Hansard: NCOP: Unrevised Hansard

House: National Council of Provinces

Date of Meeting: 03 Dec 2019


No summary available.







Watch Videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAFxR8x2hy8





The Council met at 14:00.



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



The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I am sure members would have noticed that this past week we had the funeral of Inkosi yakwaXhosa. I am sure many of us would have seen hon Mkiva on television and the important role that he played at that important ceremony. I just thought that it may be a useful and wise thing to do to ask members to stand and observe a moment of silence.



I am told that the Whippery has agreed that there will not Notice of Motion and Motion without Notice and therefore we should proceed and ask the secretary to read the first order of the day.






(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee)



Ms S SHAIKH: Hon Chairperson, hon members, since 1994 great strides have been made in demilitarising and deracialising the management of our country’s borders by introducing various capabilities to keep effect the border management.



The consequence of establishing these various organs of state such as immigration control, customs control, border policing amongst others resulted in the emergency of a silo approach to border control, border law enforcement and border protection.



Various structures are subsequently put in place to attempt to co- ordinate the mandates and actions of these distinct organs of state in the border environments. However, there have been systemic and structural problems of co-ordination and a fragmented border management system. It is against this background that Cabinet decided on the 26th of June 2013 to address an integrated approach through the establishment of border management urgency in South Africa.



Hon Chairperson, the latest report by the Department of Home Affairs through the committee indicated that 8891 state officials from at



least five organs of state being the Department of Home Affairs, the SA Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, the SA Police Service and the Department of Health, are working at the country’s 72 ports of entry 14:04:28 a single management command in control structure. It is this fragmented approach to border management that the Border Management Authority Bill, BMA, seeks to address and improve.



The BMA Bill seeks to provide for the establishment organisation, regulation functions and control of the border management authority. The appointment, terms of office, conditions of service and functions of the commission and Deputy Commissioners, the appointment and terms of commissions of employment of officials to provide for the duties, functions and powers of officers, the establishment of an Inter-Ministerial Consultative Committee, a border technical committee and an advisory committee amongst others, the BMA will be established as a schedule 3, national public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.



In terms of financial implications of the Bill, the Government Technical Advisory Centre in National Treasury undertook a detailed study of public expenditure in the border environments. The expenditure performance reviews study estimated that R3,8 billion



per annum is currently utilised by key agencies and departments to discharge their ports of entry and border law enforcement functions. While it was envisaged that the additional funds may be required to established the authority, the principle is that funds will follow functions.



Furthermore, the Department of Home Affairs, undertook additional work on the cost of establishing the BMA. These estimates were divided into 6 phases that would characterise the incremental establishment of the BMA over a 15 year period that is from 2017- 2032. Their projection indicated that the BMA will require

10,5 billion in the year 2032 and beyond to perform its mandate.



It will be important for the department to revisit the funding requirements in light of the proposed amendments to the Bill and the revised time frames.



In terms of the committee process, the 5th Parliament Select Committee on Social Services advertised the Bill on Parliament’s electronic platforms and radio with the deadline for written submissions on 27 October 2017. The committee received eleven submissions on the Bill as well as the department’s responses to these submissions. However, affected by the Bill failing to reach



agreement on some aspects of the Bill, the Bill was not finalised in the 5th Parliament.



As a result, the Select Committee on Security and Justice in the 6th Parliament undertook various engagements with the Department Of Home Affairs, Treasury, SAPS, the South African National Defence Force, SANDF, to ensure that all departments are satisfied with the proposed amendments to the Bill and to ensure that each department could work effectively within the border management structure as proposed by the Bill. Subsequent to this, the Department of Home Affairs and Treasury reached agreement on proposed amendments as it relates to customs management.



The SA Police Service concern in relation to performing their policing function in the border management area was also clarified by the Department of Home Affairs, in addition to an agreement between Department of Home Affairs and SAPS around all the challenges related to the Bill on the 12 October 2016, a legal opinion was provided by the office of the State Law Advisor which concludes that the South African Police Service and the Department of Home Affairs may conclude implementation protocol agreements in terms of their functions border areas.



The committee was satisfied that all relevant departmental concerns had been addressed through the proposed amendments Bill. This is particularly so in light of the committee’s amendment to Clause 27 which deals with mandatory implementation protocols and includes the South African Police Service and South African National Defence Force and Treasury.



The committee therefore agrees to amend the following clauses in the Bill to ensure that all the relevant Departments were satisfied with the adoption of the Bill and to ensure that all the relevant departments could work in a co-ordinated manner.



Clause 1:          Definitions, by inserting definitions of custom related functions and the SA Revenue Service and omitting the definition of revenue.



Clause 2: Application of act, we have inserted the customs related function performed by the South African Revenue service.



Clause 5 and Clause 22, which relates to the functions of the authority and funds of authority respectively dealing more with consequential amendments.



Clause 27, deals with the implementation protocols specifically to ensure that within 6 months, after the commencement of this section, that implementation protocols are concluded with; the Defence force, the SA Police Service and the SA Revenue Service for the mandatory co-ordination of their respective functions within the border law enforcement area and at ports of entry.



Clause 28, relates to the delegation by the Minister dealing with a consequential amendment.



Clause 39, falls under Chapter 10 which deals with transitional provisions and the amendment relates to the withdrawal or cancellation of ports of entry amongst others, to ensure that consultation takes with the commission of SA Revenue Service.



The Committee is of the view that the Border Management Authority Bill and its implementation will ensure that the fragmented border management at our ports of entry will be addressed in a more efficient and focused manner, thereby ensuring effective trade, movement of goods and people across our borders.



The Select Committee on Security and Justice recommends that the NCOP approves the Border Management Authority Bill with the proposed amendments. I thank you.



Declaration of votes:


Mr I M SILEKU: Hon Chair, the proposed Border Management Authority, BMA, in its current form is unaffordable and will cost this country between R3,8 billion to R10,3 billion a year. To make matters worse, it will take 15 years to implement.



From at least the mid 2000s, various studies and reports have pointed to the failure of every single structure that was established to address the systemic and structural problems associated with the BMA. Again, why should we support this Bill? The Department of Home Affairs has run out of money, the SA Police Service and the SA National Defence Force has run out of money, every single entity who is responsible to deliver its core mandate has run out of money.



The current border management is a complete failure. The DA do not believe that the same people under the new proposed BMA act with broken border fences will perform any better. Instead, we will deal decisively with corruption at border posts, something the ANC cannot



do. We will strengthen the SA National Defence Force border patrols from 15 to the required 22 sub-units to cover the porous borderline between border posts.



The Socio-economic Impact Assessment of the BMA Bill commissioned by Home Affairs proposed an option of a Border Management Agency solely for the purposes of co-ordinating the various line departments in the border law enforcement area.



The agency would develop and implement coherent policy and institutional guidelines, improve working relations and facilitate joint operations between stakeholders but leave the staff within their line departments. The Bill with its current scope should be rejected and work should begin on the option of a border management co-ordinating agency without any further delay. Therefore, the DA does not support the Border Management Authority Bill. Thank you very much.



Mr S ZANDAMELA: Chairperson, we rejected the Border Management Authority Bill when it was first tabled in the National Assembly. As we felt then, we still feel that this is an unnecessary piece of legislation.



This could easily be the worst piece of legislation since 1994 in parliament. This will create a parallel revenue collection body, to replace the good work done over the years by Sars. This was purely done to remove the responsibility of collecting th'B revenue from SARS, and brought to Home Affairs.



No one has cared to explain why it was necessary to remove those functions from SARS. There is no justifiable reason for doing so, other than to continue to project of looting of our resources. The creation of parallel revenue collection institutions will be dangerous for the country. This Bill should be rejected at all costs. Ungajahi Mahlangu [don’t rush!]



Question put: That the Bill, subject to proposed amendments, be agreed to.



Division Demanded.



The Council divided:










Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.







(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)



Ms S SHAIKH: Hon Chairperson and hon members of this august House, the Promotion of Access to Information Bill arose from a Constitutional Court judgment in My Vote Counts NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, known as the my vote counts case, NVC case. On 21 June 2018, the Constitutional Court ordered that information on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates is essential for the effective exercise of the right to make political choices and to participate in the elections. The Promotion of Access to Information Act is invalid to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Constitution by failing to provide for the recordal, preservation and reasonable disclosure of information on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates. And Parliament must amend the Promotion of Access to Information Act and take any other measure it deems appropriate to provide for the recordal, preservation and facilitation of reasonable access to information on the private



funding of political parties and independent candidates within a period of 18 months.



The Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Bill, therefore, aims to do the following. Clause 1 aims to insert a new definition in section 1 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, namely, the definition of political party to ensure that political parties and independent candidates are regarded as private bodies for the purposes of the Act. The clause also affects certain consequential amendments to the definitions of private body and head of a private body. Clause 2 proposes a new section 52(a) and obliges the head of a political party to create and keep records of any donations that have been made to a political party which exceed the prescribed threshold in a financial year and the identity of the persons or entities who made such donations. The records must be made available on a quarterly basis as prescribed and the records must be kept for a period of at least five years after the records concerned have been created.



The Select Committee on Security and Justice advertised the Bill on the electronic platforms of Parliament on 8 November 2019, with deadline for written submissions on 22 November 2019. The committee received seven submissions on the Bill. The majority of the



submissions concerned matters that had already been raised at the Portfolio Committee on Security and Justice and the committee therefore did not make any amendments to the Bill. The Select Committee on Security and Justice recommends that the National Council of Provinces adopts the Bill without any amendments. I thank you. [Applause.]



Debate concluded.



Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.



Declarations of vote:


Ms M O MOKAUSE: Chairperson, the EFF is in support of an open and transparent democratic society where the interests of the people reign supreme, not the interests of secret societies that are able to capture those in power to do their bidding. In this regard, we are in full agreement with the decision of the Constitutional Court which compelled Parliament to amend the Promotion of Access to Information Act, to force political parties and independent candidates including the President of this country to record, preserve and publicise information about those who fund them. This is crucially important for our still new democracy which is in great danger of being captured and commodified by unelected people who



finance their stooges and then have them as unofficial proxies in the running of the state as it happens in South Africa.



When society knows who funds you, society can then make the necessary connections between your actions and the interests of those who fund you. We can hold those in power accountable when their financiers get huge government contracts, as is in the case with Bidvest, a company whose owner funded the President of this country, President Cyril Ramaphosa, and which now gets almost every second government contract there.



This illicit funding of political parties inevitably concentrates a lot of money and resources at the hands of bigger political parties, strangling smaller political parties to scrap for survival. It also puts a price on our democracy and those with the deepest pockets are able to buy off leaders as it happens with the ruling party. Our democracy ceases then to be the will of the people, to be the government of the people by the people. It becomes a legitimised robbery of the will of the people by corrupt politicians and business people.



While we support this Bill, we are fully well that it will not resolve the problems of the commodification of the democratic



process which remains an exorbitantly expensive process. We are also aware that for small political parties funded mainly by young black entrepreneurs, this may be introducing difficulties because entrepreneurs dependent on government contracts for survival and for opportunities. So this is introducing a complicated funding regime for the democratic project in South Africa, but a necessary regime nonetheless. Perhaps, it will force funders to finance the democratic project as a whole, and not just a select group of larger political parties like as it is happening in South Africa with the ruling party. This Bill is also in sync with the already passed Political Party Funding Bill whose broad objectives we agreed with. The EFF supports this Bill.





Mnr A B CLOETE: Dankie Voorsitter. Met hierdie wysiging aan die wet sal Suid-Afrikaners nou uiteindelik weet waar politieke partye se skenkings vandaan kom. In ’n demokrasie is deursigtigheid nie net beperk tot die stembus nie maar dit is ook belangrik om te weet hoe skenkings ons politieke landskap beinvloed. Hierdie beginsel moes ’n gegewe gewees het maar dit het ’n hofuitspraak geverg om te verseker dat Suid-Afrikaners weet wie ons politieke partye deur skenkings befonds.



Met staatskaping baie vars in ons geheue, is dit in openbare belang dat Suid-Afrika se kiesers ook ingeligte besluite kan neem oor skenkings aan politieke partye. Hulle het die reg om te weet wie gee vir wie. Partye kan nie net bloot die wysiging ondersteun omdat die Grondwethof dit vereis nie. Ons ondersteun dit in beginsel — die beginsel dat ons nie kan toelaat dat ons verkiesingsprosesse ook gekaap word nie. Daarom verwelkom en ondersteun die VF Plus dié wysiging.



Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.








Ms S SHAIKH: Hon members of this House, the full report of the committee is in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, ATC.



Chairperson, in a letter to Parliament dated 25 June 2019, the President, communicated his decision to remove Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi from their positions at the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, of Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions, DNDPP, and Special Director of Public Prosecutions, SDPP, respectively.



In arriving at this decision, the President established an inquiry to determine the fitness and propriety of Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi to hold office in their respective capacities. The inquiry found that both Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi were not fit and proper to hold their respective offices and recommended that they be removed from office.



On 25 April 2019, having regard for the work of the inquiry and after receiving further representations from Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi in respect of the report, the President decided to remove both advocates from office at the NPA in terms of section 12(6)(a) of the Act with effect from 26 April 2019.



In terms of the committee process: on 10 July 2019, at a joint meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and the Standing Committee on Security and Justice, the committees decided against considering the matters jointly but agreed that each would write to Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi inviting them to submit written



representations to each committee. This invitation was sent to each of them on 23 July 2019.



On 26 July 2019 Adv Mrwebi submitted his representations to the Committee, supplementing these with further submissions on 29 July 2019.



Although Adv Jiba received the invitation to make representations to the committee, she submitted no representations. Instead, on 7 August 2019 Adv Jiba initiated a court application in the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the findings of the inquiry and the decision of the President to remove her from office ahead of the outcome of the parliamentary process. On 18 October 2019, the High Court dismissed the application in Part A brought by Adv Jiba.



The committee decided to write to Adv Jiba to invite her once again to make written representations to the Committee by 7 November 2019. However, on 7 November 2019 Parliament received a letter from Adv Jiba where she expressed her sincerest appreciation for the invite and the manner in which Parliament approached this matter and she indicated that she no longer wished to participate in the process due to personal reasons.



On 31 October 2019 the committee received a request from Adv Mrwebi to address Parliament with the assistance of legal counsel on a specific matter. In relation to the matter which he wished to address the committee on, the committee noted that both the courts and the inquiry had drawn a clear distinction between fitness required to be an advocate and the fitness required to be an official in the NPA.



Further, even though his request was late, the committee applied its mind but decided that it was disinclined to grant him such an opportunity given that this issue had already been ventilated in the Western Cape High Court.



The committee also notes that both Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi had ample opportunity to raise their objections to their suspension and removal on this ground with the President but chose not to do so.



in terms of the committee’s mandate: The committee was acutely aware that its mandate is confined to section 12((3)(c) and (d) of the NPA Act, which is to make a recommendation to the NCOP on whether or not to restore a National Director, Deputy National Director or Special Director to office. The committee understands that the Act envisages two distinct processes, namely the removal by the President and then



proceedings to consider restoration to office. It is very clear to the committee that its mandate is not to remove but to restore.



The committee, therefore, understood its role to require that it exercises oversight over the President’s decision.



The Committee, therefore, identified the following principles to guide it in reaching its decision:



Firstly, dad the President complied with the requirements of section 12(6)(a) and(b) of the NPA Act? Secondly, was the process leading up to the President’s decision fair to Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi?

Thirdly, was the Presidents decision to remove based on good reason?



In terms of: Did the President comply with section 12(6)(a) and (b) of the Act?



Section 12(6)(a) and (b) and section 14(3) of the Act specify the process that the President must follow in reaching a decision to remove a National Director, Deputy National Director and Special Director. Having considered the relevant provisions of the Act and documentation provided to it, the committee is of the view that the President indeed followed the prescripts of the law in reaching his



decision to remove Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi from office, respectively.



In terms of: Was the process leading up to the Presidents decision fair to Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi?



In this regard the Committee notes that in arriving at his decision to provisionally suspend Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi, after considering their representations, the President had noted that he had taken into account the serious nature of the allegations regarding their lack of fitness to be in such a high office.



The inquiry was set up to look into the fitness and propriety of both Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi to hold office in their respective capacities had a clear scope and terms of reference which were gazetted and was further presided over by a retired judge.



 Both Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi were represented by senior legal counsel, the Rules of Procedure that the inquiry adopted were agreed to by the Evidence Leaders and the legal representatives and both were given opportunities to submit and lead evidence and to cross- examine witnesses during the inquiry process.



Following the conclusion of the inquiry process the President gave them a further opportunity to make representations on the Enquiry’s findings and report.



Furthermore, the committee is of the view that the documents and representations before it do not raise any reason for it to find that the process followed was unfair.



The committee notes too that Henney J in Jiba v The President of the RSA and Others said that:



The provisions of subsection (6), (7) and (8) of the NPA Act are peremptory and protects the NDPP or the DNDPP from arbitrary removal by the President. The Act prescribes that proper due process be followed, which in my view, was complied with in this case. It was done in a manner to protect the independence of the NPA.



In terms of: Was the Presidents decision rational?



In this regard, the committee notes that the President’s letter, dated 25 April 2019, makes it clear that his decision was based on the findings of the inquiry and that these findings, based on the



evidence before the inquiry, are of an extremely serious nature. Further, the President writes that he had considered their representations to him but that he did not find that they had raised any response or reason not to accept the Panel’s conclusion.



Furthermore, the committee is of the view that the representations placed before it by Adv Mrwebi do not raise any reason for it to find that the President did not apply his mind properly to the matter before him.



In respect of both Adv Jiba and Adv Mrwebi, the committee found the following:



The President complied with the provisions of section 12(6)(a) and


(b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998; the process followed by the President in reaching his decision was fair; and that the President applied his mind properly on this matter.



The committee recommends that the NCOP resolve not to restore Adv Nomgcobo Jiba to office of Deputy National Director of Prosecutions.



And the committee recommends that the NCOP resolve not to restore Adv Lawrence Sithembiso Mrwebi to office of Special Director of Public Prosecutions. I thank you. [Applause.]



Question put: That the Report be adopted.






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






Mr E J NJANDU: Good afternoon Deputy Chairperson and members, the Select Committee on Finance, having considered the request by the National Council of Provinces to consider and report on the state of local government finances and financial management as at 30 June 2018, reports as follows: in terms of NCOP Rule 101, the Office of the Chairperson of the NCOP referred the paper tabled requesting the committee to consider and report to Parliament in terms of Rule 102 on the state of local government finances and financial management.



The 2017-18 Auditor-General, AG, audit outcomes revealed a reduction in the number of clean audits and that the municipalities with unqualified financial statements decreased from 61% to 51%. About 63 municipalities regressed in their results and only 22 municipalities improved. There has been a high level of noncompliance with key legislation since 2011-12, about 81%. It was also revealed that there was R907 million paid to consultants to assist with preparation of financial statements and only 9% of municipalities could provide financial statements without material misstatements.



About 74% of municipalities did not adequately follow up on the allegations of financial and supply chain management for misconduct or fraud, whilst 45% of municipalities did not have all the required mechanisms for reporting and investigating transgressions or possible fraud. Irregular expenditure was found to be still high at R25,2 billion in 2017-18, which is a slight decline from

R29,7 billion in 2016-17.



The overall municipal audit outcomes have shown little improvement. The deadline for submissions of the annual financial statements to the AG had been met by only 90,7% of the municipalities. The municipalities with unqualified audit outcomes with no findings have decreased from 33 in 2016-17 to only 18 in 2017-18, while those with



disclaimers increased from 24 to 26 in the same period. The overall audits of 63 municipalities have regressed.



On accountability, the AG expressed his concern about pressure that is placed on auditors to change conclusions to avoid negative outcomes or the disclosure of irregularities, intimidation and threats towards auditors were reported. The protests actions at municipalities also impacted the auditing process and resulted in delays to the financial reports.



The committee observations and recommendations - the committee acknowledged and appreciated the presentation made by the National Treasury, which highlighted that local government finances are in distress and that the situation is not sustainable.



Members noted that the municipalities have not been able to attract and retain quality and competent staff and that National Treasury could partly be responsible for that because of regulations they put on salary caps. The committee recommended that National Treasury reviews these regulations to avoid unintended consequences of the salary caps.



The committee noted that the decisions taken by the Demarcation Board to merge some municipalities have had unintended consequences of regression in performance of municipalities and that is a problem. The committee recommended that the Demarcation Board needs to engage with the National Treasury as they do not seem to have adequate capacity to make these changes and mergers of municipalities.



Given the findings of the status of local government report, the committee urged National Treasury to put measures in place to hold officials and politicians accountable for financial misconduct, to intervene and take appropriate actions when approving budgets while the parliamentary committees must utilise their oversight mandate to intervene. Thank you Deputy Chairperson. [Applause.]



Debate concluded.



Question put: That the Report be adopted.



Declaration of vote: Afrikaans:

Mnr I M SILEKU: Agb Adjunkvoorsitter ...



... the state of local government finances places the country at risk as many South Africans become increasingly frustrated by the absence of the services and standard of living improvements that they were promised.



The underfunding by the National Treasury on local government is exacerbated by ineptitude, bad governance, corruption and theft. This report addresses some of these issues, but glosses over them as the ruling party tries to divert attention from its inability to hold its deployees to account.





Hoekom dink u ...





 ... that the Western Cape received 79% clean audits and none of the other provinces could get above 30%? This is because there is no accountability.





Diefstal, korrupsie word beloon ...



... with inaction, and where it cannot be avoided ...





... herontplooiing van kaders. [Tussenwerpsels.]





Local government is failing in 8 out of the 9 provinces due to mismanagement. The consequences are dire as we see sewage polluting water causes. The water supply infrastructure failing ...





... en die krane het geen water nie. Dit is droog.





The roads are degrading beyond repair all because mayors prefer fancy cars and dodgy procurement to actual service delivery. The service delivery protests are becoming more frequent and more violent as communities lose hope.






Geen munisipaliteit is perfek nie maar as u die leiding van munisipaliteite soos Midvaal en die meeste van munisipaliteite in die Wes-Kaap vat ...





... and you start spending money where it matters, where people actually want services.





... [onhoorbaar.] ... daar is die teken waar ons die verbetering in ons munisipaliteite kan sien. Die Wes-Kaap ondersteun die verslag. Baie dankie.



Mr Y I CARRIM: No, no. Thank you and sorry about that Deputy Chairperson of the House. Firstly, I would like to ask the speaker - rhetorically of course, who is running Tshwane right now? Who is running Johannesburg right now? Who was running Nelson Mandela Bay? All of these municipalities are in crisis. [Interjections.] All of these municipalities are in crisis. And the DA must take responsibility. Yes, Comrade Deputy Chairperson. We all agree that the ... [Interjections.] ... they have the right to speak, Deputy Chairperson. They should put their hands up and speak, and engage in the debate instead of heckling meaninglessly. Firstly, they don’t



run a municipality EFF, so they can’t talk about anything. They have no experience of governing; they have no experience ... [Interjections.] It is very easy. It is very easy to curp and whine and whinge from the side when you are not governing, but those people from the DA are misgoverning. They took over the metros but they cannot run them. Right now, both the municipalities of Tshwane and Johannesburg are in crisis. [Interjections.]



Can you please tell me my friend, who is the mayor of Tshwane - who has done what he has done? [Interjections.] I have fairly begun, Chairperson ... but okay. [Interjections.]



The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, we are asking for declarations. And if any member indicated that he wants to say something, it is not for me to decide that it will not be a declaration. That is why even when someone starts to say other things; we wait for him to make a declaration of the way he sees fit. I am just saying this because there was a lot of excitement now. Sometimes when most of us stand up, we say things that are not necessarily part of the declarations of vote, but later in the speech we make declarations of vote. Because the member initially had enough time to make a declaration but delayed, I requested him



to sit down because he is not making his declaration of vote. [Interjections.]



So, please, I don’t know. I am saying that anyone has the right to speak here, and we will allow them to speak to a point where we feel we will call them to order or if another member raises a point of order against what the speaker is saying. So, members, can we continue. Is there any other member who wants to make a declaration? If none, we will now go ahead and proceed. Yes, hon Mokause, you may




Ms M O MOKAUSE: Can I stand on a point of order?



The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: A point of order in what sense?



Ms M O MOKAUSE: Deputy Chairperson, we were sitting here listening to the member there shouting as if he is in his kitchen. Deputy Chairperson, we cannot be shouted at here. This is the House wherein we are asked to make declarations, let us do so - not this shouting and this up and down. [Interjections.] The hon Carrim must know that this is a House – this is a House!



The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you, hon Mokause.



Ms M O MOKAUSE: Please, let us not be ... [Interjections.] ... let us not be exposed to such.



The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Members, order. Order. Order, hon Mokause. You see, the shoe is now on the other foot and now it is a problem. Let us continue. Let us be fair to one another, please. [Interjections.] We shall now ... hon Luthuli, can it even be you. Ha! I am shocked.






Question put: That the Report be adopted.



In Favour: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.



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



The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, before we conclude the business of the day, let me just express appreciation to the members of the NCOP, those that really saw it necessary to attend our event for the launching of 16 Days of Activism that we had



earlier today in the Old Assembly Chamber. It was a disappointment that more members were not there. We invited a speaker from outside to relay our own experiences of abuse, particularly intimate partner abuse. It was a very good session because we also involved the staff. We hope in future we will see more of the members attending such events. We received apologies from those who were attending committee meetings, but more will be interested to attend.



The Council adjourned at 15:00.