Hansard: NCOP: Unrevised hansard

House: National Council of Provinces

Date of Meeting: 29 Nov 2012

Summary

No summary available.

Minutes

UNREVISED HANSARD

THURSDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2012

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

____

The Council met at 14:03.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

VERIFICATION OF ACCURACY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN NOTICE

(Ruling)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, before we come to the Order Paper, I want to make a ruling on a motion moved by the hon Van Lingen. In the previous sitting, I indicated that I would make a ruling.

I would like to make a ruling on a notice of motion moved by the hon Van Lingen on Thursday, 22 November 2012. Members will recall that I indicated that I would like to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the notice. However, I would like to bring to the attention of members that in terms of section 71 of the Constitution, read together with Rule 30, members have freedom of speech in the Council and its committees or subcommittees.

In a constitutional democracy, it is considered a critical element and in the interest of the public that public representatives speak freely. However, since no right is absolute in terms of the Constitution, there is an obligation on members to exercise this right responsibly and within its limitation. Rule 46 stipulates, among other things, that no member may deliberately make a false statement in the Council.

According to the department, the Minister of Labour attended the International Labour Organisation governing body meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, from 12 to 16 November 2012, on behalf of South Africa. This meeting was followed by an international symposium on the challenges of social protection in Paris, France, on 19 November 2012. The Minister, on behalf of South Africa, one of the leading countries on social protection, and as a member of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa bloc, was invited to take part in the panel discussion on technical co-operation and social protection floors implementation.

During the Minister’s absence, the Minister of Basic Education, Mrs A Motshekga, was appointed as acting Minister. On the basis of the information received from the department, I therefore rule that the notice of motion moved by the hon Van Lingen on 22 November 2012 should not appear on the next Order Paper. [Applause.]

NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the Council -

(1) notes that subscription television network M-Net was fined R20 000 for broadcasting a show that contained adult conduct at a time when children were likely to be watching;

(2) further notes that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa received a complaint about an M-Net broadcast on 21 October at 11.30am of the programme Hollywood's Best Film Directors, which shows female nudity and implied sex, as well as one visual of female genitalia; and

(3) takes this opportunity to welcome this fine as a clear message to any broadcaster that dares disregard our laws by broadcasting programmes that expose our children to sex.

Mrs R M RASMENI: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the Council -

(1) notes with sadness the passing on of the former Vice Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape, Professor Jakes Gerwel, in a Cape Town hospital yesterday morning after heart surgery;

(2) further notes that Professor Gerwel, an anti-apartheid activist and Director-General in the office of former President Nelson Mandela, served on many boards and organisations, including the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory and Media24;

(3) also notes that Professor Gerwel was a senior lecturer at the University of the Western Cape and later Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the university;

(4) further notes that during his time he declared UWC the intellectual home of politics, signalling to the apartheid government that UWC was opposing the government both politically and intellectually;

(5) also notes that as a consequence of the declaration, large numbers of people flocked to UWC from all over South Africa; and

(6) takes this opportunity to honor his legacy and convey sincere condolences to his family and loved ones during this difficult time.

Mr K A SINCLAIR: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of Cope:

That the Council -

(1) notes the ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal today that it was illegal for the Department of Home Affairs to refuse to make a decision in time for the Dalai Lama’s visa for entry into South Africa;

(2) further notes that it was once again a constitutional victory for Cope, which, together with the IFP, stood for what is right and ensured that we protect the administrative integrity of our country;

(3) requests the South African government to apologise to the Dalai Lama for the embarrassment cause by the lack of proper and efficient processing of his visa when he was attempting to attend Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s 80th birth day celebration; and

(4) calls on the government not to be influenced by outside forces controlling the South African internal affairs.

Mr M W MAKHUBELA: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of Cope:

That the Council -

(1) notes the low level of mathematics literacy epitomised by a ridiculous question in the November 2012 examination;

(2) further notes that Paper 1 required grade 12 pupils to state whether it is certain; most likely or impossible for Christmas Day to be on 25 December in South Africa;

(3) also notes that mathematics literacy is forced onto poor and mainly African children who are in neglected schools; and

(4) calls on the Minister of Basic Education to ponder the quality and structuring of the questions, which are not meant to develop the use of basic mathematical skills but to improve the results in mathematics and make the Minister feel good.

Mr F ADAMS: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the Council -

(1) notes the fanfare with which the DA announced the election of its so-called “national leaders” earlier this week, in particular the election of two black members as vice-chairpersons of the federal council;

(2) further notes that these two “office bearers” are alleged to be nothing more than tokens of the DA leader, Helen Zille;

(3) also notes in particular that the DA has created the positions of more than one vice-chairperson to pose black people in such positions for no other reason or purpose than to create the impression that blacks are represented in the national leadership of the party;

(4) further notes that these positions are in fact only ceremonial, with no functions or powers attached to it and merely meant for window dressing;

(5) also notes that the only function of the chairperson is to preside over the federal congress of the party, which at best takes place only once every two years;

(6) further notes that the real power in the party remain behind the scenes in the hands of the rich white English component of the party;

(7) takes this opportunity to call on the DA to cease their apartheid-style abuse of black people and not to underestimate the intelligence of South Africans.

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of Cope:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the Limpopo department of education is in serious trouble;

(2) further notes the report in today’s Sowetan newspaper that a school in Hansani in Giyani, Limpopo, is riddled with holes on the floor;

(3) also notes that the chairperson of the school-governing body is saying that everybody knows about the disaster but nothing has been done to help them;

further notes that nearly half of the schools in Limpopo are in a dire condition;

(5) also notes that Cope calls upon the President to fire the Ministers of Education; and

(6) calls upon the premier of Limpopo to fire the MEC for Education because they have failed our children.

Mr D B FELDMAN: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of Cope:

That the Council -

(1) notes the rejection of the Public Protector’s findings by Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson that she had violated the executive ethics code;

(2) further notes that she had travelled to Sweden with her two children;

(3) also notes that the extension of the visit was not work- related; and

(4) recognises all other matters related to the Sweden visit and the role of the Minister in using public funds to pay for her and her family’s vacation.

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: Hon Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move on behalf of the DA:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the Eastern Cape MEC for Finance, Phumulo Masualle, introduced a R1,2 billion Adjustments Appropriation Bill in the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature;

(2) further notes that the DA welcomes the additional funding for health in the amount of R568 million and for education in the amount of R466 million in the Adjustments Appropriation Bill;

(3) also notes that this, will not be sufficient, however as the health department is still overspending;

(4) further notes with deep concern the decline in the equitable share over the next three financial years of R5,1 billion due to the province’s weighted average decreasing as a result of the new census figures;

(5) also notes that this has severe implications for service delivery;

(6) notes that the DA agrees with MEC Phumulo Masualle when he says that under-expenditure on conditional grants is criminal;

(7) further notes that he did not spell out action to be taken against officials responsible for this continued under expenditure;

(8) also notes that it is high time that the full weight of the Public Finance Management Act was invoked against officials responsible for financial mismanagement; and

(9) recognises that it is clear that the Eastern Cape is standing on a fiscal cliff unless there is tight financial management and real accountability for nonperformance.

ANC FAILS NATION

(Draft Resolution)

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the ANC is failing the nation with regard to education, health, service delivery and co-operative governance;

(2) further notes that it is unacceptable that the ANC is using their majority power to bulldoze their way through when making decisions, ensuring that they please themselves whilst ignoring the long-term damaging effects on the people of South Africa; and

(3) hopes that the ANC understands that South Africa does not belong to them alone, but also to each and every South African.

Mr T E CHAANE: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order: The hon member’s motion seeks to anticipate what will be debated later on.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, in terms of Rule 49, while addressing the Council no member may anticipate the discussion of a matter appearing on the Order Paper. I will proceed with the next motion. [Applause.]

Motion not agreed to in terms of Rule 49.

COUNTY FAIR FARM WORKERS ON WAGE STRIKE

(Draft Resolution)

Mrs A N D QIKANI: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes reports of a strike by workers of the largest chicken production company in the Western Cape;

further notes that since last Wednesday, about 800 workers from County Fair farms in Klapmuts, Fisantekraal and Muldersvlei have been on strike;

also notes that they were demanding that salaries be increased from R499 to R1 500 a week;

further notes that on Monday, about 150 workers in Muldersvlei clashed with police when they used rocks to blockade the intersection of Sandringham Road and the R304; and

appeals to the company and workers to engage in negotiations as a matter of urgency to avoid further striking and destruction of property

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

MURDER OF FARMER AND HIS SON IN JOE GQABI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

(Draft Resolution)

Ms D Z RANTHO: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes the gruesome murder of a farmer and his son, who were hacked to death;

further notes that their body parts were cut off in a mountainous area near Mount Fletcher last week after the farmer went missing on 12 November;

also notes that his cellphone was switched off and he allegedly stayed in the mountains with his herdsman, who reported him as missing;

further notes that his son went searching for his father but did not return home either after eight days;

also notes that the bodies of the farmer, aged 60, and his son, aged 25, were found last Wednesday evening;

further notes that on Thursday morning the father’s body was found in a shallow grave and his head placed next to his feet and his tongue removed;

takes this opportunity to convey sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of this father and son, as well as the farming community of Gobho village during this difficult time; and

calls on the police to leave no stone unturned to bring the perpetrators to book.

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

DA SUPPORTS 16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM FOR NO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAMPAIGN

(Draft Resolution)

Mr D A WORTH: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes the 16 Days of Activism for No Violence Against Women and Children, which commenced on 25 November 2012.

further notes that South African women and children face intolerably high level of violence;

also notes that at least one in three women will be raped in her lifetime, while an estimated 150 children are raped in South Africa every day;

further notes that we support the 16 days of activism as an opportunity to promote awareness around the challenges faced by women and children in our country.

calls on all South Africans to participate in the 16 days of activism campaign as we all work each day to create an environment where South African women and children can thrive.

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH LAUNCHES PROJECT EDEN FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV

(Draft Resolution)

Mr T M H MOFOKENG: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes that the Northern Cape provincial department of health has launched a vegetable garden project in Kimberley on Monday;

further notes that the project is aimed at benefiting people with HIV or affected by it and to give them new hope;

also notes that this project at Galeshewe Hospital, called Project Eden, was initiated with the joint support of the private sector and three non-profit organisations;

further notes that its aim is to ensure that patients not only depend on food parcels for a nutritious meal by training them through the project to start their own vegetable gardens;

takes this opportunity to commend the department and the other role-players on this initiative; and

encourages all communities to embark on similar initiatives in order to improve their quality of life.

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

OFFICIAL LAUNCH OF OPERATION DUTY CALLS IN KIMBERLEY TO PREVENT CRIME DURING FESTIVE SEASON

(Draft Resolution)

Mr A G MATILA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes the official launch of the crime prevention operational plan for the festive season by the Northern Cape provincial government in Kimberley last Friday;

further notes that the plan, known as Operation Duty Calls will specifically focus on identifying the focus areas and hotspots in the province;

also notes that the operation plan will also focus on the implementation and execution of the operation by the police;

further notes that various departments, state entities and law enforcement authorities, including provincial and municipal traffic authorities, the National Defence Force, the Department of Home Affairs and emergency services will offer support to ensure the success of the operation;

welcomes the plan and commends the provincial government and all other partners and role-players in the plan; and

calls on the public to support and respect this campaign

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

DEATH OF PROF JAKES GERWEL

(Draft Resolution)

Mrs B L ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

expresses condolences to the family of Prof Jakes Gerwel;

notes that Prof Gerwel was born in the Eastern Cape and died on Wednesday, 26 November 2012, at the age of 66 at the Kuils River Hospital;

further notes that Prof Gerwel was well known in South African political history;

also notes that Prof Gerwel will be remembered for the important role he played as the Director-General in the Office of former President Nelson Mandela;

Mr B L MASHILE: Chairperson, on a point of order: This motion was read by an hon member earlier.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: That was a notice of motion. Continue, hon Abrahams.

Mrs B L ABRAHAMS:

also notes that he served on various boards as chairman, such as Media 24 and Life Health Care;

further notes that he was also on the board of trustees of the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory;

also notes that Prof Gerwel was a man of integrity and substance, a liberal thinker and profound debater;

further notes that Prof Gerwel was soft spoken but had a sharp voice when delivering his message; and

notes that Prof Gerwelwill be remembered for playing a pivotal role in the transformation of and reconciliation in the new South Africa.

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

BLIND STUDENTS ACCUSE UNISA

(Draft Resolution)

Ms B P MABE: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes with concern the accusations of blind students at the Polokwane campus of the University of South Africa in Limpopo;

further notes it is alleged that the university is violating their right to quality education in that it had either failed to deliver their essential study material in Braille on time or had failed to deliver it at all, so much so that they have missed their year-end exams;

also notes that some students have allegedly only received their study material a day before the exams;

further notes that others have not received theirs at all and some have received it incomplete;

also notes that this state of affairs is allegedly the result of the university not having a disability desk at the Polokwane campus;

takes this opportunity to call on the university authority to assess the situation; and

takes appropriate steps and measures to ensure that the needs of students with special needs are properly catered for.

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

JUDGE ZAK YACOOB AN INSPIRATION TO PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED

(Draft Resolution)

Mr V M MANZINI: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes that Justice Zak Yacoob has retired;

further notes that Justice Yacoob is the judge who brought much-needed light moments to the Constitutional Court while work was being done on a very serious landmark judgment;

also notes that this blind is described as one of South Africa’s treasured generational blessings;

further notes that he defied all odds, stereotypes and prejudices to complete his studies and develop himself as one of the world’s finest legal brains;

also notes that Justice Zak Yacoob was an inspiration and a role model to any South African child living in abject poverty or those who are physically challenged to believe that they have a place at the top of their careers; and

hopes that his retirement brings joy to his family and many happy years to come.

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

CONCERN OVER REPORT ON TRAFFIC FINES IN ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY

(Draft Resolution)

Mrs N W MAGADLA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes with concern the report last week by the eThekwini municipality in KwaZulu-Natal that traffic fines in the amount of R 1,4 billion is outstanding whereof R3,7 million dates back to 2005;

further notes with concern that traffic offences appear to be on the rise;

also notes that in one month, 3145 fines were issued for red robot violations while 13 403 fines were issued for speeding, 16 867 for parking violations and 29 326 for other violations;

takes this opportunity to call on the eThekwini municipality and its metro police to implement measures to collect the outstanding fines as a matter of urgency;

further calls on all municipalities, traffic officers and other law enforcement authorities to improve traffic control measures and revenue collection and;

calls on all municipalities to improve and implement visible policing.

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

INCREASE IN INCOME TAX RETURNS

(Draft Resolution)

Mr C J DE BEER: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes reports by the SA Revenue Service that a record number of 5,66 million income tax returns were submitted during this year;

further notes that the total number of returns received by 23 November 2012 was 16,4% higher than the previous year;

also notes that the total includes 4,214 million returns received from individuals for the 2012 tax year, compared to 3,688 million in 2011, which is an increase of 14,3%;

further notes that the payment received from taxpayers increased by 6,9% since last year;

also notes that 1,4 million outstanding returns from previous years were received, which is an increase of 25% from last year; and

commends the revenue service on the effective measures introduced to streamline the system for the submission of tax returns and the collection of revenue and;

commends the public for their positive and responsible response.

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

OUTSTANDING LAND CLAIMS IN WESTERN CAPE

(Draft Resolution)

Mr D JOSEPH: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the submissions of land claims ended in December 1998 and to date 1800 land claims are still outstanding in the Western Cape;

(2) further notes that forced removals were a painful and inhumane experience;

(3) also notes that although government has spent almost °R1 billion on the restoration of justice, mistakes of the past cannot be repeated;

(4) further notes that government must close this chapter of apartheid in a spirit of reconciliation, fairness and redress; and

(5) calls on national government to increase the pace of land restitution, support to claimants and the budget to finalise land claims.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! In light of the fact that there is and objection, the motion is not agreed to. The motion without notice will become a notice of motion.

GRUESOME MURDER OF THREE YOUNG CHILDREN IN MOOKGOPONG, LIMPOPO

(Draft Resolution)

Mrs M C DIKGALE: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

notes that the community of Mkgopong in Limpopo are reeling in shock and disbelief after the arrest of six young boys for the brutal murder of three young children, two brothers of nine and 10 years old and their 12-year-old cousin;
further notes that only one of the six boys, who are aged between 10 and 16 years, is apparently attending school while the other five are street kids;

also notes that the three victims were found in their school uniforms with their hands and feet tied with shoelaces and allegedly stoned to death;

further notes that the 12-year-old girl had been raped before she was killed;

condemns these brutal, barbaric murders and rape in the strongest possible terms; and

takes this opportunity to express its sincere condolences with the families and loved ones of the victims.

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

EXTENSION OF DEADLINE BY WHICH AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS TO REPORT

(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution as printed on the Order Paper in my name, as follows:

That the Council extends the deadline by which the Ad Hoc Committee on the Code of Judicial Conduct and Regulations on Judges’ Disclosure of Registrable Interest has to report, on 31 March 2013.

Question put: That the motion be agreed to.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

SUSPENSION OF RULE 239(1) REGARDING PROTECTION OF STATE INFORMATION BILL AND ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL

(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That Rule 239(1), which provides inter alia that the consideration of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have lapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, be suspended for the purposes of consideration of the Protection of State Information Bill [B 6B - 2010] (National Assembly – section 75) and Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 32 - 2012] (National Assembly – section 77) on Thursday, 29 November 2012.

Question put: That the motion be agreed to.

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: On a point of order, Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I’m still putting the question and no point of order should be raised.

Declaration of vote:

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: Chairperson, as the Western Cape, we object to this motion because there is no urgency to put this motion on the Order Paper.

IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West.

AGAINST: Western Cape.

Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members!

Mr K A SINCLAIR: Chairperson, with due respect, I want to raise a technical matter. The Northern Cape has three representatives from the opposition and three from the ANC. Our permanent delegate voted in favour but didn’t consult with us on this matter.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Well, I’m sorry but that is a matter for the delegates. You could have consulted. It is not a matter for the Council. [Laughter.] [Applause.] Order, hon members!

PROTECTION OF STATE INFORMATION BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, I would like to inform you that copies of the Bill and proposed amendments are on your desks.

Mr R A LEES: Hon Chair, on a point of order: In terms of Joint Rule 218, which I will read to you, “The secretary must supply to each Assembly member and permanent member of the Council, and also to the Speaker of each provincial legislature, a copy of each Bill or amended Bill”. According to section 3, documents mentioned and destined to be tabled in or presented to the Council must be distributed to Council members not later than a day before they are tabled or presented.

Hon Chair, I put it to you that as we speak, an amended Bill has not yet been distributed to the members of this Council, nor ... [Interjections.] I seek your protection, sir.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members! Speak, hon member, you are protected.

Mr R A LEES: The amended Bill has not yet been distributed to the members of this Council or to the Speakers of the provincial legislatures and therefore I seek the removal of this item from the Order Paper. I seek a ruling from you, sir.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Lees, I said at the beginning that the copies are on your tables, and this is a section 75 Bill. The NCOP has no right to amend the Bill but only to propose amendments to the National Assembly, and that has been done. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: Chairperson of the NCOP, hon M J Mahlangu, honourable members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, thank you for giving us the time to work with you in processing what has become the most talked about piece of security legislation both here and abroad. We are grateful to the members of the ad hoc committee, chaired by hon Tau, who widely consulted the public in all provinces and devoted sufficient time to improving the Bill.

At the onset, we want to underscore that we respect and recognise the democratic freedoms underpinning our Constitution. These are hard-won freedoms that must always be close to our hearts and at the centre of our conscience.

The goal of this ANC government continues to be to serve the Constitution and the people of this country. The White Paper on Intelligence clearly states that our focus and priority is to improve the quality of life of our people and the practice of democracy, as well as the promotion of a domestic and international climate of peace and stability. The key objective of any government is to ensure national security as the bedrock for attaining peace, stability, development and progress for a nation.

The Protection of State Information Bill seeks to advance the public interest by protecting certain classified information held by the state that, if it became known to adversaries, would prejudice state programmes and hinder its ability to perform its duties. Secondly, the Bill introduces the protection of valuable information held by organs of state against unlawful alteration, destruction or loss in order to prevent hardship being experienced by our people, who may, as a result, be denied services they are entitled to.

This Bill is repeals the Protection of Information Act 84 of 1982. This apartheid legislation defines national security in a narrow manner yet, since 1994, we as a nation have adopted a broader definition; one that goes beyond protection of the state to include protection of the people. The Bill seeks to incorporate the rights and responsibilities imposed by our Constitution. This process is also guided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides, under article 19(2), as follows:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.

In article 12(3) it further provides that the freedom:

... may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and is necessary -

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order or public health or morals.

We need to emphasise that these rights in our Constitution, as is the case in the Covenant, are not absolute, as they are subject to section 36 of the Constitution, which limits them. No such limitation exists on the provisions of the Chapter 11 of our Constitution pertaining to national security, the security services and their oversight structures.

Hon members, to those who fear that the Bill may be abused, we say: The only thing to fear is fear itself. We say: Soldier on and know that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Hence, we have developed a Bill that, in clause 10, among other provisions, provides that:

The decision to classify information must be solely based on the conditions set out in this Act;

(a) classification of state information is justifiable when it is necessary to protect the national security;

(b) classification of state information may not under any circumstances be used to conceal [...] corruption, an unlawful act or omission, incompetence, inefficiency or administrative error ...

There are, inter alia, checks and balances to prevent any abuse of power in the classification system. These include oversight by an independent Classification Review Panel; the Minister of the relevant department; the judiciary; the Inspector-General of Intelligence; the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Parliament.

The global competitive nature of the world today and the scramble for scarce resources manifest in foreign states employing interventions to counter or compete with our national interests. To this end, the Bill criminalises foreign spies who steal our secrets to improve their competitive edge in order to advance their interests and at the expense of our own development.

Hon members, the Bill limits secrecy and develops a more open society by introducing a transparent system of declassification where there are stringent criteria and timeframes for classification, reclassification and, more importantly, declassification. This is something that our people have not been told about by those who oppose this Bill. They have also not been told that this Bill is - in fact, I challenge you - more progressive than any other Act anywhere else in the world that governs the protection of classified information. [Applause.]

The accomplishment of this Bill is that it manages to create an environment of openness, accountability and responsiveness, and it does so without compromising national security - all of these being prerequisites for a stable democratic society.

There has been a lot of focus by the opponents of the Bill on the absence of the public interest defence clause. In the National Assembly process and the subsequent work in the NCOP, the public interest override was introduced in clause 19. Furthermore, the inclusion and amendments made in clause 43, which provide exemptions on disclosure and possession of classified information, go a long way in addressing that concern. Clause 43 explicitly protects whistle-blowers and those who expose corruption. What is strange is that despite the ANC being accommodative to the views of the public and having spared no effort to accommodate all political parties as a consensus-building mechanism, some opposition parties opted for the cheap politics of walkouts because they have run out of all logical argument and sought to continuously move the goalpost.

The Bill provides a public interest override - I am emphasising this again. This is a simple mechanism that allows a person to apply to the head of an organ of state to access and declassify information. If this is denied, a person can appeal to the relevant Minister or can just go to court.

Our position is that with such a mechanism, there is no need for a public interest defence clause, as there is no need to commit an offence when all you need to do is apply to the relevant authorities to access and declassify the information. These authorities, by law, will have to comply with clause 10 of the Bill, which states that classification cannot be used to conceal an unlawful act or omission, incompetence, inefficiency or administrative error and cannot be used to limit scrutiny or prevent embarrassment.

The problem with the public defence clause is the associated risk where any member of the public can decide what is in the public interest, when the head of an organ of state or court, for instance, may be in a better position to objectively weigh up the issues. Remember, the objective of the Bill is to protect national security and the secret information we have to advance our national interests. The objective is not to protect the criminals who steal state resources – including information - from being prosecuted. Let me assure you again that this Bill does not permit the abuse of power. Further, let me assure you that the ANC government would not support a Bill that undermines our Constitution or does not strike a balance between secrecy and transparency, both of which are necessary to advance our democracy.

Hon members, I want to emphasise that there is no conflict with the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Paia. There is a concern in some submissions that the Bill is unconstitutional as it is in conflict with the Promotion of Access to Information Act, an Act that gives expression to the constitutional right to access of information and hence to the Constitution. It is our view that this is not the case. The protection of classified information to protect national security is mandated by the very same Constitution.

The Constitutional Court, in the matter of Independent Newspapers v Minister of Intelligence Services in 2008, also upheld that confidentiality of state information on the basis of national security is not unconstitutional. It held that the protection of classified information to protect national security is mandated by the Constitution and is necessary to protect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

It is important to note that the Protection of State Information Bill and the Paia do not present opposing legislation. They are two different pieces of legislation with different objectives: Paia is an Act to promote access to information whereas this Bill seeks to protect certain – not all - state information.

Another main issue raised is what is perceived as the broadness of the definition of national security. There is a view that the word “includes” in the definition is problematic in that it renders the definition too broad.

There is no universal or single definition of the concept of national security. International law shows an inclusive approach to that definition. This is mainly due to the fact that the courts will interpret “national security” according to the relevant circumstances facing the country at a particular time. Hence, any inclusion in the definition of national security would be defined by the context by the courts. Therefore, the word “includes” cannot be read to mean that every instance can be included under national security.

If one looks at best practice in other countries, whether in the United Kingdom or the European Union, they have followed that approach. Even in Canada, which is quoted by many, they have not defined it. They avoided limiting the definition to national security but focused on defining the threats to national security. In the United States, they define national security and they include contributors to national security such as demographics, natural resources, the environment, economic growth, etc.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that there are a few reasons why we brought this Bill here: firstly, to repeal the old Act of 1982; secondly, to introduce a clearly regulated system of classification, declassification and reclassification; thirdly, to criminalise espionage and information peddling; and fourthly, to introduce the protection of valuable information against unlawful alteration, loss and destruction.

It is my privilege and honour to present the Protection of State Information Bill to the NCOP. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, special and permanent delegates, we will note that the Protection of State Information Bill has traversed a long path to reach this point. We will also note that the Bill that we are reporting on here today is one of the pieces of legislation that made South Africa awake. Subsequent to the passing of the Protection of State Information Bill by the National Assembly and the tabling of the amended version of the Bill in the National Council of Provinces, an Ad Hoc Committee on the Protection of State Information Bill was established.

The committee consisted of a multiparty delegation made up of all parties represented in the National Council of Provinces. Since its establishment, the committee devoted sufficient time to improving the contents of the Bill. We need to take into account that in processing the Bill, about 800 changes were proposed and more than 40 committee meetings were convened, including public hearings in the provinces and particular districts. [Applause.]

What the committee also did was to silence the critics who thought and asserted that the NCOP was not going to play its proper constitutional role and that we were just a rubber stamp of the National Assembly.

As a committee, we ensured that we embarked on an extensive public participation process to afford the South African citizenry an opportunity to make submissions on this important piece of legislation, and also to afford those who opposed the Bill and often described it as “the biggest affront to democracy since apartheid ended in 1994” an opportunity to participate in the processing of the Bill.

What we sought to do with this piece of legislation was to strengthen the foundation of our democracy because we strongly hold the view that democracy is not just about who governs and how they are chosen. In fact, more important is how they govern, the institutions through which they govern and the institutional identities by and through which they organise different categories of citizens.

By going to the back of beyond of this country and soliciting the views of everyone, including those in the rural areas, what we sought to do as a committee was to say that democracy was still about dialogue and changing one’s mind in the light of better arguments; about rights and responsibilities. It was also about reaffirming that our commitment to a new and better society was central. With the changes we made, we managed to make this Bill a beacon of hope and prevent a new tendency that emerged in the committee and so forth.

Noting the vibrant nature of South African society, we observed peaceful protests and demonstrations held in major cities throughout the country, leading to the establishment of a societal network that was geared at opposing the Bill. This meant that the Bill revitalised and created energy in South African society. Some critics even likened it to the elaborate, extensive legislation used by the apartheid regime to silence the freedom of expression that the ANC and many stalwarts of the fight against apartheid championed and fought for.

It is important to make the point that during the public hearings held in provinces, we observed a tendency - it was not only a tendency but a fact - that to a great extent our people were misinformed and ill informed about what was happening. Let me quote a few examples. From the Western Cape, Poki Ngubane submitted:

While it is universally accepted that the state must protect itself against information peddlers and espionage activities, we need to ensure that the Bill does not create a securocrat state wherein citizens will be denied information.

In KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, journalism students who participated in the public hearings from the universities pleaded with members from the committee to ensure that by the time they concluded their studies, the Bill should not have created a situation where they would be arrested for reporting wrongdoing and corruption.

In Mpumalanga, Ephraim Phosa wa Mahosi believes that it is important for the state to have secrets for the protection and development of its own citizens, but that we must ensure that the Bill does not protect corruption in the state, especially at local government level.

In Mangaung, a Cosatu shop steward made a presentation to the effect that the Bill should not in any way strangle shop stewards and deny whistle-blowers the right to blow the whistle on wrongdoing at their workplaces. The kind of information we got demonstrated that it had been fed to our people.

It was not a surprise that this morning, on Radio SAfm, a prominent leader, an intellectual and a leader of the Right2Know campaign, was on air, saying that the Bill as it stands and the proposals that the NCOP have come up with gave Cabinet the right to classify information. What ill-informed information for a leader in a position of that nature! We want to state categorically and clearly that nowhere in the Bill does it regulate the media. Nowhere in the Bill does it say it is going to regulate the media.

Amica Cabral, one of Africa’s lucid and brilliant leaders, once said, “Do not hide the truth from the people. Tell no lies and claim no easy victories.” That means that the South African press needs to demonstrate a consistent record of integrity in its reporting, commentaries and analyses. Without such a record, the right to be wrong becomes the right to misinform, defame, scandalise and exploit through damaging innuendo, all in the name of the free flow of criticism and debate and, of course, selling newspapers, because that is the nature of their business.

Let me make it clear that for ideological reasons I am not comfortable with quoting the following leaders. However, for the sake of this debate, let me borrow their words. For instance, during the First World War, Winston Churchill, the British Commander-in-Chief, said, “[...] truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” John F Kennedy took it even further and said, “No matter how big the lie, repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.” [Interjections.] Therefore, a destructive campaign was launched, based on half-truths, distorted conflation and mischievous political deportment, especially by those who saw nothing wrong in the operations of information peddlers and espionage activities.

However, I must report that our elaborate process to educate our people and clarify the misconceptions and misinformation about the Bill, now termed, by them, the “Secrecy Bill”, assisted ordinary South Africans. In fact, even the most learned of them, much as we kept on saying it was the Protection of State Information Bill, kept on referring to it as the “Secrecy Bill”, misleading and lying to our people. [Interjections.] I am running out of time.

The improvements made to the Bill would not have been possible without professionalism in decision-making. Based on the improvements that we have made to the Bill, I will personally take the responsibility, on behalf of the committee - and I know the Chairperson would do it on behalf of the Council - of inviting those journalism students from KwaZulu-Natal University - the ones who had been mobilised to believe that there was no point in studying journalism because once you were a professional journalist, this Bill was going to land you in jail - and present to them the current list of proposals made by the NCOP. Then we can ask them whether they still saw themselves landing in jail after graduation. It is important for us to do that, because the improvements to the Bill would not have been possible without the submissions and contributions of our people through the many and diverse organisations of civil society and campaigning in the public hearings.

Over and above that, there are certain elites who projected themselves as speaking for the ordinary masses of our people, but still treat the Bill with extreme cynicism. Even after the plethora of changes that have been made to the Bill, they still continue to treat the Bill with extreme cynicism. What kind of intellectual capacity do we have in our country? Instead of making positive and constructive contributions that take us forward as a country, they would rather hold us back and make us believe that what we have done is nothing but a waste of time.

In conclusion, on behalf of the committee, of course, we would like to present the list of proposals and the committee report and request this Council to adopt and pass what we are putting to the Council. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Mr Tau is the chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Protection of State Information. I have been requested to address you by your position. Hon Lees for the Democratic Party, please continue. [Laughter.] Order! Hon Lees for the Democratic Alliance, please continue.

Mr R A LEES: Hon Chair, yes, it is the DA.

There has been a great deal of misrepresentation about this Bill but let me assure you it does not come from the opposition. Let me assure you it does not come from civil society. Let me assure you it comes from those who are propagating the Bill. The Protection of State Information Bill has been one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in postapartheid South Africa. Despite extensive consultation and deliberation, the Bill remains a fatally flawed piece of legislation. We believe this Bill is unconstitutional and must be referred to the Constitutional Court.

There can be no doubt that the amendments proposed by the DA and Cope and grudgingly accepted by the ANC, albeit in a somewhat watered-down way, was a brave move by the ANC. This was under tremendous pressure from the Minister and his officials ... [Interjections.] ... but equally under pressure from other quarters, namely civil society and the opposition.

The amendments agreed to is a victory for the opposition, who took the concerns of the public to heart and ensured that we pushed for vital changes to be made to the Bill – positive changes, a victory for the opposition and civil society. These were not gifts from the ANC, but they were a result of pressure from civil society and the opposition. The ANC had the opportunity to make amendments in the National Assembly. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon Lees. There is a point of order by hon Chief Whip.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chair, on a point of order: I call for the member not to mislead the House. There were no proposals from the opposition. All the changes and proposals came from the ruling party, the ANC.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: It is a bit difficult for me to rule on that. I don’t know where the proposals came from, but I will check with the committee. Mr Lees, if this is misleading the House, we will have to correct that.

Mr R A LEES: Chair, I can assure you it’s not misleading. These changes were not gifts from the ANC. The ANC had the opportunity in the National Assembly to make changes, but instead they failed to do so. In the face of almost universal opposition, both in South Africa and internationally, they rammed the Bill through in 2011.

Some of the remaining problems in the Bill are the minimum sentences, the harshness of sentences and the application of the Bill to information classified in terms of the apartheid-era Protection of Information Act, Act 84 of 1982. Also problematic is the possibility of using the espionage section to prosecute persons, such as journalists, who are not involved in espionage, even if what they disclose is in the public interest. The absence of a fully fledged public interest defence clause remains a major problem, and the inclusion of provincial archives and the inclusion of valuable information are also areas that should not be part of this Bill.

The inclusion of valuable information puts the spooks of the Department of State Security in charge of protecting information held in departments such as Home Affairs, deeds offices, motor licensing, archives – you name it. This is a terrifying thought. The Minister and the ANC seem to have completely overlooked ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon Lees! Hon Montsitsi?

Mr S D MONTSITSI: On a point of order, Chairperson ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Your point of order is granted.

Mr S D MONTSITSI: Chairperson, the point of order stems from the fact that hon Lees alludes to the fact that a department official can classify information as top secret. Here, in section 47, it states that any person who intentionally classifies state information as top secret is liable and guilty of an offence and would be sentenced to a period not exceeding 15 years. Now, what hon Lees is saying ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Don’t debate the matter; raise your point of order.

Mr S D MONTSITSI: That is the point of order. I thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: We will look at that statement again and we will make a ruling on what Mr Lees has said and the section that you are correcting.

Mr D B FELDMAN: Chairperson, on a point of order: He was not a member of the committee, so he doesn’t know what is happening. Thank you, Chairperson. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, members and hon Feldman! Members, all of you, listen to me. Rule 50(2)(c) of the Council says, “No debate on the explanation may be allowed.” Once I have explained something, I commit myself as Chair of this Council to investigate and come back to the House. Please continue, Mr Lees.

Mr R A LEES: Chair, the Minister and the ANC seem to have completely overlooked all the existing legislation that already deals with the safekeeping of information by the relevant authorities - or perhaps they have not. Perhaps this is part of a plan to make the State Security Agency into some superministry? Given the extremely high levels of corruption that we see in government today, it is inevitable that the Bill enacted will be used to cover up crime and corruption by those who wish to escape exposure. [Applause.] It is trite to claim that because the Bill makes it a crime to classify criminal activity, this will prevent people who have already committed a crime from hiding their crime. [Applause.] Where is the logic in that argument, Mr Chair? The need for an Act of Parliament ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon Lees.

Mr L P M NZIMANDE: Chair, will the member take a question?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Lees, will you take a question?

Mr R A LEES: I will not take a question, thank you, Chair. [Interjections.] The need for an Act of Parliament that will enable the classification of very limited amounts of state information cannot be denied, but let it be known that this Bill is not the basis for such an Act. We beg all right-thinking members of this House to join the opposition parties in recognising the universal concerns of civil society.

Sihlalo, siyacela ngempela ukuthi namhlanje singawuphasisi lo mthetho omubi kangaka. [Ubuwelewele.] Lo mthetho uzobuya usilume uphinde ulume nezingane zethu. Ngiyacela ukuthi ningawuphasisi lo mthetho. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Chairperson, I am really requesting that we should not agree to this awful Bill today. [Interjections.] Because this Bill will at some point harm us and also harm our children, I am pleading with you not to agree to this Bill.]

Please do not vote for this legislation. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr S S MAZOSIWE: Chairperson, hon Minister Cwele, perhaps I was in too much of a hurry to speak. I am sorry about that. I want to start by saying that there is a time for everything. The chairperson of the ad hoc committee indicated in this House that this Bill had been through a painstaking democratic process since it was referred to this House. Now we have reached the moment of truth.

On behalf of the ANC, I wish to thank all members of the ad hoc committee for their valuable contributions. I thank stakeholders for sharing with us their insight on the shortcomings of some of the provisions in this Bill. I thank fellow South Africans who took the time to attend public meetings and gave us a mandate to get rid of the apartheid-era protection of Information Act 84 of 1992. This is what we are doing - perhaps members have forgotten. We are making amendments repealing that Act ... [Interjections.]

Mr R A LEES: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The speaker is misrepresenting the situation. It is an Act from 1982. [Interjections.]

Mr S S MAZOSIWE: Yes, that is what I said.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I think he corrected that. [Interjections.]

Mr S S MAZOSIWE: Yes, Act 84 of 1982. [Laughter.] Perhaps some of the members in this House have forgotten that. This process is significant in that it has highlighted the critical role played by the public in shaping our new South Africa. Our democracy is maturing. I have served in the legislative sector for 18 years. I have never seen such immense interest and commitment from our people. I would like to congratulate South Africans for their effort. [Applause.] Indeed, they have made us proud.

When we do this important work, we are guided by whether the amendments we are proposing assist us to strengthen governance without compromising the Constitution. That is another critical issue we have to look into. It is thus my submission that we have done our best to strike that balance while incorporating the concerns raised by various stakeholders.

I want to focus on some of the issues that we raised during the process when the Protection of State Information Bill was discussed. However, I want to respond to hon Lees’s comment first, when he cast aspersions on the role of government with respect to the implementation of this Bill. Voters gave the ANC a mandate to govern this country. We can’t come here and try to change that. It is the people out there who vote on which government they want. We cannot behave as if there were no Ministers or government. They are there, voted in by the people.

I stand here, proud of the ANC, which has lived up to the views of Nelson Mandela and others who fought apartheid and have been jailed for fighting against apartheid. By that I mean that in the Bill itself, in its preamble, we have inserted the following words: “[...] accepting that the right to information is a cornerstone of our democracy.”

As the Minister has said, this is a critical insertion. This theme should therefore always be remembered by everyone who is reading this Bill and by everyone implementing this Bill because it is a very important theme. That is why I mentioned those leaders who fought against apartheid because this is what we have done and what we are doing in this Bill.

Chapter 2 of the Bill deals with the general principles of state information, reading it together with the policies and procedures provided for in Chapter 3. The ANC further sponsored amendments of clauses 5 and 7 respectively to strengthen the functioning of Chapter 9 institutions, as provided for in section 189 of the Constitution. We did it as the ANC, not the DA. We did it and we are proud to be standing here today, having inserted that provision.

The general principle, as provided in Chapter 2, clearly affirms that transparency and openness underpin this Act. However, there is acceptance by everybody that certain state information needs to be classified and this is what we have done. There are limitations to access to information. It is a universal ... [Interjections.] ... Yes, it has been accepted all over the world. Go to America, France, and Canada, go everywhere. That is another issue that we need to raise here: South Africa is not the only country to pass this kind of legislation.

The Minister has just said that in other countries this kind of legislation is more stringent than what we have provided for in this country. We have, in fact, been more liberal around sensitive information. This is what we have done and we are proud as South Africans to have done that. We have to acknowledge this and teach our people to accept that there are limitations. One can quote such limitations all day long, but we do not have time for that. The ANC believes that these changes have covered the genuine concerns raised during the public hearings.

On the topic of corruption, the Minister went into detail trying to explain how this Bill has created checks and balances to prevent corruption wherever it occurs. I do not want to go through that again. The Minister has covered it.

In conclusion, I do not believe that South Africans should be afraid if matters are sent to the Constitutional Court. We shouldn’t, because this is a system created by the Constitution, in the first place, to interpret those areas that are not clear to everyone in any law passed by us. It is, in fact, a strength to have that provision in our Constitution. We are a proud country. We have a system that really takes care of us. Therefore, the threat of taking the matter to the Constitutional Court is neither here nor there. That process will, in fact, strengthen the work of Parliament. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

UMntwana M M M ZULU: Sihlalo ohloniphekile noNgqongqoshe okhona walo mnyango kahulumeni, Sihlalo woMkhandlu weZifundazwe ngeze sakubeka kwaba yimfihlo ukuthi lo mthetho, bonke abantu bebewuchitha kufaka phakathi nezinyunyane, ezamabandla kanye nabathile abazi kangcono ngawo bawuchitha ngenxa yokuthi wawuvela lapha ekomidini lesikhashana loMkhandlu wesiShayamthetho sikaZwelonke.

Ngeke sakuphika ukuthi le Ndlu noma ikomidi lesikhashana lale Ndlu lakhiwe ngamaqembu ahlukene, laba nezigcawu zokukhuluma emphakathi ukuze lizwe izimvo zabantu, zathathwa izimvo zabantu zalalelwa kahle ngezindlela zaknona. Kukhona futhi esingeke sakuphika ngoba ngeke savumelana kuyo yonke into, singaculi iNkosi Sikelela i-Afrika njengeculo elilodwa lesizwe. Ngakolunye uhlangothi, ngiyacela ukuthi lokho okusasilele okunamanenjane okwenza ukuthi kube khona ukungakholwa kahle kwabathile, uzame ukukubhekisisa ngoba akufuneki sikuthele ngendle kube sengathi akukho lutho olwenzekileyo kanye nolwenzekayo.

Sixoxile njengamaqembu ahlukene, kodwa ekugcineni ngiyazi ukuthi ngokwentando yeningi ngeze savumelana sonke siye ndawonye sicule iculo elilodwa. Kodwa lezo zikhalo zalabo bantu abathile - ngikweluleka njengomZulu kaMpande - kufuneka uzibheke ukuthi zikhuluma ngani. Ake ngenze isibonelo nje ngale nto eyenzeke kuleli sonto elidlule emaphepheni amakhulukazi; ukuba lolo lwazi luphume lo mthetho usuphasile, ngiqinisekile ukuthi leya ntatheli ibiyolala phakathi kwakholokotho isigwetshiwe. Ngenhlanhla yokuthi le mininingwane - angazi iyiqiniso noma ayisilo - iyikhiphe ungekaphasi lo mthetho, isakhululekile.

Zonke ezinye izinto eziningi ezilungiswe yilo mthetho, ngiyacela ukuthi ikomidi lesikhashana loMkhandlu kaZwelonke uma selibheka ... ngoba akuwona umthetho okufuneka uphasiswe yithina njengezifundazwe. Thina besimele izifundazwe ngoba yithi esihambele abantu abasemakhaya abangazi lutho ngale nto, saxoxa nabo saluzwa uvo labo ukuthi luthini. Ngeze ngathi ungabiyi ekhaya, umuzi uyabiywa uphinde ubethelwe. Kodwa lokho akusho ukuthi laba abangale kufuneka bangakwazi ukuzwelana nalezo zidingo ezisasilele uma sekuzophasiswa umthetho. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)

[Prince M M M ZULU: Hon Chairperson, the government Minister in attendance and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, we cannot hide the fact that everyone, including unions, is opposed to this legislation. Religious structures and all those who are well informed about it opposed it due to the fact that it was conceptualised by the Ad Hoc Committee of the National Assembly.

We cannot deny the fact that this House, or its Ad Hoc Committee, is made up of different political parties. The Committee provided forums in different communities to hear the views of the general public. I understand that we cannot all agree on every point; all of us have different points of view, it is only when we sing our national anthem, Nkosi Sikelela i-Afrika, that we are all in unison. On the other hand, I want to request you to tie up all the loose ends to clear up all doubts for some of us. You should give it careful consideration because we do not want to give the impression that we are not performing our duties properly.

We have held our discussions as different parties but in the end, and since we are in a democratic government, we will not necessarily hold the same views. I am giving you my advice as a Zulu man descended from Mpande: You should attend to the complaints of those who are not satisfied. Let me give an example of what happened last week: If the leaking of information in the major newspapers had happened when the law had already been passed, I am sure that the journalist who wrote the story would have been arrested, but he or she is still walking free.

When the law has been passed, it should set right a number of things. I want to request that the Ad Hoc Committee of the National Assembly, when it considers... because it is not the kind of law that should be passed by the National Council of Provinces. We are just representing provinces. We visited rural communities who did not know anything about it. We then informed them and heard their views on it. I am not saying that the government should not protect itself because it should. That, though, does not mean that the National Assembly should not consider the needs of the general public that have still not been attended to when the law is passed. Thank you. [Applause.]]

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): Chairperson, allow me to respond firstly, before I start with my official speech, and to raise three issues that I found very interesting. There is an English quotation or expression that says that often candy – sweets, in other words, the little things that we eat and give to our children – is coated in poison. Today, this Bill reminds me of that expression.

It reminds me of that expression for three reasons. The first one is: Who decides the truth? Hon Tau was at pains to ask why people were afraid of the truth. The truth seems to be only the ANC’s truth. It does not seem to contain anyone else’s perception of the truth. That is the point I am making. [Interjections.] The second point questions why there is such urgency for this Bill. Why can’t we have and allow a process to run through? I found that very interesting. The last point I find interesting is why this government is afraid of a public interest clause. The Minister can argue up to a point when he says the public interest is implicitly protected in the Bill, but this Bill is so vague. In law, we talk about certainty, and if I was journalist today in South Africa, I would fear for my life. I would fear as a journalist, because you would land in prison, like in Zimbabwe. That is what will happen to you. [Interjections.]

This Bill upends the constitutional right to freedom and expression and the living document that is the envy of the democratic and the free world. A lot was said the other day about the United States of America. Who wants to look up to them? They detain young children. This is South Africa; it is very different to those kinds of imperialist states.

The other point that we want to make is that the ANC government has steamrollered this legislation through Parliament because it knows that the Bill runs counter to the foundational values of the Constitution and democracy. I want to suggest to some of the hon members of this House that tomorrow they might just be on the other side, and they might be the victim of the very Bill they will vote for in this House.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is the member aware that members of his own party participated in the processes leading up to today’s process? He is misleading the House if he claims that it was only the ANC’s role.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I think that is a statement and I suppose you know, hon Fritz, that your members participated in the processes.

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): Thank you, Chairperson. They did not agree, of course. In fact, what we are saying about this Bill is that ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Order! Regarding the other issue raised by the Chief Whip, that of misleading the House, I can say that, sitting here, I do not have the information. We always check those statements to see whether there has been any misleading of the House, and then we correct that. Continue with your debating.

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): Chair, I think our point is about the present form of the Bill. We are not saying this or that. In its indecent haste to roll out this legislation through the NCOP this week, the government has tried and failed to trounce an imperishable truth. The Constitution stands above the government of the day, and it will endure and prosper when this wretched government has long gone. Here was an opportunity for the ANC, hon members, and for the ANC government to bolster its democratic credentials and show leadership. When a piece of legislation has such far-reaching consequences, I really fear being put in prison for a stupid little thing that I have said or done.

There is no value to extending the consultative period, and that should have gone far longer. Would it then not be better to try and achieve a higher degree ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): Chairperson, I hope the response will be positive: Is the member prepared to take a question?

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): Not at this point – I am busy with a speech.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Continue, hon member.

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): We can have tea tomorrow, hon Tau. The DA strikes a stern warning today, hon Chair. This Bill is Stasi-like in its concept and design, and it will invoke the same loathing and fear of a society where securocrats routinely spy and inform on their fellow citizens. Every country, from the former communist states of Eastern Europe to the fascist juntas of Argentina and Chile, that have gone this route, took generations and more to move back to openness and transparency. Just imagine how the face ...

Mr T L MAKUNYANE: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Do you want to take a question, hon Fritz?

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): No, I don’t want to waste time, Chairperson. They are closing the democratic space. That is the problem. Just imagine ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, Mr Gunda! That corner is always problematic. Can you please tone it down? We are dealing with very important business here.

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): Chairperson, I want to suggest to this House that we might never have known about the arms deal. Under this pernicious piece of legislation, the whistle-blowers – from the opposition’s Patricia de Lille and Raenette Taljaard to the government’s brave Andrew Feinstein and the civil activist Terry Crawford-Browne – would have found themselves banged into some dirty prison had we had this Bill. These people and many others raised their voices to defend the Constitution, which stands above party politics. People of less courage may have been bowed by fear of prosecution.

The Sunday Times exposé two weeks ago of the President’s spy-gate tapes would never have seen the light of day and the lid over Nkandlagate would never have been lifted by City Press and others. It is even possible ... [Interjections.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Correction, Chair: This is not about the media; it is about state information.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Yes, that is the correct name of the Bill. It is the Protection of State Information Bill.

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): I am talking about the implications here, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, do not argue with me. I have ruled. Please continue.

Mr A FRITZ (Western Cape): It is even possible that the state’s involvement in the Marikana tragedy would have been deliberately obscured. This Bill will muzzle South African journalists who are respected worldwide for their fearlessness and bravery. [Applause.] I would also add this salutary warning: journalists and activists will be as vulnerable to prosecution under the provisions of this Bill as during apartheid.

At its rotten core, the Protection of State Information Bill will still confer excessive power on state institutions to classify information. We have already seen the slyness with which this government has deployed the shadowy apartheid National Key Points Act, to cover up which government department authorised President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla upgrade.

Most frightening of all, the Bill will allow people to be criminalised for simply being in possession of a secret document. In George Orwell’s terms, it will criminalise people who publish classified information that is already in the public domain. This sounds more like North Korea than the South Africa that was fought for, even unto death, by the liberation fighters. Just imagine the absurdity of this errant nonsense: a newspaper here would risk prosecution for publishing designated classified information that might appear on the Internet here or anywhere else. Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe would be able to read information about South Africa that is banned here – enough said.

The ANC reinserted the worst components of this Bill at the last moment, when it had misled the opposition that the Bill’s final deliberations had been undertaken. This means this scrappy Bill, as it stands, contains multiple threats and contradictions. Most often, it is the open-ended and untidy provisions in legislation that allow those in power to slice them up and defeat the ends of constitutional democracy.

Craftily, clause 43 is negated by the limitations contained in section 47. Can you imagine how this government will abuse the power of this provision, when its scope is so open-ended and ill defined? This is not to mention that the issue of the exclusion of provincial archives and of valuable information still needs to be addressed, that the public interest defence override needs to be strengthened, and that we need to build in guarantees that the espionage section will not be used to prosecute those not involved in spying.

As an aside here, it is significant that the real and present threat of cybersecurity has not appeared in the deliberations. That is very interesting. This is despite the fact that cyberspying represents one of the biggest threats to every state’s security in today’s interdependent world. This, in itself, casts some doubt on the veracity of the process of drafting this Bill, and this is the issue that we want to raise.

The fact of the matter is that the Bill should not be passed until we have nailed down a precise definition of national security, in order to provide a legal rationale for classification. Otherwise, the state security apparatus would be able to control public interest disclosures made in good faith, and this is really a serious call ... [Time expired.]

Mr T E CHAANE: Hon Chairperson, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying ...

...kajeno ke kgotswe hore ho thata ho mofu ho amohela lebitla. [... today I am convinced that it is not easy for a person to admit that he or she has been defeated.]

I will explain myself as I go on. It is common cause that our democratic Constitution makes provision for South African citizens to be informed of the activities of their government. It is common cause that our nation’s progress depends on the free flow of information. Under general principles, the Protection of State Information Bill acknowledges that the free flow of state information promotes openness, responsiveness, informed debate, accountability and good governance.

It can promote safety and security. However, our Constitution also requires that certain forms of information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, security and our interaction with our international friends and allies. Protecting information is critical to the wellbeing of any country and its citizens. It is vital to save lives; to enhance and protect the freedoms and security of the people; and to protect national security.

Central to the Bill being debated today is the protection of national security. National security has no single universal meaning that is accepted by all countries in the world. Its meaning differs from one state to another. In trying to grapple with this matter, the DA, Cope and the ID objects to the inclusion of valuable information in the Bill that primarily should deal with national security, or so they say! In their submission, they lack the understanding that national valuables form part of national security.

We differ strongly from the opposition on this point. Valuable information is information that has considerable importance to the Republic’s mission and/or could lead to possible harm to the country and its citizens if not handled properly. It therefore cannot just be treated like any other information of no importance and value, as our colleagues would want everyone to believe. The inclusion of valuable information is legitimate and needs to be defended.

To support my point, Gen Maxwell Taylor of the US Army has this to say in his 1974 essay The Legitimate Claims of National Security:

The national valuables in this broad sense include current assets and national interests, as well as the sources of strength upon which our future as a nation depends. Some valuables are tangible and earthy; others are spiritual or intellectual. They range widely from political assets such as the Bill of Rights, our political institutions and international friendships, to many economic assets which radiate worldwide from a highly productive domestic economy supported by rich natural resources. It is the urgent need to protect valuables such as these which legitimises and makes essential the role of national security.

[Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! I am sorry to disturb you, Mr Chaane. Hon members in the gallery, it is a rule of the chamber that you do not take pictures using your cellphone. Any person who takes a photo here should get permission to do so from the Chairperson of the Council. Please switch off all your cellphones. We are monitoring the gallery! Continue, hon member.

Mr T E CHAANE: This clearly shows that even the world’s most advanced democracies recognise the importance and legitimacy of protecting national valuables; something that our opposition fails to appreciate.

Now, for the benefit of ordinary members of our citizenry, let me submit the following: In the same way that there is doctor-patient confidentiality; in the same way that financial institutions like banks, insurance companies, etc are required to handle their clients’ records with due care and diligence and protect it, every single one of us here, including the opposition members and their parties, have secrets. We all take measure to protect our secrets. In the same manner, the state has the responsibility and is legally bound to protect its information against any unlawful alteration, disclosure, destruction or loss.

In doing so, the Bill requires of the state to take measures that must have regard for the freedom of expression, the right to access to information and other rights and freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If one carefully peruses this Bill - which is something that our opposition colleagues and their media friends have failed to do – they will realise that this Bill, with these proposals, currently balances all the interests that everybody has.

Allow me the opportunity to address some of the accusations levelled against the ANC during the so-called dramatic events of 27 November 2012, when the opposition parties walked out of the meeting. The question is: Why do they leave and what does it mean? Contrary to what they deceitfully said to the public, they left because when we were busy engaging with volumes of submissions that were received from the general public, they were busy enjoying free media airtime to profile themselves and their parties. They were busy courting each other, seeking public approval to justify their funny marriage of destruction. [Interjections.]

Mr R A LEES: Hon Chair, is it parliamentary for a member of this Council to say that other members of the same Council are deceitful?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I will check with the Table what the Rules say regarding the protocols that we use in relation to your question. I will come back to you. Continue, hon member.

Mr T E CHAANE: Thank you, Chair. They left because some had long taken the default position not to engage with the Bill but to rather mobilise our people against it. They held a false hope that this Bill would never see the light of day. Unfortunately, we are passing it today! What did they achieve? Absolutely nothing! Instead they realised too late that theirs was a disservice to the country. Hence, they are debating today ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): And their members!

Mr T E CHAANE: By walking out of a meeting they demonstrated how audaciously rude and disrespectful they can be to the nation - behaviour that we as the ANC strongly condemn. As if that was not bad enough, they showed their shameful faces to the nation and accused the ANC of being unfair, intolerant and of having steamrollered the process. What a cheek! Who is the hypocrite here? [Interjections.]

Let the facts speak for themselves. The ad hoc committee was established on 22 November 2011 and was due to report back on 8 April 2012. Upon realising the volume of work that was outstanding then, the ANC, through consensus, extended the reporting date five times to date. Yet Cope and all their friends have the nerve to accuse us of steamrollering the process. How so? How is that possible after holding 24 meetings, plus almost 20 provincial hearings? That defeats logic.

The minimum turnaround time to process Bills in the NCOP is six weeks. However, this Bill took us 12 solid months of intense engagement with various stakeholders to finalise. Yet the DA accuses us of being unfair to the electorate. However, in so doing they exposed their motive - they wanted to delay the process so that they could use it as an election campaign tool. Sorry, it won’t happen that way! [Applause.]

Throughout the process, decisions were taken without a vote and in all instances after the ANC’s elaborate and substantive motivation. Yet the ID, a very de facto party in this Parliament, has the nerve to accuse us of being intolerant. What a shame!

The ANC has been very tolerant, accommodating and ridiculously fair and patient with the processes leading up to today’s debate. We stand here without any doubt in our minds that we have listened to the views of the people and have, to the best of our abilities, ensured that this Bill passes Constitutional muster. You can go to the Constitution, we are waiting for you.

We thank our people, alliance partners, NGOs, Chapter 9 institutions, law firms, organised media houses and everyone who made submissions to enrich this Bill. We were indeed enriched by your submissions and finish this process wiser than we were when we started.

Let me conclude by saying that when we started, we were a bit slow and perhaps we gave the impression of not being prepared to table this Bill. But, no, let me teach some of the people here. You see, the slow movement of a tiger is not a mistake, but calculated accuracy! The ANC supports the proposed amendments to the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J J GUNDA: Hon Chair and hon Minister, although I have only three minutes, I need to respond to my colleague, the last speaker. [Interjections.] I need to explain to hon Chaane that this Bill would not have come this far if it wasn’t for the public and the opposition parties. [Applause.] I can emphasise that if you go through the deliberations, it was the opposition parties and the pressure from the public that brought this Bill to where it is today.

Mr T E CHAANE: Hon Chair, is the member prepared to take a question?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Will you take a question, hon member?

Mr J J GUNDA: Chair, I have only three minutes so I can’t take a question.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Continue the debate. [Interjections.] Order! Hon Matila?

Mr A G MATILA: Hon Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like the member not to mislead the public because he was never in meetings. He always walks out of meetings. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Continue, hon member.

Mr J J GUNDA: Chair, let me explain the concept of political intolerance. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Please, let’s listen to each other, hon members. You may continue, hon member.

Mr J J GUNDA: Hon Chair, let me explain the concept of political intolerance. In the ad hoc committee, whenever there was deliberation and discussion, there was a document that indicated “agreed to”, “not agreed to” and “not discussed”. Why “not discussed”? That’s because the ANC doesn’t want to discuss it! The ANC doesn’t accept what the opposition is saying. The very same ANC that is saying today that there is political tolerance does not accept it. [Interjections.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chair, on a point of order: In his speech, will the hon Gunda also inform the people that he did not participate in public hearings and that he has no information?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon Gunda, are you prepared to say something regarding that statement?

Mr J J GUNDA: Hon Chairperson, let me be honest and say that the Chief Whip of the Council, hon Ntwanambi, is misleading the House. [Applause.] As opposition parties, we were never allowed to stand in the front during the public hearings and tell the people what we really think. [Interjections.] I went to Bloemfontein, Limpopo, ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members! Order!

Mr J J GUNDA: It’s the truth! [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members!

Mr S S MAZOSIWE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like the hon member to retract what he has just said because it is without foundation that he was never allowed to speak in front of the public during the public hearings. He must withdraw that now! That is not true! [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Gunda, I know our committees are very open and every member of the committee is allowed to speak. That’s what I know. Can you clarify that statement?

Mr J J GUNDA: Chair, let me clarify that. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, don’t make another statement.

Mr J J GUNDA: Chair, I’m not going to make another statement. Let me just clarify this by saying that whenever you stand up ... I can give the example of Mr Daniel Haupt. When we were in Bloemfontein, he was given the opportunity to speak but when he stood up to say something, he was called to order by hon Matila. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members, order! [Interjections.]

Mr J J GUNDA: I am not lying and you know that. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Let me make one point. [Interjections.] Order! Order! Hon members, every member is allowed to participate in a debate, whether it is in this House or in a committee. I’m not taking another point of order. Continue, hon Gunda.

Mr J J GUNDA: Hon Chair, let me just say yes, this Bill has been amended a lot. However, it didn’t go far enough. I do not want to repeat what my colleagues before me have said about the sentences and the public defence clause. I would like to conclude with these words: I fail to understand how the leading party in this House and this government can keep referring to this institution as a people’s Parliament when it keeps refusing to hear the views and demands of the people. Why must the people of this country put pressure on this government? In today’s democracy ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon member!

Mr L P M NZIMANDE: Chairperson, on a point of order: The member is really being misleading when he says that Parliament has refused to hear the views of the public. I go on record to say that this is incorrect and I would like your ruling on that. It is completely out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Gunda, can you withdraw that statement? Parliament has always listened to the views of the people. There have always been public hearings and Parliament has always listened to the people. Can you withdraw that part of what you said?

Mr J J GUNDA: Chair, I withdraw that portion. They say that in a democracy, people should not be afraid of the government but the government should be afraid of its people. In conclusion, let me just say that this Bill is so important for South Africa. I fail to understand ... Yes, my colleague, hon Chaane, said it had been postponed more than five times. However, he must also tell the public why it was postponed five times. Instead, they have the time to tell the public why it has been postponed.

Today, all I would like to say to the opposition and the public is that they have done themselves proud by putting on the pressure and bringing this legislation to where it is today - and this is not the end. [Applause.]

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, let me start by saying very loudly and clearly that Cope will always support the need to have laws to defend the constitutional order of our country. [Applause.] Furthermore, we want to agree that we must replace the current Protection of Information Act of 1982, which we all know is an apartheid law.

Let me also commend the members of the ANC in the committee for standing firm and bringing some crucial amendments to the Bill. The Bill is not perfect yet, but I will come to that later.

In our first public hearing in Gugulethu, Cape Town, the first speaker was a woman. Her name was Matilda Groepe. She asked the committee if politicians had something to hide because if there was nothing to hide, they would not have the Secrecy Bill in place. [Interjections.] She asked what would happen if someone like you, Ntate [Mr] Mokgoro, was ever a victim of police brutality. She answered herself by saying that the police would say it had nothing to do with you because there was protection of state information. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Bloem, don’t point at people. They are hon members. Order, please!

Mr D D GAMEDE: Chair, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to address an hon member - a senior hon member - as Ntate Mokgoro?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, it’s not. That is why I’m correcting him.

Mr D V BLOEM: I’m sorry, hon member. I can quote here today thousands of people who raised their objections to the Bill. Just a few meters from here, just opposite Parliament, there is a very big red banner on the walls of the church. The banner reads as follows: “The truth will set you free. Say no to the Secrecy Bill.”

I have no doubt in my mind that members of the ANC ... [Interjections.]

Mr T E CHAANE: Chair, is the member prepared to take a question?

Mr D V BLOEM: No, you have disappointed me very much, so I won’t take your question. You have disappointed me very much. I don’t have any doubt in my mind that members of the ANC ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): Chair, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for a Member of Parliament to refer to another Member of Parliament by pointing at him with his fingers, like this?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Bloem, let us not point fingers, please. Can you please withdraw that?

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, I will now have my hands behind my back.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Secondly, as a Member of Parliament or as a permanent delegate you will know that we don’t have anything called the Secrecy Bill. We have the Protection of State Information Bill before us. Thank you, Mr Bloem.

Mr D V BLOEM: Thank you very much, Chair, I was just quoting what is on that banner. I am not the one who is saying that; the banner is, Chair.

I have no doubt in my mind that the members of the ANC on the committee listened to the voices of stalwarts and veterans of the liberation movement, leaders like Prof Ben Turok; the former Minister of Intelligence, Mr Ronnie Kasrils; the late Prof Kader Asmal - may his soul rest in peace; and prominent, internationally respected Nobel Prize winners Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nadine Gordimer. We have many other great leaders in this country to whom the committee listened, together with pressure brought by civil society. That’s why they stood firm in bringing these crucial amendments.

Representing the Legal Resources Centre, Adv George Bizos said the following in his submission:

By far the main criticism of the Bill has been its exclusion of a public defence clause, which, if included, would allow public disclosure of classified information if public ...

[Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): Chair, I think hon Bloem is misleading the House again. We never received a submission from the struggle veteran George Bizos. Instead, we received a submission from the Legal Resources Centre, not from George Bizos. So, that is misleading.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you for that correction. It’s recorded. Continue, hon Bloem.

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, if the member was listening properly he would have heard me say “Adv George Bizos, representing the Legal Resources Centre”. I’m reading - yes, I am reading! [Laughter.] I say that Cope will definitely vote against this Bill. Cope will never support this Bill. [Time expired.]

Ms M G BOROTO: Hon Chairperson, Minister Cwele, special delegates ...

... le baeng ba rona kwa bonnong jwa setšhaba, re a lo amogela. Ke nnete Modulasetulo yo o tlotlegang, ga ke ise ke bone tiro e e jaaka e e diragetseng ka Molaotlhomo ono e diragala mo Palamenteng. Ke bua jalo Modulasetulo ... (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)

[... and our visitors in the gallery, you are all welcome. It is true, hon Chairperson, that I have never seen this happen in Parliament, where such effort has been put in the way it has with this Bill. Chairperson ...]

... I rise on behalf of the ANC to express our profound appreciation to the people of South Africa, especially the countless ordinary South Africans, some of whom are sitting in the gallery, our academics, representatives of civil society and the media fraternity who took part in the processing of the Protection of State Information Bill.

Let me speak to the hon members who said we were under pressure. We were not under pressure, hon Lees. We did this because, as the ANC, we say: “Together we can do more.” [Applause.] Hon Lees, you alluded to the National Assembly as not having made changes. I am proud to represent the interests of my province in the National Council of Provinces, and if I see fit ...

... bona abantu engibajameleko kumele bona bavikeleke ... [... the people I represent must be protected ...]

... because this Bill is there, under the Constitution.

Asihlukani nalokho okumumethwe mThethosisekelo. [We don’t deviate from what is prescribed by the Constitution.]

If you look at Sections 32, 16 and 36 ...

... sihlanganise koke okungaphakathi komThethosisekelo alo-ke ... [... we have put together everything that is in the Constitution ...]

... because that is what the ANC is all about. That they did not change it is none of our business. This is an independent House and we will do our things the way we feel is in the interest of the people of this country. [Interjections.]

Again you talk about the hon Minister wanting to create a superministry. You know ...

... abantu bazakurara. Lokha izinto nazikhamba kuhle, bona abafuni, ngikho basilwa nje. Kanti eqinisweni ipi ngeyani, ngombana zonke izinto abantu abazifunako, sizilungisile besazifaka? (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[... people will surprise you. They do not want to see things going well, and that is why they are always fighting. In actual fact, I would like to know why there is this fighting, because we have put in place all the things that our people wanted.]

Our aim as the ANC, of course, is to become the super, super democratic movement.

An HON MEMBER: But you are failing!

Ms M G BOROTO: And if a Minister looks superior because of what he wants to do for the people of this country, we applaud that. [Applause.]

When hon Fritz was talking, he said: “What happened in Zimbabwe is what will happen to you.” Who is “you?” I am a South African; everything that happens in this country happens to all of us. Already we can see that there are people who couldn’t care less about being South Africans and will even talk about “you”. Is he a real leader; a leader who speaks and insults and then just walks out? He must listen because we want to educate these people.

Ngombana thina sinamadlozi wethu aphilako afana nabobaba uMandela, begodu noSithwalandwe, ngiyamdzubhula: ... [Because we have our own living ancestors, like Mr Mandela and iSithwalandle. I quote him:] “To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” The objectives of our movement and the ideals of our freedom brings me to the issue of human rights. For us to take the whole 12 months means we were looking at human rights.

Abantu esibavakatjheleko eemfundeni beza kithi bazokwethula imibono nenghonghoyilo zabo, ngilabobantu i-DA esibuza ngabo bonyana kungani siye sabalandelela eendaweni zabo ezisemakhaya. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[The people we visited in the provinces came to us to present their opinions and concerns. These are the same people the DA is asking us about. That is why we have followed them to their own rural places.]

If those people are not educated, does it mean they must not partake in this Bill? Forgetting what happened ...

Bakutjho lokhu ngoba sele bakhohliwe ukuthi kungani abantu bekhethu abahlala eendaweni ezisemakhaya bangazange bafumane amathuba wokuthi bafunde. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[They say this because they have forgotten the reasons why our people who live in rural areas did not get the opportunities to study.]

They know very well what happened. So, because we care about the poorest of the poor and the less educated, and because we know our history, we went there, to them, and they guided us.

The first and very significant issue in this Bill is anchored in a human rights approach; an approach that recognises the centrality of the Constitution and the rights it enshrines, such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to access to information and so on.

The Protection of Information Act, Act 84 of 1982, was driven from a security approach and sought to protect the apartheid state at all costs. It was designed to regulate and control a specific group in society, mainly informed by the character and the stature of the government of that day. The new human rights approach aligns this Bill very well with the international dispensation provided for by such institutions as the UN International Covenant on Human Rights, the European Covenant on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

Ngingazifunda zoke. [I can read all of them.]

As the ANC, we made sure that we educated ourselves and took from international best practice. The hon Bloem came here and said there was a banner out there somewhere. That banner was put there long ago. Why don’t you go back and tell the people that we have made amendments that we will protect them and take the banner down because we have made much progress. The chairperson said we made more than 800 changes to the Bill, so tell the people the truth. Just like the Right2Know campaign, this morning, a leader again ...

... ukhuluma ngendaba yamapholisa. Ukhohlisa isitjhaba ngokuthi athi, amapholisa ngitjho nalayo aneenkhundla ezingaphasi avunyelwe ukugodla ilwazi elikhethekileko. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[... talked about the issue of the police. He is lying to the nation when he says that even low-ranking police officers are permitted to classify information.]

We expect Right2Know to understand better, but it is busy mob-renting our people. If you ask the people there what their role is, they don’t know. They are just rented. These people are being misled because of the education they did not get. They are being used.

Ngizwa ubuhlungu kwamambala ngento eyenzekako ngabantu bekhethu. Mhlonitjhwa Gunda, endabeni yokuthi awukavunyelwa ukukhuluma emakomitini neemphakathini, angivumelani nawe begodu angikholwa bona into enjalo iliqiniso. Eqinisweni imiphakathi leyo, ngiyo eyenze bonyana silethe amatjhuguluko la. Alo-ke, khengiqedelele ngoba nasi nesikhathi sele siphelile. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)

[I really feel bad about what is happening to our people. Hon Gunda, on the issue that you raised - that you are not allowed to speak in committees and in public - I disagree with you and I don’t believe that such a thing is true. Actually, those communities are the ones who prompted us to bring about these changes. Now let me conclude since my time has run out.]

We take this opportunity to commend and express our profound appreciation to all the people of South Africa, civil organisations, individual members, the media and all those who sent their messages and shared their views on this Bill. We are sure that today many of you will take great pride in the product that we present to you. We know for sure that the spirits of the great sons and daughters of our movement who passed away while our Parliament was still processing this Bill, the architects of our freedom, are smiling on us today. We want to express our profound appreciation to all the cadres of the ANC who served in this committee with the utmost commitment and remained champions of the will and the voices of our people in honouring the sacred obligation of our movement. You have truly demonstrated that indeed the ANC remains the leader and champion of our democracy and freedom.

Ukwenzela abantu bekhethu, asiwuvowudeleni mThethomlingwa lo. Ngiyathokoza. [For the benefit of our people, let’s vote for this Bill. Thank you.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: Hon Chairperson Mahlangu and members of the Council, let me thank all the members for participating in the debate. I particularly thank the members of the ANC for providing the leadership, listening to the concerns of the people and coming up with amendments that further enhance this Bill. Let me also thank hon Prince Zulu for his advice and counsel. I would like to assure him that, as the ANC, right from the start, we declared that we would listen to all the suggestions that would help us improve the Bill in order to advance our democracy and national security. This is what we have done and this is why there were so many amendments.

Some members have said, “If it was not for somebody ...” However, what I know is “if it was not for the ANC ...” It’s not just a gift to this House but to the whole House and the entire nation that the ANC has listened to the people.

UMntwana uZulu uthe leli komidi lihambile laya emakhaya lapho esingajwayele ukufika khona, layolalela nalabo abangalalelwa. Sizwile-ke ukuthi laba abahlala esilungwini, ikakhulukazi i-DA, yayingathandi nokuyolalela abantu laphaya emakhaya, emaphandleni. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Prince Zulu said that this committee even went to the rural areas, where we don’t usually go, to listen to those people who are usually left out. We have heard that those who live in urban areas, especially the DA, did not want to go and listen to the people who live in the rural areas.]

This proves that this Parliament is truly a Parliament of the people.

Mr R A LEES: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The Minister is misleading this House. The DA has never not wanted to go to rural areas. I request that you rule that the Minister withdraw that remark. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I didn’t hear the Minister say you refused to go to rural areas. He thanked Prince Zulu and said they even went to the rural areas. That’s how I heard him.

Mr R A LEES: Mr Chairman, I request that you check Hansard in this regard.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I will do that. Hon Minister, please continue?

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: I will assist you. I said that I have heard; that that is what I heard when I was listening - because I can listen. But we will accept the ruling of the Chairperson when he gets to it. [Interjections.]

What was amazing to me was the objection by the DA opposition to the protection of valuable information. This was a strange and schizophrenic approach by the DA because in the National Assembly we all agreed that it was an important thing to assist ...

Mr R A LEES: Hon Chair, on a point of order: The Minister is yet again misleading this House. The DA never said it was against the protection of valuable information ... [Interjections.] ... and I request that that remark be removed. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: That is not a point of order. Continue, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: It is schizophrenic, as they are being here in the House. One says he agrees and another says he doesn’t agree. [Interjections.]

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to infer that members of this House are mentally ill and to call them “schizophrenic”? [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, in context that is not what he said. If you had listened closely you would have heard what the Minister said. I did not want to interrupt him, which is why I did not rule that out. Continue, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: Valuable information is very important to South Africans. It is not classified information. It is information in the hands of the state that is so critical for the provision of services to our citizens that if it were lost, destroyed or changed it may affect our citizens negatively. For instance, many of our poor citizens discover that they are married to foreigners when they never got married to those people. That is why we need to protect this information. I know the DA is used to marriages and Cope is used to divorces ... [Laughter.] ... but that is not the type of marriage I am talking about. [Laughter.]

If you take a second example, a change of citizenship matters a lot to South Africans. [Laughter.] We are all South African citizens. If the hon member here next to me ...

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, on a point of order: Minister, when did Cope divorce? [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: That is not a point of order. Continue, hon Minister. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: I will have to deal with the hon Bloem because I wouldn’t like him to be dumped. The DA is used to these marriages of convenience in order to kill off smaller parties. [Interjections.] On the issue of the protection ...

Mr R A LEES: Hon Chair, on a point of order: The Minister yet again misrepresents the position in this House. There are no marriages of convenience that the DA has entered into ... [Interjections.] ... and the Minister is fully aware of that! [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Lees, take your seat, please. That is not a point of order. Continue, hon Minister. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: Hon Chairperson ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, order! It is now time to listen to the response of the Minister to what you were saying. Let’s give him a hearing, please.

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: The second important point about the protection of valuable information is that to us, as South Africans, citizenship is very important because the majority of us are South Africans only. We don’t hold dual citizenship. We understand that some of our colleagues from the opposition may belong to England or other countries, but with us, if we changed our citizenship we would be stateless. [Interjections.] So we do need to protect this information.

To us as South Africans, we do need protection from the hijacking of companies by criminal elements who author the information in our databases. However, for the opposition, most of their friends’ companies are not listed here in South Africa but are registered abroad ... [Interjections.] ... so it doesn’t become a concern for them. We understand that about them. [Interjections.]

The hon Gunda ... [Laughter.] [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order, hon members!

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: The hon Hit and Run from the Western Cape ... [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: Mr Fritz!

The MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY: Yes, the hon Fritz brought a lot of misconceptions. [Interjections.] He talked about severe sentences. He is forgetting because they don’t attend to the details of what the committee has done. The minimum sentences have been removed, except in the case of espionage, and we have left the maximum sentences where a judge has the discretion to give a sentence that is lighter than the maximum sentence.

With those few words I recommend that we pass these amendments and this Bill. Thank you for really taking our people, particularly the poor, the rural, the marginalised and the township people ... [Interjections.] ... as important citizens who may participate in the legislation-making mechanism. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you, hon Minister. Order! Hon members, that concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill, subject to the proposed amendments, be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Does any political party wish to do so? [Interjections.] Mr Lees, do you want to make a declaration?

Mr R A LEES: Mr Chairman, I have a point of order. [Interjections.] I need clarity on your earlier ruling. In terms of Rule 212, which deals with amendments to Bills, and as I understood your earlier ruling, this House is unable to make amendments. Please clarify that for us if this is the case.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I said that we propose amendments, because this is under Rule 75. It has to go back to the National Assembly and they will look at the proposals that we have made. It’s for them to agree or disagree. [Interjections.] Hon members, is there any member who wants to make a declaration? [Interjections.] Hon Bloem wants to make a declaration.

Declarations of vote:

Mr D V BLOEM: Thank you, Chair, how long do I have?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: You have three minutes.

Mr D V BLOEM: I want to make a last-minute call to the members of this House to vote against this Bill. Cope will certainly vote against this Bill. [Interjections.] We don’t want our children and the generations to come to spit on our graves and say, “Here lies a traitor to our hard-earned freedom.”

Let me remind the ANC that they won’t be in power for a long time. [Interjections.] Millions of people will soon vote them out of power. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: On behalf of the ANC, I wish to urge members from both sides of this House to vote for the Bill and I want to say to the people of this country that they should continue mandating the ANC to rule them for ever and ever, amen. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mnu R A LEES: Sihlalo, ngicela ukuthi nami ngenze isethulo. Ngiyacela ngempela ukuthi lo Mthethosivivinywa omubi kangaka singawemukeli. Kungcono siwuchithe, siqale phansi senze into ezosiphilisa sonke la eNingizimu Afrika. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Mr R A LEES: Chairperson, I would like to make a submission. I ask that this terrible Bill not be agreed to. I suggest that we revoke it and institute something that will benefit all South Africans.]

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Chairman and hon members, we beg you not to vote for this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr J J GUNDA: Hon Chair, I plead with my colleagues from both sides not to promote and vote for the proposals in this Bill. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you, hon members. Order! We shall now proceed to voting on the question. Members will vote by pressing the “in favour”, “against” or “abstain” button. Order! All members, even the special delegates, are allowed to vote. Voting is now commencing. [Interjections.] Hon Lees, I have put the question. Are you voting or is it not working?

Mr R A LEES: Hon Chair, I call for a division.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! There is a call for a division. We are voting. [Interjections.]

Mr R A LEES: I am not sure ... [Inaudible.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: You are correct. You have called for a division and we are now voting on the division.

Mr R A LEES: I can’t hear you, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: You have called for a division and we will now vote.

Mr R A LEES: Mr Chair, I call for a division. A division means the separation, and I requested that division. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, you are voting electronically.

Mr R A LEES: I’m sorry, I did not hear that, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I’m saying that we are voting electronically. Don’t you want to vote electronically?

Mr R A LEES: No, Mr Chair, I don’t want to vote electronically. I am seeking a division and I seek support from other members of this House. [Interjections.]

Division demanded.

The Council divided:

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! [Interjections.] Hon members, can I just clarify this. You may remember that when a division was called in the past, we used to split. [Interjections.] Now we vote electronically. A division has been called. You can vote in the manner that you want to vote, either by abstaining, voting in favour or voting against. However, in order to satisfy you all, we can follow the old system. It’s not a problem. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! A division has been called. Listen! Do we have four members who are in support of the division? [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: There are more than four. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: There are 13 members who support the division. [Interjections.] Order! I also want to caution members that no debate will be allowed during the division. Order! You can sit down now, hon member. We all agree that we are voting on the Bill that we have divided on. Before we vote, then, we will do what we normally do to satisfy you all. Those who will vote for the Bill will go to my right, and those who vote against will go to my left. [Interjections.]

Order, hon members! Mr Lees, come here. [Interjections.] Those who are abstaining can go to where Mr Bloem is standing. The voting will commence. I will allow a Whip to count on this side and one to count on that side - quickly. [Interjections.]

Order, hon members! I want to correct one thing. The Minister is not voting, so please don’t count him. Let me get the results. [Interjections.] Quiet, please, you are wasting a lot of time. Can we try to save time now? We have more Orders of the Day. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] The Whips have to confirm the result with the Table and then I will get it. [Interjections.] Mr De Villiers, you seem to be ready. Have you confirmed?

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: Yes, we are ready.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Members, you can take a seat where you are while I announce the result. Order! The result is as follows: There were 34 votes in favour of the Bill; 16 against and no abstentions.

AYES – 34: Adams, F; Boroto, M G; Chaane, T E; de Beer, C J; Dikgale, M C ; Gamede, D D; Jacobs, M P; Maabane, T; Maine, M C; Mabe, B P; Mabija, L; Magadla, N W; Makgate, M W; Makunyane, T L; Malinga, M T; Mashile, B L; Matila, A G; Memela, T C; Mazosiwe, S S; Mnguni, B A; Mofokeng, T M H; Mokoena, N; Mokgoro, G G; Moshodi, M L; Montsitsi, S D; Ntwanambi, N D; Nzimande, L P M; Phosa, Y N; Qikani, A N D; Rantho, D Z; Rasmeni, R N; Sibande, M P; Tau, R J; Themba, M P.

NOES – 16: Abrahams, B L; Bekker, J M; Bloem, D V; De Villiers, M J R; Faber, W F; Feldman, D B; Groenewald, H B, Gunda, J J; Joseph, D; Lees, R A; Manzini, V M; Makhubela, M W; Plaatjie, S H ; Sinclair, K A; van Lingen, E C; Worth, D A.

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

ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL

(Consideration of Votes and Schedule)

Vote No 1 – Presidency – put:

Declarations of vote:

Mr K A SINCLAIR: Hon Chairperson, South Africa, as a nation, has been rudderless since 1994. The Presidency of this country must take sole responsibility for that. We are like a boat without a captain. That captain is supposed to be the President of this country. The unfortunate reality is that President Zuma, as the leader of our nation, neglected his responsibility to lead and guide us. We have erased the legacy of Nelson Mandela, which imbedded in us a spirit of true nationalism and patriotism.

Central to this is a divided ANC. In the main, it is a government that has lost contact with the people. It is led by executive authorities that line their pockets to the benefit of themselves and their families. Bad service delivery denies ordinary citizens a decent life on a daily basis. Because of this, Cope cannot and will not support this Budget Vote. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): Chairperson, on behalf of the ANC I want to state categorically and clearly that we support Vote No 1. Our support is primarily based on the kind of leadership that the President has provided for this country - and not only this country but the region and the continent.

The President has been able to live up to the legacies and, of course, the principles on which, the ANC had said, we can only build a better world and a better Africa. On the basis of that, he has provided that kind of leadership. He has ensured that not only those who are exposed to better material conditions have services but also those who ordinarily would not have been able to reach out and have such services.

He is the kind of President who has provided the kind of leadership never done before. He is the kind of President who was prepared to go and listen to our people when there were protests. [Interjections.] He is the kind of President who did not shy away when there was turmoil in the country. He was there to listen to our people, and so forth. It is on that basis that I move for this House to support Vote No 1.

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: Chairperson, we object to this and I would like to know whether or not we are voting electronically. Also, we call for a division.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Are you calling for a division?

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: Yes, but we can now do the division electronically.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Yes, you can do that. It is only if you don’t want to use it that we divide physically, but the electronic system is there. You can do it electronically, if you wish.

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: I am quite happy to do the electronic version, and I will tell you, Chair, when we demand a division, so that it can be recorded as such.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: All right, a division has been called for. Can we vote quickly?

Division demanded.

The Council divided:

AYES - 29: Adams, F; Boroto, M G; Chaane, T E; de Beer, C J; Dikgale, M C ; Gamede, D D; Jacobs, M P; Maine, M C; Mabe, B P; Mabija, L; Magadla, N W; Makgate, M W; Makunyane, T L; Mashile, B L; Mazosiwe, S S; Matila, A G; Memela,T C; Mofokeng,T M H; Mokgoro, G G; Moshodi, M L; Montsitsi, S D; Ntwanambi, N D; Nzimande, L P M; Qikani, A N D; Rantho, D Z; Rasmeni, R N; Sibande, M P; Tau, R J; Themba, M P.

NOES - 14: Abrahams, B L; Bekker, J M ; Bloem, D V; De Villiers, M J R; Faber, W F; Feldman, D B; Gunda, J J; Joseph; Manzini, V M; Makhubela, M W; Plaatjie, S H ; Sinclair, K A; van Lingen, E C; Worth, D A.

Vote accordingly agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, perhaps you have forgotten, particularly the Whips, but I have a paper in front of me, indicating whether you are calling for divisions or have objections. If you have changed your mind, please let us know. I have a document in front of me, which you have discussed and agreed to as Whips. I am now putting Vote No 2.

Vote No 2 – Parliament – put:

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: There is an objection to Vote No 2.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Do you object?

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: There is no objection there.

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: It is there, on this paper.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, there is no objection.

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: There is an objection. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: There is no objection here. Here it is. I have got it with me. [Interjections.] Okay, your objection will be recorded.

Mr S H PLAATJIE: On the list that I have, there is a declaration by Cope on the same Vote.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: On the same Vote?

Mr S H PLAATJIE: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Oh yes, there is a declaration. Continue, hon member.

Declaration of vote:

Mr S H PLAATJIE: Chairperson, Cope does not support the Vote on Parliament. We draw specific attention to the value-added and public-participation process “Taking Parliament to the People”. What does it offer South Africans? As part of the NCOP mandate, it is the responsibility of Members of Parliament and Ministers to attend these gatherings. Often, certain Ministers do not pay attention and don’t attend these important public-participation processes. Millions is spent but the outcomes of this oversight process are questionable because of the methodology used and the ethics around public participation to secure service delivery.

Cope further questions the credibility of the management and the ethics of the flawed process conducted in the processing of the Protection of State Information Bill, especially the impact of and the manner in which the chairperson steamrollered the Bill against the will of many, which effectively impacts on the democratic rights of the people. For this reason, Cope, as a party, does not support the Vote. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Plaatjie, we are dealing with Vote No 2, not the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr S H PLAATJIE: I have finished talking.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I am correcting you. We have already passed the Bill.

Mr S S MAZOSIWE: Chairperson, as the ANC, we definitely support the Vote. In fact, the NCOP is one of the most successful institutions in this country as far as public participation is concerned. We have just come from De Aar - the participation and feedback was superb. Even in the case of other provinces that the NCOP has gone to, there are feedback processes in place. This Vote is therefore necessary and we would like to support it.

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

Vote No 3 – Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 4 – Home Affairs – put and agreed to.

Vote No 5 – International Relations and Co-operation – put.

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

Vote No 6 – Performance Monitoring and Evaluation – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 7 – Public Works – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr D B FELDMAN: Chairperson, Cope strongly objects to the Vote on Public Works due to wasteful expenditure, maladministration, fraudulent activity and the way in which the President handled the chaos regarding his residence and took no personal responsibility for it. The millions in fruitless expenditure are undeclared and unaccounted for, and that is a breach of taxpayers’ money.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): Chair, on behalf of the ANC, we move for the support of this Vote. As we stand here today, everybody knows that the Minister of Public Works, hon Thulas Nxesi, committed himself. Firstly, he admitted that there were problems in the department. He is going to put systems in place to work on those problems in the department. It is not as if the department is imploding or has imploded to a point where nothing can be done about what is happening. That declaration is way out of order and therefore, on behalf of the ANC, I move that it should not be supported. The Vote should rather be supported.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 8 – Women, Children and People with Disabilities – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 9 – Government Communications and Information System – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 10 – National Treasury – put

Declarations of vote:

Mr M W MAKHUBELA: Chairperson, Cope will object to Vote No 10. If one looks at the situation in Limpopo, it would not have happened if they were hands on in monitoring and analysing the report they received in the National Treasury. At present, as I am talking, the appointment of a head of department is still outstanding. How can you rely on people if they are not controlling and monitoring the situation? Limpopo is now under administration because of that.

Mr T E CHAANE: Chair, the ANC wishes to make it clear that we will support the Budget Vote on National Treasury on the basis that we appreciate the work that they are doing for the country. It is one of the departments that is doing its level best to put this country on the world map.

We further wish to indicate that the situation that led to the province of Limpopo being put under administration had nothing to do with the National Treasury, because it is the duty of the province to make sure that its financial institutions are in order. The department only intervened after Cabinet gave it the mandate to assist. We appreciate the work they are doing. They have turned the situation around and the province is back on track. On that basis, we vote in favour of this budget.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 11 – Public Enterprises – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 12 – Public Service and Administration – put.

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

Vote No 13 – Statistics South Africa – put and agreed to.

Vote No 14 – Arts and Culture – put.

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

Vote No 15 – Basic Education – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr S H PLAATJIE: Hon Chair, Cope wants to make a declaration. South Africa has a high-cost and low-performance education system that does not compare favourably with education systems in other African countries or in similar developing economies. Recently, a multitude of problems placed education in chaos, inter alia, the nondelivery of textbooks, poor performance of schools and the lack of basic amenities such as water, electricity and sanitation. In many areas, teaching and learning time was affected by service delivery protests and teacher strikes. Therefore, Cope cannot support this Vote.

Ms M W MAKGATE: Chairperson, on behalf of the ANC, we declare that the education of our people is one of our key priorities. We acknowledge the challenges that we are facing as a country in trying to undo the legacy of the past. We are satisfied with the progress achieved in addressing the education challenges, both in Limpopo and the Eastern Cape. Given the backlog that we have in addressing these challenges, it is justifiable to allocate more funds to this department. We therefore support the Budget Vote.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 16 – Health – put.

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

Vote No 17 – Higher Education and Training – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 18 – Labour – put.

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

Vote No 19 – Social Development – put.

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

Vote No 20 – Sport and Recreation South Africa – put.

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

Vote No 21 – Correctional Services – put and agreed to.

Vote No 22 – Defence and Military Veterans – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, Cope cannot support this Budget Vote for the simple reason that this department is in turmoil. The other day, last week, two Ministers were differing over flights of the former Minister. A lot of the taxpayer’s money was misused, and we really don’t want to vote for this, because the taxpayer’s money is very important to the country.

Mr S D MONTSITSI: Chair, I want to state that, firstly, the Ministry has changed. There is a different Ministry. Secondly, the allegation that the former Minister made 200 flights was misleading. The correct information is that the Minister utilised only 34 flights. In addition to that, the White Paper on Defence does state that the provision of flights to the Ministry is the responsibility of the SA National Defence Force.

The White Paper indicates that in terms of most flights utilised by dignitaries and VIPs, including the President and Deputy President, and in certain instances the premiers, this becomes the direct responsibility of the SANDF. Therefore, the former Minister of Defence could not have had any hand in the type of transportation that she utilised from one point to the other in the execution of her duties.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 23 – Independent Police Investigative Directorate – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People dissenting).

Vote No 24 – Justice and Constitutional Development – put.

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

Vote No 25 – Police – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr M W MAKHUBELA: Chairperson, Cope objects to Vote No 25, based on the following reasons: if ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: It is Vote No 24. Is it No 25? You are right, it is No 25. You can continue.

Mr M W MAKHUBELA: Yes, it is number 25. If the situation in Marikana was dealt with using new crowd-management techniques, and if they had instruments or equipment befitting the situation – they are using old, outdated Nyalas for transport - it would definitely have saved the situation. So, we do not support the Vote. They must have proper, suitable instruments.

Mr T M H MOFOKENG: Chairperson, on behalf of the ANC, we support the Vote and would like to make members aware that the commission of inquiry has been established to find the facts of what happened in Marikana. We should therefore await the report of the commission.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 26 – Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr K A SINCLAIR: Hon Chairperson, never in the history of this country has a Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries been so far removed from the farmers, fishermen and the agricultural fraternity of South Africa. Instead of being a compatriot and partner, the Minister has become the biggest threat to sustainable food security in South Africa.

Agriculture and fisheries are in crisis. The farmers and farm workers do not need a Minister who just makes promises. South Africa needs a Minister who can guide our nation through the challenges and turbulent times and to engage, through transformation, in the many opportunities that exist. At the moment, that is not the case, and Cope will not support this Budget Vote.

Mrs A N D QIKANI: Chair, the ANC supports this Vote. The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is working very hard to secure all the farmers of this country. The Minister has also tried to put in place the implementers of the Masibambisane programme. I think the Minister is doing very well in her department.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 27 – Communications – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 28 – Economic Development – put.

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

Vote No 29 – Energy – put.

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

Vote No 30 – Environmental Affairs – put and agreed to.

Vote No 31 – Human Settlements – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr D B FELDMAN: Chairperson, Cope objects to the Vote on Human Settlements on the basis of the slow delivery of houses and basic needs for the people, especially with regard to addressing the issue of the “toilet committee”. Millions was spent and to date no report has been submitted.

Mr M P SIBANDE: Chairperson, on behalf of the ANC, we and the South African people are satisfied that there is progress in South Africa in terms of housing. South Africans can now be proud of the fact that there are shelters for many people in our land, which never happened before. Lastly, South Africans are proud that we have moved from RDP houses to human settlement. The ANC therefore supports the Vote.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 32 – Mineral Resources – put.

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

Vote No 33 – Rural Development and Land Reform – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr M W MAKHUBELA: Chairperson, Cope is objecting and will not support this Vote for the following reasons: If you look at the Muyexe project, you will see that it is a nightmare. It started in 2009 but nothing is happening. It is at a standstill. When you travel on the road between Thomu and Muyexe road, it is very likely that your vehicle’s tyres will be punctured. There is simply nothing happening there.

Mrs A N D QIKANI: Chairperson, I am supporting the Rural Development Vote. I am very worried about the fact that the member refers to just one project - the one at Muyexe. The situation in Muyexe is being attended to. So, I am very worried about him, because he knows that we have the Ncora programmes and others. The people of South Africa are very happy about this programme. They are also very happy about the payments that have been done by the Ministry of Rural Development to get their land claims and everything. So, as the ANC, we support the Vote.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 34 – Science and Technology – put and agreed to.

Vote No 35 – Tourism – put and agreed to.

Vote No 36 – Trade and Industry – put.

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

Vote No 37 – Transport – put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr D B FELDMAN: Chairperson, as Cope, we strongly object to the Vote on Transport and we specifically raise the fiasco of the toll-gate issue ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon Feldman, speak into the microphone, please. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon Tau, don’t point at members with your fingers! [Laughter.] That is an hon member.

Mr W F FELDMAN: Chairperson, thank you for the protection. [Laughter.] As a party, Cope strongly objects to the Vote on Transport and we specifically raise the fiasco of the toll-gate issue in Gauteng. Its management and public accountability process will cost the tax payers billions of rand - without proper public participation and consultation processes.

Mr M P SIBANDE: Chairperson, the ANC supports the Budget Vote, because we see the commitment by the Ministry and the committee itself in terms of consultation. We also do consultation, in different forms, including Taking Parliament to the People. That is part of consulting with people. We are therefore satisfied with this Budget Vote and support it.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Vote No 38 – Water Affairs – put.

Vote agreed to (Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).

Schedule put and agreed to.

ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr B L MASHILE: Chair, the Adjustments Appropriation Bill was tabled in Parliament on 25 October 2012 by the Minister of Finance during the presentation on the 2012 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement.

The Select Committee on Appropriations noted the following changes in the allocations for the current financial year: R1,5 billion in rollovers related to unspent funds for the 2011-12 financial year; R1,5 billion to cover the costs of salary adjustments in national departments due to a higher than expected public sector wage settlement; R323 million to cover costs associated with hosting the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations football tournament, including security, protocols and migration services; R450 million for the rehabilitation of Mthatha airport; R375 million for community development projects that support environmental management and conservation under the Expanded Public Works Programme; and R187,7 million for VAT payments for the purchase of the new Atlantic research vessel, the SA Agulhas II.

Further allocations were the R118,3 million for contractual penalties incurred by Denel Saab Aerostructures related the A400M aircraft contract; R80,7 million for additional gamerangers to combat rhinoceros poaching in the Kruger National Park; R60,3 million to deploy vessels and resources in joint antipiracy operations in the Mozambique Channel; R440,1 million to be refunded to departments for monies paid directly into the National Revenue Fund from departments’ specific activities. In addition, R3 billion that will not be spent in 2012-13 have been declared as savings by departments.

The Select Committee on Appropriations has considered the Adjustments Appropriation Bill B32-2012 referred to it and classified by the joint tagging mechanism as a section 77 Bill. The committee reports that it has agreed to the Bill without amendments and therefore presents it for consideration. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): I put the question, which is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. [Interjections.] There are no declarations. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. Members will vote by pressing the buttons indicating that they are in favour, against or abstaining. [Interjections.] Have all members voted? [Interjections.]

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: I have voted but the result that is shown ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): There, your machine is coming up. Can I have the results?

An HON MEMBER: There is something wrong with that system.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): Voting will close now. The result is 34 votes in favour and two against.

An HON MEMBER: Who are the two?

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

CREDIT RATING SERVICES BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr C J DE BEER: Hon Chairperson, the rising centrality of financial services and economies across the globe has raised a number of critical questions centred on the practices and regulatory environment for the financial service industry. Credit rating agencies whose opinions are translated into credit ratings carry considerable weight in the financial markets, both in terms of business practices and regulatory requirements. Credit rating agencies are being widely criticised for their role in the 2008 global financial crisis for failing to detect the worsening of conditions underpinning the financial markets.

The widespread fallout of the subprime lending crisis led to massive fallouts across the globe, with millions of jobs being lost. This resulted in calls for far stricter regulations governing the practices of credit rating agencies. Any weakness in this respect can generate uncertainty and exacerbate volatile markets, which can trigger general financial instability. As these agencies operate at a global level and given that there are five in South Africa, a global response was required. As a result, the G20 countries jointly committed themselves to regulating these agencies, also based on the report of the Financial Stability Forum of 7 April 2008.

Introducing a regulatory framework for credit rating agencies is therefore one of South Africa’s G20 commitments. The Bill seeks to align the South African regulation of credit rating agencies with international best standards and practice, including the principles of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, the G20 countries’ regulations and the European Union’s equivalency requirement.

The Bill aims to ensure responsible and accountable credit rating agencies; protect the integrity, transparency and reliability of credit rating processes and credit ratings; improve investor protection; improve the fairness, efficiency and transparency of financial markets; and reduce systemic risks.

The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the Credit Rating Services Bill, Bill 8B of 2012, referred to it and classified by the joint tagging mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports that it has agreed to the Bill without amendments. I therefore move that the House adopt the report.

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): That concludes the debate. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. Members will vote by pressing “in favour”, “against” or “abstain”.

Voting will close now. [Interjections.] The result is 37 votes in favour.

I need to correct a mistake in the previous vote. I said that 34 had voted in favour and two against. Someone voted using the hon Mabe’s machine, and the hon Mabe was out of the Chamber at the time. [Interjections.] Hon Mabe, do you want to say something? [Interjections.] Can that vote therefore be recorded to show that 35 were in favour and one against? [Interjections.] I will not be drawn into that; they will sort it out themselves.

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: Chairperson, on a point of clarity: I thought you said that for this vote, 37 people voted in favour, and the machine says 39. I am just trying to synchronise the two. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): Hon Van Lingen, may I make it clear - to everybody in this room - that at times the machine will give seven instead of nine. The thing is, we have the secretary at the Table here who is actually ensuring that we get the correct number. So, the 37 was the last vote, but I was making a correction to the previous vote. Do you understand?

Mrs E C VAN LINGEN: Chair, thank you. I understand now.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr R J Tau): House Chair, I am standing up to raise a concern, and it is a serious concern. I have made an observation – and I don’t know if I am the only one who has made this observation – that every time a woman - and I’m using the term “woman” in a very progressive way - is in the chair, hon Van Lingen always wants to question the integrity of the conclusions or judgments, or even the rulings, of the Chair. I am raising this now because I don’t know whether this is an indication that she is seeking to say to us that she undermines women presiding officers. Thanks.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): Hon members, in the last sitting that I chaired I actually made a remark at the end of that sitting. What I said was that we were actually looking into having a disciplinary committee, a DC. This is a fact, and I said it in strong words before we left the Chamber. This is not the first time; it is a continuous exercise. However, we are not actually going to be deliberating on this until a decision has been made. You will remember, hon Tau, that I mentioned that I would have to talk to you, the Chief Whip and others, because I have honestly reached the stage where I am very intolerant of being undermined. Actually, it is more of an insult. [Interjections.] The behaviour of some of the members in this room amounts to nothing less than insult and undermining. However, I am not going to entertain it at this time, because I’ve taken a stand on that. So I ask every member seated here to wait. Something will be said at a later stage as a way forward. [Interjections.]

Mr M J R DE VILLIERS: Chairperson, we cannot make assumptions here. We are all hon members of this House. If someone is undermining the Chair, then you or the presiding officer concerned must address that situation immediately or afterwards. Hon Tau can’t make an assumption on what hon Van Lingen is doing here. That is very wrong and it is not fair to her. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms T C Memela): Hon member, I have made a ruling on that matter and I will not go further than what I have just said. We will now continue. [Interjections.]

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

FINANCIAL MARKETS BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr S D MONTSITSI: Deputy Chairperson, the Bill updates the Securities Services Act, Act 36 of 2004, as amended. The repeal and replacement of the Securities Services Act aims to ensure alignment with international developments, such as the G20 commitments, after the global financial crisis and the Financial Stability Board’s recommendations and changes in principles and law.

The main objectives of the Bill are to increase confidence in the South African financial markets, promote the protection of regulated persons and clients, reduce systemic risk and promote international and domestic competitiveness of securities services.

It is expected that these objectives would be achieved through establishing a framework for efficient and effective supervision, financial stability, mitigating systematic risk, as well as investor protection.

The tabling of this Bill follows a long process of engagement dating back to 2009, when the Securities Services Act was being reviewed. The Bill has now reached the final stages of becoming law.

In 2012 the legislative process was followed and included public hearings, parliamentary workshops and adoption by the Standing Committee on Finance in the National Assembly on 6 November 2012. The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the Financial Markets Bill, B 12B, section 75, referred to it and classified by the joint tagging mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports to the House that it has agreed to the Bill without amendments. I so move.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

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

The Council adjourned at 17:36.

__________

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2012

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill [B 23B – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 28 November 2012.

The Select Committee on Education and Recreation, having considered the subject of the Higher Education and Training Laws Amendment Bill [B 23B – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

Report to be considered

PRINTER PLEAS INSERT - T121128E-INSERT1 – PAGES 5047-5057

THURSDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2012

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent

Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 29 November 2012:

Credit Rating Services Bill [B 8B – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 75).

Financial Markets Bill [B 12B – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 75).

Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 32 – 2012] (National Assembly – sec 77).

2. Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159

South African Human Rights Commission Bill, 2012, submitted by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Judicial Matters Second Amendment Bill, 2012, submitted by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

2. Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on an Oversight Visit to the Sheltered Employment Factories in Pietermaritzburg and Jacobs, in KwaZulu-Natal, dated 27 November 2012.

1. Background

During the Committee’s strategic planning session held this year (2012), it was decided that the Committee would ensure that it visited as many of the Sheltered Employment Factories (SEFs) in South Africa as its schedule allowed. This would assist the Committee as well as the Department of Labour in ensuring that all these factories achieve their objectives.

During January 2012, the Committee visited the SEF in Port Elizabeth and the one at Ndabeni in Western Cape. During 24 - 26 October 2012, the Committee visited the SEFs located in KwaZulu-Natal, i.e. Oribi Branch in Pietermaritzburg (PMB) and Jacobs in Durban.

2. Delegation

The delegation of the Committee comprised Mrs MP Themba (Chairperson and Leader of the delegation), Mrs L Mabija, Mr MP Sibande, Mr MP Jacobs, Mr HB Groenewald, Mr Z Mlenzana, Mr O de Beer and Prince MMM Zulu.

3. Support Staff

Ms PH Sibisi, Committee Secretary; Mrs R Barreto, Committee Researcher and Mr G Mankay, Committee Assistant, accompanied the delegation.

4. Sheltered Employment Factory at Oribi - Pietermaritzburg

The Committee undertook oversight visits to the Sheltered Employment Factory (SEF) trading under the name Service Products at Oribi in Pietermaritzburg (KwaZulu-Natal).

The factory was found to be very neat and a good place to work in. The Committee learnt that the Oribi Village (where the SEF is located) is owned by the Department of Housing, which seldom comes to do any cleaning. The SEF always does its own cleaning in order to ensure that the premises are conducive to working.

The woodwork section had 49 employees of which 6 were newly appointed.

The factory experienced staff shortages which were due to the fact that if and when old employees retire/resign, they were not replaced. There are very few young employees, and most employees were 40 years of age or older.

The factory found it very hard to transform due to the fact that historically the factory was mainly for white people who did not leave the employ of the factory other than if they died or retired. At the same time the factory had no capacity to employ more disabled people unless positions became available.

All administrative work was centralised in Pretoria. Orders are placed in Pietermaritzburg but are sent to Pretoria to be processed. In the past there was a 6 to 8 week delay in the processing of the orders, but this is no longer the case.

There were no operations taking place in the woodwork section. This was due to the factory having no raw material for such operations. The factory had been assisting the East London branch which had a big order to be completed. The reason that the Pietermaritzburg branch assists the East London branch with its orders, is because some operations are specialised in Pietermaritzburg and not in East London.

There was no transport to take the employees to and from work because most of the factory staff was staying in the Oribi Village (within the premises). There were those who stayed away from the village and were using public transport, which the Committee found to be unacceptable. Those employees complained that they could not afford to pay their transport fees. One employee gave the Committee an example that he was using R30 per day for transport and his monthly salary was R4 500. The factory management told the Committee that the factory was not self-sufficient and was largely dependent on the Department of Labour for the transfer of grants and therefore could not afford to increase salaries.

The Committee felt that factory management and employees were doing a good job, although there was not enough work for the factory. The factory employees stressed that they were satisfied with the general conditions of their employment but for a few minor problems that they experienced.

The factory manufactures furniture for schools, households and also makes office furniture. The factory also sold furniture to the public. In marketing its business, the factory staff volunteered to distribute flyers during their own time. The factory also produced clothing and bedding material for government hospitals in the province.

Employees’ gross salaries ranged from R3 360 to R4 000 per month. There were complaints from the factory employees that they are paid too little for the hard physical work that they do. Most of the employees have long service which ranges from 16 to 30 years and which means that there are very few new or young people employed at the factory.

Ms Christien Maskell, the factory Manager, advised the delegation that the factory did not have enough funding to employ more individuals even though there are hundreds of applicants who apply when a post is advertised. She mentioned that it was sad that the factory had the capacity to employ more people but that they needed additional funding to do so.

Regarding safety and security, the factory employees were trained to always use protective clothing and safety shoes. They were also trained with regard to safety procedures when operating factory machines.

5. Sheltered Employment Factory in Jacobs – Durban

The factory had a staff complement of 105, of which 80% are people with mental disabilities. Twenty per cent are people with physical disabilities but all of them could walk because of the kind of work done in the factory.

The Jacobs SEF hardly gets support from the government. The factory had recently recruited young employees from special schools and through the Department of Labour. The ages of the new recruits ranged from 18 to 22 years. Marketing was done primarily through word of mouth. There are evaluation forms for new recruits. Every time an employee leaves because of retirement or death, the factory recruits people of colour rather than white people.

There is no accommodation for the employees because most of them live within the radius of 20 to 25 kilometres from the factory.

The factory produces woodwork and textile products. Staff in the Jacobs SEF was required to multitask. In other words, if there was no textile work, the women would be required to work in the woodwork section. Furniture in this factory is SABS approved and the factory was capable and self-sufficient.

The factory was busy with a school furniture project for schools in the Eastern Cape. It is a three-year project and they had already started delivering school desks.

6. Recommendations

The Committee recommends that SEFs need a centralised transformation plan. The Department of Labour should assist the SEFs in ensuring transformation.

Government needed to relook the procurement policies of government departments. Unless these SEFs get government support, they will battle to survive.

Government should reconsider the funding of these SEFs as it is clear that funds were a serious challenge.

Young people with disabilities need to be recruited so that they can benefit from the training and become skilled employees. This would necessitate adequate funding.

The Committee proposes a revision of the salary scales for factory employees or consider a subsidised accommodation scheme as some employees were paying almost two thirds of their salaries towards rent and transport fares.

The Committee also recommended that the factory needed an aggressive marketing strategy to ensure younger people are recruited into the system, which will in return transfer skills.

SEFs may consider offering in-service training for young scholars in ensuring a skilled and vibrant workforce for the future.

The factory needed to advertise their furniture to the public more aggressively as they made South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) approved furniture. This would benefit the factories and allow them to become more self-sufficient.

Report to be considered.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development on the Suspension from Office of Magistrate N E Ndamase, dated 28 November 2012.

Introduction

The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development, having considered the report dated 30 July 2012 informing Parliament of the suspension from office of Magistrate N E Ndamase, an additional magistrate at Pretoria, tabled in terms of section 13(4)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993), and pending consideration by Parliament of a recommendation by the Magistrates Commission for her removal from office as a Magistrate in terms of section 13(4) (a) (i) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act no 90 of 1993) reports as follows:

Background

Ms Ndamase was charged with 42 counts of misconduct and found guilty of 11 of those charges eight with respect to her refusal to execute lawful orders.
The charges of misconduct against her consisted of the following:

9 counts in terms of regulation 25(c) of the Regulations for Judicial Officers in the Lower Courts, 1994 which deal with the contravening of the Code of Conduct for Magistrates in one way or the other, as set out in Schedule E of the regulations,
12 counts in terms of regulation 25(d), in that she was negligent/indolent in the carrying out of her duties,
2 counts in terms of regulation 25(h), in that she absented herself from office or duty without leave or valid cause,
19 counts in terms of regulation 25(j) in that she refused to execute lawful orders.

The Presiding Officer recommended that Ms Ndamase be removed from office as a Magistrate.

Ms Ndamase was given the opportunity to make written representations to the Magistrate’s Commission on the Presiding Officer’s findings. The Commission received these representations on 14 May 2012. The Presiding Officer gave additional reasons for his recommendation on 17 May 2012.

At its meetings held on 20 and 21 July 2012, the Magistrate’s Commission considered the Presiding Officer’s findings and recommendation as well as Ms Ndamase’s representations. The Commission was of the view that the conduct for which Ms Ndamase was found guilty was so serious that it justified her removal from office. The Magistrates Commission accepted the recommendation of the Presiding Officer and recommended to the Minister that Ms Ndamase be removed from office.

Recommendation

Having considered the Commission’s report on the suspension from office of Ms N Ndamase and the Minister’s request, the Committee recommends that the National Council of Provinces confirms her removal from office as a Magistrate.

Report to be considered.

PRINTER PLEASE INSERT - T121129e-insert3 – PAGES 5079-5084

PRINTER PLEASE INSERT - T121129e-insert4 – PAGES 5085-5111

PRINTER PLEASE INSERT - T121129e-insert5 – PAGE 5111

PRINTER PLEASE INSERT - T121129e-insert6 – PAGE 5112

PRINTER PLEASE INSERT - T121129e-insert7 – PAGES 5113-5114

Audio

No related

Documents

NCOP: Unrevised hansard

Hansard: NCOP: Unrevised hansard

House: National Council of Provinces

Date of Meeting: 29 Nov 2012

Summary

Minutes

Audio

Documents

Bills

What's wrong with this page?