Hansard: NA: Unrevised hansard
House: National Assembly
Date of Meeting: 01 Dec 2016
Summary
No summary available.
Minutes
UNREVISED HANSARD
THURSDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2016
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
The House met at 14:02.
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM ON LAND RELATED MATTERS
The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Hon
Deputy Speaker, I must start by apologising. This morning I was advised that I should have been more specific. I apologise without reservations to the hon members of the House. Through you hon Deputy Speaker, I really do. I just thought that it is important for us to debate this because the matter of land is a very, very emotive issue. It is so much to the fact that I want to talk about what we have done, etc, because we have done something and
something we didn‘t do successfully. We acknowledge that upfront. I thought that we should debate this because our Constitution is very clear about how we proceed with this very emotive issue. If you look at the preamble of our Constitution it is very clear as it speaks to South Africans as a whole irrespective of race, irrespective of their areas or places of origin, whether you are talking about a district, region or a locality in terms of the nation‘s status of South Africa, or you are talking about the historical origins of people, our Constitution is very clear on that.
Our Constitution talks about we, the people of South Africa, recognise the injustices of our past. We know our past is not the one that we could be proud of and we acknowledge that. However, we are going through a very difficult time. It is a difficult time because right now in our country last week and the last few weeks we have seen situations which we could not be proud of as a country and as a nation. But that is not a reason for us to rather go into a reverse gear in terms of the progress that we are making in terms of building cordial racial relationships in our country. Tension will always be a there because our past is very bad. It is very bad not just in terms of racial relations in the nominal sense of the word, but in reality in so far as it relates to the
ownership of South Africa - the land in South Africa. It is not skewed. The ownership of land in South Africa is not skewed. The greater part of the land of our country still belongs to the minority of South Africans - South Africans who are white by accident of history. And they should accept that land ownership in South Africa and the control of land in South Africa remains largely in the hands of white people.
However, government has gone a long way towards addressing this question. If you look at section 1 of the Constitution it states that:
The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values:
(a) Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.
(b) Nonracialism and nonsexism.
(c) Supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.
(d) Universal adult suffrage, a national common voters‘ roll, regular elections and a multiparty
system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
This is a question. I don‘t know if Parliament has any provision in this regard. And Parliament should, I think. Because we talk about the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, and we say universal adult suffrage, a national common voters‘ roll, regular elections and a multiparty system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness, there are questions that we have to face particularly with regard to the events of the last couple of weeks.
Let‘s take the response of the leader of the EFF in this regard that says South Africans should occupy all open land wherever they see it or find it. That is a big statement. The question is in so far as the constitutional provisions. We are sitting here and these are political parties that have sworn to the Constitution
- all of us sitting here. Political parties represented in this Parliament ought to be guarded in terms of what they say in public because lest they break the law knowingly. Sometimes you break the law but without knowing that you are breaking the law and somebody calls you to account and to draw your attention to the fact.
When that happens at least you say I didn‘t know. But when you do so knowingly, what provisions does Parliament have to sensor Members of Parliament who do that deliberately and knowingly? For me this is a question that Parliament ought to address so that hon members remain hon members. They are hon because they have to adhered to the provisions of the Constitution and the law of the country and not knowingly break the law and the provisions of the Constitutions of our country.
For me this is a question. I thought that we need to address this matter so that Parliament can self-correct. Parliament should self-correct in this regard. It is not just the ANC matter, it is not. When we came here to Parliament we all stood here in a row and it was not the ANC, DA, EFF, UDM, etc, but it was all those who aspired to be Members of Parliament of the South African Republic. We all stood here and we swore our allegiance to the Constitution of the country. All of us, it is not a question of whether you are an ANC or DA, but all of us. This is the Constitution of the Republic.
Therefore, if anyone of us as members of this House is exactly what you have been doing with regard to the ANC and the President of the Republic of South Africa. The hon members of the opposition were very correct to point out and say this is what the Constitutional Court
judgment said about Parliament and about the President of the Republic of South Africa in so far as honouring the provisions of the Constitution - actually, protecting and defending the Constitution. This is exactly the same principle I am rising on, hon Deputy Speaker. It is the same principle. Even we ourselves as Members of Parliament are not absolved from this responsibility towards the Constitution and the law of our country. In my view, Parliament in this regard ought to self-correct.
Let me move to some of the positive things. We have the National Development Plan. The National Development Plan introduces in its overview the following quotation from the Reconstruction and Development Programme of 1994, and it says:
No political democracy can survive and flourish if the mass of our people remain in poverty without land.
Which is critical and this is a point I think, except that the hon members of the EFF become emotional about this question and go overboard. But this is a key issue. This is a point which they are making and is very important and is contained in the National Development Plan overview. It says, without land, without tangible prospect for a better life. This is what the hon members
are saying, and they are correct. The question is not whether or not they are correct because they are correct. The question is how they want this question to be addressed in the context of the constitutional state that we are in South Africa. So we say we really take off our hats to the hon members, but at the same time we say, hon members, remain honourable despite the frustrations that you are going through, remain hon members. It is here and you are correct.
Attacking poverty and deprivation must therefore be the first priority of a democratic government. Holding the government to account by the opposition is quite correct because this is what the ANC has put before the nation and it was adopted by the nation - Reconstruction and Development Programme. So this is it. Again, the National Development Plan has been adopted by the nation through the National Planning Commission and this Parliament.
Then it says therefore, it means therefore that together we must take collective responsibility to ensure that we all abide by the provisions of the Constitution and the framework within which we agreed to operate the National Development Plan.
The National Development Plan, NDP, has set the eradication of poverty, unemployment and inequality as
the determining criteria to assess all models for sustainability in any sector of the economy. For sustainable models of agriculture and rural development, the NDP has set an integrated and an inclusive rural economy as the end goal for 2030 with immediate and medium-term objectives. The National Planning Commission proposed a differentiated rural development strategy that focuses on the following, agricultural development, based on successful land reform and employment creation.
Successful land reform! This is a challenge again. Successful land reform maybe quantitatively regarded as simply transferring land from one group to the other.
That‘s quantitative. That‘s why it is going to be done. However, it does not end there. There are qualitative aspects of land reform. When land is transferred from one group to the other there should be no collapse in the economy in so far as the contribution of agriculture to the gross domestic product, GDP, in South Africa. This is where actually the crux of the mater is.
A lot of land has been transferred to people and we are trying to the best of our ability to ensure that this land remains productive. However, take for example, restitution. In restitution land is gazetted. Some of the land that is outstanding still was gazetted 15 years ago. But because there are embedded claims to learn sometimes
and all of that, things are slow. Research is very, very slow and we admit to that. Therefore, that means that by the time the land is transferred, it has stopped production long time ago. We have to start afresh, etc.
We have introduced institutions like the communal property associations, CPAs, trusts, etc. Not many of our communities are ready to understand and implement them in a manner that will ensure that the land remains productive after take over. Recently, there is a case now that is happening at MalaMala Game Reserve. It is a big problem. It is a simple thing. Land has been given, a company has been created, and they now own MalaMala Game Reserve as a community plus these people, the Rattray family who are actually going out over the next couple of years leaving those people to run that company. Obvious, we don‘t want it to die. We have created that joint company. That joint company is working, but outside there those communities draw R400 000 every month as a rental for the land that they own that is running that company. Every month it creates war that is going on there. Now those who are running the communal property association and the business, the MalaMala from their side, and those who are managing the resources that are coming with that success, are fighting. That is a problem and it is a
problem that is happening everywhere. Very few areas and, that is what I think and I am emphasising this point.
I would like to see parliamentarians getting their hands dirty there to assist people to understand how to utilise these institutions. It cannot be that we as representatives of our people can keep our hands clean and say there you are. These are our people. Let‘s help them. We are appealing across the party-political lines. Let‘s help them. It is good to draw our attentions to the weaknesses, but it‘s quite another thing to go out there and dirty your hands and help our people so that what ever land they get is successfully used for production so that it can transform the quality of their lives. That is what the National Development Plan says and all of us are part of it and we are happy with that.
I am here and appeal to the hon members not to use this challenge which the nation is facing today to ignite anger and emotions out there. Let us all work together as our Constitution says that we owe our allegiance to work together as a nation to ensure that we assist our people when they get land because they do have land. There is corruption out there.
The other things I would like to hear is members of this House saying to me this is where we have been. This has been happening. I must say that the hon members of the DA have done this quite a number of times and say here it is, we have attended. You know that just over three weeks ago in KwaZulu-Natal 26 have been brought back to the state, one in the Free State, one in the Eastern Cape and one in the Western Cape. We got the hon members say this is the problem. Hon members on the right as well, the leadership of the ANC in the caucus have done the same thing and thank you very much.
Thank you very much for raising the matter, hon members of the EFF. Sharply as you did, but thank you very much. But let us get together to work in terms of the Constitution of the country so that we don‘t heat up the emotions out there. Thank you very much, hon members. [Applause.]
Mr T C R WALTERS: Deputy Speaker, we welcome the remarks of the Minister about the rule of law and that it should apply to everyone in South Africa equally. That is one of the reasons we had a couple of debates regarding the President and the rule of law in this House and I believe that your comments certainly call for consistency and we welcome that. But while we note the remarks of the hon
Minister we look forward to his department, also focusing on the real work of land reform in turning words into actions.
As virtually everyone in this House agrees, concentration of ownership in the hands of a few, rather than many owning a stake in the assets of our economy, leads to an unfair limitation of opportunities for advancement of especially the poor in South Africa but also elsewhere in the world. It limits the opportunity for the poor to find a meaningful and proud role in the economy. It entrenches the mind-set of despair and it closes an opportunity to access jobs, education and a better future. It causes anger and resentment, leading to illegal behaviour. It creates the politics of class and race and gets expressed in extreme ways – in our context, through illegal land invasions and violence – and it destroys hope.
This department plays a fundamental role in providing a vehicle to change this very dynamic and treat what is a historical problem as an opportunity for the future of all South Africans.
Surely, all of us in South Africa will flourish and prosper together if all South Africans have a foothold in our economy that allows all our talents, ideas and energy
to translate into prosperity and security for all. The DA has, however, over the years, learnt to take statements emanating from this department and the ANC-led government in general with more than a spoonful of salt.
We have heard about the National Development Plan, NDP, and the Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP. The fact is that these are empty gestures unless the real work gets done.
Since 1994, this government has spent more than
R80 billion in pursuit of the target of transferring 30% of commercial land to black ownership. This should be seen against an estimated value of commercial agricultural land of R1,92 billion. More broadly, billions and billions were lost each year by the ANC government through wasteful expenditure, fiscal dumping without meeting targets and, of course, the ANC‘s perennial bed partner, corruption. All that money could have been spent on land reform.
Just recent examples include the continuous bailout of South African Airways, SAA, infrastructure budget over- runs like Medupi and, in broad terms – just a drop in the ocean, really – the symbol of corruption in South Africa, Nkandla. Some, of course, call Nkandla the only
successful act of land reform under the ANC — a cynical joke showing the contrast between ANC propaganda and that which it really values – the few connected people.
Money itself, therefore, was never the problem. The will to actually succeed and the determination to deliver were the missing ingredients. Given the fact that up to 6% of commercial land ends up on the land market every year, it is clear that if the available finances were used effectively, we would have had a transformed and growing agricultural sector delivering jobs in both this sector as well as the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy.
In fact, if this outgoing government was serious about jobs, it would have recognised that agriculture and, by extension, land reform is one of the sectors with the highest ratios of job creation in relation to economic growth — a key tenet of a developmental economy. Rather than using the opportunity land reform represents to create a fair society, the ANC government has the following track record in delivering land reform.
Firstly, despite the financial resources available, only around 7% of commercial land was acquired. The government blames the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle, but
the truth is that the acquisition is so mismanaged that it often takes years to process sales. If this department were an estate agent it would have been out of business and reported for unethical practices long ago. Comrades‘ and cronies‘ properties are still in business. No wonder sellers drive up prices to cover their running costs while they wait forever for the ANC. It is more a case of waiting-seller, waiting-buyer and a sleeping ANC. [Interjections.]
Secondly, a massive failure rate of creating successful farming ventures exists. In 2011, this government had a 90% failure rate in its land reform ventures. This is the government‘s own figures; not the DA‘s figures. It improved in this regard to what the ANC is actually proud of: a 73% failure rate when recapitalisation funding was used to support the failing projects. Of course, the government was not inherently dealing with the problem, but simply throwing money at what have essentially become state-supported farms.
Thirdly, the ANC did nothing to ensure title deeds, or at least secure proper long-term tenure for occupants of state or communal land. There was a march recently.
People who live on communal land and who belong to communal property association, CPAs, want title deeds.
The DA wants them to have title deeds. Not having a title deed prevents the rural poor from accessing opportunities in the market place and stops these desperately poor, forgotten areas from prospering and attracting investment.
The ANC-led government thus demonstrates that it prefers to keep the poor from owning property, steals poor people‘s futures and, in an act of hypocrisy, sustains colonial and apartheid practices of the past by keeping the poor dependent on government and using poverty and state largesse as mechanisms to maintain a voting bloc for itself. It continues to do this. It continues with the practices of the past.
The DA has seen grand gestures and posturing before. We have heard other grand policy announcements and gestures from the Minister and his department. The problem with the ANC policies is that they are really aimed at fooling voters.
But, we have seen that voters are not being fooled anymore.
Our committee has to date only seen the Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill of all the grand
statements and gestures of this department since 2014. We are pretty sure a rush of more ill-conceived legislation will hit the committee towards the 2019 election, coming from an ANC desperate to conceal its consistent failure.
A prime example of this is the Constitutional Court ruling on the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act, when it clearly caught the ANC trying to pull a dirty in 2014 by trying to rush through legislation in order to distract voters from the truth.
These are the facts.
If we want land reform to work we must look at best practice. The DA in the Western Cape has demonstrated an up to 80% success rate with its land reform projects. [Interjections.] It spends more on services to the poor than any other province. The DA believes that land reform is a serious priority and the fact that it is not being dealt with is causing all these problems and we do not have the time for more empty gestures.
We challenge ... and this is a genuine offer to the Minister. We offer our support to land reform in the Western Cape. We take it seriously. We want to lead by
example and we challenge the government to follow suit. [Applause.]
Ms H O HLOPHE: Deputy Speaker, Minister, unfortunately we are not going to be bound by the reactionary component of the Constitution. This is our land and as we are honouring Commandant Fidel Castro, the President of Cuba, we are still saying to him, we are still going to continue with the spear of fighting for black people in this country as the EFF Cardinal Pillar 1 says we must expropriate land without compensation. And then, let me just remind you that when the ANC first came into power in 1994, they promised to distribute 30% of the land back to black people by 1999 through a market-led land reform programme.
By 1999, the achievement of their land reform programme was so negligible that Ms Thoko Didiza, our House Chair here, when she came in as the Minister of Land Affairs, even put a moratorium on their land redistribution programme until they figured out what to do because there was no clear direction as the ANC when you took over power. The 30% target was shifted so many times that no one today speaks of it, and only 9% of the land has been transferred back to black people, after 22 years years of democracy. What we need to ask ourselves right now is
this, primarily, why do we need land reform in South Africa? Is it only a matter of equity in landholding? Is it only a matter of restructuring our agrarian economy to make our agriculture vibrant or dynamic? Or, is it a matter of justice for past wrongs?
If, as we argue as the EFF, the land question in South Africa is primarily a matter of justice and all these other factors, important as they may be, are only secondary. Then we need to ask ourselves: Why has the liberation movement not moved to redress historical injustices? The land reform programme since 1994 has been fraught with difficulties since its inception. The pace of land reform has been frustratingly slow and this is attributable to the government‘s ?willing buyer, willing seller principle?, which has been criticized heavily by many, including the ANC itself.
At the centre of the present crisis with the land question in South Africa is the property clause in the Constitution, which protects private property rights, even against the constitutional commitment to land reform. We can not therefore seek to redress past injustices by asking victims of dispossession to pay for land that was illegally acquired in the first instance. We argue that the constitutional provision to compensate
for expropriation is inimical to the country‘s commitment to land reform and historical redress. The land question is directly linked to the national question, which is about overcoming the colonial tribal divisions, apartheid artificial identities and to end this white supremacy.
The resolution of the national question is basically about creating a new society based on values of equality and democracy for all. The first and fundamental process towards decolonising South African land ownership is the return of land through the principle of land expropriation without compensation.
HON MEMBER: Yebo! [Yes!]
Ms H O HLOPHE: The land belongs to the people as a whole and must be returned to the people as such. This principle goes beyond the limitations of the willing buyer willing seller and also resolves the colonial idiom over land ownership and control once and for all. Any resolution of the land question that does not conform to this logic is bound to prolong colonial ... [Time expired.] Okay, it is for this reason that as the EFF, we call all South Africans to go and occupy any land that they see. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M HLENGWA: Hon Deputy Speaker, Minister,
Siyakuxolela njengoba ubucela uxolo. Hayi, siyakuxolela Ngqongqoshe, ayikho inkinga. [We forgive you because you asked for forgiveness. We forgive you, Minister; there is no problem.]
I want to say; to restore the land is to restore the dignity of our people and therefore these calls for the occupation of land is a play on the emotions and the desperation of our people. What should be worrying us is that people are actually responding and that should tell us that the problem is actually quite big. People actually want the land. They need the land but most importantly they deserve the land to be given back to them by a democratically elected government. Land ownership is one of the most contentious issues in South Africa because it pits black claimants against white farmers, landowners against tenants, successful claimants and traditional institutions against government and homeless people against municipalities.
It is a whole ripple effect of things but the issue is to condemn on one hand is good but let us go to the root cause. A legitimate expectation was set into motion in 1994. We were given the rights to vote and therefore what
followed was that people must be given what is due to them, what is due to them is the land. So, to postpone on this question, to postpone on this important national duty is a dereliction of duty on the part of government. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of those that have been entrusted with this responsibility.
Surely there can be no meaningful development in the absence of land ownership and whilst there is a heavy focus on private land to be redistributed begs the question, what is happening to the state-owned land? Why is that land, at the very least, not the basis upon which the land is being redistributed. The IFP is also concerned at the fact that a lot of money is being pumped into land redistribution but people are not taking the land. They take the money but are not taking the land.
So, on its own, this is now becoming a moneymaking scheme.
This is not about the money but about the dignity of our people who for many years, centuries on end, were oppressed and to now make that an issue for sale, on its own, is a problem. So, let us actually answer these critical questions whether the model we are applying is responding to the needs of our people. But, we must guards against being reckless and irresponsible because
this could potentially lead to violence, social unrest and a loss of life and we cannot possibly afford to go back to that. So what does this mean? Let us go back to the basics and do the things that are expected of us. Let us expropriate the land and where compensation is due, let us do that but we cannot postpone on this question any longer.
It has been 22 years; the desperation of our people speaks volumes about what needs to happen. A failure to do so is an indictment on the liberation movement, to fail to deliver on the core question of the liberty of our people and that is the land which they need. I thank you hon Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr M A SHAIK EMAM: Deputy Speaker, hon Members of this House, allow me to acknowledge on behalf of the NFP that much has been done in respect of land redistribution.
However, hon Minister, the question that must be asked is not what has been done but rather how much must be done in order to address the serious challenges our people face, 22 years into democracy.
Hon Minister, what is very clear is that the majority of the land and wealth is still in the hands of a privilege few. This privileged few oppressed the poorest of the
poor for hundreds of years, forcefully removed them, stole the land, and yet 22 years later this privileged few continue to enjoy the fruits of their oppression.
Let me cite just one example. The amaNdebele aMoletlane Tribe of Hammanskraal and surrounding areas, it is 100 years ago today that they purchased some of this land lawfully from the white colonialist and yet today ownership still eludes them, hon Minister. The mouton report 38 of 1995 and the spatial dynamics research and recommendation in 2013 both recommended the transfer of the seven trusts held tribal farm but to date this had not been done. Ownership of these trust health fund ought to have been transferred immediately on acceptance of the report but government neglects the youth and or deliberately either refuses or delays the implementation thereof.
The trustees wrongfully and unlawfully divided rezoned and alienated portions of previously purchased land. Over two million people are affected by this as repeated attempts to address this with several departments including Ministers and the President, but these people continue to be deprived of the lawful possession right of what is rightfully theirs.
We can talk about what we did here and there the question is what is different about this people. These are our South African brothers and sisters that also suffered under the oppression of apartheid having their rights violated, having their land stolen, dehumanised and one would expect that the new democratic dispensation will correct the abuse and suffering that our people endured for centuries under this colonial and imperialist apartheid regime.
Now, hon Minister, the question is when and only when will government take our people seriously and return to them what is lawfully theirs? The time to talk was ended
10 years ago and it was time for action. So, we urge you to address this matter with extreme urgency and compassion and return to the people, especially the amaNdebele aMoletlane Tribe without any further delay. Should this not be done, hon Minister, it appears that a legal measure is pending, should this happen it means hundreds of millions of rands will have to be spend.
The NFP urges the department to address the needs of these people and ensure that land that has been taken is redistributed without any further delay. I thank you.
Mr M L W FILTANE: Deputy Speaker to the hon Minister, we want what is rightfully ours. Can you hear that? If you can, what is your response? Well I do understand that you are operating in a very difficult environment in the sense that the ANC-led government has got no collective political will to get our land back. That is the environment. So, I pity you. I will never take your boots even if I were to be offered one because of the environment in which you are operating. You need to speak to your colleagues and collectively make sure that we get our land back. That is the loud cry out there.
Landownership still being a problem, there is section 25(5) of the Constitution that is the route to go. We will support you all the way if you go that route.
Currently there is hardly tenure security for the majority of people in South Africa. Even the extra Bill that is on the table now is not going to go anywhere near ownership of the land. Yes, they can be there.
Do you mean that, Minister, under your stewardship we must tolerate the situation where three million people who work on the farms are permanent lessees of the land with not even written lease agreement? That is definitely not secure, Minister; something drastic needs to be done, and now.
Economic development for this people is seriously hampered, they cannot move and so are many who are not even on farms under your stewardship. Perpetual poverty is increasing by the second; today over five million people who are landless can hardly put a slice of bread on the table under your stewardship, yet there is land. Limited space for livelihood is the order of the day.
People have got very little land on which to grow food for their families.
Under your stewardship, hon Minister, land management is still a problem. We do understand as the committee that those consumer price indexes, CPIs, continue to be problematic and we take our hats off to you when you uplift that on this kind of platform. But we are saying you should make sure that the civil service you have correct this. But unfortunately so many of them are so corrupt, you know that.
The UDM‘s suggested solution to the problem is simple, government of the day must take the necessary steps to make sure that much land is returned to the people as soon as possible. It is as simple as all that. When that has been done people will then decide what to do.
But again going back to the issue of poor land management; if already 11 000 hectors have been sold back
- to whom? I cannot guess – by the Communal Property Associations, CPAs, themselves, that means the sense of ownership has not been inculcated in the people‘s minds. That may not necessarily be your fault, but it is every politician‘s call to do that. I would readily admit as member of the UDM. But this is the route that the ruling party – the majority party - should be taking to make sure that we get a fair share of what is God-given to us. We thank you for the opportunity.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Adjunkspeaker, ek is moeg daarvoor om elke keer hier in die Parlement te moet hoor dat die grond gesteel is. U moet asseblief nou begin wakker word en besef dat Suid-Afrika ‘n grondwetlike demokrasie is.
Niemand het grond gesteel nie. Die wettige grondeienaars in Suid-Afrika het betaal daarvoor. Hulle het gewerk daarvoor. [Tussenwerpsels.] U moet asseblief wegkom van hierdie mite om te dink as jy grond het, is jy ryk. As jy grond het, dan moet jy werk as jy wil ryk word. Ek is nie so seker of almal wat so graag grond wil hê so graag sal wil hard werk op daardie grond nie.
Dan wil ek vir die agb Minister sê: Minister, ek is verbaas dat u met hierdie voorstel kom vandag, want u begin kyk of u nou die EFF kan uitmaneuver in terme van retoriek. U is reg as u sê dat u nie kan verstaan dat ‘n Parlement kan toelaat dat van sy lede eintlik haatspraak bedryf en daar gebeur niks met hulle nie. Laat ek vir die agb Minister inlig: Ek is in die proses om ‘n klag teen mnr Malema te lê by die etiekkomitee, want jy kan nie hoogheilig hier kom staan en sê jy onderneem om die wette van die land te onderhou, maar dan moedig jy mense aan om grond te gaan gryp en net eenvoudig te gaan beset nie.
Ek wil vandag vir u sê die EFF moet ook verstaan dat jy nie kan loop en vuurhoutjies ... (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Deputy Speaker, I am tired of having to hear constantly in Parliament that the land was stolen. You should please wake up and realise that South Africa is a constitutional democracy.
Nobody has stolen land. The legitimate land owners in South Africa have paid for it. They worked for it. [Interjections.] You should please get away from this myth of thinking that if you have land, you are wealthy. If you have land, then you need to work if you want to
become rich. I am not sure whether everyone who so badly wants land would really like to work so hard on that land.
Then I would like to tell the hon Minister: Minister, I am amazed that you come here with this proposal today, because you are trying to see whether you can outmanoeuvre the EFF as far as rhetoric is concerned. You are right to say that you cannot understand that a Parliament can permit some of its members actually execute hate speech and that nothing happens to them. Let me inform the hon Minister: I am in the process of laying a charge with the ethics committee against Mr Malema, because you cannot come here on your high horse and say that you undertake to endorse the laws of the land, but then encourage people to grab the land an simply occupy it.
Today I want to say to you the EFF also needs to understand that you cannot walk around with matches ...]
Mr N S MATIASE: Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: The hon member speaks as if he can show us the proof or the receipt for the land bought.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, that is not a point of order. It is a political observation.
Mr N S MATIASE: Can he present proof or evidence for the land that he claims is his?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please take your seat! That is not a point of order. Hon member, that is not a point of order. [Interjections.]
Mr N S MATIASE: For failure to present such proof ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I am switching off your microphone now. Take your seat. Go ahead, hon member.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: I would say to the hon member if he would like to see the receipt, he should just go to the Deeds Office for the title deed. He would get everything there. If you don‘t know where it is, I can show you where it is. [Interjections.] Don‘t ask stupid questions.
Wat ek vir u wil sê, agb Adjunkspeaker, is die volgende. Die grondkwessie is besig om ‘n rassistiese kwessie in Suid-Afrika te word. Die EFF moet verstaan ... [What I want to say to you, hon Deputy Speaker is the following:
The land issue is becoming a racist issue in South Africa. The EFF needs to understand ...]
Mr T RAWULA: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: This person is saying the question is stupid. Who the hell is he to say a question is stupid? We have a right to an answer to a question. He cannot refer to our question as being a stupid question. Order!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Groenewald, please proceed.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Deputy Speaker, it is my constitutional right to determine whether it is an intelligent question or a stupid question.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Are you saying it is permissible in terms of the Rules of this Parliament for this guy to say ...
Hon MEMBERS: This guy?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: ... to a member it is a stupid question. Should we also use that language when we take the platform? Is that permissible? You have not ruled on it. If you are ruling on it, you must instruct him to withdraw. There is nothing wrong with those who
rightfully own the land asking him about the land, but he must not refer to it as stupid. You can‘t steal people‘s land and then turn around and say they are asking stupid questions. What kind of sense is that? Please give a ruling so that we know, as well, when we take to the podium there that people are speaking stupid things. If that is the language you want us to use, allow us to do so.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, don‘t refer to members as
?this guy?. [Interjections.] That is unparliamentary. That is wrong, so you must correct it. I am going to rule on these matters, and you shouldn‘t take advantage of that. Correct your ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Dis meneer. [It is sir.]
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Deputy Speaker, may I continue?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. [Interjections.] Hon Groenewald, please proceed.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Deputy Speaker, it is common sense that it is a stupid question.
Mr M L W FILTANE: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker ...
Dr P J GROENEWALD: It is as simple as that, and I will not withdraw.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order ...
Mr M L W FILTANE: Point of order, Deputy Speaker ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But we have raised a point of order! Give a ruling. What is your ruling on him saying it is a stupid question? [Interjections.] If you agree with him, say so. If you want to take a decision later, say so.
Don‘t stop and not do anything. It is not allowed in terms of that seat you are occupying there.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, take your seat. Yes, hon Filtane?
Mr M L W FILTANE: Deputy Speaker, there is an instrument called ?transferred epithet?. That is what the speaker is using when he says it is a stupid question. In terms of that instrument, when you say ?stupid question?, you are transferring the meaning to the person you are referring to. It is an English instrument. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Please take your seat for a moment. Yes, hon Minister? What the hell is this?
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Deputy
Speaker, sometimes I think you too are not helping the situation. [Interjections.] Firstly, I think you should have said to the hon Groenewald that he should withdraw the statement. I think he should ... [Interjections.] Just hold on. Just hold on. Thula. [Be quiet.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister, please address the Chair.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Anyway,
Deputy Speaker, the point is that sometimes when we use some of these terms – right – they tend to bring certain connotations with it. My view is that precisely because we are dealing with a very sensitive issue – very sensitive, as we are talking about the land issue – I think that you should try as much as possible to guide the conversation in a guided manner so that you avoid a situation where the hon member then makes that kind of statement. I am just saying, and please, Deputy Speaker, I know it is not a point of order, but I think for the decorum of the House it is a point of order.
Hon Kohler is never short of things to say. She would be the happiest person to see a scourge of racism in this
House. She would be very happy because she cannot get out of it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister! No, hon Minister!
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker ...
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: She‘s
stuck in it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon Minister, don‘t draw in members who have not spoken in the House. I think it is incorrect.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, we know from past rulings, and the hon Minister is not a new member of this House, so she would know that it is never permissible to cast aspersions at a member of this House as racist. So, in making her point of order, she‘s now made herself out of order, and I would ask that she withdraws. [Interjections.]
Hon MEMBERS: Withdraw!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members ...
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Deputy
Speaker, actually, for the record, I did not say hon Kohler is a racist, but she does have tendencies of promoting racism. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, hon Minister! Hon Minister, help us in the spirit of what you are saying ...
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: In the
spirit of what I was saying, you are right. With due respect, I withdraw, but hon Kohler ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no! Unconditionally! [Interjections.] Let me proceed. Take your seat. Hon members!
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you cannot rise and speak, man, before I ask you to do so. What are you rising on now?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, a withdrawal has to be unconditional, but it is made worse, and I direct you to the Rule around unparliamentary gestures in this House. As the Minister sat down, she
pointed to the hon Kohler and made a fist like this – like she was going to strike her. [Interjections.] That is unparliamentary, and she must be asked to withdraw the gesture.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon members, can we allow the House to proceed properly? Part of the reason for doing that ... [Interjections.] Hon members! Hon members, you are interrupting me, and you shouldn‘t be doing that! [Interjections.] I am talking to you now. Take your seat, hon Steenhuisen. I am talking.
Hon member, I told you yesterday that you must stop screaming in the House – at anybody in the House. That screaming is rude and out of order. I am saying this today once more, and you do it habitually. It is inappropriate. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: You told the House! You told the House yesterday!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is ... hon member, I told you that yesterday. You are repeating it, and it is out of order.
An HON MEMBER: You‘re out of order!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, here is what I said earlier on, and I want to say it now. The language you use in the House inflames grave disorder in the House – the language you use, all of you. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to ... [Interjections.]
Hon members, I am addressing you. Hon Kwankwa, take your seat. You are interrupting me. [Interjections.] It is for the Chair to rule immediately or defer that ruling. I repeat: It is for the Chair to rule immediately or defer that ruling. So it is precisely because of the nature of the debate that we are having that we would like to bring order here so that we do not, firstly, restrict political comment but prevent obscene language that is used and disguised in various forms. It is precisely for that reason that I want to make a ruling on this matter in a considered fashion.
It is inappropriate for you to impose immediate rulings that can have consequences that are inappropriate in the first place. [Interjections.] That is the reasoning why I
am saying that. I am going to rule on this thing now, here, today so that we do not move into this thing.
Hon MEMBERS: Rule!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, reference to a question as stupid is not unparliamentary. Hon members, that is my considered view – that a question referred to as ?stupid? is not a reference to a person. It is a reference to a question. In my opinion, it is not unparliamentary. I am saying so on the grounds that if we proceed to prevent people from speaking in a manner that does not create ... others refer to it as free speech and so on. Let‘s not gravitate towards disorder by using language that is inappropriate. If you choose that language, it might not be unparliamentary, but we advise you not to do it because it inflames. That is my view about the question being described in the manner that it is. Yes. Alright.
Yes, hon ...
Mr N S MATIASE: Deputy Speaker, please instruct this white racist ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, hon member!
Mr N S MATIASE: ... to withdraw the statement he has made or else I will disrupt your proceedings. Do you know why you‘d be hesitant to rule against him? It is because you grew up in an era when Groenewald was a boss to you. He was a baas to you. [Interjections.] South Africa, this Parliament, is not Groenewald‘s Vlakplaas. [Interjections.] You think it is a Vlakplaas. We are prepared to show him that this is not Vlakplaas. You must rule on him!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alright, hon member. Hon member!
Mr N S MATIASE: He must withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I ask you not only to withdraw but to also leave the Chamber. Your remarks are out of order. [Interjections.] Hon member, the language you have used is not only offensive – and you cannot do that. Withdraw that, hon member.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: The procedure that you want to enforce on the hon member is not consistent with the Rules.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: If you think that a member has made a mistake or something that is wrong, you ask him to withdraw, and then you must call the person who deals with security here to come. There is a process in trying to take a person out of the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, please take ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: You can‘t just out of nowhere arbitrarily just remove a Member of Parliament from a sitting. It is not allowed. [Interjections.] However emotional you feel about an issue, it is not as per the Rules to evict a Member of Parliament without due process. Rule 53 deals with that. We‘ve dealt with that question on many occasions, and you are not following the Rules. So, it is inappropriate of you to handle the issue in the manner in which you are handling it now. You cannot just evict people. This is not your House! It is Parliament! We have Rules!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take your seat, hon member. You are making a political statement. Let me rule on that. Let me read you the Rule. Hon members, Rule 70(1) states:
If the presiding officer is of the opinion that a member is deliberately contravening a provision of
these rules, or that a member is disregarding the authority of the Chair, or that a member‘s conduct is grossly disorderly, he or she may order the member to leave the Chamber immediately for the remainder of the day‘s sitting.
That is the ruling. Hon member, withdraw your statement and leave. If you don‘t want to withdraw that, hon member, I will ask the Serjeant-at-arms to escort you out of the House.
Ms N V MENTE: Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon member?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening to hon Mente.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Can I bring you to the process that is outlined in Rule 73 which deals with how members must be removed from the Chamber?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Can you please read Rule 73 and understand the process properly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: This thing of taking shortcuts in the manner in which you have done now ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, can you allow us to proceed with the House ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Yes, but can you read ... [Inaudible.] I am rising legitimately in terms of Rule 73.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, no point of order may be raised in response to a considered ruling in terms of subrule 5 of Rule 92.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But can you look into Rule 73. I am not raising a point of order. Rule ... a point of order ... [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, what are you doing?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I am raising a point in terms of ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: ... Rule 73. A point of order is Rule 92.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No point of order may be raised in response to a considered ruling.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But I am not raising a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you are raising a point of order, and you want me to refer to that. You can‘t ... How do you speak?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But I am rising in terms of Rule 73, that this is the procedure that you have to follow before you evict a member from the House. You have to reconsider your decision. You must follow the proper process before you say our member must leave because there are issues that must be debated in the House. A member must legitimately come and debate here.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, take your seat.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Why do you say he must leave the House? For what particular purpose?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon member, I have told you, and I have cited a Rule that enables me to do that. It is explicit! It is explicit! Hon member, do that.
Ms N V MENTE: Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Matiase, I requested you to withdraw or leave.
Ms N V MENTE: Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are doing neither of the two. Hon member, I will not take your point of order.
Ms N V MENTE: Now you are saying two things. Which one must he do? Withdraw or what?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He must withdraw because what he said is unparliamentary. Secondly, because he did it knowingly, he must leave. [Interjections.] After that we draw ... [Inaudible.]
Ms N V MENTE: But what the member at the podium said is equally unparliamentary. [Interjections.] The person who made the statement ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you may not challenge a ruling.
Ms N V MENTE: The person who asked the question is member Matiase. And he cannot say it is a stupid question. It did not fall from the sky.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ...
Ms N V MENTE: He is transferring it to him. He says it is stupid. [Interjections.] No. We cannot allow people to call each other stupid, and you do not ask them to leave the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has ...
Ms N V MENTE: He must leave the House himself.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member! Hon member ...
Ms N V MENTE: You must start with that man that is sitting there and ask him to leave the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you are out of order. Take your seat.
Ms N V MENTE: No, I am not! Do not be scared of white people! Don‘t be! You are scared of white people!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you are yourself being out of order and are violating the Rules of inoffensive language, and you yourself must withdraw that.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, I have ...
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I have a member who I want to have take responsibility for her actions.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: But, hon Deputy Speaker, you are out of order, yourself. [Interjections.] Can you give me a chance?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ... [Interjections.]
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: [Interjections.] No, just wait!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may speak ... [Interjections.]
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Can you give me a chance, Deputy Speaker? You are out of order, yourself. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will be recognised. You will not impose your recognition. Take your seat, hon member.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Yes, but recognise me, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take your seat. I will recognise you.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: All right. Thank you. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Matiase, do as I requested you to do. Serjeant-at-arms, I requested ...
Mr N S MATIASE: Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon member?
Mr N S MATIASE: The burden of you having grown up in an era where anyone white was a baas ... don‘t transfer that onto me! I am telling the truth and I will continue to speak truth to power.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I am going to switch off your mic ... [Interjections.]
Mr N S MATIASE: It is not Groenewald‘s place to tell you that what I say is ... [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You shouldn‘t be doing what you are doing. I‘m going to switch off your mic.
Mr N S MATIASE: Don‘t transfer that burden onto me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I requested you to leave the House. Serjeant-at-arms, please escort the member out of the House. Help him out of the House. [Interjections.] [Applause.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Deputy Speaker ... [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members. Order! Hon member, please take your seat. Hon Mente, the remarks you made are out of order and unparliamentary. I request you to withdraw them. [Interjections.]
Ms N V MENTE: What do you want me ... [Inaudible.] ... mic is off.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, withdraw your remarks.
Ms N V MENTE: What do you want me to withdraw, Deputy Speaker?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, your remarks earlier on, addressed ... pointing at the member and describing him the way you did is unparliamentary, so I ask you ...
Ms N V MENTE: What? What is it?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You know what you said.
Ms N V MENTE: That ... [Inaudible.] ... he refers to us as stupid. Must I withdraw that? He refers to us as stupid. I‘m not going to withdraw that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No.
Ms N V MENTE: I‘m not stupid!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon member. Hon member ... [Interjections.] Hon member, withdraw the language you used to describe the member.
Ms N V MENTE: What did I say? Him referring to us as stupid people? And him being privileged and left in the
House? So I withdraw whatever, but he is ... We are not stupid!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you must withdraw unconditionally. [Interjections.] You must withdraw unconditionally.
Ms N V MENTE: It‘s a pity that you cannot tell other people to withdraw. I withdraw. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Hlengwa?
Mr M HLENGWA: Deputy Speaker, I don‘t mean to delay the proceedings. I rise in terms of Rule 92(5), on the ruling that you made earlier on with respect to the question of stupid people. I would request that you go back to your ruling and consider it because you have made a generalisation in your ruling that all of us in this House use inflammatory language. I would request that go back to Hansard and apply that ruling to the person to which it is attributed, not to all of us. I personally take exception to the notion that inflammatory statements made in this House are attributed to me. So I humbly request that you consider your ruling and present it afresh so that you exclude those of us who are not party to that kind of behaviour. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will do that. Thank you. Yes, hon Steenhuisen?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, I rise and would like to address you in terms of Rule 84, if I may.
We had the hon Nkwinti as a member of the executive telling us that we should not be inflaming things in the House. Now, as the Minister of Defence stood down, she pointed to the hon Kohler-Barnard and made a fist as a threatening gesture. [Interjections.] Now, that is unparliamentary and it is not within the ... [Inaudible.] If you are going to make member of the opposition withdraw things that are unparliamentary, I would ask that the same Rules apply to members of the executive.
She must thus be asked to apologise for making a fist and threatening the hon Kohler-Barnard. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Point of order!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, wait a minute. Please take your seat. Let me deal with this matter.
Hon Minister, did you make that gesture? If you did, please withdraw it.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Deputy
Speaker, I withdrew and I said ?Amandla?! [Interjections.] [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister, you must make your withdrawals unconditional, please. You mustn‘t do that.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: I withdraw
it, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Hon Plouamma, I promised to give you an opportunity to speak.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Deputy Speaker, I just want to make sure that I remind you that your rulings should not be ambiguous. At the same time, I still believe that your rulings should not be your opinions. Rulings must be rulings. I still think your ruling on stupidity is wrong. A stupid question comes from a person. It is not independent, it comes from a person. I think Mr Groenewald should withdraw that. I still believe that, Deputy Speaker.
Mr B A HADEBE: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon member?
Mr B A HADEBE: Deputy Speaker, according to Rule 92(11) your rulings are final. Your rulings cannot be challenged in the House. If a member has a problem, we know the structure to which we have take our queries. Please, can we be consistent on that? You cannot be made to admit things ... to change your rulings here in the House.
Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. Hon members, let‘s proceed, and ... [Interjections.] Let‘s proceed. Yes, hon Kwanka?
Mr N L S KWANKWA: No, we can‘t proceed. No, tata ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead! I‘m saying so.
Mr N L S KWANKWA: Oh. Please. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Groenewald, please take your seat.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Dankie, agb Adjunkvoorsitter ... [Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker.] [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Groenewald, I asked you to please hold on a little bit. Hold on! Hon members, stop screaming at each other. Hon Kwanka, go ahead.
Mr N L S KWANKWA: Deputy Speaker, I rise in terms of Rule
84 — unparliamentary or unacceptable language or gestures. Now, in essence, if we see ... For example, if you read it, it says, no member may use offensive, abusive, insulting and disrespectful language. Right? Now, if you‘re saying ?stupid? is parliamentary, then it means it is respectful to use the word ?stupid?, whether you are referring to a question or an individual. Right? And that is wrong. We can‘t say that. It is disrespectful to say ?stupid‘, whether you are referring to ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: No, no, no!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, there‘s a ruling ...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: Can I conclude my point?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There‘s a Rule that was read to you
...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: No. Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There‘s a Rule that was read to you just earlier on ...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: I‘m also reading you a Rule.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is the problem. This is exactly what that Rule prohibits you from doing here. Challenge this ruling, and you know where to go.
Mr N L S KWANKWA: No, remember, you made a ruling. I stood up long before you made your ruling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No! Hon member ...
Sekela Somlomo, nantsi ke le nto isixabanisayo. [Hon Deputy Speaker, this is what makes quarrel between us.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kulungile, masixabane ke, masixabane. [Ok let there be a quarrel.]
Mr N L S KWANKWA: No! I stood up before you made your ruling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member ...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: In other words, is that my problem?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have recognised you, and I am pointing out to you that ...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: But I wanted to assist you before you made your ruling. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no! No, hon member. Hon member, the damage is done if that‘s what you thought you are going to prevent if that was damage. Secondly, there is a route that you can follow in the Rules. Can you apply that?
Mr N L S KWANKWA: I stood up before you made your ruling but, as usual, you did not recognise me when I stood up at the time. You recognised people who raised their hands long after I actually asked to be recognised.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. Yes, hon member?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. Can we stop delaying the proceedings with stupid points of order?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon member, please ... let‘s proceed.
Mr M L W FILTANE: Hayi, hayi awusoze utsho kuthi. [No, no you can‘t say that to us.]
There are no stupid points of order here! You are trying to correct that, and you say we are raising stupid points of order?
Ag nee man! Weg is jy! Wragtig! [Oh no, man! Go away! Honestly!]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take you seat, hon member. Proceed, hon member.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Dankie, agb Adjunkspeaker. Dit lyk my die kat is in die hoenderhok!
Goed, kom, laat ek net vir u sê, hierdie is ‘n tipiese voorbeeld. As die EFF na buite vir mense kan sê, maar wit mense het die grond gesteel, dan moet daar nie
sensitiwiteit wees nie. Maar nou is hulle oor-sensitief! Ek het mos net gesê, want ek kan ... kom ek sê maar vir hulle, ek ken professors wat ook dom vrae vra. Dit is die werklikheid. En ek wil vandag vir u sê, as ons die grondkwessie in Suid-Afrika wil aanspreek, moet ons ophou om emosies op te jaag deur te sê, mense het die grond gesteel. Ons weet dis mos nie waar nie.
En u gaan dit nie reg kry om grondeienaars van hulle grond af te dwing nie. U gooi brandende vuurhoutjies in die gras. En dit gaan brand. Moenie Suid-Afrika aan die brand steek nie.
Ek wil vir die EFF waarsku: hou op met u retoriek. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. It seems to me as if the fox is in the hen house!
Fine, come, let me just tell you, this is a typical example. If the EFF can tell people on the outside, but whites have stolen the land, then there does not have to be sensitivity. But now they are being over-sensitive! I really only said because I can ... come, let me tell them I know professors who also ask stupid questions. That is the reality. And today I want to tell you, if we want to
address the land issue in South Africa, we must stop escalating emotions by saying people stole the land. Of course we know that is not true.
And you are not going to succeed in forcing land owners off their land. You are throwing burning matches into the grass. And it is going to catch alight. Do not set South Africa on fire.
I would like to warn the EFF: stop your rhetoric! Thank you.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, your time has expired. Hon Meshoe?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Deputy Speaker, may I please ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon member?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I want to raise ... in terms of Rule 31, on a point of privilege. That Rule provides under Subrule 1(b) that privilege can provide a member with an opportunity during the sitting to move an urgent motion without notice in terms of Rule 123(1) and Rule 127.
I want to move an urgent motion that we must take all the foolish and stupid things that were said here by Mr Groenewald and expunge them. They must not be put here and considered as part what has been said because everything else that he said is stupid, foolish, idiotic, was showing ... [Inaudible.] It was the most stupid things that have ever been said in this Parliament and it must never be considered by this House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, there is a motion. Those in favour say ?aye?.
Hon MEMBERS: Aye.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those against, say ?no?.
Hon MEMBERS: No.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is therefore ...
Division demanded.
The House divided.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, hon members, let‘s settle down.
Hon members, this reference to the question of privilege gives us an opportunity to correct a mistake. The mistake is as follows. Let me ... because this must not happen, it shouldn‘t happen and it should not have happened. Rule
31 states that:
A member who wishes to raise a perceived breach of privilege must report it to the Speaker without delay.
If the alleged breach of privilege is in the Speaker‘s opinion adequately substantiated and may affect a sitting of the House on the day on which the question of privilege is reported or in the immediate future, the Speaker may, with due regard to the provisions of the Powers and Privileges Act, make an immediate ruling on the matter and announce it in the House; or provide the member with an opportunity during the sitting to move an urgent motion without notice in terms of Rules 123(1)(b) and 127.
If the alleged breach of privilege does not directly affect a sitting of the House in the immediate future, the Speaker must refer the matter to the Powers and Privileges Committee and inform the House accordingly, either immediately or at the earliest opportunity.
Therefore, putting this for the House to decide on through the earlier process was incorrect. It is therefore aborted. [Applause.] We will proceed. Hon Meshoe, come over to speak. It was your turn, sir.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Deputy Speaker, can you please point us to the Rule that allows you, in the middle of a process, to retract in the way you have just done now because you have rung the bells for a vote to occur. Where does it say in the voting processes outlined in the Rules that you can change your mind all of a sudden and then say, now no more voting? Where does that happen? Which Rule
... [Inaudible.] ... to do that?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, we pointed out to you that a member ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But which Rule empowers you to do what you just did now?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you can‘t question a considered ruling. Please sit down.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Deputy Speaker, in terms of the Rules you must explain yourself.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, Rule 92(6) says, ?No point of order may be raised in response to a considered ruling in terms of Subrule 5.?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Under Subrule 5 it‘s when you are ruling on a point of order. There is no point of order that you are ruling on now. You are just retreating on an issue that was already in motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is the second time ... Take your seat, hon member.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Rule 92 that you are referring to is when you have made a ruling on a point of order, but now this is not a point of order. We‘re in the middle of a voting process and you are now retreating. Who empowers you to do that?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, the application of the Rules must happen all the time, consistently.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I think we must just agree that you are incapable. We will ... [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, take your seat and stop the remarks that you are making. They make you ... Hon
members, let me not proceed in this line. [Laughter.] Hon Meshoe, speak. After hon Meshoe I would like to make rulings before I hand over to the next person.
Rev K R J MESHOE: Deputy Speaker, the ACDP recognises that the disproportionate ownership of land is still a major challenge in our country and we should do our best to address this challenge rationally, peacefully and without incitement or veiled threats of violence.
Recent incidents of unlawful occupation of land are indeed concerning and are no doubt being fuelled by the narrative that is being spread by some politicians who are not committed to peace and unity in our country.
The invasion of someone else‘s property is wrong and should be discouraged at all costs. Political leaders who tell their supporters that if they see a piece of land and they like it they should go and occupy it because it supposedly belongs to them, only perpetuates an already difficult process of land reform and encourages anarchy and illegal behaviour.
This matter is further complicated by laws that prevent land and property owners from evicting occupiers from
their property purely on the basis that such occupation was illegal.
To date the only recourse available to land or property owners facing the illegal occupation of their land is to obtain a court order. Thus the police may not assist landowners in evicting illegal occupiers since only a sheriff may carry out an eviction order.
As a way to try to resolve this issue, the ACDP urges government to speed up the process of land claims and land reform. More should have been done in the 20 years of democratic dispensation than has happened.
Furthermore, we call on all political parties and political leaders in particular to urge their members and supporters to be lawful in their demands for land. We all agree that we need it. We cannot correct a wrong by breaking the law. We should be lawful in everything we do to try to resolve this matter.
We appeal to landowners out there not to be unreasonable and greedy in their pricing of their land but should rather contribute to this delicate process by asking for a fair market price that will assure the country that they do not wish to be unreasonable and confrontational,
but rather that they want to help contribute towards building a nonracial, peaceful and prosperous nation with equal opportunities for all. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, Rule 92(5) states that:
The presiding officer must give a ruling, and may give his or her ruling or decision on the point of order immediately, or defer the decision to the earliest opportunity thereafter by way of a considered ruling.
No point of order may be raised in response to a considered ruling in terms of Subrule 5.
Hon members, on those grounds on Thursday, 10 November 2016 during the debate on the motion of no confidence in terms of section 102(2) of the Constitution, points of order were raised in respect of various remarks by various members. I undertook to study the Hansard and return to the House. I wish to rule as follows.
In the first instance, the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition rose on a point of order objecting to the remarks by the hon Minister of Water and Sanitation about criminal charges against hon G Breytenbach. In this regard I wish to indicate that a similar matter is
currently serving before the Joint Rules Committee where the principle of a ruling in that matter is being considered. The outcome of the process in the Joint Rules Committee could impact on how this matter is ruled upon. I therefore wish to rule on this matter at a later stage.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second point of order was also raised by the hon Chief Whip of the Opposition, requesting that the hon Minister of Water and Sanitation withdraw her reference to the hon Leader of the Opposition as a ?black face.? The hon Minister stated the following. This is from the Hansard:
The motion we are debating here today is really a phantom to masquerade the essence and nature of opposition politics in our country and their quest to gain power by means other than the ballot box, using a black face to protect the interests of the white minority.
Hon members, Rule 84 provides that:
No member may use offensive, abusive, insulting, disrespectful, unbecoming or unparliamentary words or language, nor offensive, unbecoming or threatening gestures.
In considering whether a member has contravened Rule 84, the presiding officer must also take into consideration the tone and context in which a particular remark or inference was made. As you know, the approach is supported by years of practice and convention.
Having regard to the context of the hon Minister‘s speech, her remark was made with reference to the hon Leader of the Opposition. A ?black face? in the context in effect suggests that the Leader of the Opposition is a token or a front behind which white interests are the real authority.
Hon members are reminded that it is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to discourage and desist from racial stereotyping and racial labels, and to ensure that we exercise the right to freedom of speech in a considerate and responsible manner. As public representatives we also have a responsibility to set a good example for the country to emulate. I therefore urge hon members as public representatives to refrain from
resorting to racially disparaging statements that detract from the dignity of the House, and to be sensitive and mindful of the messages that we convey and the example that we set.
The remark by the Minister is offensive and is therefore unparliamentary. I will therefore be asking the Minister of Water and Sanitation to withdraw the remark. However, she is not here ... [Interjections.] ... so that will be done in her presence when she is next here. Thank you.
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY N F SHIVAMBU
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The third point of order was raised by the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party objecting to allegations made by hon N F Shivambu regarding the appointment of Ministers, and his remark that the hon President has nothing to lose and would kill his opponents.
Hon members will recall that at the time I ruled the remarks by hon Shivambu to be unparliamentary and directed him to withdraw them. Hon Shivambu refused to withdraw the remarks and stated the following: ?Deputy
Speaker, let me assure you that I am not going to withdraw the truth here. It is not going to happen. It is never going to happen.? The hon member then proceeded to repeat the allegation about the appointment of Ministers, and his remark that the President would kill his opponents.
Although I have the power in terms of Rule 71 to name a member, and order the member to leave the Chamber immediately and to not participate in any parliamentary activities until the Speaker has announced what action is to be taken against the member in terms of the Rules, I thought it prudent at the time to rather restore order and to continue with the business at hand, and to deal with the matter at a later stage.
Having now had an opportunity to reflect on hon Shivambu‘s conduct and to study the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule that his absolute disregard for the authority of the Chair amounts to misconduct as defined in the Rules and is so serious a nature that I have decided to request the Speaker to refer the matter to the disciplinary committee for investigation, and report to the House.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The fourth point of order was raised by hon M A Dirks objecting to hon B H Holomisa‘s reference to hon members as ?wolves.? At the time hon N L S Kwankwa argued that since the hon member said, ?like wolves? which is a simile, the hon Holomisa did not call anyone a wolf.
Hon Holomisa stated, ?The ruling clique on this side of the House is behaving like wolves, screaming in unison to defend one of theirs at the expense of the country.? This remark was in direct reference to members of this House.
Hon members, this House has on numerous occasions in the past ruled that any remark associating a member with an animal or likening animal behaviour or sounds to a member is derogatory, insulting and by its very nature, unparliamentary. I also wish to remind hon members that expressing unparliamentary remarks in a figure of speech such as a simile, using hypotheses, quotations or any other semantic device does not render such a remark acceptable.
I must therefore ask hon Holomisa to withdraw the remark that I have quoted. Is hon Holomisa here?
Mr N L S KWANKWA: Well, he is not here. He‘s likely to withdraw it when he is here.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, we will proceed to the
... Yes, we will do that when he is here.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: When hon Dirks rose on the point of order, he repeatedly thereafter referred to hon Holomisa as a ?Bantustan general.? Given the tone and the context in which hon Dirks used the remark, it was clearly intended to cause offence and insult. For this reason hon Dirks‘ remark is unparliamentary. I must therefore ask the hon member to withdraw the remark that I have quoted whereupon ... Yes, is hon Dirks here? [Interjections.] He will also be asked to act accordingly.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next point of order was raised by the hon Minister of Science and Technology objecting to a
remark made by hon M O Mokause when the hon Mokause purportedly rose on a point of order and stated, ?A man who thinks through his stomach is a dangerous man and so is Malusi Gigaba who thinks for millions just to control and maintain his concubine.?
This remark is offensive, insulting and unbecoming, and I must therefore ask the hon Mokause to withdraw the remark that I have just quoted. Hon Mokause?
Ms M O MOKAUSE: Hon Deputy Speaker, I withdraw for the sake of our commandant Fidel Castro. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, please don‘t proceed. Don‘t do that.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, on 8 November during the declaration of vote by hon Hlophe on the Budgetary Review Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations, various points of order were raised about remarks made by the hon member in respect of the hon President.
In the first instance, hon M C C Pilane-Majake rose on a point of order in terms of Rule 82, objecting to hon Hlophe‘s alleged reference to the President as ?that man.?
Secondly, hon Mabasa thereafter rose on a point of order objecting to hon Hlophe‘s reference to ?Mr Zupta.?
Lastly, hon Pilane-Majake again rose on a point of order in terms of Rule 85(2), objecting to allegations made in respect of the President and contended that:
A member who wishes to bring any improper and unethical conduct on the part of another member to the attention of the House, may do so only by way of a separate substantive motion.
I undertook to study the Hansard and return to the House with a ruling. Having had an opportunity to do so, I wish to rule as follows. Hon Hlophe stated the following:
Our international relations have to be supervised by a man who has not only contaminated our local political discourse but a man who has soiled our good name in the international relations arena.
Hon Hlophe did not refer to the President as ?that man.? Also, her remark amounted to an expression of a political point of view and is a matter of debate, and is therefore not unparliamentary.
Hon members, with regard to the points of order regarding reference to ?Mr Zupta? and allegations against the hon President, the hon Hlophe stated that:
Mr Zupta also uses these foreign missions to settle political scores. Even worse, he rewards his corrupt comrades with ambassadorships, thus diminishing the role that ambassadors should play in marketing our country, to play a role facilitating corruption between the Zuma family and other corrupt leaders throughout the world.
Hon members, as correctly pointed out by hon M C C Pilane-Majake, Rule 85(2) provides that:
A member who wishes to bring any improper, unethical conduct on the part of another member to the attention of the House, may do so only by way of a separate substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge that in the opinion of
the Speaker prima facie warrants consideration by the House.
Rule 85(3) further provides that the Rule also applies to reflections upon the President.
It is clear from the context in the hon member‘s speech that her remarks and reference to ?Mr Zupta? as quoted refer to the hon President. In terms of the context, ?Mr Zupta? was clearly intended to give offence and is disrespectful. It is accordingly unparliamentary in terms of Rule 84.
Hon members, the remarks further attributed improper motive to the hon President as she alleges the improper and unethical use of power when appointing ambassadors. This is also unparliamentary in terms of Rule 85.
I must therefore ask hon Hlophe to withdraw the remarks that I have quoted.
Ms H O HLOPHE: Deputy Speaker, I don‘t have a problem with your ruling but just for clarity who is Mr Zupta in this House? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, can you withdraw? I have just answered that question in the report here.
Ms H O HLOPHE: Just for clarity, hon Deputy Speaker, because we don‘t have a person named Mr Zupta in this House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I said to you and I have been saying to you that we look at what you said, the context and the implication of what you said. Clearly your reference to ?Mr Zupta? was to the President. So we therefore ask you to withdraw it unconditionally.
Ms H O HLOPHE: As we have a debate in the name of commander Castro I will withdraw. However, I will challenge your ruling because there is no Zupta in this House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, withdraw unconditionally.
Ms H O HLOPHE: I will withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You must withdraw unconditionally, hon member. [Interjections.]
Hon members, the Assembly is a forum for elected representatives to discuss and debate their differences in a manner consistent with multiparty democracy, which ensures that all views are heard. Hon members have a constitutional right to freedom of speech to ensure that they are able to discuss and debate their differences without fear of prosecution. The responsibility that comes with the right to freedom of speech is that it should be exercised in a manner that does not impose upon the rights and privileges of another member and that it is exercised in accordance with the Rules and orders of the House.
If a member fails to honour the Rules of this House then they not only impede the rights and privileges of individual members but the rights of the House as a collective to discharge its constitutional mandate.
Furthermore, if unparliamentary language was to be generally allowed in a debate, that would not only seriously undermine the members in the performance of their duties but it would also undermine the image and the effectiveness of Parliament itself to function as the Constitution intends.
I therefore appeal to hon members to exercise their right to freedom of speech responsibly, with due regard to the Rules and orders of the House. Thank you, hon members.
Hon Godi? Hon Shivambu, what are you rising on?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I‘m rising on a point of order. With regard to those rulings that you have made in relation to the EFF I want to put it on order and on point that we are going to challenge all those rulings because we think they are stupid. [Interjections.] They are actually foolish. How can you make such foolish rulings about us?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: We don‘t want to take stupid rulings. We are going to challenge all of them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, this is aggravating conduct on your part. Go ahead, hon Godi.
Mr N T GODI: Hon Deputy Speaker, comrades and hon members, the Minister correctly spoke about human dignity as derived from our Constitution, but the truth is that there is no dignity in poverty. The poverty that afflicts the majority has its genesis in the land dispossession.
The assault on the dignity of our people reinforces
supremacist‘s ideas. So, the fight against racism and poverty will in the context of our country and the continent find its substantive resolution in correcting the historical injustice on land.
The humiliation of our people in the farming areas continues unabated. They continue to suffer shootings, beatings, evictions, confiscation or poisoning of their cattle etc. If you go to places like Piet Retief, Dumbe, Pongola, Wakkerstroom etc, all these things happen in this constitutional democracy. So, I find it difficult to raise my voice against the EFF even though I do not agree with their call.
The APC makes a call to the white owners of the land, the farmers, to demonstrate that whilst Africans are called upon to observe the rule of law, they are also prepared to correct the injustices of the past.
Comrade Minister the APC‘s concern is that we have been tiptoeing around white privileges. The challenge to whites to reciprocate reconciliation is almost zero. Yes, let Africans not invade land, but the truth is that the social compact in our country is at the expense of the African majority.
The APC believes that appeals to the poor to understand whilst the rich continues to live as if all is well, is not sustainable. We should not be concerned about the rule of law at the expense of the wellbeing of the people. The rule of law without justice is oppression and we fought against it. This freedom must deliver land to our people. I thank you.
Mr P J MNGUNI: Hon House Chair, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, members of the House, our guests and the masses of our people, we dedicate this input as a tribute to the distinguished revolutionary zeal and fighting spirit of an internationalist par excellence who has just fallen following over six decades of unrelenting struggle
... [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, on a point of order.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Mnguni, will you take a seat please, there is a point of order.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I rise in terms of the rule of anticipation: We will be having a condolence motion for the gentleman he is referring to as the next order of business. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The hon member is just busy introducing his debate. So, let us allow him to do so. [Interjections.]
Mr P J MNGUNI: ... not only to liberate the Cubans or the Cuban people from colonial oppression and exploitation, but also fundamentally to liberate the entirety of the oppressed and the world over. The name of Commandant Fidel Castro is the name of a revolutionary that will live forever.
The revolutionary legendary quote is our battle cry as we take on this House‘s debates which assert that, ...
Mr M WATERS: Hon Chairperson, on a point of order.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Mnguni, will you take a seat please. Yes, hon member what is the point of order?
Mr M WATERS: My point of order is: The hon member is clearly busy with the wrong speech and the wrong debate. The member is confused.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Mnguni, will you get back to the debate please? [Interjections.]
Mr P J MNGUNI: Hon House Chair, can I address you on this please?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Yes, hon member.
Mr P J MNGUNI: Thank you, so that my time is saved. There is absolutely nothing I said when introducing my speech which is out of order. I therefore request ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, that is why I say get on with the debate please.
Mr P J MNGUNI: Thank you, so much.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Yes, hon member.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I rise in terms of Rule 90, which says, and I quote: [Interjections.]
No member may anticipate the discussion of a matter appearing on the Order Paper or agreed upon the Programming Committee for scheduling.
We have an Order Paper with the motion for condolences as well as a discussion at the Programming Committee this morning. So, the member is violating the rule of anticipation.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, I have not heard him yet paying condolences. He must now connect what he said and what he intends saying in his speech.
Mr P J MNGUNI: Our battle cry as we take on this House‘s debate which asserted that the history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle.
In the ANC, the revolutionary movement and a disciplined of the left, we have always understood, asserted and contextualised the land question as based on a society with deep scars of race, class and gender emanating from historical legacy of apartheid, capitalism or apartheid colonialism or in short the CST.
As the ANC we have never been confused, we have understood the unity, the struggle and the relationship between these three forms of contradictions that are race, class and gender. Class represented the essence and the content while the race merely represented the mere
form, however dominant the latter and however dominant the race that is.
In its nature and in the South African context, racial prejudice defeated its logic right from the onset.
Following the leadership of Jan van Riebeeck, for instance, how dare would the white supremacist colonial regime subsequently fall into the hands of a son of an Indian slave descendant Maria Leivars? He was not pure white. Racism was therefore a farce on the South African soil right from the onset. We cannot give overdue emphasis, yes, as Simon van der Stel was not a pure white during the time of white supremacy‘s rule. Therefore white supremacy defeated itself right from the onset by putting in place Simon van der Stel in the first place whom we trace very clearly scientifically and historically.
Today racists have no place in our midst or whenever we see them we shall challenge them and give them a good hiding and paste them on the wall.
With regards to the South African land question as a class question, from the imperialist agenda that gave birth to colonialism in our country, the CST, springs a theoretical location of the land question as a class
question. We may not have enough time to demonstrate this adequately to our detractors, but suffice to highlight a few of them as follows: The South African society bleeds from the wounds of the haves and the have-nots. The commissar from the APC alluded to this point. These are antagonistic groups of people called classes. By summary definition, classes are, and I quote, ?groups of people according to their relationship to the means of production.? The South African society is therefore a class society. [Interjections.]
Ms H O HLOPHE: Chairperson, on a point of order.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Mnguni, will you take your seat please. Hon member why are you rising?
Ms H O HLOPHE: Hon Chairperson, I rise on Rule 92.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): What in terms of Rule 92?
Ms H O HLOPHE: Our eardrums are suffering. The hon member must not shout. Please relax. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): That is not Rule
92. Hon Mnguni, will you continue please. [Applause.] Order, hon members.
Mr P J MNGUNI: The land is the primary means of production upon which most other productivity in the South African society and all other societies is based. All other production is based on the land. Production or productivity will therefore include mining, agriculture, manufacturing etc. Based on South Africa‘s unique history, the land ownership patterns therefore hitherto reflect a skewed bias towards the white male monopoly ownership.
Monopoly capitalism rampant in our society continues to dominate not only our land ownership stakes, but further owns almost everything else, the media, the banks the mines, oil, energy and indeed all of the commanding heights of our economy. [Interjections.]
Mr P J MNGUNI: As monopoly capital owns an overwhelmingly big share of our wealth, it has on the other hand produced glaringly inequality fraught with contradictions as you will see between rural and urban, men and women which is refereed to as the gender question, the rich and the poor and such other glaring symptoms of inequality.
Likewise, when then few suck the blood or the labour of the poor majority, consequently the extent of poverty gets exacerbated beyond imagination. It is the ANC‘s mission to liberate the poor from their plight.
Ngelixesha osiswana sibomvana belala bexhaphe amafutha nobuncwane, bona abantu bakowethu babhuqabhuqa, bamthuqwasi, balambile, banxaniwe, bayantyumpantyumpeka ngendlela zonke. Sithi kubo i-ANC ikhona umzabalazo uyaqhubeka. [While those who are rich are eating nice food, our people are in an extreme hunger and thirst in all ways. We say to them, ANC exists and the struggle continues.]
Out of over 50 million of South Africa‘s population, a whopping 8 million plus constitutes a huge army of the unemployment lot. It is an inherent feature of the capitalist mode of production to reserve a huge army of unemployment. Capitalism is incapable of producing sustainable and quality jobs for all. [Interjections.]
Mr P J MNGUNI: Those who are apologists of imperialism and its extension, capitalism cannot do anything to undo their own making. The ANC is duty bound through its revolutionary programme, its radical socioeconomic
policies and political will, among others, to stand on the side of the unemployed. [Interjections.]
Mr P J MNGUNI: We want to visit some few highlights that the ANC has done. [Interjections.] The National Development Plan, NDP, to start with, as the government‘s minimum programme - note the word ?minimum‘ we can go way beyond the NDP by the way - does provide a vision for an alternative to the apartheid legacy‘s dispensation on the question of land and rural development as it provides, and I quote:
By 2030 South Africa‘s rural communities must have better opportunities to participate fully in the economic, social and political life of the country ... Rural economics will be supported by agriculture, and where possible, by mining, tourism, agroprocessing and fisheries.
It goes on ...
... infrastructure development, job creation and poverty eradication.
My emphasis ?eradication.‘
... underdevelopment in the former homelands must be confronted ...
The NDP further provides for creating tenure security for communal farmers, integrating financing forms and leveraging public and private partnerships amongst a whole range of propositions outlined.
With regards to the Expropriation Bill: Our neoliberal detractors obviously, where ever they sit, can never denounce the white domination of the economic ownership state. If anything, they stand exactly to ensure the protection of unjustly accumulated wealth. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Mnguni, will just take your seat please. Why are you rising, hon Chief Whip.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, I would like through you to request the member whether he would take a question.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, are you prepared to take a question?
Mr P J MNGUNI: Yes, hon House Chair, only after I have finished.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): If you have time left, hon member. Continue.
Mr P J MNGUNI: If only I have time, hon House Chair. Thank you. To this end, ours being the negotiated democracy and hon members will remember the World Trade Centre; therefore certain provisions in the Constitution would be used as barriers to our own radical economic transformation. The property clause in the Bill of Rights has hitherto been such a valve to block strides of the ANC. The ANC noting this, has however led the process to put in place, and I quote, ?The law of general application.? being the Expropriation Bill passed by this House on 27 May. This is a Bill, hon House Chair, waiting to be signed into law. Once signed into law the ANC government will roll up the sleeves and fast track the roll out of land reform through its various tools at the disposal of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.
We however note the latest developments and anarchy and insist that land invasion is an unacceptable crime. As it is generally applicable in nature and in society that any
unallocated grab of resources be they material, human, economic, social or otherwise in a democratic dispensation, it is regarded as backward, barbaric and unscientific. The inherent logic in land grabbing is and I quote, ?Each one for himself or herself and the devil takes the hindmost.? So, we are saying, how can we, as the society, scientifically undertake this crucial element of land reform if sporadic and spontaneous looting of land is to be the order? Land use and or spatial planning are a scientific tool to plan social and economic development. To this end, the ANC-led government has passed the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act and its regulations as well.
We want to propose to those who propagate land invasion that, instead of that unscientific, sporadic and illegal tool, land usage must rather be planned for as there is now a piece of statute and its regulations in place.
Now, the hon Waters from the DA stands here before us and tells us that money is not a problem. Really the hon member is living in his own world because restitution at the current pace, with the current budget could take up to 144 years and he knows very well, unless he has not advised his party. Therefore the budget is definitely a constraint. In actual fact if you ask my opinion, more
money lies in private hands who are represented by one party here in this House. And that is the money that should be accessed in order to do the fast track.
The other fact raised by the DA is about the title deeds in the communal land. We suggest that you do not just conclude for the people, but you consult the people. In fact in your own DA policy documents, you talk about the people in former homelands that they must remain there. And we are saying that is false. The people in homelands must feel free to settle anywhere in South Africa.
Ms A STEYN: On a point of order, House Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, can we just keep the interjections a little bit down, I cannot hear the member.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Yes, hon member.
Ms A STEYN: My point of order is: The member is misleading the House because I matched with the people who asked for the title deeds ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No hon member that is not the point of order. Hon member, continue.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chair, House Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Why are you rising, hon member?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chair, I wonder if you can ask the member to stand a bit closer to the microphone, some of us are struggling to hear. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, that is not the point of order. Hon member, continue.
Mr P J MNGUNI: The hon member is struggling to hear, yet the other‘s ears are ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Just continue, hon member.
Mr P J MNGUNI: Hon House Chair, we conclude by indicating that the ANC has been there in all committees. The offer by the EFF of 6% for expropriation of land without compensation has not been recorded and therefore it shall not hold. Thank you, House Chair. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Hon
Chair, you can see why and I thank the leadership of ANC caucus for having us to put this debate up here. Just imagine if hon Members of this Parliament would behave in a manner that we have witnessed here, what would you expect out there?
That‘s why it is important for us to really respect one another even when we disagree so that we can set a very good example to the people who are watching the proceedings in this House. People have got a very big respect for this House. But if this House behaves in a manner that people and all of us are witnessing, it is shame on us.
Secondly, hon Waters, this was not the time for you to come and talk about Nkandla, corruption and all of that. You missed the boat. In actual fact that‘s exactly we are where we are today. It is because this House was debating in exactly the same manner that you are following today. Let‘s not do it that way and let‘s try to see how as leaders of the country we could solve the hottest of challenges that we are faced with here. You actually missed the point here.
Mr L G MOKOENA: Chair, I wanted to ask if the hon Minister will take one question.
The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: I will
do it at the end of my speech; I will be quick so that I can take it. I am eager to do so.
The hon Hlophe says ... exactly the point why the leadership said we must debate this. She says
?reactionary component of the Constitution? and when she was ending she says ?we still call on all South Africans to occupy the land.? That is unlawful and unconstitutional and that‘s exactly why this House must develop a mechanism that is appropriate to censor Members of the House when they deliberately make statements like that which are inflammatory which could cause people out there to break the law and be arrested and charged. It is exactly the point. [Applause.]
I agree with hon Godi when he says in terms of what the hon members of EFF have said in raising sharply this question and there is nothing wrong that. He says ?I agree with them but I don‘t agree with the manner in which they say it.? I agree with hon Godi and thanks very much for that.
We were in committee just a couple of days ago or either yesterday. We were debating the amendment to the Extension of Security Tenure Act, ESTA, and hon member had an opportunity to deal with that aspect of the land question.
Secondly, we are going to bring to this House and we consulted with lots of people. Remember that when we spoke here in terms of the policy speech we said that the maximum quantity or quantum of hectares of land. We talk about 12 000 hectares etc for three sectors: renewable energy, forestry and game.
When we consulted South Africans four weeks ago and they said no. That which you mean for game to be 12 000 they said 5 000 so that we have more land to redistribute. It is coming to this House and hon members will have an opportunity to deal with that question as to what will be the most appropriate extend of land that will be held by an individual or company and so on, so that there would be enough land to redistribute across all South Africans.
In terms of that Bill, foreigners won‘t have a right to own land in South Africa. They could lease it but not own land. [Applause.] It is coming to you hear and it is going to address these questions and we have consulted
more than a thousand South Africans over the last couple of months in all these Bills that are going to come here including the one that I have referred to.
Lastly, Property Evaluation Act has established a valuable agenda for the country. The willing buyer, willing seller story is gone. The first year of that we saved R15 million because we are now using all five factors that are referred to in section 25 of the Constitution, not just market value of the land. Thank you. Hon Chair, I can take the question.
Mr L G MOKOENA: Hon Minister, in 2015 the Municipality of King Sabata Dalindyebo demolished houses in a place called Maiden Farm. You came here at Parliament and supported that action on the basis that you said those houses were demolished because they were going to build Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP, houses there.
We now know as we have said even then that those houses were demolished because there was N2 development that was going to happen there, and we mentioned here ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, get to the question.
Mr L G MOKOENA: Are you willing to apologise to this House having misled them in supporting a motion that there was an RDP development there when you knew that it was an empty development? Thanks.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Minister you must be very short. Your time has basically expired now.
The MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM: Hon
Chair, you heard it yourself, it is such a complex question that the hon member put it to me and I will answer it. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members that conclude responses and the Minister‘s to the statement.
Mr M F SHIVAMBU: Chairperson!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Yes hon member.
Mr M F SHIVAMBU: I want to call broadly a point of order on a Minister who stands up here and say that we must develop mechanisms to censor Members of Parliament.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression here in this House. How on earth could someone think of even ... [Inaudible.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member that is a view of the Minister.
Mr M F SHIVAMBU: It‘s a reactionary view ... [Inaudible.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The same Constitution gives the Minister that view. He‘s got the right to express that view. It is the same Constitution that you are quoting, whether you agree with it or not.
FRACKING AND OTHER MEANS OF GAS EXTRACTION WITH REFERENCETO APPLICATION FOR EXPLORATION LICENCES
(Subject for Discussion)
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chair, growing numbers of people in affected communities are asking government to permanently ban hydraulic fracturing throughout South Africa. They are facing the looming threat of an expanding suite of extractive fossil-fuel mining processes, one of which is unconventional gas extraction, which makes use of
hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking, and coal bed methane extraction.
There are fracking bans under way in many parts of the world and many countries, including Scotland, Wales, Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Argentina, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Ireland - both north and south, and the Netherlands.
Since October 2015, 11 new applications to Petroleum Agency South Africa, Pasa, have been submitted for shale gas exploration in the eastern watershed of South Africa
- from Matatiele in the northern Eastern Cape, across KwaZulu-Natal, to the Free State and Mpumalanga.
The ACDP also has serious concerns with a situation in South Africa where ?state capture‘ conspiracy theories abound and no-one seems to know anything about US-based and owned Rhino Oil & Gas Exploration South Africa, or other applicants such as Sungu Sungu Gas and Motuane Energy. Now more than ever, we need to know exactly who is capturing our water resources and land, and exactly who will benefit.
Many of the areas targeted for exploration are located in primarily rural landscapes, which function either as agricultural production nodes, both commercial and communal, as well as strategic water catchment areas. The primarily rural Matatiele population in the former Transkei area of the Eastern Cape is highly reliant on rural resources, grants and remittances. The area is the source of the uMzimvubu River which contributes almost 40% of the water for the wider uMzimvubu-Tsitsikama Water Catchment Area.
Wide spread shale-gas-well development across this landscape would destroy the grasslands and water sources
- which underpin livestock and agricultural production systems which are groundwater dependent - through high risk contamination of the surface and underground water sources upon which Matatiele and downstream users of the uMzimvubu River system are dependent.
The Matatiele Local Municipality, provincial environmental and water officials and local traditional leaders have said ?no‘ to the extraction of unconventional gas and ?yes‘ to agriculture, tourism and nature, as described in their integrated development planning, IDP.
The Harrismith-Dannhauser-Wakkerstroom area is the watershed for the Vaal, Thukela and Phongola Rivers, supporting the economic hubs of the country. We cannot afford to further deplete and pollute our precious water supplies, already under threat.
Despite consultants and applicants admitting that the number of jobs created is minimal and few available for locals, they continue to promise jobs and poverty alleviation as the benefit from extraction of unconventional gas, and no mention is made of the impacts and legacy left for communities once they leave with the profits. Short term menial jobs at the cost of human health, dignity, water security and long term household and food security are a bad deal to say the least!
There are alternative and more sustainable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar which could and should be developed by Eskom for the benefit of us all. Recent Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, CSIR, studies indicate that job creation through renewable development way exceeds those related through fossil fuel extraction and processing.
As exploration will lead to extraction, the impacts of this mining have to be identified and mitigated at the
outset, not afterwards, and according to the CSIR Strategic Environmental Assessment report, Sea report, health impacts have not been addressed. This is a significant failing!
The ACDP calls on government to ensure that the National Environmental Management Act is not contravened and that at the very least a moratorium is placed on exploration until the impacts have been adequately mitigated. Thank you.
Mr I A PIKININI: Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Sihlalo, ndicela ukuzibulisela ... [Hon Chairperson, greetings ...]
The debate on this critical topic today will go down in the annals of our history as one of the critical milestones in the policy intervention for radical economic transformation in South Africa by the ANC-led government.
It is not neutral, neither a coincidence of history but our unwavering commitment for radical economic transformation in line with a clarion call of the Freedom Charter, 60 years back, and successful policy decisions
of the ANC. As the Freedom Charter proclaims, ?The people shall share in the country‘s wealth.?
We once more declare to South Africans and the world to know that this is the mission we will never fail. No surrender in our lifetime, as successful generations of our forbearers have done. The long history of mining in South Africa has never ventured into the new frontiers of extraction by the state as a custodian of mineral wealth on behalf of our people, of oil and gas.
In this courageous effort, we derive our pride, confidence and aspiration from the gas extractions of one trillion cubic feet feasibility project which for well over 20 years employed in excess of 1 400 and generated revenues of R1 billion per annum on average. This is a success story, not from the text book of university libraries, but a living experience borne out of the courage to test our policies in the arena of development as the ANC.
The prospects of shale gas in Karoo rock formations is a game changer that spans mainly the provinces of Northern Cape, Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State and part of KwaZulu-Natal brings about a huge potential for South Africa‘s development story. Scientific studies estimate
the capacity of 485 Trillion Cubic Feet of shale gas resources beneath the Karoo formations.
This means our country has a potential to attain costs competitive energy security that can significantly boost its energy independent status with immense potential to improve balance of payments and advance radical socioeconomic transformation.
With the current deepening global contradictions of capitalist productions and accumulation with its attendant widening levels of poverty, unemployment and inequalities, no democratic state can take comfort in market fundamentalism which is anchored on profiteering at the expense of development and economic transformation in favour of the poor and the working class.
It is no secret that most of the developed countries today have achieved with rampant disregard for sustainable development, especially with regard to environmental conservation and protection.
The ANC cannot be reminded about environmental conservation and protection in pursuance of these developmental objectives as the environment is at the core of its policy trajectory. It is in this context
that, as the ANC, we support government effort to put on abeyance further processing of applications for exploration of shale gas until such time that sustainable measures are put in place to safeguard the environment and water.
Hon members, allow me to indicate that the current estimates are preliminary, which means that continued scientific research and exploration has the potential to unravel more potential of shale gas exploration than we have currently. The technicality associated with the exploration phase is also a case in point that needs consideration before we can quantify the actual estimates going forward.
For instance, this phase involves a number of activities that narrow down to collection of more information on the field to ascertain the possibilities of existence of shale gas. This involves seismic surveys, geological sampling techniques as well as other techniques that can span anything between 3 to 5 years on average.
Over and above these scientific techniques, we salute the department for engaging communities on preliminary dialogue about the cost benefits of this initiative for socioeconomic upliftment, especially in affected areas
like the one held in Cradock in the Eastern Cape. It is through these community dialogue and public participation to ensure that communities are sufficiently empowered to make meaningful contribution in the ensuing development efforts arising from shale gas exploration.
According to Reuters reports, a study commissioned by Shell estimates 50 trillion cubic feet of potential reserves which would add $20 billion to the GOP of South African economy every year for 25 years and create
700 000 jobs. The same report abounds with evidence of number of multinational corporations that have interests to invest in the shale gas sector in South Africa to the great benefits of our domestic socioeconomic development.
As it is demonstrated in the statistics above, the estimates by the corporate research about the potential of South Africa‘s shale gas exploration by far exceed official estimates. It is common course that corporate sector invest more in development research both in terms of technical know-how and financial resources which should give us hope to trust their forecasts. As the ANC, we derive pleasure in that their estimates which also driven by their desire to invest provide a better future than we could think.
In conclusion, the eyes of all patriots should be on what is good for the nation. Therefore, fracking and other means of gas extraction as a game changer is what is good for our country at this point in time. Thank you very much.
Mr T Z HADEBE: Chairperson, extracting shale gas via hydraulic fracturing generally poses great environmental challenges. Therefore, it is crucial to have a robust regulatory regime to mitigate risks and to improve general public confidence in what is presently a highly controversial process.
The spheres of government and departments should actively promote informed understanding amongst stakeholders using a clear scientific evidence, transparency and consistent message across range of media and forums.
During the recent dialogue held in Matatiele on 3rd and 4th October 2016, the participants from the dialogue issued an antifracking manifesto. In that Matatiele manifesto themed: Some for all - forever. It was noted that there was an absence of government departments as well as the elected politicians.
The nonattendance by government departments and elected politicians had muddied the waters of communities throughout the proposed fracking areas.
The importance of a clear open stakeholder engagements from all parties cannot be overstated with an issue that is subject to high passionate debate. It is important that the public is reassured that the regulations will be fit for purpose and that transparency will be displayed at all levels.
Government Ministers, MECs and councillors should ensure that their messages are consistent with those of the departments. To quote one classical example of inconsistency in messaging in the Matatiele manifesto, it was noted that, and I quote:
The local municipality told us that agriculture, tourism and nature comes first in the Matatiele Integrated Development Plan, IDP. So, we find it difficult to understand how the Rhino Oil and Gas application to frack in the uMzimvubu Catchment could be considered, let alone to allow proceedings by Petroleum Agency of South Africa, Pasa.
The DA is conscious of the central goal at the heart of the Paris Agreement, of creating a net zero-carbon economy by the second half of this century. In order to do that, we need to orderly manage transition that minimises the risks, and allows us to seize opportunities created by the new jobs and investment in the cleaner industries that will increasingly drive our economy.
The party is supportive of efforts to maximise the uptake of renewable energy sources. The party does not however believe that pursuing one source of energy generation has to be done at the exclusion of others. We need to take a long-term approach to energy planning. This should include gas.
The exploitation of gas in South Africa, if it is to be pursued, is a long-term project. It cannot be rushed and needs to be informed by best practice, stringent regulations, and continuous opportunities for public consultation.
Hydraulic fracturing should only proceed if stringent control measures are imposed to govern and regulate all actions and decisions regarding fracking. These measures should promote transparency about the use of chemicals in the process, clearly outlined rules applied to companies
participating in exploration and production and specify how transgressions of the rules will be dealt with.
There must also be sufficient consideration of the protection of environmental resources in all decisions with regard to fracturing. An appropriate balance must be found between doing what is right for the environment and what is right for the unemployed people who could benefit from fracking.
Adequate measures must be put in place to ensure that corruption is avoided and that tracking does not become characterised by ransacking by the politically connected. Fracking is done in accordance with land use planning by local and provincial authorities.
Water exiting drill shafts is collected and cleaned so as not to pollute surface or ground water resources. Public infrastructure damaged by prospecting or extraction operations must be repaired and be paid for by the companies. I thank you, Chairperson.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: Hon Chair, the EFF which is inspired and agitated by the Cuban July 26 movement affirms here and now, that it pursues progressive internationalism and radical Pan Africanism. For this, it shall lead protest
against fracking. We condemn the ANC government for forcing fracking as they seem to be forcing the new clear deal with Russia.
In May 2016, the ANC government indicated that shale gas exploration will begin in 12 months. Effectively meaning fracking will commence in May 2017. This is informed mainly by the government believe that South Africa‘s semi desert Karoo region holds at least 485 trillion cubic feed of shale gas and that this could be the solution to our energy problems.
The government announced that fracking will go on even before the completion of the environmental assessment, which is meant to be completed by early 2017. This clearly shows that the ANC is hell-bent on going ahead with hydraulic fracking in the Karoo regardless of what scientific assessment and its potential impacts maybe.
What is hydraulic fracking and why is the ANC so committed in violating every available regulation to see it happening in South Africa? Fracking involves digging well up to four kilometres deep, then pumping in large amount of water mixed with chemical under high pressure to crack the shale rock and release the gas.
Anglo-Dutch energy firm Shell, is one of the companies that have shown interest in the gas exploration and have expressed concern that the lack of progress in this project is a serious concern.
A Shell Commission study by Cape Town based consultancy suggested that extracting 50 trillion cubic feet or 12,8% of potential reserves would add 20 billion or 0,5% of GDP to the economy every year for 25 years and create 700 000 jobs. At what cost to the country and its natural environment? That method with which fracking is done and resources needed to do, it should immediately set the alarm bells ringing in South Africa.
The Karoo is one of the driest places you can ever find in South Africa with chronic water shortage at any given stage. Just north of the Kalahari Desert, a natural wonder with some of rarest species you can ever find. So, our argument is that fracking will demolish livelihoods and cause irreparable damage to the environment.
There are credible scientific arguments that contamination from fracking or drilling fluids might travel upwards into the current drinking water supplies along dolerite water courses. This will endanger the already poor supply of water in some of the regions.
Again, there is no consensus amongst scientists of the validity of the study. Many argue that deeply fractured shale basins of the Karoo helps with unpredictable properties. The amount of shale gas available in the Karoo therefore, is anything but thumb-sucking from people whose desire is to destroy the environment of our country. We don‘t support fracking and we will lead protests.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. Your time has expired.
Ms M O MOKAUSE: And we will support any organisation that seeks to lead ... [Time expired.]
Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN: Chair, cheaper energy is good for South Africa. It translates into more jobs, more prosperity and a greater economic growth. Shale gas can be cheap or very expensive.
Shale gas wells are short-lived wells, because the gas reservoir depletes itself very quickly due to the very fast flow rates of gas. So, gas companies have to constantly frack more wells in order to cover expenses.
Fracking costs about R98 million per well, and much more considering the scarcity of water in this country.
It takes approximately 19 million litres of water to frack a well, and up to five times that to keep their production revenues up in additional wells together with the long list of chemicals that are required in the process.
Currently, there is no real control through regulatory frameworks which makes it mandatory for contractors drilling the wells to disclose their chemicals and that‘s the first red flag and potential for contamination as a failure of the well hole casing would allow for a release of those chemicals into our drinking water.
In the course of the initial production of the well only 15% to about 48 % of the 19 million litres of contaminated fracturing fluid is recovered and disposed of as it is too expensive to recycle for other fracturing operations.
And when these companies say dispose of they mean pumping into a disposal well and back into the earth, thus, continuing with the contamination of our groundwater supply. We have a climate that lends itself to solar and wind clean energy.
South Africa committed itself recently at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC to phase out its reliance on fossil fuels. So, why then this contradictory position by allowing fracking?
The IFP calls for far greater investment into renewable, clean energy sources and in no uncertain way opposes all calls to allow the conducting of fracking in South Africa. I thank you.
Mr S C MNCWABE: Hon Chairperson and hon members, contamination of groundwater reserves is the biggest risk associated with fracking. Up to 700 different chemicals are used in the mixture that is forced into the ground and there is no foolproof way of containing those chemicals. Chemical spills and cracked well casings can lead to surface and ground water contamination. Moreover, the waste water that flows back to the surface is toxic from all the chemicals which cannot be recycled safely.
How will this vast volume of contaminated water be disposed of? Fracking also uses a lot of energy and a lot of water.
South Africa is a water-scarce country and we have to ask ourselves where the water will come from to drive the fracking process. Will water be diverted from other
industries or will it be diverted from agriculture? South Africa has made no meaningful efforts over the past 22 years of democracy to increase our water storage capacity and our water resources for human consumption are already under severe strain. So, where is the water for fracking going to come from?
Hon Chairperson, what fracking does is simply distracting energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels rather than embark on a road that will benefit a few in the short to medium term. Let us invest our resources in renewable sources of energy. South Africa has an abundance of sunlight and wind, which is grossly underutilised as sources of affordable and renewable energy.
We do not have sufficient information on the long-term environmental implications of fracking and the NFP would urge government to adhere to the precautionary principle applicable to international environmental law. South Africa is a signatory of international treaties which embody the principles laid down in the Kyoto Protocol and the Rio Conference, and accordingly, we have an obligation to ensure that environmental harm does not
arise from practices which we do not have sufficient knowledge about.
The NFP believes that until it has been proven that shale gas is in the best interests of all South Africans, and in line with section 24 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing, fracking should not be allowed in South Africa. I thank you.
Mk H V NYAMBI: Ngiyabonga Sihlalo, ngibingelela neNdlu futsi. Sitabe solomane sendlulisa emavi endvudvuto emndenini wakaFidel, nebangani, netihlobo kanye nemmango wonkhe waseCuba. Sitsi akukalahlekelwa nine nodvwa sive saseCuba (Translation of Siswati paragraph follows.)
[Ms H V NYAMBI: Thank you Chairperson and I also greet the House at large. We will continue sending condolences to the family of Fidel, friends and relatives and the whole nation of Cuba. It is not only you alone Cubans who have lost a loved one.]
In the state of the nation address 2016, the hon President said ?when the economy grows fast it delivers jobs, workers earn wages and businesses make profit.? Indeed hon Chair, this would be an enormous boost to the
economy of South Africa. The national unemployment rate will be decreased as the fracking industry could potentially create approximately 700 000 new permanent jobs.
South Africa will reduce its dependency on oil because it is largely dependent on foreign imports for crude oil needs, of which 70% of oil is being imported from developed countries. Hon Chair, fracking will also create or generate R200 billion per annum. It is characterised as a more sustainable energy solution that will enable the country to avoid the greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere, of which South Africa is considered one of the worst offenders globally. Proponents are eager to meet the South African promise to reduce harmful gas emissions by 34% by 2020. If the country has its own fracked gas, it will be better used than importing gas that has been compressed at great energy cost somewhere else. As it grows, the natural gas prices are dropping drastically and the rand will be strengthened compared to the dollar.
The environmental concerns brought to the attention of government cannot and should not be ignored. It is for this reason that the ANC government holds further processing of applications for exploration of shale gas
in abeyance until such time that measures are introduced to safeguard the environment and water pollution.
Although environmentalists have a reputation of being opposed to all development, but the truth of the matter is that the evidence to date indicates that the risk is very small. This would ensure learners are effectively prepared to contribute and benefit from the developed state, especially our own young hydrogeologist to go and work and gain experience in the industry and in particular in the governmental agencies that regulate the industry.
It will be a great opportunity for the ANC-led government to continuously find solutions to advance our country as a developing nation. The lowering of carbon-fuel source would allow the economy to make the transition from its dependence on coal. Fracking as an economic booster will yield returns of 9,6% of the South Africa, gross domestic product, GDP. With the increase in production of natural gas, the number of people employed in production and delivery activities also increases. As there are a lot of oil and natural gas deposits, there is still a need to tap into the number of people employed in oil and natural gas industry. The increase in the use of fracking technology has seen a 67% rise in employment.
We are no more relying on foreign countries, Chair, because now we have more access to gas deposits. However, we no longer have to rely on other countries around the world for some of our fossil fuels. Instead, we can rely on ourselves to provide energy for our own residents.
Coal releases dangerous compounds into the air such as sulphur which is poisonous, but burning gas does not release as much carbon dioxide into the air, that means the more the gas we burn the better the air quality will be. This can help to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the air and therefore slow down global warming.
In 2014, His Excellency, President Zuma, during the state of the nation address said:
The development of petroleum, especially shale gas, will be a game changer for the Karoo region and the South African economy. Having evaluated the risks and opportunities, the final regulations will be released soon and will be followed by the processing and granting of licences.
Sengephetsa nje, Sihlalo, ngifuna kusho kahle kuze bonkhe bantfu beve kutsi sikhuluma ngani nasikhuluma ngalendzaba lesiyiphetse. I-Shell Gas, yimboni lenshasha, leyehlukile
kuletimayini, laba betimondzawo abatimisele; laba labatimisele ngekutfukisa live. Kufanele bakusekele ngalokuphelele lokuphehlwa nome kubholwa kwelidvwala. Kuphehlwa kwemadvwala kwentelwa kukhipha gezi wemvelo nekusombulula letinsayeya letintsatfu lesibukene nato. Sikhuluma ngekunciphisa indlala, nekungalingani ngekwemisebenti, nangekwesimo sebulili kanye nekweswelakala kwemisebenti.
Ekugcineni, ngifuna kusho kutsi njengobe lamuhla kuLilanga Lemhlaba Lengculazi njengemmango wakitsi e- Afrika, asitinakekeleni tsine. Phephani! Loko akusho kutsi nase utibonile kutsi simo sakho sinjani bese uyatiyekela utitjela kutsi sengiyawubona khona. Njengobe sisaya emaholideyini nje sibophepha bekunene. Inkhosi inibusise nonkhe. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of Siswati paragraphs follows.)
[As I conclude, Chairperson, I want to state it clearly so that everybody can understand what the issue at hand is. Shell Gas is a brand new industry, different from mining industry and those that are concerned about the environment must be serious as well as those who wo are determined to develop this country. They must support whole heartedly the rock drilling. The rock drilling will be done to produce natural gas and to address the triple
challenges we are facing. We are talking about poverty alleviation, inequality in employment, and in gender as well as unemployment.
Lastly, I would like to say that since today is a World AIDS Day, as South Africans we need to take care of ourselves. Be safe! This does not mean that when you are aware of your HIV status, you must not become despondent and say come what may. As we are going on holidays, let everybody be safe. May the Lord bless you all. Thank you.]
Ms C N MAJEKE: Hon Speaker, hon members, natural gas extraction is a good innovation for South Africa given our immediate socioeconomic challenges and the urgent need for industrialisation as a response to the fundamentals of our economic transformation trajectory. It can add to the various revenue streams and reduce reliance on coal while increasing our supply of energy and creating a new industry.
Our devastated economy requires a deliberate investment into sustainable, clean and trusted energy-generating innovations. The more time we spend discussing the need for this innovation, the more we make the agenda to alter our economic landscape as a nation, a distant dream.
As part of our nation‘s movement towards sustainable development, as envisaged in the National Development Plan, NDP, we should move with great speed to resolve differences on this matter. In this regard, and with more than R100 million already invested by government towards research and regulation as a legislative body, we should be able to find each other on these matters of national interest.
We must urgently call on the affected departments, in particular the departments of Environmental Affairs, Energy and Mineral Resources to complete the processes related to the finalisation of the regulatory framework. A comprehensive environmental impact assessment and the strategic environmental assessment for the Karoo, must be completed and presented to parliament within a specified timeframe. This is notwithstanding the legal process underway initiated by some opponents of fracking. This is one developmental issue that must not be locked in legal battles.
As part of the Cop 17 community whose 17th conference was hosted by South Africa just two months ago, we should make sure that social mobilisation is maintained, wide buy-in is secure, and that licensing is not turned into extracting without accounting.
Finally, social mobilisation and facilitation processes both in terms of form and content, must have a more unifying objective than it currently has. I thank you.
Mr W M MADISHA: Chair, fracking seems to be the modern gold rush with 11 applications to frack for unconventional gas over the last three years. The undemocratic and divisive tactics used in our communities by corporations and government to push their version of a development agenda, has been experienced by all communities.
There are false promises of economic development and job creation, but what government and these corporations seem to forget to tell communities is that fracking will create very – I emphasise very – few low-paying jobs, as it is a highly skilled field.
It is the communities living on the edge of mines that will experience that impact first hand. For example, the community of Matatiele solely depends on underground water sources for their survival. As it stands now, some areas in Matatiele only have water for two to three hours a day and at times they don‘t have water for up to a week.
Twenty million litres of water is required for each well. What will the effect be on the already disastrous water situation in Matatiele?
It is not only about fracking; it is the unsustainable and unsafe extractive activities such as nuclear and coal which will directly impact negatively on our communities, their health and food security.
Profits are sent overseas by using global financial systems and do not benefit South African communities.
One thing we have learned over the last three years is that, although it is a disaster for the affected communities, it galvanised them.
We hope that this debate will be one which puts everyone on the same page, namely that the extractive industry for unconventional gas is not the way forward for our country. Instead, we should learn from Rwanda‘s solar power project. The plant supplying half of Rwanda‘s population with electricity was erected and fully operational within a year. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
Mr J R B LORIMER: Chair, some technologies are transformational. The process of hydraulic fracturing underground has been around for decades. Combined with horizontal drilling, as it was in the last two decades, it has changed the world.
The United States is the country which has pioneered the rollout of fracking and has seen some 300 000 wells drilled and fracked, most of them in the last 15 years. It has found large quantities of oil and gas, to the point where it is now exporting gas and will soon be energy independent. That has changed its attitude to the world.
Fracking could hold great benefit for South Africa too. Consider that the Mossgas field – which employed thousands of people for 25 years – was started on less than a trillion cubic feet of gas. Estimates of what may be under the Karoo range from nothing at all, to almost
400 times that.
The truth is we don‘t know and we won‘t know until exploratory wells have been sunk and fracked. The process is not without risk.
As you‘ve heard from my colleagues this afternoon, many people in South Africa think it is too risky to even try. The risks include fracking fluids getting into water supplies, competition for water and waste water spills.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has completed a multiyear study of fracking. It found there was no evidence that fracking had any widespread, systemic impact on drinking water. Yes, there has been pollution of gas into water supplies caused by well casings that were absent or not properly constructed.
There are now standards in place to ensure that this is done properly. If we were to frack, we must apply best international practice in this regard.
Fracking uses a lot of water. One well uses as much water as it takes to water a golf course for a week. There is concern about where that water should come from. That is why we believe that fracking should only happen if it does not take water from people who are currently using it. Much of the water that emerges from a fracked well is similar to acid mine drainage. That water must be collected and cleaned. Once again, drillers must be held to rigorous standards.
After a bumpy start, this government has handled the issue better, appointing a multi-agency task team to investigate it. But this government has a credibility problem. People do not trust it to look after the environment. People look at mining, not just historically, but more recently where mines have damaged the environment through a combination of bad rules and worse enforcement. Just go and look at opencast coal mining around Ogies if you don‘t believe me.
So people say we can‘t trust government to make sure fracking is done properly. In order to address this problem, government should include on its task team academics and members of civil society organisations and it should be completely transparent about its operations. It should have the power to stop bad practices and it should be able to shut down operations if they are polluting water used for drinking and farming. Especially during the drilling and fracking of the first wells, there should be constant supervision by something like the task team which includes independent experts. There should be no suspicion that anything can be covered up if it goes wrong.
If there is gas down there in big enough quantities that can be safely extracted, the benefits are potentially
massive. Six trillion cubic feet of gas could give us a gas-fired power station the size of Medupi with electricity that was cheaper and cleaner. It has the potential to run gas-powered smelters and gas-to-liquids plants, a technology which South Africa has shown it is good at.
Through it all, there is the potential to create large numbers of jobs, not only in the actual fracking, but also in industries that will become possible with clean, abundant and cheap energy.
But none of this is imminent. Even if government gave the go ahead today for fracking, it will still take something like eight years until the industry could get into production.
But all of this is theoretical until government changes the disastrous new version of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act that ensured that nobody would spend money on oil and gas drilling. Government has apparently promised to fix it as the Bill proceeds through the NCOP. Frankly, this government‘s record on mining so far argues against it getting the regulatory framework right.
This is an expensive business. A fracked well can cost
$20 million dollars. Energy companies won‘t invest and develop our resources unless they can be sure it is worth their while.
Then there is the infrastructure that government wants to be the only one building for a gas economy - pipelines and storage and distribution networks. The gas utilisation master plan has been long promised but has still not emerged. If government wants to control this infrastructure, it must get moving. The customary glacial pace is not sufficient. It is possible to be consultative, considered and quick.
If there is a way to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs – as has been promised – this government should investigate it speedily. There should be no delay in exploiting a technology that could pull millions of our people out of poverty.
This would essentially be a new industry. From the beginning it should be free of the taint of corruption which has been allowed to infect our mining industry. If there is a suspicion that drilling licences are being handed out to enrich pals of the ruling faction of the
ruling party, this industry will find it hard to attract both investment and public support. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES: Chairperson of
the session, the hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members of the House, ladies and gentlemen, shale gas extraction dates back to 1825, many years ago and the production has been economically mined in other countries for well over 50 years especially in the USA. There are thus important lessons to derive from these experiences noting that South Africa is poised to become a potential major player in this unconventional gas exploitation.
Hydraulic fracturing, which you now call fracking, remains a very topical issue that generates debate amongst those who are in support of the exploration for these resources and those who seek to protect the environment at all cost.
Indeed, as government we have taken cognisance of all matters raised by various parties and will continue to do so in line with the communications strategy that was approved by Cabinet on 27 May 2015. According to the preliminary studies conducted locally by the Petroleum Agency of South Africa, Pasa, and by the United States Energy Information Administration, the main Karoo basin
of South Africa has between 30 and 500 trillion cubic feet, tcf, of technically recoverable volumes of shale gas. Should this be the case, then this will indeed be a true game changer for our energy mix in South Africa. But for us to be able to access that properly, exploration has to start. I must say that exploration is not extraction.
The second phase of the studies that we have done will be to try to exploit and check the validity of the statistics that we have been given. It must also be noted that the resource extends to at least five provinces, namely, the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Western Cape, Free State and KwaZulu-Natal, and Mrs Dudley also has seen some applications for Mpumalanga. Hon Pikinini and hon Lorimer have just reminded us of the moss gas experience, which is now PetroSA, that started with one trillion cubic feet of gas reserve and employed 1 400 people directly with great other economic spin-offs for the country.
As you know members, hon Madisha was talking about the skills. I want to remind you that when it comes to the intellectual property, IP, on gas to liquids developed by Sasol, we are expert in this. That is why we are a
sought-after as South Africa on this technology. We are not running short of skills when it comes to this one.
The Department of Mineral Resources adopted a cautious approach to fully understand and appreciate the risks and opportunities that shale gas exploration and extraction present. The former Minister of Mineral Resources, hon Susan Shabangu, imposed a moratorium in 2011, to allow us time to gather more information through technical studies and scientific assessment. The moratorium was lifted 17 months later. Members already know the names of the five companies that had applied for this.
Based on all these, an interdepartmental committee comprising of the Department of Mineral Resources, DMR, the Department of Energy, Department of Water and Sanitation, Department of Science and Technology, Department of Environmental Affairs, the Council for Geoscience and Pasa that was chaired by the Director- General, DG, of Mineral Resources, was set up in 2012 to strengthen the regulations and conduct a comprehensive international benchmark exercise of well developed jurisdiction that had begun shale gas exploitation. As government, we are satisfied that the regulations that were published sufficiently addressed the recommendations
contained in a report on the investigation into the social and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
These studies were focussed on the assessment of impact to ensure that sufficient capacity is developed through the acquisition of necessary knowledge and skills to deal with this process in a responsible manner. Having regard to the technical nature of the exploration process, environmental and water impacts as well as socioeconomic impacts in its development were considered and furthermore, to ensure that the necessary regulatory and enforcement tools are put in place in anticipation for licensing and further development of this industry.
Through a process that included directors-general from different departments as well as science councils which include the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, CSIR, SA National Biodiversity Institute, Sanbi, and the Council for Geoscience and later the Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sea, was a means of ensuring that a systematic process is followed in order to provide an integrated assessment of decision-making framework and to enable South Africa to establish policy, legislation and sustainable conditions under which shale gas development can occur.
The regulations for petroleum exploration and exploitation have been concluded and were published in the Government Gazette in 2015. The regulations have indicated in great detail on the technical process of hydraulic fracturing and further made the necessary references to the legislative requirements for environmental protection provided in the National Environmental Management Act and water protection provided by the National Water Act.
The regulations have gone a few steps further by ensuring the protection and in fact exclusion of the Square Kilometre Array project in the Karoo and for the first time made it a requirement that right holders disclose the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process.
Members, it must be emphasised that such a requirement is the first in all jurisdictions where hydraulic fracturing is used. It must further be mentioned that these regulations have been benchmarked with the most developed international jurisdictions on the subject matter that are leading in the areas of shale gas development.
As a further implementation of the recommendation of the technical report on hydraulic fracturing, government has instituted necessary research on the subject matter in order to enhance our knowledge and capacity. The
Department of Mineral Resources has, through the Council for Geoscience in collaboration with Pasa, instituted a baseline study on the geology and mineralogy of the Karoo basin in order to assess and measure the availability of the resources and impacts of exploitation in the Karoo region.
Also, the Department of Environmental Affairs has, through the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, instituted a study for the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. The Department of Science and Technology has also, through the Academy of Science in South Africa, Assaf, concluded a study on the technical readiness of South Africa for shale gas development which has been launched in November 2016. The Department of Energy, through the SA National Energy Development Institute, Sanedi, is conducting a technical study as well on shale gas development in South Africa. So, we have been very comprehensive in the studies on trying to do this.
The development of shale gas resource remains a critical element for the diversification of our energy mix in line with the National Development Plan. So, it is not either this or, it is a mixture of all these capacities that we have as a country especially where we embrace the concept
of gas emissions which threatens the future utilisation of coal resources for energy generation on which South Africa mainly relies on for electricity generation.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for South Africa to ensure that our economic development goals remain viable and sustainable through the provision of constant energy resources while maintaining shale gas resources can provide this balance and contribute to our national growth imperatives as we strive for radical economic transformation.
Hon Nyambi has already highlighted some economic data and according to an econometrics report shale gas development can address job creation, benefit the poor, stimulate the economy and secure energy supply for South Africans.
Furthermore, it estimates that a relative conservative find of 20 tcf could have an annual economic impact of R80 billion. Hundreds of thousands of sustainable employment opportunities could be created and have knock- on effect on producers, government and consumers.
Furthermore, shale gas could ease the energy deficit making it cheaper for the country to grow and ensuring a stable electricity supply.
As I draw towards conclusion, the department has also received and is currently processing five applications
for shale gas development which are regarded as initial first applicants to pioneer and move forward the process of shale gas development. Furthermore, the department has through the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill, MPRD, which has recently been passed by the National Assembly and currently undergoing the NCOP process, enhanced the provisions relating to petroleum development in order to secure a win-win mechanism as the process for development evolves. The enhancement of these provisions has also been enhanced through Operation Phakisa.
It is anticipated that this initiative will drive forward the development of petroleum resources and provide necessary fiscal and socioeconomic benefits such as improving the balance of payment, community development, skills development and job creation for the benefit of South Africans, and particularly citizens who are in close proximity to operations and to reverse the evils of underdevelopment and poverty.
We take into account all the issues that are raised in terms of the water contamination but we are trying to be on top of the situation as well. We have also met with some of the antifrackings like the AfriForum and the Treasure Karoo Action Group. We met them since 2014. We
continue to be with communities and we also take heed that there is a manifesto that came from Matatiele. We will get hold of that so that we do it. It is also grand standing to say that the ANC is responsible for all these environmental damages that were created under apartheid whereas these people who are shouting here were quiet. It is only after 1994 that we introduced better environmental legislations. Before that these loud mouths who are shouting here are the ones who actually damaged this environment and they were quiet. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE
(The late Former President of Cuba Fidel Castro)
Mr M S A MASANGO: Hon House Chair, I move:
That the House —
(1) notes with sadness the passing of Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, a towering figure of the 20th century and the commander in chief of the Cuban revolution, on 25 November 2016 at the age of 90;
(2) further notes that Fidel Castro, a Cuban revolutionary leader who built the first communist state in the Western Hemisphere, has suffered ill health since undergoing an emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006;
(3) acknowledges that President Castro maintained the independence and sovereignty of Cuba in the face of the vicious imperialist-orchestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain make in the Cuban revolution;
(4) further acknowledges that he stood up and strengthened his country during the harshest American blockade, when there was colossal pressure on him;
(5) recalls that under his leadership, the living standards of the Cuban people were vastly improved and millions of young Cubans were educated and skilled and that illiteracy was eradicated and healthcare improved;
(6) further recalls his international efforts, his steadfast commitments and support for the freedom
in South Africa and the African continent as well as his opposition to apartheid and imperialism;
(7) understands that since democracy, Cuba and the Republic of South Africa have enjoyed a special bond founded on mutual interest and co-operation, and that President Nelson Mandela bestowed on President Castro the Order of Good Hope in 1998;
(8) remembers that, on 04 September 1998, Fidel Castro addressed a joint sitting of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces reflecting on the enormous responsibilities and historical task in creating the new South Africa;
(9) further remembers that there are currently over 1000 medical students who are pursuing a medical qualification in Cuba;
(10) recognises that the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa will consider sending a multiparty delegation to attend the commemoration funeral in Cuba;
(11) salutes a courageous revolutionary, a visionary and a legend; and
(12) extends its condolences, support and gratitude to the people of Cuba. Thank you.
Mr M S A MASANGO: Hon House Chair, hon members, fellow compatriots, thus do we, the people of South Africa in this democratic people‘s Parliament, join President Zuma, Africa and the whole wide world in lowering our revolutionary banners in the fond memory of El Commandante, Fidel Castro, who departed to eternity at the age of 90.
Our Deputy Speaker, Hon Tsenoli, will lead a multiparty delegation to Cuba to attend the funeral and render a eulogy on behalf of Parliament. Fellow South Africans, the DA - which enjoys this freedom and graces the portals of this august House, for which Castro so selflessly contributed - unfortunately refuses to send its students to Cuba in terms of the existing formal bilateral co- operation of 1996 and are also refusing to attend his funeral. What a shameless lack of ubuntu.
Today, the ANC, SACP, Cosatu, Sanco and all other revolutionary forces join the world in mourning the passing of Cde Fidel Castro. However, as we mourn his passing, we also celebrate the glorious legacy that he bequeathed to all progressive humanity.
As members would recall, Castro was inspired by his progressive internationalism and the perspectives he shared with the ANC of yearning for a humane, a just, a peaceful and an equitable world order. Not only did Castro emboss an indelible footprint in the international political firmament from 1959 to 2008, but he was also undoubtedly a towering statesman of the 20th century.
Not only was he brave, but he was also at the command of an incisive intellect. It was well known to both friend and foe, that he didn‘t suffer any fools easily. Castro lived and died undefeated. Together with Kwame Nkrumah, J Nehru, Gamal Nasser and O R Tambo, Castro championed the liberation of colonised Africa within the Non-Aligned Movement during the Cold War.
Fellow South Africans, in various solidarity campaigns and multilateral fora such as the United Nations and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, Castro campaigned for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, the unbanning of the ANC and the liquidation of the crime of apartheid.
Cuba‘s military and logistical support to the ANC was a countervailing response to the adversarial aggression by apartheid South Africa in the Frontline States. This was
a response to combat the insidious Total Strategy intentions of P W Botha and his securocrats. As we all remember, in November 1987, Castro deployed the Cuban soldiers, who together with the People‘s Armed Forces of Liberation of Angola, Fapla, uMkhonto weSizwe, MK, People‘s Liberation Army Navy, Plan, and Russia inflicted a shattering defeat to the SA Defence Force at the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.
In a tribute to Cuba and to the gallant Cuban fighters who had come to the assistance of Africa‘s liberation struggle, Nelson Mandela said, and I quote:
Your presence and the reinforcement of your forces in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale was of truly historic significance... The overwhelming defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale provided the possibility for Angola and Namibia to enjoy peace and consolidate their own sovereignty!... The decisive defeat of the apartheid aggressors broke the myth of invincibility of the white oppressors! ... Without the defeat of Cuito Cuanavale our organisations would not have been unbanned. The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today.
In its January 8 Statement of 2012, the ANC correctly asserted that, I quote:
We pay a special tribute to the Cuban people and their government, who at great cost to themselves, sent their most courageous sons and daughters to a continent on the other side of the Atlantic, not in pursuit of oil, minerals, diamonds or raw materials to exploit, but to defend the African revolution and to help defeat an obnoxious system of racial oppression.
His was a boundless spirit of generosity and he was a warrior for global peace. At the invitation of President Nelson Mandela in 1998, Fidel Castro addressed this National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces respectively, where he received a standing ovation. In honour of his immeasurable contribution to our freedom, this indomitable iconic hero was awarded the Order of Good Hope by President Mandela and the Order of the Companions of O R Tambo on 27 of March 2009, by President Zuma.
Over the last 20 years, Cuba has partnered with us for the reconstruction and development of the postapartheid South Africa. This co-operation is in the following areas: human settlements, public works, education, water
and sanitation, arts and culture, defence, health and international relations.
South Africa currently has 300 students studying in Cuba to become doctors. Five hundred and eight students have already qualified and are working as doctors, while another 55 Cuban-trained doctors graduated at Wits on 18 July this year.
This, is an abundantly clear testament that this valiant hero who not only helped us destroy the vexatious crime of apartheid so that the people could indeed govern, but also partnered with us to build a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and a prosperous South Africa.
All these have been made possible by the progressive contribution of President Castro and the great Cuban people. We owe him a deep debt of gratitude.
Whilst we applaud the current diplomatic détente between the Unites States of America and Cuba, we do also call upon the United States of America to remove its garrison in Guantanamo Bay and to lift the economic embargo.
As we conclude, we convey our condolences to his family, his friends and his compatriots. As Parliament,
... sithi, khamba kuhle kakaramba yekutana. [... we are saying, go well great hero]
Long live the indefatigable spirit of El Commandante Fidel Castro, Long Live. I thank you. [Applause.]
Dr M J CARDO: Hon Chairperson, the DA extends its condolences to the government of Cuba on the passing of Fidel Castro; to members of the ANC, whose organisation had a long and special relationship with Cuba during the struggle against apartheid; and to the millions of Cubans who waited for this historic event for over half a century.
The last few days have seen an outpouring of grief from those who fought and supported anticolonial struggles in Africa, Latin America and Asia. For many, Fidel Castro was a revolutionary hero, an icon of anti-imperialism, who — in the course of a long life — doggedly and defiantly championed their cause on the world stage. As President Jacob Zuma remarked of Castro in his tribute in Havana yesterday, and I quote:
He stood with us in solidarity, supporting our struggle. We knew that we could rely on Cuba, a trusted friend and ally of the oppressed.
In the West, too, the self-styled standard—bearers of socialism have bowed and scraped and fawned and swooned while lauding El Comandante. The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, called Castro a ?champion of social justice?. He noted that:
For all his flaws, Castro‘s support for Angola played a crucial role in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa.
There can be no doubt that Castro was a friend to the ANC and an ally of the oppressed in apartheid South Africa.
Yet, that was not the totality of his life history. Amidst the euphemistic eulogies and honeyed homages — beyond the hackneyed verbiage of ?internationalism? and
?solidarity? — the world would do well to remember that, at home, Castro was an oppressor, a torturer and a murderer. [Applause.]
His only daughter, Alina Fernández, aligned herself with Cuba‘s dissident movement. She tried for years to flee the island before escaping in 1993. Disguised with makeup and a wig, and forced to leave her own daughter behind, she travelled to America on a forged Spanish passport. Of her father, Fernández simply remarked and I quote: ?Fidel is a tyrant?.
After defeating the Batista regime in 1959, Castro promised his people freedom from colonialism and dictatorship. But, instead, he hitched his fortunes to the Soviet empire and established an autocracy at home. Castro demolished democracy, felled freedom and obliterated opportunity — turning Cubans into the slaves of the postcolonial state.
In this way, he was the very antithesis of his friend and fellow revolutionary, Nelson Mandela, who battled a corrupt regime, and led South Africa from an authoritarian state towards a constitutional democracy.
Castro was a dictator, pure and simple. That is the correct term for someone who forbade free and fair elections, locked up his political opponents, ruthlessly controlled the media, brutally suppressed freedom of expression, religion, association, assembly and movement, and handed over the reins to his brother when illness forced him to cede power.
These are the bald facts about the Castro regime that history, for all the romantic revisionism in the world, cannot and will not absolve. In spite of his posturing about imperialism, Castro turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union. He was prepared to sacrifice his people to a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis of
1962. This was an act of bloodlust and fanaticism that so appalled the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, the Cold War superpower was compelled to remove its missiles.
Castro ordered and sanctioned so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to determine, but it runs into the hundreds of thousands.
He built concentration camps and prisons on an unprecedented scale, filled them up, and jailed and tortured a higher proportion of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin. According to recently released German intelligence files, Castro — a professed opponent of fascism — tried to hire former Nazi S S officers to instruct his army. He murdered more Cubans between 1959 and 1962 than Hitler killed Germans during his first six years in power.
Castro persecuted gay people, forbade them from joining the Communist Party and rounded them up in prison work camps. He was only too happy to get rid of them. Gays comprised a significant number of a 125 000 Cubans
?worms? in Castro‘s words who were allowed to leave the island for the United States in the 1980 Mariel Boatlift.
Almost one in five Cubans was forced into exile to escape his reign of terror. It is estimated that nearly 80 000 of them lost their lives as they fled in rickety boats.
Castro destroyed the Cuban economy and impoverished the vast majority of his people. Despite the much-vaunted claims about Cuba‘s education and health systems, Castro‘s schools provided indoctrination rather than education.
He created a two-tier health system. There was inferior medical care for the majority of Cubans and superior care for Castro and his henchmen. And on an island where about two thirds of the population is black, today the civil service is estimated to be 70% white. Cuba‘s history, like South Africa‘s, is a story of the struggle against colonial oppression - a struggle for dignity. President Zuma stated in his funeral oration, and I quote:
We will remember Comrade Fidel as a great fighter for the ideal that the poor have a right to live in dignity. That is why the Cuban revolution was and still remains an inspiration to South Africa and the world on how to achieve a better life for the poor.
Castro was undeniably a staunch ally against apartheid, but this is precisely the wrong lesson to draw from his
death. Castro stripped his people of their dignity. He made them poor. The anticolonial liberator turned into the postcolonial oppressor.
Let us honour South Africa‘s own negotiated revolution and the memory of Madiba by upholding our Constitution and its cornerstone Bill of Rights. Let us remember the bonds of a shared history with Castro‘s Cuba, without them becoming the shackles of a future that lives in the past. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Chair, the EFF stand here to commemorate, celebrate and salute the life of the Commander in Chief of the Cuban revolution. He was a revolutionary, a leader of the July 26 Movement and the de facto leader of the anticolonial movement all over the world. If it was not for El Comandante, Fidel Castro, the freedoms that have been attained in Angola, Guinea- Bissau, Mozambique and many other African countries, would have not happened.
It was the sole role of the Cubans under the capable leadership of El Comandante, Fidel Castro, that the countries, mostly in the Southern African, a component of our continent, have realised their freedom. The Cubans did everything in their power by surrendering their lives
in order for the freedoms of the people in the African continent to be realised, but not only in the African continent.
Cuba played a practical role by providing both ideological and military support in all the liberation movements that got to defeat colonialism. So, we stand as the EFF to support and speak much more positively about El Comandante, Fidel Castro. There are those that are giving a different narrative. The right-wingers will of course speak like that because they miss the colonial past. [Applause.]
But we can talk today that Cuba‘s unemployment rate officially stands at less than 3% and that more than 99% of Cubans are literate, meaning that they are able to read and write. Their life expectancy is close to 80 years for all the Cuban people. In Cuba, the infant mortality is less than 15 people per our 1000 deaths.
Cuba‘s health system is the most responsive one. They train thousands of doctors, not only for the people of Cuba, but for the entire world. There are 23 medical schools in Cuba and there is also a ratio of one doctor per 155 people. This is a dream that is mostly associated with the so-called developed nations.
Also, Cuba has got a Guaranty Trust Bank, GTB, ratio which is far much lesser in terms of per capita as compared to many countries that has got such developmental indicators. Cuba is also the most developed nation in terms of the impact on human life. Because that is a socialist victory and a socialist achievement, that is also what we want to achieve in South Africa. We want to be like Cuba as South Africa. [Applause.]
We unashamedly want to pursue a progressive socialist agenda that will bring about free education for all. We also want to caution the people of Cuba that the fluctuations of the Americans must not fool them into believing that they are going to ever be their friends. The Americans will never be the friends of Cuba. They are always opposed to progressive change. That is why we stand tall here in the South African Parliament to say that the Cuban flag must fly forever. [Applause.]
The Cuban flag must never be undermined with the passing away of Comandante, Fidel Castro. The people of Cuba must continue to fight for their freedom; they must continue to support the underdeveloped nations of the world; they must stand in solidarity, not through the messages of support, but through practical support of the colonised world that is still experiencing new colonialism.
We will fight together with the people of Cuba. As part of that commemoration, the EFF was launched on 26 July in commemoration of the July 26 Movement which was led by El Comandante, Fidel Castro. We say salute to El Comandante, Fidel Castro! Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chairperson, it goes without saying, that Fidel Castro Ruz is a continental hero in Africa and today‘s condolence motion befittingly sets a precedent for this House in that this is the first time a condolence motion for a political leader outside of South Africa has been debated. But now that the flood gates have opened we are sure there will be many more such motions to follow.
Fidel Castro‘s stance against political and economic dominance by the west, against all adversity, is in itself worthy of respect and admiration, irrespective of whether one agrees with his political views or not.
Governing the Republic of Cuba as he did for 47 years is testament to this icon of communism.
Whether this political ideology advanced or regressed the socioeconomic standards of the Cuban people, is a subject for another debate and not a condolence motion. Under Castro‘s leadership, Cuba‘s support for African
independence movements was almost unparalleled. Today, South Africa and Cuba share a strong relationship forged in our own struggle for independence.
In conclusion and if I may use one of Fidel‘s quotes in the hope that it finds resonance in certain quarters of the ruling party politics, he said: ?I can assure you that my first and foremost interest is my country.? This should be one of our principle guiding lights as political leaders, for without it, we are lost and our country will flounder.
But let this not be the case, for it‘s time that we root out the rot and it‘s time that we start the process of reversing the damage done. Nothing is irreversible, but we must begin in earnest, we must begin now! Our condolences go to the family of Fidel Castro. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S C MNCWABE: Chairperson and the hon members, today we pay tribute to the true leader of the poor and the working class. We bid a final farewell to the commander, the commissar himself, the people‘s hero, El Commande Fidel Castro. We are bidding our final farewell to the enemy of the imperialist and white monopoly capital, the father of the Cuban revolution.
Chairperson, allow me to say we are paying tribute to the true and faithful son of the African continent. The son of Africa because Commander Fidel Castro dedicated his life to the liberation struggles of many African states who achieve their freedom and their independence through his serious interventions and his Cuban forces. This is the reason why Africa is the mother continent to many Cubans and Cuba is the mother country to many Africans today.
Sihlalo ohloniphekile lihambile iqhawe lamaqhawe. Leli qhawe noma belingumholi othandwayo futhi ohlonishwayo ezweni layo kodwa belungumabizwa asabele e-Afrika. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Hon Chair, the mighty warrior is gone. Even though this hero was an honourable and popular leader in his country, he was very responsive when called in Africa.]
Fidel Castro worked with many leaders of liberation struggles in Africa like Samora Machel, Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Oliver Tambo, President Mandela and others. When Angola was moving towards its independence in 1975, the South African apartheid troops and the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, invaded Angola. The People‘s Movement for the Liberation of Angola, MPLA
asked for help from Cuba. Fidel Castro did not ask as to what was going to be his material benefits in return, but immediately sent 36 000 Cuban forces to Angola. [Applause.]
Castro instructed his forces and said: ?A defeat to Angola would mean a defeat to Cuban Revolution.? Cuban doctors, teachers and engineers made outstanding contribution in Angola. Sadly, more than 2000 soldiers lost their lives and Fidel had to carry those dead bodies back to Cuba for burial. Fidel Castro played an instrumental role in the liberation of South Africa and even today our medical students are trained in Cuba.
Hon members, this is the man who defied the imperialist agenda to the last day of his life. We know very well that as we mourn the passing of this giant, the capitalist and imperialist are celebrating because they attempted more than 600 times to assassinate him but dismally failed.
The former President of the United States of America, USA, George Bush, has been quoted to have referred to Castro as: ?The tyrant who left the earth last week.? We do not care whatever names the imperialists can give to the late commander, but he will always be in the hearts
of the African children. We will always salute him. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N L S NKWANKWA: House Chair, on behalf of the UDM, I join the millions here at home and abroad in expressing our deepest condolences to the Castro family, and the people of Cuba on the passing of their former President, Fidel Castro.
One of the previous speakers highlighted some of the missteps of this struggle icon and revolutionary of our times. Yes, indeed, there were missteps along the way, as there always are in the project of nation-building.
However, as Sean Jacobs, a columnist of The Guardian, a British daily newspaper, put it recently that, and I quote:
A great irony about the reaction to Castro is that many of the people demanding acknowledgement of his wrongs have never acknowledged that their governments were on the wrong side of history, or sponsored dictatorships in many developing countries.
To many of us, Castro was a freedom fighter and revolutionary that supported, often at a great cost to
Cuba, the liberation struggles of many African countries, which include but are not limited to, Angola, Algeria, Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and our South Africa.
Who can forget the humiliating defeat that the apartheid regime‘s South African Defence Force suffered at the hands of Cubans, which paved the way for the freedom we now enjoy. In all these efforts, thousands of Cuban lives were lost for the cause of freedom in Africa.
Borrowing the words from William Ernest Henley‘s poem, Invictus, I would like to say, Out of the night that covered us during our struggle days, black as the pit from pole to pole, we should thank whatever gods may be, for Castro‘s unconquerable soul.
Often, those who want to minimise his achievements, overlook his successes in defeating illiteracy, reducing infant mortality rates, and ensuring that every citizen in Cuba has access to quality healthcare including the fact that Cuba has one of the highest per capita number of doctors in the world.
Ladies and gentleman, the fact of the matter is death has robbed us of yet another great freedom fighter. We should
however, find solace in the shining legacy of selfless hard work he leaves behind.
UThixo makamenze aphumle ngonakaphakade. Amkhanyisele ngokhanyiso olungacimiyo. [May God let him rest eternally? And give him everlasting light.]
May his soul rest in peace.
Ezinye izinto siza kuzixoxa xa singenzi isiPhakamiso saMazwi oVelwano. Siyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] [We will debate with other things when we are not doing Motions of Condolences. Thank you. [Applause]]
Mr W M MADISHA: House Chair, to some amongst us, it would be necessary to rise and cry because of what has happened in this instance, the reason being that he looked after some of us personally.
I go back 17-years ago remembering when one political party that I used to belong to, when I fell, and had a serious problem, they took me to that particular country, and Fidel rose and came to that particular house where he had put me with all the people that had to look after me, and ensured that I was able to live and survive. I can never forget that.
Now, I want to say that it is not time to cry for us as individuals, but time to cry for the many people both in South Africa and beyond our seas, the reason being that, what Fidel did was to fight and make sure that he contributed to the freedom of the people not only in his country, in Africa, on African soil, but everywhere, in South America, and everywhere where there were problems.
He has been able to achieve victory, even today, because of what he was able to plough and plant is being achieved. The many doctors that have been sent all over the world, the scientists, etc, to make sure that the people of the world are able to survive, that needs to be taken into consideration.
Those of us who were able to move around the streets and roads of Cuba to see the kind of poverty that is there, can‘t really believe even at this stage that poor President was still able to rise and say, we must do our best to help the people of the world. That is why I say, yes, if we all rise and cry, then all of us must be able to move together. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
Ms C DUDLEY: House Chair, the words ?for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,? come to mind as I stand here today. Probably as a reminder to me and others
like me that everything and everyone in this fallen world is in need of redemption, but very importantly, everything and everyone is redeemable until they leave the earth and go to meet their maker.
I did not know Fidel Castro, who is loved and hero worshipped by many especially in Africa, and I truly hope he found forgiveness and will be able to face his maker. The ACDP offers condolences to all who are grieving the passing of Fidel Castro, and to the many others who remember and experienced him as heading a regime responsible for a death toll from torture, prison beatings, firing squads, machine gunning of escapees, drowning, etc, of more than a 100 000 Cubans.
Condolences for Fidel Castro today are a reminder of how despite his methods; his success, personal magnetism, and commanding presence impacted the world. A world divided by world views that stand in stark contrast to each other.
The ACDP hopes that while we mark the passing of Fidel Castro, as a human being who deserves his dignity, we pray that affected people globally will choose to forgive, and that more people will embrace the freedoms of a democratic world. I thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Is hon Galo in the House? Hon Galo, according to what I have ... You didn‘t inform me of the changes. Come, please. My apologies hon Galo, they didn‘t give me the new speaker‘s list. You may take your seat.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson and fellow hon members of the House. By 1945, with the end of the 2nd World War and the defeat of fascism and Nazism in Europe and militarism in Japan - a bloody first half of the 20th century drew to a close.
At a global level there was now a relative stale-mate between the Western imperialist powers under the dominance of the United States, and an emerging socialist bloc of countries. The first half of the 20th century had seen two catastrophic world wars with much of the bloodshed occurring in Europe.
But now in the second half of the 20th century, the epicentre of the struggle for human justice, democracy and national self-determination shifted to the geo- political South. Europe had been liberated temporarily, as it seems - from fascism, racism and foreign occupation, but throughout the geopolitical South their close cousins were alive - various toxic versions of
colonialism prevailed neocolonialism, settler colonialism, semi-colonialism as in China, apartheid colonialism here in South Africa, always accompanied by rabid racism. All of this was the order of the day in the global South.
In was in this context that in the late 1940s and into the 1950s a new generation of popular, dynamic and fearless revolutionary leaders emerged. Some were to die relatively young, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, martyrs in struggle. Others survived into the late 20th century.
Some of these had however lost their revolutionary vigour by the stage. But there were outstanding exceptions, those who survived into the late 20th century with their authority, humanism and reputation intact and enhanced among them were Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela.
Both were born into relatively privileged but poor families but in the midst of deep rural poverty and under the scourge of oppressive regimes. In the case of Cuba, the island was a neocolony of the United States with supine and corrupt comprador local leaders. Havana was turned into a brothel and casino, the playground of the Mafia, while the majority of Cubans were pressed into
back-breaking work in US-owned sugar and tobacco plantations.
As a young law student in Havana Fidel moved increasingly in radical left circles. In July 1953 Fidel first came to national prominence within Cuba when he and a small group of fellow radicals launched an armed attack against the Moncada barracks. The attack was defeated some were killed and others, including Fidel, were captured.
But the event served to galvanize a rising tide of the opposition to the corrupt Batista regime. In particular it was the young Fidel‘s rousing speech in his trial from the dock, which was later published as "History will absolve me".
A year later Fidel was released Batista, the despot, made a mistake of underrating Fidel. He was released on amnesty and went into exile. With his brother Raul he teamed up with other Latin American radicals, including the Argentinian Che Guevara. They formed the July 26 movement and planned an armed liberation struggle back in Cuba.
In November 1956, in a rickety boat called the Granma, 81 armed revolutionaries set sail from the coast of Mexico
to Cuba. The trip was planned to last for 5 days and through their underground contacts back in Cuba they had plans that they would be a diversionary attacks in other parts of Cuba away from the selected landing area. These duly occurred but the boat itself was so rickety that unfortunately the 5 day trip took 7 days as they were bailing out water and so forth, by which time their own plans had been uncovered and they were ambushed on landing.
Once the survivors had regrouped in the Sierra Maestra it was found that only 19 of the 81 had survived — these included Fidel and Che Guevara. They were to become the core of a liberation struggle in the Sierra Maestra with support from left wing parties and trade unions in the towns and cities of the island. This movement remarkably swept through the island in a very short time, arriving in Havana on the 01 January 1959. The dictator Batista fled to the United States with his suitcases stuffed with millions of stolen dollars.
In February Fidel was sworn in as Prime Minister of the country and a series of radical reforms were quickly enacted. A cap on land-holding was placed at 402 hectares. Foreign ownership of Cuban land was prohibited;
200 000 peasants within a matter of months received title deeds for their land.
A mass literacy campaign was launched with college and university students suspending their studies for a year and going out into the country side to provide literacy to the peasants who carried the backbone of the struggle against Batista. [Applause.]
So they were not protesting against fees to fall but doing a patriotic duty and devoting a year of their studies to a solidarity effort of development in the deep rural areas; and it was dangerous as well. The counter revolutionaries attacked them some were killed and muttered in the process.
Of course the reaction of Cuba‘s near neighbour, the United States just 90 km away was soon coming. Oil exports from the United States were cut back. When Cuba then was forced to imported oil from the Soviet Union, the Shell, Esso and Standard Oil refineries refused to refine the product. This was in the first few months after the revolution. Fidel‘s response was typical and it was decisive. He nationalised the refineries.
The US then cut Cuba?s sugar export quota, again the response was patriotic and decisive — the US-owned sugar mills were nationalised along with US banks. But Fidel Castro understood very well that the US would not be content simply to destabilise the Cuban revolution through economic and financial means, especially as this were clearly not working. With every step to undermine them the popularity of Fidel and the July 26 Movement increased.
So Fidel realised that something worse would be coming soon, he doubled the size of the Cuban army. But more importantly in September 1960 a People‘s Militia, known as the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, CDRs, was established. These were speed and block committees, provided with basic military training but also responsible for community work, for home-based care visits and other things.
They were genuine organs of popular power of the kind that we began to develop in South Africa in the 1980s; in the face of the massive repression that we were facing.
By 1970 one-third of Cuba‘s population was involved voluntarily in the Committees for the Defence of Revolutions, CDRs - block based speed base committees. A form of popular democracy, quite remote from the chunk
faces Clinton so called democracy that we see; plutocracy that we see in the United States. And this was the decisive factor – this popular support and popular organisation in the very survival of the Cuban revolution, enabling Fidel to outlast 10 US Presidents and 637 assassination attempts.
In April 1961 the US launched the Bay of Pigs invasion, using Cuban exile proxies trained and armed by the CIA. With a US fleet steaming off the coastline, and aircraft bombing Cuban infrastructure, a mass beach-landing was undertaken. It was routed within a matter of days, with Fidel himself in the frontline leading at the front. [Applause.]
He later said: what the imperialists cannot forgive us is that we made a socialist revolution under their very noses. On the basis of these advances and the defence of the revolution in the face of a blockade which still continues - notwithstanding some amelioration under Obama, Cuba has made amazing social advances which other speakers have referred to, in literacy and in health- care. The infant mortality in Cuba is far below of that of the United States. In technology today Cuba is a world-leader in bio-technology and in much else.
Fidel was always a proud patriot, but, like the revolution he led, he was also imbued with a deep sense of internationalism. He once put it, ?the imperialists don‘t understand that our country is not just Cuba; our country is also humanity.? [Applause.] These were not just words.
Over the decades Cuba has selflessly deployed hundreds of thousands of doctors, engineers, soldiers to the Middle East, Latin America, and indeed here to Africa. What is especially remarkable about these deployments is that the Cubans have never asked for one single cent. [Applause.] They have never asked for mining concessions or for a slice of the business action in countries that they have literally saved from devastation, in countries – many countries in which thousands of Cubans lost their lives.
As Southern Africans we should honour this – and one is proud to see that the majority of political parties but not all, are honouring this; and do understand this. We should know this better than most in the world.
Soon after Angolan independence, the CIA working out of Mobutu‘s Zaire and the apartheid regime with its bases in occupied Namibia then called South West Africa planned a
joint pincer movement to capture Luanda and defeat the freshly elected MPLA government.
In 1975 Savimbi‘s UNITA backed by apartheid South Africa, and Roberto Holden‘s FLNA backed by the CIA were literally on the outskirts of Luanda. It was the dramatic arrival of 18 000 Cuban troops airlifted and shipped in at the 11 hour that literally saved the day. The history of southern Africa will be quite different if that had not happened. [Applause.]
In 1987 an even more decisive battle occurred in southern Angola at Cuito Cuanavale. In the dry season of that year Angolan government forces had advanced on Savimbi‘s Jamba headquarters, but they had overstretched their logistic supply lines and the apartheid regime had been waiting for just this moment to launch a lightning motorised attack with the aim of definitively cutting off and defeating the Angolan government forces.
This plan nearly succeeded, it was only frustrated by the technical capacity of the Cuban forces to rapidly build advanced airfields. The Cuban-piloted Soviet MIG jet fighters outmatched the apartheid Mirage fighters and suddenly the balance of conventional armed capacity had shifted in southern Africa. [Applause.] The apartheid
invasion forces no longer had air superiority and they were forced to beat a hasty retreat back over the Namibian border.
In 1988, within a matter of months the New York Accords were signed forcing the apartheid forces to leave Namibia and in 1990 Namibia celebrated its independence. Our own negotiated transition here in South Africa commenced in the same year. As Fidel once said ?the history of southern Africa will be written as before and after Cuito Cuanavale.? [Applause.]
But these advances in southern Africa were to coincide with the dramatic global development, the collapse of the Soviet bloc of countries. Suddenly Cuba, after 3 decades under a US-imposed blockade Cuba found itself deprived of its one life-line. It couldn‘t import oil. Its own sugar exports collapsed. By 1992 the economy had declined by 40%.
The response of Fidel and the Cuban people was typical. It was not to surrender themselves into the hands of the IMF. It was not to abandon ship. This island of just 11 million people, faced with isolation, embarked on a heroic programme of sovereign self-sufficiency.
They moved away from the old neocolonial dependence on mono-cropping, in their case sugar and tobacco. They moved away from large energy-intensive state and co- operative farms, to smaller farms. They even replaced tractors with oxen and found that the latter were better for soil conservation. Deprived of access to extensive industrial fertilizers they adopted widespread vermiculture. Important advances were made in localised solar energy resources and much else.
By 2006 Cuba was the world‘s only nation which met the UNDP‘s definition of sustainable development, sustainably putting back into nature what it was taking out. [Applause.] Typically, Fidel internationalised this new direction. Cuba‘s energy and sustainability challenges, he said, were a fore-runner of a global challenge and a global catastrophe facing humanity.
As he never tired of arguing in the last decades of his life, if the entire world‘s population was to consume at the level of the average North American then we would need seven planet earths; simply not possible. The path of profit-driven, capitalist growth underpinned by imperialist aggression is simply unsustainable. It is, in fact, a crime against nature, and since we are all part of nature, it is a crime against humanity. Long live the
memory of Fidel Castro - patriot, internationalist humanist, long live! [Applause.]
Mr M P GALO: Hon Chair, in a 1998 speech, the real Commander-in-Chief, Fidel Castro, told the South African Parliament during his first visit to the country that by the end of the Cold War, at least 381 432 Cuban soldiers and officers had been on duty or fought hand-in-hand with the African soldiers and officers in this continent for a national independence or against foreign aggression. Many Cubans also lost their lives in these wars.
In 1987, the Los Angeles Times reported that 10 000 Cuban troops have been killed in Angola since 1976, proportionately much higher than American fatalities in Vietnam.
Given this history, it was no surprise that one of Mandela‘s first trips outside South Africa after he was freed was to Havana. While there in July 1991, Mandela referred to Castro as a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people. I heard the leaders of the ruling party recently repeating the same quote now and again.
While deeply mourning the death of the great leader, the real Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro, we must ask
ourselves as people that, who are these people who are claiming to be the leaders of the poor masses in the continent, who will keep on quoting the great true leaders like Mandela, OR Tambo, Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Steve Biko, etc, but are dismally failing the people in their own countries because of greed, corruption and self-enrichment.
As we are mourning the death of the Commander–in-Chief, Fidel Castro, we must not forget the fact that as the poor masses in the continent, we are on our own; all the great true revolutionary leaders are leaving us in abject poverty and in all other unfavourable conditions. Africa must unite and rise and do away with corrupt, incompetent and unethical leaders in the continent.
The AIC conveys its deepest condolences to the family of the late Commander-in-Chief, Fidel Castro, death be not proud. I thank you.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA: Hon Chairperson, only descendent of P W Botha and John Vorster and benefactors of American imperialism will not recognise the role played by Cuba. [Applause.] I must remind hon members that the defeat of SA Defence Force allowed Angola as an independent state to train liberation forces, including uMkhonto weSizwe.
To the Commander-in-Chief, Fidel Castro, the world was blessed with a brave soul, a man who embodied selflessness, an internationalist indeed.
The Angolan revolution was nearly hijacked by Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, and an apartheid puppet, Jonas Savimbi. The intervention of Cuba under the leadership of Fidel Castro was decisive. His shrewd and fortitude leadership propelled forward the independence of Namibia.
What we must take note is that Cuba did all these without expecting returns. Two thousand Cubans lost their lives, but that never deterred Fidel Castro and Cuba to help their fellow brothers and sisters in Africa, Latin America against imperialism and exploitation.
Hon members, we must use his untimely death to reflect in our own actions, whether we are falling under bogus revolutionaries, pretentious leaders who want to steal from the poor, who hides behind rhetoric, while their greed grinding teeth are visible.
Such rare moments should serve to reignite our resolve to defend our democracy at all costs. Rest in peace Commander-in-Chief, a true revolutionary, your brave and
deeds will forever guide us in our quest for a better South Africa. I thank you.
Mr N T GODI: House Chair, comrades and hon members, the APC join this House, millions of South Africans, the continent and progressive humanity in paying our heartfelt revolutionary farewell to Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz.
The poverty of the spoken words cannot adequately express our sorrow, love, admiration and reference of this giant, this revolutionary, this leader, this communist, this internationalist hero of the progressive forces the world over.
Comrades all agree that Castro was an in ignorable factor. You cannot be neutral towards him, you either like him or not. This happens only in respect to people with a clear and solid perspective on the social question.
In its dialectical existence, the socialist movement has produced cadres who have left an indelible mark in the collective memory of humanity, like the inimitable Karl Marx, the master theoretician and tactician Vladimir Lenin, chairman Mao, Uncle Ho Chi Minh, Kwame Nkrumah,
Captain Thomas Sankara, Frantz Fanon, Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevara, Malcolm X, etc, and you Fidel are amongst the leading figures in this august Assembly.
You have taught the world altruism, revolutionary internationalist solidarity. How ironic, a small island giving to the world selflessly much more than any other country. Your leadership, your steadfastness against all odds emerging triumphantly is a lesson to all. [Applause.] Many countries in the global South can bear testimony to the hand of solidarity that you extended
As many sing your praises comrade Fidel in admiration of your leadership and the accomplishment of the Cuban Revolution, the APC wish to point out that actually, you were no more than a loyal, devoted and disciplined disciple of the course of socialism. Instead of heaping endless praises to you, rather praise be given to socialism as well for it is only this superior ideology that can produce people like you, Fidel, who put humanity first above all.
Long may the Cuban Revolution live. We wish President Raul Castro, the communist party and Cuban people endless years of success. We have a responsibility not to just admire and praise others, but to get onto the stage of
history and make our mark. What more argument must we make for socialism? Look at Fidel Castro, socialism is the panacea to poverty, unemployment, inequality and racism. Long live, Fidel Castro, long live. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr Z N MBHELE: Hon Chairperson, there is no doubt that Fidel Castro was a significant political figure, both in historical terms and on the world stage.
The passing of Fidel Castro has evoked different powerful emotions from various quarters. To some, he was a revolutionary hero of liberation in anticolonial struggles, and to others he was a dictator, an oppressor, a jailer and a murderer.
He fundamentally altered the course of the lives and families of dozens of thousands of Cubans; some of those lives ended up in prison camps, or simply just ended, while others were lengthened by the universal primary healthcare system for which Cuba has become renowned.
Many families benefited from Cuba‘s free access to education and, at the same time, many families were torn apart and lost parents, children and siblings through political persecution, banishment into exile and
desperate fleeing to escape Castro‘s authoritarianism across shark-infested waters, many of them losing their lives by drowning.
It is curious to observe, Chairperson, that there were no boats from the United States, Mexico and other countries in Central America and the Caribbean powering their way towards this supposed model of communist revolution at the same time.
Of course, as you heard from the past speakers, the reason for Castro‘ status in the eyes of so many was his promotion of decolonisation, backed by sending not only troops to fight in struggles on our continent, as well as providing logistical and technical support, but also sending Cuban healthcare workers, teachers and engineers to the continent and elsewhere.
Now, it must be said, as a black South African and an African, I will give due regard and esteem to contributions to freedom struggles. However, as a gay man and a fierce believer in the primacy of individual freedom, I cannot ignore media repression, suppression of political dissidents and state-sponsored homophobia. [Applause.]
While President Nelson Mandela referred to Castro as a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people, it is deeply lamentable and ironic ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms mg Boroto): Order!
Mr Z N MBHELE: ... that Fidel Castro denied the exercise and enjoyment of that same full freedom to his people at home, while he supported people in other countries to fight for it.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members, I can hardly hear the member in the podium.
Mr Z N MBHELE: If we were in Cuba, this side of the House to my left would be in jail and there would be no free media through which certain members could grab headlines with antics and rhetoric
The hon Cronin spoke about disruptions of popular support and popular democracy in Cuba under Fidel Castro. How do you know there is popular support and how do you test it if you can‘t test it through multiparty democracy and open debate, and contestation? [Applause.]
The hon Cronin mentioned that the Cubans have never asked to be returned for the centre broad. How could they ask? There is no free expression and there is no freedom or means of international travel through which to convey those sentiments.
What this debate comes down to is this: It is frightening to see the celebration of the deprivation of the Cuban people in this House today. Many in this House seem happy to embrace that their freedom was bought and paid for with the suffering and oppression of the Cuban people. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Hon Chairperson,
what we have just witnessed is the illustration of a desperate attempt to cast aspersions on a legendary leader. We, as South Africa, can do no less than dip our revolutionary banner in deep gratitude and admiration for Comrade Fidel Castro. We, on the right of this House, know prison, we know oppression and it was Fidel Castro and his people who helped us to get out of that situation. [Applause.]
Despite the rampant unfairness of the rabid imperialism imposed through the US blockade, President Castro
courageously upheld a principled stance of resistance and struggle.
The blockade and sanctions by the USA would have persuaded a lesser man to enter into compromises that would entrench colonialism and exploitation.
Just as with the experience of the oppressed majority of South Africa, every effort was brought to bear on the intention to subvert the Cuban revolution and the desire of the people of Cuba to determine their own fate.
Assassination attempts, infiltration, support for dissidents were all in effort to prevent Cuba from the freedom to determine its own destiny.
With the support of the Cuban masses, Castro showed that it was possible for even the smallest island to embrace humanist principles and the ideology of communism. The US blockade, while difficult, allowed Cuba to find the best within itself and to focus on development initiatives in the absence of colonial aid and dominance.
For Comrade Fidel, the strength of Cuba was the people of Cuba and their practical action in pursuing the key goals of self-determination, national principles formulated by Cubans for Cuba, and the implementation of a national
revolution that would root out western colonial dependence and economic service, to interest located offshore.
Today, Cuba has a very vibrant health innovation sector, has free health care and develops its own technology solutions, has a fully literate nation, and has free housing and free and quality education.
Comrade Fidel advanced and supported the struggles of countries in Africa - Angola, Namibia - and countries in America - Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
To Castro, international solidarity was not a slogan. It was an ideal that he and the Cuban people translated into practical action.
Our country has benefitted from Cuban teachers of mathematics and science, Cuban doctors and engineers. Peasants in Venezuela and Ecuador benefitted from the export of Cuba‘s literacy programme to their countries. Our most successful literacy programme Kha ri Gude was designed with Cuban support and has had a deep and lasting impact on our people, young and old.
It was not only in the intellectual sphere that we experienced solidarity. Castro and his people joined the antiapartheid and anticolonial struggle, with over 36 000 troops deployed to Southern Africa to support our struggle for freedom.
Castro is our hero. We have lost a true leader. Castro taught us that it is possible to live a life based on principle. He taught us that international friendship and compassion and concern about the oppression of fellow human beings are the bedrock of political action.
We are fortunate to have the basis of such action in the Freedom Charter and in our democratic Constitution. They are our foundation for development and struggle, just as communism and common humanity were the foundation for Castro.
So, let us honour Comrade Fidel by living a political life of service, struggle and resolute determination to embrace our humanity.
The leadership of President Castro and the life of revolutionary ideals that he exemplified as well as his contribution to international solidarity for the cause of
humanity must create a resolute will in all of us in this Parliament, to strive for the good of all.
Furthermore, the benefits we derived from the Cuban people, led by President Fidel, obliged all of us in this Parliament to do more for the marginalised and vulnerable of this world. We should commit ourselves to vibrant support for the implementation of Agenda 2063 - Africa‘s vision for the development of our continent.
We might respond to this obligation by asserting that South Africa does not have financial resources for such a task. Cuba was never rich, has no mineral wealth and has inadequate land, yet, they fought for our freedom. We must do the same for our continent. [Applause.]
Our Parliament must ensure that development priorities mean a better life for all our people, that public resources are directed to public good and not to private greed. If we do just some of these things, we will be honouring the memory of a great leader and comrade, Comrade Fidel Castro. He would expect no less from each of us.
Comrades, we also owe it to the Cuban people to continue our firm solidarity with them, to continue to be alert to
neo-colonialism and to fight it with the smart revolutionary strategy of Comrade Castro.
We owe the people of South Africa the successful achievement of the high ideals of the national democratic revolution. We owe Comrade Fidel our commitment to the struggle for freedom for all the peoples of the world.
So, as we remember him and as we call on him to rest in peace, let us remember the people of Palestine, let us remember the people of Sahrawi, let us remember all people who are not yet free. [Applause.]
Just as we benefitted from the courage of the people of Cuba and just as we stand here to celebrate the life of Comrade Fidel Castro, let us commit ourselves that all who are not free will enjoy the support of the Parliament of South Africa. [Applause.] Let us commit ourselves that we will lend every resource available to ourselves to ensure that freedom is enjoyed by all.
Let us not sit in our comfort and believe that because we are present here, the world is free. Let us not sit in our comfort and believe that our freedom was easily won. Let us recall that we would not have been in this very
august House, were it not for the sacrifice of the people of Cuba. [Applause.]
Cuba‘s people died on African soil, leading us to freedom. The fact that some of us stand here today and insult the memory of Comrade Fidel Castro is because he helped us to be free, to be able to stand in a democratic Parliament and speak. [Applause.]
So, let us have the dignity and humility to appreciate that the freedom we have came from the sacrifice of many. Standing high among that many is the resolute figure and determination of a legend, Comrade Fidel Castro who supported us to be where we are.
As Parliament, let us remember those in the world who are not free. Let us make a difference to them, be it in the international domain and even in our own country. Just today, we debated the lack of access of our people to land. We stood here and made all sorts of sanctimonious statements about our beliefs, that people should have access to land. Let us make those statements a reality.
Let us not merely make them during debates on issues of land or economic empowerment. Let it be the role of this Parliament that the condition of the people of South
Africa will be different because we understand the mandate left to us by heroes such as President Mandela and President Castro that our presence here and our practical action must lead to a different outcome for the vulnerable of the world. Long live President Castro, long live. [Applause.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, I rise in terms of Rule 96(b). I want to ask you to check whether there is a quorum in the House. It requires a third of members of the House to pass a motion. [Interjections.] I want to ask you to check whether we are, in fact, quorate to pass this motion. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, it is true. Rule 96 does speak to that. I am going to allow the bells to be rung for five minutes. Thank you.
Mr F SHIVAMBU: Chair, the process is that those who ask for a vote must, at least, be four Members of Parliament. However, when the voting process happens, all of those who were inside the House have to vote. So, I think that that is the principle position, that the right-wingers want to sabotage the process by giving condolences to
Fidel Castro, but they must do that in the votes, so that we are not sabotaged in this manner.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, hon Shivambu, let us not go there. It is fine. Let met not take the second part. I will take it as unheard.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPSITION: House Chairperson, I am not calling for a division or a vote. It was to ascertain whether there is a quorum. [Interjections.] There is no use you pass your motion, if it is not a valid resolution. So, I am helping you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, order! Order, hon members! This is a serious motion. It is not something we can clear out. Hon members, the members that have recorded their presence now through the gadgets in front of you, by pressing are 179. [Applause.] For the quorum, we need 134. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Debate concluded.
The attention of the Presiding Officer have been drawn to the requirement for a quorum in terms of Rule 98(1), the bells were rung.
A quorum being present, the question was put: That the motion moved by Mr M S A Masango be agreed to.
Motion agreed to, members standing (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: House Chairperson, I just want to place on record that the national democratic society that we want to build ... [Interjection.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Motshekga, is that a point of order?
Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: No, I‘m putting a matter on record ... [Interjection.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Motshekga, please, please, don‘t, don‘t, please. You either rise because Rule 92 that is always quoted allows you stand. But, the same Rule 92 tells you what to do once you‘re granted the permission to raise a point of order ... [Interjection.]
Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: A point of privilege.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): A point of privilege?
Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: Yes. Hon House Chairperson, we are in this House because we want to build a national democratic society which is united, democratic, in which the value of every citizen will be based on our common humanity that Fidel Castro stood for. To put such a matter to vote means that we have, in this House, people who are inhuman in moral ... [Interjection.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Motshekga, you made your point. Hon Motshekga, you‘ve made your point and I don‘t think we have to criticise each other.
Everybody in this House has a right to do what he feels he can do. Thank you very much.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, I rise in terms of Rule 31 as well, if I may? Following on hon Motshekga, it‘s called democracy and that‘s what it‘s about. Freedom to decide of your own volition. Better get used to it; you don‘t want an Italian dictatorship like you‘d love.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much. I think I made that very clear, that we cannot stop
anybody from working or talking within the rules of this House.
Hon members, the next item is ... [Interjection.]
Mr F SHIVAMBU: House Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Shivambu, on what point are you rising?
Mr F SHIVAMBU: The procedure of the house is that when a condolence motion has been passed, what you must say is that the Presiding Officers associate with the condolence motion.
We call on the House to rise to observe a moment of silence and commit that we‘re going to communicate to the people of Cuba, to the embassy that we‘re sending condolences as the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.
That is the procedure that we must be following now, so that those who are going to Cuba must officially communicate on behalf of Parliament that we have passed democratically a condolence motion. Can we please engage in the process?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you very much for the reminder, hon Shivambu. Hon members, the motion having been agreed to, being a condolence motion, I‘m now going to ask members of this House to stand up to observe a moment of silence.
Thank you very much, you may be seated.
The Presiding Officers of this House associate themselves with the motion and the motion will be delivered to the family of the fallen hero. Thank you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: House Chair, in the motion that was read in the House there is a reference to the multiparty team from this Parliament led by the Deputy Speaker that will be going to Cuba and be part of the memorial funeral this Sunday.
I therefore move that this condolence that this Parliament has passed today, be given to the hon Deputy Speaker together with the delegation on behalf of this Parliament to give to the people of Cuba. Thank you very much.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Are there any objections to what the Chief Whip of the Majority Party is proposing?
Hon MEMBERS: NO.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No objections, agreed to.
DA’S DISHONESTY ABOUT ITS INTENTION TO TRANSFORM THE WHITE DOMINATED PARTY INTO A TRULY NONRACIAL PARTY
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr L RAMATLAKANE (ANC): Chairperson, we have long maintained that the DA is dishonest about its intention to transform the white dominated party into a truly nonracial party. Africans and Coloureds South Africans should wake up to this reality and realise that they are being used as voting fodder, to all as part of the masterly crafted stage managed operation by the DA. The DA has always been and still is a white party with a white leadership.
Last week, DA ran election for its Whips in caucus. When you look at the list that what was circulated as a slate
for the DA caucus leadership elections, you see the true colours of the DA; it shows how the white leadership schemed to maintain control of the DA Whippery. One Coloured and two Africans namely, Hon M W Rabotapi and S P Kopane were ranked at no 12 and 13 positions, right at the end of the list. All other African Members of Parliament, MPs, were placed below the line of electability by a white dominated leaders schemed, of course, by the inner cabal of the Chief Whip of the Opposition. Yet, the DA hoodwinked many unsuspecting voters into believing the DA is a nonracial party.
It is now clear; hon Maimane is a token leader, willing to be part of a party where a tiny group of white males remain firmly in control. The ANC remains the only nonracial, nonsexist democratic party in South Africa.
DA’S REQUEST TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, SCOPA, TO SUMMON THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr D A ROSS (DA): Chairperson, DA will request the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, to summon the Minister of Transport, Dipuo Peters, to present a plan on how she will hold all relevant parties
accountable, following the revelation by Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Prasa, yesterday that 142 contracts worth R24 billion are being investigated for possible corruption.
Yesterday, DA interrogated Popo Molefe, Prasa Board Chairperson, over R13,9 billion irregular expenditure, recorded for the financial year. We need to note that the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA, which gives effective measures to both transparency and expenditure control in our public entities, does so by introducing generally accepted accounting principles, GAAP.
These practices together with transparency lacked in Prasa. Adequate expenditure controls were virtually absent and to top it all, a lack of consequence management is evident. Prasa was one of six entities in departments responsible for over 50% of the irregular expenditure in the 2016 financial year audit outcome.
With political leadership and oversight lacking in Prasa, and the entity recording a loss of 2,8 billion for the last financial year, the DA will request the committee to call the Minister to account for the lack of political oversight at Prasa. Indeed, Prasa has rescued the fiscus
and has left the community of South Africa in the lurch. I thank you.
EFF HONOURING THE DEATH OF FORMER PRESIDENT OF CUBA FIDEL CASTRO
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr Z R XALISA (EFF): Chairperson, the EFF continue to celebrate the towering memory of ?Comandante? Fidel Castro, the former President of Cuba. We honour him for defying the odds, for teaching us that the revolution is not a bed of roses and that a revolution wouldn‘t be easy, but a harsh and dangerous under taking; particularly, in the initial phases. We acknowledge that against all odds, he introduced a national health care system that to this day guarantees all Cubans free medical care and that he placed a welcome emphasis on education for his people.
For all Cubans, health care is completely free. Cuba created the Meningitis B Vaccine in 1985 and later the vaccine for Hepatitis B and Dengue virus. Under him, a country that was 70% illiterate before the revolution, now it is filled with people who read, write, think and analyse.
Cubans reorganisation and expulsion of the educational system in the early 1960s also made education universally accessible and increased investment in people‘s development. As a result, Cuba moved from fifth place in Latin America in terms of literacy and school enrolment in 1970 to first in 2007. That is an incredible achievement.
Cuba was the first country to sign and the second ratify the discrimination against women convention. Rest in perfect peace commander Fidel. Thank you.
SA LAUNCHES MAJOR NEW TRIAL OF AIDS VACCINE
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr P MAESELA (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the ANC welcomes the recent launch of a major clinical trial of an experimental vaccine against the HIV/Aids virus, which scientists hope could be the final nail in the coffin for the disease.
More than 30 years of efforts to develop an effective vaccine for HIV have not borne fruit, but for the first time since the virus was identified in 1983, scientists think they have found a promising candidate vaccine.
It is one of the biggest clinical trials involving the disease ever undertaken and has revived hopes for a breakthrough in the battle against HIV/Aids. The new study, known as HIV Trial Network 702, will involve more than 5 400 sexually active men and women aged between 18 and 35, in 15 areas around South Africa over four years.
The safety of the South African vaccine has already been tested successfully over 18 months on 252 volunteers. The new study aims to test its effectiveness as a virus killer.
Chairperson, the National Development Plan, NDP, clearly spells out that we must markedly reduce the burden of disease because it is too high a burden for the nation to carry. The HIV/Aids is having a devastating ... [Time expired.]
DEMAND FOR PALLIATIVE CARE FOR TERMINAL ILL PATIENTS
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr N SINGH (IFP): Deputy Speaker, as we mark the World Aids Day today and notes the strides that have been achieved in South Africa in respect of the treatment of this dread disease through the supply of antiretroviral.
I wish to raise the plight of those who are not so fortunate from a treatment perspective and require palliative care during the final days of a terminal illness.
The demand for hospice care for the terminally ill in South Africa is already very large and growing on a daily basis. A number of nongovernmental hospice organisations provide such care. With the cancer association of South Africa predicting a 400% increase in the incidences of cancer in the next 45 years, one can easily determine that in the half a century, South Africa could be seeing
500 000 people being diagnosed with cancer annually.
Hospice care seeks to provide the best quality of life for patience and their families which in itself is the goal of palliative care. Our hospices desperately need government‘s continued and increased support, which is a move that we, as the House should support. Thank you.
CORRUPTION AND FRUITLESS EXPENDITURE AT STATE ENTITIES DUE TO ANC INCOMPETENCE AND CADRE DEPLOYMENT
(Member‘s Statement)
Dr C P MULDER (VF Plus): Adjunkspeaker, Prasa is die nuutste staatsentiteit wat besig is om in duie te stort
onder die ANC-regering danksy kaderontplooiing, korrupsie en wanbesteding.
Dit het gister duidelik geword dat meer as 124 kontrakte ondersoek moet word van meer as R24 miljard. Wat reeds uitgewys is, is dat meer as R13 miljard betrokke is by wanbesteding en vrugtelose uitgawes.
Hoe kry julle dit reg? Hoe doen julle dit? Daar is feitlik nie ‘n instelling van enige aard waar die ANC betrokke is wat nie onderwerp moet aan ‘n sogenaamde omkeerstrategie nie. Jy keer tog nie ‘n ding om wat reg is nie. Jy keer tog nie ‘n ding om wat in die regte rigting beweeg nie, maar telkens moet daar ‘n omkeerstrategie wees.
Ek onthou op 15 Julie verlede jaar ‘n groot perskonferensie waar die persoon – die hoofingenieur van Prasa – uitgestal is. Daniel Mtimkulu is aangebied as die groot ontwerper van die Afro 4000-lokomotief. Ons weet watter totale fiasko dit was. Hy was toe ‘n bedrieër wat nie kwalifikasies het nie, wat homself voorgehou het as ‘n man met ‘n doktorsgraad en ‘n kwalifikasie as ingenieur. Hy is ‘n bedrieër. Hy is aangekla daarvoor.
Hoe op dees aarde kry julle dit reg? Telkens word miljarde rand op hierdie manier vermors. Die ekonomie
bloei homself dood as gevolg van onbevoegdheid en kaderontplooiing. Doen dit ‘n slag reg. Dit is nie so moeilik nie. Probeer asseblief. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER (FF Plus): Deputy Speaker, Prasa is the latest state entity that is collapsing under the ANC government as a result of cadre deployment, corruption and reckless spending.
Yesterday it became clear that more than 124 contracts worth more than R24 billion need to be investigated. What has already been pointed out, is that more than R13 billion is involved in reckless spending and fruitless expenditure.
How do you manage that? How do you do that? There is virtually not a single institution of any kind in which the ANC is involved that should not be subjected to a so- called turnaround strategy. Surely you do not turn something around that is moving in the right direction, but there has to be a turnaround strategy every so often.
I remember that on 15 July last year there was a large press conference where the person – the chief engineer of Prasa -was placed on display. Daniel Mtimkulu was
presented as the great designer of the Afro 4000 locomotive. We know what a total fiasco that was. He was in fact a fraudster who did not have qualifications, who represented himself as a man with a doctorate and as being a qualified engineer. He is a fraudster. He has been charged with fraud.
How on earth did you manage that? It frequently happens that billions of rands are wasted in this way. The economy is being bled dry as a result of incompetence and cadre deployment. For once, do it properly. It is not that difficult. Please try!]
COMMEMORATION OF REVERED MANGENA MAAKE MOKONE
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr M S MOTSHEKGA (ANC): Deputy Speaker, on the 8-9th December 2016, the National Interfaith Council of South Africa, NICSA, will commemorate the life and times of the Revered Mangena Maake Mokone at the Freedom Park in the City of Tshwane. Mokone was born in 1851 in Bokgaga in Tzaneen, Limpopo province. Reverend Mokone founded the Ethiopian Movement in October 1892. Our icon, Nelson Mandela said that the seeds of the African national congress were planted in the Ethiopian Movement. His
Ethiopianism provided the moral vision that underpins our constitutional democracy. No wonder that the democratic state awarded Reverend Mokone the National Order of the Baobab in Gold for his contribution to the development of the African Ethiopian Liberation Theology that provided the revolutionary moral vision for the founders of our democracy.
Reverend Mokone based his Ethiopianism in Psalms 68:31 which called for African redemption. Mokone laid the foundation for Pan Africanism and the African Cultural Renaissance. This revolutionary morality championed by amongst others Commandant Fidel Castro, calls on all of us, especially faith-based organisations, to work together to build a moral and ethical society that is free of racism, sexism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerances.
OPENING OF GERT SIBANDE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
(Member‘s Statement)
Ms D MANANA (ANC): Deputy Speaker, ANC believes that skills development centres, especially in rural communities are vital for the socioeconomic development. The recent launch of the Gert Sibande Skills Development Centre by
the Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Training, Mr Mduduzi Manana, demonstrates that as government we are committed to skilling marginalised communities in order to transform our country‘s economy.
The centre has already begun training of 200 youth in Community House Building L2 qualification. Students have received theoretical training at Gert Sibande Tvet College. On the day of the launch, 19 of these students officially graduated as they have successfully completed both theoretical and practical requirements. The construction of the skills centre was used as a practical work place for the students. This is the government‘s intervention to bring skills development and training to underserved communities in a bid to expand access to
post-school education. I thank you. [Applause.]
COMMEMORATION OF WORLD AIDS DAY
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr G MACKAY (DA): Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Democratic Alliance to ask this House to join us in the commemoration of World Aids Day. In this regard we ask the House to: Remember all those who have tragically lost their lives; affirm those seven million South Africans
living with the virus, and; celebrate the achievements made this year in improving the HIV/Aids treatment as well as towards the development of a vaccine and cure capable of defeating the scourge.
We recall the pioneering work undertaken the opposition that governs KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape in extending antiretroviral treatment to our people at a time when it was not yet national policy to do so. We commend the national government for developing these provincial treatment campaigns into what is today the world‘s largest and extensive treatment campaign. We specifically commend those treatment programmes aimed at protecting the most vulnerable in our society. One such programme known as We The Brave, assists individuals in making better sexual choices by destigmatising sexual practice and providing a host of both HIV negative and positive role models. Another such programme which is progressively extended is Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, PrEP, to sex workers will also save countless lives and support our objectives of achieving an HIV free generation. We therefore call on the Minister of Health to resist any and all attempts to curtail spending on these vital programmes which have rightly become a source of national pride. We are in this together and together we can conquer this. Thank you.
HIV/AIDS AWARENESS
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr T RAWULA (EFF): Yes, it‘s World Aids Day. The EFF joins the international community, the united call to raise awareness about the spread and impact of HIV/Aids. Extraordinary scale-up access to ARVs in South Africa has reduced Aids related deaths. According to the United Nations Aids Update Report on May 2016, the global coverage of ARVs reached 46% by the end of 2015. Globally more than 18 million people have access to treatment with more than three million people in South Africa have access to treatment.
Whilst the progress is commendable there are more than
19 million people globally living with HIV by the need of 2015 who did not have access to ARV treatment. Access to primary healthcare is at the centre of making sure that
19 million people who live with HIV get access to treatment particularly in the rural and impoverished communities. Society must still wage a battle against the stigma associated with HIV/Aids which forms part of the problems in combating the pandemic.
We call on these companies to stop discriminating against people living with HIV and denying them employment and access to services. Finally, the EFF call on research to be intensified in Africa for the actual treatment unlike the current ARV that only suppresses the virus and does not actually treat it. Thank you.
SOUTH AFRICA’S AMBASSADOR IN VIENNA ELECTED CHAIR OF IAEA BOARD OF GOVERNORS
(Member‘s Statement)
Ms T E KENYE (ANC): ANC congratulates South Africa‘s Ambassador in Viena, Mr Tebogo Seokolo on his election as the Chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board, IAEA, for the period October 2016 to October 2017. This is a milestone considering that the last time South Africa chaired the IAEA Board was in 1959. The Vienna- based IAEA was established in 1957 with South Africa as one of its founders. It currently comprises 171 member states. The Board of Governors is the major policy-making organ of the IAEA in between the agency‘s annual general conferences. It is made up of 35 member states, with South Africa serving as one of the permanent members.
The board provides strategic oversight over the activities of the Secretariat led by the Director General. South Africa is highly regarded by IAEA member states due to the development of its peaceful nuclear programme. Through the power plant in Koeberg, the country generates 5% of total electricity supply from nuclear. South Africa is the second largest producer of medical isotopes, which are used in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. ANC believes the election of Mr Seokolo is an affirmation of South Africa‘s leadership role on the world stage in general and specifically on matters of nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy?
AGANG CHARGES PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Deputy Speaker and hon members, allow me to formally charge our hon President, Jacob Zuma. Let me read the charges: Hon President, I charge you with dishonesty and lack of integrity. I charge you with embezzlement of taxpayers‘ money. You have put our democracy at risk. You have surrendered our institution into ... [Interjection.]
Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Please take your seat hon member.
Mr B A RADEBE: Chair, it can be a Members‘ Statement but this thing must come to a substantive motion as per Rule 84.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, ho jwalo ntate [it is like that, sir] the rules require you to do it by a substantive motion. You cannot do it through a statement.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Deputy Speaker, this is a figure of speech.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We did say that figures of speech or any literary device must not be unacceptable in its content and substance.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Okay. May I continue, Deputy Speaker?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, only if you do not repeat any of what you have said, in fact you should withdraw them.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Alright, okay. Hon Deputy Speaker, you have surrendered our institutions into cabals, ruthless hooligans. You have mismanaged our economy beyond measure. You have created ... [Interjections.]
Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Deputy Speaker, on a point of order again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening.
Mr B A RADEBE: Alright, I am rising on Rule 78(3)(b) which states that no one can cast aspersion on the Presiding Officer when he is sitting on authority thereof.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, we also requested you to withdraw, please.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Hon Deputy Speaker ...
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to withdraw?
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Whatever you say I will withdraw but I do not know what I am withdrawing because what I am saying here is actually happening in our country now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, let us not debate that because the rules are explicit. The rules do not say that things are not happening. All that the rules are saying is that if you must say it then there is a way ypu must use, there is a process for doing so. That is all the rules says, it is not disputing whether it is your opinion or you want to say it here. How you say it is what matters. Follow the rules and if you do not, as you have not done so earlier on, then you must withdraw, just as you said.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Can I continue, Deputy Speaker?
HON MEMBERS: No. You must go out.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Hon Deputy Speaker, this abuse must stop really.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Hon members ...
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): we are fighting abuse but it seems that it is taking place in this Parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no. Hon members, please do not harass a member. Hon members, do not generalise ...
Mr M L W FILTANE: Chair, on a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. hon member, I am speaking. Take your seat.
Mr M L W FILTANE: I am helping you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not need help. I will invite help if I need it.
Mr M L W FILTANE: It is the rum corner that is troublesome, no longer ... [Interjections]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Filtane, please man, don‘t just
...
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. I really do not enjoy disruptions, I withdraw. Can I continue?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue, hon member. [Interjections.]
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Hon Deputy Speaker, you really must give us a dictionary because we will end up not saying anything. I do not know what is right and wrong in Parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just read your rules. Your rules are your best guide; you do not need a dictionary.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Alright, let me finish, it is only one sentence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead, we are listening to you.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): You have allowed our country to be hijacked by scoundrels, unsavoury characters. These charges are very serious, Mr President. These charges warrant you to resign. Hopefully you will give us a Christmas present and leave the Presidency. I thank you.
Ms H H MALGAS: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon member.
Ms H H MALGAS: You are speaking again about presiding officers, Rule 78(3)(b), so you have to withdraw what you said.
Mr M A PLOUAMMA (Agang): Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.
Ms H H MALGAS: Alright.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. Hon members, ...
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: The hon member from Agang was not talking about a presiding officer instead he was referring to the President. These are two different things. Maybe the member should read their rules. There is no need to withdraw anything.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, alright. Hon members let us proceed.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS AT V&A WATERFRONT A MASSIVE BOOST TO EMPLOYMENT AND THE ECONOMY
(Member‘s Statement)
Mr J VOS (DA): Hon Deputy Speaker, I recently inspected the construction site of the new Zeitz Museum of Contemporary Art Africa which is set to become the biggest of its kind on the African continent, as well as the construction site of the new cruise terminal at the V&A Waterfront. This new development at the V&A Waterfront which was also recently nominated for the world travel and tourism council destination award, will contribute immensely to the tourism infrastructure of our country and represent a total investment of R4,5 billion.
The DA has been submitting motions to Parliament regarding the issue of cruise tourism and is supposed to be included in the National Tourism Strategy Plan as a crucial job-creating industry. In our motions we have motivated that the cruise industry has the potential to provide massive economic benefits not only to the port city but to the country as a whole.
Mr Deputy Speaker, currently the construction of this African art museum employs 1 500 people a day and when construction of the hotel precinct commences,
2 500 people will be employed. With this also, additional
100 jobs will be created with the new cruise terminal.
This is a massive boost to employment in the region and sets the example for the rest of the country. Thank you.
VITAL ROLE PLAYED BY PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY OFFICES COMMENDED
(Member‘s Statement)
Ms M MATSHOBA (ANC): Hon Deputy Speaker, one of Parliament‘s objectives is to represent the people through public involvement and building a responsive people‘s Parliament. This function is guided by Chapter 4 of the Constitution which mandates Parliament to facilitate public access and involvement in its
processes. Members of Parliament must ensure that Parliament fulfils this objective by providing services to the public at parliamentary constituency offices.
In line with this, on 24 Thursday November the parliamentary constituency office 601, under the caretaker, Mandisa Matshoba - a Member of Parliament, in partnership with Film and Publication Board, FPB, held a successful senior citizen event and about
1 200 elders attended the event. On the following day, Deputy Minister Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams handed certificates to a group of about 50 who were doing learnership awareness campaigns against children, unsupervised use of internet and social networks. Topics covered included cyberbullying and internet safety. Tomorrow, Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson will host an event of senior citizens in the second constituency office in Gugulethu. I would like to thank wards 37, 38 and 39 - especially councillor Yosi. Special thanks goes to Nyanga Police Station and the Film and Publication Board. I thank you.
LOCALISATION AND THE BLACK INDUSTRIALIST PROGRAMME LAUNCHED
IMPORTANCE OF WORLD AIDS DAY COMMENDED
(Minister‘s Response)
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Hon Deputy Speaker, I wanted to just respond to the statement by the hon Mulder and I don‘t know the details of the press attendance that he is speaking about but I know his intention in saying that if there is corruption it needs to be rooted out vigorously so that we can ensure that there is integrity and procurement processes. I do want to say that I think that there are two policy instruments that members of his party opposed, localisation and the black industrialist programme, which have actually contributed to a positive story in the railway sector.
Through localisation, we have companies like General Electric. I have engaged with their executives in New York and they told me that apart from South Africa, they do not have any manufacturing plants anywhere outside of the United States. Because of our localisation programme, they have bought a factory here and their local executives told us that they are very happy with their experience.
The second one is that we have launched the Industrial Policy Action Plan this year in a factory called Guestro in Ekurhuleni, owned by a black industrialist who has taken our incentives to upgrade the equipment. He is now making the railway casting – the castings for railway
wagons and locomotives. There is a positive story that is behind the decision of the African Union to designate South Africa as a local motor manufacturing incentive in the African continent. It is not all doom and gloom; there are some good things that are happening as well.
I don‘t know our members of the executive that are responsible for health matters and are of course deployed today on the various activities in connection with World Aids Day. I think you can take it for granted that members of the executive associate with all these points that we made in the various statements about the importance of World Aids Day. It is indeed a day where we look at the successes we had and also the challenges and the things that we need to do better. I think you can take it for granted that we associate with that. Thank you very much. [Interjections.]
WELCOMING THE ELECTION OF TEBOGO SEOKOLO AS CHAIR OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
(Minister‘s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND CO-
OPERATION: Hon Deputy Speaker, we join in the hon Kenye
in welcoming and applauding the election of His Excellency Ambassor, Tebogo Seokolo as chair of board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, which is one of its policy-making organs.
International Atomic Energy Agency is a multilateral body with the responsibility to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear science and technology for peace and development. South Africa is renowned for its leading role in nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. As the hon Kenye pointed out, South Africa is the world‘s second largest producer of medical acetones which are used in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. More importantly, South Africa exports this life-saving treatment to over
60 countries. And so, this is matter for celebration in this House. I thank you.
GERT SIBANDE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OPENS
(Minister‘s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Hon Deputy
Speaker, through you to hon Manana, thank you very much for noticing this wonderful development in Gert Sibande.
It is not the only initiative in this region. It is linked to a bigger plan.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Masuku, address me please. She will hear you. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: It is linked
to a bigger plan.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bheka mina ngedwa. [Look at me only.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The
Department of Higher Education together with the technical and vocational education and training, Tvet, colleges of Gert Sibande and the Department of Economic Development worked jointly to facilitate a link between industry and Tvet colleges. Recently, Gert Sibande Tvet has just entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, MoU, with Sasol towards establishing an ideal college. They work together to develop a curriculum that facilitates the production of industrial-linked skills. They are going to facilitate the exposure of students and internships. They also have an exchange of technical skills. Sasol has the biggest number of engineers in South Africa.
They have also committed to support community skills development centres like this one and they have committed to mobilise other industries to join in to do so. This is not the only initiative that exists; we have just signed another one in Ehlanzeni Tvet College. We are also going to have another one in Nkangala Tvet College. This weekend, all the Tvet councils were meeting and they have invited us and committed that we should come and work with them to replicate that in all the provinces. The Deputy President has instructed that we do. Thank you very much.
Mr J A EESTEHUIZEN: Deputy Speaker, under Rule 132 there is an allowance for six ministerial responses; we have only had three. There are other Ministers and Deputy Ministers in the House that do not want to respond to members‘ statements.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, your observation is correct but they would have indicated otherwise. So, okay. [Interjections.]
NOTICES OF MOTION
Ms D Z RANTHO: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the mechanisms geared at expanding the capacity of the Department of Labour and other authorities to ensure full compliance with labour laws. I so move.
Mr M S MALATSI: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the DA:
That this House debate Mr Mbalula‘s chronic absenteeism from aural questions in the House.
Mr Z R XALISA: Somlomo ohloniphekileyo, ndenza isaziso sokuba, xa le Ndlu ihlala kwakhona, ndiza kwenza isisphakamiso egameni le-EFF:
Sokuba le Ndlu ixoxe ukuba ingaba uMzantsi Afrika uyakudinga kusini na ukuba ubenabaSekela baPhathiswa xa siqwalasele inkcitho yemali, ingakubi xa ujonge ubufede babo ekuphenduleni imibuzo elula engemisebenzi yabo ngokwamasebe abawakhokelayo abangakwazi ukuyiphendula.
Ndiyaphakamisa. Enkosi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Z R XALISA: Hon Speaker, I give notice that, in the next sitting of this House, I will move on behalf of the EFF:
That the House debates whether it is necessary for South Africa to have Deputy Ministers, looking at the waste of money, especially in their inability to answer simple questions concerning their jobs in their departments.
I so move. Thank you.]
Ms M O MATSHOBA: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates combating the abuse of human rights, and exploitation of farmworkers and provide support and advice to the communities living on farms. I so move.
Mr M HLENGWA: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the mighty IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes the gross human rights violation meted out by the People‘s Republic of China and the Republic of China Taiwan and Tibet;
(2) debates the need for the Republic of South Africa to abandon its support of the one China Policy; and
(3) supports the struggle of freedom, democracy, independence and self determination of the Republic China Taiwan and Tibet. I so move.
Ms T E KENYE: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the fast-tracking of the central application services to address the challenges of registration of students at higher education
institutions during the registration period. I thank you.
Mr Z R XALISA: Somlomo ohloniphekileyo, ndenza isaziso sokuba, xa le Ndlu ihlala kwakhona, ndiza kwenza isisphakamiso egameni le-EFF:
Sokuba le Ndlu ixoxe ukuba ingaba uMzantsi Afrika uyakudinga kusini na ukuba ubenabaSekela baPhathiswa xa siqwalasele inkcitho yemali, ingakubi xa ujonge ubufede babo ekuphenduleni imibuzo elula engemisebenzi yabo ngokwamasebe abawakhokelayo abangakwazi ukuyiphendula.
Ndiyaphakamisa. Enkosi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Z R XALISA: Hon Speaker, I give notice that, in the next sitting of this House, I will move on behalf of the EFF:
That the House debates whether it is necessary for South Africa to have Deputy Ministers, looking at the waste of money, especially in their inability to answer simple questions concerning their jobs in their departments.
I so move. Thank you.]
Ms B S MASANGO: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the DA:
That the House debates the lack of government funding for shelters and havens for Aids orphans and babies and children who are HIV-positive. Thank you.
Ms N P SONTI: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the government in waiting, the EFF:
That this House debates the importance of training remedial educators in every public school to address the challenges of high dropout rates. Thank you.
Ms D P MANANA: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates whether our Banks are functional to contribute to building a commercial business culture and fund proper business plans presented to them. Thank you.
Dr P MAESELA: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the retention of registered nurses in order to address the crises facing South Africa‘s health care services. Thank you.
Mr L M NTSHAYISA: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the AIC:
That the House debates the plans to deal with the lack of discipline at our schools, and communities. I so move.
Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That this House debates embracing and promoting agenda 2063 to reawaken the passion for Pan-Africanism, sense of unity, self-reliance, integration and solidarity that was a highlight of the triumphs of the 20th century.
Mr Z N MBHELE: Sekela Somlomo, (Deputy Speaker), I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the DA, the real government in waiting:
That this House debates the uncertain futures of several members of the executive and what this means for our fragile economy following the recent manoeuvres within the ANC to fire their own President. I so move.
Ms H H MALGAS: Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day f the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House debates the usage of previously marginalised official languages in South African Courts to accommodate all citizens. Thank you.
The House adjourned at 19:13.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly
The Speaker
1. Withdrawal of letter on re-appointment of chairperson of Board of National Lotteries Commission
(1) The letter from the Minister of Trade and Industry dated 15 November 2016, under Announcements in the ATC (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports) of 22 November 2016, on page 3, recommending the re-appointment of the chairperson of the board of the National Lotteries Commission, is withdrawn.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
1. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
(a) Report on the provisional suspension from office of Ms Monaledi, the Regional Court President, North West, in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
(b) Report on the withholding of remuneration of Magistrate P S Hole, a regional magistrate at Kimberley, in terms of section 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
(c) Report on the suspension of Magistrate P S Hole, a regional magistrate at Kimberley, in terms of section 13(4)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
Please see pages 3-65 of the ATCs.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents