Hansard: NCOP: Unrevised hansard

House: National Council of Provinces

Date of Meeting: 11 Sep 2018

Summary

No summary available.


Minutes

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

TUESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2018

 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

 

 

The House met at 10:00.

 

 

House Chairperson Ms M G Boroto took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

 

 

NEW MEMBERS

 

 

 

(Announcement)

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order! Hon members, I wish to announce that the vacancy which occurred in the National Assembly owing to the resignation of Ms V Ketabahle has been filled by the nomination of Ms Y N Yako with effect from 3 September 2018. [Applause.] You are welcome, hon Yako.

 

 

The vacancy which occurred in the National Assembly owing to the resignation of Mr I M Ollis has been filled by the

 

nomination of Mr M S Shackleton with effect from

 

1 September 2018. [Applause.] Is Mr Shackleton there?

 

 

Mr M WATERS: He’s arriving now!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Where? [Interjections.] [Applause.] That is not a nice thing for the first day. Mr Shackleton, you are welcome.

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Chair, Mr Shackleton must be referred to the Ethics Committee. [Laughter.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Lastly, hon members, the vacancy which occurred in the National Assembly due to the passing away of Ms Z Jongbloed has been filled by the nomination of Mr J J Londt with effect from 7 September 2018. [Applause.] You are also welcome. I really welcome all of you, hon members, to the National Assembly and Parliament.

 

 

The members have made and subscribed the oath and affirmation in the Deputy Speaker’s office.

 

 

SUSPENSION OF RULE 130(7)

 

 

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: House Chair, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

 

 

That the House suspends Rule 130(7), which provides, inter alia, that there may only be one discussion in terms of this Rule on a sitting day, for the purposes of allowing the following debates on 12 September 2018:

 

 

(1) Debate in terms of Rule 130: Ideas for economic revival following recession – the Leader of the Opposition; and

 

 

(2) Debate in terms of Rule 130: Escalating fuel prices – Mr M Hlengwa.

 

 

Motion agreed to.

 

 

ESTABLISHMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR FILLING OF VACANCIES IN COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY

 

 

(Draft Resolution)

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: House Chair, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

 

That the House –

 

 

(1) notes the letter by the President of the Republic of South Africa, tabled on 10 May 2018, regarding the filling of vacancies in the Commission for Gender Equality; and

 

 

(2) establishes an ad hoc committee to identify suitable candidates for the filling of vacancies in the commission in terms of the revised Commission for Gender Equality Act, Act 39 of 1996, which came into effect on 26 November 2013, the committee to–

 

 

(a) consist of 11 members, as follows: ANC 6, DA 2, EFF 1 and other parties 2;

 

 

(b) exercise those powers in Rule 167 that may assist it in carrying out its task;

 

 

(c) recommend, where necessary, which commissioners should be appointed as full-time commissioners and which should be appointed as part-time commissioners; and

 

 

(d) report to the Assembly by no later than

 

16 November 2018.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

 

PLIGHT OF #FEESMUSTFALL ACTIVISTS

 

 

 

(Matter of Public Importance)

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, I have been informed that the Dr Ndlozi will take charge of this matter in terms of Assembly Rule 93.

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Chairperson, since the founding days of industrial colonial capitalism, this country has always hated, despised and neglected the black youth.

 

 

Already in the 1940s, the colonial regime had painted the black youth as delinquent, idle and dangerous. The section of the black population that apartheid hated the most was the black youth, in particular black youth activists. This image of the black youth as dangerous found renewed emphasis in the early 1990s following the return of the liberation movement. In those days, the black youth was called the lost generation, even by many in the liberation movement.

 

 

Ask yourself why the ANC’s first statement on the 1976 Soweto uprising was to condemn the students and call on all of them to go back to school. Why would the ANC’s first reaction to

 

the youth uprising be to condemn it in 1976? Essentially, it is because the 1976 youth was, above everything else, an abandoned generation, abandoned by its elders and parents.

More than 30 years later, the ANC has sustained this very attitude towards the black youth, in particular the activists of the #FeesMustFall movement. Through its Ministers, the ANC sent police to campuses, condemned students by painting them as being used by the Central Intelligence Agency, and called for their arrest. To this day, the ANC government continues to hold many of them in prisons, three years after the #FeesMustFall movement in 2015.

 

 

So, we just have to ask a simple question. In fact, even after society accepted the moral power of the #FeesMustFall demands, the security and disciplinary apparatus of the ANC government still takes pleasure in arresting, persecuting and expelling student activists from the universities. We know of Amos Amla Monageng, a second-year informatics student at the University of Pretoria, arrested in 2016, who is at home, serving a two- year house-arrest sentence. Khanya Cekeshe, Yolanda Dyantyi, Surprise Silowe, Wandile Masango, Thulani Masilela, and Mangaliso Sambo have all been expelled, are in prison or facing trial – sent there by the ANC government.

 

 

Many hypocrites will take the platform and tell us about the destruction of property, the disruption of exams, the

 

infringement of individual conveniences – calling them individual rights – and the rule of law. They will speak of these ideals as fundamentals of our Constitution, but they deliberately ignore the hard truth that all these rights were brought about by the destruction of property, infringements of individual conveniences called rights – like the rights of white people to move freely in towns at night under apartheid without black people – and breaking the law. Even well- established democracies - celebrated democracies like those of America and France; in fact, it was worse for them – were not brought about by protest or civil rights movements, but by war, men and women carrying guns, sworn to killing people.

 

 

Before you stand here today to tell us about the rule of law, think. Think very hard and properly about this Constitution that you are going to defend here. It is the Constitution fundamentally brought about by people who went to war, who swore they would come into the country and liberate all of us by breaking apartheid laws. [Interjections.]

 

 

Had you focused on your responsibility to secure a future for the black youth, there would not have been a #FeesMustFall movement. Instead, you came here to Parliament to sleep, filling your bellies with resources you looted from the state coffers. Bloody sleepists! [Interjections.] Had you come here to work, the #FeesMustFall movement would not have happened.

 

Had you come here to be the parents whose role and responsibility were, at all times, to secure a future for the young, you would have known that you had to prepare universities so that they were accessible, particularly for black, talented youth. Instead, you came here to sleep. [Interjections.]

 

 

We are therefore calling for all charges and sentences against #FeesMustFall activists to be dropped with immediate effect, particularly by the universities that have expelled all these activists. Let all those expulsions fall! Allow the children to go back and focus on their studies in the attainment of education. The same way you freed Nelson Mandela who was arrested in possession of explosives and guns, who had sworn as an uMkhonto weSizwe commander to kill people, the same way you were willing to release him from prison, calling him a freedom fighter, you must free all #FeesMustFall activists from prison unconditionally. They never killed anybody. They never tried to kill anybody. They were fighting for access to education. Stop criminalising them. Let them go back to school and attain an education.

 

 

These are not criminals like Duduzane Zuma, Mduduzi Manana or Andile Lungisa, or potential criminals like some Ministers here who are serving in the Cabinet of Thuma Mina. They are freedom fighters who were simply seeking the attainment of

 

economic freedom in their lifetime. That is why the EFF is the only organisation that has assisted them to fight all the difficult battles they face. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

 

Mnu L K B MPUMLWANA: Sihlalo weNdlu ohloniphekileyo, amalungu ale Ndlu ahloniphekileyo, iindwendwe zethu ezixabisekileyo nesizwe ngokubanzi esindilisekileyo, bhotani. Lo mba singawo namhlanje unzulu kwaye umbaxa. Phambi kokuba ndinabe mawethu, ndivumeleni ndiqale ndicacise le nyewe. Naku ukwenzeka ... (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

 

 

[Mr L K B MPUMLWANA: Hon Chairperson of the House, hon members of the House, distinguished guests and dignified nation at large, greetings. The issue that we have today is complex and broad. Before I dwell on this, allow me to clarify this issue. This is what is happening ...]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Mpumlwana, take your seat. Hon Rawula, why are you rising?

 

 

Mr T RAWULA: House Chair, can we be taken seriously? We have just ended on a high note with the doctor. Can we get a doctor here? [Laughter.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): That is not a point of order. Please, let us not waste time. Hon Mpumlwana, continue.

 

 

Mr L K B MPUMLWANA: ... universities and colleges, mainly those that were previously meant for whites only, increased their fees exorbitantly. Thus, poor students, mainly African, were indirectly excluded from education owing to their poverty. This is contrary to ANC policies which promote free education for all citizens. This is evidenced by the provisions of clause 8 of the Freedom Charter, which was inserted by the ANC into section 29(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, as well as by various conference resolutions of the ANC.

 

 

The students then tried to bring their problems to the attention of the government by marching from various campuses. Unfortunately, during these marches, properties were burnt and/or destroyed. According to the Minister of Higher Education and Training, the damaged caused amounted to about R880 million, which is almost R1 billion. This, of course, is a setback.

 

 

However, the ANC has not diverted from its noble cause. The ANC government has begun implementing free education. Free higher education is provided to students from poor and working-class backgrounds. Thus students whose joint annual

 

family income is below R351 000 per year will receive a bursary grant from government, which includes tuition, accommodation, transport, books and a food allowance. The policy will target first-year students in 2018 and reach all levels in five years’ time. Thus, this year, 240 000 students will benefit.

 

 

The government has also made R2,4 billion available for infrastructure at universities, prioritising accommodation and teaching facilities. We are here dealing with future leaders of society. There must be a culture of respect, patriotism and appreciation of what the country is doing for them, irrespective of the pressure they are facing. We cannot allow students to burn libraries and buildings, assault or murder people just because they do not have money to pay for school fees. [Interjections.]

 

 

The ANC is a parent of all South Africans. It has always and will continue to provide society with all its needs. It is irresponsible ... [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon Ndlozi. Hon Ndlozi!

 

 

Mr L K B MPUMLWANA: It is irresponsible for political parties to use the plight of students to score political points. We

 

are here building a nation and young people should participate in that. They should preserve and not destroy the nation.

 

 

Kunyanzelekile ukuba sibonise umkhomba-ndlela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] Kunyanzelekile ... (Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[We must show direction. [Applause.] It’s a must ... [Interjections.]]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, we listened to Dr Ndlozi’s speech. Let us please give this hon member a chance. [Interjections.] Hon members, please!

 

 

Mr L K B MPUMLWANA: You cannot set a precedent and tell the nation that they can do anything because they are young. There are people who are not students who commit crimes. What must we do? Forgive them because they are students but not forgive others because they are not students? [Interjections.]

 

 

Ngokuqinisekileyo, kunyanzelekile ukuba sibe nomkhamba-ndlela.

 

Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[We must definitely show direction.]

 

 

The ANC is a leader of the government and a leader of the nation. It has brought us here for so long. We were involved

 

in the liberation to bring this country to where it is. We will continue to lead the people in the correct direction. Crime is crime irrespective of who does it. [Applause.]

 

 

In addition, we cannot create a precedent of intervention. How can the government come and tell the prosecuting authorities not to prosecute somebody? How can the government say, “Do not take this one; please forgive that one?” Why?

 

 

Khaniyeke bantakwethu sinixabisile, zikhona izinto ezibalulekileyo eninokuzilwela kodwa lena anikwazi ukuba ningayisebenzisela ukugaya inkxaso yokhetho. Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[Please, compatriots, we care about you; there are important things that we can fight for, but you can’t use this for an election campaign.]

 

 

It is irresponsible of you. You cannot tell students that they can go and burn libraries – do anything - because they will be forgiven. Every time ...

 

 

... bengenamali yokuya esikolweni kufuneka batshise.

 

(Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[... they have no money to go to school, so they must burn.]

 

How do you burn a library and expect to go and study next year; go back to school? How do you do that?

 

 

Ngxe, ngxe, asisakhi isizwe ngolo hlobo bantakwethu. Ndiyanicenga. Ndiyabulela. (Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[No, no, compatriots; we are not developing a country if we do that. I’m begging you. Thank you.]

 

 

Prof B BOZZOLI: House Chair, what are the duties of the citizens in a democratic order? Once we have a democratic state, which may have been brought about through violence, it is made up of institutions which allow citizens rather than dictators to govern, but which disallows them from imposing their views upon each other through violence. That is the whole point of having fought for a democracy.

 

 

The rule of law, much as you might despise it, Dr Ndlozi, protects us from our own and others’ worst instincts while providing a series of procedures created by the representatives of the people through legitimate means, which govern our behaviour.

 

 

Thus, the law is fundamental to democracy. Without the rule of law, we are simply a mass of individuals who, when we disagree

 

with one another, may fight to the death to impose our will. You see this in failed states, where people are effectively governed by warlords.

 

 

Many hundreds of violent students, including #FeesMustFall activists, have undoubtedly broken the law. Over the past three years, violent and destructive student protests have cost the fiscus at least R800 million.

 

 

Many of them have had legitimate grievances: universities have been underfunded, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme has been inadequate and incompetent, accommodation is often appalling, etc. We in the DA have fought hard for improvements in all these areas, but the violence has been an illegitimate and minority response.

 

 

Here are some examples. The Cape Peninsula University of Technology lost R45 million - a security control office and sports hall were set alight, the auditorium was damaged, the financial aid office was gutted and staff cars were stoned. The Central University of Technology lost R54 million - there was damage to a substation and to property and vehicles.

 

 

The Nelson Mandela University lost R20 million. One building was burnt down, another was damaged by fire, one building was petrol-bombed, windows were smashed and walls were damaged.

 

The North West University lost R49 million. The Mafikeng campus was set alight. Stellenbosch University lost

R21 million. The administration block, the Chamber of Mines building, and community services and residences were vandalised.

 

 

The Tshwane University of Technology lost R47 million. The dining hall was set alight, a building was burnt down, windows were smashed, fire extinguishers were discharged, concrete and steel fencing was damaged, and residence doors and windows were smashed.

 

 

The University of Cape Town lost R2,5 million. Unique artworks, a vehicle and the vice chancellor’s office were set alight. The University of Fort Hare lost R8,2 million. The staff centre was burnt down, buildings were vandalised and looted, and the students’ centre was vandalised.

 

 

The University of Johannesburg lost R144 million. A lift, a guardhouse, a students’ bus, the main auditorium, a small auditorium, classrooms, a storeroom and the restrooms were set alight and vandalised. Residences were vandalised, and fire- extinguishing equipment was stolen or damaged.

 

 

The University of KwaZulu-Natal lost R103 million. Buildings were set alight and vandalised, including the administration

 

building and residences, as well as the law library which was fully destroyed with all its precious contents.

 

 

The University of Limpopo lost R7 million – there was damage to lecture halls and administration buildings. The University of South Africa lost R7,2 million. The chemistry laboratory was burnt, buildings were vandalised and cars were damaged.

The dispatch department was looted.

 

 

The University of the Free State lost R8 million – a building was torched. The University of the Western Cape lost

R63 million - multiple buildings were burnt. The University of Zululand lost R49,5 million – the library, a book shop, residences and water pipes were vandalised; a police vehicle and staff vehicles were set alight.

 

 

The Vaal University of Technology lost R24 million - CCTV cameras and gates were broken, buildings were burnt and vandalised, residences were burnt, mattresses were burnt and the cafeteria was burnt. The University of the Witwatersrand lost R29 million. Buildings and residences were vandalised and damaged.

 

 

This litany of destructiveness, violence and mob action is a national scandal. Precious places have been destroyed against the interests of the very students themselves, including

 

libraries, book shops and the places where students live. Precious, unique works of art have been burnt and our heritage compromised, with our most eminent photographer, the late David Goldblatt, sending his collection out of the country because he was no longer able to trust that it would be protected at our leading university. The logical thing to do in such a situation is to arrest and charge those who have done these things, but somehow this rarely seems to happen.

Why?

 

 

Some students have become racketeers. The protection racket is this: Stake a claim, say for exams to be postponed or something. If the claim is refused, engage in violence. Bring classes to a halt. Paralyse the institution. Break the institution’s rules and perhaps the law. Get arrested or disciplined by the institution. Carry on being violent. Then say you will stop the violence if your demands are met and the students being charged are released and those being disciplined are not subjected to discipline. Martyrs are created and sympathy for them is engendered.

 

 

At this point the initial demands are met, the students are not charged or disciplined and the situation calms down, at least until the next demand is made. However, vice chancellors and broader society are increasingly refusing to engage in this mafia-like racket. On occasion, we find that charges are

 

being laid and not dropped; disciplinary cases are going ahead; demands are not being met in the face of blackmail. For the first time in many years, students engaging in illegal acts may actually be jailed.

 

 

So, the racket is now playing itself out on a national stage. We now see the Minister of Justice being drawn into unseemly bargaining with students charged with serious crimes. We see a political party, itself a sort of glorified student movement, trying to turn these students into martyrs and bringing their situation to Parliament. It may well be that the ritualised pattern of violence ... [Interjections.]

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: You are a glorified nationalist party; a glorified nationalist party. [Interjections.] Nazi party, in fact.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Ndlozi! [Interjections.]

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Glorified nazi party.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Prof Bozzoli, please take your seat. Hon Ndlozi, you know very well that what you are doing is not allowed. You don’t just stand up and take the microphone and speak, okay. Don’t do that again.

 

Prof B BOZZOLI: It may well be that the ritualised pattern of violence, blackmail and concession will itself play out on a national stage. We don’t know what students are threatening to do if they are not excused. But whatever it is, it is part of an ugly, undemocratic game which we should have no part of.

 

 

As a result of these poisonous games, intangible as well as material damage has been done. Universities have become unpleasant places. The job of vice chancellors has become deeply unattractive. Academic staff are demoralised. The profession is emotionally taxing. Professor Bongani Mayosi might be the most prominent victim of these Red Army tactics, but there are many others left traumatised by their experiences in universities.

 

 

And the hundreds of thousands of students today and tomorrow, who want no part of the violence and whose futures depend on their studies, are the ultimate losers. Campuses are closed for weeks at a time. Universities claim to have caught up the time, but this is implausible in most situations. University education is in decline. Education itself - and not only the buildings in which it takes place - has been damaged.

 

 

It is these present and future students we ought to be thinking and caring about — the vast majority. We cannot allow

 

the rule of law to decay, or our society and education system to disintegrate however much the EFF might want that.

 

 

This Parliament must be able to say to future generations that we protected them and that we did not allow their futures to be destroyed. It is for their sakes that violence and mob rule must be brought to an end and legitimate grievances handled in a peaceful, democratic manner. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

Mr M HLENGWA: Hon House Chairperson, the rule of law, by its very definition, clearly states that all persons, institutions and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated and equally enforced.

 

 

While the actions and convictions of the student activists are, in fact, the reason the government eventually announced free higher education for poor and working-class students – and, no doubt, many are grateful for it – we simply cannot ignore the millions of rand in damage to state-owned property. Those actions were against the law and are therefore punishable offences. The simple law of physics is that for every action there is a reaction. They took action, and now they have to face the reaction. It’s as simple as that.

 

 

Rights come with responsibilities, and the right to protest is not a free licence to destroy. Libraries were burnt, buildings

 

were destroyed and cars were vandalised. So, before we engage the calls for amnesty, we must, first and foremost, engage in a debate on accountability.

 

 

The calls for amnesty are justified, but they do not exist in a vacuum. They must be put into their proper context. We must separate the issues of protest from the issues of criminality. The two should not be conflated. From this very podium, the IFP warned, during the time of the #FeesMustFall campaign, that we must not allow violence to be the hallmark of a legitimate student protest for a legitimate cause, because violence is regressive.

 

 

Having said that and speaking about accountability, it would be remiss of us not to mention that the fundamental reality facing students now is rightly justified to be raised, because accountability in South Africa is selective. Whether we look at Marikana, at Life Esidimeni, or at Nkandla, we are now seeing a situation in which the state pulled out a hammer to hit a fly when it was unable to do so with the bigwigs.

 

 

Therefore, students may be aggrieved, rightly so, in feeling that they are a soft target of a state pretending to be macho and pretending to be doing something about accountability, when the trend has been contrary to that reality.

 

[Interjections.] So, the macho stance, at this point in time, is a farce.

 

 

Therefore, let us allow the due process of law to run its course without interference and allow the law to arrive at a logical and legal conclusion, so that we do not set into motion precedents which are not substantiated in law.

 

 

Akukhona ehlathini la, umthetho wumthetho. (Translation of isiZulu sentence follows.)

 

 

[This is not a zoo. The law is the law.]

 

 

Let us allow the law to run its course. I thank you. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr N L S KWANKWA: House Chair, Frantz Fanon once said, “Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission,” and once that is done, do one of two things, “fulfil it or betray it”. These #FeesMustFall activists did exactly that. They discovered that their mission was to ensure fee- free higher education during their lifetime and, to a large extent, they have managed to achieve that.

 

 

I hear people talk about violence. I agree. We cannot condone violence. I mean, that is a no-brainer. However, we also need

 

to consider the context within which those acts of violence occurred. One cannot deny that the government, at the time and during those protests, had taken leave of its sense of decency in how it dealt with the students.

 

 

Even as we speak, some of the students consider the value of education, firstly, on an individual level and, secondly, on a macro-societal level, saying that we did not help them at that point in time to consider that the people of South Africa should indeed unite in support of the plea for amnesty for the #FeesMustFall activists who found themselves on the wrong side of the law and, thus, are currently facing charges in various courts in the land.

 

 

This is important. We want to underscore, as the UDM, the fact that we are not in favour of the blanket approach. This should be done on a case-by-case basis, because there were instances in which criminal elements took advantage of the #FeesMustFall activists. Some of those people were students who were not interested in the cause of fighting for a better education system and trying to improve access to higher education for the black child. Rather, they had their own agendas.

 

 

It must be a matter of deep humiliation and shame for us that some of the people who made higher education fee-free - something the ANC is beating itself on the chest about - are

 

still languishing in jail. Others have been expelled from university and cannot finish their degrees. Those who have finished their degrees have criminal records and therefore are unable to participate in the labour market.

 

 

It’s not the ANC that made fee-free higher education possible. It’s the #FeesMustFall activists.

 

 

Masinixelele inyaniso, ukuba aniyithandi niye kuzixhoma. (Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[Let us tell you the truth. If you do not like it, you can go and hang yourselves.]

 

 

It’s as simple as that. [Interjections.]

 

 

It would not be fair to speak about this fee-free higher education without considering the benefits of higher education for all of us. In fact, let me put it this way: It’s like those people who celebrate having sunshine, who bask in the sunshine, who make merry in the sunlight, and who try to claim credit for the sunshine and the sunlight that they didn’t make. That is exactly what the ANC is doing.

 

 

UMongameli uZuma wawuxhwila lo mba kula nkomfa yenu kuba wayefuma ukuzenza ngcono elungiselela uNDZ. Niyenzile, ngoku

 

nishiya abafundi ngaphandle niqhubeka nodwa, la masela. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

 

 

[President Zuma kidnapped this issue at your last conference, because he wanted to appear better while canvassing for Dlamini-Zuma. They did it; now they leave students outside and go on alone - these thieves.]

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: Hon Chairperson, the plight of the students owing to financial exclusion is a legitimate plight, but we can never condone violence and lawlessness. [Interjections.] If you break the law, you should bear the consequences, no matter how noble the cause.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members! I can’t hear the member at the podium. [Interjections.] Continue, hon Wessels.

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: Chairperson, it is unacceptable that irreplaceable books, paintings, buildings and so forth were destroyed during these protests. This did not serve the goal of obtaining free higher education. It was detrimental to that goal.

 

 

Hon Ndlozi, R800 million could have funded 8 000 students to obtain a degree – 8 000 students! [Interjections.] However,

 

that was destroyed by lawlessness, but the EFF doesn’t understand that because they are still in a revolution. You missed that party: the revolution is over!

 

 

We need restoration, not a revolution. We need to build this country, and what you are preaching is breaking down and destroying the country.

 

 

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon Chair ...

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Wessels, please take your seat. Yes? Why are you rising, hon member?

 

 

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: This member keeps on pointing at us and saying that we do not need a revolution. Of course, we need the restoration of the land.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, what is your point of order? You are debating.

 

 

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: He’s addressing us. He is supposed to address the House.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay. Thank you. That’s a point of order we will accept. Thank you.

 

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: [Inaudible.] ... the restoration of the land.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, don’t debate, hon member. Thank you very much. Hon Wessels, please continue, and you have heard the point of order.

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: Thank you, Chairperson. It is unfortunate that some members’ minds are behind bars. [Interjections.] The problem is the tendency to break down when someone is unhappy.

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Point of order ...

 

 

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

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: It’s a point of order, Chair. Isn’t it true that an empty vessel makes the most noise? [Laughter.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member ... hon member, no. That’s not a point of order and we can’t continue like that. Continue, hon Wessels.

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: And if you strike a full vessel, you won’t move it! [Laughter.]

 

The tendency to destroy is not limited to #FeesMustFall, nor is it only the EFF that is preaching lawlessness. It is also the members of the ruling party and their alliance partners who have had that tendency for years.

 

 

When members of the ANC in a municipality are unhappy they burn. They burn houses. They burn constituency offices. They burn the mayor’s house – and then, it is factions within the ruling party. That is lawlessness and anarchy. We cannot build a country and be economically viable if we continue with this trend.

 

 

The hon Ndlozi is correct. These students do not fall into the same category of criminals as Duduzane Zuma and so forth, nor into the same category as the hon Malema, who, with his former comrades, stole money which could have funded free higher education. [Interjections.] [Applause.] It is the corruption of people like Julius Malema and comrades in the ANC that is stealing the money from the students and the poor.

 

 

Ms N V MENTE: Point of order ...

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Wessels, please take your seat. Yes, hon member?

 

Ms N V MENTE: Chair, could you please tell that man not to refer to our commander in chief as “Julius Malema”. He is “the hon Julius Malema”. Tell him. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: I said “honourable”. You must listen. Mamela. [Listen.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, every member of the House should be referred to as an “hon” member. Please continue.

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: I said “honourable”, but I will say “dishonourable” this time.

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Chairperson, on a point of order: That member must withdraw whatever he has said about the commander in chief. [Interjections.] He knows full well he must bring a substantive motion to the House. He must withdraw; otherwise he won’t continue speaking here. [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, you have made your point. Don’t give rulings. [Interjections.]

 

 

Hon member, you know that to cast any aspersions you have to bring a substantive motion. In this instance, you said a

 

member of this House had looted. [Interjections.] Please withdraw that.

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: Thank you, Chairperson. Unfortunately, I cannot withdraw the truth. [Interjections.] It is the dishonourable Malema who stole the money ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ... from the students ... [Inaudible.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members! Hon Wessels ... [Interjections.] Hon Wessels, we work according to the Rules of this House. I ask you to withdraw that part. [Interjections.] I am asking you to withdraw that part. [Interjections.] It’s on here. [Interjections.]

 

 

An HON MEMBER: He must leave the House!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Continue. [Interjections.]

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Please call the bouncers to take this man out. [Interjections.] Call the bouncers. [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member ... Wait, hon Dlamini. Let me talk to Mr Wessels. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr M M DLAMINI: No, he must withdraw. He must not continue.

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Wessels, please withdraw so that we can go on with the work. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: For the first time, the second time, and the third time, I cannot withdraw the truth. [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): If you cannot withdraw, would you please leave the podium? Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

 

 

Mr W W Wessels, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, was ordered by House Chairperson Ms M G Boroto to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

 

 

The member thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: He must go to Orania from here! Go to Orania! [Interjections.] He must leave the House!

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Chairperson, point of order

 

...

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lekota, please ... [Interjections.] No, they are leaving.

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Point of order ...

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): He knows he has to ... Yes, hon member?

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, the Rules must apply consistently. If you are going to ask the hon Wessels to leave for what he said, then having this group of people shouting “Go to Orania!”, etc, is not parliamentary either. [Interjections.] You must ask them to withdraw that. [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Unfortunately, I didn’t even hear that. Thank you for that.

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Well, that’s the problem. It’s always the opposition!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, I didn’t hear that, hon member, and nobody stood up on a point of order. Please take your seats, hon members. I have ruled.

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Order, Chair ...

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Take your seat.

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Chair, I just want get some clarity. Who is a “group of people” here? We are hon members here in this

 

House. [Interjections.] Who is a “group of people” here? [Interjections.] We must not be undermined here. We must not be undermined here!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, I think I have ruled. Please take your seat. Hon Steenhuisen, I have ruled.

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, a group of people are not honourable when they ...

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, I did not ask you to respond ...

 

 

An HON MEMBER: We are not going to be bullied by Steenhuisen here. [Interjections.] We are not going to be bullied by Steenhuisen here!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): I didn’t ask you to respond. Take your seat. [Interjections.]

 

 

An HON MEMBER: [Inaudible.] ... of being a racist!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Can we allow the hon Lekota to continue? Hon Lekota? [Interjections.] Hon Lekota, please continue. [Interjections.]

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Madam Chairperson ... [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members! Allow the hon Lekota to make his speech. Thank you.

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Thank you, Chairperson. [Interjections.] My understanding is that we are debating here whether we should give blanket amnesty to those who were arrested for the violence that erupted around #FeesMustFall.

 

 

The first point I’d like to make is that in both national and international law amnesty is, generally, granted to those who have already been convicted of proven crimes. So, it’s not possible to give someone amnesty unless you have proven that they have committed a crime. When it comes to the individuals who have been convicted, it’s going to be important to evaluate each case on its merits. So, these two elements are important to take into account as we deal with this matter.

 

 

Now, I would like to refer to some lessons from the history of our country. As we struggled under apartheid, we had no political rights. We had no political rights, and therefore it often did happen ...

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Joe Slovo! Joe Slovo! Joe Slovo!

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: ... that genuine protest spilt over into violent activities. [Interjections.]

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Ruth First!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Ndlozi, please!

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Nevertheless ... [Interjections.] Nevertheless, we insisted ... [Interjections.] ... we insisted and our leadership insisted, at home, on Robben Island and abroad, that when you struggle for a just cause, you must do so in a disciplined fashion.

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Why were you arrested?

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: So, it was very important ... I was arrested for transgressing the laws of apartheid. [Interjections.] What I didn’t do ...

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: You are lying!

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: ... was to struggle ... [Interjections.] Is it parliamentary that when I am speaking ...

 

 

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

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Point of order ... Point of order. Sorry, House Chair ... [Inaudible.] ... this cannot carry on for a moment longer.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Can I hear your point of order?

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: The hon Ndlozi has just said to the hon Lekota, “You are lying.”

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lekota ...

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Now, since the beginning of this debate ...

 

 

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

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: ... the EFF has howled and harangued every single speaker down.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, could you allow me ... I have heard your point of order.

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I haven’t finished my point of order, actually! [Interjections.]

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Lekota ... hon Lekota, did you hear that? [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: I heard it.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay. Hon Ndlozi, did you say the hon Lekota was lying?

 

 

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: No. [Interjections.] No. [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members ... [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Madam Chair ...

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay. Hon Steenhuisen, neither the Table staff nor I heard that. [Interjections.] That’s why I’m asking you to please try to be quiet, so that I can hear what’s happening in the House. [Interjections.]

 

 

On this point, I am done, and if it’s possible that it can be heard from the Hansard, that would be fine. We will follow up on it. [Interjections.] Neither I nor the service officers heard that remark. Continue, hon Lekota.

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: Madam Chair, the point I was making is that, even in those circumstances, as the leadership of the mass movement in the country, we had the duty to appeal continually to our followers and supporters not to break the law, because that is what we were taught about how to lead the people in struggle. You want support. You want mass support. The community saw that what you were struggling for was a just cause and that you were doing it in a manner that enhanced the position of the organisation.

 

 

It is for that reason, by the way, that the late president, Oliver Tambo, went to sign the Geneva Conventions to show that the liberation movement was a disciplined force that would act within accepted revolutionary action, as opposed to terrorist activity.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): At that point, we want to thank you, hon Lekota. Your time has expired.

 

 

Mr M G P LEKOTA: I thank you very much.

 

 

Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Chairperson, the ANC supports the rights of citizens and inhabitants of South Africa to peaceful protest. The ANC adopted the resolution on free education and the Polokwane conference affirmed this position, a position which

 

the hypocritical parties want to hijack as their own policies today.

 

 

The ANC wants to pledge its support to the legitimate call for free education by the #FeesMustFall movement for free education. However, we do not agree with the methods of violence and the damage to property.

 

 

This call was made in 1955 in terms of the Freedom Charter and I quote:

 

 

The Doors of Learning and Culture Shall be Opened! ... Education shall be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children; higher education and technical training shall be opened to all by means of state allowances and scholarships awarded on the basis of merit.

 

 

We are a constitutional democracy, with a Constitution that is the supreme law. Any conduct which is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid and, of course, the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from any violation within a democratic institution, operating within the parameters of our Constitution and the rule of law.

 

 

The Bill of Rights in our Constitution is the basis of all our laws. Section 29(1) of the Bill of Rights clearly spells out

 

the responsibility of the state when it comes to education. I quote:

 

 

Everyone has the right –

 

(a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and

(b) to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

 

 

The principle of free education is well established and we do not want to question the legitimacy of the call articulated by the #FeesMustFall campaign. However, having said this, we are also aware of the number of #FeesMustFall activists who have not respected the conventions of protest in South Africa. Our Constitution provides that everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.

 

 

The #FeesMustFall protests were heard by the majority of South Africans and the government. One of the pillars of the National Development Plan, NDP, states and I quote: “ ... people living in South Africa feel safe at home, at school and at work. They enjoy community life without fear.”

 

The government heard the call and, in 2017, the former President of the Republic announced free education for students whose household income was below the R350 000 threshold. This indeed was a victory for all South African learners, for our people’s children and the #FeesMustFall movement, and, as such, gives expression to the Freedom Charter. We salute all for this victory.

 

 

We should not fool ourselves about what the Constitution states. The Constitution clearly states that all shall be equal before the law. Our Constitution does not call for those who commit violence during protests to be given a get-out-of- jail-free card. The call by the EFF, if it was serious about considering ... In fact, it should consider that the Constitution is supreme. Everybody sitting in this House has sworn allegiance to the Constitution - sworn allegiance to protect and support the Constitution.

 

 

Our law does not allow for a special deal for a special group. If that was the case, then we would have a special deal for hundreds of criminals who systematically engage in the destruction of state and private property.

 

 

The laws of this Republic must apply to all people. When we start to tinker with pardons and exemptions for this group and that group, then we are on a slippery slope in our democracy.

 

Let me remind hon members of this House why students received convictions during these protests. They were given the right to protest; to freely state their demands. We agreed with their call. They were given the right to protest, but they burned and destroyed university property, stoned and burned police vehicles and, in fact, did everything that is against the rule of law.

 

 

The EFF members in this House are no longer students. They are here to uphold our Constitution and the law, like any other member of any party represented in this House. [Interjections.] The EFF cannot go about agitating students to heed a particular call which includes acts of destruction, but then run to the House to ask that we protect them. [Interjections.]

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Hon Chair, on a point of order: The hon member is deliberately misleading the House. This is a PhD candidate; the ... [Inaudible.] ... is doing law. You are anti- intellectual. How can you take this platform to encourage the country not to study? There are many students here; everywhere. We are students. [Interjections.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Ndlozi, please take your seat. That is a point of debate. Thank you. Continue, hon Ramatlakane.

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Order, Chair ...

 

 

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

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: On a point of order, Chair. The Rule says that you must notify a member when you are going to switch off the microphone. Why did you break the law? Chief, we are students here. It is only the ANC which is not studying. The EFF is studying, Chief.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Please take your seat. Please take your seat. I am going to switch off your microphone.

 

 

Mr L RAMATLAKANE: Hon Chair, I repeat: the EFF Members of Parliament are here like any other member of this House to protect and observe the Constitution. You are not going to be able to go back and agitate the students to embark on all sorts of dangerous things and then run to Parliament to ask Parliament to come to their rescue. [Interjections.] Then we leave it. Let me ask this question: When will the EFF learn? We cannot go on protecting those who break the law. We cannot go on mollycoddling errant students who want to perpetrate violence in the name of all students.

 

The police have to do their job; they have to react to violence when violence is committed by anyone. In this particular case, only 951 students were arrested, of which 497 cases were presented and 360 cases were withdrawn for various reasons. Only nine were convicted, with eight cases still continuing in court.

 

 

I want to say to the students: We have heard you and we respect your stance on the #FeesMustFall campaign. The majority of students - thousands of protesters - were peaceful at the universities in the country.

 

 

We cannot allow violence to be the clarion call of the few. The state will react to the violence and tyranny of the reactionary few. We do not underestimate the resolve of the state to govern in its own name. If you want to break the law, be prepared to do time. This applies to everybody in society. Violence does not give you that right to do that. The best way is to negotiate, utilise skill, demand and get what you want through the proper means.

 

 

In conclusion, let me state clearly: the ANC will listen and implement. We will engage and our government will support our students and other sections of our society with legitimate demands. We can never make and agree to private deals for those whose purpose is to subvert our hard-won democracy, and

 

neither will we do so to appease the EFF. We cannot do that. Freedom cost us and our people dearly. We will defend our freedom unconditionally. We will not be moved!

 

 

The ANC urges all people to protest peacefully and with dignity. This includes respect for the rule of law and respect for people’s lives and property - and this means doing so within the ambit of the law. Thank you, Chair. [Applause.]

 

 

Mr M P GALO: Chair, the 2016-2017 nationwide protests that were sponsored by university students presented an early form of toxic violence at our universities. The chanting of revolutionary slogans and the torching of university buildings became the hallmark of these protests. This approach to engagement was recently dismissed by Professor Xolela Mangcu whose article in the Sunday Times lashed out at Professor Bongani Mayosi’s tormentors. Professor Mangcu said, “This is why I find it so upsetting to hear that students were calling him a sellout, which is also what they did to me when I protested against their rude treatment of Ng?g? wa Thiong’o.”

 

 

Whereas these protests were accompanied by alien conduct to the rules of engagement, it is equally true that they had a semblance of merit. The exponents of free higher education, especially those who were at the forefront, are today petitioning the President of the country for amnesty. It is

 

patently clear that these students are urging us to read into Sobukwe’s letters until we have made sense of their postulations. It was Sobukwe, who cautioned that:

 

 

Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present.

 

 

It is this lack of moderation on the part of students that we are called upon today to debate in terms of the EFF’s sponsored motion. The torching of buildings, the intimidation of fellow students and the complete negation of law ... [Time expired.]

 

 

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: House Chair, hon members of this House, my colleague the hon Khubisa was supposed to have given this speech, but, unfortunately I think he has had a challenge and he could not get here. However, as the NFP we are very clear on this matter.

 

 

One of the most important things is this ... I am actually surprised that this matter has even been brought to this House, because the first point is that in this very House we have repeatedly debated the issue of political parties and

 

politicians not interfering in the rule of law or in another organ of state. Now, whilst we appreciate and understand the challenges that students may have faced in tertiary institutions, we must also be mindful of the fact that a few people might be protesting. But what about the rights of the majority who are not protesting? Democracy demands that people must be allowed to protest peacefully, and that is what we have actually provided for. But going about torching buildings and assaulting police officers is not acceptable. That is not the way we are supposed to conduct ourselves.

 

 

Let me add that in this very House we have repeatedly spoken about the interference of politicians in tender processes, in the state, in police investigations. Yet now we come here and we ask for the opposite of that and I cannot understand that. For me, that is a high level of hypocrisy. I think we need to deal with these issues.

 

 

Let me also add that out of the total number of students that were demonstrating or protesting, only a handful have been charged. And the question that arises is: Why? We must also remember that pre 1994, quality education was provided to a select few only. What did we do as government? Despite the fact that many people will argue that we have not done much, a lot has changed in South Africa. Let us be honest about that and admit that even though we do still have challenges.

 

After having built this infrastructure to provide a better quality of education, you go out there, you torch, you destroy these things and then you expect government and the taxpayers

- the poorest of the poor that are suffering – to come back and build those things. That is totally unacceptable.

 

 

As the NFP, whilst we support the students in their struggle for a better quality of education to address the challenges they are facing, we cannot support interference in the rule of law by any political party or by anyone in this House. The law is equal for every one of us in South Africa, and, as such, we cannot support this. Thank you very much, hon Chairperson.

 

 

Mr L R MBINDA: Hon Chair, as the PAC we once again stand before this House to highlight our unwavering support for the brave and revolutionary activists of the #FeesMustFall campaign. We say this, guided by our ideological principles and understanding of the importance of education in the development of a nation.

 

 

It is for this reason that we continue to condemn the commodification of education. For us, education remains a liberatory tool that must be made freely available to all, especially the youth, in any nation that is serious about its development.

 

We continue to condemn the double standards by the ruling party as they were with us in calling for free education as far back as the early ’40s. Today, we are more than two decades into the new dispensation, but university fees continue to rise like any other commodity.

 

 

The government’s intervention in the form of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, continues to be an impediment to the growth of these youngsters as it leaves them with an unreasonable amount of debt.

 

 

Student organisations have been in public marches to departments of education and other government offices, submitting memorandums, year in and year out, with no decisive answers from government. It was expected that these students would continue to be agitated as they seem not to have been heard.

 

 

The rise of the #FeesMustFall movement is a generational continuation of a call that has been at the top of the national agenda and is long overdue. We have students like Khanya Cekeshe, Bonginkosi Khanyile, Masixole Mlandu, Athabile Nonxuba who have even been subjected to house arrest owing to their call for free education. Why do we criminalise these students when we are in agreement that their call is genuine?

 

As a nation, we are still unable to deal decisively with the perpetrators of human genocide against unarmed women and children during the apartheid era, but we are here today ready to slaughter young students for demanding to go to school. By saying this, we are not condoning any use of violence and the burning of school facilities, but we are sitting here with people that have committed serious atrocities. Some of these students do not even have their grandparents as a result of the evil system which was declared a crime by the international community. Thank you very much.

 

 

Mr Z N MBHELE: Chairperson, in debating the plight of the #FeesMustFall activists, we must be clear on three things. Firstly, we must remember that we are speaking of at least three plights; secondly, we must not forget that this includes all individuals whose activism contributed to lobbying efforts for a fair deal on higher education funding; and, thirdly, we must understand that the mere fact of being in a plight or an unfortunate and difficult situation is a neutral and objective one. It says nothing about the culpability or innocence of those affected until we look at the context of that plight.

 

 

So, what are the three plights of the #FeesMustFall activists? When we analyse them properly we see quite quickly that they are all rooted in the failing state that is the result of ANC misgovernance. The first original plight was the chronic

 

neglect and underfunding of the higher education sector by successive ANC governments, which engendered fertile conditions for the eruption of #FeesMustFall.

 

 

The second plight was that suffered by many #FeesMustFall activists during the unfolding of protests in incidents of unprofessional or disproportionately violent treatment at the hands of a Police Service that was and continues to be underresourced, understaffed, underequipped and undertrained to handle public unrest situations. These incidents were flashpoint examples of the general vulnerability faced by students and staff on university campuses when it came to the safety and security of person and property.

 

 

So, because successive ANC governments have, through negligence and mismanagement, allowed the Public Order Policing units to dwindle in numbers, not receive adequate training and be starved of resources to maintain and upgrade equipment, these units were unprepared to respond to and contain outbreaks of violence, arson and vandalism during the #FeesMustFall protests and subsequent ones on campuses up till this year.

 

 

As the Portfolio Committee on Police heard in a briefing a few months ago, the Public Order Policing units are sitting with a complement of only 5 600 personnel, when the ideal number is

 

approximately 12 800, meaning that these units are operating at less than 50% capacity. How can the ANC government expect our service members in a specialised operational environment like Public Order Policing to be effective and efficient in such an emaciated state?

 

 

In addition, because of this undercapacity of the Public Order Policing units, it is often the case that station-level personnel have to be first responders to public unrest, for which they are not adequately trained or equipped. It is this ill-preparedness that makes the police prone to the rapid escalation of violence and heavy-handedness in these situations, to the extent of using live ammunition as was reported to be the case with the protests at the Tshwane University of Technology’s Soshanguve campus that resulted in the death of Katlego Monareng.

 

 

The third plight is that of the criminally accused and/or jailed individuals, and in each of these cases the rule of law must be upheld and due process followed. But, again, we know that the criminal justice system is severely hampered owing to our detective service being in distress, overstretched, understaffed and unable to drive speedy, quality investigations, coupled with an underresourced public prosecution service.

 

The blame for the mismanagement that has caused all of these problems lies squarely at the feet of the ANC government and its deployment of cronies to state institutions, who then go on to undermine their independence and professionalism for the sake of politics and driving partisan agendas.

 

 

After 24 years in government, the ANC has proven that it does not have the political will to make the tough choices needed to get the basics of good governance right. A DA-led national government is the only hope for fixing the fundamentals and turning around our Public Service to efficiency, effectiveness and professionalism. Ngiyabonga, Sihlalo. [Thank you, Chairperson.] [Applause.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): I’m now recognising the hon Yako, who is a new member sworn in this morning in the Speaker’s Office. So, this is her maiden speech. Hon Yako? [Interjections.]

 

 

SIHLALO WENDLU (Nkt A T Didiza): Hhayi kahleni, ningametfusi, ngoba usesemusha nkhosiyami! Chubeka wena sesi. (Translation of Siswati sentences follows.)

 

 

[The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): No, do not scare her because she is still new. Continue, hon member.]

 

Ms Y N YAKO: Thank you, Chairperson. We are not going to entertain debate about the cost to the state, brought about by said damages caused by the #FeesMustFall protests, when we are here to address the true cost of freedom for blacks in post- apartheid South Africa.

 

 

It is clear that the ANC and the DA are colluding to destroy the futures of the #FeesMustFall activists. [Interjections.] We cannot co-opt a language of free education whilst forgetting the youth that put their bodies on the line to bring these injustices to the forefront.

 

 

Behind the criminalisation, the abuse, the trauma and the suspensions and exclusions from institutions of higher learning, we are talking here about young people, individuals, and we will tell you their stories. Their stories, we must all acknowledge, are the stories of heroes and heroines.

 

 

Bonginkosi “Education” Khanyile had to prepare to write his final exam in Durban’s Westville Prison while standing, because they do not have study desks for people awaiting trial. After missing his classes for six months whilst in prison, not only did he pass and complete his national diploma in public management and economics from the Durban University of Technology, but out of four exams that he wrote, whilst in prison, he was able to get four distinctions. But because of

 

his activism during the #FeesMustFall protests, he is a convicted criminal today awaiting sentencing.

 

 

Amos “Amla” Monageng was a second-year informatics degree student at the University of Pretoria. Arrested in 2016 and barred from continuing with his degree, he now sits at home serving a one-year house arrest sentence.

 

 

Khanya Cekeshe, a first-year media student at Footprint Media Academy, who did not have funds to study journalism at the University of the Witwatersrand, today sits in Leeuwkop prison serving a five-year jail sentence. Khanya was a first-time offender with no previous convictions, but now he has a criminal record.

 

 

Mcebo Dlamini, a law student at the University of the Witwatersrand, spent 27 days in jail after being arrested and denied bail because of his activism during the #FeesMustFall protests.

 

 

There are hundreds of others who sit in jail and are in and out of court instead of going to class to write their exams and complete their degrees.

 

 

People who are accused of rape, murder and all sorts of serious crimes get bail, but students who protested against

 

high fees, the exploitation of workers, entrenched colonial education at white universities, rape culture and the use of language to exclude and discriminate must either rot in jail or fight all the way to the highest court in the land to get bail.

 

 

Not only have we criminalised and sent students to jail, but hundreds of students have been suspended from institutions of higher learning, some with lifetime bans. Yolanda Dyantyi was expelled from Rhodes University in 2016 and, further, banned from the university for life. Surprise Silowe, Wandile Masango, Thulani Masilela, Mangaliso Sambo, who were students at the King Sabata Dalindyebo Technical and Vocational Education and Training College - and commonly known as ... [Inaudible.] ... War Women” - and many others were all expelled and cannot continue with their studies.

 

 

What kind of society do we want when we put excelling students in prison with hardened criminals? What kind of society do we want when we deny students free education when it is only education that makes adults who can contribute meaningfully to society? Minister, we must ask ourselves: If we continue to criminalise students, what kind of adults do we want the students to be when they leave the gates of prison after two years, after three years, after five years of imprisonment?

 

If we are truly a country invested in freedom for its people, we show it by not imprisoning, suspending or expelling those who are brave enough to fight an unjust system, for daring to be brave enough to fight for freedom. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

An HON MEMBER: A future Minister!

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Thank you. Hon Mkhalipi! Hon Mkhalipi ...

 

 

SIHLALO WENDLU (Nkt A T Didiza): ... lunga Lelihloniphekile Mkhaliphi, ngitokucela-ke sesi kwekutsi uma sewufundzisa sesi Yako, umfundzise kwekutsi kukhona Bosomlomo, lona bekamfungisa, boSekelasomlomo, kanye naBosihlalo beNdlu ... [Kungena Emlonyeni.] ... cha, yebantfwabetfu, phela siyafundzisa. Angitsi ngikhumbuta losesi lohlala nabo kutsi kufuneka abafundzise kahle. (Translation of Siswati paragraph follows.)

 

 

[The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Hon Mkhaliphi, I would then request that, when teaching the hon Yako, teach her that there are Speakers, the ones who make her take an oath, Deputy Speakers and House Chairpersons ... [Interjections.] No, members, we are educating. Isn’t it that I am reminding the hon member who stays with them that she needs to educate them as well?]

 

Order, hon members!

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPI: Chair, leave the future Minister alone.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! Order, hon member! Take your seat. The hon member was very disciplined while speaking here. Hon Minister?

 

 

Dr M Q NDLOZI: [Inaudible.]

 

 

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

 

 

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: House Chair

 

and colleagues, before I proceed with my speech this morning, may I take this opportunity to align myself with all colleagues who have expressed their profound dismay at the utter lawlessness that has prevailed in our country. Indeed, the levels of violence - as a result of some or other form of service delivery protest - have become intolerable. In particular, I must express disappointment in the EFF, hon Ndlozi, for adopting a stance that equates the struggle against apartheid through civil disobedience and other forms of undermining apartheid laws with the kind of lawlessness that they have been propagating, whether in terms of land grabs or other forms of advancing their policy stances through

 

propagating violence. Indeed, I think it is quite disappointing.

 

 

However, on the same note, on behalf of the ANC and government, let me reach out to all those who suffered harm, sustained injury, lost property or had their property damaged during these protests. As colleagues have correctly indicated, it was just a small number of protestors who actively used violent means to air their views.

 

 

Hon colleagues, whilst talking about apartheid and its draconian laws, I invite us to go back a little in history. In 1910, when the Union of South Africa was formed, the white regime of the time, whilst establishing a new state, had a unique opportunity to build the kind of state which the ANC envisaged: a nonsexist, nonracial, prosperous society in which all South Africans would have a place in the sun. Fast forward to 1994 when the ANC was confronted with the mammoth task of having to respond to almost a century of racial exclusion, oppression and marginalisation that started not in 1948, by the way, but way back in 1910 when the union was formed.

Imagine, 100 years down the line, had the white regime at the time opted to build a nation that was inclusive and in which prosperity was shared amongst all where we would be today.

 

The population census in 1911 said that the South African population was just under 6 million. Fast forward 100 years later and we are almost at 60 million. That is the size of the socioeconomic backlog that the ANC government is confronted with today - 10 times higher and tougher than it was 100 years ago. As if that is not enough, under colonial rule in 1910 the concern was to address the socioeconomic plight of only 10% of that 6 million. Today, the ANC government is confronted with having to address the socioeconomic challenges of inequality, poverty and unemployment of the total population. So there are no comparisons in terms of the task that confronts an ANC government today compared to that which confronted the colonial regime back in 1910.

 

 

However, hon members, let me proceed from where we are. Colleagues would prefer to forget that we, as the ANC, adopted the Freedom Charter in 1955 which articulated our policy stance on education by stating that we wanted to ensure that education was accessible to all and that the issue of economic exclusion should not serve as a barrier to access. We have also understood that the attainment of the goals and commitments of the Freedom Charter was never going to be as simple as preparing a cup of instant coffee. It is a work in progress and only those who have never had the responsibility to answer to the competing needs of our people, in the context

 

of limited resources, will adopt a different posture and try to convince our people otherwise.

 

 

Nonetheless, notwithstanding the dramatic events in the tertiary education space before December 2017, it was precisely owing to our commitment to uplifting our people that then President Jacob Zuma announced the implementation of free higher education starting from this year. As hon members are aware, some of these young activists recently marched to the Union Buildings demanding an immediate general amnesty from the President. On the instruction of President Cyril Ramaphosa, I engaged with students and agreed on a process of guiding those who wished to apply for presidential pardon and other forms of assistance within the criminal justice system.

 

 

Let me clarify, as the students themselves correctly acknowledge, that at no stage did we promise students we were going to deviate or undermine the principle of the rule of law. And at no stage did we promise - nor do we intend - to violate the principle of the separation of powers between government and state institutions established under our Constitution and the law, and any insinuation to that effect must be dismissed with the contempt that it deserves.

 

 

I wish to reiterate what I said in the public statement I issued in line with respect for the principles of the

 

separation of powers and the rule of law: that the executive branch of government had neither the mandate nor the inclination to favour any person or group of people with a specific or general reprieve outside the existing constitutional and legal framework provided for under our law in the Constitution. I also categorically made it clear that “presidential pardons are granted in respect of convicted and sentenced persons only on the basis of the information they provide and in circumstances where the applicant has shown good cause. Under no circumstances can presidential pardons be predetermined.”

 

 

However, the criminal justice system provides avenues for various alternatives to outright criminal prosecution which include diversion, mediation and various forms of restorative justice mechanisms - depending on the nature and severity of the offence committed. The affected students fall under the following categories: those who have been arrested and are still in custody or detention or where their matters are awaiting a decision for prosecution; those that have been charged or awaiting prosecutorial decision as I indicated; and those that are on trial and sentenced, including those serving custodial sentences in a correctional facility.

 

 

I have undertaken to guide the students in approaching the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, to consider evaluating

 

each case specifically on its merits in order to determine the seriousness or otherwise of the charges, the weight or otherwise of the available evidence and, where appropriate, the possibilities of the options for diversion, mediation or other forms of restorative justice in the case of those students who are yet to appear before court in line with the laws of the country. So there is nothing that we have offered to assist the students with which is outside the existing framework of the law and the practices that are applicable.

 

 

Let me just, for the sake of hon members, indicate that of the nearly 500 000 matters the NPA has to make prosecutorial decisions about annually, at least about 160 000 of those are actually dealt with by way of diversion or mediation. This is not a unique or exclusive arrangement that is provided for for any category of alleged offenders.

 

 

Furthermore, I will, where appropriate, guide the students in making applications to the NPA for the review of prosecutorial decisions in cases of students who are already charged and whose matters are currently on trial. Let me just indicate here that, of course, once a person has pleaded in a criminal matter, there is no room for diversion because then there is a legal obligation for the matter to proceed to a verdict by the court.

 

The Ministry of Justice will guide the students on the process of compiling applications for presidential pardon for those students seeking to make such applications. That is a responsibility that we discharge on a daily basis. On this note, let me indicate that of course any person who wishes to apply for presidential pardon is at liberty to consult with their legal representatives for assistance, but as the Department of Justice and Correctional Services we provide free legal guidance on a daily basis to anyone who wishes to apply for a presidential pardon or any other form of reprieve in terms of expungement of their criminal record by guiding them as to what information they need to provide, what forms they need to apply for and how to go about this, because it is our duty as government to provide those services to all our citizens. And it is no exception that we are going to extend these services to the affected students.

 

 

Hon members, I would like to explain the process of pardons and alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms to clear any misunderstandings that might have arisen or are likely to arise in future. Section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution vests the power to grant pardons in the President as the executive power. It provides a unique opportunity for people who have been in conflict with the law, or who have a criminal conviction recorded against their name, to have their record cleared and thus start afresh with a clear record.

 

We are aware that a criminal record prevents one from, in some instances, obtaining employment owing to a loss of confidence in one’s character by potential employers, from obtaining visas to travel overseas sometimes, and, most importantly, it places a mark against one’s name which is difficult if not impossible to remove. The law provides, therefore, some relief in this instance to deserving cases – and I want to underline “deserving cases” because each case is dealt with on its merits. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. In applying for a pardon, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development processes applications for pardons.

 

 

A guideline has been prepared for members of the public who wish to apply for pardon. A record of the offence or offences committed – on what is referred to as an SAP 69 form - must be obtained from the SA Police Service.

 

 

This information is crucial as it’s a full official record of the offences committed as part of the application and has a bearing on the application for pardon. I will refer to this further later on. An application form has been prepared by the department as a guideline for applicants. This application form contains information that is essential for the consideration of pardon, such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, the personal circumstances of the applicant that warrant consideration for

 

pardon, and, importantly, references from persons other than the applicant that support the application for pardon. So, it’s a very transparent process. Any person has the liberty to avail themselves ...

 

 

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM:

 

Point of order, Chair.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! Minister, could you take your seat. What is the point of order?

 

 

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM:

 

These members are not listening, Comrade Chair. [Laughter.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Hon member, that is not a point of order. Proceed, Minister.

 

 

Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order: we only listen to informed perspectives. We can’t hear what he is saying because he’s waffling. That is why we are busy ... [Inaudible.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Could you please take your seat, member. That is not a point of order. Minister, continue.

 

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Well, if

 

you are not paying attention, hon Shivambu, how are you going to advise your members who may be affected themselves?

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Minister, your time is going. Proceed.

 

 

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: In

 

exercising the power under section 84(2)(j), the President must make a rational decision. This means that the information placed before the President must consider all relevant factors about the applicant and the offence committed. The granting of a pardon must be in the public interest. In preparing an application for pardon for the President’s consideration, therefore, the process I set out earlier has been developed by the department, in consultation with the Presidency, to ensure that the process is lawful and fair. The type of information required - such as the nature of the offence and personal circumstances - assists the President in making a rational decision.

 

 

What has counted in favour of applicants who have applied for pardon in the past is evidence that the applicant has turned his or her life around and has become a fully productive member of society. Remorse for an offence committed on the

 

part of the applicant is a critical element in the granting of pardon.

 

 

At times, the National Prosecuting Authority’s view on a matter is sought. Of course, the victim’s support in the granting of pardon counts in favour of the applicant concerned. Prior to 2012, a huge backlog in the processing of pardons was created, owing to the huge influx of applications from persons wishing to clear their criminal records. A quicker and simpler process was required and, therefore, legislation was passed to amend the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977. Section 271B, for example, provides for the clearing of criminal records through an administrative process, granted by the director-general of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

 

 

This has enabled the department to clear the criminal records of approximately 21 000 individuals. So there is a system out there that has benefited thousands of people and this is not a question of dealing with an isolated case of a small group of convicted students.

 

 

This process applies when 10 years have lapsed after the date of the conviction for the offence and when the person did not receive a direct prison sentence of conviction except a sentence of periodic imprisonment or correctional supervision,

 

or has not been convicted and imprisoned for any other offence during those 10 years without the option of a fine. This is what we refer to generally as expungement, which is dealt with administratively as opposed to presidential pardons.

 

 

A person does not qualify for an expungement if a period of 10 years has not lapsed since the conviction of the crime, if they were convicted of a sexual offence against a child or a mentally disabled person, or if their name is included in the National Register for Sex Offenders or the National Child Protection Register. They will however qualify if their names have been removed from the national register. Serious cases in terms of which the sentence is one of imprisonment without the option of a fine - for example, robbery, rape, murder and assault with the intention to do grievous bodily harm - will not ordinarily qualify for the clearing of a criminal record by way of expungement. No such cases have ever been considered for presidential pardon by the President.

 

 

Let me now turn to alternative dispute resolution methods, ADRMs, which encompass several methods for the resolution of disputes between the parties. Within the NPA this includes diversion and informal mediation to ensure that these matters are resolved. Thank you very much, hon Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

Debate concluded.

 

 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

 

 

 

(Consideration of Report)

 

 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

 

 

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

 

There was no debate.

 

 

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

 

 

That the House –

 

 

(1) notes concerns raised by the Minister of Environmental Affairs around the substantive nature of amendments to the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill effected by the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs;

 

 

(2) further notes that the amendments effected to the Bill have implications for other portfolio committees and government departments, which necessitate further consultations with all relevant stakeholders;

 

(3) recognises that the nature of the amendments may require that the objectives of the Bill, as set out in the Long Title and Memorandum, may need to be amended and that the portfolio committee may therefore need to solicit further public inputs; therefore

 

 

(4) resolves, in terms of Rule 123 (1)(d), to refer the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill back to the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs for further consideration and report.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Thank you. I now put the motion. Are there any objections? No objections ... Oh, hon Singh?

 

 

Mr N SINGH: Hon Chairperson, we have no objection to the motion that was put by the hon Chief Whip of the ANC, but I must say this is a very clumsy way of dealing with legislation in this House. Last week I stood up here to ask that we put a timeframe to this piece of legislation and we gave a timeframe of seven days. Now we are being told that the matter is going to be referred.

 

 

Hon Cabinet Ministers would know that before any legislation is presented to a portfolio committee, a subcommittee of Cabinet deals with the principles and the objectives of the

 

legislation. So, one would take it that that process has already taken place, but now to be told almost a year later that there is need for more consultation just begs the question whether that process was really thoroughly engaged with.

 

 

However, having said that, I think this an important piece of legislation and we do not need to have any loopholes in environmental legislation, in particular when there is going to be enforcement. So, we will support the fact that the matter goes back to the portfolio committee, but this should not happen again, hon Chairperson. Thank you.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Thank you, hon Singh. I am sure members of the executive have noted that, and we appreciate all parties agreeing that the matter indeed go back to the committee.

 

 

Motion agreed to.

 

 

The National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill accordingly referred back to the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs for further consideration and report.

 

 

WELCOMING OF GUESTS IN GALLERY AND STUDENTS FROM WALTER TEKA PRIMARY SCHOOL

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Before I call the Minister to make his statement, I would like to welcome all our guests in the gallery and in particular the Walter Teka Primary School from Nyanga East here in Cape Town. You are welcome. [Applause.] Thank you very much.

 

 

DEVELOPMENTS AT THE NATIONAL STUDENT FINANCIAL AID SCHEME

 

 

 

(Minister’s Statement)

 

 

We will now have the Minister’s statement in the name of the hon Pandor, the Minister of Higher Education and Training, on the developments at the National Student Financial Aid Scheme.

 

 

The MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING: Thank you very

 

much, Chairperson, and let me thank the Speaker for allowing me to make this statement.

 

 

Hon members would be aware that there has been growing public concern at the inability of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, to efficiently administer the processing of applications and disbursements.

 

 

These concerns didn’t begin this year. They have existed for several years. The public higher education institutions and students are right to be concerned, given the important role

 

that the scheme plays in ensuring the transformation of the human resource profile of South Africa.

 

 

Since its inception the scheme has ensured that funds are made available to thousands of young people from poor and working- class backgrounds to support their access to and success in higher education. The efficient administration and disbursement of the funds are essential to ensuring that young people benefit from this critical support for the skills development of our country.

 

 

Hon members are aware that we have had serious concerns about the scheme for several years. In 2013, the new student-centred model was introduced for applications and disbursements. It created a direct link between students at the scheme and yet bypassed institutions. The model was piloted for two years in five universities and 14 colleges and then suddenly expanded to all institutions in 2017.

 

 

At the beginning of 2017 there was a significant breakdown of the NSFAS computer systems and processes and we had to relook at what needed to be done. The various processes of the scheme had to be undertaken manually in 2017 and the absence of data and systems integration worsened the problems. Due to these difficulties, many 2017 processes were incomplete by the end of 2017 and many applications were not finalised and thus

 

thousands of students did not receive funds in that academic year.

 

 

The year 2018 began with this backlog intact. The scheme was confronted with inadequate system processes and staff had to administer the new full bursary programme, which introduced free higher education for poor and working-class first-year students in addition to the backlog.

 

 

We began to work closely with NSFAS from early January in an effort to address the changes and to deal with the backlog of 2017. The board also provided extensive hands-on support to the scheme to help address continued inadequacy. In March, I was alerted to the backlogs and the fact that many institutions had dipped into their own funds to give students minimum allowances and thus were owed by the scheme and that thousands of applications had still not been processed.

 

 

It became clear that the problems were extremely severe. Following various board attempts to intervene, assist and even give support from my department, we agreed with the board that extraordinary measures were warranted.

 

 

I appointed a team made up of the Department of Higher Education and Training and institutional staff for a six-week period to support the processing of applications and ensure

 

disbursement. The team worked with the board and made some progress in resolving some of the backlog. However, it became clear that this was not enough of an intervention.

 

 

In July, I directed the board to take additional measures to address the 2017 backlog and to finalise the 2018 applications. I wasn’t satisfied with the responses I received from the board and after the board chair informed me of his immediate resignation, I decided to seriously consider the appointment of an administrator. I called an emergency board meeting which affirmed my intention. The board asked me then to appoint an administrator, as had already been asked by unions represented in NSFAS and by student organisations at Technical and Vocational Education and Training colleges, TVET colleges, and by universities.

 

 

In late August, I appointed Dr Randall Carolissen as administrator for 12 months. I have directed that he should urgently ensure eligible students receive funding for 2017 and this year, develop a viable plan for processing applications for 2019, and ensure stability and efficiency at the scheme.

We have secured staff secondments from universities and the TVET colleges to support him. He will add to this support team as the work progresses.

 

There has been positive progress in the first two weeks of administration. Links have been re-established with all institutions, and institution heads and student leaders have played a critical role in communicating with students. I want to thank all student organisations at our TVET colleges and universities for the leadership role they have played.

 

 

Over 50 NSFAS staff have been deployed to be on site at institutions to ensure the resolution of outstanding issues. I was shocked to learn that they identified 50 000 students who fit the NSFAS criteria but were not on the system as applicants or beneficiaries. Thus far, R17 billion has been disbursed and 275 000 new students and 243 000 returning students have had their funding confirmed.

 

 

I am really happy that we have recorded significant growth in TVET college-funded students. However, the change that has emanated from the administration has also pointed to the critical need for more support to be provided to TVET colleges to develop systems and capacity for student financial aid administration.

 

 

I wish to assure hon members that the matter of the executive officer at the scheme is one that will be addressed by the administrator and not by the Minister or the department.

 

The immediate work of the scheme is to continue a close-out of 2017 and 2018 funding cycles and to open 2019 applications - and we have done so successfully. We will then focus on systems and processes that will create an effective model for the future. We have announced that from 3 September 2018, new applicants should apply to the scheme for funding, and 30 November 2018 will be the closing date for applications because we want to begin the 2019 academic year with students knowing whether they will be funded or not.

 

 

We have also requested universities and colleges to ensure that students apply and to support NSFAS in the turnaround. I seek the help of all parties in the House in getting the around 34 000 TVET college students, who have not signed their statements of particulars, to do so, because they are not going to receive funding if they do not sign those forms.

 

 

Once the immediate challenges have been fully addressed, the administrator will focus on identifying the root causes of problems at the scheme and develop solutions and a road map to address them.

 

 

We anticipate a significant business redesign, which should be put in place during the 2019 academic year period. The steps taken by the administrator thus far have signalled that it will be possible to achieve significant improvements in his

 

12-month term of office. I hope hon members will support the scheme, the administrator and the department in executing this important work.

 

 

I am pleased that students at our universities have begun to benefit from the R2,2 billion that has been disbursed in the first eight days of administration. The colleges that now have confirmation of confirmed applicants are able to disburse the up-front funds that we had made available to them. So, students now have resources in their hands. We will continue to ensure that the funding that our young people should have gets to them and supports them to succeed academically. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Order! I am sure hon members have noted the closing day for NSFAS. So, when you go back to your constituencies, please remember that for the academic year 2019 it is open already and that the closing date is 30 November 2018.

 

 

Prof B BOZZOLI: Thank you, Minister Pandor, for your decisive action and clarification on the state of NSFAS today and your hoped-for improvements in this complex and until now failing system. We in the DA have been highly vocal in calling for NSFAS to be revamped and for bringing the attention of the

 

broader public to the plight many students have found themselves in.

 

 

For months we have pointed out that tens of thousands of students have remained without the funding recklessly promised to them by President Zuma at the end of last year, and for months we have seen how NSFAS has proved barely able to respond.

 

 

We are particularly concerned about the fact that a lot of the problems seem to have arisen from the mismatch between the systems in NSFAS and those in universities and colleges. This is a hugely frightening bureaucratic mess, which will be extremely complex to undo. It is very similar, in my view, to the case of the mismanagement of certificates in colleges, a problem which was similar and which has taken four years, at least, to begin to solve. We can only hope this does not happen in this case. So, it is our fervent hope that your plans will come to fruition and NSFAS will become the smooth- running machine our students deserve. We will be monitoring it carefully.

 

 

However, there is another matter of considerable concern to students and NSFAS which needs airing, and that is the long- term sustainability of the scheme of fee-free higher education itself. There is a very grave risk that the students of the

 

future might find themselves with inadequate support even if NSFAS becomes as efficient as Amazon or as smooth running as Alibaba.

 

 

This is a widespread concern amongst the universities themselves, expressed by the Universities South Africa’s Vice Chancellors Association, which has spoken of this worrying issue frequently. The problem is that we are trying to operate the most generous higher education system in the world in one of the most desperate and failing economies in the world. Our system is the only one in the world, to my knowledge, which pays for all the costs of all the eligible students.

 

 

Other fee-free systems, such as those in Brazil, New Zealand, Germany and Scotland, only exempt students from fees themselves. Here, students have their fees, accommodation, food and other expenses fully paid for, with no expectation of having to pay any of it back, even if they obtain an extremely well-paying job after their studies.

 

 

This means the system is enormously expensive. Fifty-eight billion rand has been set aside for it over three years, but our prediction is that this will not be sufficient, as students of all years of study will join the system over time. Paying for multiple years at once will be an entirely

 

different story from paying or not paying simply for first- year students.

 

 

In six years’ time the fund will be paying for students in every one of the six years of study it takes to do a medical degree, for example. And since higher-education inflation has been calculated at 8% per annum, these ever-increasing costs will be compounded above inflation. We predict that it will be absolutely impossible for the scheme to continue for more than five years, because our economy is floundering and doesn’t seem to be able to be rescued. A crisis, we think, will develop in the funding scheme. We cannot afford fee-free higher education this generous over time. An alternative, less onerous system has to be developed eventually.

 

 

How will this crisis manifest itself? In two ways: student grants will not be sufficient to cope; and it is very likely that university grants will have to be cut to pay for the difference. This is precisely what has happened in New Zealand, for example, and that is a country with a very strong economy compared to ours. It has also happened in Scotland and elsewhere.

 

 

As the costs of free higher education went up in these places, so the payments to universities went down. This has meant that the universities have had to take drastic steps to find the

 

alternative funds. In Scotland they have admitted increasing numbers of foreign fee-paying students, to the point where non-fee-paying Scottish students cannot find a space. And, in New Zealand, serious concerns have been raised about the quality and stability of universities.

 

 

If the government believed, when it introduced this, that fee- free higher education would prevent protests at universities, I believe, it was mistaken. In fact, the amounts granted by NSFAS are modest and unlikely to increase with the cost of inflation. I predict further protests - protests to enlarge the scope of the grant, pretty soon.

 

 

So, this discussion relates directly to the discussion earlier today: the students’ use of violence on campuses to blackmail universities and the state to concede to their demands. What we are seeing here is the future elite of our society capturing, through violence, enormous amounts of funding for themselves, funding which has been provided for, by the way, by raiding the budgets for the very poorest of people - for housing and basic education.

 

 

So, NSFAS is struggling to administer a system which cannot be sustained, which was ill thought through, and which was imposed on us at shockingly short notice by an outgoing President who had overseen the decay of higher education over

 

the period of his tenure and who was desperate for a populist measure to keep up his support. We need to see a sober evaluation of these facts by NSFAS and a rapid improvement in its systems and processes for the sake of our students of the future. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Chair, NSFAS is broken and nothing the Minister says can change that. Students and the EFF members of this House have been telling the ANC government for years that NSFAS needs to be fixed and that it is on the brink of collapse, but, because the department does not listen and has done nothing, students are living in misery and are left in desperate situations, Minister.

 

 

Minister after Minister has come to this House and given empty promises. At universities and TVET colleges across the country students are suffering as we speak. They sleep in libraries and squat three to four in a room, putting female students in danger of sexual violence. Every time this happens we are putting our girl-children at risk of being raped.

 

 

Only three weeks ago, students were kicked out of residences at the University of the Western Cape because NSFAS had not made payments. Students eat nothing but bread and chips because they have no money and because NSFAS allowances come late. They share textbooks and, on many occasions, have to

 

make copies because textbooks are too expensive and they can’t afford to buy them. You have backlogs stretching back many years, Minister: students who were meant to have their 2017 fees paid by NSFAS still haven’t had their fees paid.

 

 

Instead of helping students, NSFAS has become a problem in every step of a student’s life. But NSFAS isn’t just a badly managed system; NSFAS is also a flawed system. You know, Minister, and you know that we know, Minister, that the director-general of Higher Education has been using NSFAS as a fundraising tool and that he deployed his comrades of the SA Communist Party on the board, and nothing has been done about that.

 

 

You cannot study if you do not have a dry and safe place to stay, food to eat and study material. But for many students that get NSFAS allocations and allowances, the funding they receive is still not enough, because there is no student accommodation available within the allocated budget range and because campus food is also overpriced by all these capitalists.

 

 

The National Student Financial Aid Scheme has also created space for corruption and abuse. Go to any university or TVET college in this country and the students will tell you how university management misuses, withholds and steals funds

 

meant for them. There is no co-ordination between the credit management offices and the NSFAS national offices, with the universities blaming NSFAS and NSFAS blaming the universities, while students get lost in the system and simply don’t get the funding they duly deserve, Minister.

 

 

That is the sad reality for students using NSFAS, or for students trying to get NSFAS funding, and it paints a picture of a broken system, unable to meet the needs of students.

Yearly, we send our students to these institutions and they don’t get the funding that they need. We don’t need promises anymore, Minister.

 

 

The only way forward is for there to be fee-free higher education for all, and only then will we have an education system that allows students to get an education and finish their degrees without being burdened by the costs of fees, accommodation, food and study material. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

Mr X NGWEZI: Hon House Chairperson, the effective administration of NSFAS remains one of the key critical areas of the education system in this country, particularly for the poor. Therefore, the interventions that the Minister reported on today are a welcome step in sorting out, fundamentally, what has been systemic rot setting in over a long period of time which has characterised NSFAS.

 

The system has been riddled with inefficiencies and ineffectiveness and has been largely unresponsive to those it is supposed to benefit, which is the poor. The emergence of the #FeesMustFall movement was, in part, a result of a NSFAS system which did not go far enough in dealing with the issues of student education and access. The board has failed dismally, and we hope that the interventions of the Minister in this regard will correct that.

 

 

On 10 August, the IFP stated that while we welcomed the appointment of an administrator, the fact was that we had called for the dissolution of the board with the appointment of an administrator.

 

 

Moving forward, NSFAS must not just be decentralised to universities for effective and maximum use, but also be seen as a social grant. In that regard, the department must work with the Department of Social Development for the purposes of concurrence and plugging the holes of corruption where unintended recipients find themselves at the top of the list while those in need of funding the most don’t get it. This must be part and parcel of the broader change we seek to turn around NSFAS. Thank you.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms A T Didiza): Thank you, hon member. I now recognise the hon member Shaik Emam.

 

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Thank you, hon House Chair. Hon Minister, it is quite clear that the administration of the fund leaves much to be desired and this appears to have been a problem that has been going on for many, many years. As a result of this poor administration, many students have suffered and continue to suffer.

 

 

We must also not forget about the challenges that we identified a while ago in terms of collection in that we found that we were collecting under 10% or 12% of the loans we had been giving out. We found that something drastic needed to be done about that. So, I think, that it is one of the issues we need to talk about.

 

 

Added to that, hon Chairperson and Minister, is the issue of the curriculum. While we as government are allocating a whole lot of money to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme and for bursaries, we also appear to have a shortage of skills in the country. We are finding, repeatedly, that the curriculums, particularly of Technical and Vocational Education and Training colleges, are not speaking to the skills needs. So, while we do have high unemployment, we also have a skills shortage here and we are finding that there is no co- ordination between the departments. So, we are asking the Minister to also intervene in this regard.

 

We welcome the intervention by the Minister, the hon Pandor. However, hon Chairperson, the backlog, together with the current applications that are increasing at an alarming rate, means that drastic measures must be taken to identify what the weaknesses and the challenges are. And, again, we come back to the same thing: there have never been consequences for failure by members or officials to comply or deliver. I think the time has come for us to investigate these things thoroughly and those that are failing us must be dealt with accordingly. They must be replaced. We must have capacity so that this doesn’t happen.

 

 

Now many of us are arguing about free higher education. Hon Minister and Chairperson: Yes, free education must be provided. That is not open for discussion. Maybe the timing was incorrect. However, I do not believe, hon Chairperson, the issue is actually money. The problem that we have here is the way this fund has been administered.

 

 

So, the intervention by the Minister is already yielding some results. So, I think, what we should be doing is giving full support to the Minister in terms of her interventions to ensure that the students receive their allocations in a timely fashion, because many students are not getting enough money to buy enough food for themselves on a daily basis, they can’t afford transport and they are suffering in terms of

 

accommodation. As the NFP, what we are saying is: Rather than concentrate on the problems, let us concentrate on the solutions together, united in this House, and not come here and try to grandstand and score points.

 

 

Let us work together with the department, with the intervention by the Minister and with colleagues from all the different political parties to find a meaningful and permanent solution to this problem. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]

 

 

Mr M L W FILTANE: Chair, from the outset let me confirm that the UDM supports the interventions and the efforts of the Minister. But we want to take just one step back, hon Minister. The root cause of the system’s failure lies in the absence of an effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation system, both on the part of the board and on the part of the Ministry itself. I will not say anything about who was at the helm of the department at the time.

 

 

As a consequence, poor students were exposed to unnecessary anxiety; this, on top of the expected anxiety about whether they would pass the exams or not if admitted. This begs the question: Did the personnel employed to process the applications have the necessary capacity to do what they were employed to do in the first place? We would implore you, hon Minister, to check up on that. We appreciate the steps that

 

you are taking to correct things, but you need to do a thorough check of that.

 

 

This country cannot and should not rely on crisis management. The students are there to learn and they learn beyond what is in the classroom. Soon, the students will think that crisis management is the standard way to run an institution, because they can see what is happening - they read newspapers.

 

 

Imagine what would have happened to the future of the 50 000 students had this intervention not come about? We should not toy recklessly with the future of our youth. We wholly support your intervention and hope that it will indeed brighten the future of our youth. Thank you.

 

 

Ms D CARTER: Chairperson, we note the Minister’s statement and appreciate her wanting to correct what has been wrong. In our opinion, the genesis of this problem is the following: the general incapacity of NSFAS, which is synonymous with the growing incapacity of the state as a whole under the rule of the ruling party; the appointment of a nonprofit ... sorry ... the appointment of a not fit-for-purpose chief executive officer who lacked the ability, integrity and ethical morality to head the organisation. [Interjections.] It could have been a nonprofit. That is correct.

 

The genesis of this problem also includes the blunder to centralise all student financial aid under NSFAS administration, despite the organisation’s lack of capacity and credibility; and Zuma’s unilateral decision to implement fee-free higher education without any consultation with Cabinet and the then Minister of Higher Education and Training in an attempt to sway the ANC’s elective conference.

 

 

The fact that the organisation had R153,8 million more cash left than projected at the end of the 2017-18 financial year is indicative that fewer students received funding than should have.

 

 

Now, the Minister did give an explanation of the challenges that they faced, but we question and would like a reply from the Minister as to why a R1,7-million offer was made to NSFAS CEO Steven Zwane to resign when he faced allegations of ineptitude, maladministration, corruption, manipulation of procurement processes and misleading the board. Why do we continue with these practices of rewarding and enriching wrongdoers when we should be disciplining them? Minister, we are quite sure that that you will stop this type of behaviour in your department.

 

 

Cope believes that the predicament we find ourselves in can be alleviated by re-decentralising the administration of

 

financial aid to those universities and TVET colleges that have the capacity to do so; by ensuring that student financial aid results in the development of skills that are actually needed for our development; by inculcating amongst students that access to financial aid comes with conditions and responsibilities; and through realising that fee-free higher education was a reckless decision that remains unsustainable for the fiscus without radical - and, by that I mean substantial - economic growth. I thank you.

 

 

Mr L M NTSHAYISA: Hon Chairperson, as the AIC we welcome the statement by the Minister of Higher Education and Training which let us know what is going on with NSFAS because this has been a great issue that is affecting our children. We hope that this time around this strategy will bring about efficient administration for the processing of applications and the disbursement of funds.

 

 

We have always been concerned about the fact that most of the people who are professionals, that is teachers and nurses, are not in a position to send their children to university, because they get nothing, but they also belong to the so- called working class. I do not know how this matter can be resolved. They have a problem. We say to Minister Pandor: Keep it up, because we are all waiting and are now looking forward to this intervention. The centralised model did not work very

 

well, so it is good that you have now decided to appoint an administrator that is going to look thoroughly into NSFAS’ issues.

 

 

The finalisation of applications and the disbursement of funds will now be done with great ease. So, these processes and systems should now be efficient enough to work towards helping our students.

 

 

The NSFAS board, which was very dysfunctional and which is being replaced with an administrator, is going to help us a lot as a country. We are also happy that there is going to be efficient communication among NSFAS, institutions and the students. Students would like to be informed all the time, so that they know exactly what is happening - whether they are going to get funds or not. So, addressing these challenges and identifying their root causes will also help the country.

 

 

Hon Minister, we aspire to having free education for all. We need to work hard, so that we grow our economy. So, helping poor students from working-class backgrounds will also bring about a solution to the challenges that we are facing as a country. This is because these students will work for the country, in the long run, and contribute to the growth of the economy of the country. So, you keep it up, hon Minister.

Thank you, Chairperson.

 

Mr L R MBINDA: Hon Chair, once again as the PAC we continue with our call for there to be free and socialist education offered at all our academic institutions at the state’s cost. This we can achieve with a restructured economic framework that seeks to guarantee our full control of the means of production of this country.

 

 

The National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, was supposed to provide temporary relief while government looked into a sustainable funding model to offer free education. For over two decades, since 1994, the government of the ANC has continued to witness increments in the cost of education.

 

 

As the PAC, we are of the belief that the time has come to make decisive economic decisions so as to offer our nation services such as access to free tertiary education. It cannot be that we continue to pride ourselves on indebting our young students as this is an impediment to their growth and development financially.

 

 

As a nation, we are decades into a new dispensation that is supposed to be people-oriented. This requires drastic change in how we do things, and NSFAS is one of those things that needs to be dealt with to make way for the ushering in of free and socialist education.

 

In its current form, NSFAS continues to be milked like a cow by retailers like Pick n Pay, Spar, etc, because, although students have meal cards, which are supposed to be used for meals only, students find that these shops allow them to purchase items such as alcohol, cigarettes and so forth. This allows our students to get into an unreasonable amount of debt that makes it difficult for them to respond to the socioeconomic challenges faced by their families.

 

 

As the PAC, we say that we should at least do away with the centralisation of NSFAS and students should apply each and every year, more especially the year before. There should be a system, obviously, to track students that are already getting this kind of support.

 

 

All of the above should be done in the year before a student’s first year of study, or during a student’s matric year. Thank you.

 

 

Ms C C SEPTEMBER: Chairperson, as the ANC we welcome the Minister’s statement. The Minister took the House into her confidence today by giving us a better idea of the path that we have travelled, both in the committee and the department, on the aspects relating to student funding.

 

We all know that the National Student Financial Aid Scheme plays a very critical role in ensuring that students receive their much-deserved funds. One of the main things that has to be understood in this debate is the need to ensure that the poor, equally, can gain access to both colleges and universities. That is what NSFAS is all about.

 

 

We should therefore, hon members and Minister, never get into a situation in which the NSFAS mandate is not upheld. We will continue as a committee to hold it to account to make sure that all the issues that we continue to raise with NSFAS and with the department are addressed and are attended to.

 

 

Indeed, we have experienced a continuation of the problems, and none of these is related to the fact that fee-free education has been introduced. The student funding model came about in 2015-2016. Of course, in going back to all these issues, we think it is worthwhile - in this entire process, whilst the administrator is there - to deal with a range of things that were pointed out at that time already. This is so that we can put to bed all the issues that were and still are there.

 

 

Hon members and Minister, as we move forward, we trust that the student funding model can become a model that is embraced by everyone, a model that makes sure that the entire higher

 

education community can take ownership of, and a model that unites everyone in the sector to make sure that their interests are the interests of students as well.

 

 

We think it is also important to deal with the challenges that both the universities and the colleges raised with us. These relate, never-endingly, to the IT system not being integrated. We think that it would be worthwhile to make some investments to ensure that we have a proper IT system that remains in place and connects everyone.

 

 

Minister, the funding for students that are living with disabilities cannot be forgotten in this entire debate. They have pleaded with us at many institutions and on several occasions that their needs must also be attended to. Attending to the needs of students with disabilities also has to be

fast-tracked; we can’t leave them behind. They often require different devices, which they don’t always have, and they also have the right to fair chances of success alongside those of everyone else.

 

 

We must remain thankful to the commitment made by parties that appeared before us in the committee in that they are committed to helping improve the entire system and that they will unite over the progress they make around this. We will continue to

 

urge them to do exactly that. Each one of them has a responsibility in the entire system with NSFAS.

 

 

As we move forward and towards the 2019 opening, we think that it is important to ensure the implementation of the framework that brings free education together with the moral duty of why we have decided to have free education. We also need to ensure that we do not have a lacuna before us, in 2019, of why we have free education but a range of other things that have not been addressed.

 

 

We should also applaud the position the SA Union of Students has taken in that they will be embarking on a nationwide road show. This road show is in line with the commitment they made to us that students will prepare and equip themselves well and ensure that the 2019 application process is undertaken in a responsible manner. We think it is a very good idea that they are doing a nationwide road show.

 

 

Free education, hon members, was not imposed upon us; free education is indeed a policy of the ANC. Free education must be accepted in the manner that we have done, and that is that the ANC will always look at the needs of poor people in this country. If you know of anyone who is doing anything that is corrupt in terms of NSFAS, such as that which has been pointed out in that, apparently, “the director-general did this, that

 

and the other” ... You know where the police station is and you know where all the relevant places are. If you suspect anything, then it would be correct not only to use this podium, but to also make sure that you bring these matters to where they really belong. We ask this of all of you in this House. Because it is really wrong to say the director-general brought all sorts of people onto the board, as if the board does not have a policy on that.

 

 

Of course, radical socioeconomic transformation, building human capacity and fighting unemployment are why the ANC supports free education. We support it for the poor. We make sure that the ability to learn and develop cannot only be measured by social status. Being poor should not be a barrier to education, and therefore introducing free education speaks to the ANC policy of recognition: that we also address poverty-related matters when it comes to students. We call on students to use the progressive government policy as a lever and a catalyst to bring about change in this country. I thank you.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. The next speaker is the hon Minister of Higher Education and Training.

 

The MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING: Thank you very

 

much, Chairperson, and I thank all hon members who have participated in the debate that followed my statement. I thank them for their contributions and I certainly will consider seriously the advice they have provided. I wish to just respond to one or two of the comments. The hon Bozzoli is right; we are seeking to address the certificate problem. It’s an ongoing one, a big challenge that we must resolve. We have made inroads and I think there has been progress.

 

 

On the matter of the sustainability of the scheme, clearly this is a matter that our government must pay close attention to. We are committed to providing free higher education to young people. Therefore, we must devise a sustainable programme that will ensure that over time we are able to fund as many young people who come from poor and working-class families as possible.

 

 

I do think we need to address the matter of the block grant to both universities and colleges, because there has been a reliance on tuition fees, which have been very high for many, many years and that is due to the inadequacy of the subsidy to institutions. I think we must continue to engage and we will with student organisations to ensure that they understand the commitment the ANC government has made to ensuring that those

 

who are in need of support receive support, and these are the poor and working-class students.

 

 

I assure the hon Ntlangwini that I do not stand here to make empty promises. I have taken action. I am working closely with the administrator, and I believe from what has been achieved in the first period of his appointment that, indeed, the hon Ntlangwini will be convinced when next we debate the matter that progress has been made.

 

 

I know a number of the members of the former board, which is now dissolved. Most of them, as far as I know, would be horrified to be labelled communists. So, I found that one interesting. I might also say, if indeed something has been done wrongly, that I would be keen to get a report on any wrongdoing by any of my officials.

 

 

With respect to students being kicked out of their accommodation, if I could be provided with the institutions and the names I could engage with the institutions and see whether there is a way in which we can assist those young people.

 

 

I assure the hon member of the IFP that the board is now dissolved. Once an administrator is appointed, hon Ngwezi, there is no longer a board. That is done and sealed, and we

 

now have the administrator executing both management and executive obligations.

 

 

To the hon member from Cope: I really don’t wish to deal with a staff matter at the podium in the House. I indicated that this was something the administrator would address and, I think, hon Carter, it would be a very poor show on my part to begin to talk about separation deliberations between the administrator and the chief executive officer of the National Student Financial Aids Scheme, NSFAS. I hope you will understand if I don’t go into this matter substantively.

 

 

I thank the hon Filtane for his support and, indeed, I agree with him. There is a need to address monitoring and evaluation and strengthen our capacity in that regard. I also agree that crisis management is a very bad form of management and that normally what you want are institutions that function maximally. That is the kind of system and institution I hope we will build for the future.

 

 

I assure you again, hon Carter, that the ANC government is not incapacitated. We do have the ability and, certainly, we are functioning in many, many areas and we will continue to do so. The matter of the surplus she referred to of 2017 is being disbursed as we speak, because we are addressing the legacy issues as well as this academic year.

 

Again, hon Ntshayisa, thank you for your support. I also hope that the intervention will work. In fact, not hope, but will work hard to ensure that we succeed. Hon Mbinda, we are implementing free higher education. We said it would be incremental over five years. As to socialist education, I think, in the wards that you win in 2021, do introduce it.

That’s a brilliant idea.

 

 

We never established NSFAS as a temporary scheme. We did have a temporary agency called the Tertiary Education Fund of SA, Tefsa, but NSFAS is a statutory body established to oversee funding for students who are poor and in need of financial support.

 

 

Finally, I agree with the hon September that more attention must be given to the desperate plight of many students who have disabilities. I assure her that in terms of allocations we have made through the university capacity development grant that attention is being given to providing improved support to young students - young persons - with disabilities in our institutions.

 

 

Finally, we are also ensuring that we have a very vibrant and robust communication campaign so that we don’t have 50 000 students on our campuses who did not know that they could be beneficiaries of the scheme and thus should have applied. We

 

will work hard, hon members, to ensure that the administration we’ve put in place succeeds in building a strong, efficient and viable National Student Financial Aid Scheme institution. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

 

 

Debate concluded.

 

 

Business suspended at 12:33 and resumed at 14:02.

 

 

DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL

 

 

(Consideration of Report)

 

 

There was no debate.

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move that the Report be adopted by this House.

 

 

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).

 

 

Report accordingly adopted.

 

 

DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL

 

 

 

(Second Reading debate)

 

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon Speaker,

 

Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans hon Maphatsoe, fellow Cabinet colleagues and Deputy Ministers, chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans hon Stanley Motimele, members of the portfolio committee and hon members, we are gathered here today for the Second Reading debate of the Defence Amendment Bill as passed by the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans.

This comes after extensive consultations on the Bill including public participation.

 

 

Members would recall that this amendment follows on the Defence Act of 2002, itself a product of years of overhauling the apartheid-era Defence Act of 1957. Unlike our dealings with the Defence Act of 2002, the Bill seeks to effect relatively minor amendments to have it attuned to the changed organisational structure of the SA National Defence Force, the SANDF, in terms of the delegation of powers; the utilisation of the Defence Force in international waters; the regulation of matters related to the reserves, etc.

 

 

Some of the most salient objectives of the Bill are the following. The first is to include the Chief of Staff in the Military Command of the Defence Force by the insertion of section 4A, clause 1. It is practice that the Chief of Staff is part of the Military Command council structure. It is

 

necessary therefore to formalise this appointment and position. Another objective is to clarify the process in section 8(e) regarding the implementation by the Chief of the Defence Force of the delegation of powers and assignment of duties to members by the Secretary for Defence as head and accounting officer of the department. The Secretary for Defence cannot directly delegate any of his functions to members of the SANDF without the consent of the Chief of the SANDF as that would be contrary to the command and control principles of the SANDF.

 

 

In order to enable a member of the SANDF to carry out any function of the Secretary for Defence, he must give specific guidelines to the Chief of the SANDF in order to enable the Chief of the SANDF to instruct the member to carry out the delegation.

 

 

This will also provide for the employment of the Defence Force internationally, as the current wording we have in our legislation refers to “international waters”, which has a specific meaning in international law. The amendment seeks to expand the international deployment of the SANDF by not restricting it therefore to international waters. The Bill also provides for the security vetting of contractors and service providers who are procured through the department.

Here we are requesting that defence intelligence be empowered

 

to screen and provide for the security vetting of all contractors and service providers to the Department of Defence and Military Veterans.

 

 

We are also proposing that minutes of meetings of the Council of Defence, the highest decision-making forum of the Defence Force, be properly regulated and properly noted. We do not take this matter lightly; hence we are putting this in our legislation because this is where critical decisions of the Defence Force are taken.

 

 

The Bill also seeks to clarify that a person does not need the consent of an employer in order to enrol as, or to remain, a member of the Reserve Force. The current tradition is that if a person is employed that person has to solicit the support of his or her employer in order to join the Reserve Force.

 

 

The Bill seeks to regulate anew the termination of service of members of the Regular Force - to expand and create legislative provisions under which the service of members is terminated by operation of law and the circumstances under which members’ services may be administratively discharged.

The provisions of the current section 59 of the Defence Act were retained in the Bill, while provisions from the general regulations of the SANDF and the Reserve Force were incorporated into the Bill. The amended provisions in section

 

59 of the Bill are particularly aimed at empowering the commanders who are, first and foremost, directly involved in disciplinary matters of members. This amendment is directly related to managing the constitutional imperatives of the SANDF, as contained in section 200 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, which requires that the SANDF be structured and managed as a disciplined military force. Thank you very much, Chair. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

 

 

Mr M S MOTIMELE: Hon Speaker, hon Minister of Defence and Military Veterans Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, hon Deputy Minister Kebby Maphatsoe and hon Members of Parliament, the Defence Amendment Bill, B18 of 2017, was submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans by the department in June 2017. The Bill seeks to align the Defence Act of 2002 with current departmental organisational requirements to enhance the efficiency of the department. The amendments are organisational in nature and apply internally to the Department of Defence and Military Veterans.

 

 

Various consultations were conducted with stakeholders within the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, and the Bill was published for public comment in line with all public- participation processes. No responses were received. The committee agreed that the regulations would be dealt with at a

 

later stage. The report on the Bill was adopted without amendments.

 

 

The amending Bill amends the principal Act by, inter alia, providing for the inclusion of the Chief of Staff in the Military Command of the SA National Defence Force, the SANDF, which was established by section 4A of the Act. The Chief of Staff will be on the same level as the chiefs of services and divisions in the SANDF already included in the command. The Defence Amendment Act of 2010 set out for the first time the composition of the Military Command. The Chief of Staff, as the staff officer of the Chief of the SANDF, is critical for the proper functioning and co-ordination of the activities of the SANDF; hence the need to include the Chief of Staff in the Military Command.

 

 

Among other amendments, the Bill provides for the security vetting of contractors and service providers of the department. The issue of security at our military bases remains one of paramount importance. Therefore, the Bill also provides for the prohibition of access to military property or areas, that is, citizens should be made aware and warned that they cannot just stumble into a military area without notice. The amendment empowers the Minister to prescribe measures to regulate access to military property or areas.

 

The amendments provide for the simplification of matters regarding identification cards issued to military police officials. Currently, the wording of the Act requires that regulations regarding these identification cards be promulgated by the Minister. The amendment provides for this issue to be dealt with by means of internal policies instead of regulations.

 

 

The Bill also proposes an amendment to the requirements for legal representation in order to align section 60 of the Defence Act with Treasury Regulations regarding legal representation of SANDF members provided by the state in respect of acts committed in an official capacity.

 

 

The Bill also seeks to regulate the display of military decorations, medals and insignia. This aspect will be dealt with in the rules rather than the regulations. The Bill proposes that the criminal enforcement of the unlawful possession or wearing of military uniforms, distinctive marks or crests be regulated anew by amending section 104. This amendment is necessary as the unlawful wearing of military uniforms does not only risk bringing the Defence Force into disrepute, but also confuses members of the public.

 

 

The amending Bill not only enhances efficiency within the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, but also

 

strengthens our territorial integrity and upholds the reputation of the Defence Force. We therefore propose that the Bill be adopted by this House. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

Mr S ESAU: Hon Speaker, the Defence Amendment Bill addresses the inefficiencies in, and therefore proposes changes to, the Defence Act of 2002. We acknowledge that this will be in the best interests of the military.

 

 

The Bill also affects the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary for Defence and the Department of Defence; and it also needs to address the relationship between the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary for Defence in order for delegations to be implemented.

 

 

The concern we have is about the vetting processes for service providers and contractors. Normally the Department of State Security has done that, but now we need the defence intelligence to take responsibility for the department’s vetting of contractors and service providers. We know that in the past we had serious challenges - we speak about empowerment and capacity.

 

 

The issue is that there is no budget increase within defence intelligence except for cybersecurity. So we just want to urge the Minister to ensure that within the financial constraints

 

of that particular programme we are able to effect the necessary changes to have a functional, effective defence intelligence that can vet. It is important that we do not employ service providers and contractors in the military facilities, which are very sensitive areas.

 

 

The other issue we, of course, acknowledge is the regulation of insignia, medals, decorations and uniforms - and to prevent the abuse of uniforms - and, of course, there is the prohibition of access. The concern I have with access - we support that 100% – is about the infrastructure. Does it align with the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act that was passed in place of the National Key Points Act? Because within those Acts, we also speak about the security that must be added besides the prohibition of access. Now, we know that there are also budgetary constraints in that regard, and that this Bill is a part of the amending process, so we anticipate further amendments being made.

 

 

We also acknowledge that the Defence Review has not been taken into consideration at this time, because that is also under reconsideration and review concerning its implementation. That will, of course, also have an impact later when we have to do further amendments to the Defence Act.

 

The issue that the regulatory environment will be regulated and simplified is, I think, encouraged, and of course we see there will be shifts from regulations to policies, policies to rules, rules to determinations and also the capacity for new regulations to be drafted in order to facilitate this regulatory environment.

 

 

We welcome the provision for legal representation in that, in terms of our democracy, people on official duty have recourse to legal representation. This is something we support.

 

 

Regarding the Reserve Force members, we acknowledge that they can serve and be registered without the necessary permission being required from an employer. So in terms of that relationship, we must just ensure that employers understand the need for reservists to be on standby; and it is, of course, an honour to serve your country and be on standby to defend your country.

 

 

Essentially, the amendments enhance military discipline. We would also like to see the Military Discipline Bill coming to the table so that it can be implemented as soon as possible.

 

 

Mr N PAULSEN: Hon Speaker ...

 

The SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon Esau. What is your point, hon Paulsen?

 

 

Mr N PAULSEN: Speaker, apologies to the speaker for interrupting.

 

 

The SPEAKER: On what point are you rising?

 

 

Mr N PAULSEN: The hon Wessels was removed from the House - told to leave the House earlier today - and he is back here again. [Interjections.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, you know that you were removed from the House. When you are removed from the House, it is supposed to be for the rest of the day.

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Speaker ... [Hon Speaker ...]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Wait, hon Groenewald. I’m just finishing dealing with the matter at hand. Could you please let the hon member

... [Interjections.]

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Before he leaves, hon Speaker, I have a point of order on that matter. Hon Speaker, we have listened to the tape, the video, and ... [Interjections.]

 

AN HON MEMBER: No, no, no.

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: How can you say no? I have looked at that. [Interjections.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon Groenewald, could you allow us to just finish with this business? [Interjections.]

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Speaker, die lid is gevra om die podium te verlaat, nie om die Raadsaal te verlaat nie. (Translation of Afrikaans sentence follows.)

 

 

[Speaker, the member was requested to leave the podium, not the Chamber.]

 

 

Could you please make your ruling? [Interjections.]

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, he is out of order. Out of order. Please!

 

 

The SPEAKER: Could the hon member please leave the House. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: Madam Speaker ...

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, I am advised that you were removed from the House and you are supposed to stay out for the rest of the day. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: Madam Speaker, may I address you on this matter? [Interjections.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Therefore, I am not having a debate with you. I am just requesting you to leave and not be here for the rest of the day.

 

 

Mr W W WESSELS: I’m just asking that you hear what the presiding officer said. The presiding officer said I must leave the podium.

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, you are now delaying us.

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, please call the bouncers. Call the bouncers. Call the bouncers to remove this man to Orania. Go! [Interjections.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Hon Groenewald, what is your point? Is it still relevant?

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Speaker, if it was not relevant I wouldn’t have asked to address you.

 

The SPEAKER: Okay. Go ahead and address me.

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Could I then just ask you, in future, when a decision is made by the Chair or the presiding officer that is quite clear – because hon member Wessels was asked to leave the podium – that you go and check the video. If a person has to leave the House, then he must be ordered to leave the House, not to leave the podium, so the terminology must be corrected. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you very much. We will check on that record and we will come and report to the House. Hon Esau, sorry about disturbing you. You can finish off.

 

 

Mr S ESAU: In conclusion, the DA supports the Defence Amendment Bill. Thank you very much. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

 

 

Mr S P MHLONGO: Hon Speaker, the Defence Amendment Bill before us today is the wrong answer to a poorly crafted question. It takes our focus away from crocodiles chasing after this great nation to lizards, a useless act.

 

 

The real challenges facing our Defence Force today have little to do with the amendments suggested to the Defence Act of 2002. The Defence Amendment Bill deals with administrative matters relating to the powers of the Secretary for Defence,

 

the powers of the Minister to make regulations, and the deployment of our forces in international missions. These pale in comparison to the real challenges facing the Defence Force that need legislative amendment.

 

 

Since 2002, we have had one report after another detailing the extent of decline of our Defence Force. The 2015 Defence Review report starkly demonstrated how the defence allocation has declined, year on year, by approximately 5% per annum in real terms over the past 20 years - to less than 1% of GDP, resulting in the loss of essential defence capabilities.

 

 

The result of this has been horrendous. The Defence Review noted these consequences as being a loss of significant impact on the capacity and capabilities of the Department of Defence and on South Africa’s defence ambitions in support of national interests and foreign policy. A properly thought-through legislative mechanism ought to have dealt with the funding model of our Defence Force to ensure that the ambitions of the Defence Force and the resources available were not out of sync with each other.

 

 

The Defence Review did not stop at the matter of funding alone. It also advocated a role for the military in support of the South African developmental state and the harnessing of national resources for the benefit of the population as a

 

whole. This, the review claimed, could be done through the virtues of military service in socialising and educating young adults and enhancing the national skills base; through the economic benefits that might flow from military procurements for local businesses and national industry; and through the support that military engineers and medical staff, as well as the air force, could sometimes provide for civilian projects.

 

 

None of these things has been done. No plan has been put in place to ensure that this happens. As a result, the real potential the military has to unlock economic benefits for our country has not been realised.

 

 

We could be training doctors, technicians, engineers, military scientists and pilots on a large scale, while, at the same time, improving our capability to defend our nation. As a result of this negligence by this government, just two of our nine C-130 aircraft are flying. This is because we have no coherent plan of training pilots for our Defence Force.

 

 

If we were serious about improving our Defence Force, we would not be entertaining the artificial amendments proposed by this amending Bill; rather, we would be focusing on rebuilding our Defence Force not just through legislative measures, but also through policies and sound leadership in order to lift it out of the quagmire in which it finds itself.

 

Right now, at our last meeting of Defence and Public Works ...

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, your time has expired.

 

 

Mr S P MHLONGO: ... we have a hospital where millions were planted ... at a Free State hospital ... because of failures of this Parliament to oversee the activities of the corrupt Department of Public Works. [Interjections.] For this reason,

...

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, your time has expired.

 

 

Mr S P MHLONGO: ... the EFF rejects this. Thank you very much.

 

 

Mr R N CEBEKHULU: Hon Speaker, firstly, this Bill seeks to formalise the position of Chief of Staff in the existing Military Command structure. In general, it seeks to align the Defence Act, Act 42 of 2002, with current departmental organisational requirements to enhance the efficiency of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. Its amendments, although largely organisational in nature and applicable internally to the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, bring much-needed structural realignment to our ailing Defence Force and thus military defence capability.

 

It looks at the realignment of providing effective organisational defence capability according to the principles of “Defence in a Democracy” with its primary and external mission being the conventional function of defence against foreign military aggression. The Bill also importantly expands the wording of section 18(1) regarding the international deployment of the SA Defence Force by not restricting it to “international waters”, which has a specific meaning in international law.

 

 

With the current status and defence capability of our SA Defence Force, it is equally important that we bolster and make it simpler for military-trained citizens to join our Reserve Force. Clause 7 addresses this by removing the prior consent needed by an employee from his or her employer to join the Reserve Force.

 

 

The fitness and morale of the troops in the SA Defence Force is currently low and their health is poor. The suggested amendment to clause 13 will empower the Minister to prescribe regulations concerning the health and fitness of troops. This is paramount if we are to have a disciplined, fit, healthy and effective Defence Force capability.

 

 

In order for the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, to be a balanced, modern and technologically advanced military force,

 

capable of executing its tasks effectively and efficiently, it is paramount that it keeps pace with global military technological advancements.

 

 

The missions that SA National Defence Force peacekeeping forces are sent on will always end in disaster if they are ill-equipped with defective technology. If we are going to bolster the morale of our troops, let’s begin by providing them with every advantage to successfully conduct and carry out their missions. I thank you.

 

 

Mr S C MNCWABE: Hon Speaker, the NFP welcomes the aims and objectives of the amendments to the current Defence Act of 2002. We have noted that the Bill seeks to formalise the position of the Chief of Staff within the military. We also commend the amending Bill for providing for the security vetting of contractors and service providers of the department. We believe that this will go a long way towards fighting corruption and irregularities within the department.

 

 

Our overall observation as a party is that the main objectives of the Bill are to realign certain functions within the Defence Force with the current structure of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. This, in our view, is an acceptable move.

 

Lastly, the NFP supports the Defence Amendment Bill. Thank you.

 

 

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Speaker, ek wil in die eerste plek van die geleentheid gebruik maak om die Vryheidsfront Plus se leedwese met die afsterwe van Generaal Jannie Geldenhuys, ’n vorige Hoof van die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag, uit te spreek. Ons wil aan sy gesin en familie ons innige meegevoel betuig en mag hulle hul vertroosting van ons Hemelse Vader ontvang.

 

 

Generaal Geldenhuys was bekend vir die feit dat hy nie net ’n soldaat was nie, maar ook ’n kenner van politiek en hy het ook ’n groot rol in die politieke ontwikkeling gespeel, selfs as Hoof van die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag. Hy was ook ’n mens. Hy het ook die menswees van ’n soldaat goedgeken en almal het hom respekteer. So, ons wens die familie sterkte toe.

 

 

As dit by die wetsontwerp kom, is dit uit die aard van die saak, ’n aantal tegniese veranderinge wat ter sprake is, maar die belangrike deel is byvoorbeeld dat daar ’n hele aantal veranderinge is in terme van die handhaaf van beter dissipline in die Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Weermag.

 

 

As ek een voorbeeld kan vat, as ’n lid vir 10 agtereenvolgende dae afwesig was sonder verlof, sal so ’n lid se diens dan beëindig word. Dit is kommerwekkend dat ’n mens persone in

 

uniform in die openbaar sien rondbeweeg. Sekere van hulle sal toestemming hê, maar mens kan ook sien dat baie van hulle net eenvoudig gaan inteken het en dan maar net weer die basis verlaat. Ek het al in Potchefstroom gesien dat daar eintlik gespog word met die feit dat hulle net tot tienuur by die basis bly en daarna in die dorp gaan rondloop. Ons verwelkom dus hierdie tipe maatreëls. Die agb Minister weet ook dat daar streng na dissipline gekyk moet word.

 

 

’n Ander aspek is byvoorbeeld dat die Minister die mag en die bevoegdhede het om sekere maatreëls wat militêre basisse meer veilig sal maak, aan te kondig. Agb Minister, ons ondersteun dit, maar die werklikheid is dat dit ook onaanvaarbaar is dat ’n mens dan in die media moet verneem van wagte by ingange van militêre basisse wat aan die slaap is, wat oorval word deur misdadigers met messe en dan word die wagte van hulle wapens - R4-gewere – asook hul lewendige ammunisie ontneem. Dit is nie aanvaarbaar dat ons sulke swak dissipline het nie.

 

 

So, hierdie maatreëls is wel in plek, maar ek wil ’n beroep op die agb Minister doen om te verseker dat die dissipline absoluut opgeskerp word in die Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Weermag. Ons kan watse wette en reëls maak, maar die sukses daarvan gaan afhang hoe gedissiplineerd ons lede dit toepas.

 

Dit is moontlik. Ons kan hulle behoorlike dissiplineerde opleiding gee en slegs dan sal ’n wetsontwerp soos hierdie wel sy nut hê. Die VF Plus sal dit ondersteun. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

 

 

[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Speaker, first of all I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the FF Plus, to express our grief over the death of General Jannie Geldenhuys, a former Head of the SA National Defence Force. We would like to offer his family and relatives our most sincere condolences and we hope they find solace in our Heavenly Father.

 

 

General Geldenhuys was known not only for being a soldier but also for being an expert in politics and he played a major role in political developments too, indeed, as head of the SA National Defence Force. He was a people’s person. He was also aware of the humanity of the soldier and everyone respected him. So, we wish the family strength.

 

 

When it comes to the Bill, there are, as a matter of course, a number of technical changes that are up for discussion; yet the important part, for example, is that there are quite a number of changes in terms of maintaining better discipline in the SA National Defence Force.

 

If I could make use of but one example: if a member is absent without leave for 10 consecutive days, such member’s service should, subsequently, be terminated. It is worrying to notice people in uniform walking around in public. Some of them might have permission to do that. However, one might also notice that many of them have simply signed in at the base, only to leave shortly thereafter. Indeed, in Potchefstroom I have actually come across them being boastful about the fact that they would stay at the base until ten o’clock, and then would proceed to go on walkabouts in town thereafter. We therefore welcome these types of measures. The hon Minister is aware also that discipline should be addressed seriously.

 

 

Another aspect, for example, is that the Minister possesses the power and competence to announce certain measures that would serve to render more security at military bases. Hon Minister, we support that. However, in reality it is unacceptable for one to hear via the media about guards who were asleep at the entrances to military bases, about guards being overpowered by criminals with knives who robbed them of their weapons - R4 rifles – as well as their live ammunition. Such poor discipline is unacceptable.

 

 

Alas, these measures might indeed be in place, but I would like to call on the hon Minister to ensure that discipline is permanently enforced in the SA National Defence Force. We can

 

pass however many laws and regulations, but their success will depend only on how disciplined our members are in the application thereof.

 

 

This is indeed possible. We could give proper discipline training to them and only then a Bill like this would serve its purpose. The FF Plus supports it.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: I now recognise the hon Marais.

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I apologise, the hon Marais is indisposed. He is not going to be able to make the debate this afternoon.

 

 

An HON MEMBER: That means he has had surgery, which you need to your brain. [Interjections.]

 

 

Mr D D GAMEDE: Hon Speaker, Minister and Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Ministers and Deputy Ministers present and hon members, firstly, the ANC supports this Bill.

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: On a point of order, Speaker. On a point of order, Speaker.

 

 

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: I think the Minister was raising her hand there, and I will never let any man undermine a woman like that in my presence.

 

 

The SPEAKER: No, hon member. Please! Take ...

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Now, I want that man from the DA to withdraw that statement that he has made. [Interjections.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: No, hon member. Please take your seat. [Interjections.]

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: It was wrong. It was wrong. He should never have been allowed.

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon member, just take your seat. I have not allowed you to make a speech.

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: He has been bullying us the whole morning. He has been such a bully and a spoilt brat the whole morning. We can’t allow that. You can’t allow that. [Interjections.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon Gamede.

 

 

The MINISTER OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Point of order,

 

Chair.

 

The SPEAKER: What’s the point of order, hon ...

 

 

The MINISTER OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: The point of

 

order, Chair, is that the hon member actually insulted me. Therefore ...

 

 

The SPEAKER: Hon Minister ...

 

 

The MINISTER OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Hon Speaker, I beg

 

your indulgence. He needs to retract because ... He needs to withdraw because ...

 

 

... akakwazi ukungithuka ngengqondo yami. Akakwazi ukuyenza leyonto leyo. Uma ungazwanga Somlomo ngizocela ukuthi uyilalele lento ayishilo bese sibhekana nayo emuva kwalokho. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

 

 

[... he should not insult my intelligence. If you did not hear what he said, Speaker, I would like to request that you listen to it so that we can deal with it.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: I will do that. I will refer to Hansard and come back on the issue. [Interjections.]

 

 

Hon Gamede, please proceed.

 

Mr D D GAMEDE: Thank you, hon Speaker. I said that the ANC supports this amending Bill, B18 of 2017. South Africa’s national interests are centred on the advancement of its sovereignty, democracy, national values and freedoms, and on its political and economic independence. South African national security focuses on its sovereignty and other related priorities of territorial integrity; on its constitutional order; on its security and continuance of national institutions; and on its wellbeing, prosperity, upliftment of the people and growth of the economy. South Africa’s national security inextricably hinges on the stability, unity and prosperity of the South African region and on the continent in general.

 

 

South Africa’s military capabilities are commensurate with South Africa’s international status, strategic posture and inescapable leadership role. The Defence Force makes a vital and unique contribution that complements South Africa’s diplomatic efforts and enhances South Africa’s influence on wider international developments. As South Africa expands its leadership role, it continually assumes the obligation to provide experienced military leaders and proficient military forces for peace missions and other military operations.

 

 

The amendments are intended to align the Defence Act of 2002 with departmental requirements. Clause 1 proposes that the

 

Chief of Staff be included in the Military Command. Clause 2 proposes clarification of the process of section 8(e), regarding the Chief of the Defence Force. Clause 3 proposes that provision be made for the employment of the Defence Force outside the Republic. Clause 4 proposes to simplify matters regarding identification cards issued to military police officials.

 

 

Clause 5 proposes a technical correction to the reference to the armaments Act. Clause 6 proposes improved regulation of the minutes of the meetings of the Council of Defence. Clause

7 proposes to clarify that a person does not need the consent of their employer to enrol or to remain as a member of the Reserve Force. Clause 8 proposes to regulate anew the termination of service of members. Clause 9 proposes an amendment to the requirements for legal representation for members in order to align section 60 of the Defence Act with the Treasury Regulations.

 

 

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are very important in that they propose an amendment regarding the manner in which the display of military decorations, medals and insignia and the use of military uniforms, distinctive marks and crests are regulated.

 

 

Clause 13 proposes to amend certain powers of the Minster to make regulations. The amendment will empower the Minister to

 

prescribe regulations on the establishment of health and fitness standards and the provision for medical, dental and hospital treatment.

 

 

Clause 14 proposes the amendment of a heading. Clause 15 proposes provision for regulating the prohibition of access to military areas. In terms of the last amendment, clause 16, we request all Members of Parliament to communicate its contents to all communities. Clause 16 proposes that the criminal enforcement of the unlawful possession of wearing of military uniforms, distinctive marks or crests be regulated anew by the amendment of the Act, which means it will now be a criminal offence for anyone to wear a uniform that is similar to that of the Defence Force.

 

 

The Defence Amendment Bill is envisaged to align the Defence Act with departmental requirements. As the ANC, we therefore support this amending Bill with a big smile. I thank you.

 

 

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS: Hon Speaker,

 

hon members, thank you for supporting this amending Bill. I would like to appeal to the portfolio committee to also fast- track the Military Discipline Bill, which has long been outstanding, because it will help enhance our work of creating a disciplined force - and a highly professionalised one, for that matter.

 

I also want to thank the hon members for making reference to almost all the issues which this amending Bill addresses. I must make specific reference to the wearing of military uniforms and distinctive marks or crests, something which is now going to be regulated anew. This is a matter that we all know has created a lot of problems. This will now assist us in enforcement rather than just talking without taking action. We cannot afford to have so many military uniforms being worn all over by anyone, thereby creating a situation in which we have paramilitary structures which are not registered.

 

 

Lastly, there is the area of the Reserve Force. I am sure hon members would recall that during the Budget Vote debate, one of the matters I raised was that there was a need to overhaul the Reserve Force. Of course, I am aware that the Reserve Force Council made some presentations to the Joint Committee on Defence on Friday last week. I am also aware that work is being done in the department to deal with the same issues.

 

 

The reality is that we depend a lot on the Reserve Force. Therefore, we have to regulate them in such a manner that it is easy for us to have access to them. This must be well organised to prevent corruption in the process of getting people into the system, and their serving and exiting again, because, obviously, by virtue of being Reserve Force members, they are not full-time members of the regular force.

 

Lastly, of course the matter of decorations was raised, and I am very happy about that. We have seen people wearing all manner of decorations and medals, some of which we don’t recognise as belonging to the SA National Defence Force, with some even belonging to the former statutory force, the SA Defence Force.

 

 

So, thank you very much, hon members. Thank you for the support and thank you for the quick manner in which you dealt with these issues in the portfolio committee. Thank you.

 

 

Debate concluded.

 

 

Bill read a second time.

 

 

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR PERMISSION IN TERMS OF RULE 286(4)(C) TO INQUIRE INTO AMENDING OTHER PROVISIONS OF COPYRIGHT ACT, 1978

 

 

The SPEAKER: Order! I was expecting the hon Fubbs, the chairperson of the committee, to introduce the report, but I see the hon Radebe’s pretty face here. [Interjections.]

 

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker?

 

 

The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Hlengiwe?

 

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: This is not fair to the hon “German Cut”. He was demoted as a Whip; now he is being demoted here to come to the podium. This is unfair. [Laughter.]

 

 

The SPEAKER: We sympathise with you for feeling that he is being unfairly treated. Hon Fubbs, please proceed.

 

 

Ms J L FUBBS: Good afternoon, hon Speaker. Good afternoon, hon members of this House. This is an interim report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, in terms of National Assembly Rule 286(4)(c), on the Copyright Amendment Bill, B13 of 2017. It seeks, essentially, to address the scope of the Bill.

 

 

The Bill came to the House and was recrafted by the committee. From the submissions, written and oral, as well as the deliberations we received - taking into account that we worked with Arts and Culture and a variety of departments and Ministries - it became apparent from the artists themselves that there was a need for clearer definitions. So we had to capture that.

 

 

There was also a recognition that the Bill tabled in this Parliament did not deal effectively with collecting societies, and, as we all know - or, perhaps, we don’t - they remain unregulated, which is one of the primary reasons artists do

 

not receive what is due to them. Also, regarding the resale of royalty rights: How do we protect these?

 

 

So, essentially, the Bill has captured those gaps that existed. We listened to the many submissions. And, when I say “submissions”, hon Speaker, they were appeals and pleas from people who have now died, before I could come and stand here. We have taken these seriously as a committee.

 

 

We also dealt with the establishment of a copyright tribunal as an alternative mechanism. We can’t continue to send everything to the courts and clog them up. So, essentially, the committee recommends that the National Assembly grants permission, in terms of Assembly Rule 286(4)(c), for it to amend other provisions of the Copyright Act, Act 78 of 1978. I thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

There was no debate.

 

 

The SPEAKER: Are there any objections to the committee being granted permission, in terms of Rule 286(4)(c), to inquire into amending other provisions of the Copyright Act?

 

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madame Speaker, we have no objection, but we would like to make a declaration.

 

Declarations of vote:

 

Mr G K Y CACHALIA: Madam Speaker, copyright law is a complex minefield and is preferably informed by international best practice and expert views. The Bill, currently in the committee stage, addresses certain issues that have been crying out to be dealt with for decades. As such, the report merits support.

 

 

It makes laudable strides to modernise the Copyright Act of 1978, which is badly out of date, while the world has been moving forward at a dizzying pace. Remember, though, a fundamental of copyright protection is that it should not outweigh the right of freedom of expression, which remains a fundamental tenet of constitutional democracy. The Bill grapples with two approaches: fair use and fair dealing. Both aim to enhance creativity. Fair use provides a principles- based test to see if a use is permitted or not; while fair dealing specifies permissible uses in legislation.

 

 

In respect of the Bill, criticisms have been levelled and some of these are now under review. One example is the terminology of the Bill which continues to foster uncertainty. The scope of fair use and fair dealing remains a controversial section of the Bill. The committee has now embarked on a hybrid option. However, this approach may well fudge the issue by

 

continuing to shoehorn some uses into narrow legislative provisions.

 

 

The ownership by the state of state-funded works is another problematic section. Its arbitrary deprivation of a person’s right to property may be unconstitutional, and one can think of many practical situations where this would be untenable.

 

 

Then there is the introduction of resale royalty rights. Here, an artist can claim to receive a portion of the resale price of her artwork when onward sales are made. The implications for the art market and ownership are significant as are issues of retrospective application. There is a presumption against retrospective legislation, and while enacted law trumps common law, it is essentially inferior.

 

 

There are also possible unconstitutional aspects of the Bill that allow the Minister responsible for communications to prescribe local music content for television and radio broadcasting instead of Icasa doing so. All these issues merit attention, but the ANC’s proclivity to be driven by populist redress without due consideration for the legal and socioeconomic consequences must be guarded against.

 

 

This has prompted Professor Owen Dean, chair of intellectual property law at Stellenbosch University, to say, and I quote:

 

I regret to say that I have not come across a piece of intellectual property writing that is as badly formulated and presented and that exhibits such a lack of understanding of the basic principles of the subject. It contains terminology which is foreign to the Act and rides roughshod over the basic principles of copyright law. The Bill is riddled with contradictions and anomalies; it is frequently nonsensical or downright incomprehensible even to someone who can claim expert knowledge of the subject matter.

 

 

The slapdash drafting of the Bill is now being addressed, and one hopes that there will be a satisfactory resolution in the committee. Thankfully, some of the criticisms from stakeholders are being taken seriously, but, as the Bill has been described, it remains a curate’s egg. Some authorities define a curate’s egg as something that is an indeterminate mix of good and bad. Others say it implies a preponderance of bad qualities, all of which lamentably describe the Bill which currently sits before us.

 

 

Copyright could do a much better job, if freed from constraints, to drive and incentivise ongoing creation and access, to give creators a fair shot, and to improve the preservation and dissemination of our cultural heritage.

 

Currently, neglected value could be unlocked and the pie made bigger. We need to disaggregate incentives and rewards; and, in doing so, as with all things, we must be mindful of the sanctity of contracts. Contracts and intellectual property go hand in hand. The right to property implies the right to make contracts about that property, to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the property of another person. Best we do not lose sight of this in all our endeavours. I assure you, the DA won’t. [Applause.]

 

 

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Speaker, while the EFF has no fundamental problem with the Copyright Act being amended, we do however think it is important what the amendments will do to the 40- year-old piece of legislation, as the devil is always in the details.

 

 

Copyright is a very sensitive issue. For centuries, white settlers have used the concepts of copyright and patents to claim what wasn’t theirs and to profit from these throughout the world. We have seen that with Louis Vuitton and the Basotho blanket. We have seen that with the AmaXhosa patent of Zahara. We have seen this exploitation of the knowledge of others for selfish reasons.

 

 

Rooibos tea is also a perfect example of this. The bush from which the tea is made is indigenous to South Africa and has

 

been used by the Khoi and the San for thousands of years. They cultivated it, and over time, through trial and error, discovered the properties of the bush for medical and other uses.

 

 

But patent and copyright laws have allowed the knowledge developed by the Khoisan to be exploited for commercial use. Across South Africa and the world people drink millions of litres of rooibos tea a year, with companies making millions of rand in profit, but the indigenous communities who developed rooibos tea don’t see a single cent of this. This went so far that in 1994 the United States trademarked the word “rooibos”, resulting in the Department of Trade and Industry having to get involved in international copyright disputes.

 

 

The amendments, which the portfolio committee discusses and proposes, must be well defined and have no loopholes.

Amendments are needed to protect our people and their ideas from exploitation by these white settlers who seem to take over our people’s ideas. Ideas, concepts and phrases that are used by South Africans belong to our people collectively and should not be the property of a single individual.

 

 

You can rest assured that the EFF will fight for these individuals. We will make sure that this piece of legislation

 

protects our indigenous communities and protects our black communities from these white people who seek to exploit and take over our ideas. We will not - and never again - let these white people take our ideas and make them their own. I so move. Thanks, Speaker.

 

 

Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN: Madam Speaker, the Copyright Amendment Bill, drawn up by the Department of Trade and Industry, includes many of the creators’ rights that are still sorely needed in South Africa. Although this is an interim report, a huge amount of work has already gone into creating rights for performers, writers and artists to call on the law to protect their right to earn from their work.

 

 

Having said that, the Bill still falls short and fails to take into account a few fundamental principles and guidelines that should be the foundation of, and that should inform, well- defined legislation.

 

 

The Bill introduces limitations and exemptions without considering the effects that these would have on the welfare of rights holders. The introduction of new rights, the resale of royalty rights and the vesting of copyright ownership in the state for works made under the direction, funding or control of the state have little to do with the updating of copyright laws.

 

South Africa already has good existing copyright legislation, but this needs to be updated primarily owing to technological developments. Many hours have been spent on this by members of the Department of Trade and Industry and various stakeholders. We trust that legal certainty will be the guiding principle that balances the rights and interests of those that would be affected by the proposed amendments with the modernising of our Copyright Act in a progressive and positive direction for all of South Africa. The IFP supports this interim report and the process for further amendments to be implemented. I thank you.

 

 

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Speaker, the NFP welcomes the report of the Department of Trade and Industry on the Copyright Amendment Bill discussed here today. The amending Bill is long overdue. For too long, the few have exploited the situation in our country at the expense of the majority.

 

 

The Bill discussed here today seeks to define certain words and expressions to allow for the Copyright Act to provide for the protection of copyright in artistic work. It further calls for the registration of collecting agencies or societies and also provides for procedures in settling disputes over royalties.

 

The amendments seek to provide protection of authorship for orphans and also seek to ensure access for persons with disabilities in respect of copyright work. They further provide for the appointment of members of the intellectual property tribunal, including for the powers of the tribunal.

 

 

An example is the cost of medication in South Africa. You can buy a product that costs one rupee in India, but which costs R360 in South Africa. The product from India will perform equally as well. Now, what intellectual property rights – or copyright - have done was ensure that the few, particularly major organisations, benefited at the expense of the poorest of the poor.

 

 

So, in essence, I think the NFP is of the opinion that these amendments debated here today will go a long way in levelling the playing field, particularly in the interests of individuals. The NFP supports these amendments.

 

 

Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Speaker, I just want to say upfront that the ANC supports this interim report. This interim report is very important because our creators of music and our creators of literature have been losing a lot for many years. For instance, if you look at a stalwart like Baba Mahlathini of Imbodlomane fame, he was indigent when he passed on but his music was being played all over the country and the continent.

 

What is very important about this Bill we are dealing with is that it addresses the new technologies which have arisen.

Around 1978, when the Bee Gees were still a popular group, there was no YouTube. Last week when I checked on their song: How deep is your love? I saw that there were about 172 million hits on one day. This means that in America or in the UK the orphans or the beneficiaries of the foundation of the Bee Gees receive royalties for the music even if the group has ceased to exist. But what happens in South Africa? I looked at Mama Miriam Makeba’s song Phatha Phatha: Last week on one day it had about 1,7 million hits on YouTube. The issue is: Does the foundation of Mama Miriam Makeba get that money or does YouTube get it?

 

 

So, the Bill we are dealing with is about protecting those rights. We know, as the hon Cachalia has said, that the DA is not going to support this Bill, but this Bill is fundamental because it is going to introduce new offences. If a radio station plays music without keeping a record of how many times they play the music, the CEO of that radio station will be charged criminally, something which has not happened before.

So, that’s why they know we are touching the capital now. That’s why they are running away. They are trying to block this.

 

What is very important is that when there is a dispute about royalties, this Bill will have provided for a copyright tribunal, which will be manned by retired judges. These retired judges will ensure that there is a fair distribution of the royalties. This is very simple. In terms of the law, currently, you find that the person who gains the most is the person who produced the act. However, in terms of this Bill, the actors will benefit and a balance will be brought to bear. So, I appeal to this House to support this interim Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

 

 

Permission accordingly granted to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry to inquire into amending other provisions of the Copyright Act, 1978 (Act No 78 of 1978) in terms of Rule 286(4)(c).

 

 

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A TRIPARTITE FREE TRADE AREA (TFTA) AMONG THE COMMON MARKET FOR EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA (COMESA), THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY (EAC) AND THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY (SADC)

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): I now invite the hon Fubbs, the chairperson of the committee, to introduce the report.

 

Ms J L FUBBS: House Chair, it gives me great pleasure, after many years of our looking at regional integration and the harmonisation of borders, to come to the House for the ratification of the agreement establishing the Tripartite Free Trade Area, TFTA, among the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, or Comesa, the East African Community, the EAC, and the Southern African Development Community, SADC.

 

 

Today is almost a celebration. I see Ministers who used to be in this area of international relations. I see the Ministers of Trade and Industry and of Finance, and Ministers who have worked with this over many years and, indeed, members of this House.

 

 

In accordance with section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic, we present this agreement for ratification. This agreement is anchored in development and integration - the whole issue being market integration. We can’t talk about regional industrialisation unless we actually have this, the infrastructure and so on.

 

 

This creates a single very important set of rules for trade among the three African communities. As these communities are very different, there is a need to bring them together and say that we agree on X, Y and Z. That is important to stimulate industrialisation, employment - not only in our own country

 

but in Africa as a whole - and income generation, and to reduce poverty.

 

 

What we can be aware of is what the population is in this area. Is it 10 million or 60 million? What is it? There are nearly 630 million people that we will be interacting with as South Africans. That is what is important. As you might be aware, intra-African trade is estimated at the very low figure of 16% currently. But this agreement provides a framework to address the issues of industrialisation and infrastructure.

 

 

We know that there is increased protectionism globally and that, then, underlines the importance of ratifying this agreement. We need to diversify our export markets. We need to trade more with Africa – intra-African trade - and this ratification will be a positive step in this direction.

 

 

When the Department of Trade and Industry presented the agreement to the portfolio committee, we recognised the potential benefits. Members of the committee queried the possible threats to and advantages for our economy. I am pleased to say that the department returned to the portfolio committee to provide further details on potential risks. At this point, we can safely say that the additional details and information that the department provided were an elaboration of the effective implementation of the agreement of various

 

agencies, including the SA Revenue Service, Sars. We appreciate the collaborative effort between the department and the relevant agency of state.

 

 

There are currently three countries that have ratified the agreement: Egypt, Uganda and Kenya. Therefore, being the 19th country to sign the agreement, we would like to ask this House here today for South Africa to ratify this agreement, because this will send a strong signal to all the countries involved. I thank you.

 

 

There was no debate.

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order! Are there any objections to the approval of the agreement establishing the tripartite free trade area, as it appears on the Order Paper?

 

 

There are no objections, but there is a request for declarations.

 

 

Declarations of vote:

 

Mr D W MACPHERSON: House Chairperson, the DA supports the ratification of the Tripartite Free Trade Area, TFTA. However, there are some very serious concerns that we need to highlight.

 

We can only take advantage of the TFTA with a growing and expanding economy that gives us goods to export to those areas, duty-free. The problem is that we have an economy that is in recession. We have a manufacturing sector that is in decline and defaulting, and we have Ministers, as the Minister of Finance said, who are unaware when a recession is about to strike. In the manufacturing sector, just in the last quarter, we lost 105 000 jobs.

 

 

So, the truth of the matter is that although we may agree to a free trade area, we are the ones that are not going to be able take advantage of it. Because at the heart of this is a customs system and a customs office that does not protect South Africa from the import of cheap and illegal goods into our country. We need a competent service that looks after our borders and looks after our manufacturers.

 

 

We also need to have ease of doing business in order to take advantage of the TFTA. Just this morning I told the Trade and Industry committee of how you need a thousand pieces of paper and $130 dollars to get goods from the Port of Durban into Namibia. That seems ludicrous and does not allow us to take advantage of free trade areas.

 

 

We also need to ensure that we support our exporters, the few that still exist, to be able to take advantage of these free

 

trade areas. We need a Department of Trade and Industry that goes on aggressive investor and opportunity missions to find new business.

 

 

This TFTA also needs to ensure ease of movement for businesspeople to come to South Africa to do business here. It is far too hard for far too many businesspeople to enter our country. An example is that of a steel smelter in Port Elizabeth that is owned by an Indian consortium. These businesspeople cannot get visas to come to this country to view their own business. This seems completely ludicrous.

 

 

While the Department of Trade and Industry may present a whole bunch of turnaround strategies and opportunities for South Africa, we as members of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry need to continue to play our role of oversight and hold the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Industry accountable and ensure that our manufacturers and exporters can take advantage of this free trade area. Thank you very much.

 

 

Mr N PAULSEN: Hon Chair, the six non-negotiable cardinal pillars of the EFF’s founding manifesto speak to the need for the rapid development of the African economy. The founding manifesto further states that the development of South Africa is inextricably linked to the development of the African

 

continent. No amount of sustainable socioeconomic development and stability will be realised in South Africa unless the state plays an active role in the economic development of the African continent.

 

 

This, obviously, should include the development of trade corridors that link together the entire African continent and create capacity to consume goods and services produced on the continent. This is a re-emphasis of the numerous plans developed by thought leaders on our continent: that there will be no self-perpetuating development of any country on the continent if that development is not Pan-African in nature and does not entail unity and integration of the African continent as a unitary trading zone.

 

 

The Abuja Treaty had exactly this idea, but it was aborted by the neoliberals who took over the governance of the continent. For this reason, we support the establishment of the free trade zone between Comesa, the EAC and SADC. This must be the first step towards the complete economic unity of the African continent.

 

 

This unity must find expression in the unitisation of African resources by African people for their own development. We must have the necessary capacity to use our own resources for industrial development. That is only possible through a

 

unified Africa, free of internal trade barriers. Thank you very much.

 

 

Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN: House Chair, this free trade agreement for Africa is possibly the most significant event in, and for, Africa as a whole. Its significance seems to have been largely underestimated, which can now be seen clearly when juxtaposed against the looming international trade wars sparked by US President Donald Trump and the UK’s Brexit negotiations.

 

 

The IFP is of the opinion that it makes absolute good business sense to diversify and spread risk, which this agreement is doing, not only for South Africa, but for the continent as a whole.

 

 

Our goal of partnering with markets and operators elsewhere in Africa is based on research and first-hand experience of working on the continent and seeing the potential which, I might add, is near limitless in terms of both natural and human resources.

 

 

Most countries in Africa, though, face many challenges. Africa is known for its poor critical infrastructure, the porosity of its borders, the demon of corruption that remains so rife, and port charges that are among the most unproductive and expensive in the world.

 

Those challenges must be overcome throughout Africa for this agreement to work. For now, South Africa remains one of the three major gateways to the African market, with its existing infrastructure, logistics, banking, manufacturing capabilities, education and legal structures.

 

 

South Africa can and should play a leading role in this free trade area agreement and assist other African countries to unlock the potential of their own markets. Our aim should be to improve the export of value-added products and the opportunities already opening up.

 

 

It is time for African leaders and businesses to get involved in intra-African trade in order to ensure Africa’s current and future economic freedom. The IFP supports the agreement.

 

 

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon House Chairperson, the NFP welcomes the request for approval on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry of the agreement establishing a Tripartite Free Trade Area, TFTA, among the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Comesa, the East African Community, the EAC, and the Southern African Development Community, SADC, with a total membership of 27 African countries.

 

 

This is an important step and an initiative in accelerating regional integration efforts aimed at ensuring improvement in

 

inter-Africa trade. It also forms the basis for the ongoing continental free trade negotiations to unlock trade and investment opportunities on the entire African continent.

 

 

While this is a great initiative and entering into this trade agreement is one thing, ensuring that it benefits the country and its people – while not taking advantage of them - is another thing. One of the challenges we seem to have had – and, I think, I spoke to one of the Ministers earlier - is with the manufacturing industry in South Africa and particularly with the rand-dollar rate, and with exports and how they could actually benefit South Africa extensively. If you take particularly the manufacturing industry, while the automotive industry has improved, the textile, leather and plastics industries have declined considerably, resulting in job losses.

 

 

Now, if we could take advantage of this and export to neighbouring countries, the region and Africa it will actually stimulate economic growth in South Africa. So, as the NFP we are calling on the government to take advantage of this agreement so that it benefits our people in the country.

 

 

A good example is the manufacturing of medicines. We rely extensively on the US for our medicines. I know that we have had extensive discussions in the SADC region in terms of

 

creating a factory and industry in the SADC region alone, so that we can become not just self-sufficient, but also export to all other countries.

 

 

So, in light of that and provided we take advantage of this, we believe it will benefit South Africans extensively. The NFP, as a result thereof, will support this. Thank you.

 

 

Mr N L S KWANKWA: House Chair, the UDM supports the ratification of the TFTA agreement, primarily because we feel that we are providing continental leadership in this area when the rest of the West is moving in the opposite direction: there is a rise in protectionism and unilateralism. As Africa, we are leading by example to say, let us work together to improve trade and improve and encourage issues of regional integration.

 

 

The other issue that is important is that, first and foremost, we have to improve intra-African trade as a strategy if we want to lift Africa out of the malaise of poverty and underdevelopment. This means we have to find a way of trading with ourselves on the continent. I want to caution us as we embark upon this process in that at times we fail to resist the illogical temptation to think that when we open up trade that we shouldn’t do it in a manner that is mutually beneficial.

 

This is not about South Africa benefiting alone from this process. It is about us as a continent benefiting mutually from the trade agreements that we are putting in place and the creation of the free trade area.

 

 

Why am I making this point? For instance, last year we asked President Zuma what steps the country had taken to ensure the facilitation of the TFTA; and that, unlike most free trade agreements, the African Continental Free Trade Area, the AfCFTA, at that time didn’t skew trade and development in favour of more developed countries on the continent.

 

 

When you look at the agreement and read its objectives, they clearly outline adopting common standards of trade procedures within the Tripartite Free Trade Area where international requirements do not suit the conditions or prevailing conditions and where they might actually affect the interests of member states that would serve as an important consideration. These are some of the reasons we feel that this is an important agreement for African trade and for regional integration.

 

 

Madiba, sanukundiphazamisa. (Translation of isiXhosa sentence follows.)

 

 

[Madiba, do not disturb me.]

 

We thank you very much.

 

 

Mr B A RADEBE: Chairperson, the foundational policy framework of the ANC’s international relations policy is encompassed in the Freedom Charter adopted in 1955, which declares that there shall be peace and friendship. The Freedom Charter therefore prescribed that the ANC and South Africa’s foreign policy outlook should emphasise peace and friendship as opposed to war and coercion.

 

 

When South Africa joined the Organisation of African Unity, the OAU, a number of treaties had already been agreed to by the member states of the OAU. Amongst them was the Abuja Treaty of 1991 in which the OAU agreed to establish the African Economic Community. It is this treaty and many others that guide the activities of the ANC-led government on the continent.

 

 

At its national conference in 2017, the ANC resolved that Africa and its development remained the central objective of the ANC’s international perspective and policy, with the African Renaissance remaining a key objective. The conference further reaffirmed that the ANC and the ANC government remained committed to a peaceful and prosperous Africa in pursuit of the aspirations of Agenda 2063 of the African Union, the AU.

 

When coming to the issue of the Tripartite Free Trade Area, it is an initiative which is consistent with the imperatives of the Abuja Treaty of the AU to establish the African Economic Community. The AU views regional economic communities as the building blocks towards the African Economic Community; hence the Tripartite Free Trade Area is seen as a building block in the Africa-wide Continental Free Trade Area.

 

 

This is an indication by African policy-makers of the need to reform major trade policies of African countries. The Tripartite Free Trade Area agreement represents a large supply of a young, dynamic and potentially very productive labour force.

 

 

The specific objectives of this agreement are: to progressively eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade and goods; to liberalise trade and services; to co- operate on customs matters and the implementation of trade facilitation measures; to establish and promote co-operation in all trade-related areas among the tripartite members; and to establish and maintain the institutional framework for the implementation and administration of the Tripartite Free Trade Area.

 

 

The member states of the Tripartite Free Trade agreement are determined to progressively liberalise goods and services;

 

promote industrial development; facilitate the movement of businesspersons; support the strengthening of infrastructure; promote competitiveness; build the capacity of micro, small and medium-scale enterprises; and continue deepening the integration of the Tripartite Free Trade Area.

 

 

The Tripartite Free Trade Area brings about 26 countries together, representing 48% of AU membership, with a combined population of 632 million people, which contributes 51% of the continental GDP.

 

 

As Africa continues with its programme of the economic integration of the continent, the impact of the economic partnership agreement, both bilaterally and multilaterally, must be given serious attention. If this House ratifies this agreement, this would support what one of the founding fathers of the OAU, former President of Ghana Kwame Nkrumah, once said. He said that by far the greatest wrong the departing colonialists inflicted on Africa was the state of disunity of Africa, which left us divided into economically unviable states which bore no possibility of redevelopment.

 

 

If this House supports this agreement, it means that this historic mission would have been fulfilled. As the ANC, we fully support the Tripartite Free Trade Area agreement as it is in line with our foreign policy objectives. The agreement

 

further emphasises the commitment of South Africa to advancing the agenda of the economic development of Africa. Thank you, Chairperson.

 

 

Agreement establishing a Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA) among the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community, (EAC), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) accordingly approved.

 

 

LAUNCH OF THEME BOOKS TO CELEBRATE THE CONSTITUTION AND CENTENARY BIRTHDAYS OF MADIBA AND MA-SISULU

 

 

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Before we adjourn the House, I just want to make the following announcement. Members are reminded that His Excellency President Cyril Ramaphosa, together with the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, will today launch the theme books published to celebrate the Constitution and the centenary birthdays of Madiba and Ma-Sisulu. The launch will take place today at 17:30 in the Old Assembly Chamber.

 

 

The House adjourned at 15:30.

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Please click on the following link to access the relevant Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports for this day.

 

 

https://www.parliament.gov.za/parliamentary-papers?sorts[date]=-1

 


Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents