Hansard: NA: Unrevised hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 11 Nov 2013

Summary

No summary available.


Minutes

UNREVISED HANSARD

 

TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2013

____

 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

____

 

The House met at 10:00.

 

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

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

 

NOTICES OF MOTION

 

Mr D J STUBBE: Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DA:

 

That the House debates the reliability of the crime statistics in South Africa.

 

Mr G D SCHNEEMANN: Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

 

That the House debates increasing mobile police stations in vulnerable areas like informal settlements to combat crime.

Mrs D A SCHÄFER: Mr Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DA:

 

That the House debates the dangers of “race rhetoric” during election campaigning.

 

Mr M S BOOI: Mr Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

 

That the House debates redressing measures in the workplace by focusing on enterprise development, access to training, career mobility and mentoring.

 

Mr L SUKA: Mr Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

 

That the House debates mechanisms to ensure the growth, success and sustainability of women’s co-operatives.

 

ROAD ACCIDENT CARNAGE IN MPUMALANGA

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move without notice:

 

That the House –

 

(1) notes with sadness the road carnage that claimed the lives of about 29 people and injured 30 people on the Moloto Road in Vlaklaagte in Mpumalanga Province;

 

(2) further notes that the accident involved a head-on collision between a truck and a bus near Kwaggafontein 100 km east of Pretoria;

 

(3) calls on all road users to be vigilant and patient on the road to avoid any form of road accident and loss of life; and

 

(4) conveys its deepest condolences to the families of the bereaved and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.

 

Agreed to.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, would it be out of order to ask that my personal condolences be added as this is my constituency? This has happened so many times, and I fully concur with the motion.

 

The SPEAKER: It covers the condolences of all of us, hon member, including yours. [Interjections.] Order, hon members, order!

 

TEARS OF JOY AND SADNESS FOR CHIBIKA FAMILY

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

Mrs S V KALYAN: Speaker, I move without notice:

 

That the House –

 

(1) notes with both great sadness and excitement for the people of Khayelitsha that Sibahle Chibika won R250 000 from a popular SABC programme called So You Think You Can Dance;

 

(2) further notes that during the announcement of the winner and the prize that saw Sibahle being declared a winner, her grandmother, at home while watching on television, was overwhelmed with joy and huge disbelief that her granddaughter was the winner, and suffered from a heart attack and died within minutes;

 

(3) conveys its condolences to the family of Chibika during this sad moment as it is indeed an unfortunate incident when tears of joy all of a sudden mix with tears of grief and sadness; and

 

(4) urges all to join hands with the people of Khayelitsha in celebrating her success and mourning the departure of uMakhulu.

 

Agreed to.

 

SUCCESS OF VOTER REGISTRATION

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move without notice:

 

    That the House -

 

(1) welcomes the success of the voter registration on 9 and 10 November 2013, despite sporadic disruptions;

 

(2) notes that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) officials worked through the night to try and process the registration records of all newly registered voters and those who had to re-register;

 

(3) believes that the eligible voters who have not registered yet will be inspired by the success of the two-day registration and shall respond to the IEC’s call to register at any IEC office during working hours;

 

(4) acknowledges that almost 100% of polling stations across the country have been operating since opening time on day one and many South Africans had commented on the speed and ease with which they had been able to register to vote in the 2014 general elections;

 

(5) further acknowledges that when the registration process closed on Sunday night indications were that about 75% of people who registered were younger than 30; and

 

(6) congratulates the IEC for a job well done.

 

Agreed to.

 

16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM CAMPAIGN

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

Ms E MORE: Speaker, I move without notice on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Opposition:

 

That the House -

(1) notes that the 16 Days of Activism Campaign will be held between 25 November and 10 December this year;

 

(2) further notes that the campaign is an initiative of the United Nations and takes place annually between 25 November, International Day of No Violence Against Women, and 10 December, International Human Rights Day;

 

(3) acknowledges that the theme for this year’s campaign is From Peace in the Home to Peace in the World: Let’s Challenge Militarism and End Violence against Women!;

 

(4) recognises that the rights of women and children are fundamental human rights entrenched in and protected by our Constitution and that gender-based and child violence devalues human dignity as well as the self-worth of the person and must be stopped in our society;

 

(5) calls on Government, civil society and nongovernmental organisations to work together to stop all forms of violence against women and children;

 

(6) encourages all South Africans to wear a white ribbon during the 16-day period to create greater awareness of this issue; and

 

(7) reminds South Africans and the international community that the fight against violence and abuse must continue beyond this 16-day period, which should ideally be 365 days of activism against violence and abuse.

 

Agreed to.

 

TYPHOON HAIYAN FATALITIES IN PHILIPPINES

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move without notice:

 

That the House -

 

(1) notes with great sadness the death of more than 10 000 people, who were struck by super typhoon Haiyan in Tacloban City, central Philippines on Friday, 8 November 2013;

 

(2) acknowledges that this is the most powerful typhoon ever recorded;

 

(3) believes that the people of the Philippines will pass through the sorrow that has devastated their lives and destroyed their city;

(4) conveys its heartfelt condolences to the people and the government of the Philippines; and

 

(5) calls upon the people of the world to give help and moral support to the people of the Philippines during this difficult time.

 

Agreed to.

 

MS M C C PILANE-MAJAKE TO REPLACE MR M C MANANA IN MAGISTRATES’ COMMISSION

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move:

 

That the House designates Ms M C C Pilane-Majake to replace Mr M C Manana as member of the Magistrates’ Commission.

 

Agreed to.

 

SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1) FOR SECOND READING DEBATE OF BILL

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move:

That the House suspends Rule 253(1), which provides inter alia that the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate today on the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B 23B – 2013](National Assembly – sec 75).

 

Agreed to.

 

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Hon Speaker, hon members of the National Assembly, hon Deputy President and colleagues, today I am pleased to introduce the Employment Services Bill. This Bill seeks to give effect to the 2009 election manifesto of the ANC, which promised decent work for all workers, as well as to protect the employment relationship, introduce laws to regulate contract work, and subcontracting and outsourcing, address the labour brokering problem and prohibit certain abusive practices.

 

The Bill also seeks to contribute to the government’s objectives of more jobs, decent work and sustainable livelihoods by repositioning public employment services to play a major role in employment promotion and employment preservation, and will also assist employers, workers and work seekers to adapt to changing labour market conditions.

 

The strategic objectives will be achieved through institutional arrangements that the department will further establish to provide free services to citizens, such as registration of job seekers, registering of placement opportunities, matching services, referral to education and training and careers information. The department will regulate private employment agencies providing similar services in the private sector to protect vulnerable workers.

 

In addition to this, the Bill allows the Minister to issue regulations requiring employers to register vacancies in specified categories of work. The Bill will further permit the Minister to introduce schemes to promote the employment of work seekers, to assist employees facing retrenchments to remain in employment, and to promote the rehabilitation and re-entry into employment of employees injured on duty or who have contracted an occupational disease.

 

Working in consultation with the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister can also introduce regulations providing steps to be followed before employing foreign nationals in the South African labour market. The Bill also provides a legal basis for the re-establishment and expanded scope of supported employment enterprises to provide employment for people with disabilities who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. It also aims to transform this service into a training resource for specific projects like the making of school furniture and other deliverables.

 

Let me thank the National Economic Development and Labour Council, Nedlac, social partners for their commitment to social dialogue and for their extensive engagement with regard to the proposed Bill. I would also like to further thank the members of the portfolio committee for their contribution. I should also like to thank the many interested parties and organisations that submitted written comments on the Bill to the department.

 

I am pleased to table the Employment Services Bill today and recommend it to the House for adoption. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr M E NCHABELENG: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, tackling unemployment requires all of us to join hands for the good of the country. The future of our country ... [Interjections.]

 

The SPEAKER: Hon members, please reduce the noise level in the House. Will all those who are standing please take their seats. Hon member, continue.

 

Mr M E NCHABELENG: The future of our country is in our hands - all of us. Unemployment is part of what was inherited from our ugly past. While no one today wants to own up to the apartheid mess, the ANC has rolled up its sleeves and tackled the problem of unemployment from every possible angle.

 

While some opposition parties claim to care about addressing unemployment, their actions are in sharp contrast to the cause. The opposition parties have perfected the art of sounding politically correct, while on the other hand putting road blocks in every progressive intervention that the ANC introduces.

 

In the world of today, which is characterised by globalisation, the unemployment problem has become a worldwide problem. It is endemic in both developed and developing countries. However, for developing countries this problem brings more challenges, like increased poverty and complications such as political and social instability.

 

Unemployment is probably the most severe problem that the South African society is experiencing and it is conceivably the root cause of many other problems, such as high crime rates, violence, abject poverty and so on. Prominent leaders in and outside government have also stated that no government will be able to govern South Africa if this problem is not addressed effectively.

 

In the third quarter of 2013 the South African jobless rate decreased to 24,7%, which is the lowest value in almost two years. The number of people without work went down to 4,66 million from 4,72 million in the previous three months. Between the second and third quarters of 2013, the number of employed persons increased by 308 000, while the number of unemployed persons decreased by 114 000. This resulted in a rise of 194 000 in the labour force. The formal sector and private households contributed positively to the increase in employment, up by 314 000 and 39 000 respectively.

 

In contrast, there was a decline in employment in the informal sector, down by 39 000, and in agriculture, down by 6 000. The uneconomically active population decreased by 82 000 persons, largely as a result of the decline in discouraged work seekers that has gone down by 125 000, while the remainder of the uneconomically active group increased by 43 000.

 

The Employment Services Bill is a welcome intervention as it seeks to introduce regulatory instruments to facilitate, among others, matching work seekers with available work opportunities; registering work seekers; registering job vacancies and other work opportunities; facilitating the placing of work seekers with employers in other work opportunities; advising workers on access to education and training; advising workers on access to social security benefits; providing specialised services to assist vulnerable work seekers; facilitating the exchange of information among labour market participants, including employers, workers and work seekers, private employment agencies, Sector Education and Training Authorities and training providers; facilitating the employment of foreign nationals – non-South Africans-in a manner that is consistent with the objects of this Act and the Immigration Act; and generally performing any other function in terms of employment law or prescribed in terms of this Act.

 

The Bill provides an elegant answer to the frequently asked question regarding what the Department of Labour is doing to facilitate the absorption of the unemployed into the labour market. [Interjections.] Cheers! [Laughter.] This Bill, if signed into law, will go a long way in providing a structured approach to addressing the unemployment scourge in South Africa. It will also test the commitment of the private sector to work with government in the efforts to address unemployment.

 

Any party that is not on the side of this Bill cannot claim to be part of the solution to our problems. We are convinced that it is a step in the right direction and, given time, real collaboration has a great potential to move the country forward.

 

Therefore, we call on all who love this country to step forward and be part of doing the right thing. Supporting the Bill will be a good start. Furthermore, the Bill covers issues such as the promotion of employment of the youth and other vulnerable work seekers; job retention; employment information; reporting on vacancies and filling of positions; registration of private employment agencies; cancellation of registration of private employment agencies when their licences expire; regulating the practice of the charging of fees by private employment agencies; the establishment of an employment services board; regularising the establishment and functioning of Productivity SA; and promoting of supported work for persons with disabilities - those are the factories that used to be called “sheltered employment factories”.

 

The Bill captures the essence of government’s New Growth Path, the Industrial Policy Action Plan and the 2030 vision in the National Development Plan. It follows, therefore, that this Bill serves as an excellent instrument to realise the national agenda and key priorities of this country. Amandla! [Power!]

 

HON MEMBERS: Awethu! [To the people!] [Applause.]

 

Mr K S MUBU: Mr Speaker, the DA cannot support the Bill that is before us. [Interjections.] From the Bill it is clear that the ANC does not understand why people do not have jobs in South Africa; why there are no jobs in South Africa; and how best to help people into employment. [Interjections.]

 

Indeed, instead of assisting businesses to grow, flourish and creating jobs, this Bill imposes an even greater administrative burden on businesses, adding to an ever growing list of fines that can be imposed on them. Before you try to help people into employment, Minister, you must first ensure that there are jobs for them to have.

 

The DA supports the establishment of Productivity SA, PSA. Although PSA had already been established under the Skills Development Act its re-establishment under this Bill makes it more effective and more relevant.

 

The DA also supports the establishment of supported employment enterprises. Sheltered employment factories have had limited success and the DA hopes that supported employment enterprises will widen opportunities for people with disabilities and further facilitate supported employment in South Africa, particularly for people living with disabilities.

 

Finally, the only other good aspect of the Bill before us today is that it will prevent employment agencies from charging fees to vulnerable job seekers. This will put an end to years of the abuse of the most desperate individuals, providing them with the protection that they need.

 

Unfortunately, Minister Oliphant has seen fit to wrap these positive provisions in unrealistic, damaging and inappropriate tripe. The Bill establishes a public employment service that aims to match job seekers with available job opportunities. However, Minister Oliphant has forgotten that her department already has Employment Services of South Africa and that this agency already conducts this function with a similar mandate.

 

The Bill will also control private employment agencies to the extent that their role will shrivel up into that of a recruitment agency.

Government is therefore competing with the private sector and regulating it at the same time. Government presupposes that it can do a better job than the private sector. [Interjections.] However, we have already seen that this is not the case. [Interjections.]

 

The SPEAKER: Hon members, order! Order!

 

Mr K S MUBU: Employment Services of South Africa is slow and inefficient. Equivalent government-run employment services in Germany and the United Kingdom are staffed by over 70 000 people. Does Minister Oliphant seriously believe that the current staff complement of around 500 people is going to cut it? Minister, your department is not prepared for this Bill and, Minister, the country cannot afford this Bill. Instead, government must create the conditions for job creation and allow private recruitment agencies to find the right candidate to fill them.

 

The Government should not be the country’s largest recruiter as well as its largest recruitment agency. This is a model for failure and one of the main reasons why we are stuck with an abysmal unemployment rate. The ANC government keeps trying to employ people instead of creating the conditions for the private sector to employ people.

 

This Bill is another blow to the struggling private sector and an asphyxiated labour market. The Minister now has the power to make a regulation that employers must notify her department of any vacancies, or face a R50 000 fine. This creates an extra burden on companies instead of helping them to grow and create more jobs.

 

In a country wracked with xenophobic tendencies, it is astonishing that the Minister thinks it is a good idea for her to have the sole power to regulate the employment of foreigners. This will only contribute further to the shortage of exceptional skills in the country when the country has a skills deficit of 829 000, according to Adcorp’s 2012 review.

 

The DA cannot support this misguided approach to solving the most important problems facing South Africa today. It is time to put the focus back on jobs so that we can, once and for all, redress the wrongs of the past. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Ms H N MAKHUBA: Hon Speaker, on behalf of my colleague who is unable to be with us today, I am going to be debating the Employment Services Bill. There are many people across the country struggling to not only find jobs, but also to retain the jobs that they do have.

 

Many stakeholders have called on government to take a more active role in helping the citizenry tackle this issue and helping create more jobs, specifically for the youth. This Bill represents a step forward in the government’s attempt not only to help those without work, but also to limit the impact of immigration on the availability of jobs.

 

The adoption of the Employment Services Bill will go a long way in helping vulnerable job seekers, who include the youth, new entrants into the labour market, disabled people and members of rural communities to be registered and matched with job vacancies and other work opportunities. With so many of our people in need of jobs, it is essential that they know where to go when they need to find more information with regard to available opportunities, and to be able to receive education and training as well as contact with employers through the established recruitment and placement services.

 

The regulation of private employment agencies presents an opportunity to minimise some of the labour-broking issues that many trade unions have been demanding be removed. With the new legislation private agencies will be regulated to ensure that only legitimate agencies are allowed to function as limited labour-broker agencies, presenting somewhat of a compromise to what the unions wanted.

 

The influx of foreign nationals into the country has stirred up animosity and tension amongst locals and foreigners, with many instances of xenophobic attacks taking place. The Bill allows for foreign nationals to be employed as long as South Africans with the particular skills needed are unavailable. This elevation of job opportunities to citizens over those of foreign workers will mean more jobs and a reduction in the number of unemployed. However, caution must be taken in this regard as it has the potential of blocking much needed experience within certain essential job markets, which the Minister has identified.

 

Many people with disabilities struggle to find permanent employment in different sectors of our job market, but with the implementation of the protected employment enterprises, this is bound to change. The many changing needs of people with disabilities must be catered for in the job market, and discrimination against them must be rooted out.

 

In conclusion, it is of paramount importance that this Bill be implemented cautiously, as it has all the intentions of making our job market more accessible to the South African job seeker. Elements of the Bill such as Productivity SA will not flourish if government disrupts the autonomy of the employers without good reason. It will take the public and private sectors working hand-in-hand to deal with issues of unemployment through skills training for those who need it and ensuring that the youth take advantage of the job opportunities presented to them. The IFP supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr M H HOOSEN: Hon Speaker, countries that have made huge advances in reducing unemployment and creating jobs will tell you that to succeed you must create an environment for businesses to flourish, make it simpler and cheaper to create jobs, and reduce red tape.

 

This principle is broadly supported in the National Development Plan when it calls for ways to improve the functioning of the labour market in order to promote large-scale job creation in our country. Several components of this Bill do not represent what is promoted in the NDP. Although this Bill have some positive elements that will contribute to streamlining the labour market, it also sounds the death knell for private companies whose core business is to reduce unemployment and poverty by facilitating job creation opportunities.

 

We recognise and support every attempt to eradicate the exploitation of vulnerable job seekers, but for government to compete with the private sector, instead of creating partnerships, and to introduce more red tape for businesses to operate is simply suicidal. Unless government incentivises businesses that create jobs instead of punishing those who do, our unemployment rate will continue to grow; poverty levels will soar and the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. Unless government creates a real partnership with the private sector, it will retain the burden of high levels of poverty and massive inequality.

 

This Bill, instead of promoting public-private partnerships, introduces the complete opposite. It promotes the establishment of institutions that will compete with the private sector whilst, at the same time, introducing more regulations to make it almost impossible for private enterprises to profit from job placement schemes.

 

It does not help South Africa’s labour market to ask the Department of Labour to do a job that is currently being done for free by private enterprises. Fining businesses for up to R50 000 for not declaring information relating to vacancies in their companies is not just absurd, but hilarious.

 

When will the ANC government learn that overregulation is not how economies grow and is not how jobs are created? When will the ANC learn that if economies do not grow and jobs are not created, then government will not be able to resolve the unemployment crisis of this country? The ANC is too stubborn to listen to the masses. That is why people like Mrs Johanna Phala, a single mother of three from Seshego, told the ANC Deputy President that she has lost hope in the ANC because it failed to create the jobs that it promised.

There are millions of desperate people like that out there in our country today who have lost all hope in the government creating jobs. Instead of focusing all the energy in growing our economy, which will create jobs, our government is playing around with ridiculous Bills that will simply make this situation worse. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

The SPEAKER: Hon members, please reduce the noise level in the House. That includes the Ministers.

 

Adv A D ALBERTS: Speaker, in order to make sense of the Employment Services Bill, one needs to paint the setting of the world it is trying to change. Yesterday I heard a bulletin on the radio of a young mother who poisoned her two children and then committed suicide as she could not continue to live on the social grant anymore. This terrible event sums up, in a nutshell, the terrible prospects many people in this country face every day.

 

Ek kan ook vir u verhale vertel van pensioenarisse wat nie meer woonplek of kos kan bekostig nie en hulleself ook vergiftig of op ‘n ander wyse selfmoord pleeg. Ek sien dit veral by die Transnet-pensioenarisse. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

 

[I can also tell you stories about pensioners who can no longer afford a place to live or food and who also poison themselves or commit suicide by other means. I see this particularly in the case of Transnet pensioners.]

 

So, while we are confronted with these cries for help, it is disconcerting to realise that the ANC is implementing policy that is destroying the economy. The regulatory impact assessment, RIA, report on the Employment Equity Amendment Bill, including analyses by many economists, is scathing in what this piece of racist law will do to the economy.

 

This law will not only redistribute existing economic value, it will actively destroy economic value. It is furthermore extremely worrying to see the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Bill’s passage that will have the same destructive effect on the economy. Even worse is that no independent research exists that indicate that BBBEE is actually working. The proof is rather that it is merely redistributing the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

Teen hierdie agtergrond maak die wetsontwerp oor arbeidsdienste sy verskyning. Daar bestaan egter vele gebreke. Eerstens wil die staat deur middel van dwang ‘n privaatfunksie oorneem wat bes moontlik ongrondwetlik is. Tweedens wil die staat poste aanbied op grond van rassistiese wetgewing, naamlik die Wet op Gelyke Indiensneming. Laastens wil die staat poste aanbied binne ‘n ekonomie wat swaarkry, juis vanweë inmenging op rassebasis wat nie volhoubaar is nie weens ‘n gebrek aan voldoende opgeleide kandidate en ‘n disfunksionele onderwysstelsel. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

 

[Against this background the employment services Bill has put in an appearance. However, there are many flaws. Firstly, the state wants to take over a private function by way of coercion, which may well be unconstitutional. Secondly, the state wants to offer posts based on racist legislation, namely the Employment Equity Act. Lastly, the state wants to offer posts within an economy that is struggling, precisely because of interference based on race, which is not sustainable because of a lack of sufficiently trained candidates and a dysfunctional education system.]

 

The Bill’s objective, to promote employment against the backdrop of affirmative action and BBBEE, is nothing but ANC window-dressing and playing the fiddle while Rome is burning.

 

Wat die DA betref, kan ek net sê dat hulle die minderhede in die land verraai het. Julle het wel laat omgedraai oor regstellende aksie, maar nie ‘n woord gerep oor SEB nie, wat ‘n nog strenger definisie van bevoordeeldes het en dus meer rassisties is as die ander wet. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

 

[Regarding the DA, I can only say that they have betrayed the minorities in this country. You may have made a late about-turn on affirmative action, but haven’t uttered a word on BEE, which has an even stricter definition of beneficiaries and is therefore more racist than the other Act.]

 

When you decided to support the BBBEE Amendment Bill, it was not merely an accumulation of mistakes, as you tried to disguise your support for the Employment Equity Amendment Bill. Are you now going to support this Bill? If not, should Zille, Mazibuko and the MPs who openly supported that Bill not also be redeployed, like the others? Think about that.

 

Mrs L S MAKHUBELA-MASHELE: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, Members of Parliament, the labour market environment has the remnants of the apartheid social engineering patterns. Of course, the old system of apartheid provided a platform for super-exploitation of workers, which in turn provided a life support system for the apartheid economy.

 

I submit that on the balance of probabilities, the apartheid economy would not have survived without apartheid’s repressive labour laws. For that reason, it is not surprising that every progressive move to make it possible for workers to enjoy full human rights and protection through the labour laws is opposed by those who are not friends of progress moves. Similarly, those who had become so spoilt with the exploitation as the mode of doing business regard that as okay.

 

Some businesses are finding it very difficult to cope with the fact that repressive labour laws are no longer part of our labour market landscape. Some have even gone to the extent of placing the blame of less than the required levels of job creation on our labour laws. But when you ask them exactly what the problem is with the labour laws, they tell you that our labour laws make it difficult to dismiss workers.

 

I thought curtailing the ease with which to dismiss a worker should be celebrated and not frowned upon. But then I realized that most employers have no idea of the trauma of being dismissed and that's why they have no sympathy if a worker is dismissed.

 

It is also urban legend to suggest that our labour laws make it hard to dismiss workers, because if that was the case, millions of workers who lost their jobs during the global economic crisis would not have been dismissed if the labour laws were as rigid as they claim.

It has become clear to everyone that unless government does something directly about job creation, some businesses are just not interested.

 

The trouble, of course, is that unemployment is possibly the biggest threat to stability in this country, and stability is the main ingredient of viability and security in doing business in this country.

Paying lip service to job creation by some employers is self-defeating.

 

Whilst it is generally accepted that the core business of business is doing business, it must also be acknowledged that it will not be sustainable if the socioeconomic deficit in the form of unemployment remains unattended to. This democracy has made a huge contribution to the success of many businesses, some of which would be history if it were not for democracy and the kind of democracy that exists in this country thanks to the ANC-led government!

 

I sometimes get the impression that our democracy and the willingness of our people to persevere is taken for granted. The trusting nature of our people was the cornerstone of believing that democracy would lead to a business-friendly environment that in turn would translate into prosperity being shared by all citizens.

 

Once again the ANC government calls on all its social partners to partner with it in its efforts to address unemployment in general and youth unemployment in particular. It is precisely for these reasons that government has introduced this Bill, not as a panacea for the unemployment crisis, but as a contribution to addressing what some consider as being the biggest threat to the future stability of this country.

 

The Bill is written in simple to understand language and its purpose and desired outcomes are explicit and noble. Establishing schemes to enhance the employment of young people is an objective that no South African in the right frame of mind would disagree with.

 

In the same vein, these efforts espoused in the Bill will not have the optimum impact if our social partners do not join hands with us. Having said that, government should not wait for those who are not ready to make a contribution. The train must move on and they might catch it at the next station if they genuinely love this country.

 

So accept the invitation to come on board to rid the country of joblessness; come on board to be counted among those who are part of the solution, because if you are not, then the reality is that you will remain a major part of the problem.

 

Let me conclude by recalling the 90s when trickle-down economic models were the gospel of the global economics, which was the text and preoccupation of many economists. It went like this: "Grow the economy and the social economic benefits thereof will trickle down from there." The progressive Nobel laureates of note challenged this paradigm and they have been vindicated.

 

Former President Nelson Mandela also raised concerns about this paradigm and is on record as having said: “The economic growth of the late 90s was a jobless growth.”

Let us deal with the need for economic growth in tandem with the urgent need to address joblessness in the general social upliftment of our people. The ANC supports this Bill. Ndza khensa. Inkomu! [Thank you.]

 

Mrs C DUDLEY: Hon Speaker, the ACDP supports the intentions of this Bill, which seeks to reduce unemployment, inequalities and poverty. It is in government attempts to promote and preserve employment, however, where the difficulty usually lies, keeping in mind that overregulation can inhibit private sector growth, which is clearly not the intention and will defeat the objective.

 

Hon Minister, has a regulatory impact study been done to determine what impact this legislation will have? Will it result in more jobs or just more red tape? The ACDP is convinced that government is responsible for creating the environment for a thriving economy, but it should not be the one actually providing the jobs. South Africa’s focus must be on increasing productivity so that we are more globally competitive. To the degree that this legislation delivers on this aspect the ACDP supports it.

 

Although we have not had the opportunity to follow this legislation in depth, we are concerned about what appears a significant degree of dictating to business, which we see as problematic when the goal is more jobs. We note, however, that this Bill has been discussed at Nedlac and we therefore assume that business concerns have been addressed.

 

The ACDP will despite reservations, support this Bill, which we hope will take us forward, even if only in part, as we strive for more jobs, decent work and sustainable livelihoods. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr D A KGANARE: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and members, I stand here on behalf of Cope to support the Bill and explain the reasons why we are doing this. [Applause.] This Bill’s objectives are, inter alia, to provide for the establishment of schemes to promote the employment of young work seekers and other vulnerable persons. The other vital part of the objectives of the Bill is to provide registration for the and regulation of private employment agencies. The establishment of the Employment Services Board is welcomed by Cope although it should have come earlier.

 

The challenge of the poor and vulnerable workers is a challenge which can only be ameliorated by having access to institutions that can link them with potential work opportunities without having to pay for the services. Cope hopes that the Employment Services Board will not be another institution which will be another rubber stamp of the ANC, but that it will be constituted by objective South Africans, whether ANC members or not, who will understand their legislative responsibility. All South Africans, irrespective of their political affiliation, colour, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or age, will have the same opportunity to serve the country. The challenges of South Africa do not apply only to a particular political party, despite what the ANC wants us to believe through the mouth of its leadership and deeds.

 

What the youth of this country needs is the opportunity to be self-sufficient. No one wants to be a recipient of food parcels for the rest of their lives. The poor do not want to be recipients of food parcels only once every five years or during by-elections and general elections. They want their dignity through being able to earn a living by having legal and legitimate jobs. The better life for all can be realised only if this does not mean a better life for ANC leaders only.

 

The Employment Services Board, Productivity South Africa and supported employment enterprises can only be credible to the labour market role-players if those who run it are credible South Africans. Employers will only make these institutions functional if they have confidence in them. The credibility of these institutions depends on their impartiality and effectiveness. How they are perceived will make the relevant role-players trust them and make them achieve their objectives.

 

Nedlac will play a vital role in the success or failure of these institutions that will be created through this legislation. The purpose of this Bill is noble, if those entrusted with the implementation and responsibility can do what they are supposed to do without fear or favour. Nobody can oppose any law which aims to promote employment by providing opportunities for new entrants to the labour market to gain work experience; improving the employment and re-employment prospects of employees facing retrenchments; and promoting employment, growth and workplace productivity.

 

Hon members, all these objectives can only be achieved if the integrated free public employment services serve all South Africans equally, irrespective of their political affiliation. Cope supports clause 8, which deals with the employment of foreign nationals. It should not be interpreted as promoting xenophobia.

 

It is important that South Africans should get the available jobs first and thereafter foreigners can be accommodated. The tendency to regard only the pitch-black Africans as being the only foreigners in South Africa should be confronted head-on. In most cases, foreigners from Europe and Asia are not treated the same as foreigners from East and West African countries. It is a legal imperative anywhere else in the world that employers prove that “there are no other persons in the Republic with suitable skills to fill a vacancy, before recruiting a foreign national”, as clause 8(2)(a) of the Bill states. Further, Cope supports the whole of clause 9 of this Bill.

 

Since the poor do not have money to pay for private agencies, which charges people for looking for jobs on their behalf, it is logical that private employment agencies should not discriminate due to an inability to pay. The employers who are sourcing the services of the private employment services should be allowed to carry the costs of acquiring labour. Free supported employment enterprises will also assist people with disabilities to get employment.

 

The current status quo is absolutely unsatisfactory. Given the history of how the state-owned enterprises, SOEs, are being run, Cope hopes that these employment agencies will not turn out to be loss-making entities like SAA or the SABC. Cope will support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr K J DIKOBO: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, there is a belief in certain circles that if you change the name of something very bad, it will cease to be bad. The notorious labour brokers are now euphemistically being referred to as “employment agencies”. Labour brokers or private agencies do not contribute to the objective of more jobs, decent work and sustainable livelihood.

 

Azapo has said before that labour brokers do not create jobs. They just tell the job seekers where the jobs are, but unlike placement agencies do not bring the prospective employers and job seekers together. We have been part of the call for a complete ban of labour brokers. The employment relationship is and must remain a relationship between the employer and employees. There must be no third party lurking in the shadows.

 

We have followed the debate on labour brokers or employment agencies. There are those who believe that regulating labour brokers will squeeze them out of existence. They call on us not to support the Bill as it would lead to their death. They say it is a sophisticated way of banning them. Azapo is not convinced.

 

Hon Minister, we do not agree with you, just as we do not agree with the argument by hon Mubu of the DA. Azapo will not be party to a process that legitimises labour brokers. We will not legitimise a group that has exploited the workers of our land. We hear that workers will no longer be charged. In fact, they are not being charged now; the employer is being charged, except that the employer docks the worker’s pay for the money that is transferred to the labour brokers. We do not want labour brokers. So, we will not support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr G G HILL-LEWIS: Speaker, the DA evaluates every policy and legislative proposal through the lens of job creation and economic growth. We understand the simple truth that a flourishing economy is the only real way to redress the economic legacy of apartheid and to include many millions more South Africans in prosperity.

 

If we accept the premise that every policy that government proposes should be judged by its effect on economic inclusion and growth, then it’s easy to see why it is impossible to support this Bill.

 

This Bill will not help to create jobs or to facilitate labour absorption. In fact, quite the opposite; it will destroy jobs. How will it do that? It will destroy jobs by crowding out hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller employment agencies which historically have had a superb record of placing work seekers in jobs. Expanding the public employment service will not lead to more jobs, it will lead to less. Those smaller agencies will be crushed under an ever-expanding mountain of red tape that this government places upon them. All that this means is that there will be a concentration in the sector. The big companies who can handle the smothering red tape will survive, and those that cannot will perish.

 

The ANC’s policy programme this year has been defined by its preoccupation with browbeating the economy into complying with the model of control and coercion that it envisions, but you cannot browbeat the economy without sacrificing competitiveness, jobs and long-term growth. This Bill is another example of this agenda in full swing and it will not work. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding and mistrust of the South African economy. You do not create jobs by regulating successful businesses to death.

 

Let me deal with the hon Alberts. We oppose this Bill because it does not help to redress the legacy of apartheid. That is quite different from why you oppose this Bill, hon member. We oppose this Bill, because it does not go nearly far enough in redressing the economic legacy of apartheid. We support the inclusion of dispossessed and excluded South Africans’ economy. We are not sure that you feel the same. [Interjections.]

 

We oppose this Bill, because it reverses the cause of redressing apartheid and it does not advance it. You do not create jobs by replacing efficient innovative entrepreneurs with inefficient ever-expanding government departments.

 

Hon Nchabeleng, on Saturday morning I received an SMS from the ANC asking me to go and register. I am not sure in what universe you think a DA Member of Parliament is going to go and register for the ANC ... [Interjections.] Yes, I will take your question.

 

The SPEAKER: Order, hon member. Order!

 

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (Mrs T V Tobias): He has already said he would take the question. Can I ask the question, please?

 

The SPEAKER: Proceed, madam.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (Ms T V Tobias): Do you call consultants - people who stand between the employer and employees - job creators? Is that what you are saying?

 

Mr G G HILL-LEWIS: Hon member, small employment agencies in South Africa have a track record of decades of placing hundreds and thousands of South Africans in jobs. [Interjections.] [Applause.] They work efficiently to match demand with available skills. [Applause.] What you propose is to kill all of those businesses and replace them with a massive expanding government department. That is not job creation – that is tinkering disruptively.

 

Let me get back to the SMS quickly. The SMS said to me that the ANC has created jobs since 1994. The hon Nchabeleng tried to spin the same statistics today. The truth of the matter is that, one in three South Africans who are of economically active age are unemployed; three million of them have lost all hope of finding a job. They don’t even look for a job any more because of the policies of this government. So, frankly, the SMS was grossly misleading.

 

The fact is, this Bill benefits big business and big labour. It is another demonstration that the ANC has become the party of big business and big labour working in unison to protect their elites. My party, the DA, stands up for entrepreneurs who work day and night to grow their business, stay competitive and create jobs. We stand by them and that is why we oppose this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr A J WILLIAMS: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members and, most importantly, the South African people, I firstly want to state that the ANC supports this Bill. We support this Bill today and we will support it in the future.

 

I can’t talk for all parties in this House, as some parties change their minds after they have supported Bills. As Mr Tony Leon recently wrote:

 

The DA’s flip-flop on employment equity suggests that, whatever its other lapses, the ANC now comprehensively dominates the intellectual space and defines terms of the debate within it.

 

[Applause.]

 

Today, before this Fourth Parliament and before South Africa... [Interjections.]

 

The SPEAKER: Order, hom members! Order!

 

Mr A J WILLIAMS: ... we are debating the Employment Services Bill. I have stated this, because it is important for all hon members in this House to understand that this Parliament is nothing without the people. It is important for the people to understand that this Parliament is nothing without people’s participation.

Through the democratic processes that we all enjoy today, courtesy of the ANC-led mass democratic movement, you, South Africa, have put us here. You have put us here to make laws that are in your best interests.

 

Section 8(1) of the Employment Services Bill states:

 

An employer may not employ a foreign national within the territory of the Republic of South Africa prior to such foreign national producing an applicable and valid work permit, issued in terms of the Immigration Act.

 

I know, South Africa, that some of you are deeply concerned about the issue of non-South Africans working illegally within South Africa. The ANC-led government is deeply concerned about this issue, too.

 

Let us work together – the people and the ANC-led government – on a solution that puts the love we share of humanity above a few people’s lust for wealth. [Interjections.] Over the last 19 and half years, South Africa has improved to such an extent that non-South Africans are flocking to this country. Today, South Africa is a much better country to live in as opposed to the time when the DA’s predecessors were collaborating with the apartheid regime. [Interjections.]

We, as a united collective rooted in our mutual love of humanity, we as South Africans, must start asking: Why is it that non-South Africans can illegally gain employment within South Africa? The simple truth is that a group of people whose lust for wealth is bigger than their love of humanity is breaking the law and illegally employing non-South Africans. We cannot blame non-South Africans for this situation. We, who put the love of humanity above our lust for wealth, must never blame individuals for seeking a better life.

 

The cause of this worrying situation is the law-breaking employers that illegally employ non-South Africans. They do this because they think they can more easily exploit illegal workers. These inhumane, greedy employers use deportation as a threat in order to exploit vulnerable people. They are criminals that exploit in order to accumulate more money.

 

In South Africa, we basically have human trafficking of a special type perpetuated by greedy employers. What we have are vulnerable non-South Africans rushing toward what they think are greener pastures and finding, instead, exploitation and humiliation. Only as a collective, rooted in our love of humanity, can we put an end to the exploitation and humiliation of our fellow humans. Only through working together will we achieve more. Do not blame non-South Africans; the blame squarely lies with the employers who illegally employ non-South Africans.

 

The Employment Services Bill, in section 8(2), states that:

 

The Minister may, after consulting the Board, make regulations to facilitate the employment of foreign nationals, which regulations may include the following measures:

 

(a) The employers must satisfy themselves that there are no other persons in the Republic with suitable skills to fill a vacancy, before recruiting a foreign national.

 

This section is important, because there are occasions where there are no South Africans with the skills required to do a job and the skilled person must therefore be imported.

 

However, when farmers employ non-South Africans to be their labourers, to work excessively long hours and live in hovels and squalor in order to make more money, it is illegal and inhumane. When factories and offices employ non-South Africans and unskilled employees, pay them a pittance and sexually harass them, it is illegal and inhumane. When restaurants, hotels and retailers employ non-South Africans as waiters, cleaners and shelf-packers because they can exploit them, it is illegal and inhumane.

 

We call on the South African bourgeoisie to engage with their compatriots who are currently employing illegal non-South Africans to put an end to this illegal practice. I call on my fellow South Africans to be sensitive to the plight of non-South Africans living in our beautiful country. We are all people, we are a society and, as an African society, we must not exploit and humiliate one another.

 

My fellow South Africans, I call upon you to report all employers that illegally employ non-South Africans to your nearest Labour and Home Affairs offices. Brothers and sisters, I call upon you to participate in the implementation of the law. [Interjections.] Comments on Twitter and Facebook don’t equate to participation. The first act of participation in a participatory democracy is voting.

 

In the upcoming national general elections, you have the right to choose between the former apartheid collaborators and the people’s liberators. [Interjections.] If you don’t participate in our democracy, then why did so many people suffer and die in the struggle for our liberation?

 

During the time when the DA’s predecessors were collaborating with the apartheid regime ... [Interjections.] ... the ANC-led liberation movement was suffering untold hardship with the aim of creating a people-driven and people-centred government within a nonracist, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa. [Interjections.]

Some of the opposition parties in this debate wish to see the government pass laws that allow greedy employers to exploit you, South Africa.

The opposition want to protect their funders and not the people. Together, we, South Africa, must never allow exploitation of our workforce.

 

Without the people, without your participation, this government is nothing. Without you, my fellow South Africans, this participatory democracy is meaningless. Only through working together can we do more. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Hon Speaker ...

 

Ngizofisa ukwazisa amalungu amabili umhloniswa uDikobo nomhlonishwa u-Hoosen ukuthi ... [I would like to inform two members, hon Dikobo and hon Hoosen, that ...]

 

... maybe the best thing ...

 

... abathathe zonke lezi zichibiyelo kanye nalo Mthethosivivinywa bakufunde kanyekanye kodwa bangakuchathi ukuze baqondisise ukuthi ngempela ngempela lezi zinto zithini. [... would be to read all these amendments together with this Bill but they must do it properly in order for them to have a better understanding of what they mean.]

 

It’s unfortunate that some of them are not members of the committee and that is why they don’t have full information about this legislation.

 

Secondly ...

 

... kumalungu amasha e-DA omnumzane uMubu no-G G Hill-Lewis ... [... to the new members of the DA, Mr Mubu and G G Hill-Lewis ...]

 

... I believe that it is because they were not participating in the processes. It’s fortunate that hon Mudau and Van der Westhuizen were chucked out of the committee because they supported the legislation. [Interjections.] That’s the kind of people we have in South Africa.

 

I want to share with them that the sheltered employment factories were established in 1943. We are amending it in order to transform them into public employment enterprises, because we want to transform that particular sector which was, at that time, only meant for white people and those soldiers who were injured while in uniform. We can’t proceed with such legislation.

 

If they are serious when saying that they want to participate in redressing the injustices of the past, they should support this particular legislation. So now we understand exactly the kind of chameleon we are working with in South Africa. [Interjections.]

 

I want to say to hon Mubu that this Bill does not talk about increasing the fines. Don’t put your confusion into this particular legislation. Secondly, hon Mubu, we are not establishing Productivity SA, because it already exists. We have only amended it. [Interjections.] Maybe it is a case of your not understanding the language that was used, therefore you are confusing yourself.

 

At the same time I want to say to hon Mubu, it is clear that when it comes to immigration laws you don’t understand the role of the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour makes recommendations to Home Affairs, which has the final say when it comes to the employment of foreign nationals. We also work together with the Department of Trade and Industry. So, don’t come and express your confusion here. You should probably thank South Africa, because you also fall under the category of foreign national. [Interjections.] You should probably appreciate being in South Africa, because you won’t find a South African in the Chambers of your country ... [Interjections.]

 

Mr K S MUBU: Speaker, on a point of order! [Interjections.]

 

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Order! Yes, sir, what’s your point of order?

 

Mr K S MUBU: My point of order is that I don’t appreciate the Minister’s attitude. She is personal ... [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Hon members, order! Order! Allow the speaker to be heard. Proceed.

 

Mr K S MUBU: She is attacking me personally, instead of debating what I said. I think she is expressing a xenophobic attitude. I don’t appreciate it! [Applause.] [Interjections.]

 

An HON MEMBER: He is a citizen of this country!

 

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Order!

 

Mrs S V KALYAN: Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? I submit that referring to the hon Mubu as a “foreign national” is unparliamentary as it is xenophobic in nature. Hon Mubu is a South African citizen. [Interjections.]

 

The SPEAKER: Hon members, order! Order! Yes, that’s correct; he is a South African citizen and not a foreign national.

 

Mrs S V KALYAN: Speaker, will the hon Minister withdraw her comment? It is unparliamentary.

 

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: You were supposed to wait and listen to what I am going to say. [Interjections.]

 

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Order!

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Speaker, I withdraw the remark that hon Mubu is a foreign national. But I also want to say he is a citizen based on our policies. [Interjections.]

 

An HON MEMBER: That doesn’t make sense!

 

Mrs S V KALYAN: Speaker, the withdrawal should be unconditional. The hon Minister is qualifying it, and that is not parliamentary.

 

The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, withdraw it, please.

 

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Hon Speaker, I said I withdraw the remark that hon Mubu is a foreign national. I have just withdrawn that.

 

The SPEAKER: Thank you. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Order!

 

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Hon Speaker, I do believe that hon members know what happens when it comes to private employment agencies. We want to register the private agencies so that we can monitor their activities within that particular category.

 

When we talk about labour brokers, they are classified as temporary employment agencies in terms of the legislation. Hon members must be very clear when they come to the podium and not just make assumptions about the issue of labour brokers. That is why I am saying hon Dikobo must thoroughly read all this legislation that has been tabled before Parliament. It is unfortunate that he says that we must ban labour brokers. It means he doesn’t even understand the Constitution of this country.

 

Let me thank all the other members who have supported us. Finally, let me say to hon Kganare that the Employment Services Board will be recommended by the Nedlac constituencies. When they approve what we will be doing, it will be based on the ANC’s manifesto, which is the election policy of the ANC. The ANC will continue to support and protect the vulnerable workers. Unfortunately, some of the members don’t even understand that during the Nedlac processes all social partners supported this Bill. It is purely business. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

Debate concluded.

 

Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and Independent Democrats dissenting).

 

Mr A J WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if the DA did not call for a division because they are not sure how their members are going to vote.

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, that is not a point of order. Please take your seat.

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

 

There was no debate.

 

THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move:

 

That the Bill, as amended, be passed.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.

 

BROAD-BASED BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Consideration of Bill as amended by NCOP)

 

There was no debate.

 

THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move:

 

That the Bill be passed.

 

Declarations of vote:

 

Dr W G JAMES: Mr Speaker, the DA supports black economic empowerment. Accordingly, we supported the BBBEE amending Bill in this House until Minister Robert Davies introduced regulations that are so restrictive that BBBEE will not be broad-based. For example, the regulations decrease targets for ownership by broad-based schemes such as woman’s groups and co-operatives as well as new entrants from 10% to 3% to 2%, and a black new entrant have now jumped from R20 million to R50 million. Those individuals who are already very wealthy are recycled into the system of cronyism, tender and licensing manipulation that we have today.

 

Minister Davies just announced the regulations. The portfolio committee had no opportunity for further input. The regulatory impact assessment is an amateurish affair that resembles a first-year economics essay. The regulations largely ignored submissions from broad-based civil community and the business world. What is the word we should use to describe a situation where government talks, but does not practise broad-based empowerment - breaching the promise? Is it an unholy alliance between radical African nationalists, opportunists and timid communists - a contradiction? I myself prefer hypocrisy. We as the DA will continue to support black economic empowerment, but reject this government’s approach to it. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Adv A D ALBERTS: Mr Speaker, we believe that there should not be black economic empowerment in South Africa, but South African economic empowerment. If you talk about an inclusive economy, you cannot talk about race anymore. We know that poverty is growing among all races in South Africa. As for the codes, there is nothing wrong with the codes as such, but the problem is that the Act itself carries the seed of self-destruction. It is true that in the Act the codes were promulgated and created, and therefore no one can complain about the codes if they did not complain about the Act itself. Therefore, the DA must wake up and stand up against the Act itself because the codes are a product of that very same Act. [Interjections.] You are speaking with a forked tongue at the end of the day.

 

As for the ANC, I am saying to you, race-based economic designs will not solve our problems in the future. You are basically planning for a future where there will be more racial polarisation at the end of the day. Thank you very much.

 

Ms J L FUBBS: Hon Speaker, from what one is hearing here, the ANC is concerned, because it would appear as if the opposition actually wants to throw out the Constitution of our country now. You want to throw out the equality clause. That is what the equality clause is saying and that is what the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill is giving effect to. [Interjections.] In fact, what it is doing is actually putting down the legislation in support of the Constitution that demands that there be legislation that spells this out very clearly. May I read just one aspect of the equality clause in section 9 here in our Constitution? It says:

 

(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

 

The reason why you are all in the papers these days, in an internecine party battle in the DA, is because your own party members disagree with you. They do, and you know it. [Applause.]

 

Secondly, you are shifting members all over the committees because you are trying to drumbeat what amounts to a British conservative policy in our Parliament. In addition, you have the nerve to bring back this Bill after saying you agreed with it in one party, and what do you say now? What do you say here? You say that you want to omit Parliament and let us specify each little House. How many Houses has Parliament got? Two! Of course, the British conservatives continue to think that there is one House, and you are taking your cue from them.

 

The ANC continues to support the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill, and as for these technical amendments, they are superfluous. If the Auditor-General was here, he would say they were fruitless. Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

 

Mr G B D MCINTOSH: Mr Speaker, I am making a declaration and I am not quite sure whether it is under Rule 81 or whether it is now under a debate. Nonetheless, I would like to say that, on the basis that we cannot really debate a Bill afresh if it has come from the NCOP, what was interesting to me was the NCOP’s insertion of clause 2 about effective economic participation. I think the NCOP was wise to do that, because the object is to create effective economic participation.

 

We have pointed out that this Bill poses a very serious threat to reracialise South Africa. There is no way that the definitions which have come through in this Bill are not going to end up doing that. The tragedy is that we are going to go back to court and I believe this Parliament should not have to be running to court all the time. We should make laws which are in line with the Constitution. That is why I think the NCOP was very good to add effective economic participation, which is not a racial concept. Thank you.

 

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and Independent Democrats dissenting).

 

Bill accordingly passed.

 

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND) CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

 

(Consideration of Report)

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move:

 

  That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND) CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

 

(First Reading debate)

 

There was no debate.

 

Declarations of vote:

 

Mr T D HARRIS: Speaker, what we are trying to do with this Bill is very important. South Africa has not been complying with our international obligations in terms of protecting ourselves from oil spills. These Bills are the financial implications of two Bills passed by the Transport committee that will make sure that we finally comply with our international obligations. Up until now we have been exposed. From today, if we pass these Bills, we will be covered, and that is why the DA supports this Bill and the next one, which is the administration Bill, to support the money Bill.

 

Notwithstanding the support, the problem that the DA has is the model that National Treasury and the SA Revenue Service, Sars, have taken to collect the funds that South Africa owes to contribute to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Every single country that contributes to this fund, except for Canada and Israel, allows the fund to come and collect the money that they are owed from the companies that receive large oil deliveries – every single country, except for Canada and Israel.

 

Now, for some reason, Sars decides to set up this elaborate bureaucracy to collect the funds on behalf of companies that owe money to the international fund. There is no logic to this. If we are supposedly following the Canadian model, we should look at how their fund goes much, much further, covering additional ships and helping companies deal with claims from the fund. Our structure does nothing like that. It simply sets up a bureaucracy for Sars to manage because National Treasury tells us they do not want the fund to come into our country and act like a tax collector, and they say that the money that leaves our shores must be accounted for.

 

These decisions are in line with this government’s decision to leave apartheid-era exchange controls in place, to drown temporary employment agencies in red tape, and to attempt to stifle media freedom in the first draft of the Secrecy Bill that they tabled in this House. This is the ANC’s instinct – to overregulate, to control, and to construct elaborate bureaucracies where they are neither welcome nor required.

 

So, we support this Bill because it will protect ordinary South Africans from oil spills, but we have serious doubts about the ANC’s attempt to create this bureaucracy to collect the funds when we could, like almost every other country on the planet, allow them to come and collect the funds themselves. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

 

Mr D D VAN ROOYEN: Hon Speaker, on behalf of the ANC, I would like to indicate that we opted for this option that is ridiculed as an apartheid option. The reality of the matter is that this is not an apartheid option. This is an option that is provided for in article 14 of the international convention, the one that the Portfolio Committee on Transport, as well as the relevant select committee in the NCOP, has dealt with.

 

We are opting for this because, firstly, we think this particular approach carries the following advantages. In the event of litigation, it will be between Sars and the ship owner or oil importer, and not with international entities in a South African court. We think that this will give us enough space to handle our issues internally. We do not question our capacity.

 

Secondly, it provides the advantage that there will be a high degree of security for the fund as Sars will pay, and there will be no risk of defaulting by a private ship owner or oil importer, bringing stability at an international level as we contribute to this compensation fund. As the ANC, we are not going to be tempted into cheap politicking. We think this is an option that is here to ensure that we comply with international standards. We are fully behind this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Bill read a first time.

 

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND) CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

There was no debate.

 

Bill read a second time.

 

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND) ADMINISTRATION BILL

(Consideration of Report)

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

MERCHANT SHIPPING (INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND) ADMINISTRATION BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

There was no debate.

 

Bill read a second time.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT - THE BENGUELA CURRENT CONVENTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE BENGUELA CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH OF AFRICA IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION

 

Adv J H DE LANGE: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on this occasion on behalf of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs to recommend the unconditional adoption of the ratification of the Benguela Current Convention on Environmental Protection and Conservation of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem, which has been unanimously adopted by all parties in the portfolio committee.

 

Economic studies have demonstrated that a huge number of Namibians, Angolans and South Africans find work in the maritime industries reliant on the Benguela Current in the Atlantic Ocean. Although the ecological integrity of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem is still intact, the recent increase in development and industrial activity carries with it the responsibility of protecting and conserving marine resources for the benefit of current and future generations of the three countries, namely Namibia, Angola and South Africa.

 

The signing of the Benguela Current Convention on 18 March 2013 in Benguela, Angola, represented the culmination of many years of research, consultation and negotiations. The signing of this unique multilateral agreement was the next logical step after nearly two decades of collaboration between the three governments. South Africa is one of the three original signatories.

 

The convention has the potential to be one of the world’s most forward-looking and successful international agreements of all time. Being the first large marine ecosystem convention in the entire world, it stands as a model for all large marine ecosystems and an example of successful international co-operation. Never before have nations agreed to such a comprehensive and stringent set of rules to protect the marine environment of a large marine ecosystem.

 

The Benguela Current Convention commits the parties to co-operation, collaboration and sovereign equality; sustainable use and management of marine resources; the precautionary principle; the prevention, avoidance and mitigation of pollution; the polluter pays principle; the protection of biodiversity in the marine environment; and conservation of the marine ecosystem.

 

The convention seeks to formally establish the Benguela Current Commission as a regional, intergovernmental organisation with the mandate to promote the sustainable use and management of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem, also called the BCLME. The ratification of this multilateral convention will ensure that sustainable development progresses in an environmentally responsible manner for long-term social and economic benefits to the people of the BCLME region and that the three governments work together to protect marine biodiversity and maintain the integrity of the BCLME region.

 

The convention focuses on creating an institutional structure known as the Benguela Current Commission, which will work towards achieving sustainable development through the following areas of co-operation: minimising and abatement of pollution; protection of the marine and coastal environment against adverse impact; application of management measures based on the best scientific evidence available; establishing mechanisms for intersectoral data collections and the sharing and exchange thereof; where possible, the reversal and prevention of habitat alteration and destruction; protection of vulnerable species and biological diversity; and taking all possible steps to strengthen and maintain human and infrastructural capacity.

 

The intention of the convention within the current move in the African Union to strengthen the African continent economically, socially and politically is indeed commendable, as well as the fact that it begins to introduce an ecosystem-based approach to managing the BCLME. This means that instead of managing living and nonliving marine resources exclusively at the national level, the three countries will work together at an international level to tackle common environmental problems and issues, such as the pollution and the management of shared fish stocks, and the co-ordination of regional efforts to mitigate the impact of mineral exploration on the seabed.

 

Approving the convention and implementing it through legislation is an opportunity to highlight and promote South Africa’s support of a strong environmental protection regime in this region and on our continent. The portfolio committee, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Benguela Current Convention on Environmental Protection and Conservation of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem referred to the portfolio committee, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, approve the said convention. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

There was no debate.

 

The Benguela Current Convention on Environmental Protection and Conservation of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem between the Government of the Republic of Angola, the Government of the Republic of Namibia and the Government of the Republic of South of Africa approved.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT - ANNEX V1 TO THE PROTOCOL ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO THE ANTARCTIC TREATY – LIABILITY ARISING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION

Adv J H DE LANGE: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon members, Deputy Ministers, comrades, friends, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on this occasion on behalf of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs to recommend the unconditional adoption of Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty – Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies, which has been unanimously - not anonymously - adopted by all parties in the portfolio committee.

 

The Antarctic Treaty system provides the framework for international co-operation under which various conventions and protocols regarding Antarctica were negotiated. The objectives of the Antarctic Treaty are to regulate scientific research and the tourism potential of Antarctica to the benefit of all humankind, and to preserve the use of the continent exclusively for peaceful purposes.

 

South Africa does not claim sovereignty over any Antarctic territory and does not recognise the right or claim to territorial sovereignty of any other state. South Africa’s involvement within the treaty and its subsidiary conventions and protocols are in line with the generally accepted scientific principles for Antarctica and our geographical proximity to Antarctica.

 

The environment of Antarctica is significant, because it’s been changed very little by people. Scientists can study the area to find out how our environment evolved and is still evolving, naturally without human interference. This is relevant to us as our knowledge of environmental behaviour and change is vital for shaping our management and conservation practices that are critical for enduring environmental sustainability in perpetuity in so far as the needs of future generations are concerned.

 

The original treaty was signed on 1 December 1959 and entered into force on 12 June 1961. South Africa is an original signatory state alongside 11 other parties. Today there are 47 parties to the treaty. The treaty has proved itself to be one of the most forward-looking and successful international agreements of all time, effectively symbolising a model of international co-operation amongst nation states.

 

It is important to note that several protocols have since been successfully negotiated within the framework of the original treaty, including the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Seals; the Convention on Conservation of Antarctica Marine Living Resources; the Convention on Regulation of Antarctica Mineral Resource Activities; and, lastly, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

 

Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty – Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies, also referred to as the Madrid Protocol, is the most recent instrument negotiated under the treaty and was introduced to Parliament for consideration and ratification in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution of our Republic.

 

Annex VI creates a framework for parties to require organisations or entities, whether governmental or nongovernmental, that plan activities in the Antarctic Treaty area to develop and implement contingency plans to reduce the risk of environmental incidents when they do occur.

 

South Africa has a strong interest in preserving the pristine and sensitive Antarctic environment and its resources, and also to limit the impact of human-made environmental emergencies for future generations and for the betterment of humankind.

 

The key focus of Annex VI on environmental emergencies arising in the Antarctic area is, firstly and primarily, for South Africa to ensure compliance of its operators within certain preventative measures that were put in place to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies; and secondly, enabling the South African government to claim expenses or damages arising from clean-ups or operations launched from other countries directly, from offending operators or from an international fund to be established. Without a system of compensation in place, the South African government has to take such actions without any certainty that its expenses or damages will be reimbursed by the responsible parties.

 

Annex VI fully supports South Africa’s strategic interest as it advances our goal of protecting the environment; establishes incentives for Antarctica operators to act responsibly; and provides for the reimbursement of costs incurred by our government when it responds to environmental emergencies caused by others.

 

The annex will encourage operators to take greater steps to prevent environmental emergencies, especially of oil spills. Ratifying Annex VI, which deals with liability arising from environmental emergencies, will provide South Africa with a unique opportunity to highlight and promote its excellent environmental protection image and hence give our nation a respected voice in multilateral processes.

 

The portfolio committee, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the aforementioned Annex VI referred to it, recommends that the House ratify Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

There was no debate.

 

Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty – Liability arising from Environmental Emergencies approved.

 

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Consideration of Report)

 

There was no debate.

 

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Deputy Speaker, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

Mrs J D KILIAN: Hon Deputy Speaker, we advised the National Assembly Table that there were declarations of vote [Interjections.]. Apologies, Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that it’s only for the next Order. [Interjections.]

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apology accepted.

 

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

Mr S E KHOLWANE: Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Members of Parliament and everyone here,it is a privilege to deliver a presentation in support of the Electronic Communications Amendment Bill.

 

As the ANC we have taken a keen interest in this piece of legislation, because we believe that it will further strengthen our mode of service delivery and improve the quality of life through information and communications technology, which includes the postal services.

 

The ANC has presided over a growing information and communications technology, ICT, market. The telecommunications market accounts for a contribution of over 3,7% to the gross domestic product, GDP, which is up from 2,8% in 2008. As we speak, South Africa is the 15th largest telecommunications market in the world. Therefore, we have to ensure that this growth is quickly translated into service delivery and the prosperity of our citizens.

 

The Electronic Communications Amendment Bill deals, amongst other things, with the issues of broadband, and the definition and establishment of the council that will advise the Minister in terms of policy development. As you know, broadband has become a priority project of our country.

 

Amendments in section 3 deals with the right of the Minister to give policy direction to both the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Icasa, and the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa, Usaasa. It is an important intervention, because government policy should indeed not be ignored by the regulator or agency. The Act provides required safeguards to ensure that Icasa’s independence is not interfered with.

 

The Bill seeks, amongst other things, to amend section 73 to broaden the scope of the e-rate, which means a 50% discount to entities in terms of connectivity. We are extending the e-rate from only public schools to private schools and also to all health institutions that are established or defined in terms of the National Health Act. Of course, we are also extending the e-rate to universities throughout the country, which we think is a key intervention in order to ensure that South African students in particular are able to have access to ICT facilities.

 

Clause 42 seeks to provide for an exemption for community broadcasting service licensees from contributing to the Universal Service and Access Fund. Indeed, this has been an unintended consequence in terms of the legislation whereby we created community broadcasting, while at the same time required them to pay into the Universal Service and Access Fund. This amendment will go a long way in ensuring that we cure that defect.

 

It is important to recall that during the presentation of the Icasa Amendment Bill to this House on 7 November last week, we presented a legislative amendment which is not a stand-alone amendment, but one that works in tandem with this forward-looking Bill presented to you today for your consideration. I am asking this House to approve the report on this Bill. However, the ANC is grateful to the industry and all interested stakeholders that contributed inputs to enrich this process. We salute all of you.

 

I further wish to express our appreciation to the former Minister and the current Minister and Deputy Minister for their able leadership, guidance and support since the commencement of the process. A special thanks to the director-general and team of the Department of Communications for their contribution, as well as the state law advisers, legal services, contact advisor, committee secretaries, committee assistant and all those who supported the committee during this time.

 

I must also extend my appreciation to the members of the DA for their extensive engagement on this Bill. Having said so, I hope you are not going to be reshuffled, so that you can continue doing your sterling work in the committee. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

There was no debate.

 

Declarations of vote:

Ms M R SHINN: Hon colleagues, that the Department of Communications wants to have more control over the ICT sector is no secret. Its attempt last year to impose new draconian laws and create entities that would give it the controlling heights of this dynamic and innovative sector was rightly nipped in the bud. The offending parts of the first draft of the Electronic Communications Amendment Bill were excised. They were referred to the ICT policy review panel that is under way, but they may yet reappear in the Green Paper due for release for public comment later this year.

 

The amendments before this House today include an ominous new clause which states that Icasa must submit to the Minister a draft of regulations 30 days before their publication, but it does not give him or her the power to intervene or approve the regulations. This is a step that is dangerously close to the old Telecommunications Act that gave the Minister the right to approve regulations.

 

Icasa can maintain its independence if the letter of the law is strictly applied here. Some of the amendments before us today will help Icasa fast-track its efforts to reduce the cost of communication. The establishment of the National Broadband Council to advise the Minister on broadband policy and implementation should help escalate the roll-out of communications infrastructure and reduce the application bottlenecks in all spheres of government.

 

However, attempts by the DA to ensure that the Ministry includes representatives from the private sector as well as government in this council was rejected by the ANC members of the portfolio committee. As it stands today, the Minister may appoint people from the private sector, but is under no obligation to do so. This is a mistake, because it is well known that government does not employ the most informed and agile minds in the ICT sector.

 

The planning and roll-out of communications infrastructure in South Africa needs the best visionary brains behind it if we are to gain any traction in the world ICT rankings and compete effectively in international markets. I urge the Minister of Communications in this and the next Parliament to ensure that the best ICT skills that the country has to offer are included in this council.

 

The Bill before us today mainly addresses issues of synchronicity and definitions to bring the administration and regulation of electronic communication into line with other legislation. It also attempts to correct some of the dysfunctionality in governance of the entities reporting to the department. But the changes brought about by this amending Bill are not a silver bullet for the institutional dysfunction that continues to exist in the sector.

 

It is hoped that the policy review process will recommend far-reaching ideas that bring regulated coherence, administrative efficiency and vigour to the sector in order to stimulate innovation in competition in products and services worldwide, and to effectively deliver services to all South Africans. [Applause.]

 

Mrs J D KILIAN: Deputy Speaker, we have actually jumped the gun a little in tabling the amending Bill before the House today, before the comprehensive ICT policy review process gets under way.

 

The Minister appointed an ICT sector team to review the regulatory framework of this entire sector, but since this team will only reply and table their final report within the next two to three years, this Bill is necessary to adjust some of the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act. That was the rationale given to the committee and it is on that basis that we participated.

 

Where serious efforts were made by members of all parties in the committee’s detailed deliberation phase to thoroughly assess the amendments and its likely implications, it is indeed regrettable that this very important amending Bill was only introduced in the last months of the Fourth Parliament and that there was great pressure by the executive on us as a portfolio committee to put the Bill through the processes.

 

The late submission is clearly the result of the protracted instability that existed in the office of the former Minister of Communications, and it is a pity that the relevant Cabinet cluster did not identify the detrimental impact of the political stalemate more than a year ago. It was detrimental not only for the sector, but also broadly for economic development and job creation in our country. An early alert could have prompted the President to make his political intervention much earlier and Parliament could have dealt with these very important Bills much earlier.

 

Where does this leave Parliament? Whereas Parliament will adopt the amending Bill today, because it is a unanimous recommendation by the committee, it should continue to be vigilant about the very important and constitutionally enshrined role of the communications regulator, Icasa.

 

As I indicated last week, Icasa is the successor in law of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is a Chapter 9 institution. The executive cannot usurp spectrum management and other functions of an independent regulator in going forward.

 

Firstly, the fact is that no legislative amendment can transform an inefficient entity. It is ultimately only an appropriately qualified and experienced council, in the case of Icasa, and executive staff members rather than political deployees that can turn such institutions around.

 

Secondly, it is important that committee deliberations on legislation should follow the Rules of Parliament. These processes are important. The courts have in the past made rulings in favour of private institutions, and we cannot allow that to proceed. Thank you. [Time expired.]

 

Ms A F MUTHAMBI: Deputy Speaker, the ANC-led government has placed a high priority on reforming the business environment because of its significant influence on the levels of private-sector development and, therefore, on long-term economic growth and poverty reduction.

 

Having said so, let me remind the House that when the ANC won the first democratic election in 1994, we inherited a number of sectors that lacked structural legislative frameworks. The strategic direction of the ICT and postal sectors remained unco-ordinated and fragmented. For example, state-owned companies such as Telkom and Sentech continue to play the role of referee and player at the same time.

 

In 1996 the ANC-led government provided much needed leadership in the ICT sector by introducing the progressive legislative frameworks in areas of broadcasting, telecommunications and e-commerce. It is important to note that this process also refers back to the the fact that the ANC-led government has at all times ensured that citizens, industry, labour, academics and government itself are taken along during the development of such an important legislative framework.

 

In the absence of a leadership that is without a vision, policies are unlikely to deliver. This is not the case with the ANC. We continue to observe the global changes in the ICT and postal sectors. Some of the changes encourage South Africa to adapt and ensure that we remain aligned and relevant to the prospective investor expectations and, most importantly, to develop legislative frameworks that will advance people’s lives and ultimately alleviate poverty.

 

Change is necessary and healthy to ensure alignment, amongst others. There have been a number of changes in our government framework, but some provisions of the Act remain out of line. Without a doubt, matters relating to ICT and ICT policy deserve comprehensive examination and discussion in South Africa. The process of developing the ICT framework will continue.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to lead such a stimulating and challenging review process. I would like to pay tribute to members of the portfolio committee and all other stakeholders whose commitment, contribution, professionalism and support made it possible for us to undertake an exercise of this nature in a tight timeframe. The ANC supports and endorses the amendment of the Electronic Communications Act, as presented. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Bill read a second time.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION OF CANDIDATE TO FILL A VACANCY ON MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY AGENCY (MDDA) BOARD

Mr S E KHOLWANE: Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and colleagues, it is indeed a great pleasure to present this report on the consideration for appointment of the Media Development and Diversity Agency, MDDA, board member.

 

As we all know, the MDDA was established in terms of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Act of 2002. It was given the responsibility to transform media in general, both broadcast media and print media. However, we took note that broadcasting is regulated, whilst print media has a self-regulatory mechanism. As a matter of fact, this led to the unequal or uneven development in transformation in respect of the two spectrums of media.

 

In terms of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Act, Parliament is to recommend the appointment of a board member to the President. After approval by the President, such board member can be appointed. MDDA has nine board members; six are appointed by Parliament and the other three are appointed by the President in consultation with both print and broadcasting media as a sector.

 

In terms of the requirements and processes that Parliament must follow, the first process is to allow the participation of the public in the nomination process; transparency and openness; and the publication of shortlisted candidates for appointment with due regard to subsection 4 and section 5 of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Act.

I would like to take this opportunity to take you through the process that led to the recommendation of the person’s name that we will be putting to this House for recommendation to the President for appointment. The vacancy was referred to the committee on 14 August 2013. Thereafter, the committee advertised the vacant board position in the weekend of 8 September 2013, for which the closing date was Friday, 4 October 2013. All in all the committee received 28 nominations for the MDDA board. On 31 October 2013 the committee met and shortlisted the following candidates: Ms Noxolo Mtana, Ms Nosipho Kota, Mr Roland Williams, Mr Howard Plaatjes and Mr Ratha Ramatlhape.

 

On 5 November 2013 the committee interviewed all five candidates. After the interviews it recommended that Mr Roland Williams be appointed to the MDDA board. However, during that process some members of the committee raised the issue that the member recommended was at one time suspended from his employment. After receiving that query, I investigated the matter and accordingly referred it back to the member who raised the matter. Indeed, Mr Roland Williams was suspended, but no charge had been laid against him. He was suspended for more than three months and thereafter the suspension was lifted without a single charge indicating why he was suspended. As the ANC, we felt that we were comfortable with the candidate, because nothing untoward was found relating to this matter after having received the full report from the relevant bargaining council.

I must take this opportunity to thank all committee members, the support staff and everyone who participated in the process. If this House accepts our recommendation and appoints Mr Roland Williams, I wish to take this opportunity to wish him all the best in his new role. We also hope that he is going to work well with the other MDDA board members. I would like to commend this report to this House for consideration and adoption. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

There was no debate.

 

Question put: That the House recommend Mr Roland Williams for appointment to the Media Development and Diversity Agency Board.

 

Declarations of vote:

 

Ms M R SHINN: Hon colleagues, I live in hope that one day the ANC will recognise that there are many appropriately skilled and committed South Africans who can contribute ideas, experience and enthusiasm to help our government entities fulfil their mandates.

 

Once again the Portfolio Committee on Communications has rejected the best candidate for the vacancy on the MDDA board in favour of an ANC activist who had no fresh ideas to offer on how, for example, community media can become self-sustaining and survive in economically marginal communities. His only idea was to ask the Treasury for more money.

The ANC members of the committee refused to enter into discussion on the merits or demerits of their choice or that proposed by the DA. They came to the interview and deliberation process with their choice cast in concrete. The candidate chosen by the DA had extensive experience in small mainstream and new media platforms. He posited ideas, for example, of how to promote financial sustainability and to improve and control printing costs. His ideas were practical and borne of experience that stretch back to his years as an antiapartheid student activist to senior management in mainstream media. But he was rejected in favour of the candidate whose main attributes on his CV were his ANC credentials and experience in local government public relations.

 

Many times during the past year I have stood before this House to alert hon members that our failure to appoint the best, able and most suitably qualified candidates to the boards of state entities condemns them to perpetual underperformance if not failure. If this practice continues, we might as well change the wording of our advertisement for people to step forward to say, only ANC cadres need apply. [Applause.]

 

Mr C D KEKANA: Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, Ministers and Deputy Ministers and Members of Parliament, we remember that the main objection from the portfolio committee was that the candidate that the ANC preferred had actually been suspended for a long time. The chairperson did explain that. He was suspended, but like in many cases in the country, there were no grounds for his suspension. We ultimately thought that because of the skills that are needed in the area of activity and also the fact that he comes from one of the minority groups, it is appropriate that we appoint him.

 

We must remember that communication is something that we can’t play games with. It is one of the infrastructural needs of the country, which is a pillar of the economy that must address poverty and unemployment. We have planned it and it needs to be established. As you will remember, the communications, roads and rail, electricity, water intrastructure, and all those other infrastructural facilities, are needed as they are pillars of the economy. I have said that the economy must address unemployment and social needs in the country. This is a very important facet of social development and it is not something that you can play games with.

 

As we have all emphasised, like our chair, we have appointed this particular candidate because we think he has the necessary skills that are needed and also because he comes from the minority group. We cannot entertain any other reason based on an unfounded suspension. Therefore, we would like this candidate to be supported by the House. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

 

Question agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

 

Mr Roland Williams accordingly recommended for appointment to the Media Development and Diversity Agency Board.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ARTS AND CULTURE – APPROVAL OF COMPOSITION OF PANEL TO RECONSTITUTE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES (NCLIS)

 

There is no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR FILLING OF VACANCIES IN THE COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY (CGE)

 

Ms N R BHENGU: Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, hon members and fellow South Africans, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Filling of Vacancies in the Commission for Gender Equality for a job well done within a very short space of time. The Ad Hoc Committee on the Filling of Vacancies in the Commission for Gender Equality, having considered the resolution of the House to identify suitable candidates for the filling of vacancies in the Commission for Gender Equality, reports that the ad hoc committee received 44 nominations.

 

On 31 October 2013, 16 candidates were shortlisted to be interviewed. However, one candidate withdrew, leaving the ad hoc committee with 15 candidates to interview, namely: Mrs Nomsisi Lindelwa Hicksonia Bata, Mr Mbuyiselo Albert Botha, Mrs Shameela Essack, Dr Gcwalisile Zulu-Kabanyane, Ms Nondumiso Maphazi, Ms Nomasonto Grace Mazibuko, Mr Wallace Amos Mgoqi, Ms Lulama Nare, Mr Khaya Nyikanyika, Mrs Patricia Daphne Nyman, Ms Priscilla Lynnette Fundisile Nzimande, Prof Sadhasivan Perumal, Mrs Kilebogile Viola Sebusi, Ms Natalie Skeepers and Ms Primrose Siyanda Sobahle.

 

After interviewing the above candidates in a meeting at Parliament on 5 and 6 November 2013, the ad hoc committee nominated the following candidates for approval by the House, in accordance with section 193(5) of the Constitution of 1996, as commissioners in the Commission for Gender Equality for a five-year term each as follows: Miss Lulama Nare, full-time, starting in January 2014; Mrs Nomsisi Lindelwa Hicksonia Bata, full-time, starting in January 2014; Ms Nomasonto Grace Mazibuko, part-time, starting in January 2014; Mr Mbuyiselo Albert Botha, part-time, starting in January 2014; Mr Wallace Amos Mgoqi, full-time, starting in June 2014; Ms Nondumiso Maphazi, full-time, starting in June 2014; Ms Primrose Siyanda Sobahle, part-time, starting in June 2014; Ms Priscilla Lynnette Fundisile Nzimande, part-time, starting in June 2014. I present this report to be considered and adopted by this House. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

There was no debate.

 

Question put: That Ms Lulama Nare, full-time, starting in January 2014; Mrs Nomsisi Lindelwa Hicksonia Bata, full-time, starting in January 2014; Ms Nomasonto Grace Mazibuko, part-time, starting in January 2014; Mr Mbuyiselo Albert Botha, part-time, starting in January 2014; Mr Wallace Amos Mgoqi, full-time, starting in June 2014; Ms Nondumiso Maphazi, full-time, starting in June 2014; Ms Primrose Siyanda Sobahle, part-time, starting in June 2014; and Ms Priscilla Lynnette Fundisile Nzimande, part-time, starting in June 2014, be recommended for appointment as Commissioners on the Commission for Gender Equality.

 

Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not have an objection, but would like to make a declaration.

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will allow the declaration. However, I would have appreciated it if that had been mentioned earlier so that it would not have disturbed me, and I could have arranged for it. Unfortunately, it did not reach me.

 

Declaration of vote:

Mrs H LAMOELA: Deputy Speaker, though everything went fairly well during the sitting of the ad hoc committee, being entertained with jazz music and the late arrival of the chairperson of up to 35 minutes on one occasion without any formal apology, the DA will support the candidates listed. However, we would like to draw your attention to candidates such as Mrs Shameela Essack and Ms Natalie Skeepers, who were excellent candidates, but unfortunately did not succeed in comparison to Dr Wallace Amos Mgoqi. [Interjections.]

 

Though a decision was taken on continuity, we must be cautious to award applicants such as Dr Mgoqi who signed tenders, causing the Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality a total loss of about R12 million during his term of office as municipal manager. According to the applicant, this matter falls within the insurance covering municipal officials for decisions taken whilst in office. This could have been avoided if efficient and effective leadership skills were applied, and the DA is concerned about his appointment and previous lack of judgement. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question again: Are there any objections? None. In terms of section 193 of the Constitution persons nominated for appointment to serve on the Commission for Gender Equality must be approved by a majority of members of the Assembly. Although a division has not been demanded, members are required to record their support for nominations. The bells will be rung for five minutes.

AYES – 236: Abram, S; Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bam-Mugwanya, V; Beukman, F; Bhanga, B M; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, N R; Bikani, F C; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Botha, T; Botha, Y R; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chabane, O C; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Diemu, B C; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlodlo, A; Dlomo, B J; Dlulane, B N; Dube, M C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Ebrahim, E I; Ferguson, B D; Frolick, C T; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; George, M E; Gina, N; Gololo, C L; Goqwana, M B; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S-B; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Johnson, M; Kekana, C D; Kenye, T E; Kganare, D A; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Kilian, J D; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kotsi, C M P; Kubayi, M T; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Line-Hendriks, H; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Mac Kenzie, G P D; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Mahomed, F; Makasi, X C; Makhuba, H N; Makhubela-Mashele, L S; Makwetla, S P; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manana, M C; Manganye, J; Mangena, M S; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Maserumule, F T; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Masutha, T M; Mathale, C C; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; McIntosh, G B D; Mdakane, M R; Mfulo, A; Mgabadeli, H C; Mjobo, L N; Mkhize, H B; Mmusi, S G; Mncwango, M A; Mocumi, P A; Moepeng, J K; Mohai, S J; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B E E; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Mosimane, C K K; Moss, L N; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Motshekga, M S; Mpontshane, A M; Msweli, H S; Mthethwa, E M; Mthethwa, E N; Mushwana, F F; Muthambi, A F; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndabandaba, L G B; Ndabeni, S T; Ndebele, J S; Ndlazi, A Z; Nelson, W J; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, B T; Ngele, N J; Ngonyama, L S; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Nhanha, M A; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; November, N T; Ntuli, Z C; Ntuli, B M; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyanda, S; Nyekemba, E; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Petersen-Maduna, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Plaatjie, S K; Pule, D D; Radebe, J T; Radebe, G S; Radebe, B A; Ramathlodi, N A; Ramatlakane, L; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; Shabangu, S; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Singh, N; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, K P; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Skosana, M B; Skosana, J J; Smith, P F; Smith, V G; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Suka, L; Sulliman, E M; Sunduza, T B; Swanepoel, D W; Thobejane, S G; Thomson, B; Thring, W M; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tseke, G K; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Tsotetsi, D R; Twala, N M; Van der Merwe, L L; Van Rooyen, D D; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Wayile, Z G; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E; Zikalala, C N Z.

 

NOES – 35: Bosman, L L; Eloff, E H; Farrow, S B; Greyling, L W; Hill-Lewis, G G; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Lorimer, J R B; Lotriet, A; Lovemore, A T; Marais, E J; Marais, S J F; Mazibuko, L D; Michael, N W A; Mileham, K J; Mokgalapa, S; More, E; Motau, S C; Rabie, P J; Rabotapi, M W; Sayedali Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Shinn, M R; Smuts, M; Steyn, A C; Stubbe, D J; Terblanche, J F; Van den Berg, N J; Van der Linde, J J; Van der Westhuizen, A P; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Watson, A.

 

ABSTAIN – 1: Mulder, C P.

 

Question agreed to.

 

Nominations accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 193(5)(b)(ii) of the Constitution.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - REQUEST FOR FILLING OF VACANCY IN SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

 

There was no debate.

 

Question put: That Adv M Ameermia be recommended for appointment as Commissioner to the SA Human Rights Commission.

 

Declarations of vote:

Ms M SMUTS: Deputy Speaker, independence is a state of mind. Independentmindedness is first and foremost a quality which the National Assembly should be looking for when it appoints persons to Chapter 9 institutions, which are independent of government on exactly the same terms as the judges are, with the single exception that they are accountable to the National Assembly. Our first choice therefore was Prof Vijay Chand, failing which, our second choice would have been Dr W Gumede. This was for the quality of their thinking and for their independentmindedness. Prof Vijay Chand, in particular, was head and shoulders above the other candidates.

 

The ANC, however, by majority seems to have stayed in its comfort zone by choosing Adv Ameermia, who is a declared ANC member. I would like to stress the fact that he is appropriate and very well qualified. He has a very good track record in upholding human rights. We do not doubt his devotion to human rights. We are just not sure who else he might be devoted to. It is because - and you have heard my colleague here today, the hon Marian Shinn – we simply have to choose the best.

 

We simply have to start making clear choices in favour of the best and the brightest and the clearly independentminded if we want our institutions to flourish. It is simply to make that point that the DA will object. I have done this in the past when we objected to Human Rights commissioners. I said then, and I will say now, that I look forward to working with Adv Ameermia. We will respect and uphold his Office. However, I say now and for the last time that we object because we think there were better candidates and that the quality of independentmindedness has to be pursued by the National Assembly. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr J B SIBANYONI: Hon Deputy Speaker, six candidates were short-listed as this is a full-time position in the Human Rights Commission. Then, out of these six candidates that were shortlisted and interviewed, Adv Mohamed Shafie Ameermia was appointed. I must also emphasise that the Human Rights Commission is the only Chapter 9 commission that has the right to litigate. Adv Ameermia is a practitioner and an advocate of the High Court of South Africa. He was nominated by the Judge of the High Court of South Africa and seconded by an advocate of the High Court of South Africa.

 

His CV speaks volumes of his experience and exposure as a person who is suitable for this position. He was involved in street law projects and thereafter, while working in the Limpopo province, he conducted and undertook cases, among other cases, of communities evicted from a farm school. He won that case.

 

During the interview, he came out - I must emphasise – head and shoulders above the other candidates who were interviewed. The candidate that is recommended by the DA, Prof Vijay Chand, we are told, and he also admitted that, was offered a job by Wits University. As I speak now, he has accepted that appointment.

On the other hand, Adv Ameermia indicated that he had to leave work and look after his two children, his two sons, because his wife was ill and that had affected his family. He is available to start at any time. Therefore, based on what I have said here, the ANC recommends Adv Shafie Ameermia. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question. The question is the appointment of Adv Ameermia as a commissioner to the Human Rights Commission. Are there any objections to the nomination as read out?

I now put the question: Those in favour will say, “Aye!”

 

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those against will say, “No!”

 

HON MEMBERS: No!

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Ayes have it.

 

In terms of section 193(5) of the Constitution persons nominated to serve on the SA Human Rights Commission must be approved by a majority of members of the National Assembly. Although a division has not been demanded, members are required to record their support for the nomination. At this point, hon members, I want to point out that although no division has been demanded here, it is a law that stipulates that we record the vote. Therefore, it is correct that I ask members to record their acceptance of the recommendation. Naturally, if you don’t, you just do not vote. That is what the Rule says. The bells will be rung for five minutes. [Interjections.]

 

I am in the Chair, thank you.

 

AYES – 242: Abram, S; Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bam-Mugwanya, V; Beukman, F; Bhanga, B M; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bikani, F C; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Botha, Y R; Botha, T; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chabane, O C; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Diemu, B C; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlodlo, A; Dlomo, B J; Dlulane, B N; Dubazana, Z S; Dube, M C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Ebrahim, E I; Ferguson, B D; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; George, M E; Gina, N; Gololo, C L; Goqwana, M B; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S-B; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Johnson, M; Kekana, C D; Kenye, T E; Kganare, D A; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Kilian, J D; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kotsi, C M P; Kubayi, M T; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Line-Hendriks, H; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Mac Kenzie, G P D; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Mahomed, F; Makasi, X C; Makhuba, H N; Makhubela- Mashele, L S; Makwetla, S P; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manana, M C; Manganye, J; Mangena, M S; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Maserumule, F T; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Masutha, T M; Mathale, C C; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; McIntosh, G B D; Mdakane, M R; Mfulo, A; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mjobo, L N; Mkhize, H B; Mlambo, E M; Mmusi, S G; Mncwango, M A; Mocumi, P A; Moepeng, J K; Mohai, S J; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B E E; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Mosimane, C K K; Moss, L N; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Mpontshane, A M; Msimang, C T; Msweli, H S; Mthethwa, E N; Mthethwa, E M; Mushwana, F F; Muthambi, A F; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndabandaba, L G B; Ndabeni, S T; Ndebele, J S; Ndlazi, A Z; Ndlovu, V B; Ndude, H N; Nelson, W J; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngele, N J; Ngonyama, L S; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Nhanha, M A; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; November, N T; Ntuli, Z C; Ntuli, B M; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyanda, S; Nyekemba, E; Nzimande, B E; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Petersen-Maduna, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Plaatjie, S K; Pule, D D; Radebe, G S; Radebe, J T; Radebe, B A; Ramathlodi, N A; Ramatlakane, L; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; Shabangu, S; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, S C N; Sithole, K P; Sizani, P S; Skosana, J J; Smith, P F; Smith, V G; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Suka, L; Sulliman, E M; Sunduza, T B; Swanepoel, D W; Thobejane, S G; Thomson, B; Thring, W M; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tseke, G K; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Tsotetsi, D R; Twala, N M; Van der Merwe, L L; van Rooyen, D D; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Wayile, Z G; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E; Zikalala, C N Z.

 

NOES – 37: Bosman, L L; Duncan, P C; Eloff, E H; Farrow, S B; George, D T; Greyling, L W; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Lorimer, J R B; Lotriet, A; Marais, S J F; Marais, E J; Mazibuko, L D; Michael, N W A; Mileham, K J; Mokgalapa, S; More, E; Motau, S C; Rabie, P J; Rabotapi, M W; Rodgers, F A; Sayedali Shah, M R; Schafer, D A; Schmidt, H C; Shinn, M R; Smuts, M; Steyn, A C; Stubbe, D J; Terblanche, J F; Van den Berg, N J; Van der Linde, J J; Van der Westhuizen, A P; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Watson, A.

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two hundred and forty-two members have recorded their support, 37 members voted yes, and there are no abstentions. [Interjections.]

 

Mrs S V KALYAN: Thirty-seven members voted “No”, Madam Speaker!

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, 37 no and 242 yes.

 

Question agreed to.

 

Nomination accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 193(5)(b)(ii) of the Constitution.

 

Business suspended at 12:46 and resumed at 14:03.

 

LEGAL PRACTICE BILL

 

(Consideration of Report)

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mr Speaker, I move:

 

  That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

LEGAL PRACTICE BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Mr Speaker, Deputy President, hon members, today we, as a nation, stand at the threshold of the complete renewal of the South African legal system, a system that will not only be anchored in the rule of law and democratic values and principles enshrined in our Constitution, but also in those embraced by all people of our beloved land.

 

The legal profession has always been a tightly regulated profession because it operates in a much regulated space. What to do, how to do it and when to do it is regulated by different forms of legislation and prescripts, including the Admission of Advocates Act, the Attorneys Act, rules of court made by the Rules Board for Courts of Law, practice directives made by Judges President, and rules made by the Bar Councils and other statutory bodies.

 

Different role-players, including our government, will and must therefore always have a right to have their say on how people go about their business in our courts and conduct their profession in a public space in the pursuit of justice for all. The legal profession not only operates in its own space, but also operates in a space where all people, rich and poor, converge in pursuit of justice.

 

The roles of government and that of the profession must be seen against this backdrop, with particular reference to government’s legitimate interest to ensure that constitutional imperatives are complied with.

Transformation of the legal profession is one of these constitutional imperatives. The legal profession constitutes part of the judicial machinery that provides services aimed at promoting access to justice.

 

Advocates and attorneys are different in many respects, just as they are similar in many respects. They belong to different regulatory bodies, some statutorily entrenched, for instance, the provincial law societies regulating attorneys, and some voluntary, like the General Council of the Bar of SA and the Law Society of SA. They undergo different vocational training programmes, compulsory in the case of attorneys, but voluntary in the case of advocates. They prefer different names, titles, and status, some entitling the bearers thereof to higher fees for the same services. They charge different fees and use different methods to recover the fees, attorneys directly from clients, some advocates through attorneys and some through direct charges.

 

Yet, they all have exactly the same academic qualifications. They can appear in the same courts and represent the same people before the same magistrates and the same judges.

 

The premise for the regulation of the profession stems from our Constitution, which enjoins the state to regulate any occupation, trade or profession. The Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the right to choose any trade or occupation or profession freely and entrusts to this democratic Parliament the legislative authority to make laws for the regulation of such trade, occupation or profession.

 

Democratic principles that should govern the legal profession are geared to ensure that our people not only blindly contribute to the revenue of those who represent them, but also have a voice in the policies and practices that affects their lives.

 

The Legal Practice Bill has a long history – a history that has been characterised by compromises and concessions in order to get us where we are today. One of the original aims of this long outstanding legislation was to bring about fusion in the legal profession that would result in a single category of legal practitioners which no longer distinguishes between attorneys and advocates.

 

This Bill before Parliament today was adapted to accommodate the urgent pleas of the profession to retain the attorneys’ and advocates’ professions as distinct categories of legal practitioners, each continuing to provide the legal services traditionally rendered by each of them.

 

Hon members, lessons from our painful past are important in shaping the future envisioned by our Constitution. The intolerable suffering endured by our legal stalwarts describes the history of what has become known as a noble profession made up of learned friends. The agonizing experiences of Duma Nokwe, the first black advocate to be admitted to the Johannesburg Bar, and those of Bram Fischer sum up what life was like in the advocates’ profession under apartheid rule.

 

The somewhat fearless fight put up by the Johannesburg Bar in 1956 to allow Bram Fisher to have chambers in Johannesburg fell on deaf ears as the government of the day refused bluntly to accede to the request. Ironically, a decade later the same Bar moved for Bram Fisher to be struck off the roll for his involvement in the struggle for justice and freedom.

 

The humiliation and anguish endured by our iconic statesman, President Nelson Mandela, and one of our greatest leaders, Oliver Tambo, who opened their legal practice in Chancellor House in downtown Johannesburg, mirrors the hardship of an African attorney at that time. The Transvaal Law Society moved for Nelson Mandela to be struck off the roll, which application was turned down by the Supreme Court.

 

It was through a combination of the oppressive policies of the government of the day and the ill-fated policies of the profession that lawyers of the generation of Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Duma Nokwe, Bram Fischer, Griffiths and Victoria Mxenge and others were deprived of the opportunity to practise their profession freely.

The practitioners of yesterday did not have the protection of the rule of law, and some members of the judiciary were also against them. The lack of the rule of law and the system of rule by law made the acts of the apartheid government legitimate in the eyes of the so-called law then.

 

We tell these unpleasant stories of our past because we want to learn from our past in order to strive for a perfect future. The enactment of this Bill provides the opportunity to redeem our past – sad as it was – and lays a firm foundation for a promising future for advocates and attorneys.

 

The enactment of this Bill carries with it the hopes and aspirations of many of our people on either side of the court yard. On the one side, the Bill extends to legal practitioners and aspirant jurists, whose unrelenting desire to be freed from the shackles of apartheid has been a long, drawn-out journey with several stop streets towards the opportunity to become true agents of the rule of law. On the other hand, it brings hope to millions of our people whose quest for true justice is beyond measure.

 

This Bill advances the transformation goal of our Constitution and complements the institutional reforms already introduced into our system by the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act and the Superior Courts Act. These triple Acts, all of which took time to find their way into this democratic Parliament, collectively seek to enhance access to justice, strengthen the independence of the judiciary and safeguard the rule of law, which underpins our constitutional democracy.

 

As we begin the countdown to our fifth general elections and the celebration of 20 years of our constitutional democracy, we must also take stock of the gains we have made in our transition from a turbulent apartheid past to a stable constitutional democracy. The enactment of all these Bills before Parliament adds to this successful transition. As we forge ahead as a nation, we remain resolute that the rule of law is an indispensable bulwark of our constitutional democracy and a fortress of our independent judiciary during this period of transition and beyond.

 

The National Development Plan, NDP, our plan, articulates a very clear programme to create full employment, eliminate poverty and significantly reduce inequality. In respect of the legal profession, the National Development Plan advocates measures aimed at increasing the intake of female practitioners within the legal profession. I’m certain government and the legal profession will, within the space provided by the NDP, work together for the common good of the nation.

 

The idea of a consultative forum signifies a fundamental breakthrough in addressing contentious aspects of this Bill. The Bill is still not a consensus Bill in all respects. Complete consensus became impossible and this is borne out by almost 20 years of negotiations. Now we have reached the stage where we simply have to forge ahead.

 

It is in this context that I want to thank all statutory and organised formations in the legal profession for remaining part of these deliberations to this end. I wish to mention the General Council of the Bar, all other Bars, independent statutory law bodies, Nadel – to whom I’m very grateful for giving me employment in my earlier career in law – the Black Lawyers Association, and Advocates for Transformation.

 

In conclusion, I want to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee and all fellow members for their guidance and sterling leadership in navigating this Bill; the director-general for providing technical support; and, of course, Deputy Minister Jeffery who played an important role in harnessing the objectives of this Bill.

 

I trust that this House will support this Bill, which has been a long time coming. Thank you. [Applause].

 

Mr L T LANDERS:  Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers, hon members, it is always an honour to follow on the hon Minister of Justice. The ANC will vote in favour of the Legal Practice Bill.

 

To say that the Legal Practice Bill is complex and complicated is an understatement. The Legal Practice Bill is 120 clauses long. The Bill seeks to transform an extremely conservative and yet fragmented sector of our society. Twenty years in the making, the legal profession has, until now, successfully resisted change and transformation.

 

During the committee’s deliberations on the Bill, the committee received written and oral submissions from a large cross section of members and organisations from the legal profession and other sectors of civil society. We will make reference to some of these submissions during the course of this debate.

 

The opinions, views and positions put forward during today’s debate reflect the diverse and conflicting positions within the legal profession on the matter of transformation. Today you will hear the view expressed that the status quo should remain, that the legal profession does not need transforming and that any attempt to do so will adversely affect the independence of the profession and, therefore, by extension, any transformatory measures provided for in the Bill also adversely affect the independence of our judiciary.

 

This is borne out by the fact that when the committee agreed to a provision allowing advocates to accept briefs directly from the public, it was described by the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar, GCB, advocate Ishmael Semenya, as “the beginning of the end for the advocates’ profession”. The ANC firmly rejects the view that the transformation of the legal profession, and any transformatory measures provided for in this Bill, will adversely affect the independence of the legal profession.

 

Of course, at the public hearings conducted by the committee, we had no less a person than the esteemed Adv George Bizos remind the members of the legal profession who were present that for so many years people like him had warned them to get their house in order and to bring about the long overdue changes they had stubbornly resisted, that failure to do so would result in transformation being imposed on them by Members of Parliament.

 

There were also other significant submissions made to the committee. One of these was from the Independent Association of Advocates of South Africa, which proposed that members of the advocates’ profession be allowed to accept briefs directly from members of the public. The committee agreed to this proposal. Consequently, clause 34(2) sets out how this is done. As motivation for its position the Independent Association of Advocates of South Africa made the point that direct briefing of advocates, or barristers as they are called there, is allowed in Britain, from whom South Africa had inherited its legal system.

 

Another significant submission was made by the Competition Commission through a certain Mr Bonakela, who felt strongly that the public disclosure of briefing patterns by super users of the legal profession, for example banks, would force the diversification that is so desperately needed in the profession. An example of this can be found in New York. Regrettably, hon Speaker and hon Minister, this aspect was not dealt with by the portfolio committee.

 

The fragmented nature of the profession was demonstrated when the Law Society of South Africa appeared before the portfolio committee. On the one hand you had elements in the Law Society lamenting the fact that the Bill fails to provide for a single, unified body representing the legal profession in South Africa, as is the case in all other SADC countries. On the other hand, Jan Stemmet’s approach was that government should merely provide for the framework in which the profession should exist, but that government should not run the legal profession.

 

Needless to say, and I do not intend to speak on behalf of government, it is common cause that government has no intention of running the profession. Jan Stemmet then went on to say that the proposed Legal Services Ombud should be appointed by the Chief Justice, but he failed to set out how this should happen. We rejected this proposal. However, the committee has conceded to the ombud being appointed from the ranks of judges who are retired from active service.

 

Probably one of the most revealing submissions made to the committee came from the chief executive officer of the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, Mr Mhlatsi Molefe, who pointed out that 60% of the fidelity fund went towards propping up the Law Society in 2012. More importantly, the CEO stated that theft by legal practitioners in South Africa is growing exponentially. Aside from ensuring adequate policing of the profession, the CEO believes that the fund must be given the independence it needs and that failure to do so could result in the fidelity fund being rendered bankrupt, as has occurred in New Zealand. I wish that the hon Richard Mdakane will take note of that. Chapter six of the Bill seeks to address Mr Molefe’s concerns, which are shared by most, if not all, committee members.

 

Other notable features of the Bill that will be addressed in more detail during the course of this debate are, amongst others, community service for legal practitioners; the fact that all disciplinary matters involving complaints against legal practitioners must be conducted in an open, transparent forum where the complainant, the public and the media can follow the proceedings, including the publishing of particulars of such matters on the Legal Practice Council’s website, together with the code of conduct for the legal profession which the Legal Practice Council will draw up.

 

Advocates who opt to accept briefs directly from the public must be registered as such with the Legal Practice Council and have to obtain a Fidelity Fund certificate. Consequently, such advocates will have to contribute to the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund, to give it its proper title in the same way that attorneys do.

 

Entry into the legal profession is a serious challenge for many aspirant practitioners who face restricted and outdated prescripts compounded by disparate laws that only apply in different parts of South Africa. Access by members of the public to obtain legal services from the profession is also limited.

 

The Constitutional Court’s pronouncements on the exorbitant fees charged by certain members of the profession also compound this challenge. However, when you put to the organised profession this particular challenge, they respond in unison: Legal aid, pro bono; pro bono, legal aid.

 

We want to use this occasion to call on the legal profession to draw together and embrace this Bill to ensure meaningful and proper implementation of all its provisions. A two-year intervening period leading to the establishment of the proposed Legal Practice Council will serve as a challenge to the legal profession to demonstrate its willingness to embrace transformation. The legal profession dare not fail.

 

Allow me, hon Speaker, to express my appreciation, firstly, to all the members of the portfolio committee, and a particular word of thanks to the hon Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr John Jeffery. He was appointed as Deputy Minister whilst he was a member of the portfolio committee and had made some crucial amendments to the Bill before us. We also want to convey our thanks to Mr Lawrence Bassett, Mr Raj Daya, Mrs Wilma Louw and Ms Bongiwe Lufuno from the Chief State Law Adviser’s office for the invaluable assistance they accorded the portfolio committee during its deliberations. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Ms M SMUTS: Mr Speaker, a wave of regulatory reform of the legal profession has been washing over the common law countries. The reasons are always the same: affordability and access, choice, competition and consumer protection, especially against ineffective professional disciplinary mechanisms.

 

Now we have scratched the surface and legislated some improvements: transparent disciplinaries; appeals, also appeals for complainants; an ombud who is a discharged judge; and cost estimates for clients. This last was the DA’s proposal so that clients will know what they are in for in respect of the costs. The discharged judge is there at the insistence of the DA. We have therefore made some improvements. But what we should have done was to set up an appropriate regulator. The new regulator was created elsewhere to address these same problems we are faced with. It should typically be composed of small bodies of lay persons with relevant expertise, a few advocates, attorneys and sometimes government representatives - form follows function.

 

Instead, what is South Africa doing? Here is what South Africa is doing. The Legal Practice Bill forces advocates and attorneys into one governing body, the Legal Practice Council, and it puts the attorneys in charge. Why has this happened? It has happened because the ANC is, to borrow the title of Prof Sampie Terreblanche's latest book, “Lost in Transformation”. You are lost in transformation.

 

To transition, and the hon Minister has alluded to this, some consideration was given. But let me now use the words of the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar, Advocate Ishmael Semenya, and I quote:

 

There was some consideration given to what might be called naked fusion, and for so long as that was the case the role for a Legal Practice Council in the governance and regulation of lawyers was clear.

 

The idea of fusing the advocates’ and attorneys’ professions outright was abandoned, as we have also heard, but the Bill with its Legal Practice Council has stubbornly survived through five Justice Ministries. It is fusion in disguise.

 

The thinking behind this fusion by stealth has been perfectly and honestly stated by the ANC members of the Justice committee. Hon Dr Motshekga cited the case of Zimbabwe, where he was present when fusion was effected at transition. But he does not say - maybe he doesn’t remember - that 99% of advocates in Zimbabwe were white and they had the sole right of appearance in the higher courts.

 

Hon J B Sibanyoni has twice recounted how, at transition in South Africa, the then statutory municipal formations sat on one side of the negotiating table and the extra-parliamentary local government groups on the other side; negotiations resulted in what he called “wall-to-wall local government”. Discussions on fusion, he said, then followed in Nadel. To hon Sibanyoni the divided legal profession is the inherited old order. The logic and applicability of his argument is not clear and I look forward to perhaps hearing from him on the subject again today. The logic is not clear unless advocates are assumed to be the embodiment of the inherited old order.

 

That, sir, is no doubt why a unified profession was the stated goal of the Bill at earlier stages of the legislative process. But because the Bill does not discontinue the statutory recognition of the advocates' and attorneys' professions, a unified regulator was chosen instead of a unified profession. Some attempts were made to create tasks for such a thing after the fact. But the essential goal remaining for the unified regulator is, and I quote from the Bill -

... transformation and the broad reflection of diversity and demography.

 

However, the truth is that significant progress has been made in deracialising the legal profession since 1994. As at March 2013, 64% of our 21 463 attorneys were white and 36% were black. Black law graduates started outnumbering whites from 2005 onwards; black articled clerks from 2009. At the General Council of the Bar, GCB, white males represented 1 379 - you may call it 1 400 - of its 2 400 plus members in April 2013. The black professional bodies have long been integrated with the GCB and the Law Society of South Africa, respectively.

 

The position of the General Council of the Bar, having tried in good faith to work with a single Legal Practice Council, was that there should be two separate chambers for advocates and attorneys at the national and regional level. That is logical. The position of the Law Society of South Africa was that policy should be set by the majority at the national level, that is, by them. That is 10 attorneys as against six advocates. They quite liked that. But given the significant regulatory differences characterising the two professions, there should be separate Chambers at regional level for implementation.

 

The departmental response, obviously speaking on behalf of the political heads, to these submissions was a dead giveaway. It said that this, meaning the Chambers, and I quote -

 

... boils down to the retention of the current arrangements. The department is of the view that this will perpetuate the issues that the Bill seeks to transform.

 

In other words, the Bill seeks to transform the advocates’ and attorneys’ professions. They can’t go around regulating themselves, because that’s too much like being two separate professions. So it was.

 

The ANC’s guillotine fell on almost all of the DA’s proposals; there are no Chambers at any level, not even the committees with original nondelegated powers we proposed as a compromise; nothing. The policy-making and operational power lies at the highly centralised national level, in the Legal Practice Council. This consists, inter alia, of 10 attorneys and 6 advocates. I argued in vain for parity. There was a moment when Dr Motshekga and I between the two of us actually achieved parity, but somebody stepped in and he reneged.

 

There is no guarantee that advocates will be able to elect their own halfdozen. This is so because the council will be preceded by a carefully constructed and controlled interim national forum whose first order of business will be to create an election procedure for the actual council. It is thought that this will be based on a voter's roll of all legal practitioners.

 

Also on the order of business, wasting no time, is to write one code of conduct for both professions. In other words, attorneys will, by majority, make regulatory policy for advocates. The chair and the deputy of this interim body are chosen by the Minister after consultation with the national forum. If they become vacant, he calls the shots again. The chair has the casting vote.

 

Just to rub in the Bill's levelling, fusionist intent, the DA's previously acceptable proposal - there was no sign that it was not going to be written into the Bill - that the chair and deputy of the Legal Practice Council should represent both professions, in other words, if an attorney was chosen as chair, the deputy should be an advocate and vice versa, was simply thrown out at the last minute. In addition, the further five members of the executive need only be, as far as is practicable, representative of both attorneys and advocates, gender and race.

 

The advocates' profession has been sold down the river, because the ANC is lost in transformation. Yet fusion is a delusion. Even in countries where full fusion was introduced, the bars arose again. We need the advocates. We believe South Africa specifically needs the split or divided profession. An advocate practicing on the traditional independent basis will take on politically and socially unpopular cases. This remains as necessary now as it was in the old South Africa. We can recite the sins of the old South Africa as often as we want. You need the independent advocate as much now as then for the politically and socially unpopular cases.

 

In addition, the quality of advocacy has a direct effect on the quality of judgments handed down by the Bench. And no, the relaxation of the referral rule had neither effect on the advocates' profession elsewhere nor will it destroy it here. I am in favour of the relaxation of the referral rule.

 

Seventy-five percent of our attorneys’ firms are small. They are firms made up of one man, two men and up to a maximum of nine. Those little firms should be the frontline of access to justice for South Africans. We are, by the way, confident - on excellent authority - that a significant number of attorneys share our views on separate Chambers. There should at least have been separate Chambers if you insist on fooling around with a single Legal Practice Council.

 

Fusion works against the interests of small attorneys, because it is typical of fusion that law firms become enormous in order to offer a full range of services. By contrast, when professions are split, even the small attorneys' firms can take on complex cases, because they can call on the expert services of independent advocates.

 

We should have been working on alternative business models - that is what the regulators in all the other common law countries are also doing - so that the small attorneys can make a living while serving South Africans. But we need to have a real regulator looking at the real factors at play to see why the legal services market is not finding the legal service providers. They are not finding each other, so the attorneys feel they can hardly make a living, and the clients not only feel, they know they can’t afford legal services. Something is wrong with the economics and that needs to be looked at by a proper regulator.

 

I regret to say that I have come to the conclusion that the ANC is interested neither in the welfare of the professions nor the real interests of clients. A ministerial power of dissolution will allow the Minister to dissolve the council. I think that is shocking. We are dealing with an independent profession here. A power of dissolution will allow him to dissolve the council and to install seven hand-picked people for six months, no matter how many safeguards are built in; and yes, the courts have been written in. This power is in itself inimical to the independence of the legal professions, as Judge Chaskalson said in his last speech.

 

I think that the power of dissolution is your own admission that you are fully aware, hon Minister, that the Legal Practice Council will institutionalise the same tensions which caused its negotiation over the life of four former Ministries over 20 years to fail. What makes you think it will work now that we legislate a thing that nobody wanted?

 

Hulle wil nie bymekaar wees nie; hulle hoort nie bymekaar nie. [They do not want to be together; they do not belong together.]

 

What makes you think it is going to work? I believe that we are here legislating for failure, and we oppose the Bill. [Applause.]

 

Ms L H ADAMS: Hon Speaker, hon members, Cope supports all the transformative principles and clauses of the Bill. The transformation of the legal profession, coupled with access to justice, must be supported by all of us at all costs, but not at any cost. However, Cope cannot support the erosion and tampering with the independence of the legal profession as envisaged in this Bill.

 

Section 22 of the Constitution provides that the practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law. This section obviously includes the legal profession. However, as in the case of the General Council of the Bar, GCB, it is Cope’s submission that, whilst it is the prerogative of the Minister to provide the statutory framework within which the legal profession needs to be regulated by professional bodies, the state may not be involved in the governance and management of the profession.

 

In the case of this Bill it is the intention of the Minister to both provide the statutory framework for the function of the legal profession and to be involved in the governance and management of same. If it was not the government’s intention to govern the profession, then why was it he deemed it necessary to include a dissolution clause? Cope cannot support this intention of the Minister.

 

The current clause 7 of the Bill is unconstitutional and it interferes with the independence of the legal profession in a number of aspects. Firstly, the insistence by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to have three persons designated by him to sit on this legal council is plainly known as interference. Secondly, the independence of the advocacy is interfered with since the advocates will now be regulated by 17 non practising advocates who have not been elected by the advocates’ profession.

 

On 7 August 2009, in a meeting between the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the leaders of the General Council of the Bar, the Minister assured these leaders that the Legal Practice Bill will not allow the government to govern the legal profession. After four years, we are still waiting for this promise to become a reality in this Bill.

 

Once this Bill is passed today, the legal profession will be governed by the government. The message to the legal profession in this Bill is quite clear: you either shape up or ship out. You report to the Minister and satisfy his mandate or you will be dissolved and replaced by individuals who want to be instructed by the Minister.

 

Die gogga maak nou vir die baba bang. [Here comes the bogeyman.]

 

The UN’s basic principles on the role of lawyers clearly state that lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations. As long as the Bill does not provide for a Chamber of Advocates and a Chamber of Attorneys, then these legal councils cannot be regarded as self-governing bodies. South Africa will thus not comply with this UN principle.

 

The principle continues to state that the executive body of professional associations shall be elected by its own members and shall exercise its functions without external interference. Again, this Bill flies in the face of this UN principle because the legal council can be dissolved at any time the Minister so wishes. That is called external interference. The discretionary powers of the Minister in this Bill will erode the independence of the legal profession.

 

In addition to this interference by the Minister, the legal council must annually report to the Minister on a number of issues. This reporting to the Minister makes the legal council dependent on the Minister, especially since the Minister’s discretionary powers can determine the future existence of that legal council.

 

Fifty-one years ago, in November 1962, the President of the SA Institute of Race Relations made a public statement, stating that house arrest of political activists opposing apartheid was an infringement of the rule of law. Adv B J Vorster, the then Minister of Justice of South Africa, responded to this statement by saying that “there are as many interpretations of the rule of law as there are people and the rule of law is very easily used as a pretext for attempts to frustrate action against communism”. He went further to state that “an elected parliament had mandated him to maintain law and order to secure the safety of the state”.

 

The apartheid government had no respect for the rule of law and that is why the South African citizens, including the legal profession, got rid of that government. Fast-forward to today, 13 November 2013, and in a democratic state the current Minister of justice through this Bill is advancing the same argument as that of Adv Vorster, only this time around the argument is that the rule of law is very easily used as a pretext for attempts to frustrate transformation in the legal profession and access to justice.

 

Any person advocating the independence of the legal profession is against the transformation of this profession. If there are any former political prisoners in this House today, then he or she should know that the independence of the legal profession was the reason why he or she was represented in court during apartheid by an independent advocate.

 

Judge Willers makes reference to the above and says that it is largely because of those traditions of independence that we were able to reconstruct our legal system after apartheid and create legal institutions that function in the democratic society under the rule of law.

 

I want to reiterate that this current government has no respect for the rule of law, and that is why the South African citizens, including the legal profession, must get rid of this government. [Applause.] The most loved President of South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela, said in 1993 in his address to the Cosatu congress that “if the ANC does to you what the apartheid government did to you, then you must do to the ANC what you did to the apartheid government”. Cope will not support this Bill. [Applause.]

 

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Mr Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker that it is time to get rid of this government. But I want to say to the hon Minister that when the IFP becomes the government next year, we will keep you as the Minister of Justice. [Laughter.] I also thought that hon Landers and hon Smuts have made excellent contributions. They analysed the Bill and they mentioned many comments about it. I enjoyed listening to both of them, although they don’t agree with each other.

 

My colleague, Dr Ambrosini, attended the meetings of the justice committee in respect of this Bill. I therefore do not have the benefit of all the discussions and will thus only make some basic statements, in particular why we do not support the Bill.

 

The Bill has been a major source of contention within the legal industry with proponents and detractors. It is common cause that our legal profession requires some review and the committee has tried to find the thin line between what was in the best interests of the public and the profession.

 

I now want to deal with some of our important objections. Firstly, the independence of lawyers is under attack, and the Minister gets the power to effectively control the judicial system. Secondly, the soon to be established South African Legal Practice Council will, in terms of clause 4, “exercise jurisdiction over all legal practitioners” and candidate legal practitioners. This council therefore effectively centralises control of the judiciary in the hands of the ANC executive.

 

Thirdly, the creation of provincial councils will have a huge cost effect, not only in respect of money but also administration. And I wonder where the money will come from, because a proper and an in-depth budget has not been prepared. Fourthly, as far as legal costs are concerned, the limitation thereof may assist some clients, but fees are market-related. If you want to brief the Jeremy Gauntletts, you pay them R40 000 a day or they do not accept your brief.

 

In conclusion, the Bill has good clauses, but the objections I have raised make it impossible for the IFP to support the Bill. The IFP will therefore oppose the Bill. Sorry, Minister. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

 

Mr J B SIBANYONI: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, Ministers, hon Members of Parliament, I will start by saying the ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.] The angle of my debate is transformation of the legal profession. This has been a long road to where we are today, standing on this podium debating the Legal Practice Bill.

 

My first encounter with the topic was around 1985, during the days of the launch of organisations such as the Democratic Lawyers Congress, DLC, by hon Motshekga, which was eventually disbanded and became the Pretoria branch of the National Association for Democratic Lawyers, Nadel. We dabbled with the calls for fusion of the bar and the side bar, but we moved away from that.

 

Nadel, the Black Lawyers Association, BLA, and other lawyers’ formations pursued the struggle. There were calls for disbanding the law societies, at the beginning, and the General Council of the Bar, GCB. Is it not absurd that about 28 years down the line, the bar and the side bar are still intact? My learned friend and colleague, Pretoria attorney Nano Matlala, has this to say. I quote:

 

The problem with South Africa under black rule is that the elites do not see South Africa as part of Africa, but an extension of the colonial masters. It is disingenuous to state that a single legal profession will not be independent. The distinction between attorney and advocate is academic given similar university qualifications, unlike in the past, when the minimum qualification of attorney was a diploma or a junior degree in law. It is for this reason that the Constitution provides for appointment to the judiciary a fit and proper person who can be an attorney or an advocate. There is no judge attorney or judge advocate. They are all members of the judiciary. The same should be the case with legal practitioners. Attorneys and advocates both appear in High Courts. Post-1994, a majority of black judges have been appointed from the attorneys’ profession and some are Judges President and Judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal, SCA, and the Constitutional Court. The USA is a good example of an independent and single legal profession. Its judiciary is appointed from a single legal profession. The GCB does not qualify to state that it is in the public interest to leave the advocates’ profession intact and to regulate itself.

 

Attorney Nano Matlala also has this to say:

Over the last fifteen years I have asked many members of the public in rural areas and townships what the difference is between an advocate and an attorney and the answer has always been wrong. The answer I always got is an advocate is a big lawyer and an attorney reports to an advocate.

 

Matlala goes on to say:

 

When I was co-Chair of the Law Society of South Africa, LSSA, I caused the LSSA to undertake research on the legal profession in Namibia, Kenya and Uganda. In all these countries the legal profession is regulated as a single legal profession. In Kenya, legal practitioners are advocates regulated by the Law Society and the Advocates Act. They all take direct instructions from the public and hold a fidelity fund certificate. There are no attorneys. Kenya has severed the umbilical cord with the colonial masters and this is underscored by the fact that the Chief Justice of Kenya, Willie Mutunga, has never been an advocate or a judge before he was appointed and the nation never made a noise about his appointment. Maybe we should follow the example of Kenya and other African countries and call everyone an advocate. The difference will be whether one chooses to take direct instructions or not as in the position of Namibia or in the medical profession.

 

Now let me come to the work of Ministers. I think you will all remember this. The late Comrade Dullah Omar was the first Justice Minister who tabled a Bill whose objects were to transform the legal profession. There was resistance.

 

Yaqala inkathazo. [And the trouble began.]

 

There were extended discussions and engagements. No agreement was reached. His term of office expired. The next Minister was the hon Penuell Maduna, and again engagements followed. His term expired. Next in tline was the hon Brigitte Mabandla. Her term also ended. There were colloquiums, conferences and the like. Hon Enver Surty also came in and quickly criss-crossed the country as an attorney, talking to his learned friends. His term also expired. Now, hon Jeff ...

 

... Thamsanqa Radebe, Bhungane sithi mayingapheleli ezandleni zakho njengamanzi. Bathi abakwaBhungane, oMthimkhulu, umfazi omabele amade ancelisa umntwana ngaphesheya komfula sesithembele kuwe. [Uhleko.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

 

[... Thamsanqa Radebe, Bhungane [clan name] you must resolve this issue before your term of office expires. The Bhunganes say, oMthimkhulu, umfazi omabele amade ancelisa umntwana ngaphesheya komfula [clan name], that all their hopes and our hope are in you.] [Laughter.]]

 

Why is the legal practice legislation needed? At the present moment, the law dealing with the matters of attorneys and advocates is fragmented and such laws are applied in different parts of South Africa. Currently the legal practice is called a noble profession, which i agree, but it does not reflect the demographics of our country and entry into this profession is often determined by unnecessary restrictions, thus limiting access to the profession, specifically to the poor.

 

When one looks at the preamble of the Bill, one finds a clear explanation of the objectives of this Bill. Among other things - I will not quote them all - it is stated that it is to provide a legislative framework for the transformation and restructuring of the legal profession that embraces the values underpinning the Constitution and ensures that the rule of law is upheld. Further it is intended to protect and promote public interest; and to protect and promote the interests of consumers of legal services by the establishment of an Office of the Legal Servies Ombud.

 

The SA Legal Practice Council is being established to exercise jurisdiction over all legal practitioners and candidate legal practitioners. As mentioned, the Bill establishes the Office of the Legal Services Ombud in the Republic. For instance, there is provision for the objectives of the ombud, and the protection and promotion of the public interests, which I have just stated.

 

Now, to end my contribution to the debate, I want to quote attorney Nano Matlala again, when he says:

 

Today South Africa is making history, as it did on 27 April 1994 when, for the first time, all South Africans determined the destiny of this country at the ballot box. That historical event was captured by the world in all media. It was preceded by many years of struggle and loss of life by many South Africans of all races, not to mention imprisonment, torture, forced exile outside and within South Africa.

 

He continues to say:

 

They are all the products of this Bill which seeks to repeal by establishment of a united legal profession under one roof. This was also a long process and is historical.

 

South Africa has a transformative Constitution. It provides for three arms of the state, Parliament, Cabinet and the judiciary. This goes along with the doctrine of separation of powers. No one arm should encroach on the territory of another. The Constitution requires all three arms of the state to transform South African society.

 

To the judiciary, and to the ANC comrades, I want to say, we put our trust in you to pass this Bill today.

Vandag is die dag. [Today is the day.]

 

Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr S Z NTAPANE: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and hon members, the UDM welcomes the purpose of this Bill, which seeks to transform our skewed legal profession. It is skewed to the extent that this piece of legislation is long overdue. We also welcome the establishment of the council. Previously there was a willy-nilly striking of the names of attorneys, especially black attorneys, from the roll until they stood up and fought it by becoming part of the law societies.

 

The objectives of the council and its functions, amongst other things, deal with the exorbitant fees that are at times charged, which make justice to come at a very high price to the majority of South Africans. Clause 27 seeks to regulate the payment of remuneration, allowances or stipends of candidate legal practitioners. If hon members know how much some of these candidate legal practitioners receive from their principals, you will be astonished. It is just incredible.

 

However, the UDM has reservations about the conversion of enrolments. For legal practitioners to accept or receive money from clients or members of the public, they need training how to handle such funds. Legal practitioners, who at present are referred to as trust account practitioners, are attorneys who, amongst the requirements to be admitted as such, must have been trained in accounting and passed accounting examinations. This is not the situation with advocates. So, to just convert their enrolment to that of an attorney, only on applying and payment of the fees, without being trained how to handle the funds in the trust accounts, will at times create problems. However, the UDM supports the Bill. [Applause.]

 

Adv A D ALBERTS: Chairperson, I agree with the hon Smuts that this Bill is lost in transformation. This Bill is just another slew of laws generated by the ANC to transform the South African society into a reracialised one where government controls everything, whether directly or indirectly, at the cost of individual and communal liberty. Equality at all costs, even in freedom – that is the ANC’s mantra - is in the end undermined.

 

Die wetsontwerp oor regspraktisyns is nog ’n poging van die ANC om die regsprofessie te transformeer tot ANC-beheer. Die wetsontwerp het dit ten doel om ’n enkele landswye regsliggaam tot stand te bring om die bestaande prokureursordes en balierade te vervang. Hierdeur word prokureurs en advokate se grondwetlike regte van vryheid, assosiasie en beroep, en die eiendomsregte van bestaande prokureursordes en balierade tot niet gemaak.

 

Die VF Plus sien dit as ’n kwalik verbloemde poging van die ANC om groter beheer te kry oor die regsberoep – net soos die regbank ook moet transformeer om die ANC gedienstig te wees.(Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

 

[The Legal Practice Bill is another attempt by the ANC to transform the legal profession into ANC control. The Bill aims to establish a single countrywide legal body in order to replace the existing law societies and bar councils. In this way the constitutional rights of the freedom, association and occupation of attorneys and advocates, and the property rights of existing law societies and bar councils, are abolished.

 

The FF Plus regards this as a thinly disguised effort by die ANC to obtain greater control over the legal profession – just as the bench also needs to transform in order to serve the ANC.]

 

The current system of law societies and bar councils were established over centuries and serve the interests of the public very well, despite high costs in higher courts. However, we do agree that costs are one of the major factors that inhibit access to courts. We also agree that it must be addressed, but not by attacking the legal profession as such. Instead government could have looked at some form of legal insurance structure to assist the public. Merely forcing legal professionals to charge less will only ensure that substandard services will be delivered.

In short, you pay for the best professional service. Even government does, if one looks at the legal counsel it uses. The South African National Road Agency Ltd, Sanral, used Adv Jeremy Gauntlett for instance.

 

Indien die wetsontwerp deurgevoer word, sal dit uiteintlik negatief inwerk op die regsprofessie van Suid-Afrika en sal dit tot nadeel wees van al die mense in ons land. Dankie. [If the Bill is passed, it will eventually have a negative effect on the legal profession of South Africa and this will be to the detriment of all the people in our country. Thank you.]

 

Ms M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, hon members of the House and guests in the gallery, the ANC supports this Bill.

 

My focus is going to be on fees in respect of legal services. The purpose of the Legal Practice Bill is to provide a legislative framework for the transformation and restructuring of the legal profession that embraces the values underpinning the Constitution. The committee is aware of the many fees-related complaints.

 

The Bill recognises the importance of access to affordable legal services for realisation by South Africans of freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. While seeking to attain these objectives, the Bill recognises the independence of the legal profession and seeks to strengthen independence that should entrench the principles of transparency and accountability.

 

Clause 35 of the Legal Practice Bill focuses on fees in respect of litigious and nonlitigious legal services rendered by legal practitioners, juristic entities, law clinics and Legal Aid South Africa. In terms of the provision of this Act, fees must be in accordance with the tariffs established by the Rules Board for Courts of Law as established in section 2 of the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act of 1985. The Rules Board for Courts of Law must, when determining, for example, the tariffs, look at the importance, significance, complexities and expertise of the legal services required; the seniority and experience of the legal practitioners concerned; the volume of work required and the time spent in respect of the legal services rendered; and the financial implications of the matter at hand.

 

The Bill also supports the idea that nothing precludes any user of litigious or nonlitigious legal services, on his or her own initiative, from agreeing with a legal practitioner in writing to paying fees for services in excess of or below any tariff determined as contemplated in clause 35 of the Bill.

 

Within two years after the commencement of this Act, the South African Law Reform Commission must investigate and report back to the Minister with recommendations on the following: The manner in which to address the circumstances giving rise to legal fees that are attainable to most people, which is a point of contention; legislative and other interventions in order to improve access to justice by the members of the public; the desirability of establishing a mechanism which will be responsible for determining fees and tariffs payable to legal practitioners; the composition of the mechanism contemplated and processes to be followed in determining fees and tariffs; the desirability of giving users of legal services the option of voluntarily agreeing to pay fees for legal services, less or in access of any amount that may be set by the contemplated mechanism; and the obligation by the legal practitioner to conclude a mandatory fee agreement with a client, when he or she secures that legal practitioner’s service. This is quite a good mechanism to ensure that the public is protected in respect of the type of fees that will be charged when they seek legal services.

 

In conducting this investigation into fees, the SA Law Reform Commission must take the following into consideration: The best international practices; public interests; and the interests of the legal profession itself. This is something that we need to note, because the impression has been created that the Bill itself is taking away the independence of the legal profession.

 

The Bill also makes provision for the Minister to determine maximum tariffs payable to legal practitioners who are instructed by any state department, provincial or local government in any matter. This is done just to control fees in that area. An attorney or advocate who is rendering litigious or nonlitigious legal services must provide the client with cost estimates in writing, specifying all particulars relating to the envisaged costs of legal services, including fees, charges, disbursements, hourly rates and an explanation to the client of his or her right to negotiate the fees payable.

 

The attorney must also outline work to be done in respect of each stage of the litigation process, and the likelihood of engaging an advocate, as well as an explanation of different fees that can be charged by different advocates. This should be done in writing or explained verbally by an attorney.

 

All these indicate that things are now changing in South Africa. We are now reaching a stage where legal services will be affordable. People will not enter into agreements with lawyers for fees that they do not understand and on processes that will unfold, that will end up being processes that are costly and that they did not actually know of or anticipate.

 

A client must agree to the envisaged legal services in writing. Noncompliance by an attorney or advocate to do that constitutes a misconduct, and the client will not be required to pay any legal costs to that attorney or advocate until the council has reviewed the matter and made a determination regarding the amounts to be paid. This provision does not preclude the use of contingency fee agreements as provided for in the Contingency Fees Act of 1997.

 

In conclusion, any change is stressful, and that is why the opposition is wary, but not of the unknown, because the Bill has been elaborately deliberated on by all parties in the committee over a very long time. Numerous written and verbal submissions from the public and the legal fraternity were received and engaged on. Best practices throughout the world were looked at. The change that will be brought about by this Bill is for fairness and the betterment of the lives of South Africans.

 

Of course, we will continue to acknowledge selective amnesia caused by manipulation of parliamentary debates to create a campaign platform for parties like Cope that want to give an impression that things aren’t fine, in so doing creating an opportunistic platform that tries to turn the good that the ANC is doing into bad. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]

 

Mr S N SWART: Deputy Speaker and Deputy President, the Commonwealth principles on the three branches of government relating to the independence of the judiciary, and to which South Africa is a signatory, states that, and I quote:

 

An independent, effective and competent legal profession is fundamental to the upholding of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

 

One of South Africa’s most well-known advocates practising in London, Sydney Kentridge, stated that there are few things as essential to the maintenance of liberty in a state as the existence of an independent body of advocates, ready to appear for every person in every kind of case.

 

To protect this independence, governance and the management of the legal profession may not be done by the state. The Minister may only provide the statutory framework within which the legal profession is to be regulated. Hon Minister Radebe is on record as saying that he does not wish to control the profession. That we in the ACDP accept. However, as chairman Llewellyn Landers is often at pains to explain, we legislate for the future, for that unknown time when there might be another dictatorial Minister in control.

 

Therefore, the possibility of ministerial interference most definitely exists when one adds up the various powers that the Minister is given in terms of this Bill, including making regulations on a broad range of issues, having three ministerial representatives on the council and, most importantly, the power to dissolve it, albeit following a court process.

 

As former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson said last year about the Bill - just before his death:

 

A structure is being proposed which opens the door to important aspects of the profession being controlled by the executive and that is inconsistent with an independent legal profession.

 

Additionally, although I am an attorney, I share the hon Dene Smuts’ concerns that the advocates’ profession will now become the junior partner in this statutory arrangement and, in effect, the advocates have been sold down the tubes. No one can deny that there are fundamental differences between the attorneys’ and advocates’ professions. That is why we argued for separate Chambers for attorneys and advocates at national level. Regrettably, this was not agreed upon. As the hon Smuts has pointed out, we clearly have fusion by stealth.

 

Whilst the ACDP’s fall-back position of separate Chambers at provincial level was agreed to to a certain degree, we still support the separate Chambers at national and regional level. The ANC has argued that to agree to that position would be to retain the status quo. Clearly, we in the ACDP respectfully disagree. These separate Chambers would have been subject to the directives of the Legal Practice Council. There is no situation that it is business as usual. The status quo is different and changed.

 

The ACDP also objected to the lack of parity on the Legal Practice Council. The interim national forum has an equal number of advocates and attorneys represented. We don’t understand why this parity was not extended to the Legal Practice Council. Again, the advocates have been sold down the tubes.

 

The ACDP will not support this Bill. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy President and hon members, we are now en route to the decolonisation and Africanisation of the South African legal system and the judiciary. This was long overdue. We must rid our legal system of racism, wealth and privilege as criteria for access to justice and legal services that allows unfettered self-regulation of the legal profession and a deeply divided Bar that escalates fees and makes justice inaccessible to the majority of the people.

 

A legal system must also be informed by the people’s value system. It cannot be explained why today, 20 years after freedom, we still have to go to Roman Dutch law and English law to find out what is in the best interests of our people’s aspirations for justice. We believe that the concept of ubuntu, which transcends race, colour and creed, is enough to provide a basis for a South African and African common law.

 

It is a matter of grave concern that on the eve of the 20th anniversary of our freedom from apartheid colonialism, political parties in this House are not yet at one on the transformation of the judiciary and the legal profession.

 

The DA and some sections of the Bar and Side Bar do not even accept the term “transformation”. They want to change the form, not the substance of the legal system and the legal profession. Thus they prefer the term “restructuring”, not “transformation”.

 

The ANC made many compromises in good faith to enable the parties to reach consensus so that this Parliament can pass this Bill. These compromises notwithstanding, the DA rejected this Bill in its entirety, showing that they negotiated in bad faith. However, the ANC remains committed to this Bill, because it provides a framework for the transformation of the legal profession and the judiciary in line with our Constitution.

 

The Legal Practice Bill gives the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the unified legal profession the authority to drive the transformation of the legal profession, which is a prerequisite for the transformation of the judiciary itself. This will open the door for the Africanisation or indigenisation of the law. Ubuntu values and principles must be infused in our legal system to ensure that once and for all we eradicate the dispensation of justice on the basis of race, colour or creed.

The DA and its supporters lose sight of the fact that the state has a primary responsibility to ensure that all citizens, regardless of race, class and gender, have access to justice and legal services. The legal profession represents its own interests, not the interests of the downtrodden who want to receive their due. The state is a custodian of the interests of the citizenry, not the legal profession.

 

The independence of the profession is an important element of the rule of law, but it cannot and should not take precedence over access to justice and legal services.

 

It must also be the responsibility of the attorneys and advocates to train a new crop of lawyers. It is difficult to understand why the DA and its fellow travellers would argue that people serving pupillage should not be paid by the advocates, which means that the majority of young black graduates will not be able to enter the profession and therefore swell the ranks of those who must be appointed judges in this country. Therefore, we will remain with a white judiciary and white Bar for many years to come.

 

The DA sought to import an Australian legal fee structure lock, stock and barrel, in total disregard of the fact that in South Africa we have two worlds: the First and the Third World. The DA lives in the First World and legislates for the elites. It has no regard for the overwhelming majority of the people, who have not tasted freedom since 1652. [Applause.]

 

South Africa and Africa at large must indigenise the law. In essence, the DA wants a system of co-governance between the executive and the legal profession that has not yet been transformed. Under apartheid colonialism, the criteria for access to justice and legal services were race and wealth. Under the DA government, it would be wealth and privilege. [Interjections.] This would bar thousands of black graduates, in particular, from entering into the legal profession.

 

The policy of the DA on the legal profession shows that the DA falsely makes itself a champion of job creation for the youth. Thousands of law students and graduates will soon see through the DA and respond appropriately. The DA has proven beyond reasonable doubt that its old-fashioned liberalism is a great impediment to its own transformation to include the black middle-class. The DA is pro-corporate and is hell bent on defending the social and economic privileges of the few. South Africans, especially the youth, would be naïve to believe that a party that cannot transform itself would be able to transform the legal profession, the judiciary and the country. [Applause.]

 

I can assure you, Mrs Dene Smuts, that when we return in 2014, with an increased majority, we will transform the legal profession and ensure that we have a progressive legal profession. I hope that you will have retired by that time, otherwise you will faint. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

 

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Deputy Speaker, Deputy President and hon members, I’m not a member of the Justice committee ...

 

... mme fela jaaka motho yo o goletseng kwa magaeng, e re fa o fitlhela go buiwa kgomo o be o ntsha thipa ya gago le wena o be o bua. [... however, as someone who grew up in the rural areas, when you find people busy, you also join in to help.]

 

Concrete steps towards a transformed legal profession are long overdue. As such, the necessity of this Bill cannot be overemphasised. The instructive tone in the Bill is understandable as well, even though understandable does not really translate into being correct or right.

 

If the status quo is to continue, it is likely to take a century before we see substantial transformation in the legal profession, and we cannot allow this to happen.

 

We welcome the levelling of the playing field in the legal playground, which we have no doubt will make all feel their South Africanness.

 

There is a mechanism in place should the Minister lose confidence in the ability of the council to perform its functions effectively and efficiently. In line with due process, there are steps to follow and observe and even involve the ombud to investigate the recommendations that were made. Should the Minister still have a lump in his throat, he will be at liberty to approach the High Court and, should it give him the benefit of the doubt, only then may the Minister appoint an interim council within 21 days of dissolution, whose tenure may not exceed six months.

 

As the late former Chief Justice, Arthur Chaskalson, commented when the Bill was introduced:

 

It would serve all concerned and affected well if there were to be a concerted effort towards reaching a consensus in these matters instead of dictating what must be done.

 

The Republic, being a unitary state, has to ensure that justice is meted out evenly. That the legal profession is not representative of the demographics of South Africa cannot be denied. So there is a need to ameliorate and regulate the different laws which apply in different parts of this country.

 

We note and appreciate that this Bill strives to ensure that access to legal services should not be the privilege of the high and mighty only. The poor also have a right to be heard without compromising the independence of the legal profession.

 

The UCDP hopes that this is just one step towards ensuring that the third arm of the state, the Office of the Chief Justice, will sooner rather than later be afforded the opportunity to handle its own budget, as is the case with the Electoral Commission. The UCDP supports the Legal Practice Bill. [Applause.]

 

Nkosi S P HOLOMISA: Deputy Speaker, now we know who in this Parliament supports transformation to the full extent of the term and who supports it only if it maintains the status quo. [Applause.]

 

Hon Deputy Speaker and hon Deputy President, Ministers, inkosi eziphakathi kwethu [Chiefs who are amongst us], hon members, I join those who spoke before me in support of the Legal Practice Bill. This is a Bill that seeks to transform the attorneys’ and advocates’ professions with a view to helping them promote access to justice by the people of our land, while at the same time promoting the interests of the practitioners.

 

It goes without saying that the profession of legal practitioners is a vital cog in the machinery responsible for the administration of justice, as these are the people who are trained in the knowledge of the law in order to interpret it for the very ordinary citizens. It should therefore be self-evident that our legal practitioners must be independent in the manner in which they carry out their vocation.

 

It is in alignment with this basic principle that the Legal Practice Council will be composed of 10 practicing attorneys, six practicing advocates, two teachers of law, one person designated by Legal Aid SA, one person who need not be a legal practitioner, but who is designated by the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund board, as well as a mere three persons designated by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.

 

So, out of a council of 23 members, 20 are designated by members of the profession themselves.

 

The passage of this Bill by Parliament has been long in the making. As is the nature of transformation, a great deal of resistance from and division within the profession were responsible for such delays. The legal profession is divided between attorneys and advocates, as well as along racial and gender lines. As in most professions and careers whose origins stem from our colonial and apartheid past, the profession is dominated by white males, much more so my profession, the advocate’s profession.

 

In our quest for an egalitarian, nonsexist and nonracial society, it is imperative that this particular profession is assisted to undergo the changes necessary for the attainment of this goal. Clearly, those who benefit from the status quo cannot be expected voluntarily to effect the required changes. It would be naïve and unfair of us to have such expectations of the beneficiaries of the current state of affairs.

 

The structures that this Bill will establish will ensure that the profession is independent, professional, racially and gender diverse, and accountable and accessible to the public itself through, among others, a fair determination of the fees charged. It is imperative that all those principles are met without anyone being elevated above the others.

 

Alongside all other bodies established by the Bill, namely the Legal Services Ombud, the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund Board and the National Forum on the Legal Profession, the SA Legal Practice Council and its provincial bodies will ensure that the legal profession is the service provider of choice for all South Africans, not just for those who have access to unlimited financial resources.

 

In the event that the Legal Practice Council fails to function effectively and efficiently, as a result of which it loses the confidence of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Bill facilitates the dissolution of the council by the Minister. Such power to dissolve the council, contrary to what we have been told, is subject to an elaborate process involving the consultation of the council by the Minister, the requesting of the ombud to conduct an investigation and, ultimately, an application to the High Court for the requisite order.

 

Some of us in the committee would have preferred that, as part of the transformation and especially with regard to the high fees charged to those who seek the services of lawyers, the attorneys’ and advocates’ professions be merged. After all, attorneys and advocates serve the same constituency. There can be no doubt that the benefits accruing from this division are enjoyed more by the practitioners than by the clients who pay for the services. For one case alone, a single client could be required to pay fees that are due to an attorney as well as those due to an advocate. Sometimes there will also be a junior and a senior advocate.

 

Whilst in the course of our interaction with the attorneys and the advocates, some of the attorneys were amenable to the idea of a merger. The bulk of the advocates were not so keen. In the interests of peace and the need to move forward, we agreed for the time being to let the status quo remain.

 

We also took note of the fact that a large body of advocates takes briefs directly from clients, without the medium of attorneys. The Bill provides that they continue to do so provided that they are first issued with Fidelity Fund certificates, as is the case with practicing attorneys. This is in order to protect the interests of clients. Such an arrangement will contribute in some small way to the reduction of legal costs.

 

Historically and traditionally, judges of the High Court were selected from the ranks of senior advocates. Transformation and democratic imperatives demanded that there be a departure from this approach. As a result, our current judges – who are proving to be quite capable of discharging their responsibilities – come from the ranks of advocates, junior and senior, attorneys and teachers of law.

 

The lawyers that our universities produce study for the same LLB degree. The junior degrees of B Juris and B Proc – which were required mostly for prosecutors, magistrates and attorneys – are no longer offered. All are now required to have the same Bachelor of Law, LLB, degree. The justification for the continuation of the division between attorneys and advocates is therefore gradually fading. There shall therefore come a time when Parliament will have to amend this law to accommodate this reality.

 

We are legislating for success. The ANC, as has been said, fully supports the passage of this Bill. [Applause.]

 

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pity this debate comes so close to an election, because it seems as if a number of parties are electioneering in this House. [Interjections.]

 

I am quite surprised at some of the comments made, namely that the Bill is going to interfere with the independence of the profession and that it is going to interfere and allow government to control the judiciary and so on. With respect, I think that anyone who has those arguments, either has not read this version of the Bill before the House or has been smoking their socks. [Laughter.]

 

As far as government or ministerial control over the council is concerned, only 3 people out of 22 is appointed by the Minister; that’s all. The rest are appointed by the different constituent parties. The dissolution of the council – which was raised as another example of ministerial control – has been dealt with by Mr Mfundisi and Nkosi Holomisa.

 

The issue of the Minister making regulations is governed by those regulations being subject to approval by Parliament. So, I think it is absurd to claim that this Bill will enable government to control the legal profession.

 

The main issue is really the question of convergence. Now, for those who are nonlawyers, the former British Commonwealth countries have attorneys and advocates or solicitors and barristers. The issue is about their separation. It has been alleged that this Bill is fusion by stealth. It is not fusion by stealth. You still have advocates. They still have their own training – that’s after they get the same law degree as attorneys – and they still have their own representation on the council.

 

However, advocates and attorneys had been doing more of the same work. So, in 1995, attorneys got the right to appear in the High Courts, in which only advocates could appear before. This Bill brings it a little bit closer by allowing advocates to take direct briefs. So their work is overlapping more and more. Why must you then have two separate codes or separate disciplinary processes? An advocate appears in the High Court, messes up the case; why must they be dealt with differently from an attorney who does the same?

 

What is interesting is that a number of Commonwealth countries on this continent – some of them, like Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia were mentioned – upon independence, abolished the distinction between attorneys and advocates. Now, I know that for the DA those are only African countries so you don’t regard them that highly ... [Interjections.] ... but that also applied to New Zealand, which I know you regard more highly ... [Interjections.] ... and Australia. So what is the big issue? [Interjections.]

 

I want to quote from what the president of the UK Law Society said:

 

The new modes of practice will increasingly challenge the norms under which lawyers practice under the separate titles of barrister and solicitor. I believe this development will lead inevitably to the need to revisit the question of whether these two professions should continue to be trained separately, represented and regulated as they have been over the past 180 years. I envisage that the time is coming when the barrister-solicitor distinction will a more decorative than a functional aspect of our legal constitution.

 

Now this is from England, a country you regard very highly. [Interjections.]

 

It does not surprise me that the DA has this position on this Bill, because the DA represents conservative, established interests and their opposition to the Legal Practice Bill is just another indication of that. [Interjections.]

 

A lot of work has been put into this Bill ... [Interjections.] If the DA members can listen and not just barrack ... [Interjections.]

 

We have produced a very good Bill. I think it will finally, 20 years after democracy, ensure that the legal profession accelerates its transformation, because out of 473 senior counsel only 4 are African women.

 

I want to mention just one thing on the parity between attorneys and advocates and the issue of equal representation. There are 2 000 advocates and 21 000 attorneys. So, to want equal representation really reminds one of what things were like in the constitutional negotiations in 1994, when protecting minority white interests was sought.

 

I think we have a good Bill. It is a pity that the DA had to show its true colours. It’s a pity that Cope had to resort to politicking.

 

I thank everybody for the debate and hope that the House supports the Bill.

 

Debate concluded.

 

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

 

Division demanded.

 

The House divided:

 

AYES – 226: Abram, S; Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bam-Mugwanya, V; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bhengu, P; Bikani, F C; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Botha, Y R; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chabane, O C; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlodlo, A; Dlomo, B J; Dlulane, B N; Dubazana, Z S; Dube, M C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Ebrahim, E I; Fransman, M L; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gaehler, L B; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; Gina, N; Godi, N T; Gololo, C L; Goqwana, M B; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S-B; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Johnson, M; Kekana, C D; Kenye, T E; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kubayi, M T; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Line-Hendriks, H; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabudafhasi, T R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Mahomed, F; Makasi, X C; Makhubela-Mashele, L S; Makhubele, Z S; Makwetla, S P; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manamela, K B; Manana, M C; Manganye, J; Mangena, M S; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Maserumule, F T; Mashatile, S P; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Masutha, T M; Mathale, C C; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mdaka, M N; Mdakane, M R; Mfulo, A; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mjobo, L N; Mkhize, H B; Mlambo, E M; Mmusi, S G; Mnisi, N A; Mocumi, P A; Moepeng, J K; Mohai, S J; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B E E; Moloi-Moropa, J C; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Moss, L N; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Motshekga, M S; Mthethwa, E N; Mushwana, F F; Muthambi, A F; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndabandaba, L G B; Ndabeni, S T; Ndebele, J S; Ndlazi, A Z; Nelson, W J; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngele, N J; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Nkwinti, G E; Ntapane, S Z; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, Z C; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyanda, S; Nyekemba, E; Nzimande, B E; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Pandor, G N M; Peters, E D; Petersen-Maduna, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Pule, D D; Radebe, G S; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Ramathlodi, N A; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Skosana, J J; Smith, V G; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Suka, L; Sulliman, E M; Sunduza, T B; Swanepoel, D W; Thobejane, S G; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tseke, G K; Tshabalala, J; Tshwete, P; Tsotetsi, D R; Turok, B; Twala, N M; van Rooyen, D D; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Wayile, Z G; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E.

 

NOES – 81: Adams, L H; Alberts, A D; Boinamo, G G; Bosman, L L; Botha, T; Cebekhulu, R N; Coetzee, T W; Davidson, I O; De Freitas, M S F; Dreyer, A M; Dudley, C; Duncan, P C; Eloff, E H; Esau, S; Farrow, S B; Ferguson, B D; George, D T; George, M E; Greyling, L W; Groenewald, P J; Harris, T D; Hill-Lewis, G G; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Kganare, D A; Kilian, J D; Kloppers-Lourens, J C; Kohler Barnard, D; Koornhof, N N J v R; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Lorimer, J R B; Lotriet, A; Lovemore, A T; Mac Kenzie, G P D; Makhuba, H N; Marais, S J F; Marais, E J; Maynier, D J; Mazibuko, L D; McIntosh, G B D; Michael, N W A; Mileham, K J; Mnqasela, M; Mokgalapa, S; More, E; Mosimane, C K K; Motau, S C; Mpontshane, A M; Msweli, H S; Mubu, K S; Ndlovu, V B; Ndude, H N; Ngonyama, L S; Njobe, M A A; Ollis, I M; Rabie, P J; Rabotapi, M W; Ramatlakane, L; Robinson, D; Rodgers, F A; Ross, D C; Sayedali Shah, M R; Schäfer, D A; Shinn, M R; Singh, N; Sithole, K P; Skosana, M B; Smuts, M; Steenhuisen, J H; Steyn, A C; Steyn, A; Swart, S N; Van den Berg, N J; Van der Linde, J J; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Westhuizen, A P; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Watson, A; Zikalala, C N Z.

 

ABSTAIN – 1: Dikobo, K J.

 

Question agreed to.

 

Bill read a second time.

 

JUDICIAL MATTERS THIRD AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Consideration of Legislative Proposal)

 

Mr L T LANDERS: Deputy Speaker, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development considered the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill, which was tabled as a proposed section 75 Bill, but was subsequently tagged as a section 76 Bill by the Joint Tagging Mechanism on the basis that it contains certain provisions that affect the concurrent powers of provinces, as set out in Schedule 4 of our Constitution.

 

In order to expedite the passage of those provisions of the Bill, to which the section 76 procedure would not apply, the committee rejected clauses 17, 36, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 49(3), which were argued could possibly affect the concurrent powers of the provinces in a substantial measure. The committee resolved to initiate a separate Bill, focusing solely on these clauses.

 

The purpose of the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill is to amend section 78 of the Attorneys Act, which in the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill was clause 17. The Bill further seeks to amend certain provisions of the Child Justice Act, which in the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill were clauses 36, 39, 42, 43 and 46.

 

The committee has already received public inputs and deliberated on these clauses as they were part of the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill that I have referred to. There is therefore no need for the Bill to be published in the Government Gazette for public comment.

 

Therefore, we stand before this House seeking its permission to initiate the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill as a matter of urgency. Thank you. [Applause.]

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move:

 

That the House, in terms of Rule 238(3), give permission that the legislative proposal be proceeded with.

 

I thank you.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Permission accordingly given to proceed with the legislative proposal.

 

PROTECTION OF STATE INFORMATION BILL

 

(Consideration of Bill, of Report thereon, and of President’s reservations on constitutionality thereof)

 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, I have been informed that the report of the ad hoc committee is published on page 5 791 of the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports dated 11 November.

 

Hon members, whilst the Minister is coming to the podium, I want to say that the level of noise is very high. I know most of you might be excited about tomorrow being the last day. There is a kind of excitement and it is disturbing me. I cannot hear properly. Can you lower your voices, please? If you are planning a surprise for tomorrow, can you plan that surprise on the second floor or somewhere else, so that those of us who want to listen can still listen? Thank you.

 

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, the ANC welcomes the President’s referral of the Protection of State Information Bill to the National Assembly for consideration of his reservations in terms of section 79(1) of the Constitution, because some sections of the Bill, in particular clauses 42 and 45, lack meaning and coherence, consequently being irrational and unconstitutional.

 

We are happy that the committee agreed with the President’s reservations and corrected them comprehensively, as stated in the committee report before the House. First of all, what caused the problem, what caused the challenges identified by His Excellency President Zuma are several technical errors in the final Bill which was sent to him. Some of them were so material that they could be challenged by the members of the public on whom obligations were being imposed that were incoherent and irrational, as in clauses 42 and 45, in that they were creating offences or sometimes putting an obligation on someone in returning classified documents.

 

We thank the President for putting the people first by bringing back these reservations. We thank the committee for dealing with other technical errors in the Bill even if they were not so material, but had the potential of being incoherent and irrational, for instance, incorrect spelling, punctuation and incorrect cross-references.

 

What is clear, Deputy Speaker, is that Parliament must seriously increase its capacity to avoid technical errors in legislation as it is now, unlike during the apartheid era, dealing with large volumes of legislation. We must increase the capacity of Parliament’s legal drafting and committee section in order to provide appropriate support to Parliament and its committees when making amendments. The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you.

 

Mr C V BURGESS: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers, hon members, allow me quickly to remind the House of the history and the road that the Bill has followed in respect of this matter.

 

On Thursday 12 September 2013 the ATC published a letter that the hon Speaker received from the President about returning the Protection of State Information Bill to the National Assembly for consideration of the President’s reservations about its constitutionality. The referral of the President was made in terms of section 79(1) of the Constitution.

 

On the same day the House met and by resolution established an ad hoc committee to consider and report on the President’s reservations and the Bill in terms of Joint Rule 203 and to report to the House by 31 October. The procedure set out in Rule 203 provides that the committee must consider and confine itself to the President’s reservations. The Rule further provides for conferring with the corresponding NCOP committee in certain specific circumstances.

 

The ad hoc committee met on 9 and 10 October 2013 to consider the reservations of the President. In this regard, the committee considered section 79 of the Constitution, which provides for the President to refer a Bill back to the National Assembly if he has reservations about the constitutionality of the Bill. The committee also considered the provisions of Joint Rule 203. In addition, the committee was briefed on the present Constitutional Court precedents that deal with section 79 referrals.

 

Hon Deputy Speaker, after much deliberation the committee came to the following conclusions. The referral of the President was specific and related only to the constitutionality of clauses 42 and 45 of the Bill. It was not necessary to confer with the corresponding NCOP committee because of the substance of the referral, and the Bill contained certain typographical and grammatical errors that needed attention.

 

The committee then considered clauses 42 and 45. There was an incorrect cross-reference in clause 42, where the clause referred to section 15, when it should have referred to and read section 13. The structure of clause 45 of the Bill needed to be rearranged in order to make it rational. Accordingly, by a majority vote, the committee agreed to amend clauses 42 and 45, and the amended clauses have been published for the consideration of the House. The committee also, by majority vote, agreed to refer the identified typographical and grammatical errors to the House for consideration.

 

The committee completed its work on 10 October and the committee report was referred to the House and published in the ATC on 15 October. On 22 October the House, by resolution, referred the matter back to the committee to further consider its report on the Bill. The deadline to report was extended to 7 November.

 

The committee met on 29 October and agreed to amend the report to include the minority views of the DA and the ACDP. Cope and the IFP were absent from the meeting. The State Law Adviser was requested to peruse the entire Bill to check for any other typographical and grammatical errors.

 

The committee then met on 30 October and, by majority vote, amended the committee report, which contained all the minority views, and was adopted for referral to the House for consideration. The committee, also by majority vote, agreed to submit to the House an amended list of typographical and grammatical errors, which had been identified by the State Law Adviser, for consideration.

 

However, the House again resolved on 7 November to refer the report back to the committee for further consideration and the deadline for the committee to report was extended to 12 November. The committee met on Friday 8 November and, by majority vote, the committee report was amended to include the reference to the textual and technical errors the Minister and I have already referred to. I might add that the majority view was that these corrections are in line with the need to ensure that the Bill is coherent and rational.

 

In the circumstances, the committee having considered the reservations of the President in respect of clauses 42 and 45, recommends to the House that the President’s reservations be accommodated and accordingly reports the Bill with amendments. The committee also considered the provisions of Joint Rule 203 and reports that it is not necessary for the Bill to be referred to the corresponding NCOP committee since the reservations of the President do not relate to the matters which fall within the ambit of subrule 203(2)(i) and (ii).

 

Hon Deputy Speaker, I have heard some noises here to my left and I have previously warned the House that the Protection of State Information Bill has the tendency of seriously affecting the behaviour of reasonable people. They start to behave incoherently, and they say funny things. The House will soon observe the transformation on my left that the debate will create. [Interjections.] You hear, you hear now, Deputy Speaker; there it starts.

 

Hon Deputy Speaker, you wanted to know what is happening; why people are so uncomfortable. It is not because tomorrow is the last day. It is because Protection of State of the Information Bill that is in the House today. [Interjections.]

 

Hon Deputy Speaker, the ANC comrades in the committee are clear and not confused. They understand the need for the Bill and they have worked with distinction while dealing with the reservations of the President. Their attendance in meetings was excellent. Allow me, therefore, to thank all those who assisted in the work, especially my ANC comrades; the Minister of State Security visited our meetings and was welcomed as a guest; the Parliamentary Legal Services and the office of the Chief State Law Adviser; and all the hon members of the opposition, even those who grumbled and stumbled and disagreed just for the sake of disagreeing, taking the typical opposition stance of, we must not agree with the ANC, even if they are right.

 

The ANC supports the amendments. The ANC supports the report and the report is accordingly presented to the House for consideration and adoption. Thank you.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Deputy Speaker and hon members, two years ago, on that now infamous Black Tuesday, this House sent a message to South Africa that the freedoms won by those who came before us can never be taken for granted. In a glaring assault on our Constitution, the ANC, dressed in the brightest colours and with iron-fisted determination, pushed through a Bill that would kill transparency, boost corruption and fundamentally undermine freedom of expression. It was a defining point in our democracy. We could either sit idly by while our freedoms were being undermined or we could fight in defence of our Constitution.

 

If ever we were unsure whether our democracy could sustain an attack of this magnitude from the governing party, our collective message was clear. Outside the gates of Parliament a coalition of civil society movements, the media and South African citizens were unrelenting in bringing pressure to bear on Parliament to ensure that this Bill be brought in line with the Constitution. Inside this House members from the opposition, including hon Dene Smuts, hon David Maynier, hon Mario Oriani-Ambrosini and hon Steven Swart, refused to back down in the face of this assault. They fought day in and day out to roll back the worst of this Bill. In the NCOP hon Alf Lees and hon Darryl Worth kept the pressure up. It was a coalition in defence of our Constitution. It was a coalition on which South Africans will look back in our history books and honour.

 

But our fight did not end there. While our efforts changed some of the worst aspects of the Bill, the Protection of State Information Bill that was passed this year remained inconsistent with the Constitution. The definition of “national security” remains too broad. This means that the state could still infringe on people’s right to access information and undermine the constitutionally enshrined principle of freedom of expression. The Bill still does sowith the category of information which has nothing to do with security or classification called “valuable information”. This allows the Minister of State Security to make regulations with respect to what is ordinary government record-keeping. This, in our view, is an attempt to perpetuate the minimum information security standard system which is currently only Cabinet policy.

 

Fundamentally, the Bill legislated on what is the provincial government competence of provincial archives. We therefore maintain that it should have been tagged as a section 76 Bill and not as section 75. It is for this reason that, following the National Assembly vote on the Bill, I petitioned the President in terms of section 79 of the Constitution to refer the Bill back to Parliament so that these problems could once and for all be corrected.

 

Confronted with these genuine substantive concerns and ahead of an election campaign in which his party is already on the back foot, the hon President could not simply sign this Bill into law, not without at least seeming to care about its constitutionality. Referring this Bill back to the House, he appears to have done so only to address technical and grammatical problems relating to clauses 42 and 45 of the Bill. There was no reference made to the broad definition of “national security”, no reference to the “valuable information” and no reference to the incorrect tagging.

 

Let me be very clear, hon members,that the DA fully supports correcting these technical anomalies. It is a shame that the Bill was passed with them in the first place. But there is much more that needs to be fixed and the hon President knows this, because we submitted legal opinions to him which detail these problems in meticulous detail. Perhaps this is the reason why, despite precedent established by former President Thabo Mbeki and former President Motlanthe, whose referrals were detailed and clear, President Zuma’s referral was vague. Perhaps this is also why the hon President did not respond to my letter requesting that he clarify the terms of his referral or to my second letter following up on the first, and perhaps this is why the ANC in the ad hoc committee refused the hon Smuts’ request that the committee seek clarity on the referral from the hon President.

 

The DA will not give up fighting on this Bill. We will not stop until it is brought completely in line with the Constitution. We are not fooled by the public relations tactics of the Presidency. The ANC should be ashamed for thinking that South Africans will fall for these tactics. This is why I will again petition the President in terms of section 79 of the Constitution. This Bill must come back to Parliament and the real, substantive problems with it must be addressed. If that does not happen, this Bill will unavoidably end up in the Constitutional Court and this House and every member who supported this Bill will be left ashamed.

 

A government that supports an apartheid era National Key Points Act, which goes to court to prevent an investigative report into Nkandla from being released by the Public Protector, which classifies public documents regardless of the public interest, cannot be given even more power to put secrecy above transparency. [Applause.] Madam Deputy Speaker, the Security cluster under President Zuma, which is unrelenting in its effort to advance the course of secrecy, from Guptagate to Nkandlagate, from spy tapes to the proposed appointment of Robert McBride as the head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Ipid, from Marikana to the arms deal, should not be given more power to avoid accountability.

 

Hon Deputy Speaker, over the past two years our coalition in defence of the Constitution has held strong. We must now finish what we set out to achieve - a fully constitutional Protection of State Information Bill - and we must accept nothing less. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr D A KGANARE: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, as stated in the committee, Cope does not go along with the charade that we went through after the letter from the President was presented to this ad hoc committee.

 

The fact is that the ANC wanted the committee to limit the discussions only to clauses 42 and 45, as their interpretation of the letter from the President states. They immediately suggested that we amend other clauses that reasonably have to be amended due to grammar, punctuation and spelling errors.

 

The hon Burgess stated the history of this particular committee as if everything was going smoothly. The truth is that the ANC tried to bulldoze everybody in the committee all the time. That’s why the Speaker had to send the report back to the committee to correct what should be corrected. The refusal of the ANC to include the minority views in the report clearly shows their attitude towards anything. They believe that the majority must continue to bulldoze everybody, even if it’s wrong. It’s really unfortunate.

 

Hon Speaker, the letter from the President raises concerns about the constitutionality and tagging of the Bill. On the other hand the proposed amendments of clauses 42 and 45 deal with crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s. We don’t believe that the noncrossing of the t’s and nondotting of the i’s on their own could cause the Bill not to pass constitutional muster.

 

Cope believes that since clauses 42 and 45 in particular are referred to by the President as examples of the use of a phrase that lacks meaning and coherence, the logical thing the committee should have done was to ask for more clarity from the President. The committee’s task was limited to dealing only with the clauses referred to by the President. No reasonable legislature can ignore correcting obvious spelling mistakes, hence Cope supported the other technical amendments which were not referred to by the President.

 

It is interesting that the ANC did not support the proposal to look at the Bill as a whole. To them the President was specific about dealing with clauses 42 and 45. But when it came to other clauses which had errors, they used a different logic and said we must deal with that because we can’t allow the Bill to go through with such mistakes, and this was reasonable. But their logic is very problematic, because when it comes to other points that the President did not specify, and if it suits them, they must be dealt with, because it’s logical. That’s very difficult logic from the ANC.

 

The ANC knows that this legislation is wrong. They know that this Bill is wrong and they also know that if it was law today the charade we saw in our courts about the Public Protector and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development would not see the light of day because they would have used this law to try to block the Public Protector from doing her job.

Cope believes that the letter of the President gave us an opportunity to review the Bill as a whole, but the ANC used its numbers to bulldoze all the other parties. It is important for voters to understand that not voting will only strengthen the dictatorship of the ANC. The drama involving the Nkandla report, as I have stated, indicates very clearly the operation of the ANC, which is going to bring in a police state by stealth. I thank you.

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Mr Chairman, what are we doing here? For the third time in a row we are adopting a Bill which we know to be unconstitutional, which we know to be unpopular, which we know to be retrograde to the will of the people of South Africa and all the building blocks of our society.

 

Why are we doing it? It’s a recurring question which is yet to be answered. It is not in the tradition of the ANC. It is not in the tradition of the liberation movement. It is not in the tradition of the IFP. It is not in the tradition of the Democratic Party or the United Democratic Front. This Bill is only in the political tradition of that which no longer exists, which is the National Party. [Interjections.]

 

We are re-enacting a page that only the National Party could have written, and it is retrograde to the political tradition of all the parties which have now brought this country to democracy and are trying to build a new constitutional order. That is what we are doing. How are we going about doing it? We are doing it in the most surreptitious way.

 

Before you, you have a report, which the relevant party states – sorry, I no longer have the energy I used to have – abouth which the committee further decided that it was unable to agree to the inclusion of the report or the letter by the IFP, which actually misrepresented events or the proceedings and positions taken by the members of the committee. [Interjections.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, the noise level is too high. I can’t hear the hon member!

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Let me speak! Now, there was no such thing as a letter ... [Interjections.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members!

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: ... but there was one statement that we were trying to put into the minority report. One single line! And, in the report approved by the committee, it was nothing more than a line. They had to reconvene once more to turn that into a line.

 

The report originally stated that they would not publish what we wanted because they would not agree with it; they would not agree with our view. Therefore, they censored it. What was the view? The view was, and I am reading from what I submitted to the hon Burgess. Shame on you, hon Burgess! I submitted that the committee should have considered the problems of the constitutionality of the Bill identified in the opinion of Adv Anton Katz. [Interjections.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members!

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: We wanted the real issues to be considered, not the grammatical issues. The President was seized with two documents, a serious opinion of constitutionality raised by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the entire opposition and a number of ... [Interjections.]

 

Ms D SMUTS: [Inaudible.]

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Sorry, hon Smuts!

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Address the Chair, hon member!

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Well, I think you should start speaking for the DA. You were the one who opposed the tabling ... [Interjections.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Ambrosini, will you address the Chair and not the member!

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: ... of your own leader’s ... [Interjections.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Address the Chair and not the member!

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: ... letter, and I’ve got the transcript here! You, hon Smuts! You made me sick when you called me ... [Interjections.] Excuse me?

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Ambrosini, address the Chair and not the member!

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Okay, Mr Chairman. The hon Smuts was in terrible error when she called me a liar in the committee, because she was napping when I requested the opinion of Adv Katz to be tabled in the committee and considered. I’ve got the transcript here, and I will be very glad to share it with her.

 

All that we wanted was for the committee to utilise the power that it has in terms of the Constitution: to review the entire Bill and address the real issues. We believe that the President was aware of this power and sent it back for issues of grammar in the hope that we would address the real issues of constitutionality.

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, your time has expired.

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My doctors told me that, but I’m still alive. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Ms S C N SITHOLE: Hon House Chairperson, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and hon Members of Parliament, I want to greet the members of the ANC, the people who are governing this country today, and the people who will win the upcoming elections. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

 

After all that has been said here to which the people were listening, I’m convinced that they are not going to vote for any of the people who spoke here.

 

The President was crystal clear on what he wanted us to do. The President wanted us to deal with clauses 42 and 45 and that is exactly what the ad hoc committee has done.

 

With regard to the other issues raised by the hon Leader of the Opposition, those are issues dealing with the whole Bill. I think that people are not aware, or at least the opposition is not aware, that we are not the only country that has a Bill or an Act of that nature. [Interjections.]

 

Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and India have privacy Acts. We are not a banana republic. South Africa is the sovereign state of the Republic of South Africa. We will not be guided by people who stand on the fence and throw stones! We are guided by the fact that we want to protect the safety of the citizens of this country. That is what is at the heart of the whole Bill. [Interjections.] Whether people shout or not, we are going to come back here in our numbers. I am sorry, because half of you will not come back here! [Interjections.]

 

Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition was not in the committee. She is not aware that the hon Oriani-Ambrosini and hon Smuts never agreed on anything. I noticed that she was binding them together as if they agreed. They never agreed! So, it’s a pity, because she is talking about things that never happened in the committee. If you were listening to the hon Oriani-Ambrosini when he was speaking here, you will agree that what I am saying is correct.

 

We, as the ANC, are going to protect the state of the Republic at all costs. We are going to make sure that the security of the state and our people is at the heart of what we do. The people of South Africa know that, and that is why they will always vote for us.

 

So, hon Oriani-Ambrosini, I’m sorry that you could not speak well because you are sick. However, even if people had heard what you were saying, they would not have agreed with you. They never agreed with you in the committee. In fact, nobody agreed with the hon Oriani-Ambrosini in the committee. I don’t know why he is raising the issue again here.

 

I am saying to the ANC, we must support the President and congratulate him on his vision. The President did not just sign the Bill, but he went through the Bill and applied his mind, because he is the President of the people, chosen by the people of South Africa, and he will still be chosen by the people of South Africa. [Applause.] I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Adv A D ALBERTS: Chair, freedom is slavery. The George Orwell mantra from his book 1984 is coming true. It seems as if the ANC views all forms of freedom as open spaces that must be occupied in a bid to eradicate this form of slavery. All freedoms must be replaced by absolute equality in all places of society. Transformation has become a tool whereby all diversity and peoples in South Africa are pummelled into submission to serve as mere actors in a socially engineered ANC society where everyone is not free, but at least equal.

 

This Protection of State Information Bill, also aptly known as the Secrecy Bill, has a fitting place within this grand scheme of social engineering. In the novel, 1984, Big Brother’s principal weapon of choice is the ability to control information, all forms of expression and all forms of identity. In our 1984, we have in front of us today a Bill that mirrors this by opening a door to the control of information in society that fundamentally undermines the Constitution and the rights to freedom of expression and information. With the coming to power of the ANC, 1994 has become our very own 1984.

 

Die feit dat die wetsontwerp soveel keer gepaneelklop moes word vanweë die opposisie se kommer, is juis getuienis dat die ANC nie die onskuldigste van bedoelings hiermee gehad het nie. Hierdie wetsontwerp het die opposisie, die burgerlike samelewing en selfs stoere ANC-ondersteuners soos Adv George Bizos laat saamsnoer teen die ANC. Dit is alleenlik hierdie nuwe opposisie wat die ANC laat afsien het van verskeie drakoniese klousules. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

 

[The very fact that the Bill had to be panel beaten so many times because of the opposition’s concerns is evidence that the ANC did not have the most innocent intentions regarding this. This Bill had the opposition, civil society and even staunch ANC supporters like Adv George Bizos joining hands together against the ANC. It is only this new opposition that forced the ANC to abandon several draconian clauses.]

 

While many changes to this Bill have been effected due to the hard work of fellow opposition Members of Parliament, MPs, we are still resolutely opposed to the passing of this Bill.

The future does not have to be like the past or the present. It can be better. One thing is certain, though, we have to continue to fight for our freedom against this onslaught by the ANC in the future. Thank you, Chair.

 

Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, on 25 April this year, when we debated this Bill following the National Council of Provinces’ welcome amendments, I, on behalf of the ACDP, said that we believe that the all important clause 45 relating to the purported offence of improper classification does not disclose an offence, as currently formulated, and I suggested that the words ”is guilty of an offence” should be inserted into clause 45 after the word ”process”.

 

I indicated that the ACDP would be petitioning the President on this and other issues. The hon Dene Smuts and I then drafted a petition, including these concerns as well as tagging concerns, and the incorrect reference number in clause 42. As you know, President Zuma referred the Bill back to Parliament on these very two issues that we raised with him.

 

The effect of the amendment to clause 45 is that journalists and whistleblowers who possess or disclose improperly classified information, where such possession or disclosure shows criminal activity, including improperly classified documents to hide corrupt activities, will no longer be guilty of an offence. The ACDP, when we proposed the amendment, made certain that it was inserted, and we support this correction as it speaks to the very important improper classification that hon Dene Smuts and I had requested.

 

We were concerned, and many people in the public are concerned, that the Bill will be used to hide corrupt activities. Without this amendment, it would have gone to the heart of the Bill and that is the reason why we supported this proposal when it came back to the committee.

 

However, the reason why we as the ACDP abstained from voting is the larger issue of the referral under section 79 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court made it very clear in the Liquor Bill matter that section 79 clearly envisages that the President’s reservations must be specified when he refers the Bill back to Parliament. The court also said that this requirement negatives the notion that the court’s function is to determine, once and for all, whether a Bill accords in its entirety with the Constitution.

 

This makes eminent sense and the President’s section 79 referral must be specific. This was the case with previous referrals, where exact arguments were given and the exact clause references were given. However, in this case, it is very clear that it was a vague referral. As Parliament, we cannot act on vague referrals without the risk, as hon Smuts said, of creating a precedent where, when the President does not like a Bill, he refers it back with vague specifications. He has to assent to a Bill, except where he has specific constitutional reservations.

 

All that we in the committee asked for was clarity from the President as it was unclear. This was refused by the committee, placing us in the ACDP in a dilemma. What we had requested was approved to a certain degree, but our concerns related to the process. Whilst we welcome the amendments, we still believe that the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court for its final approval. It is for that reason that, regrettably, we are unable to support this Bill today. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr J J MAAKE: Chairperson, what has been said here by the opposition indicates that they tried to reopen the Bill for futher discussion, and they lost. It was very clear that the President wanted us to deal with two clauses, which is exactly what we did.

 

I have never in my life heard of a country that is transparent, even with regard to secrets that are necessary for its survival. The Bill has been called names. We were here and we all listened. People couldn’t get themselves to call the Bill by its real name. It is called the Information Bill. Some prefer to call it the Secrecy Bill, this being only to hoodwink our people into thinking that there is something secretive about the Bill.

 

The real aim of the Bill is to protect sensitive state information and no one in the opposition said exactly that. It is to provide protection of certain valuable state information against alteration, loss or unlawful disclosure, and to regulate the manner in which state information may be protected. I’ve never heard any of them saying “valuable state information”. That is the name of the Bill. Why don’t they say it?

 

In addition to the broad outlines provided above, the Bill aims to strike a balance between the protection of state information and access to information. The Bill, for example, states that “access to state information is a basic human right”. The free flow of state information promotes openness, responsiveness, informed debate, accountability and good governance. This is what the ANC is saying. No one in the opposition is saying that. The key words in the whole Bill are “state information”, or may I say “sensitive state information”. [Applause.] It is therefore very surprising that some people in this House are vehemently against this very reasonable Bill.

 

As I said earlier, in which country would sensitive information be given to the whole world in the name of openness? If we as a country had invented the most sophisticated missile, are we supposed to advertise it to the whole world, including our enemies? This wouldn’t be openness, accountability or good governance, but would be stupidity of the worst order. [Applause.]

What do these people, who are in this House, want to do with such information? Do they perhaps want to peddle it? All these laws, regulations and policies were established by the ANC in order to make South Africa a better place to live in for all of us and not for a certain section of the population which, anyway, was previously spoilt. Did this happen before 1994?

 

HON MEMBERS: No!

 

Mr J J MAAKE: If it didn’t then, why do they want it to happen today? Some of them were in that Parliament, but never raised a finger in this regard.

 

There were only two areas in the Bill that were referred back to Parliament by the President, but the opposition wanted to open the whole Bill for further discussion only because they never had their way. As long as we, as the ANC, are still in power, they will never have their way, however much they moan, howl and whinge. Anyway, they will never be in power until ... [Laughter.]

 

An HON MEMBER: Until what?

 

Mr J J MAAKE: ... the chickens come home to roost. [Laughter.] Being in power is not about bulldozing. It is what is called democracy in simple English. The ANC definitely supports the amendments to the Bill. Thank you, hon Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr M R SONTO: Chairperson, hon members, Deputy President, there is a difference between a governing party and parties that want to govern. There is always a difference. These parties never governed a single country and they want to make South Africa a banana republic. We, as the ANC, will not allow that. [Interjections.]

 

The President’s reservations on the Bill were not just about technical errors, as is alleged by the minority parties here. To go on and say that the President had fallen foul of the Constitution by failing to give Members of Parliament an exact brief is baffling. What brief did you expect from the President? In the committee, we were saying - hon Smuts will understand that -that section 79(1) of the Constitution is prescriptive and that is why the President directed us to clauses 42 and 45. Do you disagree that those clauses needed attention? [Interjections.]

 

I hear people talking here. It is a pity, hon Smuts, that you are not the one who talked here as it is always the arrangement in your party. I know what is happening there. [Laughter.] What Cope said here, if you were listening, is really confusing. That Cope member was a political tourist in the committee. [Laughter.] He would come and never read a document without wearing the glasses of the DA. Whenever he read a document, he would borrow glasses from the DA and read with the mind of the DA. That is why he said here what he had said.

 

They say the referral was vague, yet it is they who are saying from this podium the President referred us to clauses 42 and 45. [Interjections.] I wonder how vague is that? I do not even think you have read the letter, because you were never there when we as the committee read the letter.

 

Hon Ambrosini was saying – in fact it was not the first time that hon Ambrosini opened a can of worms ...

 

Uvula nje itoti yeentshulube yena. [He opened a can of worms.

 

Hon Ambrosini said that was an opportunity to start from clause 1. That was not the brief. I have never seen what I saw in that committee. Lawyers were fighting about who the best lawyer was. Lawyers did not trust their own intellectual capacities, but would rely on other opinions. I could not believe that. The fight was between hon Dene Smuts and hon Ambrosini. The one was saying there is a lawyer whose opinion we as a committee need to take. And the other one said, I brought that opinion. We had to listen to such things, instead of dealing with what the President had referred to the committee.

 

It is a pity hon Ambrosini is not well, because he was writing letters complaining that he was not informed about meetings. I have proof from this Table and the Secretary that he was informed about meetings, but he did not go to the meetings, perhaps because of his ill health. Oh! There he is. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] You were sent an SMS at 05:35 on 7 November.

 

Dr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: False! That is false!

 

Mr M R SONTO: What is false? You were sent an SMS at 05:35 and that SMS went to all of us, and all of us were discussing the Bill according to the letter of the President. For hon Steve Swart to say the letter was vague, we discussed that. Hon member, as an individual, you can say that the letter was vague, but the letter pointed directly to two clauses that we had to deal with. What is vague in that? What is vague in that? But ...

 

... ons, as die ANC, het ons sê gesê... [... we, as the ANC, have had our say ...]

 

... and the Bill is going to go through accordingly. As opposition parties, it is your work to oppose. It is your duty. You are paid to oppose us; go on opposing. The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: House Chairperson, let me start by thanking the committee for doing superior work. Perhaps I should start by responding to hon Mazibuko, the Leader of the Opposition, and assist her about her false allegations.

 

Firstly, she says the referral did not deal with substantive issues in the Bill. For the last three years, hon Mazibuko, we, as this Parliament, have been dealing with substantive issues of the Bill. We have made considerable progress in improving the Bill. As the ANC and the Ministry, we have always said that we will welcome all amendments which will improve the Bill in terms of its effectiveness and its constitutionality.

 

In a second allegation she said the referral was just looking at technical errors. Let me help her by reading the letter from the President. It says:

 

I have given consideration to the Bill in its entirety and the various opinions ...

 

Not one opinion –

 

... and commentaries regarding, inter alia, the constitutionality and tagging of the Bill.

 

Therefore, he did not just consider one view or referral. I proceed:

 

After consideration of the Bill and having applied my mind thereto, I am of the view that the Bill as it stands does not pass constitutional muster.

 

That is the letter from the President.

 

The third false allegation is of the referral being vague. The referral was not vague at all. It was self-explanatory. Let me read it to you. [Interjections.] Yes, I’ll read it.

 

In terms of section 79(1) of the Constitution, I hereby refer the attached Bill to the National Assembly for consideration insofar as sections of the Bill, in particular ...

 

[Interjections.] Yes, let me finish –

 

... sections 42 and 45, lack meaning and coherence, consequently are irrational and accordingly are unconstitutional.

 

Hon Mazibuko, what was the basic problem? The basic problem was the capacity to correct technical mistakes. Some of them were very material, such as when you intend to construct a sentence and you are not actually constructing a sentence.

 

One of those areas was an area about which Parliament had expressed itself to say people who falsely classify documents for the wrong reason, reasons other than this law, must be punished. Now, if the law, which we are passing as Parliament, does not create an offence, it is material, because Parliament felt very strongly about it.

 

The fourth allegation is the possession of classified information which we have the responsibility to take back. That’s material. That is why the President said those clauses specifically needed to be addressed. Because of what I have said earlier about the problem of the capacity to deal with technical errors, the members are saying that the President must have said on page one that there was a technical error and on page two there was another. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to say.

 

Hon Ambrosini, let me thank you for your views, even if they are incorrect. Despite the attack from the members of the opposition, you’ve got views. But today you are saying there is no need for this Bill. That is basically your argument. Let me remind you what made us bring this Bill here. For the first time in this country, we are introducing a declassification system of classified information, which was never there, so that people, after a reasonable time, can have access to this information in order to know what happened in the past and so that those who want to conduct research can do so.

 

We are saying we are protecting valuable information that is not classified. The Leader of the Opposition says it is not material, but it matters to a lot of people. Those who get their identification documents falsely changed are not classified, but that is in the hands of the state. The Bill tells us that we must protect that information so that it should not be interfered with. It means something to those who have companies that are changed because of the database of our President. Therefore, as the ANC, we really support this Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

Debate concluded.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Chairperson, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted and the Bill be passed.

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The question is before the House. Those in favour will say, “Aye”.

 

HON MEMBERS: Aye!

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Those against will say, “No!”

 

HON MEMBERS: No!

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): I think the Ayes have it.

 

Division demanded.

 

The House divided:

 

AYES – 224: Abram, S; Adams, P E; Ainslie, A R; Bam-Mugwanya, V; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, N R; Bikani, F C; Bonhomme, T; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Botha, Y R; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chabane, O C; Chikunga, L S; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlodlo, A; Dlomo, B J; Dlulane, B N; Dubazana, Z S; Dube, M C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Ebrahim, E I; Fransman, M L; Fubbs, J L; Gasebonwe, T M A; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; Gina, N; Godi, N T; Gololo, C L; Goqwana, M B; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Holomisa, S P; Huang, S-B; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Johnson, M; Kekana, C D; Kenye, T E; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Khunou, N P; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kubayi, M T; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lesoma, R M M; Line-Hendriks, H; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Maake, J J; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabudafhasi, T R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Madlopha, C Q; Mafolo, M V; Magagula, V V; Magama, H T; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Mahomed, F; Makasi, X C; Makhubela-Mashele, L S; Makhubele, Z S; Makwetla, S P; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manamela, K B; Manana, M C; Manganye, J; Mangena, M S; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Maserumule, F T; Mashatile, S P; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masilo, J M; Masutha, T M; Mathale, C C; Mathebe, D H; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mdaka, M N; Mdakane, M R; Mfeketo, N C; Mfulo, A; Mgabadeli, H C; Mjobo, L N; Mkhize, H B; Mlambo, E M; Mmusi, S G; Mnisi, N A; Mocumi, P A; Moepeng, J K; Mohai, S J; Mohale, M C; Mohorosi, M M; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B E E; Moloi-Moropa, J C; Moloto, K A; Moni, C M; Morutoa, M R; Moss, L N; Motlanthe, K P; Motsepe, R M; Motshekga, M S; Mthethwa, E N; Mushwana, F F; Muthambi, A F; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndabandaba, L G B; Ndabeni, S T; Ndebele, J S; Ndlazi, A Z; Nelson, W J; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, B T; Ngele, N J; Ngubeni-Maluleka, J P; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, Z C; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyanda, S; Nyekemba, E; Nzimande, B E; Oliphant, M N; Oliphant, G G; Pandor, G N M; Peters, E D; Petersen-Maduna, P; Phaliso, M N; Pilane-Majake, M C C; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Pule, D D; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Radebe, G S; Ramathlodi, N A; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; September, C C; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sisulu, M V; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Skosana, J J; Smith, V G; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Suka, L; Sulliman, E M; Swanepoel, D W; Thobejane, S G; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tseke, G K; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Tsotetsi, D R; Turok, B; Twala, N M; van Rooyen, D D; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Wayile, Z G; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Xingwana, L M; Yengeni, L E.

 

NOES – 88: Adams, L H; Alberts, A D; Berend, S R; Bhanga, B M; Boinamo, G G; Bosman, L L; Botha, T; Buthelezi, M G; Coetzee, T W; Davidson, I O; De Freitas, M S F; Dreyer, A M; Duncan, P C; Eloff, E H; Esau, S; Farrow, S B; Ferguson, B D; George, D T; George, M E; Greyling, L W; Hill-Lewis, G G; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Kganare, D A; Kilian, J D; Kloppers-Lourens, J C; Kohler Barnard, D; Koornhof, N N J v R; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Lorimer, J R B; Lotriet, A; Lovemore, A T; Mac Kenzie, G P D; Makhuba, H N; Marais, S J F; Marais, E J; Maynier, D J; Mazibuko, L D; Mbhele, P D; McIntosh, G B D; Mfundisi, I S; Michael, N W A; Mileham, K J; Mokgalapa, S; More, E; Mosimane, C K K; Motau, S C; Mpethi, S A; Mpontshane, A M; Msimang, C T; Msweli, H S; Mulder, P W A; Mulder, C P; Ndlovu, V B; Ndude, H N; Ngonyama, L S; Njobe, M A A; Ollis, I M; Oriani-Ambrosini, M G; Plaatjie, S K; Rabie, P J; Rabotapi, M W; Ramatlakane, L; Robinson, D; Rodgers, F A; Ross, D C; Sayedali Shah, M R; Schäfer, D A; Schmidt, H C; Shinn, M R; Singh, N; Sithole, K P; Skosana, M B; Smith, P F; Smuts, M; Steenhuisen, J H; Steyn, A C; Steyn, A; Swart, S N; Van den Berg, N J; Van der Linde, J J; Van der Merwe, L L; Van der Westhuizen, A P; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M; Watson, A; Zikalala, C N Z.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report adopted and Bill accordingly passed.

 

SOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Consideration of Report)

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

SOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

The MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: Hon House Chair, hon Deputy President and colleagues in the House, I take this opportunity once again to commend the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs for finalising the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill so quickly.

 

On Tuesday last week, when this House debated and adopted the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Amendment Bill and the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Amendment Bill, I informed this august House that the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs had already processed seven difficult, very technical and important Bills for the environmental sector. One other Bill - that is, national environmental management number three - is still in the process of being finalised.

 

The overall objectives of these Bills are to ensure that environmental rights, as contained in section 24 of our Constitution, is progressively realised for our people. Today this House is debating and adopting the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill and I therefore once again commend the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs for a job well done.

 

The SA Weather Service Amendment Bill seeks to amend certain sections of the SA Weather Service Act of 2001. The SA Weather Service Act, Saws, as it is always called, was promulgated on 2 June 2001 and came into operation on 15 July 2001. The purpose of the Act was to establish the SA Weather Service as a juristic person and to determine its objectives, functions and method of work.

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Minister, just a moment, please. Hon members, there is too much movement in the House. Will members take their seats or leave the Chamber, please? It is difficult to follow what the hon Minister is introducing.

 

The MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: It is a very important Bill for all of us. The SA Weather Service Act further prescribes the manner in which the weather service is to be managed and governed, including staff and financial matters. The current overall function of the Weather Service is to provide meteorological services for South Africa.

 

In 2004 the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, act No 39 of 2004, Nem: Aqa, was promulgated. One of the legal obligations stemming from the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act for government was to develop credible and quality information to inform air quality intervention measures or initiatives as well as to share air quality information with the general public regarding the right to safe air, which all of us have a right to.

 

The legal obligation that the department has is to invest in infrastructure for the purpose of creating a credible baseline of ambient air quality information. In order to meet the information requirements for good air quality governance and to ensure full compliance with the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, since the promulgation of this Act in early 2005, the Department of Environmental Affairs established the SA Air Quality Information System, Saaqis, and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network, Naaqmn, and identified the Weather Service as a suitable custodian of the SA Air Quality Information System.

 

The SA Air Quality Information System is an electronic web-based information management system that has the stated objective of providing all stakeholders with easy access to all relevant information about ambient air quality in South Africa, and further provides different stakeholders with different useful online applications in order to support the effective and efficient management of ambient air quality.

 

The National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network collects and feeds information into the information system, and consists of networks of government-owned ambient air quality monitoring stations located around South Africa. Both the SA Air Quality Information System and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network are already in operation. Both systems are works in progress that will continue to grow in size, scope, utility and complexity over the next few years.

 

To ensure the sustainability of this system as well as to provide weather services with the necessary mandate and powers to host these systems, the department and the SA Weather Service agreed that an amendment to the SA Weather Service Act is indeed desirable. In this regard, the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill provides the SA Weather Service with a legal mandate to provide ambient air quality information and to be the custodian of the SA Air Quality Information System.

 

The amendment will provide the SA Weather Service with the necessary function and will ensure sustainable operation and maintenance of the air quality information system. The SA Air Quality Information System and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network will be fully institutionalised within the Weather Service of South Africa. Importantly, for the first time in 20 years of our democracy, government air quality intervention measures and/or initiatives will be based on credible and quality information.

 

The SA Weather Service Amendment Bill provides the Minister with legal power for policy determination as well as supervisory power over the Weather Service. The Minister will set policy parameters within which the Weather Service must exercise its functions. The amendment will allow the Minister to monitor the exercise of powers and performance of functions by the Weather Service against the policy that is determined by the Minister.

 

The SA Weather Service Amendment Bill empowers the SA Weather Service to issue ambient air quality forecasts and ambient air quality warnings. The ambient air quality warnings will be issued after consultation with the Minister. This is also something that is different.

 

The ambient air quality forecasts and warnings will be informed by the ambient air quality information that is generated from the air quality monitoring networks as well as from the system that I referred to earlier on. These powers and functions must be performed or exercised within the policy parameters that will be determined by the Minister.

 

The SA Weather Service Amendment Bill also strengthens the corporate governance provision in clause 7 that provides for the selection, recruitment and appointment of the chief executive officer, CEO, to follow a transparent and competitive process. I would like to thank the portfolio committee for introducing this new arrangement.

 

The current provision in the SA Weather Service Act does not contain a provision on the removal of the CEO from office, and therefore clause 8 in the SA Weather Service Amendment Bill inserts section 13A, which sets out details and grounds for the removal. Currently the SA Weather Service Act provides for the CEO to be the accounting officer of the Weather Service, whereas section 49(2) of the Public Financial Management Act provides that the board is the accounting authority. Therefore, clause 10 of the Bill amends this.

 

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the committee and move that this Bill be adopted. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

Adv J H DE LANGE: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, I rise once again on behalf of the ANC and also on behalf of the portfolio committee in once again recommending that we support this amending Bill in Parliament.

 

May I start off by thanking my long-suffering committee for the intellectual vigour and honesty with which they tackle their work and the tremendous diligence they show in doing the work. Again, I thank the Minister and her department for the professional and very useful assistance that we received as a committee.

 

This Bill may seem very technical in format, however, I think we should take note of the following few but very important governance issues. Clause 2 inserts a new section 2A and B in the Act to provide the Minister with the legal power to determine the policy framework within which the Weather Service must exercise its powers and perform its functions. The policies will be determined and published in the Government Gazette after consultation with the board.

 

In other words, once the Minister has set the policy framework within which the board must operate, the board has operational independence as long as it operates within that policy framework. The clause also provides the Minister with supervisory powers over the Weather Service. The amendment will allow the Minister to monitor the exercising of powers and performance of the functions by the Weather Service against the policy and the norms and standards determined by the Minister and also to intervene in operational matters by way of directive only in the case of noncompliance; only in the case of noncompliance.

 

Any existing policies in respect of the Weather Service will be tabled within a certain period of time. Maybe I should elaborate on this matter. As you know, the SA Weather Service is an agency which falls within the mandate of the Department of Environmental Affairs. Therefore, as an agency, it performs certain functions which the department would normally have performed. In this case, the functions being performed are of course, are those that deal with weather services.

 

It’s very important that we look at agencies and the relationship they have with departments. In South Africa, I think we are very lax in spelling out those relationships properly. The fact that agencies are used all over the world is not a new phenomenon, but what is happening more and more as societies get more complex, as government gets more difficult, is that more functions of government are handed over to agencies. Therefore, the relationship between government and agency is very important.

 

In most instances in South Africa we don’t spell out that relationship at all. It is something that we hope works out. Usually when there is a good relationship, there are no problems. The problem is when there is a breakdown, then not having the proper relationship becomes problematic.

So, what we’ve tried to do here is that we made our starting-off point the Constitution. The Constitution clearly says in section 85(2)(b) that it is the national executive that develops and implements national policy. That is the preserve of the national executive of our country. It has to develop and implement policy.

 

Therefore, when we create agencies in our departments that are fulfilling certain functions that that department would usually fulfil, they have to do so with the department or the Minister retaining the policy formulation on that aspect. Once we have the policies, then we have operational independence for that agency to act within those policies. Of course, the Minister can only intervene in those matters where there are supervisory powers, where there is noncompliance with the policy or norms and standards.

 

It is this relationship that we have spelt out very clearly in this legislation. We hope that in our other agencies - we have many others in our departments - we are going to spell this out much more clearly so that this relationship can stand the test of time, with everyone clearly understanding what those relationships are.

 

Clauses 3 and 4 also amend the Act to extend the objectives and functions of the Weather Service so as to provide it with a legal mandate for the gathering of ambient air quality information and to designate it as the custodian of the South African Air Quality Information System, Saaqis. Clause 4 will also allow the Weather Service to issue ambient air quality warnings after consultation with the Minister.

 

Clause 5 will amend section 5 of the Act to ensure that the needs of air quality management stakeholders are taken into account by the Minister when appointing the Board of the Weather Service.

 

I again want to elaborate here somewhat by explaining this very important amendment. Firstly, in order to meet the information requirements for good air quality governance and to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act of 2004, the department and the Weather Service developed the Saaqis and what we call the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network, Naaqmn.

 

Secondly, since the promulgation of this Air Quality Act, the partnership between Department of Environmental Affairs and the Weather Service is governed by a memorandum of understanding. It is this memorandum of understanding that is now becoming legalised by giving that legal mandate to the Weather Service, and not only through a memorandum of understanding.

 

Thirdly, the Minister has pointed out one of the issues that are arising more and more in our country. When we have agencies and there is an irretrievable breakdown between the board and the chief executive officer, then if there are no proper laws and procedures to regulate this relationship, one can see that we have interminable court cases going on. At the end of the day, the courts are actually legislating for us on how to deal with this matter.

 

Once again in this Bill, we have gone ahead and created a full appointment mechanism with all the procedures that apply. Most importantly, we have dealt with a comprehensive removal procedure, with all the checks and balances and making sure that there is a proper audi alteram partem during the processes. Then we, or the Minister, will supplement these procedures through regulations.

 

Fourthly and lastly, you will recall that the most important controversial issue in this legislation when it was introduced the first time was that there was a huge uproar about the wording of the offences that were created in the legislation. After consultation with the department and with the public, it was very clear that everybody was happy to amend the wording. It has now been appropriately amended. No one has any problems with it anymore. Hopefully we will not ever have to use those offences to act against someone. If we do, the offences are now very clear and people will be dealt with accordingly. That will only be in instances where they give false or misleading weather warnings. Those are the instances where there will be an offence and they will be dealt with according to the law.

 

Thank you for listening, and I ask the House to support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr F A RODGERS: Chair, imagine if you will a South Africa without a reliable weather service, an unregulated Weather Service and no dependable weather warnings, where agriculture, industry and ordinary citizens have no access to accurate weather information and forecasts. How would our shipping and fishing industry cope without this vital information? Agriculture could not possibly function without accurate temperature and precipitation information enabling them to determine planting cycles. How would the airline industry function without accurate weather information?

 

The Minister is right, this is an important Bill. Without a dependable and precise weather service, how would we allow VIP guests to fly into Waterkloof Air Force Base? Or, how would we be able to round up the cattle and push them into the cattle kraal at Nkandla that cost us R2 million? Good quality forecasts pay off economically, not by generating large sums of money, but rather by preventing the loss of large sums of money.

 

Weather warnings and forecasts are important as they protect both life and property. Forecasts based on temperature and precipitation is important to agriculture and therefore to traders within the commodity markets.

 

A reliable and regulated service is thus essential to develop a nation. It is with this in mind that the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill is to revise the existing South African Weather Service Act of 2001, which was to establish the SA Weather Service and its operational parameters.

 

Section 3 of the Act is now amended to extend the mandate of the SA Weather Service to include ambient air quality information. Since the promulgation of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act in 2005, the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Weather Service developed the SA Air Quality Information System and the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network.

 

As you heard from the Minister, the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network is a network of government-owned ambient air quality monitoring stations that collect all the data and information which is fed into the SA Air Quality Information System. This information is then accessible to you and me or any interested parties.

 

A further amendment to section 3 of the Act makes the Weather Service the custodian of the SA Air Quality Information System. The advantage of the SA Air Quality Information System, Saaqis, for South Africa is that it is able to provide accurate, current, relevant and complete information for informed decision-making. Saaqis should now provide a one-stop shop for users to access air and atmospheric quality information, centralised and verified applications of the air quality act to facilitate compliance and vertical integration of the three spheres of government and flexible technological solutions for future air quality management for different stakeholders.

 

Therefore, the SA Weather Service now has the added responsibility of monitoring and reporting on ambient air quality. Clean air is essential to maintain the delicate balance of life on this planet, not just for us as humans, but for wildlife, vegetation, water and soil. Poor air quality is a threat and needs to be closely monitored, and corrective steps taken where necessary.

 

Section 4(b) of the Bill empowers the SA Weather Service to issue ambient air quality forecasts and warnings once the Minister has been informed. Subclause 7(c) of clause 4 then authorises the Minister to consult with any other relevant Minister or any stakeholder on the ambient air quality warnings. However, one would hope that this section is never used to protect those politically connected industries from being exposed and prosecuted for contravention.

 

The Bill has further amended section 13 of the Act to ensure that the recruitment, selection and appointment of the CEO of the SA Weather Service follows a transparent and competitive process and continues to address the removal of and disciplinary procedure regarding the CEO, including all terms and conditions pertaining to the post.

 

With the ever increasing reality of climate change, it is critical that the Department of Environmental Affairs and the SA Weather Service, through monitoring and information dissemination through the SA Air Quality Information System, focus on adaptation as a key strategy to address the challenges on the impact of climate change. These progressive amendments are one step closer to addressing the problem of climate change.

 

In closing, I must add that I was extremely touched by ...

 

... umdlezana wam ... [... the mother of a newborn baby ...]

 

... as referenced to me in the last debate, as the “last lammetjie”. I wasn’t sure if it was the “last lammetjie” or the “lost lammetjie”. It takes me back a few years, and I thought that, on a lighter note after a very long day, I would like to dedicate the following to you:

 

Little Bo-Peep has lost her sheep,

And can’t tell where to find them;

Leave them alone, and they’ll come home,

Bringing their tails behind them.

 

Little Bo-Peep fell fast asleep,

And dreamt she heard them bleating;

But when she awoke, she found it a joke,

For they were all still fleeting.

 

The DA supports the Bill. [Applause.]

 

Ms B D FERGUSON: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members, the SA Weather Service plays a significant day-to-day role in the lives of all South Africans. It is heartening to know that this SA Weather Service Amendment Bill provides for severe weather warnings, after consultation with the Minister, to avoid bogus reports that could create chaos.

 

Today the world is faced with the disaster in the Philippines that has destroyed many towns and villages. Thousands of people have lost their lives and property. In South Africa, many communities have been affected physically, emotionally and psychologically as they are living in areas that are not only waterlogged, but built in and around disaster belts. They are severely affected particularly around the increasingly disastrous winter rainfalls.

 

We see many sad pictures, year in and year out, of the destruction brought by rain disasters, the weather’s adverse effect on farming and agricultural produce, runaway fires, flooded dams and rivers, deforestation, erosion, etc. It will be short-sighted of any administration to look solely at the weather without looking at spatial development plans and the need to rehabilitate areas, some in extremely remote parts of our country. We need a bigger picture approach.

 

The insertion of “advisory alert” in clause 1 provides hope for communities whose lives and livelihood are affected by disruptive weather systems and patterns. They will be able to take what little valuables they have with them, should they be advised timeously of pending disaster and urged to leave the area in time.

 

The best way to protect people against major accident occurrences is by maintaining the very high levels of safety as imbedded in the government’s disaster management plans. We must get it right. Government has a responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. A well co-ordinated and co-operative approach with all government departments is needed in the event of environmental and weather disasters.

 

The Bill further extends the objectives and functions of the Weather Service in providing the necessary legal mandate for it to provide ambient air quality services. In particular, it is the custodian of the SA Air Quality Information System.

 

Our air quality is endangered by the activities of persons and entities in the country that ignorantly, and sometimes arrogantly, release poisonous gaseous substances into the atmosphere. The list is long, including millions of cars that emit carbon monoxide and other particles into the atmosphere. Some people engage in bush burning; some individuals are in the habit of burning refuse. There is also the burning of agricultural waste; factory emissions; and paraffin-burning in our communities. Ultimately, these various acts have a huge effect on our weather patterns and an adverse effect on the ecosystem.

 

While we cannot control acts of God, we can certainly be better prepared. Minister, as I said before, this Bill may not cause the same excitement as Minister Gordhan’s Budget Speech, but we cannot be without a Weather Service.

 

In light of some of the recent breakdowns is relationships between CEOs, boards and Ministers, as we have recently witnessed in other parastatals, this Bill strengthens the management of the SA Weather Service so as to provide for the appointment and removal processes of the chief executive officer. This Bill is a step in the right direction in terms of good governance, weather prediction, disaster management and credible information. Cope supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mrs C N Z ZIKALALA: Hon House Chairperson, by amending the South African Weather Services Act of 2001, this Bill brings a greater measure of certainty to our weather services by extending the powers, functions and objectives of the SA Weather Service. South Africa finds itself in a geographical locale that potentially lends itself to bouts of severe weather, both on land and at sea.

 

We have an extensive coastline and erratic weather patterns. We therefore have a great need for meteorological certainty. In this regard, we particularly welcome the insertion of clause 30A, which obliges the implementation of Resolution 40 of the World Meteorological Organisation, which urges members to strengthen their commitment to the free and unrestricted exchange of meteorological and related data and products.

 

No weather forecasting service is 100% accurate. It is in this vein that we encourage greater collaboration between the Saws and private forecasting concerns. The IFP supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Ms B J DLOMO: Hon House Chairperson, hon Minister Molewa, hon members, the SA Weather Service was established in accordance with the 2001 South African Weather Services Act. In terms of its vision statement, the SA Weather Service aims to provide useful and innovative weather, climate and related products and services by enhancing observational data and ... utilising cutting-edge technology to convert data into meaningful products and services for risk mitigation.

 

As weather and climate know no national boundaries, international co-operation at a global level is of the utmost importance for the development of meteorology and operational hydrology. It is therefore important to know that the SA Weather Service is a member of the World Meteorological Organisation, WMO, a specialised agency of the UN which has played a unique and a powerful role in contributing to the safety and welfare of this country.

 

The ANC, at its 52nd National Conference, noted that South Africa is experiencing increasing severe weather such as flooding, lightning, thunderstorms, tornadoes and some areas of excessive heatwaves which are causing damage to our property and infrastructure, and are jeopardising human settlements and livelihoods, particularly in the low-lying coastal areas. The conference therefore resolved that the ANC-led government should continue to proactively build South Africa’s capacity in developing a comprehensive strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate and weather changes, including the rolling out of basic services and infrastructure planning.

 

In January this year, a severe cut-off of low pressure system led to floods in the north-eastern parts of our country. The Vhembe District in the north-western parts of the Limpopo province as well as Mpumalanga province were mostly affected by flooding that swept away bridges, roads, fertile agricultural land, causing death and injuries in some affected areas. As a result, the Vhembe District was declared a disaster area at the time.

As disaster preparedness is important in the case of severe weather events, the SA Weather Service, in co-operation with disaster management, reaches out to all communities through public awareness programmes that aim to educate the public and empower them with the ability to act. The aim is to develop a weather-ready nation that knows what to do and will respond appropriately to severe weather warnings.

 

Since its establishment, the SA Weather Service has always been the only official provider of severe weather-related warnings for South Africa in order to ensure that there is a single authority to voice in this regard. This South African Weather Service Amendment Bill emphasises that the SA Weather Service should continue to issue severe weather-related warnings. However, it must first consult with the Minister to ensure that South Africans are protected against false, misleading and/or hoax warnings that can result - and unfortunately have already in the past resulted - in undue public panic, related stress and injuries, evacuations or mobilisation of emergency services and subsequent fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

 

Although it has effectively been illegal for anyone other than the SA Weather Service to issue severe weather-related warnings for South Africa since 2001, it is only now that there are possible criminal consequences for illegal warning that are proposed in the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill. In order to ensure that we build our resilience to the weather impact, we must ensure that our warning systems are efficient, effective and mostly credible.

 

With the real possibility of increasing extreme weather events, the potential for false, misleading and/or hoax warnings significantly undermining public confidence in or appropriate public reaction to warnings is of real concern. A section is being inserted in the principal Act that states:

 

No person may publish, disseminate or distribute in any manner whatsoever any severe weather warning which he or she knows, believes or ought to have reasonably known or suspected to be false or misleading; or may incite public reaction which may lead to the undue mobilisation of resources, public alarm or evacuations, or economic loss arising from such actions.

 

A person who contravenes any of these provisions, or subsections thereof, will be guilty of an offence and liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding R5 million or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years. Furthermore, whenever any person is convicted and it appears that such a person has, by that offence, caused loss or damage to any organ of state or other person, the court may inquire summarily into the amount of the loss or damage so caused and give judgment therefore in favour of the organ of state or the person concerned.

The ANC supports the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

Mr W M THRING: Hon Chairperson, the ACDP is aware that the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill seeks, among other things, to provide the Minister with policy determination and supervisory powers; to extend the powers, functions and objectives of the SA Weather Service so as to provide ambient air quality services and to act as custodian of the SA Air Quality Information System. In addition, it seeks to align the South African Weather Service Act with the Public Finance Management Act, and to provide for offences and penalties.

 

It is certainly the hope of the ACDP that the supervisory powers given to the Minister will be used to add value to the Weather Service and not in any way compromise the work that they do. The responsibility of the SA Weather Service to maintain, extend and improve the quality of meteorological and ambient air services for the benefit of all South Africans certainly cannot be overemphasised.

 

As we continue to promote a developmental state here in South Africa and give effect to the National Development Plan, NDP, and the Industrial Policy Action Plan, Ipap, as well as other related mechanisms to grow our economy, we must forever remain conscious of our role to balance economic and industrial growth with quality ambient air for the health and wellbeing of all South Africans.

 

The ACDP also welcomes the alignment of the Act with the Public Finance Management Act as amended in section 17 of the principal Act.

 

I received a message from a certain Mr Andre de Kock, who wanted to know what was being done to prevent pollution of our air quality in the light of what he called “possible seeding of our clouds with heavy metals”, resulting in these metals finding their way into our water and air, possibly posing a health threat to our citizens. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to respond to Mr De Kock’s question.

 

While a bit over the top for some, the provision in respect of offences and penalties will hopefully be a sufficient deterrent to those who put out hoax warnings that may cost the state thousands if not millions of rands. With that said, the ACDP supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

Mr S-B HUANG: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy President, hon Minister and Deputy Minister, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, before I begin to engage you on the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill of 2013, I would like to thank our esteemed and knowledgeable chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, hon Johnny de Lange.

 

Initially, when between six to seven pieces of legislation came before the portfolio committee, there were some concerns as to the feasibility of processing all this legislation within limited timeframes. With the sustained effort of the chairperson, together with the departmental officials, four of the Bills and two conventions were adopted by the committee on 29 October 2013 and three of the Bills were passed last week on 5 November 2013 by Parliament. I commend the work of all concerned.

 

Weather forecasts and warnings provided by the meteorological profession are a most important service. Forecasts are used by government and industry to protect life and property and to improve the efficiency of operations and by individuals to plan a wide range of daily activities. This summary of present-day weather forecasting capabilities is intended to provide general guidance to a broad constituency of users.

 

Over the past 150 years, the SA Weather Service, Saws, has built up a reputation as a trusted provider of weather and climate information. The Saws has played an integral role in assisting government to minimise the impact of weather-related natural disasters.

 

The primary goal of the Saws is to ensure the continued relevance of meteorological products and services in compliance with the applicable regulatory frameworks.

 

The purpose of the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill is to amend the South African Weather Services Act, Act 8 of 2001, so as to substitute and insert certain definitions; to extend the objectives and functions of the SA Weather Service to deal with ambient air quality information services; to provide for the Minister to amend the Schedules to the Act by notice in the Gazette; and to provide for offences and penalties.

 

One of the key aspects that I would like to focus on is the provision of a legal mandate to the Weather Service to provide ambient air quality services and to act as the custodian of the South African Air Quality Information System.

 

By 2010, the importance of working towards measurable improvements in the South African ambient air quality resulted in air quality management interventions that are fully informed by accurate, relevant, complete and accessible information. A national air quality information system, in the form of the SA Air Quality Information System, is in place.

 

Currently there are 102 government-owned monitoring stations, 84 of which are already reporting to the SA Air Quality Information System, Saaqis.

 

An hon member from the ACDP had a question about this. This means that we have 82% of government-owned monitoring stations reporting to Saaqis, which is very impressive, as we have already met the President’s Outcome 10 delivery target of 80% reporting to Saaqis.

 

One of the challenges is the number of government air quality monitoring stations which are vandalised in municipalities. This is a concern for the national department as well as for local government. There is a need for greater uniformity between the three spheres of government to ensure air quality monitoring of the highest standard.

 

Another current and critical concern of the global world in this century is climate change. The SA Weather Service, with the SA Air Quality Information System, working closely with the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs is focusing on adaptation as key to coping with the impact of climate change.

 

Adaptation is key to coping with the unavoidable impact of climate change as such changes could exacerbate the existing variability in the weather and climate of the region.

 

To contribute to adaptation efforts, the SA Weather Service is improving on its drought monitoring capacity, particularly through the integration of various data sources and maintenance of a quality distribution network for rainfall and other key climate observations.

 

The institution also reinforces its climate information system by integrating climate change projection information with historical databases for the benefit of various end-users in water resources, agriculture, health infrastructure, biodiversity and ecosystems, forests, urban management, tourism, food, land, environment, energy security and management of coastal and marine resource sectors.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues from the DA, hon Rodgers, from Cope, hon Ferguson, and from the IFP, hon Mama Zikalala, for their effort and support for this Bill. I especially commend the hon Rodgers. He is a miniature of the former member of the committee, hon Morgan. He is a shadow model, but does not just oppose or object for the sake of doing so.

 

It is said that a weather service is linked to the landing of aircraft. I know that having a good weather service is about having good information so that the aircraft can land anywhere. It doesn’t matter if it lands at an air force base.

 

I know that all committee members fully support the chairperson of the committee. I also think hon Johnny de Lange will absolutely agree with me when I say that we appreciate all committee members’ co-operation and the professionalism they contribute to the job.

 

In conclusion, I would like to stress that good air quality is a prerequisite for health and environmental wellbeing, which are the cornerstones of sustainable development. The need to achieve economic growth should be balanced with improvements in health and environmental wellbeing. The ANC supports this amending Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

The MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: Hon Chair, I would like to thank all the members who participated in support of this Bill. In particular, I would like to thank the members of the ANC for being such good educators and actually taking the resolutions of their own party into this Parliament and into government to ensure that sustainable development is attained.

 

This is one of those Bills that ensure sustainable development on an ongoing basis. I did say earlier on that the information that we will be collecting through the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network and the systems that will be put in place will be continued works-in-progress that will continue to grow in size, scope as well as complexity over the next few years.

 

I think Mr De Kock should be informed accordingly that this information will help us to prosecute those who are acting against the law. I think that’s what the hon member from the ACDP must say to Mr De Kock. This is a progressive realisation in that direction.

 

I am standing here to say thank you to those members who are on this committee. I want to say that the ANC is a visionary organisation with very good vision. Through Acts of this nature, we are putting in place all those laws that are necessary to ensure that we protect our people’s health. This Bill will do exactly that.

 

So, you cannot really just come along from time to time, unlike Morgan, whom we long for – not so hom member Johnny? I am saying the hon member Morgan was so educated and understood exactly the issues that we are talking about. He would never have stood on this podium and referred to Nkandla when it was not absolutely necessary.

 

The Premier of this province uses an aircraft every day that is directed where to go by the SA Weather Service, which uses this Act.

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon Minister, your time has expired.

 

The MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS: Thank you, laatlammetjie. [The youngest child of a family, born long after the other siblings.] Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

 

Bill read a second time.

 

PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Consideration of Report)

 

PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Chair, I move:

 

That the Report and the Bill be referred back to the Portfolio Committee on Police and that the House gives permission to the Portfolio Committee on Police in terms of Rule 249(3)(b) to inquire into amending other provisions of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act of 2001 (Act No.56).

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Permission accordingly granted to the Portfolio Committee on Police to inquire into amending other provisions of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act of 2001 (Act No 56) in terms of Rule 249(3) (b).

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OF MAGISTRATE F K S NTULI

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION OF MAGISTRATE J F VAN SCHALKWYK, CHIEF MAGISTRATE AT KEMPTON PARK

 

Mr L T LANDERS: Hon Chairperson, I rise to present to you our reports on two magistrates. The first one is Magistrate F K S Ntuli. As you will recall, we appeared before this House asking for Magistrate Ntuli to be provisionally suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary processes within the Magistrates Commission. Those processes have been finalised and Magistrate Ntuli was found not guilty of the misconduct charge levelled against him. Consequently, the commission is of the view that it cannot justify the continuation of Mr Ntuli’s provisional suspension from office and recommended that the Minister lift the suspension with immediate effect. Ours is to say to this House, please confirm the lifting of Magistrate Ntuli’s suspension.

 

Hon Chairperson, I then present to you our request for the provisional suspension of Magistrate Miss J F van Schalkwyk, Chief Magistrate at Kempton Park, who is alleged, among other things, to have refused to execute a lawful order, in addition to allegations ralating to: derogatory, disrespectful and insulting behaviour to both the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice; severe abuse of power as judicial head of the Office, especially with reference to the magistrates under her control by utilising them for non official purposes during official court hours; gambling during official hours; borrowing money from subordinates and an attorney who deals with her courthouse in an official legal capacity; and, finally, defeating the ends of justice and making misrepresentations to the Judge President in Gauteng during her stint as the Acting Judge by handing down judgments that were not written by herself, but by magistrates under her control and on occasion by an attorney.

 

We are asking this House to uphold the provisional suspension of Magistrate Miss J F van Schalkwyk on the grounds that I have just mentioned. Thank you.

 

There was no debate.

 

Question put: That the Report of the Committee be adopted and the upliftment of the provisional suspension of Magistrate F K S Ntuli be confirmed.

 

Question agreed to.

 

Report adopted and upliftment of the provisional suspension of Magistrate F K S Ntuli accordingly confirmed.

 

Question put: That the Report of the Committee be adopted and the provisional suspension of Magistrate J F van Schalkwyk be confirmed.

 

Question agreed to.

 

Report adopted and provisional suspension of Magistrate J F van Schalkwyk accordingly confirmed.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ARTS AND CULTURE -OVERSIGHT VISIT TO PUBLIC ENTITIES AND HISTORICAL SITES IN KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE FROM 31 JULY TO 2 AUGUST 2012

 

Ms T B SUNDUZA: Chairperson and hon members, I will quickly present the report on our oversight visit to KwaZulu-Natal. We went to a few different museums, starting with the Msunduzi Museum, which include Ncome Museum, the KwaZulu-Natal Museum, the Albert Luthuli Museum and the declared gravesites of the liberation stalwarts President J T Gumede, J L Dube, Albert Luthuli and Bertha Mkhize in KwaZulu-Natal.

 

I must say that it was one of our most memorable visits. Firstly, the Albert Luthuli Museum is one of the most well-managed museums in this country. Secondly, the graves have been declared historical gravesites and there are just a few issues that need to change.

 

Going to the gravesite of J L Dube and the school, there were a few concerns that the portfolio committee raised. Firstly, the museum is in the school and what would the visiting hours be then? Furthermore, we requested that roads must be improved as well as the issue of marketing as these museums tell of the history of South Africa. We must thank the KwaZulu-Natal province for supporting these museums.

 

We also visited the Msunduzi Museum and the Ncome Museum. One of the issues that were raised was that the roads to the Ncome Museum are a bit long. Another issue that we further raised was that of reconciliation between South Africans. We are also saying that a bridge should be constructed at the Ncome Museum, as has been done at the Voortrekker Monument and Freedom Park in Pretoria. One of the issues that made us raise this was that one has to take gravel roads to get to the museum, therefore, during the rainy season it becomes very difficult to utilise them.

 

One of the reports that we wrote says that the Department of Public Works must meet with the Department of Arts and Culture in order to speed up the processes of the Department of Public Works. This is one of the issues that was raised when we went to the gravesite of President J L Dube. The Department of Public Works has been delaying the issue of purchasing. An amount has been allocated and today we are requesting that it must be administered as quickly as possible.

 

We commend the way the Albert Luthuli Museum is working with young people in and around KwaZulu-Natal and the community of Groutville. They engage with a lot of parties and they strengthen their working relationships with the local municipalities. However, a few challenges were raised. The portfolio committee observed some of them, namely, the operational space, constraints relating to facilities and fund sustainability as they rely only on the department. There is a lack of proper signage from the N2 and R102 highways leading to the different museums. There are insufficient museum acquisitions. There are a lot of high community expectations and aspirations that are supposed to be met.

 

One of the issues that we commend is the greening of the Albert Luthuli Museum’s site. I would like to encourage hon members to visit these sites. It must start with them. The committees have no issue with which political party you come from. It is the history of South Africa that one has to understand. Hon Van den Berg...

 

... waar is hy? Is hy nie vandag hier nie? [Tussenwerpsels.] [... where is he? Is he not here today?] [Interjections.]

 

Oh, he is here! He was very happy and he said that visiting such sites promoted reconciliation among South Africans. I want to invite hon members from my left to visit there.

 

One of the issues that I want to quickly raise is that of uMama Bertha’s grave. There is a lot of theft and breaking of the tombstones that we have erected for those we are honouring. The province and the municipality are taking the matter up. I would like to thank all hon members of the portfolio committee and all the staff members. We hope to see you in these museums in KwaZulu-Natal. Thank you, hon members.

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Chairperson, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

CONSIDERATION OF SECOND REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

 

CONSIDERATION OF THIRD REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON ANNUAL REPORTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA, ICASA, 2011-12 FINANCIAL YEAR

 

CONSIDERATION OF FOURTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

 

CONSIDERATION OF FIFTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SA AGENCY FOR PROMOTION OF PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION (PTY) LTD

 

CONSIDERATION OF SIXTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

 

CONSIDERATION OF SEVENTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COUNCIL FOR MINERAL TECHNOLOGY, MINTEK

 

CONSIDERATION OF EIGHTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENERGY AFRICA REHABILITATION

 

CONSIDERATION OF NINTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL FRONTIER TECHNOLOGIES (INTERFRONT) SCO LTD

 

CONSIDERATION OF TENTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COUNCIL

 

CONSIDERATION OF ELEVENTH REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS – REPORT OF AUDITOR-GENERAL ON 2011-12 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SA HOUSING FUND

 

Mr N T GODI: Chairperson, comrades and hon members, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I wish to present to the House the second to eleventh reports of the committee. These are reports on the Auditor-General’s report on annual reports and the financial statements of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Icasa; the Department of Correctional Services; the Department of Labour; the Public Service Commission; the National Agricultural Marketing Council; the SA Agency for Promotion of Petroleum Exploration and Exploitation; the SA Housing Fund; Energy Africa Rehabilitation; International Frontier Technologies; and the Council for Mineral Technology.

 

Of these, only the Department of Correctional Services had a qualified audit opinion. This remains of great concern to us as a committee, because the department seems unable to get itself out of a qualification. Even though there has been improvement over the years, the qualification issues remain grave. These include issues about employment and contracts; human resource management, especially leave and overtime management; asset management; and expenditure management, especially those related to irregular expenditure, as well as fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Going forward, we think it is important for us, as a committee, to confer with our comrades in the portfolio committee on how to correct this, because it just cannot continue like this.

 

The Department of Labour and Icasa received unqualified audit opinions, but there are serious matters that, if left unattended, will lead to a qualification. Of concern, among others, are expenditure; performance management; and procurement, that is, supply chain management policy compliance. We are hopeful because Icasa, in communication with its leadership, appears to be making progress, as has been the case with the Department of Labour.

 

We are not just harbingers of bad news. It has always been our practice and our desire to present to the House those departments and entities that are exemplary in their performance. The seven entities mentioned above have clean audits, that is, there are no material findings by the Auditor-General in respect of their compliance with laws and regulations. These are the Public Service Commission; the National Agricultural Marketing Council; the SA Agency for Promotion of Petroleum Exploration and Exploitation; the SA Housing Fund; Energy Africa Rehabilitation; International Frontier Technologies; and the Council for Mineral Technology.

 

I present these reports to the House for adoption, but before I leave the podium, I must thank my comrades in the committee. We work together in a very collective spirit, and the same goes to our administrative staff for their hard work, which has seen the committee succeed in fulfilling its mandate. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:

 

That the Reports be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Second Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of Department of Labour accordingly adopted.

 

Third Report on Report of Auditor-General on Annual Reports and Financial Statements of Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Icasa, 2011-12 Financial Year accordingly adopted.

 

Fourth Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of Department of Correctional Services accordingly adopted.

 

Fifth Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of SA Agency for Promotion of Petroleum Exploration and Exploitation (Pty) Ltd accordingly adopted.

 

Sixth Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of Public Service Commission accordingly adopted.

 

Seventh Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of Council for Mineral Technology, Mintek, accordingly adopted.

 

Eighth Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of Energy Africa Rehabilitation accordingly adopted.

 

Ninth Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of International Frontier Technologies, Interfront, SCO Ltd accordingly adopted.

 

Tenth Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of National Agricultural Marketing Council accordingly adopted.

 

Eleventh Report on Report of Auditor-General on 2011-12 Financial Statements of SA Housing Fund accordingly adopted.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION – STUDY TOUR TO BOTSWANA

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY:  Chairperson, I move:

 

  That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HEALTH – STUDY TOUR TO LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:

 

  That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS – FOLLOW-UP OVERSIGHT VISIT TO LIMPOPO AND MPUMALANGA PROVINCES FROM 22 TO 26 JULY 2013

 

Mr E M SOGONI: Hon House Chair, hon Deputy President, hon members, section 27(1)(b) in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that every citizen has a right to access sufficient and clean drinkable water. The Constitution gives national and provincial government the authority to regulate local government in terms of water services.

 

In the 2010 state of the nation address, His Excellency President Zuma stated:

 

The government shall not falter until each and every community in our nation has clean, potable water, because our water supply forms a strong backbone to all social and economic development initiatives.

 

In the light of this recognition of the strategic importance of water provision, the Standing Committee on Appropriations undertook a second follow-up oversight visit to the Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces from 22 to 26 July 2013. The aim of the visit was to follow up on a similar visit which was undertaken by the committee in 2010-11. The visit had been informed by ongoing interaction between the committee and the Department of Water Affairs during the in-year monitoring of its expenditure. The committee conducted a workshop with stakeholders on 23 July 2010.

 

It visited two dams, the Nandoni Water Bulk Distribution System and the Inyaka Water Treatment Works. The Nandoni Water Bulk Distribution System is in Thohoyandou in the Vhembe district. The committee was happy with what it found out there. There was commitment, and the committee was also convinced that the communities will be able to receive water by the end of December 2013.

 

At the Inyaka Water Treatment Works, we found that there was co-operation between the Department of Water Affairs and the Mpumalanga department of co-operative governance and traditional affairs. There, again, the committee was convinced that the people of Bushbuckridge will be able to receive running water by the end of July thanks to the co-ordination and the seriousness with which the issue was taken by the department and its partners.

 

On that note, I would like to ask the House to adopt the report. I thank you.

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:

 

That the Report be adopted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS – STUDY TOUR TO UGANDA AND KENYA FROM 29 JUNE TO 06 JULY 2013

 

There was no debate.

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:

 

  That the Report be noted.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Report accordingly noted.

 

The House adjourned at 18:07.

__________

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

MONDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2013

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

 

The Speaker and the Chairperson

 

1.         Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159

 

(1) Rental Housing Amendment Bill, 2013, submitted by the Minister of Human Settlements.

            Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements and the Select Committee on Public Services.

 

2.         Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)

 

(1) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following Bill as a section 75 Bill:

 

(a) Customs and Excise Amendment Bill [B 44 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(2) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following Bill as a money Bill:

 

(a) Customs Duty Bill [B 43 – 2011] (National Assembly – sec 77).

 

(3) The JTM, on 8 November 2013,  in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following Bill as a section 75 Bill:

 

(a) South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B 21 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

3.         Re-classification of Bill by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)

 

(1) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) re-classified the following Bill (initially classified as a section 76 Bill, see ATC of 22 August 2013, p 3310) as a section 75 Bill:

 

(a) Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 7B – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

National Assembly

 

The Speaker

 

1. Appointment of executive director of Independent Police Investigative Directorate

(1)        A letter dated 8 November 2013 has been received from the Minister of Police, requesting the relevant parliamentary committee to confirm or reject the nomination of Mr Robert John McBride as executive director of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) in terms of section 6(2) of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act, 2011 (No 1 of 2011).

 

            Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Police for consideration and report.

TABLINGS

 

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

 

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson

 

(a) South African Human Rights Commission on the Economic and Social Rights for 2012 – 2013: Section 184(3) Report.  

 

(b) Annual International Report 2012 of the South African Human Rights Commission.  

 

(c) Annual Report of the South African Human Rights Commission on the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) for 2012-13.  

 

2. The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans

 

(a) Convention on Cluster Munitions, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.  

 

(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.  

 

(c) Amendments to a Concluded Bilateral International Agreement: Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of South Africa contributing resources to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.  

 

(d) Explanatory Memorandum to the Amendments to a Concluded Bilateral International Agreement: Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of South Africa contributing resources to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO).

 

(e) The Signed United Nations Letter of Assist (LOA) 2012-008 for the Provision of Long Term Aviation/Air Transport services by the South African Air Force to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.  

 

(f) Explanatory Memorandum to The Signed United Nations Letter of Assist (LOA) 2012-008 for the Provision of Long Term Aviation/Air Transport services by the South African Air Force to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO).

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

National Assembly

 

1. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill on the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6F – 2010] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 08 November 2013

 

The Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill, having reconsidered clauses 42 and 45 of the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6F – 2010] (National Assembly – sec 75) and the President’s reservations on the defect on the substance thereof (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 12 September 2013) recommends that the President’s reservations be accommodated, and reports the Bill with amendments [B 6G – 2010]

 

The Committee further reports that the Democratic Alliance (DA) and African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP)  took the view that the Committee should have requested clarity from the President on the matters on which he has reservations as to their constitutionality and accordingly abstained.

 

The Congress of the People (COPE) did not support the process and the outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee.

 

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) felt that, as set out in Section 79 of the Constitution, rather than merely addressing the concern of the constitutionality expressed by the President, the Committee should have allowed the review of the Bill beyond a few chosen grammatical matters.

 

The Committee further decided that it was unable to agree to the inclusion in the report of a letter by the IFP which actually misrepresented events of the proceedings and positions taken by the members of the Committee.

 

During its deliberations, the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of State Information Bill came across some textual errors on the Bill. The Committee has resolved that in addition to the President’s reservation, leading to an amended Bill having to be presented before the House in terms of Joint Rule 203 (3)(b), it was agreed that the textual and technical corrections would also be included. Only the DA and ACDP objected.

 

The Committee is of the view that these corrections are in line with the need to ensure that the Bill is coherent and rational and does not believe that they go beyond the scope of the President’s reservations. Only the DA and ACDP objected.

 

Report to be considered.

 

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B7 – 2013], (National Assembly – section 75), dated 11 November 2013

 

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B7B – 2013] (National Assembly – section 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B7C – 2013]:

 

The Committee wishes to report further:

 

1. The Bill was tabled with the proposal that it be tagged as section 75 Bill but was classified as a section 76 Bill by the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) as the Bill is argued to contain certain provisions that affect the concurrent powers of provinces set out in Schedule 4 of the Constitution, 1996.

 

2. The Bill amends numerous acts, most of which are administered by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and are intended to address practical and technical issues of a non-contentious nature. The Committee is of the view that the procedure contained in section 76 of the Constitution does not apply to the Bill in its entirety but nonetheless finds itself bound by the JTM’s findings.

 

3. In order to expedite the passage of those provisions of the Bill to which the section 76 procedure would not apply, the Committee rejected clauses 17, 36, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 49(3) which were argued to possibly affect the concurrent powers of the provinces in substantial measure.

 

4. The Committee is of the view that the rules of Parliament do not adequately allow for the input of committees to the JTM before a Bill is tagged and asks that the National Assembly consider amending the rules for this to happen in future.

 

Report to be considered

 

3. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights dated 11 November 2013

 

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the request for approval of the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, with its accompanying explanatory memorandum, referred to it for consideration and report, recommends that the National Assembly approves the ratification of the Covenant subject to a declaration relating to Articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant to the effect that South Africa will give progressive realisation to the right of education within the framework of its legislation and available resources.

 

The Committee further reports as follows:

 

Article 2 of the Covenant provides that each State Party to the Covenant undertakes “to take steps  ... to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures”. Although the Committee is assured that the nature of the obligation does not require a higher standard for the progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights than the South African Constitution, the Committee recommends that a Declaration be made on ratification of the Covenant relating to Articles 13 and 14 that South Africa will give progressive effect to the right of education within the framework of its legislation and available resources.

 

Report to be considered. 

 

TUESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2013

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

 

The Speaker and the Chairperson

 

1.         Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)

 

(1) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following Bills as section 75 Bills:

 

     (a)   Insurance Laws Amendment Bill [B 16 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(b) South African Post Office SOC Ltd Amendment Bill [B 24 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

            Correction (incorrect bill number):

           

(2) The JTM, on 8 November 2013,  in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following Bill as a section 75 Bill:

 

(a) South African Weather Service Amendment Bill [B 23 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

2.         Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159

 

(1) Property Valuation Bill, submitted by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform.

 

            Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform and the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs.

 

3.         Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent

 

(1) Bills passed by National Assembly on 12 November 2013:

 

(a) Protection of State Information Bill [B 6H – 2010] (National Assembly – sec 75).

(b) Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill [B 42D – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 76).

 

(c) Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill [B 9D – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(2) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 12 November 2013:

 

(a) Financial Services Laws General Amendment Bill [B 29B – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(b) Deeds Registries Amendment Bill [B 10B – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(c) Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill [B 12 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 77).

 

(d) Lotteries Amendment Bill [B 21B – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(e) Division of Revenue Amendment Bill [B 38 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 76).

 

(f) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 39 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 77).

(g) Tax Administration Laws Amendment Bill [B 40 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 

(h) Employment Tax Incentive Bill [B 46 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 77).

 

National Assembly

 

The Speaker

 

1. Introduction of Bills

 

(1) The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

 

(a) Property Valuation Bill [B 54 – 2013] (National Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No 36993 of 1 November 2013.]

 

            Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160.

 

            In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of the Bills may be submitted to the JTM. The Bill may only be classified after the expiry of at least three parliamentary working days since introduction.

 

(2) The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development

 

(a) Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill [B 53– 2013] (National Assembly – proposed sec 76).

 

Bill initiated by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly, and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160.

 

2. Membership of Committees

 

(1)        The following changes to committee membership have been made:

 

 (a) Democratic Alliance

 

 Portfolio Committee on Labour

 

 Discharged:     van der Westhuizen, Mr A

                                    Motau, Mr S

 

 Appointed:       Mubu, Mr K

 

 Portfolio Committee on Economic Development

 

 Discharged:     Mubu, Mr K

 Appointed:       vand der Westhuizen, Mr A

                                    Motau, Mr S     

 

 (b) Independent Democrats

 

 Portfolio Committee on Economic Development

 

 Discharged:     Hoosen, Mr H

 

 Portfolio Committee on Labour

 

 Appointed:       Hoosen, Mr H

 

3. Bill recommitted

 

(1) The Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill [B 27B – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 75) has been referred back to the Portfolio Committee on Police (see Minutes of Proceedings of National Assembly, 12 November 2013).

 

4. Resignation from SABC board and filling of resultant vacancy

 

(1)        A letter dated 4 November 2013 has been received from the President of the Republic -

(a) informing the National Assembly of the resignation of Ms Noluthando Primrose Gosa from the board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) with effect from 1 January 2014; and

(b) requesting the Assembly to recommend, in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, 1999 (Act No 4 of 1999), a suitable candidate to fill the vacancy for the unexpired portion of the period for which the vacating member had been appointed.

 

Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Communications for consideration and report.

 

5. Committee bill certified as an urgent matter

 

On 12 November 2013, Mr L T Landers, on behalf of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and in consultation with the Speaker, certified the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill, 2013 as an urgent matter in terms of Rule 241(5) and consequently the rules pertaining to prior notice of the introduction of a bill and the publication of the draft bill or an explanatory memorandum in the Gazette do not apply to the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill, 2013.

 

6. Withdrawal of Bill

 

(1) The Minister for the Public Service and Administration withdrew the following Bill on 12 November 2013:

 

(a) Public Administration Management Bill [B 48 ‑ 2013].

 

7. Referral to Committees of papers tabled

 

(1)        The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration for consideration and report:

 

(a)        Report of the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the Fact Sheet on Finalised Cases of Financial Misconduct for the 2011‑2012 Financial Year – February 2013 [RP1-3‑2013]

 

(2)        The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry:

 

(a)        General Notice No 1016, published in Government Gazette No 36916, dated 9 October 2013: Notice of intention to introduce National Credit Amendment Bill, 2013, in Parliament.

 

(b)        Government Notice No 781, published in Government Gazette No 36923, dated 18 October 2013: Publication of proposed amendments to Companies Regulations, 2011 for public comment in terms of section 223(1)(b) and (2) of the Companies Act, 2008 (Act No 71 of 2008).

 

(3)        The following papers are referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans:

 

(a) Letter from the President of the Republic dated 5 November 2013 to the Speaker of the National Assembly, informing members of the Assembly of the employment of the South African National Defence Force in cooperation with the South African Police Service in the prevention and combating of crime and maintenance and preservation of law and order within the Republic of South Africa during the national voter registration process.

 

(b) Letter from the President of the Republic dated 5 November 2013 to the Speaker of the National Assembly, informing members of the Assembly of the employment of the South African National Defence Force for service in co-operation with the South African Police Service in the prevention and combating of crime and maintenance and preservation of law and order in the Republic of South Africa during the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region and the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crisis summits.

 

(4)        The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans for consideration and report:

 

(a)        Convention on Cluster Munitions, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

 

   (b)     Explanatory Memorandum to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

 

(5)        The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans:

 

(a) Amendments to a Concluded Bilateral International Agreement: Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of South Africa contributing resources to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.  

 

(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Amendments to a Concluded Bilateral International Agreement: Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of South Africa contributing resources to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO).

 

(c) Signed United Nations Letter of Assist (LOA) 2012‑008 for the Provision of Long Term Aviation/Air Transport Services by the South African Air Force to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.

 

(d) Explanatory Memorandum to Signed United Nations Letter of Assist (LOA) 2012‑008 for the Provision of Long Term Aviation/Air Transport Services by the South African Air Force to the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO).

 

(6)        The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, Portfolio Committee on Health, Portfolio Committee on Social Development, Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs and Portfolio Committee on Basic Education:

(a)        South African Human Rights Commission Report for 20121‑2013 on Economic and Social Rights in terms of section 184(3) of the Constitution, 1996.

 

(7)        The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration:

 

(a)        Annual Report of the South African Human Rights Commission on the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) for 2012‑13.

 

(8)        The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and to the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, Portfolio Committee on Health, Portfolio Committee on Women, Children and People with Disabilities, Portfolio Committee on Labour, Portfolio Committee on Basic Education and Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation:

 

(a)        Annual International Report 2012 of the South African Human Rights Commission.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

National Assembly

 

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the South African Human Rights Commission Bill [B5-2013] (National Assembly) – sec 75), dated 11 November 2013:

 

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject matter of South African Human Rights Commission Bill [B5-2013] (National Assembly) – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B5A-2013].

 

Report to be considered.

 

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications on the South African Post Office SOC Ltd Amendment Bill [B 24 – 2013] (National Assembly –sec 75), dated 12 November 2013:

 

The Portfolio Committee on Communications, having considered the subject South African Post Office SOC Ltd Amendment Bill [B 24 – 2013] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the JTM as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 24A – 2013], as follows:

 

CLAUSE 1

1.         On page 2, from line 7, to omit the definition of “child”.

 

2.         On page 2, from line 15, to omit the definition of “Post Office Retirement

      Fund”.

     

3.         On page 2, from line 20, to omit the definition of “rules”.

 

CLAUSE 5

1. Clause 5 rejected.

[Explanatory note: The Clause was rejected because the Committee was of the opinion that there was not sufficient consideration of the impact on affected stakeholders. Further consultation was required.]

 

LONG TITLE

1.         To omit the Long Title and to substitute:

           

To amend the South African Post Office SOC Ltd Act, 2011, so as to improve governance provisions between the Boards of the South African Post Office SOC Ltd and the South African Postbank Limited; to amend the Post and Telecommunications-related Matters Act, 1958, so as to provide for the payment of pension benefits to a former spouse of a member on divorce or the dissolution of a customary marriage; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

 

Report to be considered.

 

3. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill [B53 – 2013], dated 12 November 2013

 

1. The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development considered the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B7-2013].  The Bill was tabled as a proposed section 75 but was tagged a section 76 Bill by the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on the basis that it contained certain provisions that affect the concurrent powers of provinces set out in Schedule 4 of the Constitution, 1996.

 

2. In order to expedite the passage of those provisions of the Bill to which the section 76 procedure would not apply, the Committee rejected clauses 17, 36, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 49(3) which were argued to possibly affect the concurrent powers of the provinces in substantial measure. The Committee resolved to initiate a separate Bill focusing solely on these clauses.

3. The Committee was granted permission to proceed with the proposed legislation as an urgent matter on 12 November 2013.

 

4. The Committee, in accordance with Rule 243, reports that it has introduced the Judicial Matters Third Amendment Bill [B53 - 2013] (National Assembly- sec 76) by submitting a copy of the Bill to the Speaker.

 

Report to be considered.

 

12 NOVEMBER 2013                 PAGE 226 of 261