Questions & Replies: Presidency - GCIS
2010-09-01
THIS FILE CONTAINS 25 REPLIES.
FIND THE REPLY YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD
QUESTION NO. 3542
DATE PUBLISHED: 26 November 2010
DUE DATE: 10 December 2010
3542. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
With reference to the Public Protector's finding that 24 members of the Executive had, by April 2010, failed to disclose their financial interests within 60 days of assuming office, (a) what are the names of the members, (b) how many of these members still have to disclose their financial interests, (c) what explanation has each of these members provided for failing to disclose their financial interests on time and (d) what action will be taken against them for failing to disclose their financial interests? NW4382E
REPLY
A number of members of the Executive failed to disclose their financial interests in terms of the Executive Ethics Code within 60 days of their appointment to the Executive.
The reason for this failure was a misunderstanding on the part of these members of the Executive who believed that because they had made a disclosure to Parliament around the same time in terms of the Parliamentary Ethics Code, they had complied with all necessary requirements.
As the Honourable Leader of the Opposition must be aware, the requirements for disclosure in terms of the Parliamentary Ethics Code are the same as those under the Executive Ethics Code with regard to interests and assets.
All Ministers and Deputy Ministers, including those who were not Members of Parliament and therefore under no obligation to make a disclosure to Parliament, had made the required disclosure to Parliament by 28 June 2009. Once the mistake was realised all members of the Executive made the necessary disclosures in terms of the Executive Ethics Code for 2009.
As the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is aware, the Executive Ethics Code contained no provision for sanctions for non-disclosure at that point.
As the Head of the Executive I do not believe there is any necessity for any sanction against a member of the Executive for non-disclosure at the start of their term of office as there was a bona fide mistake on their part without any intention to conceal any interests.
I do not believe that any purpose will be served in releasing the names now as the mistake was bona fide and the Ministers and Deputy Ministers made disclosures of their business interests and assets to Parliament in terms of the Parliamentary Code by 28 June 2009.
QUESTION NO. 3427
DATE PUBLISHED: 19 November 2010
DUE DATE: 3 December 2010
3427. Mr W P Doman (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether the investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (details furnished) into alleged maladministration in the Mhlatuze Water Board has been concluded; if not, why not; if so, what are the outcomes of the investigation;
(2) whether a report on the investigation is available for public scrutiny; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether any action is being taken against any persons who have been found to have been responsible for maladministration; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW4265E
REPLY:
(1) Due to difficulties in tracing relevant documentation, the entire investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has not yet been concluded. However, some aspects are complete and three criminal cases have been opened by the Commercial Crime Unit of the Hawks.
(2) I do not have any report on the investigation as it is the policy of the SIU to only draw up a final report for the President, once the project has been completed. A decision on whether to make the report public will be taken after I have received it and scrutinised it.
(3) The investigation has not yet been concluded, action can only be taken at the end of the process, should the SIU find evidence of wrongdoing. The outcome of the criminal cases will depend on what happens in the Commercial Crime Court in Durban.
A legal opinion is being sought on whether there are grounds to proceed against certain service providers and government officials in a civil action to recover losses that may have been suffered by the government.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the SIU will make recommendations to the relevant authorities regarding the bringing of disciplinary charges against implicated officials.
QUESTION NO. 3186
DATE PUBLISHED: 5 November 2010
DUE DATE: 19 November 2010
3186. Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether the Government has stepped up its fight against corruption to the level of combating synergistic corruption; if not, why not; if so, what new modus operandi has the Government put in place to combat corruption (a) systematically and decisively on a larger scale than hitherto and (b) in a visible manner? NW3995E
REPLY:
Our government has resolved to tackle corruption in a holistic manner, meaning that all forms and manifestations of corruption are dealt with within a wider programme of action designed to root out corruption in particular in the public service.
We have recently mandated the Special Investigating Unit to institute comprehensive investigations into a number of departments in the Public Service. The departments include; the police, the national departments of public works and arts and culture, the Gauteng department of health, and the Eastern Cape department of education. Investigations into the South African Social Security Agency and the National Department of Human Settlements have been extended. We have also ordered investigations into irregularities within the cities of Tshwane and Ekurhuleni. Departments are cooperating fully with the investigations.
The Special Anti-Corruption Unit of the Department of Public Service and Administration was launched on 25 November 2010 to strengthen the fight against corruption. This new Unit will strengthen the coordination and implementation of National Anti-Corruption Strategy with more emphasis to investigations and resolution of corrupt cases in the Public Service.
Finally, organized oversight bodies like Inter-ministerial Committee on Anti-Corruption, Anti-corruption Working Group, Anti-Corruption Task Team, and Multi-Agency Working Group have been established to provide decisive oversight on the implementation of anti-corruption measures to ensure that corruption is effectively tackled in the Public Service.
QUESTION NO. 3104
DATE PUBLISHED: 5 November 2010
DUE DATE: 19 November 2010
3104. Ms A Mda (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether he has been informed about the pronouncement by the Head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) that the arms deal probe will no longer continue; if so,
(2) whether this decision will have any impact on the Government's stance on corruption; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3825E
REPLY:
(1) I was informed about the pronouncement by the Head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations that the investigation into the strategic defence procurement would no longer continue.
(2) This decision does not impact in any way on government's fight against corruption, which has in fact intensified. Many investigations are under way already, run by the Special Investigating Unit, and other agencies and a number of instruments within government have been established to prevent and investigate corruption in order to ensure clean governance.
QUESTION NO. 2883
DATE PUBLISHED: 22 October 2010
DUE DATE: 5 November 2010
2883. Mr S J Njikelana (ANC) to ask the President of the Republic:
What progress has been made with the integration efforts in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) with particular reference to the (a) establishment of the SADC parliament and (b) regional economic integration programme? NW3567E
REPLY:
1(a) In 2004, the Summit of SADC Heads of State and Government approved the establishment of a regional parliament. To date, progress in setting up the regional legislature has been slow as efforts have been focused on the establishment of the Pan African Parliament and its constituent structures.
The envisaged SADC Parliament would be hosted by Namibia, the current headquarters of the SADC Parliamentary Forum, which seeks inter alia, to provide a platform for strengthening and facilitating effective implementation of SADC policies and programmes, support the domestication and implementation of SADC protocols, foster inter-parliamentary cooperation, and promote the enactment of regional legislation.
Despite efforts by the SADC Parliamentary Forum for SADC Heads of State and Government to consider and approve the establishment of a SADC Regional Parliament at the 30th Summit held in Windhoek, Namibia in August 2010, the issue was not included on the Agenda.
The SADC Parliamentary Forum, established in 1997 in accordance with Article 9 (2) of the SADC Treaty is as an autonomous institution of SADC composed of thirteen (13) parliaments representing over 3500 parliamentarians in the SADC region. The Forum seeks to bring regional experiences to bear at the national level as well as to promote best practices by parliaments in support of regional cooperation and integration processes as outlined in the SADC Treaty.
Its main aim is to provide a platform for parliaments and parliamentarians to promote and improve regional integration in the SADC region, through parliamentary involvement.
Against the background of the global financial crisis and the resultant austerity measures applicable through the rationalisation and harmonisation of SADC structures and processes agreed to by member states, the establishment of a SADC Parliament is not foreseen as short to medium-term priority.
Rather, the immediate priority for SADC and other regional formations at the continental level is to focus resources and support towards strengthening the structures, programmes and activities of the Pan African Parliament in support of the objectives of peace, security, stability; economic growth and development; poverty alleviation; job creation and others, as we strive for the attainment of better lives, in a better Africa for all the peoples of the African continent.
1(b) In line with the objectives of the Abuja Treaty, towards greater political and economic integration at the continental level, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) established the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP), which provides a strategic framework for the achievement of this goal within the SADC region.
The Roadmap approved by Summit to steer the process of deepening and indeed, accelerating regional integration, identified the establishment of specific milestones in support of this key objective, entailing the achievement of a Free Trade Area by 2008; a Customs Union by 2010; and a Monetary Union by 2016. In this regard, the launch of the SADC Free Trade Area (FTA) in 2008 signalled an important milestone in providing an enabling platform for positively advancing higher levels of regional economic integration and infrastructure development to the benefit of all SADC member states.
The achievement of a Customs Union and a Monetary Union in the indicated time-frames originally agreed to have, however, shown these to be unrealistic in the face of serious systemic challenges such as unequal development among and between member states, and the extensive work that still needs to be done by member states in bringing about a greater harmonisation of policy and regulatory frameworks and standards.
Despite these challenges, SADC has made significant progress in the area of trade integration. While in 2008, 85% of goods traded were duty free, it is anticipated that by 2012, 99% of goods traded will be duty free. Following the official launch of the SADC FTA in August 2008 in South Africa, all member states with the exception of the DRC and the Seychelles had acceded to the Trade Protocol. However, Angola still needs to submit a tariff liberalisation offer, while Malawi is facing difficulties in keeping to the implementation schedule of the FTA.
The 30th SADC Heads of State and Government Summit held in Windhoek, Namibia in August 2010 served to highlight the urgent need to accelerate the pace of SADC regional integration.
In its report to Summit, the Ministerial Task Force on Regional Economic Integration detailed the adoption of a comprehensive work programme with concrete actions and timelines aimed at consolidating the SADC FTA as an immediate priority focus area.
Summit also reaffirmed its commitment to establishing a SADC Customs Union and endorsed the decision of the Ministerial Task Force to appoint a high-level experts group. The main mandate of this group will be to consolidate and reach agreement and a common understanding on the parameters, benchmarks, timelines, a model customs union and its implementation modalities. A report will be submitted to the Ministerial Task Force before December 2011.
Against this background, SADC has committed itself to an ambitious work programme in support of the Summit decision that renewed impetus be given to accelerating the regional economic integration agenda.
During the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) centenary celebrations in Windhoek in April 2010, attended at the level of SACU Heads of State and Government, the decision was taken that Heads of State and Government meetings be institutionalised as a formal structure of SACU. At this important gathering, Heads of State and Government also adopted a new vision for SACU providing for "an economic community with equitable and sustainable development, dedicated to the welfare of its people and a common future". It was also agreed that the inaugural SACU Heads Summit would be held in Pretoria in July 2010.
At the July 2010 Summit, Heads of State and Government considered SACU's achievements, as well as reflected on the immediate internal and external challenges facing the organisation. As a consequence of these deliberations, SACU Ministers were directed to undertake further work towards developing strategies that would promote win-win solutions in a range of areas posing particular challenges for SACU. The most urgent challenges identified entailed the need to develop a SACU trade and tariff policy and trade strategy that supports industrialisation in SACU; the development of deliberate initiatives to promote intra-SACU trade; the pursuit of the principle of united engagement amongst SACU member states in trade negotiations with third parties; and an analysis of the current arrangement on the sharing of SACU Revenue.
The decision to establish the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite FTA was endorsed at the inaugural Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the member states of each of the three regional economic community configurations in Kampala, Uganda in 2008.
Apart from providing a platform for enhanced market access, harmonisation of policies in areas of common interest and addressing the specific challenge of multiple membership, the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite FTA posits a potential expanded market of 26 countries with an estimated population of 568 million people, a combined GDP of US$875 billion and a per capita GDP of US$1,540.
These stastics point to the value of such an FTA to member states from a perspective of higher levels of inter-Africa as well as intra-regional trade, also in support of advancing the continental integration agenda as envisaged by the Abuja Treaty.
Industrial and infrastructure development lie at the heart of regional and indeed continental economic integration agenda's.
These challenges provide an opportunity for member states within the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite FTA to develop a vibrant engagement and practical programme of work, designed to focus attention on such critical areas as building supply chain capacity, manufacturing output, beneficiation and the like, complementary to the imperative of building infrastructure projects in such priority areas as agriculture, ICT, energy, water and sanitation and transport (roads, rail and ports).
As such, the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite FTA process is likely to become an increasingly important centrepiece of South Africa's regional economic integration agenda. Consequently, it has become an immediate priority for South Africa in support of broadening and deepening regional integration.
The SADC region will host the next Tripartite Council of Ministers and Summit in 2011. Against this background, the SADC Executive Secretary was mandated by Summit in August 2010 to consult with member states on the date and venue of the second COMESA-EAC-SADC Council and Summit meetings.
National consultations are currently underway in the three Regional Economic Communities (RECs) in support of the broader regional consultative processes by the three Regional Economic Communities, in advance of the second Heads of State and Government Summit that will take place in early 2011.
South African national consultations will be held on 16 November 2010 in Johannesburg.
SOUTH AFRICAN POSITION
South Africa is advancing a developmental integration agenda in Southern Africa that combines trade integration, infrastructure development and sector policy coordination, in support of building greater productive capacity across the region. This includes strengthening a "real economy" cooperation agenda, of which industrial development is a critical component.
South Africa is of the view that insufficient emphasis has been placed on the critical element of infrastructure development at the level of Summit, particularly in the context of the priority accorded to the SADC regional economic integration agenda.
The establishment of infrastructure is seen as an enabler for industrial growth and development, without which the SADC region will be restrained from advancing intra-Africa trade.
South Africa recognises the intrinsic importance of regional and continental infrastructure development to the realisation of Africa's economic growth and development imperatives.
QUESTION NO. 2866
DATE PUBLISHED: 18 October 2010
DUE DATE: 29 October 2010
2866. Mr P D Dexter (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether the Government has taken any steps against certain public representatives (details furnished) who enrich themselves by irregularly influencing the awarding of tenders to their own companies; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3549E
REPLY:
Government is committed to rooting out corruption to ensure that our limited resources are spent in a manner that is effective, efficient, economical and transparent.
The Hawks, in association with the Multi Agency Working Group and the National Treasury, investigates incidents and allegations of tender irregularities that come to light or which are brought to their attention. The idiom that all persons are equal before the law is taken seriously and investigations are therefore conducted without fear or favour against any person(s) involved in corrupt practices, irrespective of whether they are public representatives or ordinary members of the public.
Government is not prepared to be drawn into the investigation of cases against specific individuals and/or companies, especially if judicial processes related to such cases have not been concluded and the cases therefore being sub-judice.
QUESTION 2835 FOR WRITTEN REPLY
2835. Dr W G James (DA) to ask the Deputy President:
Whether the South African National Aids Council will invest additional funds for research on human variation in immune responses to Extensively Drug-resistant Tuberculosis and HIV and the gene therapy approach to this infection; if not, why not; if so, (a) how much money will be invested in these studies and (b) what are the further relevant details? NW3516E
REPLY
The South African National AIDS Council does not conduct research and therefore does not have a budget for research. However, the Department of Health is planning to conduct proof of implementation studies using the latest technology to diagnose TB drug resistance.
QUESTION NO. 2813
DATE PUBLISHED: 18 October 2010
DUE DATE: 29 October 2010
2813. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether the ministerial performance reviews of each member of his Cabinet will be made available to the public; if not, why not; if so, when;
(2) what was the outcome of each Minister's latest performance review? NW3494E
REPLY:
(1) and (2)
Over the past few weeks the President has been meeting with the coordinating Ministers for the 12 outcomes, to assess progress with the development and implementation of the Delivery Agreements for the outcomes.
In due course the President will be meeting with individual Ministers to discuss their progress in terms of their individual performance agreements with him. The results of these discussions will not be made public. The way in which the President manages the performance of his individual Ministers is his prerogative.
The Delivery Agreements for the outcomes are being made public as they are being signed. The core contents of the Delivery Agreements will also become the contents of the new Programme of Action (POA), which will be posted on the government website shortly. From February 2011, the POA will include quarterly progress reports. The public will therefore be in a position to assess the performance of the government against its commitments in the Delivery Agreements.
QUESTION: 2758
2758. Ms D Carter (Cope) to ask the Deputy President:
Whether, with reference to lessons learnt from the 2010 Fifa World Cup Soccer tournament in respect of service delivery and project management, he has any plans in place to ensure that this past performance is sustained; if not, why not; if so, (a) how will he ensure that skills training is incorporated into these plans, (b) what areas have been identified as "weak" areas in service delivery and (c) how will these plans be implemented to ensure sustainable growth in all sectors? NW3432E
REPLY
The hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup has provided Government with valuable lessons that will certainly assist us in enhancing our service delivery programmes. We were able to learn these lessons as Government particularly because we were actively involved at the highest level of Government in the whole process of planning and delivery of the tournament, ensuring that there was sufficient infrastructure and provision of related services.
Proper project scoping for the hosting of the World Cup was done meticulously at all levels of Government and proper co-ordinating mechanisms, both politically and technically, were also put in place to ensure proper co-ordination in the delivery of the Government guarantees and obligations for this huge and complex project. Through all these efforts, it is by now an internationally recognized fact that South Africa hosted one of the best FIFA World Cup tournaments ever.
Government is committed to taking all of these valuable lessons from hosting this tournament seriously and to ensure that key recommendations that will be contained in the final report of the tournament, based on the lessons learnt, will be implemented with the objective of improving Government's service delivery going forward.
The hosting of the event itself, from planning to delivery with the monitoring and evaluation measures that were put in place, provided valuable skills training to all those who were involved with the project. These were direct and indirect skills training opportunities including opportunities for skills transfer.
Because we endeavour to continuously develop the skills of the public service personnel at all levels of Government and within all public service levels, we will encourage all Departments that have had the experience of planning and delivering the World Cup guarantees and obligations to implement further skills training programmes for their officials to build on the skills already obtained. These programmes should be focussed on enhancing project management skills for improved service delivery by Government.
Generally, Government still faces challenges in many areas with respect to the delivery of basic services like houses, water, sanitation, electricity and other social services. In this respect the backlogs have, in the main, little to do with the availability of financial resources but more with the slow pace of delivery as a result of poor planning, shortage of properly skilled personnel as well as a lack of accountability and proper project monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. These are the areas that need to be seriously strengthened if we are to be able to provide quality services within the set time frames on a sustainable basis.
Once the recommendations in the final Government 2010 FIFA World Cup Close-Out Report have been tabled and considered in Cabinet, various Government Departments will have to develop their action plans, through their normal planning processes, to incorporate and implement these recommendations as part of their day-to-day operations to improve their service delivery levels.
Furthermore, Government has the responsibility to properly maintain and put to good use the vast infrastructure that has been developed as part of the World Cup legacy to ensure sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all South Africans. With proper planning, the various economic opportunities created through the hosting of the World Cup can also be sustained with appropriate Government intervention and support. The hosting of this tournament has in many ways provided us with an opportunity to recognize our capabilities, build on our successes and continuously improve on our service delivery levels.
QUESTION NO. 2631
DATE PUBLISHED: 17 September 2010
DUE DATE: 1 October 2010
2631. Mr M A Nhanha (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) (a) On what date was he presented with the report by the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims and (b) when was a decision taken on the report;
(2) whether the report was distributed amongst the various kings; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether he has taken any steps to ensure that these kings are treated equally and receive the same budget in terms of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, Act 41 of 2003; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(4) whether the commission followed any protocol in respect of how these disputes and claims were investigated; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(5) whether the commission exceeded its allocated budget; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3286E
REPLY:
(1) (a) 9 February 2010 and (b) 7 April 2010.
(2) The main findings of the report were communicated to the various kings and the affected claimants by the relevant Premiers.
(3) As the Honourable Member should be aware, the President determines uniform salaries, allowances and benefits for all kings in terms of the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, 1998 after considering the recommendations of the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Office Bearers.
Provincial legislatures are responsible for the appropriation of monies for purposes of the payment of salaries, allowances and benefits of kings. As traditional leadership is a matter that falls within Schedule Four of the Constitution as a concurrent competence, provinces also have a responsibility to support the institution of traditional leadership.
(4) The Commission followed the provisions of section 25 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (Act No 41 of 2003) when investigating the disputes and claims.
(5) Due to the fact that the President extended the term of the Commission for a further period of 3 months, the Commission exceeded its budget by R2 714 000. The money came from departmental savings.
QUESTION NO. 2544
DATE PUBLISHED: 13 September 2010
DUE DATE: 27 September 2010
2544. Mr P D Dexter (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether any waiver had to be applied for from the Chinese authorities for the inclusion of any delegate accompanying him on his state visit to China (details furnished); if so, what are the relevant details? NW3169E
REPLY:
I am not aware of any waiver having had to be applied for.
QUESTION NO. 2515
DATE PUBLISHED: 3 September 2010
DUE DATE: 17 September 2010
2515. Dr C P Mulder (FF Plus) to ask the President of the Republic:†
(1) (a) How many (i) visits to overseas countries has he undertaken since the start of his term of office and (ii) of these visits were requested by the host countries, (b)(i) how many of his overseas visits were paid for from the budget of the President's Office and (ii) what did the total cost of each of these overseas visits amount to and (c) for how many of these overseas visits did the host countries pay;
(2) (a)(i) how many persons who are not in the employ of his office accompanied him, (ii) what are their names and (iii) with what aim were they included in the tour group, (b) who paid for their costs in each case and (c) what were the total costs of these persons for each specified overseas visit? NW3092E
REPLY:
(1) (a) (i) 40 – this includes countries on the rest of the African continent that are not "overseas".
(ii) 40
(b) (i) & c – Host countries paid for 36 visits. The Presidency paid for the remainder as well as the costs not covered by the 36 host countries.
(ii) The reconciliation for the above mentioned expenditure is not as yet
available.
(2) (a) (i) The President was accompanied by officials from Government Departments and is also entitled to be accompanied by a spouse.
A number of delegations of Business People from South Africa have also accompanied the President on a number of these visits in order to encourage and promote economic-cooperation between South Africa and the particular country being visited.
The Presidency is not involved in deciding on the composition of the Business delegation. This is done by the Department of Trade and Industry in consultation with Business Unity South Africa.
Members of the Business delegation cover their own costs.
QUESTION NO. 2487
DATE PUBLISHED: 3 September 2010
DUE DATE: 17 September 2010
2487. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) (a) Which (i) members of Cabinet, (ii) members of the Public Service and (iii) persons who were not members of the Cabinet formed part of the delegation on the recent state visit to China and (b) what were the specified interests of each person with regard to the visit;
(2) (a) what was the total cost of the visit and (b) what was the cost for him and each Cabinet member for (i) travel, (ii) accommodation, (iii) security, (iv) entertainment and (v) other specified expenses;
(3) what were the intended outcomes of the visit?
(4) whether job creation initiatives were discussed; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3059E
REPLY:
1 (a) i The following Members of Cabinet accompanied the President:
1. Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Administration, Mr. C Chabane,
2. Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ms T Joemat-Petersson,
3. Minister of Correctional Services, Ms N Mapisa-Nqakula,
4. Minister of Economic Development, Mr. E Patel,
5. Minister of Energy, Ms D Peters,
6. Minister of Higher Education, Dr. B Nzimande,
7. Minister of Home Affairs, Dr. N Dlamini Zuma,
8. Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ms M Nkoana-Mashabane,
9. Minister of Mineral Resources, Ms S Shabangu
10. Minister of State Security; Dr S Cwele
11. Minister of Tourism, Mr. M van Schalkwyk,
12. Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr R Davies,
13. Minister of Transport, Mr. S Ndebele,
14. Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Ms B Sonjica,
iiMembers of the Public Service included the Directors-General of:
International Relations; Water and Environmental Affairs; Tourism; Trade and Industry; Transport; Energy; the National Commissioner of Correctional Services and other support staff from the respective Departments.
iiiIn addition to the members of the Public Service who accompanied the President, the President was also accompanied by his spouse, Mrs. Thobeka Zuma and a business delegation constituted by the Department of Trade and Industry in consultation with Business Unity South Africa.
(b) Certain Ministers co-signed Memoranda of Understanding with their counterparts, whilst others engaged their counterparts on bilateral issues to take forward our cooperation in these areas. Officials were providing support and advice to their Political Principals, as well as engaging their counterparts on technical and/ or expert discussions. The President's spouse was in attendance in order to support the President in the execution of his duties. The business delegation was invited in order to encourage and promote economic co-operation between South Africa and China. Business people and organisations also joined the delegation so as to look for new opportunities or further their interests in China.
(2) Information pertaining to the individual Cabinet Members expenditure (travel, accommodation, security, entertainment and other specifics) of the visit should be obtained from each relevant Cabinet Minister. The cost of the visit for the Presidency is not yet available as accounts are still being processed.
(3)The intended outcome of the State Visit was to strengthen the South-south cooperation with the objective of deepening and broadening the current bilateral relations to a new Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between South Africa and China.
(4) The broad Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) framework that was co-signed by the Presidents of both countries provides for job creation initiatives. Sixteen major business contracts were signed between SA and Chinese companies. Since China is now the second largest economy in the world, the CSP between SA and China has placed future economic relations on a sound basis that could greatly contribute to job creation and poverty alleviation.
QUESTION NO. 2486
DATE PUBLISHED: 3 September 2010
DUE DATE: 17 September 2010
2486. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) (a) Why was it deemed necessary that a review had to be conducted of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal (details furnished), (b) what are the terms of reference for the review, (c)(i) what are the names of the persons who will conduct the review, (ii) how were they selected and (iii) to whom will they report their findings;
(2) how will this review differ from the one with which the ministers of justice and attorneys-general of SADC member states were tasked at the SADC meeting that was held from 16 - 17 August 2008 in Sandton;
(3) on what basis was the decision taken at the recent SADC summit not to impose punitive measures against the Zimbabwean government for its repeated contravention of a ruling made by the SADC tribunal on the matter of Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe? NW3058E
REPLY:
1(a) The review became necessary because of the Government of Zimbabwe's non-compliance with the decision of the Tribunal and the reservation that they registered pertaining to the recognition and enforceability of the Tribunal decision thereby questioning its legitimacy.
(b) The review is to consider the following:
· The jurisdiction of the Tribunal with regards to issues and persons (ratione materiae and ratione personae)
· The interface between community law and national laws in SADC, in so doing the review should clarify the following issues:
Ø The power of the Tribunal to review decisions of domestic courts and the extent of such competence (specific areas that should fall under the Tribunal's jurisdiction)
Ø The Tribunal's possible role in guiding domestic courts on the application of community law, and
Ø The effects of its decisions on domestic law.
· The possible impact of the limited mandate of the existing Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal and make recommendations on how its mandate should be broadened
· The problem concerning the recognition, enforcement and execution of the Tribunal's decisions
· The process of nomination, appointment and the qualifications of judges of the Tribunal, taking into account domestic mechanisms and international best practice and the need to be representative of the legal systems within SADC.
In addition to the above issues, the review should also consider and recommend possible solutions on the following issues noted by the Member States:
· The lack of clarity in some provisions of the Treaty and the Protocol on the Tribunal
· The tendency by Member States to give primacy or more prominence to domestic laws/ jurisdiction over community law
· The apparent unwillingness of SADC Member States to relinquish some aspects of their sovereignty to the regional organization (which would be expected in terms of International Law).
(c) The review will be conducted by the Ministers of Justice and/ or Attorneys-General from the SADC Region. They were selected by virtue of their official designations and will report their findings to the SADC Summit.
2. At the Sandton meeting, the Ministers of Justice/Attorneys-General were not tasked to review the SADC Tribunal. Instead, the Summit requested the Ministers of Justice/Attorneys-General for advice on what steps to be taken against the government of Zimbabwe for its non-compliance with the Tribunal's decision.
3. The Summit is awaiting the comprehensive review of the Tribunal by the Ministers of Justice/Attorneys-General, which will determine the way forward on the matter.
QUESTION NO. 2182
DATE PUBLISHED: 20 August 2010
DATE SUBMITTED: 3 September 2010
2182. Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether he issued a proclamation during the period 1 January 2010 up to the latest specified date authorising the Special Investigations Unit to launch an investigation into Athletics SA; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2688E
REPLY:
No, I have not issued any proclamation authorizing the Special Investigating Unit to investigate Athletics South Africa.
QUESTION NO. 2168
DATE PUBLISHED: 20 August 2010
DATE SUBMITTED: 3 September 2010
2168. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether he will expedite the recommendations of the Public Protector (details furnished) to give effect to a strong regulatory framework on conflicts of interest; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) how? NW2615E
REPLY:
Cabinet is in a process of reviewing the Executive Members' Ethics Act, 1998 (Act 82 of 1998 and the Executive Ethics Code in line with the Public Protector's recommendations. Once this process is completed, any amendments to the Act or Code will be tabled in Parliament.
QUESTION NO. 2167
DATE PUBLISHED: 20 August 2010
DATE SUBMITTED: 3 September 2010
2167. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether he will censure or take any action against the Minister of Communications following the findings of the Public Protector (details furnished); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2614E
REPLY:
I have reprimanded the Minister of Communications, General (Ret.) Siphiwe Nyanda, regarding the media statement he made in support of Mr. Gama, which according to the Public Protector violates section 2.3(d) of the Executive Ethics Code.
QUESTION NO. 2024
DATE PUBLISHED: 30 July 2010
DATE SUBMITTED: 13 August 2010
2024. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether, with reference to his reply to question 9 on 24 July 2009, the Government will make the complete report of the Donen Commission public; if not, why not; if so, when;
(2) Whether he will establish a commission of enquiry to investigate the companies and individuals implicated in the United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2421E
REPLY:
After having regard to the advice of the State Law Advisors on the Donen Commission Report, I have decided not to extend the term of the Commission for the following reasons: Irrespective of whether the term of the Donen Commission is extended and the Commission is given the opportunity to complete their investigation and they are authorized to use the powers in terms of the Commission's Act, their final recommendations will be academic because no individual/s or companies will be held criminally liable. Whether it is proven that the South African nationals did pay the surcharges to the Iraqi government, I have been advised that in terms of our domestic law these nationals cannot be prosecuted. Instead of extending the term of the Commission, I have therefore decided to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development/South African Law Reform Commission to review the IIC Report, the Donen Commission Report and the opinions from the Chief State Law Advisor and consider passing the relevant legislation and/or amend existing legislation to rectify any shortcomings in our domestic law.
Before considering whether or not to release the report of the Donen Commission, I have decided that the adverse findings made against certain subjects of the Commission's enquiry should be presented to the subjects in question for their comment.
QUESTION NO. 2543
DATE PUBLISHED: 13 September 2010
DUE DATE: 27 September 2010
2543. Mr P D Dexter (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether he cancelled an appointment with chief executive officers (CEOs) of Chinese companies during his recent state visit to China; if so, what were the reasons for cancelling his appointment;
(2) whether he had an urgent meeting regarding Chinese involvement in a mining venture in the Limpopo province; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what was the outcome of the meeting? NW3168E
REPLY:
(1) The appointment with CEOs of Chinese companies was a luncheon hosted by Dr Rob Davies, the Minister of Trade and Industry as part of the business programme.
(2) No such meeting took place.