in this global economy and if we have any aspirations to be competitive in this global economy, then we have to embrace modern, international banking practices and not try to be an isolated island of outdated political dogma.

Moreover, we just need to look at government’s track record in governance to understand one of the main reasons why nationalising our banks would be disastrous for South Africa. Had we nationalised banks in 1994, there is no doubt this sector would have been a prime target in the state capture strategy of the Guptas, today.

Look, also, at the high level of deep-rooted corruption which has infiltrated every layer of government. Now,

imagine how it would have brought our banking sector to its knees by now. If confidence in our banking sector falls, so will the remaining vestiges of our economy.

Finally, we cannot deny that some banks were established and assisted by the state in the past. Others, however, were never financed or assisted by the state. It would make no sense to deprive those with no links to government from ownership. Look at Capitec, for example. Look at its phenomenal rise and growth over the past few years. This is what we need – the rise of more South African banks, tailor-made for our unique economy, that will meet the banking needs of our people.

We need a vibrant and innovative banking culture to carry our hopes and aspirations for a prosperous, future South Africa. We need a banking culture operating within the parameters set by government, yet free to adapt and respond to market forces in a flexible, yet stable, manner. Such a banking culture is not possible were the banking sector to be operated by the government. I thank you. [Time expired.]

Mr N L S KWANKWA: Chairperson and hon members, in its minimal, neoclassical form, the state was regarded as an exogenous black box whose internal operations were undeserving of analysis. As a welcome, permanent interlude away from this neoclassical school of thought, this debate underscores the essential role that the state now plays in driving growth and development. More specifically, it compels us to ponder on whether private commercial banks, in their current form, are fulfilling their social and development objectives. These include expanding banking and financial services to the poor, and financing priority sectors in our economy in line with our socioeconomic development objectives.

Quite appropriately, this debate takes place at a time when we have a banking sector that is predominantly anti poor, anti small business and unashamedly pro-rich and the affluent. Its primary preoccupation seems to be profit maximisation at all costs, even at the expense of public interests. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent case where banks were found guilty of colluding to fix the price of the rand at a huge cost, not only to our economy but, sadly, also to the poor. I

have argued many times that this collusive behaviour extends to bank charges, as well - as bank charges are identical on a number of products and services, even though their cost structures are vastly different.

To this end, while we appreciate the call for a shift away from market supremacy or the invisible hand theorem in the banking sector to government leadership or the visible hand of government, we must admit that, in its current form, the ANC-led government has neither the capacity nor the political will to run anything properly. One need look no further than the current state of our state-owned enterprises to see the deleterious effects of the visible hand of the government there. After all, this is the same government that, working together with the Guptas and those who take delight in “keeping the President”, seems to derive a perverse pleasure from engaging in rent-seeking behaviour and reciprocal acts of corruption at the expense of service delivery. Put differently, and as economic scholars describe the behaviour of a predatory state, the current government has no more regard for our nation than a predator does for its prey.

Gleefully cheering me on at this stage, the expectant proponents of the Washington Consensus development model are probably saying, “Go on, Nkwankwa, contradict yourself and say we must dismantle the disabling state and move towards market fundamentalism.” Tough luck for you! Our belief is that we must work to dismantle the ANC’s disabling state that is founded on a system of patronage and clientelism, but do so with a view to replacing it with a capable and enabling state that can drive development and intervene decisively in sectors such as the banking industry.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much.


Mnu N L S KWANKWA: Andikagqibi mama, bendiseza kukhwela kuni ngoku.

SIHLALO WENDLU (Nk M G Boroto): Hhayi, isikhathi sakho sona siphelile


Dr C P MULDER: Agb Voorsitter, die mosie voor die Huis vandag gaan oor die nasionalisering van banke, en in die geval van die EFF se voorstel, sonder vergoeding. Dit kan natuurlik nie met vergoeding wees nie, want die stand van die ekonomie is doodeenvoudig so dat daar nie geld is om sodanige vergoeding te betaal nie, maar dit gaan nie oor vergoeding nie. Dit gaan oor die beginsel van nasionalisering.

Die geskiedenis en beste praktyk het oor en oor reeds geleer dat die gedagte van vrye mark en gewaarborgde eiendomsreg rykdom skep en die beste geleentheid is vir werksgeleenthede ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Mulder, just a moment. May we be assisted? There is no English interpretation. [Interjections.] Continue, hon Mulder.


Dr C P MULDER: ... en ekonomiese groei. Sosialisme en kommunisme maak almal ewe arm en honger. Ons is bekend vir die bekende aanhaling wat lui ...


The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of spending other people’s money.


Nou, indien die banke genasionaliseer sou word, sou uit die aard van die saak ’n groot hoeveelheid waarde en werksgeleenthede oornag vernietig word. Die staat kan en moet hom nie met besigheid besig hou nie, want hy kan dit doodeenvoudig nie bestuur nie.

Wat die EFF basies sê is dat ons met banke in Suid-Afrika moet maak soos wat tans met Eskom en SAA gebeur, en dan plaas ons die Dudu Myenis en die Molefes in beheer daarvan. Nee dankie, sê ons. Dis nie ’n goeie plan nie.


Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Chair, on a point of order: We can’t follow what is being said here. There’s no interpretation.

Dr C P MULDER: Hon Chairperson, I will address the House in English if needs be, but then I will need some time, please. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Mulder, we are trying to resolve that problem. The interpretation is not there. Hon Mulder, may I appeal to you to speak in English, and we will give you your three minutes?

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Chair, no, no. Let’s be consistent with the Constitution here. Sort out your House. Let it be in order, because now you are suppressing people’s rights. Sort out the interpretation. You can’t impose ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, I am trying to sort it out, but we can’t wait. The hon member said he is prepared to assist us by speaking English.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: You can’t give extra time because of your incompetence. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Oh my God. Alright.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: You can’t give extra time.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Alright, we hear you.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Either you stop or we sort it out, but you can’t be giving extra time. It’s not right.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Ndlozi, we hear you. We hear you, but for this, I am going to allow the hon Mulder to speak in English. You have your minutes, hon Mulder. Thank you.

Dr C P MULDER: Thank you, hon Chairperson. Today we are debating the motion on nationalisation, and in the EFF’s situation, without compensation. Obviously, it has to be without compensation, because there is simply not enough money to compensate, in this regard, and this is the state of the economy.

We all know that international best practice is based on free market and the guarantee of property rights. That

creates jobs; that creates wealth, etc. That also allows economies to grow.

On the other hand, however, socialism and communism lead to poverty and problems of hunger across the board, as we all know. We are all familiar with the well-known saying, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of spending other people’s money – and that’s the problem.

If banks are nationalised, as the EFF proposes, we will lose an immense amount in terms of value and jobs, etc, overnight. It’s not for the state to run businesses. We have seen the examples, and the current examples of what is happening in Eskom, in SAA.

What the EFF is proposing is that we should create our banks to operate in the same manner, and then appoint the EFF Dudu Myenis and the EFF Molefes. We say, no, thank you. That’s not a good idea. That’s a very bad idea.

If you look at the history of our own continent, in Africa, as was mentioned earlier, you will find that

Nigeria nationalised the banks in the 1970s. In 1994, they were bankrupt. The same thing happened in Ghana, in 1975 and in 1984. The same thing happened in Tanzania.

However, there are examples in Africa where exactly the opposite has happened. Those were African countries which never speculated or tried to experiment with this notion of nationalisation. Those countries are Botswana, Kenya and Mauritius, and to date, South Africa. Therefore, you will find very well developed financial systems and economic prosperity in those countries and things are happening in a positive manner there.

Our economy is in such dire straits that the last message we should be sending out to the investors, the ratings agencies and everybody else out there who would like to hear, is that we are thinking about this notion of nationalising the banks. On this very day, the private banks out there have to rescue SAA, once again, with a further R3 billion to make sure that they do not go under.

We have a deficit of R50 billion in terms of income with regard to our current financial year. Who is going to invest in a country when they know that if they invest, there is no guarantee that the state might not come around one day and say it thinks it should take it?
Nobody will invest in that.

I am very happy to see that the majority of people in this House understand economics, understand the realities of South Africa, and are not running around with some outdated, revolutionary concepts and ideas that nobody believes in and that have never succeeded anywhere in the world. Thank you.

Rev K R J MESHOE: House Chair, the ACDP believes that the nationalisation banks would turn our banks into state- owned enterprises which would accelerate state capture and cause a further downgrade by ratings agencies given the present climate political of uncertainty in our country and the serious allegations of state capture and systematic corruption within many of our state-owned enterprises, SOEs, such as Eskom and Transnet. It would

be irresponsible to even consider this vein attempt that would destroy the efficient running of our banks.

The hon Williams mentioned about five countries that nationalised their banks with disastrous consequences and we do not want to see a repeat of that in South Africa.
The ACDP therefore totally rejects the EFF’s call to nationalise South African banks without compensation. Our efficient banks would under the current climate of state abuse of resources also encourage politicians and robe officials to loot banks that will be nationalised. We cannot trust government with those SOEs that we already have in place because of the looting that has been taking place.

This week, a respected economist reportedly advised his clients to take their money out of South Africa because government is failing to effectively deal with state capture and save our economy. Nationalising banks without compensation would stop foreign and domestic investments, worsen the brain drain and trigger the exodus of local and international companies. Businesses invest in countries where they believe they can make money, not in

places where they fear their assets could be arbitrarily confiscated by the state anytime.

The ACDP believes that an efficient independent banking system is crucial for the ongoing growth of our economy. Nedbank’s Chief Executive, Mike Brown, said and I quote:

The South African banking system showed its robustness during the recent financial crisis and any moves to nationalise banks would halt the inward investment and resultant growth.

He correctly pointed out that the debate around nationalisation of banks will have a negative effect on investment into any country and South Africa is no different. The ACDP will therefore not support calls for the nationalisation of banks without compensation because we do not want to repeat the mistakes that had been made by others. Thank you.

Mr L M NTSHAYISA: Chairperson, nationalisation of banks without compensation cannot be now, there would be time for that. Of course, nationalisation of banks should be

the programme of all liberation movements. This however, cannot be done in isolation but also to consider the nationalisation of mines and address the land issue. As AIC we have checked the contribution by the eminent commercial role players in the banking sector and the role played in this part. The South African Revenue, the South African Reserve Bank and the South African Banking Association are also part of this scenario.

We should perhaps preface this discussion by recapping the following; that the AIC is a Socialist Pan Africanist Organisation, it leans alongside George Padmore’s theory of Pan Africanist Socialism. Although, we do not entirely subscribe to Adam Smith’s theory of laissez-faire capitalism, we support some aspects of his thinking like laissez-fair or free trade. Hon Chair, the AIC is sceptical about the role of the state in the commercial banking sector. Ideally and in principle, the state has to carry its conferred vanguard mandate in the best interest of South Africans.

However, the toxic contemporary South African narrative has dissuaded every Dick, Tom and Harry who had pinned

their hopes against a functioning state apparatus designed to serve the masses. The people of South Africa should benefit from the banks and the majority in particular, does not benefit anything in terms of financial assistance from the banks. Perhaps nationalisation would be one of the best approaches was considered properly. It is a challenge that once banks are nationalised, the employees would automatically become the state employees.

It is well known that the government employees do not have the sense of urgency as the private sector employees. Nationalisation without compensation would be a big problem if it cannot be checked and to check these companies where they come from. The best solution is to come up with the relevant legislation that will lead to the best regulation so as to manage the activities of these banks and bring about ... [Inaudible.] salaries.
Thank you very much. [Time expired.]

Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon Chair and hon members, maybe we must nationalise our salaries, take our children to public schools not private schools, travel with donkeys not fly

to Cape Town and give our thousands if not millions to charity. Until then, we will look like and sound like hypocrites.

Hon members, this motion is very seductive, tempting but unrealistic and suicidal. Our democratic dispensation is built on consensus. Nationalisation of banks will not yield good results as long we still have inefficient bureaucracies prone to political favouritism, South African Airways, SAA, and Eskom are good examples of bad leadership and mismanagement. Hon members ... [Interjections.]

Ms D R TSOTETSI: Chairperson, it is not a point of order but a question if the member has a medical aid?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms Boroto): Hon member, I did not allow you to ask the question. Continue, hon member.

Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon members, any solutions to South Africa’s complex problems must be take account of this political reality. We should not be driven by emotions to punish those who benefited from the past. We must be

driven by pragmatism, persuasion, reforms which are driven by unity and equality for all. Hon members, I am saying this drawing from the experience of Zimbabwe and Venezuela where citizens have endured unimaginable sufferings, some have been reduced to beggars across Southern Africa while President Mugabe and his cronies are filthy rich and they have turned the so-called nationalisation into their profit making network in their countries.

Hon members, what we need in this country is to sit around the table and find common ground. We must build what ... we have travelled so far that where we come from is too far. We should not come with ideas that will divide us further. Therefore, AgangSA does not support this motion. Thank you.

Mr N T GODI: Thank you hon Chair, comrades and hon members. The APC, the revolutionary party, supports the socialisation of the means of production to reverse the legacy of white minority rule. We fought to restore the sovereignty and dignity of the people, to end poverty, inequality and unemployment, and to project the African

personality. We must at all times put the issue of the economy at the centre of public discourse. Who owns, who controls, who benefits from the wealth of our country?
What is the structure of the economy that sustains and reinforces these patterns of ownership?

It is the South African and international reality that banks are the key instruments and drivers of the corporate takeover of politics and the exploitation of the majority. Whoever controls banks controls politics and the economy. Thus, it is inconceivable to talk about a distributive economy without looking at the ownership of banks.

It is however the belief of the APC, as a party of revolution, that a few quick wins are possible and necessary on our road to socialism. These are a state bank, a state insurance company and the nationalisation of the Reserve Bank.

Our commitment to Pan-Africanism and socialism is unwavering. The people must be mobilised to reject living in abject poverty whilst a soulless clique live lavishly.

The workers must be mobilised to reject starvation wages whilst managers earn astronomical salaries. We must agitate the people to reject and hate the system that continues to reproduce the past. We must agitate for change; change in the interest of the people.

The APC therefore makes a call to all forces of the left

— to all nationalist forces — for us to join hands, forge unity of purpose and unity in action to realise a society that is Afrocentric, socialistic and a popular democracy. The economic status quo is a negation of liberation. I thank you.


Mnu R A LEES: Sihlalo ngiyabonga kakhulu.


It is not just a bad idea to nationalise banks without compensation; it is a mad idea. There are already seven state-owned banks in South Africa. The way they have operated should be a red light to any ideas of nationalising banks at all, let alone without

compensation. Take the Land Bank. It’s like the SA Airways, SAA, on the ground.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, will you please take your seat? On what point are you rising hon member?

Dr M Q NDLOZI: I just said on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, I’m asking on what point of order are you rising hon member?

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Rule 92.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Rule ...

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Chairperson, it is very condescending to be called mad, particularly by white hon members. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member!

Dr M Q NDLOZI: It’s not right!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member!

Dr M Q NDLOZI: You can say that it doesn’t make sense but don’t say people are mad.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member that is not a point of order. He didn’t say anybody ...

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Okay, can you rule if it is parliamentary to say people are mad?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes, I heard him. I heard him correctly hon member. He didn’t say anybody was mad. He talked about the motion. Thank you very much. He talked about the motion. Continue hon Lees.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Order Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): On what point are you rising hon member?

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: This is our motion. He is calling us mad so he must withdraw that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No hon member. Hon members, please. That’s not a point ...

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: No Chair, this is our motion. We can’t be called mad people by a white person in this House.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, no, no, no, hon member, I’m going to switch off your microphone. It’s not a point of order. Hon Lees, I’m sorry. Hon Steenhuisen, what’s your point of order?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, thank you very much. Rule 84. We know from past rulings that have been made in this House that you may not use people’s race as a reference to them. It would be inappropriate to do so, to use racial epithets against people. It shouldn’t matter whether Mr Lees is white, black, Indian or coloured. It should be the ideas that are being debated.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, I hear you. Did that come from the House? I didn’t hear anything on that one.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Chairperson, the race problem ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No hon member, I’m still talking to ... I’m still trying to verify. Can you please take your seat? [Interjections.] Okay hon Steenhuisen, did anybody say that hon Lees ... [Inaudible.] I didn’t hear that well. I will follow that up with the Table. Thank you very much. Continue hon Lees.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: On a point of order Chairperson.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes hon member, on what point are you rising?

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: On Rule 92. Since the hon Lees is saying that the motion is mad, he shouldn’t debate a mad motion. [Inaudible.] He is saying it’s a mad motion.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, that’s not a point of order. Please sit down. I’m going to switch off your microphone. It’s not a point of order.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Continue hon Lees.


Mnu R A LEES: Kungcono ke mhlawumbe ngizothatha upholishi ngiwufake ebusweni ngibe mnyama nami. [Uhleko.]


In 2004, the Land Bank lent R800 million to Patrick Sokhela, a close associate of the ANC’s presidential hopeful Zweli Mkhize. [Interjections.]

Mr T RAWULA: Order Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, please take your seat. Hon member, on what point are you rising?

Mr T RAWULA: I’m raising a point of order. What the hon member is speaking there is rubbish because he is saying that for him to be black he is going to put on black polish. So, he must think that we have put on black polish to be this colour. This man ... [Inaudible.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, hon member, hon member, I heard your thing. Before I address you further can you just withdraw saying that he is speaking rubbish?

Mr T RAWULA: He must withdraw that rubbish he has just spoken. That’s rubbish! He’s saying that he is going to put on polish in order for him to be black!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, will you please ... Hon member, I’m going to switch off your microphone. I’m saying that if you want me to listen to you, you mustn’t also come with a word that is unparliamentary. Rubbish is not unparliamentary.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Rubbish is rubbish! That’s rubbish! What he just said is rubbish. It’s rubbish! You think we have

put black polish on our skins? That’s rubbish! You must tell him unequivocally that it’s rubbish. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members! Hon members! Hon members, I’m going to switch off your microphones.

Can I have ... All of you are standing. Can you allow your leader to speak? Before you speak hon Malema, I just want to say this. To say this is rubbish is something but to say somebody is speaking rubbish is unparliamentary.
That’s what I wanted to say. Okay hon Malema, what is your point of order?

Mr J S MALEMA: No, he’s talking rubbish. How does a white man say to us ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members!

Mr J S MALEMA: No, but listen to me, listen to me, listen to me. How does a white man say he is going to put on black polish to look black? He says he’s going to put ...

He’s talking rubbish! That’s rubbish! How does a white man say he’s going to put on black polish ... black polish? That’s absolute nonsense!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, that’s a point of debate. Hon members, hon member, hon member, thank you very much. Can I ... I’m going to switch off your microphone now. I’m going to switch off your microphone. I want to address you.

Table staff, please assist me with what has been happening. Hon Lees, I may not have heard you saying that
... [Interjections.] ... but if you said that we will rule on it. [Interjections.] Please continue. Hon Lees, please continue. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: No Chair, order!

An HON MEMBER: Huh uh, Chairperson. We are not going to be abused in this Parliament. [Interjections.] Ask him if he said that. [Interjections.] Ask him if he said that.

Mr R A LEES: In 2004, the Land Bank lent R800 million to Patrick Sokhela, a close associate of the ANC’s presidential hopeful Zweli Mkhize. For years the interest of R20 million per month and capital were not repaid.

An HON MEMBER: You are a rubbish! You are rubbish!

Mr R A LEES: After the then Land Bank chief executive officer, CEO, Mukoki left under a cloud, Minister Lulu Xingwana put a 28-year-old advisor Saki Zamxaka, who only had two years work experience with the National Intelligence Agency, in as acting CEO of the Land Bank.

An HON MEMBER: Chairperson, on a point of order.

Mr R A LEES: Fortunately, Xingwana was fired before she could appoint Zamxaka as the permanent CEO. [Interjections.]


Nk M S KHAWULA: KwaMashu babegcoba upholishi omnyama ebusweni besibulala! [Ubuwelewele.].


An HON MEMBER: Chair, a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, can I be assisted by the Table before I take any point of order? Take your seat.


Nk M S KHAWULA: KwaMashu babegcoba upholishi omnyama ebusweni besibulala! [Ubuwelewele.].


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I’m not going to take ... I want to hear what he said. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: Chair the House! Do your duty!


Nk M S KHAWULA: Babesibulala kwaMashu begcoba upholishi omnyama kube ngathi abantu


An HON MEMBER: It’s not right what he said. It’s not right what he’s saying. He must withdraw. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: You know what is black polish? [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: You are insulting us, wena man! [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, can you please allow us to have a debate? If you all make a noise ... [Interjections.] No, no, no, allow me to ... I’m going to recognise you. [Interjections.] Can you allow me to say what I’m saying? Hon members, you make a lot of noise.

An HON MEMBER: Order Chairperson!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, no, I’m going to recognise you all.

An HON MEMBER: House Chairperson?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I’m going to recognise you. Can I just say what I want to say?

An HON MEMBER: He must withdraw.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay, I will come back. The EFF were the first to raise their hands. I will come back to them and then I will recognise all the others if you still want to talk.

What I am ... Oh hon member, you will also follow. I’m going to take party by party. I’m not going to take more. Hon members, yes it is true I did not hear that part and maybe I should have asked him if he said it.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much. That’s the advice I got. [Interjections.] You are making a noise. You are not assisting hon members. You are not assisting. Hon Lees, can you take the podium? Hon Lees, did you say in this House that you are going to take polish and make yourself black?

Mr R A LEES: Madam, I did indeed say that after I was accused of being white and racial slurs were thrown at me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees? Hon Lees?

Mr R A LEES: So, I am quite happy to withdraw that comment provided that the comments about my race are withdrawn. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: There are no conditions to ... [Inaudible.] ... racism, wena. You can’t put a condition. You can’t put conditions. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, thank you very much. Take your seat. Hon Lees, take your seat.

An HON MEMBER: You must withdraw unconditionally.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, you don’t have to explain why you withdraw. You have to withdraw it because that is not right. I already ruled

about what they said. Now I want you to withdraw what you said.

Mr R A LEES: I withdraw unconditionally Madam Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much. I don’t think we are going to entertain this anymore. Continue with your speech.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, with respect, if you are going to apply the Rules they must be applied equally. I would ask then that the hon Ndlozi is asked to withdraw the epithet.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, I ruled on that one and said I’m going to check because of what he said.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Sorry, but why don’t you ask him if he said it? [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No hon member!

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: So, it’s one Rule for the DA and one Rule for everyone else.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, no, I will make a considered ruling hon ...

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: But you are not going to make a ruling. I know what’s going to happen. The debate is going to end and ... [Inaudible.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, no, no ... [Interjections.] Hon Steenhuisen, I’m going to switch off your microphone. I’m saying I responded.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: No, you need to be consistent. Why didn’t you ... But you asked hon Lees. Why didn’t you ask hon Ndlozi?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I have been advised. Hon member, I’m going to switch off your microphone.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Different Rules, that’s the problem. No, you can’t switch off my microphone. I’m taking a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you. I’m going to. Yes, we’ll take it to the Rules Committee ... [Inaudible.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: You can do that. You can do that. Do it with ... [Inaudible.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Continue hon Lees, and then I will make a considered ruling. Thank you.
Continue hon Lees.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Point of order Madam House Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, don’t you want to speak? Hon Lees, will you please ...

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Point of order. I’m raising a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Will you please take the podium. Hon member, I said I’m going to make a considered ruling.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I’m taking a point of order. You’re not though. You’re going to leave the House and it’s not going to happen, just like two days ago. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Not today. I’m not making a promise to make it today.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Exactly, exactly. That’s your problem.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Continue hon Lees. Continue.


inconsistent application. [Inaudible.]


Mnu R A LEES: Ngiyabonga Sihlalo yazi inkinga yilena ukuthi ukube nathi besikhuluma kahle sonke ...


Madam Chair, if we were polite and spoke nicely to everyone these incidents wouldn’t happen, and so to use a figure of speech about blackening my face so that I become acceptable ... [Interjections] ... is an ... [Inaudible.]

Mr N S MATIASE: House Chair, I rise on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes hon member? Hon Lees, please take your seat.

An HON MEMBER: Chairperson, please.

Mr N S MATIASE: We have been polite and tolerant to ... [Interjections.] ...


USOLWAZI N M KHUBISA: Akahoxhise kodwa Sihlalo.

Mr N S MATIASE: We have been polite and tolerant to ... [Interjections.] ... utterances of the hon member and he has provoked all of us in this House. All that we have asked him to do is to withdraw unconditionally. For him to continue to sustain his argument means that he has partly apologised and withdrawn his utterances.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you. I was going to say that. Thank you very much. Hon Lees, after you have withdrawn you go on to explain yourself. Please don’t do that. Continue with the speech.

Mr R A LEES: Thank you Madam Chair. Let me once again withdraw unconditionally. There’s no question about that. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to do that.


Ngizoqhubeka manje ke.


After the then Land Bank CEO Mukoki left under a cloud, Minister Lulu Xingwana put her 28-year-old advisor Saki

Zamxaka, who only had two years work experience with the National Intelligence Agency, in as acting CEO of the Land Bank. Fortunately, Xingwana was fired before she could appoint Zamxaka as the permanent CEO.

In 2016, Rakgalakane Investments, a company in which Adam Rakgalakane, an executive director of the Land Bank, was a director, was awarded a multimillion rand contract by the Land Bank to supply livestock feed. Rakgalakane Investments was paid R4,4 million, apparently while Adam Rakgalakane was a director of both the Land Bank and Rakgalakane Investments. Neither the Minister of Finance nor National Treasury seem to have a problem with this arrangement.

Let’s now turn to the Ithala Development bank from which a number of prominent ANC politicians have benefitted, not least of which, yet again, a Zweli Mkhize connection. It’s none other than his wife who was given a massive loan.

Another was President Zuma who, when he was fired by Mbeki in 2005, lived in a Forest Town house purchased

urgently, eight days after Mr Zuma was fired, for Mr Zuma’s exclusive use, by Sizani Dlamini-Dubazana, using money borrowed from Ithala. When this loan was not repaid, yet again Minister Lulu Xingwana came to the rescue by getting the state to buy the farm at a hugely inflated price.

We should not forget Sipho Shabalala ...

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Chairperson, on a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, take your seat. On what point of order are you rising?

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: I’m rising in accordance with Rule 85(2). The member mentioned something about one hon member purchasing a house, and the member knows that if there are any allegations that he needs to put forward about the member he needs to present a substantive motion to this House. I therefore ask the member to withdraw.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, you know very well that hon Dlamini is a member of this House and


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Can I talk to hon

... You will come.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I’d like to take a point of order.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, you can’t take a point of order on top of a point of order. You know the Rules very well hon member.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Then what’s the point of doing it whilst you’ve made a ruling?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member!

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: That’s not what the hon Lees said.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member! Hon Lees, you know very well that it is not correct to talk about a member of this House and bring improper or unethical conduct of the member. You have to do it in a substantive motion. However, because even the person who raised the order is not sure what you said we will listen to the Hansard and rule accordingly. Thank you very much.

Mr R A LEES: Madam Chair, thank you very much. Let me in advance of any ruling withdraw anything that was perhaps improper. I don’t really know what I said that was improper but perhaps it is and let it be so. However, the fact is ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lees, why do you have to ... I said I will rule accordingly. [Interjections.] Why do you have to debate with me? I’m not in a debate hon Lees. [Interjections.] I’m not in a debate. Just continue with your speech.

Mr R A LEES: Thank you Madam Chair. I’m not debating. I’m withdrawing as I was requested to do by the hon member.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I didn’t instruct you to withdraw. Continue hon Lees.

Mr R A LEES: I do so voluntarily Madam Chair. We should not forget Sipho Shabalala, one time boss of Ithala, who borrowed R12 million from the Development Bank of Southern Africa to buy a hotel and then failed to repay the debt. Shabalala resigned from Ithala after being given a R2 million golden handshake by Ithala in 2011, despite the cloud hanging over his head.

Those are just a few of the instances of political abuse of the existing state-owned banks and which involve senior members of the ANC government. It is not just a bad idea to nationalise banks without compensation; indeed, it is a mad idea. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms J L FUBBS: Yes, good afternoon hon Chair, good afternoon members of the hon House. I greet the people of South Africa and invite them to watch this debate. The motion has been addressed. Now, there are many things we do agree with, such as the financial services sector.

The financial services sector is at the heart of the South African economy because it touches the life of all of us, all the citizens.

Financial services allow ordinary people to make daily economic transactions, save and preserve wealth to meet future aspirations and retirement needs, and insure against personal disaster.

In this year of Oliver Tambo, one recalls when he said that:

To allow the existing economic forces to retain their interests intact is to feed the roots of racial supremacy and exploitation, and does not represent even the shadow of liberation.

The financial sector has forgotten us; it should be the servant of the real economy and not its master. Such an important sector should not be left purely in the hands of private capital.

Allowing the sector to function though, without any government oversight, parliamentary oversight, and central bank oversight is also not acceptable. There is a crucial role for state banks and state institutions to play in the financial

The attainment of the Freedom Charter objectives remains the strategic objective of the ANC. The clause on the people sharing in the country’s wealth states: that the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole.

However, and I wish to emphasise this, the ANC-led government has reiterated on several occasions that outright nationalisation of all banks is not the ANC policy and neither is it government policy. Rather the policy of the ANC-led government is the pursuit of a mixed economy.

You know when one hear some of the noises on my left here, I recall one or two points that the DA did make; and it sound unusual – and it would appear to be unusual maybe to many people listening in our country.

The DA opposes this motion, so does the ANC. So what does that mean? Well, it is very clear that we are on opposite sites of the continuum, and that it is purely the interpretation and what informs this nationalisation debate of banks that creates the difference.

To talk about nationalisation of banks without compensation will, as my hon colleague and Comrade A J Williams pointed directly, tackle the poor. It will make the poor more vulnerable than they are already.

In terms of nationalisation without compensation, the Constitution of South Africa which is meant to protect all our interest and it states: section 25(2) of the Constitution says:

Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application, for a public purpose or in the public interest; and subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.

Therefore, it is on that basis that I say the EFF motion is misplaced, while the DA input unsurprisingly reflects its neo-liberal roots. The solution to the issues faced by the financial sector is not to nationalise at all without compensation.

In recent years, there have been many debates about this and it is recognised that the sector contributes greatly to the gross domestic product, GDP, and the economy.

However, we acknowledge that it is still questionable whether the sector is sufficiently developing tools of economic transformation in our country such as productive investment which will create employment, access to ownership opportunities for people in the sector, and access to finance for small and medium sized businesses.

I reiterate the ANC does not accept outright nationalisation as a solution to the challenges in the financial sector.

The National Development Plan’s key proposals for the finance sector include, broadening access to banking

services for poor people; strengthening credit extension to productive investments especially for small and medium sized firms; provide small businesses and co-operatives with advisory and support services; and encourage South African firms and banks to provide increased project finance.

The transformation of ownership and broad-based black empowerment in the financial services sector should ensure that black South Africans secure increased ownership opportunities to fully participate in the sector.

In fact, the Standing Committee on Finance and the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, have been sitting together on several occasions this year to unpack these challenges and to develop a solution.

The existing state banks have been referred to here, There are two state retail banks, the Post bank and Ithala. Much has been said about this, but what is essential is that as government, we need to give them a licence. We need to give these two institutions a licence

— and I must urge the government, the finance, the Treasury, the Reserve Bank to work together to fast-track the licensing of Post bank and Ithala.

We also have a number of finance institutions in the developmental sector, just to mention a few: the Industrial Development Corporation, IDC the NEF, the Land bank, the National Housing Financial Corporations, and the Small Enterprise Financing.

They lend R141 billion to the real economy. Government should ensure that the existing state-owned lenders deliver on their intended mandates. Their effective functioning would serve as an effective alternative to the commercial banks delivery.

The challenge of financial inclusion, we have already heard much about that from my colleague – he mentioned who owns what here. I would like to just emphasise that the importance is in the regulatory framework and implementation.

It is a sad reality that the banks in our country are not transparent. It is a sad reflection that internationally and globally they have been found wanting.

In the whole countries, east or west no matter what ideology we agree with, we have got to tighten this up and banks must become more transparent.

In fact, one of the areas that we had hoped where we would increase this transparency, etc, was through the competition – the competition law itself. They have done a lot of good work in uncovering the collusion that has existed, so has the National Credit Act.

The purpose of that Act was to promote and advance the social and economic welfare of South Africans, by creating an accessible, fair, responsible and transparent credit market.

Ten years later is this working effectively? Let’s look at that. More recently, we have had the National Treasury Finance bringing about the Twin Peaks, the new regulatory framework. It is expected to address abuse in this area

and to advance the interest of society and the economy in South Africa as a whole.

The new market conduct regulator through this legislation has been given powers to act against banks that offer inappropriate products or do not disclose costs clearly and correctly.

I referred to the competition commission earlier and all of the collusion behaviour that they have uncovered in the banking sector; and it was agreed – and I think most of us in this House will agree that imposing fines in this industry is not enough.

We need to review what sanctions can be developed in this regard. What is the experience in other countries? I heard some of them refer to, what I didn’t hear when the reference was made to China is, that China itself is reducing the government’s role in banks credit allocation to improve the performance of these banks.

So, even though they have been doing it for a long time, they have the largest economies internationally; you have had this in practice. I’m saying it doesn’t always work.

On the other hand, we are also well aware that in the Scandinavia countries one chose to nationalise the banks, Norway; and it would appear effectively so far; but Sweden chose not to. So they chose different routes but neither of those two banks offered nationalisation without compensation.

India recently had to bailout its state-owned banks through a complex scheme, costing R300 billion. Do we have this amount of money in the country to bailout a state bank? No, we don’t.

Diverting of state resources, nationalisation without compensation, I don’t believe is a good starter. It is unconstitutional, and it will create huge risks to the financial sector.

The other point is that, let’s assume it‘s possible for our government somehow to nationalise all the banks.

Overnight, the government would assume not only all the assets but the liabilities of the banks.

It will have to recapitalise the banks if they lose money. We know only too costly the route of recapitalisation. Can we afford it? No. The government will become a banker.

Now since when do we want to have government banker. I don’t know, but a few people in this House want the government to be our banker.

Why is this important, this whole issue around the diverting of state resources, etc? Banks have the capacity to turn liabilities into assets loans. These are depositor’s money. Globally, this is where government owned banks most of them fail, and in South Africa I don’t think would be any different.

We are going to have a look at NSFAS, at the moment R21 billion in loans and what have they recovered, R200 million.

The current deposits in the banking sector are around 87% of the GDP or nearly - as was referred to by my colleague almost R4 trillion. It is the amount that the government would directly put at risk, and whose money is it? It is those who actually put their money in the banks.

The current deposits in the banking sector are too high for us to act recklessly. We need to ask ourselves if ordinary depositors, young men and women and our grandparents out there that have put their life savings in a bank there. Are these savings going to be safe?

The implications for the economy - if we go that route will be, we would have to have efficient rationing of credit. The municipal experience with non-payment we are all too well aware of.

However, I just want to recap some of the challenges that we are faced and that we can immediately address. We need to reduce the size of these banks; there is an incestuous relationship between banks and insurance companies, totally incestuous; and linked to the incestuous

relationship between the banks and the insurance houses, we know, are the asset companies and the pension funds.

We need to separate commercial banks from investment banks. We need to eliminate this concept of “it’s too big to fail.” Let us cut them in half before they become too big to fail.

Prohibit credit relations between commercial banks and investment banks. Eradicate speculation. Speculation only ever benefited a very mini skill percentage of the population; and it is very dangerous. Prohibit derivatives; derivatives are arguably are the riskiest thing that is why we had the global financial crisis.

However, what worries me is, if we go the same route as America, as Europe and many countries on the West, we will tackle the little fish, the little trader who wants a Mercedes to run around and impress his girlfriend with, instead of that huge institution – the bank itself.

It is important that the sanctions target not only the small boys and girls in banking and investment and stockbroking, but also the full institution.

The end of bank secrecy: This is the last of the mafia operations that are being legalised in our country; the very last.

I once, when I was in America went and visited some of the banks there and they said, wow, your bankers are so lucky they represent the last of the financial pirates internationally; that was America not here.

Now why did they think that? They think they are a protected species – and I belief they are, yes. So we must overcome banking secrecy.

We must regulate banking - but no, I do not think in the opinion of the ANC. It is our opinion that the nationalisation of banks, especially without compensation will be misplaced.

It is not the role of the state to control all banks. We should rather make the existing state banks work better. We should regulate the private banks; and we should never ever forget where we are going. We know that our goal is the radical transformation of society. We know the social construct of money is here.

How do we manage that and regulate it in a manner that encourages economic growth, that encourages the development of all our people; and does not actually reduce – you know part of the problem that the Trade and Industry Committee found is that we have this huge amount of credit and indebted society – but, there is very little products, very few products, less than 25% in our economy to enable people to save. Now that is part of what has led to indebtedness in our society.

We need to look at the transformation but in a responsible manner, but I also in many ways welcome the motion that has come to the House. That enables members of this House to share with the people of South Africa what it is their parties believe in, the goals, etc. The ANC does not support this motion. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J S MALEMA: Chairperson, it is indeed not shocking that the ANC has sent the so-called communists to come and argue against one of the fundamental principles of communisms.

It is the same Communist Party that opposed expropriation of land without compensation. It is the same Communist Party that opposed free education. It is the Communist Party today that is opposing the nationalisation of banks. It is the Communist Party under Joe Slovo that mislead the ANC into adopting sunset clauses, because they deployed their people to come and defend the white interests in the ANC. That is what they are doing and we are not shocked that these people have come and repeated exactly what we suspect them of.

We must make it very clear that all of you who have come here to give us examples of banks that were nationalised and collapsed used African states, thereby indirectly trying to create the impression that it is black African governments that cannot run complex institutions like banks. [Applause.] But you didn’t tell us that we were in a crisis that cost the world more than $200 billion

because of the banks. When we went into a recession it was the banks and those banks were not owned by the state. They were privately owned. So, who said private ownership is inherently progressive and successful? There are many examples of private ownership that have failed in the banking sector. None of you gave examples of those, because they are white run and therefore can never be wrong. The state is black run and therefore cannot be relied upon.

Who collapsed African Bank? African Bank was not state run, it was privately run. Yet it still collapsed. So it is incorrect to suggest that everything else that is black run is going to fail. We must say to the ANC that the so-called radical economic transformation is just lip service and does not mean anything.

We agree entirely that to nationalise under you would be the most dangerous thing to do, but we brought this motion here to expose your inconsistency. You and the DA agree on ideological strategic issues. We agree with them on immediate technical issues, but regarding the future, you are together. You are saying that the legacy of

apartheid must continue to be there through the policies which are not aiming at tampering with ownership of the means of production. If you were not ideologically in the same WhatsApp group with the DA, you would have stood here and denounced the ownership of strategic means of production by the white few. [Interjections.] We don’t expect the DA to agree with us, because we know that nationalising the banks will be to take from white privilege and redistribute the wealth amongst our people. [Interjections.] They will never agree with that, because they defend white privilege. So, you have joined them.
You have always been part of them in defence of white privilege.

We want to support black entrepreneurs. We want to support rural women. We want to support mineworkers. We want to support township industrial development. It can only happen under the nationalisation of banks. [Time Expired.] Thank you very much.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Chairperson, I move without notice on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

notes that Nonkululeko Nyembezi will become the first woman to chair the board of Alexander Forbes in the firm’s 82 years of existence;

acknowledges that Ms Nyembezi succeeds Mr Sello Moloko. Her role starts on 1 January 2018;

understand that she is currently the chair of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, JSE, and is and Old Mutual board member;

further understands that she has held executive and board level positions in the last 30 years across financial services, mining, IT and telecommunications sectors;

believes that her experience and leadership skills will help her to settle in well in this new position of responsibility; and

congratulates Ms Nyembezi on her new appointment.

I thank you.

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr I M OLLIS: Chairperson, I move without notice on behalf of the DA:

That the House -

notes that on 7 November 1917, exactly 100 years ago to this day, anti-apartheid activist Helen Suzman was born;

also notes that Suzman, representing the Houghton constituency for the Progressive Party, was the sole member of Parliament unequivocally opposed to apartheid for thirteen years from 1961 to 1974;

further notes that the Progressive Party, later became the Progressive Reform Party, the Progressive Federal Party and eventually the Democratic Party, known today as the Democratic Alliance;

acknowledges Helen Suzman’s role in singlehandedly campaigning against every piece of apartheid legislation put before Parliament;

also acknowledges her tremendous role in exposing the truth about apartheid to the outside world by never backing down from asking parliamentary questions, conducting oversight visits to the length and breadth of South Africa and delivering landmark speeches on forced removals, pass laws,

housing, education, police brutality and evictions;

recalls President Nelson Mandela’s kind words to Mrs Suzman, “your courage, integrity and principled commitment to justice have marked you as one of the outstanding figures in the history of public life in South Africa”;

recollects her selfless contribution to South Africa and its hard-fought democracy;

commits itself to continue the hard work started by her and many others of this House.

[Time expired.] I thank you.

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr M N PAULSEN: Chairperson, I move without notice on behalf of the EFF:

That the House -

notes that the release of data by the Chamber of Mines, indicating that since the beginning of this year 76 miners have lost their lives while at work;

further notes that this is a marked increase from previous years and shows recklessness by mine bosses;

acknowledges that in addition to these deaths,

2 156 miners sustained serious injuries while at work;

recognises that for capital, human life is nothing but a simple labour unit, and profit will always take precedence over safety; and

further recognises that, until such time that all mines are nationalised under the control of the state, more and more people will die.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you. Are there any objections to the motion?

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Chair, we support numbers 1 up to 4, but reject to number 5. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, I am not sure about that type of ...

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: The fifth one says, “further recognises that, until such time that all mines are nationalised under the control of the state, more and more people will die”.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, you don’t have to read it. If you object, you object; if you agree, you agree.

Mr M N PAULSEN: House Chair, House Chair! I ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, can I


Mr M N PAULSEN: House Chair, I’m having serious reservations about that member’s PhD.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, please don’t do that.

Mr M N PAULSEN: We must investigate.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Please, hon member, take your seat. Hon member, you either agree to the motion, or disagree. Thank you. The motion has been objected to by the ANC.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Chairperson, on a point of order: You are chairing the House. The hon member didn’t take the podium to object. She raised reservations on particular points and then your ruling is to ... she must stand up to say whether she is objecting or agreeing to it. You can’t make decisions on behalf of your party sitting there.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, they indicated. It’s not me.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: No. She must stand up.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): They indicated, okay?

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: She must stand up.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Very well. I agree with you.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): So what is the position on the motion?

Ms N C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Chairperson, like I’ve indicated, we support 1 to 4 ...


Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Is the EFF ready to withdraw number 5?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, are you agreeing to the motion, or do you disagree with it?

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Chairperson, in that case we will not agree.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much. The motion is not agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr M P SIBANDE Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

welcomes the announcement by African Bank that Mrs Basani Maluleke is the potential successor to the current chief executive officer, CEO, Mr Brian Riley, who will be stepping down at the end of March 2018;

understands that Ms Maluleke is set to become the first black woman banking CEO in the country;

remembers that she has been a board member of African Bank and its predecessor entity since July 2015, before the launch of the new African Bank in April 2016;

recognises that Ms Maluleke has a BCom LLB from UCT and an MBA from Kellogg School of Management at North Western University in the United States;

further recognises that she has over 10 years experience in financial services and has worked for Edward Nathan Friedland, Rand Merchant Bank, RMB, and First National Bank, FNB, the last of which where she was head of private clients;

recalls that prior to joining African Bank, Maluleke was an executive director at Transcend Capital, a corporate finance business, specialising in empowerment deals. [Time expired.]

Ms N NTLANGWINI: Yes, Chair, if the hon members would have read it faster, we would have support but we object it because ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, do you object to the motion?

Ms N NTLANGWINI: We object.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much, the motion is objected to; the motion will become a notice of a motion.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr R M CEBEKHULU: Madam Chair, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

extends its deepest condolences following the death of four children who were killed and one in critical condition in hospital after a panel from a highlight mast fell on them in Soshanguve‚North of Pretoria‚ on Saturday afternoon;

notes that according to the report the five children between six and 12-years-old were playing under the highlight when the panel housing the lights came crushing down on them;

further notes that three of the children were killed instantly, and one was certified dead on arrival at the Dr George Mukari Hospital in Ga- Rankuwa;

acknowledges that theft of electric wires is what possibly led to the unsteadiness of a highlight mast;

calls on the affected community to exercise restraint and allow the qualified organs of

state room to conduct investigations rather than resorting to violent acts; and

urges the members of the community to unite with the authorities to identify the individual who vandalised the municipalities’ infrastructure.

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Prof N M KHUBISA: Madam Chair, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

notes that the SA Police Services in KwaZulu- Natal have launched a crime preventative blitz, this past weekend, as part of its operation Safer Festive Season;

further notes that a three-day operation was conducted from 2 until 4 November, resulting in 807 suspects being arrested for crimes including: murder, rape, possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition, possession of drugs, armed robbery, theft of motor vehicles and other crimes, as well as 200 motorists who were arrested for drinking and driving;

further notes that according to recent statistics, 4014 people died in KwaZulu-Natal between April 2016 and March 2017, which is on average 11 people per day, and that overall, reported incidents of murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances and vehicle hijackings have increased in the province during this period of time;

further notes that the Acting Provincial Commissioner for KwaZulu-Natal, Major-General Bheki Langa, vowed that the police will continue with these crime prevention operations to make

sure that all those criminals who terrorise communities are caught and brought to justice;

commends the SA Police Services in KwaZulu-Natal for their proactive approach to crime prevention; and

encourages the people of KwaZulu-Natal to give the police their full cooperation in this campaign to reduce crime in the province.

Agreed to.

[Time expired.]


(Draft Resolution)

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

notes with sadness the death of the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s Head of Legal Services Sizwe Vilakazi who was shot dead on Saturday, 4 November 2017;

remembers that Vilakazi served the SABC in various capacities and was hired as a senior legal advisor in 2008 before he was appointed as head of legal services in 2016;

remembers that he was dedicated to his work and entrusted with a huge responsibility of heading the SABC’s legal division;

believes that his meaningful contribution to the SABC will remain and continue to inspire all who knew him personal and professional space; and

conveys its heartfelt condolences to his family and colleagues in the SABC.

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)


Mnu N L S KWANKWA: Mama yeyiphi le faction ihleli apha namhlanje ye-ANC, ingaba yekaSekela Momgameli uCyril okanye yeka Tata uZuma. Mhlawumbi nikwesasisleyiti besibizwa kumabonakude.


I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

notes that this past weekend, Ms Irvette van Zyl came first in the Soweto Marathon ... [Interjections.].


Hayi mama ndicela undikhusele.

... and was the first South African female to win the women’s 42 km race since 2009;

further notes that she completed the women’s race in two hours, forty-one minutes and six seconds minute 26 seconds faster than the previous year;

commends her perseverance, as she won the marathon after two failed attempts in the past few years due to injuries and falling during the races;

encourages Ms Van Zyl to participate in other races in order to inspire South Africa’s current generation to strive for perseverance no matter what the challenge; and

congratulates Ms Irvette van Zyl on this achievement, and wishes her well in future marathons.


Awundikhuseli mama kodwa bayamosha.


(Draft Resoltion)

Mr M J FIGG (DA): House Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

notes with shock that an elderly couple from Summerstrand, Port Elizabeth, believed to be in their seventies were savagely hacked to death sometime between Sunday evening, 5 November and Monday morning, 6 November 2017;

further notes that an axe was used to commit the murders;

understands that the bodies of Andre and Lydia Saaiman were discovered by a handyman who contacted the couple’s daughter;

further understands that the daughter, who had arrived with her husband, contacted the police;

(5         notes that the police kicked down the door and found the husband and wife tied up with open wounds to the head;

notes realise that an axe was found next to their bodies and that the house had also been ransacked;

acknowledges that all South Africans are truly angered by the scourge of murders committed around the country and are demanding that more be done to ensure their safety;

calls on the Minister of Police to leave no stone unturned to ensure that the cowardly

perpetrators of this ghastly crime are apprehended and sent to jail where they belong, enough is enough; and

conveys its heartfelt condolences to the Saaiman family.

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr N S MATIASE: House Chair, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

notes that tomorrow marks the 65th anniversary of the Mayibuye Uprising and massacre;

further notes that eight years before the Sharpeville Massacre, 13 black South Africans

were killed in cold blood by the racist police in Galeshewe, Kimberley;

acknowledges that these women and men were murdered while taking part in a national defiance campaign by South Africans to respond to increased repression by the apartheid regime;

further acknowledges that the massacre was one of many that black South Africans suffer during apartheid, and continues to suffer even now after apartheid;

understands that like Sharpeville massacre, Soweto and Marikana massacre, it showed the brutal nature of white monopoly capital, and the antiblack, antiworkers and antipoor South Africa successive regimes; and

resolves that their lives were not lost in vain as the struggle for economic emancipation in South Africa continues.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Thank you Chairperson, South Africa is not antiblack ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto) Hon member, we don’t want a debate, can you please agree.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: We object the motion on that base.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very we don’t want the discussions, thanks. Motion objected to and will be converted to a notice of a motion.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr M P SIBANDE: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice

That the House –

notes that Siphesihle Mthembu’s heroics has earned him a R70 000 per annum scholarship from Absa, following after he saved five children during the heavy storm that left a trail of destruction and 16 people dead;

recalls that the children he saved from drowning were under four years of age, with one as young as six-months-old;

further notes that the national retailer Pick n Pay also gave Mthembu a laptop for his heroism, while the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Co- operative Governance and Traditional Affairs revealed that they will offer Mr Mthembu an internship while he studies;

acknowledges that the scholarship from Absa will cover his tuition fees including accommodation and meals in a course of his choice;

commends the provincial government and the private sector for their co-operation in honouring Mr Siphesihle for his bravery; and

thanks and wishes Mr Siphesihle well in his future studies.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: House Chair, if the ANC thinks they can object, we object to that motion.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto) Hon member, who said you must speak?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much.


(Draft Resolution)

Rev R K J MESHOE: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

notes that two Grade 10 pupils, Marlizaan Saunderson and Marilet Knoesen from Hoerskool Duineveld in Upington, developed a heated prosthetic leg, which was on show at the Eskom Expo for Young Scientists;

further notes that the two pupils decided to develop the leg after learning that people with prosthetic legs often feel pain during the winter months due to the cold weather;

further notes that Saunderson said that through the Eskom Expo for Young Scientist, they learned that they can create things to help many people who are suffering across the world;

appreciates opportunities that the Expo gives to young scientists to see how other people are

thinking about problems in our country, and how they look for practical solutions to help solve the problems we are facing; and

(6)        congratulates Marlizaan Saunderson and Marilet Knoesen for their great innovation that will help bring relief to people with prosthetic legs during winter months.

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJEKE: House Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House –

welcomes the confidence of the World Rugby fraternity in recommending South Africa as the

preferred country to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup tournament;

notes that the announcement for the host candidate follows the assessment of a team of 10 World Rugby, the Rugby World Cup Limited relevant area managers and independent area experts working since 1 June 2017;

understands that South Africa is facing a stiff competition as it competes on this bid with countries like Ireland and France;

recognises that the success so far should be credited to the professionalism of the South African Rugby Union bid team and Government, which gave full support to the bid by providing guarantees;

understands that the announcement or the final decision on the host country of the 2023 Rugby World Cup will be on the 15 November 2017; and

congratulates the South African bidding team for their efforts to ensure our recommendation as the host country.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr M P SIBANDE: The ANC moves without notice:

That the House -

notes that the remains of Michael Lucas, 21 year old political prisoner who was executed by the apartheid government in 1988 was officially returned to his family in Oudtshoorn on
30 October 2017;

further notes that Lucas was hanged at Pretoria central prison on 25 March 1988 and was buried the same day in a pauper’s grave in the Mamelodi Cemetery in Pretoria.

Acknowledges that this initiative forms part as implementation of recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, TRC;

recalls that Lucas was a United Democratic Front activist for Oudtshoorn who was sentenced to death on 21 August 1988 in Cape Town Supreme Court for the murder of the bus inspector;

believes that the returning of his remains will enable the family to give Comrade Lucas a proper and dignified burial that he deserved

Also believes that the event will give closure to the fulfilment as the family will now know where their loved one is buried.

Calls upon the freedom loving South Africans to always remember that the freedom we are enjoying today comes through the selfless and supreme sacrifice comrade Lucas and others have made. [Time expired.]

Ms E NTLANGWINI: Chairperson, if you have not objected, our Mayibuye massacre motion we would not object this one so we object it. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Can I ask you members just to object or agree to the motion. I don’t want explanations because there is a process before these motions comes to the House. The process is these motions are looked at by different parties and they assist one another where to change or not to change. I don’t want to get into that debate. I think it is somewhere that it can be resolved. I am just requesting you to do what is correct in the House.

Mr N KWANKWA: Chairperson, I think it is important for these parties to take advantage of opportunity when it is provided so that you don’t come here and catch us by surprise.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I said I don’t want us to get into that debate ... [Interjections.]

Mr N KWANKWA: No! No! No, ma’am [Interjections.] Can I conclude my point?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): But I get what you mean. [Interjections.]

Mr N KWANKWA: Otherwise you know what’s going to happen? Is that we are going to revert back to what we used to do in the past when ... [Inaudible.] motions and all of them are rejected.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much. You can raise that in the Chief Whips forum and assist one another


Mnu N KWANKWA: Zenilibale kungxola!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, it is not correct that we do this in the House, it is not.


(Draft Resolution)

Mr D AMERICA: Chair, I hereby move on behalf of the DA:

That this House -

notes that one week ago, the City of Cape Town officially launched free MyCiti rides for unemployed residents;

further notes that this free service will support residents in Cape Town in their effort to find employment;

further notes that job seekers who are registered with the city’s unemployment database will receive a free Myconnect card, loaded with a special travel package;

acknowledges that the City of Cape Town continues to create an enabling environment for economic growth in the pursuit of a better life for its citizens;

further acknowledges excellent work done by the City of Cape Town in providing opportunities and ensuring that unemployment is reduced;

lastly, congratulates the City of Cape Town on their extraordinary innovative thinking. [Applause.]

Agreed to.


(Draft Resolution)

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: House Chair, the ANC moves without notice:

That the House -

notes with great shock the massacre of 26 worshippers and the wounding of 20 others at a church in South-East Texas on Sunday,
05 November 2017;

understands that a lone suspect, wearing black tactical gear and a ballistic vest and carrying an assault rifle, opened fire after entering the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs in Wilson County;

further understands that the age range of the victims is from five to 72 years old;

also understands that the gunman, Devin P Kelley ,who was also fired on by a local resident, fled in his vehicle and was later found dead in neighboring Guadalupe County;

condemns the tragedy especially one that took place in a church, where innocent people were worshipping;

believes that if strict gun control laws are made and enforced, these kind of crimes may diminish;

conveys its condolences to the families of the deceased and the American government at this time of need;

and wishes those injured a speedy recovery.

Not agreed to.


(Member’s Statement)

Dr P MAESELA (ANC): Universal access to quality healthcare can work as an equaliser between the rich and the poor. We strive to tackle the stark divide in health care between rich and poor. The recent commitment of the Steve Biko Academic Hospital in Pretoria reaffirmed government’s commitment to improve the country’s healthcare system to ensure that all citizens receive high-quality healthcare.

The hospital attends to more than 483 624 patients in its specialist clinics annually, and admits more than 40 441 patients annually as in-patients. The hospital claims medical achievements such as the successful separation of Siamese twins in 2006 and in 2012 and helping previously hearing impaired patients since 2009 to be able to hear by starting a Cochlear Implant service in the hospital.

The hospital, which is named after the late liberation struggle hero and a former medical student at the then University of Natal, Mr Steve Bantu Biko, is a tertiary healthcare institution, rendering highly specialised services to medically referred patients. [Time expired.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much. Let me remind everybody who is still giving a statement that you only have one minute 30 seconds to do your statement.


(Member’s Statement)

Mr J SELFE (DA): Today marks the centenary of the birth of Helen Suzman, founder member and for many years the sole Member of Parliament for the Progressive Party. Mrs Suzman was elected to the Old House of Assembly in 1953 and retired in 1989. Between 1961 and 1974 she served as the only Member of Parliament from the Progressive Party.

This was at the height of the system of apartheid and Mrs Suzman was alone in opposing the apartheid legislation during that period. She opposed the Group Areas Act and Influx Control, Detention without Trial and banning. She also opposed the independence of the home loans and the creation of separate Parliaments for different races.

Her work was not confined to Parliament. Her dictum was to, go and see for yourself. She visited Robben Island and went to Dimbaza just after it had been established as a so-called resettlement camp. She attended funerals of those shot in the uprisings of the 1970s and 80s. Helen Suzman had an unshakable belief in the dignity and worth of every individual which is why she believed that every person deserved equal rights. That is why she found apartheid so abhorrent and she strove throughout her

career to bring about a democratic South Africa based on the rule of law. We honour her achievement and her courage. Her legacy lives on. [Applause.]


(Member’s Statement)

Ms H O MKHALIPI (EFF): Sexual exploitation of young women is a problem that can never be overstated in our society. That is why it is so disturbing that Mayor Cllr Mahole Simon Mofokeng of Emfuleni Local Municipality distributed nude pictures of a 14 year old girl and that he had exchanged test with and was also grooming.

It is men with money and power who manipulate young women especially those with little access to resources into performing sexual favours for them. Ending the exploitation of women starts with the changing of the behaviour of men especially those who hold public offices and are meant to behave as examples.

Any abuse or exploitation of women particularly women who are not even of legal age should carry the strongest legal punishment available. Simon Mfokeng who is a mayor of the ANC should immediately be arrested. If students who protest for the right to education can be arrested; arresting a sexual predator should not even be a discussion.

If this government wants to be taken seriously about tackling sexual abuse, it must set an example by prosecuting and jailing government officials found guilty like this mayor who is a disgraced in the society, the mayor of the ANC, thank you.


(Member’s Statement)

Ms D P MANANA (ANC): ANC welcomes yet another convincing victory recorded by the South African Students Congress, Sasco, in the SRC elections at the University of the Western Cape recently. The results of these elections indicate in no uncertain terms the growing confidence of

students to the Progressive Youth Alliance, PYA, and its leadership. Indeed nothing can defeat the unity of the PYA.

This landslide victory at UWC is an indication that students believe and still trust SASCO to champion their interests uncompromisingly. It also proves that young people have full confidence in the mass democratic movement as led by the ANC. As the ANC we call upon Sasco to use this victory to reclaim hegemony in all institutions of higher learning in the Western Cape.

ANC would like to thank all members of Sasco and the leadership of the PYA who spent sleepless nights in ensuring that Sasco reclaims control of the institution. Lastly, ANC calls upon the PYA structures in those institutions where Sasco and ANC Youth League break the traditional alliance and contest each other, to resolve their problems and work together. [Interjections.] Their rivalry is politically and revolutionary incorrect. [Time expired.]


(Member’s Statement)

Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN (IFP): Winston’s Law, every year the setting off of fireworks in order to create explosions is sanctioned by government. It seems strange that various minority beliefs are respected while the rights of people who prefer peace and quiet are not. Even more important fireworks are causing the domestic animals to be fearful often resulting in the flight state of panic during which they become lost, hurt or even killed.

The laws of fireworks have improved in many municipalities but in many others they are so badly written that they offer loopholes for inconsiderate members of the public to exploit. There is no provision in our Constitution for the right of those who have more money than common sense to entertain themselves at the expensive of those of us who love animals.

Animals are also beautiful part of God’s creation. They are depended on our kindness and compassion for their wellbeing. Let us from here set an example for those who think self indulgence is more important than the

fundamental rights. I urge everyone in Parliament to please support the ban of fireworks. We will be doing it for the right reasons. I thank you.


(Member’s Statement)

Mr M L SHELEMBE (NFP): The NFP notes with disgust of the plans of a R32 million upgrades of the official residence of the premier of KwaZulu-Natal. We share in the outrage of the people of the province, the majority who are living in poverty and many without basic services such as running water, electricity or dignified sanitation.

In retrospect, we should not be surprised by this bruising abuse of state resources. The very same ANC that brought us the scandalous Nkandla upgrades is now ready to proceed with the next instalment of showing the poor people of KwaZulu-Natal exactly what they think of them.

As 2019 approaches the ANC will be out there cap in hand begging for votes trying to bribe for votes with t- shirts, food parcels and razzmatazz. People will remember Nkandla and now they will also remember Parkside. The NFP will be sure to remind voters when the time comes so that they are not fooled by an uncaring ANC.

The people will do maths. The homeless and those living in squalor in shacks will ask how many homes could have been built with the R32 million? Women who have to walk miles to fetch water will ask how many pipes and taps could have been supplied and fitted with R32 million?
Many people ask many questions about the R32 million and more. [Time expired.]


(Member’s Statement)

Mr N CAPA (ANC): The ANC welcomes the arrest of two suspects for running of an illegal abalone processing facility worth R5 million. The pair was arrested recently

following a joint intelligence driven operation by members of the Hawks’ Marine group, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Dog Unit.

The operation was also assisted by those in the community providing information on the criminal activity, which allowed the Hawks team to follow up on the information.

The Hawks pursuit led them to the location where an abalone processing facility was discovered, resulting in the arrest of the pair and the subsequent seizure of over
40 000 units of abalone, weighing about 2 233,5kg, which comprised of wet, dried and cooked units valued just over R5 million.

The ANC further commends the joint law enforcement agencies and the community’s resolution to work with the law enforcement agencies by reporting suspicious criminal activities. I thank you.


(Member’s Statement)

Rev K R J MESHOE (ACDP): Chairperson, historically, the first Jewish state existed under Joshua, the Judges, King David and subsequent kings from 1300 BCE until 722 BCE when the Assyrians exalted the 10 northern tribes of Israel.

The southern kingdom of Judea, with Jerusalem as its capital, lasted until 586 BCE when the Babylonians conquered and exiled the Jews. After 70 years in exile, the Jews returned to their native land only to be exiled again by the Romans in 70 CE.

During the Roman occupation, the Jews revolted against their oppressors. As punishment for their rebellion, the Roman Emperor, Hadrian decreed that the name Judea be changed to Palestine. Over time, the Jews were conquered and forced from their land by amongst others, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans and the British.

Jewish aspirations to re-establish a Jewish homeland, in what the Romans called Palestine was approved by the British government in 1917 and conveyed to Lord

Rothschild by Arthur James Balfour in what is popularly known as the Balfour Declaration.

On 24 July 1922, the League of Nations formerly adopted what was then referred to as the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, thus, allowing Jews to rebuild their Jewish homeland. It is therefore, liberation and not occupation. Thank you.


(Member’s Statement)

Ms T E KENYE (ANC): Chairperson, one of the most shameful chapters in the annals of British imperialism has been earmarked for celebration this year. Approximately
13 million Palestinians scattered throughout the world, mark 100 years since the Balfour Declaration.

The centenary of the Balfour Declaration is an occasion to remember the plight of the Palestinians. The declaration was issued on 2 November 1917, a year before the end of World War 1 and took its name from a letter

written by Arthur Balfour, the foreign secretary, expressing support for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people to Lord Rothschild.

The ANC understands that this century of colonialism has not only dehumanised Palestinians but it has robbed them of countless lives and thousands of hectares of land.

We are, indeed, unequivocal in our support for the Palestinian people in their struggle for self- determination and unapologetic in our view that the Palestinians are the victims and the oppressed in the conflict with Israel. The ANC leader, South African President, Nelson Mandela, famously said in 1997 that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians. I thank you.


(Member’s Statement)

Ms D KOHLER (DA): Chair, the DA has been reliably informed that R10 million has been taken from the SA

Police Service, SAPS, Crime Intelligence Slush Fund to ensure there are sufficient operatives to clear the way for presidential hopeful, the now hon Nkosazana Dlamini- Zuma as she criss-crosses the country campaigning.

Bearing in mind that this is an internal ANC political campaign towards which the taxpayer should be paying not one red cent, it was bizarre.       Firstly, that Mrs Zuma was given a presidential blue light brigade all her very own when she was a mere citizen, after she left the AU - as though she was in fact the de facto President; secondly, that she is today as an ordinary MP ... Not that anyone has actually ever seen her, being given this extra perk, unlike the other presidential candidates.

One has to wonder whether or not the R10 million covers the cost of the blue light brigade and the extra spooks to ensure a soft landing wherever she speaks or whether it is over and above the money spent on the blue lights.

The question then is: How much of taxpayer money, monthly in total is being spent illegally on funding the presidential campaign of the mother of the President’s

children especially in light of the fact that it’s a lot to spend on someone destined to sit in these opposition benches from 2019? [Applause.]


(Member’s Statement)

Mr L G MOKOENA (EFF): Chair, democracy is a constant tension between truth and half truth and in the arsenal of truth, there is no greater weapon than fact. Here are the facts. The President’s Keepers is a book which speaks the truth and provides facts on the way in which certain individuals, particularly the criminal Guptas have captured Duduzane’s father.

The book does not break any laws, instead, it has made available to the public, the details of how the President does not answer to the people of South Africa or even to his own party, the ANC. He answers to criminals.

But instead of going after Zuma for the crimes he has committed both criminal and financial, the State Security

Agency, SSA, and SA Revenue Service, Sars, go after the very man, who in a democracy would have helped them to do their jobs, threatening to withdraw his book, physical intimidating him and threatening him with legal action.

Whistle–blowers, like Mr Pauw must be defended if we want to call ourselves a democracy. We encourage all South Africans to read this book to show who your so-called President answers to. I thank you. [Applause.]


(Member’s Statement)

Ms H B KEKANA (ANC): House Chair, the ANC has committed itself to step up measures in the fight against corruption within the society, the state and the private sector. The ANC therefore, commends the Hawks for arresting a 35-year-old Polokwane municipality ward councillor for alleged corruption.

Once again, the arrest was made possible by the South African citizens who reported suspicious acts of

corruption to the law enforcement agencies, which the Hawks acted upon. The suspect, who was allegedly soliciting bribes from job seekers saw the Hawks set up a sting operation at the municipal offices and the suspect was then nabbed after receiving R2 000 bribe from an undercover member. The suspect is expected to appear in the Polokwane Magistrate’s Court soon.

The ANC once again wants to commend the South African citizens for their active participation in the reporting of acts of corruption to the law enforcement agencies and the trust that is increasingly developing. Working together, we can do more. Thank you.


(Member’s Statement)

Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang SA): Hon Chairperson, I want to take this opportunity to condemn Pastor Nala in KwaZulu- Natal who claimed to have a cure for lesbian and gay South Africans. This pastor is very sick in his head.
These fellow South Africans must be protected from these

emotional and psychological insults. No one chooses to be gay or lesbian, it is their natural being.

They are not sick, they are healthy. Pastor Nala must be committed to a mental institution. Our people must live their lives freely without being hounded by these charlatans and false prophets. Therefore Agang SA urges all South Africans to distance themselves from these ... [Inaudible.] churches that are raising false hopes and misleading our people, encouraging them to live lives of paranoia. Hon members, we want to tell all the LGBT community that we love them without conditions. They must live their lives without fear. They owe no one an apology. This is their country too and they are protected by our Constitution.


(Member’s Statement)

Ms N NDONGENI (ANC): Chairperson, the ANC welcomes the Middelburg Magistrate’s Court sentencing of Willem Oosthuizen and Theo Jackson who forced Victor Mlotshwa

into a coffin and threatened to pour petrol on him. Jackson and Oosthuizen were sentenced to 14 and 11 years in prison respectively. This serves as a deterrent to other perpetrators of these inhumane and racist acts against the rights of any individual.

The judgment is a clear demonstration that the South African law is devoted to ensuring that those who commit crime are brought to book. Government is initiating various programmes to promote unity, reconciliation, nation-building and cohesion. As South Africans, we must strive to build one national identity out of multiple identities based on colour, class, gender, age, language, geographic location, and religion. Government commends the law enforcement agencies and the collaboration of the community who ensured that this vicious crime was brought to the attention of the relevant structures. The ANC believes this sentencing reassures all South Africans that our criminal justice system works for all. I thank you. [Applause.]


(Member’s Statement)

Mr M S F DE FREITAS (DA): House Chair, Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Prasa, and the Minister of Transport Joe Maswanganyi are failing in their mandate to improve rail transportation for millions that use the rail services. The Minister has not appointed a new permanent board and has failed to produce its annual report as required by the Public Finance Management Amendment Act, PFMA. Prasa has gone ahead and approved a R57 billion loan agreement with the Bank of China to finance the Moloto Rail Development Corridor without a duly appointed board and chief executive officer, CEO, this may be unlawful. Instead the Minister has inexplicably appointed an interim board, of the four members, two have inexperience or knowledge on transport and one has the time to properly fulfil the functions as a board member. Additionally, the Minister of Transport wilfully misled Parliament in a reply to a parliamentary question when the Minister stated that he had met the previous Prasa board ... [Interjections.]

Mr B A RADEBE: Chair, on a point of order:

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): An order is called for. On what point are you ... [Interjections.]

Mr B A RADEBE: I am rising on Rule 85. the member is casting aspersions on the character of the Minister of Transport by saying he wilfully did what he said he had done, I cannot recall that.

The HOUSE CHARPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I have to know so that I am able to rule. What did he say? [Interjections.] Okay. Hon member, unfortunately the statement is long, we are going to follow that up because even the Table service did not hear you well. We are going to follow that up. Thank you.

Ms M S F DE FREITAS: ... [Interjections.]

Mr B A RADEBE: On a point of order, that is precisely what was I referring to; he said he wilfully misled Parliament

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Oh! Okay, thank you. Yes, when you say, deliberately misleading or

wilfully misleading, that is not parliamentary. Can you withdraw that?

Ms M S F DE FREITAS: I will withdraw.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you.

Ms M S F DE FREITAS: This contradicts statements made by the previous chairperson, Popo Molefe that the Minister refused to meet with the board. We have thus laid a complaint with the Public Protector. Minister Maswanganyi has shown no interest in cleaning the Prasa mess instead he has chosen to allow the lawlessness at the parastatal to continue without any hindrance. The Minister must start dealing with the Prasa problems and take decisive action to root out corruption and maladministration. I thank you.

HEADING – mayor Sedibeng/statement started

(Minister’s Response)


just want to say, the ANC-led government cannot tolerate any abuse of women. I want to concur with the hon member.

What the mayor of Sedibeng has done is unacceptable, and we want to see the law take its course in ensuring that people know abuse, whether you are a leader or ordinary person – is not right, especially when you are a member of the ANC, my highly principled organisation. Si must the face the consequences of the law. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]


(Minister’s Response)

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson, I think the hon De Freitas is wrong. He has taken me to the Public Protector. I am going to the Public Protector to have a meeting with her on Thursday on the matter he raised. I don’t know why he decided to take the matter to the Public Protector, as we have the Ethics Committee here in Parliament. [Interjections.]

What he is raising is very wrong. The people who have been concurred to by Cabinet and appointed are men and women of integrity, professionals in their own right. [Interjections.] You continue to rely on people who have left the board. Their term of office has come to an end. Cabinet has appointed a new board that is busy filling the vacancies in its executive. This executive will make sure all train services in South Africa are reliable and effective.

We are not hiding any corruption. [Interjections.] All cases before the courts are being dealt with, and the due process of the law is taking its own course. So, I don’t know what he is talking about. He is talking hogwash.
There is no corruption.

Ms A STEYN: Chairperson, on a point of order: The Minister cannot say “he”. He must indicate the hon member he refers to. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): What is she saying? Hon member ...

Ms A STEYN: Chairperson, I don’t think it is parliamentary to just say “I don’t know what he is talking about”. You can say you don’t know what the hon member is talking about. He can’t just say he doesn’t know what he is talking about. [Interjections.] That is not parliamentary.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you.




Dr P MAESELA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates South Africans working together to ensure mental health rights become human rights and enjoy full protection.

Mr M BAGRAIM: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the negative effects the massive debts owed by municipalities to Eskom have on small businesses’ rights to trade.

Dr S S THEMBEKWAYO: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That      the        House   debates the        relationship        between            the South African state and the apartheid state of Israel.

Ms D P MANANA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates accelerating and strengthening government mechanisms to encourage state institutions and the private sector to procure local products to grow the domestic manufacturing sector and to create decent jobs.

Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates that without exploration for new ore bodies, South Africa mining will end its invaluable contribution to the South African economy.

Prof N M KHUBISA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the need for banks and other financial institutions to assist emerging farmers to get funding or equity to assist them to buy property and land and be in a position to further their agribusiness and entrepreneurial endeavours.

Ms H B KEKANA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates efforts to ensure relevant and accessible skills development programmes for people with disabilities, coupled with equal opportunities for their productive and gainful employment.

Mr N L S KWANKWA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the possibility of banning the use of the old South African flag in public places, and spaces, in order to build a sense of common identity and a united, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa.

Ms S P KOPANE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the high vacancy rate within the Department of Health, the negative impact on our health care system and ways to resolve this matter.

Ms N P SONTI: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the growing debt to be serviced by the South African state and its entities.

Mr M H MATLALA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the revival of active citizen participation in crime fighting around the country to partner with government and law enforcement agencies to combat crime and create safer communities.

Ms T E KENYE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the strengthening of gender- based violence initiatives and the various recourse mechanisms that exist to help victims of violence.

Ms N NDONGENI: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates devising ways to boost economic growth through the implementation of our Nine-Point Plan in areas including manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, mining, and telecommunications.

Mr M S F DE FREITAS: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:

That the House debates the continued and current shambolic state of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Prasa, the attempt by the Minister to stop the corruption investigation into Prasa, and the fact that its annual report has still not been tabled, and what needs to be done to get Prasa back on track.

The House adjourned at 20:10.