Hansard: NA: Unrevised Hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 22 Jun 2017


No summary available.




The House met at 14:08.

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

Ms N W A MAZZONE: Speaker ... Speaker ... Madam Speaker ...

The SPEAKER: Where is the person who is calling me?

Ms N W A MAZZONE: I am here.

The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Mazzone?

Ms N W A MAZZONE: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for recognising me. I rise on Rule 91. Five Ministers have claimed not to have been in possession or to have seen the Gupta emails.


I would therefore like to, through the parliamentary staff, hand out copies of the parliamentary emails to them. [Interjections.] As a courtesy, I will be handing up a copy of the emails for you too. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Hon member, thank you very much but, really, we have only one item on the Order Paper. [Interjections.] Order, hon members!



The SPEAKER: Hon members, I wish to announce that the vacancy which occurred in the National Assembly owing to the retirement of Mr M A Mncwango has been filled by the nomination of Mr Xolani Ngwezi with effect from 15 June 2017. The hon member has made and subscribed the oath in the Deputy Speaker’s Office. The hon member is welcome to this vibrant National Assembly. [Applause.]



The SPEAKER: Hon members, before we proceed with Questions, I would like to bring to your attention that, in terms of
Rule 141(5), Question 7 was approved as an Urgent Question for today’s Question Session. As a result, the question will take precedence over all other questions. The question has been asked by the hon the Leader of the Opposition.

Question 7:

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, the economy has moved into a technical recession, measured by two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP. This situation is of serious concern to government, given the impact on our economy and also directly on our people.

It is also worth highlighting that the economy, however low, expanded by 0,6% on a year-on-year comparison between the first quarter of 2016 and the first quarter of 2017. South Africa is

part of the global economy where countries across the world have been struggling for growth and recovery from the financial crisis of 2008. In order to ensure that we can turn the economy around in the shortest possible time, we are drawing on the experience of 2008 and 2009 when the economy had previously been in recession. [Interjections.]

Top of our priorities will be to fast-track the implementation of pro-growth measures and structural reforms. We are working to reignite growth informed by the Nine-Point Plan ... [Interjections.] ... that we launched recently. The interventions include the areas of energy, manufacturing, transport, telecommunications, water, tourism, the ocean economy, mining, agriculture ... [Interjections.] ... and the Industrial Policy Action Plan, as well as managing workplace conflict. We are also improving our exports to the rest of the continent and reclaiming parts of the domestic market.
Microeconomic reform together with ensuring more local spend by government will also assist. Unlocking new investment and ensuring better co-ordination across the range of economic


policy instruments available to the state and with our social partners will be important.

I will highlight a few initiatives. First, we must boost the rate of investment in the economy. An example of our efforts is the one-stop shop in the form of Invest SA that was launched recently. Second, we need to boost investment in infrastructure. The last Cabinet lekgotla received a report on a road maintenance programme that provides a livelihood and income to about 40 00 people in KwaZulu-Natal, largely women-headed households. Our focus will be to massify more of the infrastructure delivery programmes. Third, we need to speed up competition in the economy. The competition authorities are currently embarking on far-reaching investigations of various markets, ranging from healthcare to transport and grocery retail. These market inquiries will help to ensure that more dynamic markets can emerge in key sectors of the economy.

Fourth, we are speeding up efforts to ensure regulatory certainty. This will include areas such as spectrum allocation, the Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme and land

reform so that investors have greater clarity on what public policy expectations and resources are. [Interjections.] Part of our work will need to focus on turning around poorly performing state-owned companies so that they are able to produce key utilities to the economy on a reliable and cost-effective basis. Fifth, we are deepening the efforts at social partnership. The hon member would have seen the results of these efforts from the broad agreement on a national minimum wage. More efforts to build partnership with business and labour will be pursued.

Mr P VAN DALEN: That’s how you run a spaza shop! [Laughter.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: These efforts, together with measures to boost youth employment and deepen trade relations with the rest of the continent, will form part of our co- ordinated package to keep the technical recession as short as possible and to reignite economic growth. Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Speaker, through you to the President: I am glad you are here whilst Mr Gupta is overseas.

[Interjections.] The recent release of the new Mining Charter by Minister Zwane has caused huge uncertainty in the markets and, in fact, without doubt has been condemned by organised business, organised labour and civil society.

There has been an almost unanimous view that the charter will lead to more disinvestment and job destruction in the mining sector, making our current recession even worse. See, the rand has slumped, ratings agencies have warned against further downgrades and even the National Union of Mineworkers, NUM, has said they are considering taking the matter to court. Your own party have said that they did not see this version of the charter that was tabled and therefore request an explanation from Minister Zwane.

I would like to know, Mr President, do you in fact – you – endorse this current version of the charter released by the Minister from Saxonwold? Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr B A RADEBE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The not so honourable Leader of the Opposition ... [Interjections.] ... has

referred to the Minister of Mineral Resources as the “Minister from Saxonwold”. I think that, according to Rule 84, it is unparliamentary.

Mr M WATERS: Speaker, may I address you?

The SPEAKER: Hon Waters, do you know where the hon the Minister comes from – from Saxonwold or not?

Mr M WATERS: No, I am rising on a point of order – under Rule 92.

The SPEAKER: Go ahead. I have given you an opportunity.

Mr M WATERS: Thank you. The hon Whip from the ANC has just called the Leader of the Official Opposition “not so honourable”
... [Interjections.] ... which in itself is dishonourable, and he should withdraw that. Everyone in this House is “honourable”. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: I would like, first, to start with the hon the Minister being called a “Minister from Saxonwold”. Would the hon the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw that?

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: I withdraw. I would like to know whether the President endorses the new charter tabled by Minister Zwane. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Alright. Hon Radebe, I would like you to withdraw saying the hon the Leader of the Opposition is not honourable. [Interjections.]

Mr B A RADEBE: I withdraw. [Interjections.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, yes, I believe, firstly, the Minister gave the briefing in consultation, which included the Cabinet. What the Minister is doing has been approved by Cabinet. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Secondly, we have said we need to do something to change the economy to ensure that we ignite the economy. We could not stay at the same

place without being innovative about the economy, particularly mining. [Interjections.]

Mining has been there for centuries in South Africa. There have been booms in the economy and a decline in the economy with mining being there. There hasn’t been a visible change in making mining a key sector in the economy of this country to change and work differently to support the economy. So, the mining has been there for many years. Whether there was a recession – it is not the first time that you have it, the technical one. It has been there, as the economy has been going up and down. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: Oh, come on!

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: There is nothing new, and we couldn’t wait because we have asked what we can do to boost the economy. What the Minister has done is to ask how we change the manner in which the ownership of the mines is, particularly opening it to those who have never participated. [Interjections.] It cannot be ... it cannot be an action that

will actually bring mining down. [Interjections.] If you are working very clearly – you have a clear strategy for what you are doing – I believe this is going to bring about change in mining ... [Interjections.] ... including everything, the production, whatever, and the ownership. [Interjections.] So, I believe in what the Minister has done. [Interjections.]

Mr M HLENGWA: Speaker, through you to the President: Msholozi, let’s get real. In 2009, from that very podium, you promised
500 000 new jobs. [Laughter.] The economy that year lost

one million jobs. [Interjections.] Subsequently, year on year, none of your promises have come to fruition. Young people bear the brutal brunt of your own government’s failings. The economy is not growing at the rate it is expected, unemployment continues to rise, inequality is expanding, and all of this whilst you preside over the economy. Coupled with that, there have been reckless and irresponsible decisions.

I put it to you, Mr President: What assurance are you giving to young people today, those who are bearing the brutal brunt of unemployment, that your Nine-Point Plan and any other

intervention this time around will yield the results they need in order for them to get jobs? The current situation is untenable, and you cannot have a situation where unemployment now stands at over nine million people, and you continue as if its business as usual. We have heard the refrains you have given us today before. We cannot hear them again in the absence of practical action steps to implement and turn the situation around. I thank you. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, firstly, I have just talked about what the Minister of Mineral Resources has done. This is not a repetition of what we have been saying all the time. It is something new that some of you are sceptical about. It is new.

An HON MEMBER: The entire country is sceptical!

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I have not repeated what I have said before, and I talked about the measures taken that have helped us for the economy to move in the manner in which it has moved. [Interjections.]


An HON MEMBER: We are going backwards!

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: What we also don’t agree – because, when you ask your questions, you fail to understand where South Africa comes from. [Interjections.] South Africa has had the kind of policies and everything different from any other country in the world wherein the majority was excluded. So, whilst we are dealing with the common global issues, we are also dealing with the very peculiar history of this country. That is a problem that none of you look at. [Interjections.] You think we are just moving like any other country. We come from apartheid where laws, tendencies, practices, everything excluded the majority. [Interjections.] Up to now, if you calculate unemployment in this country, and you forget that fact, you are not being factual about the South African situation. That is a problem you have. [Applause.] We are very conscious of what we are doing. We know what we are dealing with.

I am sure our diagnosis of the South African history is not the same, and that is why you ask questions from a different kind of angle. What we are dealing with, we know what we are dealing


with. We know we face the problems we are facing, and we have solutions to those problems. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms J L FUBBS: Speaker, through you to the President: Thank you very much for your response and the interventions that you have outlined to address the economic slowdown which we saw again in 2008-09 ... [Interjections.] ... and, at that time, you engaged with social stakeholders and the rest which slowed it down. With specific respect to the higher value addition in the Industrial Policy Action Plan, the value addition along the mining and manufacturing beneficiation chain, perhaps you can share with this House how we can increase job creation but also how we can expedite the establishment of an export-import trade bank. Thank you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Speaker, the kind of interventions I have just listed here, as I was answering the initial question, indicate the kind of interventions we are making. These interventions will certainly deal with the issues of labour and also deal with the issues of how we trade with other countries globally, particularly the continent of Africa,


as well. So, these measures are aimed at interventions for those very issues, and we are very hopeful that what we are doing is absolutely going to make us turn our economy around. That is we are doing. We think we know what we are looking for. We have meetings. I have just met with some of the Ministers at the economic level to discuss the specific things as to what we can do to boost the economy. So, I am very positive that we are going to come out of this technical recession quicker than we believe. Thank you very much.

Ms D CARTER: Speaker, the last time South Africa fell into a recession in 2009, it was because of a global financial crisis. This time around, economists, businessmen, and executives agree: The cause is a person – and that person is the President.

An HON MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Ms D CARTER: There is no other factor to explain the recession. The only factor is the political shenanigans, policy uncertainty and the lack of leadership, which has hollowed out confidence both in the consumer and investment communities. President, your


Oath of Office, Mr Zuma, as President of the Republic, requires you to “be faithful to the Republic ... to promote all that will advance the Republic, and oppose all that may harm it” and devote yourself “to the wellbeing of the Republic and all its of people”.

Now, do you accept your culpability in bringing us to a recession and that you have violated your Oath of Office? Can you provide South Africa and this House with substantial reasons why you believe you are the right person to be the President of our country? Thank you. [Interjections.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, firstly, I am not sure how much members appreciate the global situation. [Interjections.] Particularly when it comes to ratings, a number of countries have been downgraded. South Africa is not the only one. There are a number of countries that have been downgraded. [Interjections.]

Now, I don’t know what is wrong in those countries. Is it a leader, or is it because of the economic situation, or whatever?


[Interjections.] The manner in which you discuss South Africa, you discuss it as if it is the only country that has been downgraded. [Interjections.] You also don’t look at what has happened to the economy of South Africa – before 1994, after 1994, as a result of the policies followed before.

Secondly, Jacob Zuma did not say, “I think I am a good leader.” He was elected by the majority of this country ... [Applause.]
... as a leader that can lead South Africa. [Interjections.] That is a fact. That is a reality. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Question 8:


enforcement agencies have a responsibility to investigate all allegations of criminality in the country. They must therefore be afforded space to deal with the matter as they deem fit and in terms of the law. I thank you.

Rev K R J MESHOE: Speaker, like most South Africans, the ACDP is very disappointed that despise increasing evidence of corruption at all levels including within state-owned enterprise, SOEs, and


that the looting of state resources is taking place and we don’t see any concrete action from the Presidency.

The Chairman of Prasa Mr Popo Molefe, has even taken the Hawks to court to force them to finalise their two year long probe into corruption and irregular expenditure totalling over
R14 billion. What I want to know is that, will the President support the Prasa case against the Hawks who are allegedly reluctant to complete their investigation into corrupt and irregular expenditure at Prasa?

Additionally, before any commission of inquiry takes place, will the President also ensure that the Hawks urgently complete their investigations into serious allegations of criminality referred to by the former Public Protector in her state of capture report?

This to ensure that the President is seen to be serious about fighting corruption on all levels, especially the looting of state resources that should be used to address the needs of the poor. If the President is asked to give an example of one


concrete action he has taken to fight corruption in the country, what action he has taken? What example will the President give to the country?


firstly, I don’t agree with the hon member that most South Africans, have the view that he expresses. It would have been good if he says some South Africans. Well, that is an exaggeration. There is no testing that has been made. It is just a political exaggeration.

Secondly, you contradict yourself when you say no action is been taken, but you said action has been taken and the only complain about it in Prasa is that it is not concluded, but you start by saying no action is being taken but you then ask questions about an action that has been taken that the Chairperson of the board is now complaining to the Hawks that the action is not completed, after having said no action is taken and you say can you definitely mention one. You are just talking about it in Prasa. There is been an investigation. You are just politicking of course as an opposition. What else can you do, actually?


Prof N M KHUBISA: Speaker, it is clear that every weekend starting from Friday up to Sunday we are bombarded with emails with regard to the state capture occurring in various departments from the Guptas, etc. It is clear that this is denting the image of the country or it has been dented severely and if it goes unchecked it is really doing a country some harm for instance with regard to investment, credibility, integrity, etc. Would you say, hon President it is urgent to harness this, so that it doesn’t dent the country even further? Because come Sunday, come Saturday we are going to be bombarded with other emails.

Just recently we had the Guptas from minerals resources, the bank, who knows, something with regard to land that, was stolen, etc is going to come. A lot is in the pipeline as we speak and there will be emails coming. Do you think is urgent to harness this as speedily as possible to restore the image of the country, because it is the image and integrity of the country that is at stake?



firstly, the very fact that if things or if there are emails whatever and every Sunday there are up there. It indicates how transparent the country is. In other countries you don’t see such things being revealed. It is an important point to make.

Secondly, with regard to the emails, from where I am sitting I don’t know where they come from. I don’t know how authentic they are. They have not been tested in any institutions. What we have done as part of the measures to deal with the matter.

We have taken a decision to establish the judicial commission of inquiry and the emails will be part of that. So, we are not leaving them unattended to, then we will be able to speak about the emails with a serious scientific investigation which should tells us exactly what happened and to what extent are they disrupting the life of South Africans. So, in a sense those are covered in the inquiry that is going to be made and we are moving as fast as possible to establish the commission.


The SPEAKER: Before I go to the next supplementary question, hon members I would like to remind you that according to Rule 142 (7), a supplementary question may not consist of more than one question.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr Zuma, when I laid charges against you, it has now taken the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, a 1200 days to investigate. Now, when Mr Nxasana didn’t do his job in the interest of transparency and accountability, you dismissed him. I would like to know, is it acceptable for the NPA to take a 1200 days to investigate a matter on the charges of corruption I laid against you with regard to your involvement in the Nkandla saga if we are interested in accountability? Thank you very much.


think the hon member is asking a wrong person. Firstly, he didn’t place the charges to me to investigate. What the NPA is doing is something that I don’t know. I don’t know what makes them to take so many days. How can I know? That is not my task. I didn’t say I don’t care, I said I don’t know, because I am not


working there. Well, you could have asked the person where you placed the charge. Go and ask why this is taking too long. Why do you ask me? I am not investigating. You made the charges and you should go to where you made the charges and say why these charges are taking long. You are absolutely asking a wrong person.

MR N SINGH: Hon Speaker, hon President, allegations of State Capture occupy centre stage at the moment and I think is public knowledge. This Parliament through a number of its portfolio committee structures are now seized with this matter and a thorough scrutinization of the Gupta leaks emails trenches will shortly begin in earnest, in fact they have already begin. Hon President, Rome is burning and you Sir, let me a hint from your response from Rev Meshoe, some might say appear to be fiddling and appearing only lukewarm on what are serious allegations of state capture.

Radical economic transformation as unpacked recently by the hon Deputy President, I think yesterday when he spoke at the Gordon Institute of Business. He said that he has great merit in


creating ways to boost inclusive growth and promote wide scarily economic growth in a realistic manner. My question is this, moving forward, how you, Sir, will ensure that radical economic transformation remains untainted by the hands of the state capture elite. I thank you.


thought that the issue of state capture had an opportunity to be investigated by the former Public Protector and just few days before she left, she produced a report. In view of some of the people that are mentioned in the report and this is now not allowing the Rome to burn and you sit to do nothing.

Former Public Protector investigated and that means something has been done. Some of the aspect of the report had been taken to review, so there has never been quietness and it can’t be correct to say whilst Role is burning then people are just sitting.

And then the new Public Protector is also attending to that report and secondly, you said Parliament itself is discussing


the matter, so this important institution is also doing something. so, it is not as if Rome is burning, people are just sitting and the President has taken a decision to establish the judicial commission of inquiry and is about to announce when it will start. So, it is not as if the Rome is burning nothing is happening. Many things are happening and we are therefore taking the report seriously and indeed at the right time when the institutions have investigated, we will certainly come to know about who is burning the Rome.

Now, one of the interesting things is that if because there is capture kind of situation, how many institutions should investigate and which will be the one that will produce the good results. The Public Protector is doing something, right? There is going to be a judicial commission of inquiry but there is also going to be Parliament. I am interested to know which of all of these will really produce the report that we will all say this is the report with the kind of findings and recommendations that have instruments to implement.


As one of the problem, I will be very keen to know how we are dealing with this matter. Is it a matter to be tackled by everybody? Who then and what results? If the results are three and different which one will be implemented? I think is a matter that we all have to look at so that we get the real investigation that will make us take action at the end. Thank you.

Question 9:


government has a number of programmes to transform the rural economy. These include agricultural parks; the Strengthening of Relative Rights programme; and the One Household One Hectare and One Household Two Dairy Cows Programme.

The agricultural parks programme, for instance, seeks to improve production by smallholder farmers, access to markets, finance and research and engage in the whole agriculture value chain. It is designed to promote collaboration between government, the private sector, and rural communities.


The Strengthening of Relative Rights programme seeks to secure the land rights and residential tenure of the farm dweller or farm worker; empower people working the land to acquire majority equity-holdings in farming enterprises and bring about economic transformation of the agricultural sector. In this programme too, government works closely with all the stakeholders involved. The One Household One Hectare Programme and One Household Two Dairy Cows Programme are intended to improve production and food security at household level in order to contribute to the increase in the number of smallholder farmers.

The collaboration of stakeholders is also evident in programmes, such as the electrification of rural communities through the Integrated National Electrification Programme; the provision of the Broadband Internet Services Programme which connects schools, clinics and other government buildings to broadband; and the provision of water and sanitation infrastructure in rural communities. One of the successful programmes is the Water Services Infrastructure Grant which prioritises 27 poor district municipalities and the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant which focuses on smaller municipalities.


There are also conditional grants such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme that helps in ensuring inclusive growth in the rural economy and has benefited many rural communities through job creation. Since inception, the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme has been allocated about R9,6 billion to deliver comprehensive support service to subsistence, smallholder and emerging black commercial farmers. I thank you, Madam Speaker.


Nk P C NGWENYA- MABILA: Ngiyabonga Somlomo, Mongameli ohloniphekile ngicabanga ukuthi yonke le miklamo oyibalile izodinga umhlaba. Ngakho ke yini okwenziwa uhulumeni ukuqinisekisa ukuthi abantu bathola umhlaba ngokushesha njengalokhu sibonile ukuthi izindlela esizisebenzisayo manje ukubuyisela umhlaba kubaniniyo zihamba kancane. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.]


Somlomo, kuyiqiniso ukuthi kunezinhlelo zokuzama ukuthi umhlaba ulungiswe ukuthi ubuye. Kodwa futhi kuyiqiniso ukuthi


kuyabonakala ukuthi lezi zindlela azikwazanga ukuthi kulamashumi amabili eminyaka neminyaka emithathu ziwubuyise umhlaba ugcwale uthi swi kuphele ukukhala kwabantu. Yingakho nje udaba lo mhlaba seluphinde futhi lwaba yindabamlonyeni ukuthi kuzokwenziwa kanjani ukuthi ubuye umhlaba.

Kukhona futhi nokuthi ngendlela owabuya ngayo, kukhona ezinye izinto mhlawumbe esingazenzanga kahle njengokuthi nje: kwathiwa uma kubuya umhlaba abantu abakhethe noma bafuna wona umhlaba noma bafuna isamba semali. Abantu abaningi uma bezwa imqali ibizwa nezigidi baye bafune ukuthi, hhayi sifuna imali. Kanti uma isihlukaniswe phakathi umphakathi ngenkathi uma sebeyithola le mali kusuke sekuyizinkulungwanyana nje ezimbalwa ezingasho lutho ke. Sesiyalibona lelo phutha ukuthi ngempela ngempela senza iphutha ngoba phela umhlaba yifa likangunaphakade. Imali ifika namhlanje idlule kusasa. [Ubuwelewele.] Sifuna ukukulungisa nalokho ngoba nakho kube wokunye okube buthakathakana indlela esenze ngayo. Uma usuphethe umhlaba ezandleni zakho akufanele uwudedele ngoba sekuyifa lezizukulwane nezizukulwane.


Kukhona futhi nento yokuthi masishintshe indlela yomhlaba ngoba kubalulekile ukuthi umhlaba ubuyele kulaba ababekade bewuphethe. Hhayi, ukuthi baphucwe laba abawuphetheyo yonke into.
Kusetshenziswe umthetho,kusetshenziswe noMthethosisekelo ukuthi ababenawo phela nabo umhlaba bonke abantu kungabi khona abaphethe izwe lonke abanye bengenalutho. Yizinto ke lezi ezisaxoxwa engicabangayo ukuthi njengoba ngisho iqembu eliphetheyo liya engqungqutheleni yalo lapho khona elizobe libheka ingqubomgomo zalo. Lizokubheka nalokhu ukuthi sithini kulo mbandela. Ngiyethemba ukuthi bude buduze nje kuyotholakala ukuthi ikhambi liphi ngoba asikwazi ukuthi singakulungisi lokhu ngoba yikona okuyinxeba elikhulu, elijulile, elidala elifuna ukulungiswa elifuna ukwelashwa – udaba lomhlaba. Kwenziwe lokho ngendlela efunyelwa umthetho kanye noMthethosisekelo. Ngeke sihlale singakulungisi lokhu ngoba kuyohlala kuyisilonda esiyokwenza ukuthi abanye bahlale benezikhalo njalo. Sifisa ukuthi kube khona ukuvumelana uma siluxoxwa lolu daba ngoba akufanele ukuthi luxoxwe ngendluzula. Kufuneka luxoxwe ngesihle ngoba lufuna ukuthi kube khona ukuhlalisana kulo lonke izwe.
Ngiyabonga Somlomo. [Ihlombe.]


Ms D CARTER: Speaker, I just got a little bit lost here. [Laughter.] Oh my word, what have I just done? Sorry, Speaker. Mr Zuma, far from helping to build a new class of black commercial farmers who own their farms that’s advance our rural socioeconomic, the ANC seems to intent on using the apartheid land injustice to bring even more land into state ownership and control. It also means, as per IRR [Inaudible.] that the ANC’s land reform programme is essentially a fraud. In case of black and unemployment and resulting in poverty exaggerates the extent of land hunger and seeks build up anger and racial polarisation around land issue. At the same time, it denies ownership of the redistributed land to black farmers, including those who very much want to operate on a commercial scale. Despite the repeated objections of black farmers, the state land leases and disposal policy adopted in 2013 reaffirms that the land required for redistribution will be leased, but not sold to black farmers.
Now what is your response to be asserting that your aims are not to redress apartheid wrongs counter poverty, but rather to turn only emerging farmers and in time all commercial ones into tenants of the state?



firstly, I think, we should accept the fact that the matter of the land has to be attended to properly with the satisfaction of many. Unfortunately, and of course, I agree responsibly. The fact of the matter is that the only person who could help deal with this matter is the government. If the government, for example is not saying let us take the land by force, but it is saying let us buy the land. This is what we have been doing.
Nobody else can buy the land except the government and the government buys the land to its possession so that it can be properly distributed to the right people.

The issue of ownership and leasing is an issue that is going to be ongoing for quite a while. Again, let us suppose for argument’s sake, you say to black people, they are not going to own the land, they are going to lease it too for ever. You are saying while other South Africans have the right to own the farmers, you because of the colour, you don’t have to. This is a process that is taking us to some place to say you can lease it. Even if you lease it for a longer period, at the moment the leasing that is being proposed is very short. It is part of what


we are doing to deal with this important issue of the land. At some point, we have to settle this land. Every South African, at the right moment, will have a right to own the land. At the moment the people who are given the land don’t have the money that is why it is bought by the government. [Interjections.] Those who owned the land now, they have been gaining profits from the land all the time. Rather than talk about those matters, we are then saying for now lease it so that you can begin to establish yourself as a commercial farmer. I am sure that the issue will arise again, should I lease the land for ever or if I am in a position now to buy the land because I have made use of the farm that I have been given I now have the money. Why can’t I say I now want to negotiate to buy it? That time I don’t think has come, we deal with the problem in the manner in which we are dealing with, it in a fair way and in a very transparent way. So, the matter of the land will have to be resolved finally at the end. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr Zuma, the term radical economic transformation and white monopoly capital are terms that were


invented by Bell Pottinger, a Public Relations firm in London. In fact, they have been shown that these are terms designed to empower a very connected elite at the expense of building an economy that includes black South Africans particularly people in rural communities. Mr President, unemployment in rural communities has, in fact, risen under your presidency. Now, instead of listening to London and Bell Pottinger, surely, it will be to your benefit to listen to rather King Goodwill Zwelithini on what he proposes to empower rural citizens. In fact, he says ... Goodwill Zwelithini says to give South Africans secure title deeds for their own land is the best way to empower them. Will your government support this statement and put programmes to assist or listen to Bell Pottinger? [Applause.]


[Interjections.] ... things that are controversial. You used the words that come from London in the whole speech that you have made now – English. You say other people should not use those words. [ Interjections.] supporting the king ...



ka Sesotho, o reng ha o re ...


... you will support the king.[Interjections. You speak English, you take it from England. [Interjections.] These are the words [Interjections ] radical economic, if it comes from London what you are saying comes from London. Why do you use it if other must not use that language? [Interjections.]


Mayi babo! [Ubuwelewele.]


Mr Maimane, Mr Maimane, we are dealing with the content, not the language. Radical economic transformation means you change the economy from the manner in which they are operating, deal with it in such a way they are able to address the needs of the country for all South Africans. At the moment they are not, you need to be radical to bring that change. [Interjections.] Exactly. This is English just like the English you are speaking.


There is no harm about it. [Interjections.] We speak English unless you want me to say it in Zulu. [Interjections.]

Mr M H HOOSEN: Do you support the king?


government; we have a policy to deal with these matters. We have a policy as the ANC about the land issue and we are dealing with that. I don’t need to support anyone. I need to deal with the policy that is going to make us achieve a particular point. If what the King of the Zulus is saying the land must come back, of course, ... [Interjections.] don’t feed me with your words.
Don’t feed me with your English words from London, please! [Laughter.] Don’t! Once if that settles the problem and that the land should come back, the issue of how it is it’s going to be resolved down the line. At the moment other people in South Africa have title deeds and others don’t have. People for example under the King don’t have title deeds the majority of them. [Interjections.]            No, ...



... musa ukungifunza amazwi mfanakithi. Musa ukungifunza ngimdala uma ngingaka, angiyona ingane angifuni ukufunzwa. [Ubuwelewele.] Musa ukungifunza amazwi! Ngithi iSilo abantu abaphila ngaphansi kwaso iningi labo abanawo amatayitela [title deeds.]. Abanye abantu kodwa abangaphansi kwezwe leSilo banawo ama-title deeds. Bahlukaniswa yini laba bantu. Kungani bangafani? Yiphi into okuyiyona esethubeni elihle phakathi kwalezi zombili. ISilo sikhuluma phansi kwaleso simo ukuthi sicabanga ukuthi akwenzekeni. Asidukile uma sisho njalo. Sizama ukuthi sisombululo sini esizosithola esizokwenza ukuthi abantu baphathe umhlaba ngendlela elinganayo. Ngingathini ukungayeseki leyo nto ngoba umhlba vele awukho. Nalowo mhlaba okhona mncane. Ngingathi ukungayeseki. Usungizwile. Asiphumi eNgilandi lesi engisikhulumayo, siphuma KwaZulu. [Uhleko.] Umageba lo engimshayayo. Ngiyabonga Somlomo.

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: Hon Speaker, hon President regarding the establishment of enterprises and industrial development in the various agricultural value chains such as one hectare, one family programme which currently addresses the subsistence farming needs. Do you, hon President, regard these programmes as


a final means and attempt to emancipate struggling rural communities from migrating from rural areas into towns and cities. What other processes do you have in place to fast-track the revival of agriculture and agro-processing in our rural communities, President? Thank you.


much, hon Speaker. These are the beginnings of tackling the problems that face the rural areas that I have mentioned here. There are not the only solutions. You are aware that in our economic programmes, we are talking about rural economy to be developed. When we talk about rural economy, we are not talking about one garden to a person. We are talking about developing the economy in the rural areas, which will include, among others, the agriculture. This is a part of what we think we need to do, to try igniting economic activities as seen from each kind of household. However, that is not developing the economy in the bigger scale. We are saying there are programmes for us to develop the economy called the rural economy and township economy so that there is an economy. It is not the beginning and the end, its one measure that we are taking as a kind of taking


the first step to make all households to be active and look after it self. That is what we are doing. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Question 10:



The SPEAKER: Mmmm.

UMONGAMELI WASENINGIZIMU AFRIKA: Cha [No] yigama elimnandi elimnandi kabi leli ...


Ms S P KOPANE: On a point of order ...


UMONGAMELI WENINGIZIMU AFRIKA: ... ukuthi uyazitika ngami namhlanje. [Uhleko.]



Ms S P KOPANE: Speaker, on a point of order ...

The SPEAKER: Who is raising a point of order?

Ms S P KOPANE: On this side. I am humbly requesting the President not to call our leader “umfana”[son]. He is not “umfana”[son]. He is an hon member. [Interjections.] Or he can say “the incoming President”.

The SPEAKER: Well, I won’t speak for the President. Hon President.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, yes, government is still intent on pursuing the Nuclear New Build Programme at a pace and scale ...

Ms S P KOPANE: On a point of order, Speaker ... [Interjections.]

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: ... that the country can afford



Ms S P KOPANE: On a point of order ...


the general ...

The SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon President, please take your seat. [Interjections.]


The SPEAKER: Actually, the word, mfanakithi [my brother] in this context, does not mean what you think. [Interjections.]

Ms S P KOPANE: No! He said “umfana wam”[my son]. No!

The SPEAKER: However ...

Ms S P KOPANE: He said “umfana wam”[my son]. No, Madam Speaker!

The SPEAKER: However ... however ... No, don’t get into my mouth. I’m still talking. [Interjections.] I will ask the


President to please, in view of the way the word has been interpreted by the hon member of the DA, to withdraw the word, “umfana”. [son]

Ms M E NKOANA-MASHABANE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, just before you do that ... [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Can I finish with this particular point of order, first, and then we’ll come back to your point of order, hon Nkoana-Mashabane. The hon President?


UMONGAMELI WASENINGIZIMU AFRIKA: Hawu! Ngesizulu, uma usho njalo, awumthuki umuntu kodwa uma ilungu elihloniphekile lingakuthandi lokho, hawu, ngeke ngiliphikise, ngiyalihoxisa, kalula nje. Ehe! [Ihlombe.]


The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. Please proceed with the answer.


The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, government is still intent on pursuing the Nuclear New Build Programme at a pace and scale that the country can afford as part of the general energy mix that we are pursuing in order to ensure energy security for the country. The energy mix also includes hydro, solar, coal, wind and gas.

An HON MEMBER: Hot air!

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: With regard to nuclear, government is committed to a process that is open and transparent, cost-effective and competitive. The transparent approach to the programme will ensure that the risk of any deviation from constitutionally accepted procurement norms is reduced.

It is important to note that the court found fault with the process that was followed, especially in the tabling of the international agreements in preparation for the Nuclear New Build Programme. The judgment does not deal with substantive matters pertaining to the country’s future energy programmes.


The Nuclear New Build Programme is informed by the Nuclear Energy Policy of 2008. This outlines roles and responsibilities for various nuclear organisations and South Africa’s goal to become self-sufficient in all aspects of the use of nuclear technology for peaceful uses. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Speaker, it has become the hallmark of your presidency to deny all involvement in hugely controversial and potentially corrupt matters, only for it to emerge much later that you had, in fact, been intimately involved. This occurred in the Nkandla scandal, where you denied involvement from the beginning, only for it to be found later than you were, in fact, involved. [Interjections.]

So, President, in the same way as in Nkandla, the truth about this nuclear deal will also emerge. Whether it’s via e-mail, or in any other form, it will come out. So, I would like you to put on record for South Africa and the people of this House the following: Will you tell us, Mr President – and I would like you to answer this question carefully – have you or any member of your family received any payment from any person, organisation,


or government agency, both local and foreign - or Russian - related to the nuclear procurement; and if so, what, exactly, are the details? Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, like the hon member’s question - when he asked, he went around – in the first instance, there was nothing that found me involved in the Nkandla matter. So, that is not true, that I denied later, it was found that I was in... I was never. Even the finding that was made stated it was an indirect benefit for the family and me. That’s never ... I ... there was never ... That’s a wrong expression put on the record. Nothing was ever found that I was involved in anything, except that it was my house that was being built. That’s all. That’s involvement. [Interjections.] So, I want to correct that, hon member, because you, in a sense, plant things that are not true.

On your direct question, I know no transaction of anything that you counted involving a member of my fam... I know nothing about it. Nothing! Nothing! Nothing! [Interjections.] I say it now and I will say it in future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Ms B P MABE: Hon Speaker, Mr President, would you agree with me if I were to say that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, clean, and still the most reliable energy mix in terms of turning around the economy and making the lives of our people better? Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interjections.]

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, yes, indeed. It is the cleanest and the most reliable. That’s the reason why, when after 1994, we took the decision to get rid of the weapons – the dangerous weapons that were made out of it – and took a very conscious decision that we are going to use it for peaceful purposes. We are working on the programme of the nuclear - not alone. It’s a mixture of energy kind of resources. Of all of them, it is one of the most reliable, but we are using all of them because our objective is to have sufficient energy for our country.

We are saying this, by the way, also in support of what we presented to the globe in Copenhagen when we said we are going to move away from many of the things we were doing which were polluting the space. This is part of that process. We need it as


much as possible so that we reduce those that pollute the air or the space or the universe. So, it is absolutely important. We can’t delay.

It is one of those that we promised the world. We are going to create a kind of energy that is safe, that is not doing anything. We are actually implementing our decision on this one, partly to deliver on energy and partly to deal with the global need of not polluting the space. So, it is absolutely important that we come with it. That is why I said in my response even the court did not deal with the substantive matter of the importance of this energy. It only dealt with the process - the process that was leading up to a position where we would take a decision about who was the best bidder. Thank you very much.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, hon President, the ACDP has continued to challenge government over many years regarding nuclear policy. We have made it clear that we do not support the building of more nuclear power stations, which would place South Africans under huge financial constraints and affect services and development.


We are, however, particularly concerned with evidence that it will place future generations in dire straits having to deal with the environmental fallout - and we talk about the waste here in terms of some of the terrible tragedies that have occurred with nuclear. Mr President, can you tell us what the thinking was behind Cabinet decisions, in this regard? They go against global trends and do not appear to be based on available information. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, what I’ve been saying here is part of the decision of government. It is not my decision alone. That’s the decision. That’s what we are doing.

For those who are campaigning and saying it will take a lot of money, I think we have said that we will, in a sense, build this within the area of the money that we will have. We are not saying we are going to take all the money and put it there. The critical point is that, once we have completed that programme, it will bring a lot of money into the country. So, it is a one- sided argument to say we will spend a lot of money. As we build, yes, we will have to.


In any business, there is capital that builds the business and the business works hard until it comes to a point where they say it has now reached the even kind of thing – where it is no longer losing anything, and then it begins ...

Mr D J MAYNIER: Breaking even.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: ... yes, breaking even, my friend. Breaking even, my friend. You and I will form a choir. I didn’t tell you because you were not there that day. We will talk when we leave here. You will do the dancing; I will do the singing. [Laughter.] Thank you very much, my friend.

The business will then begin to bring profit. This is what nuclear is going to do. Those who are protesting don’t reach that point. They only deal with the issue of building it. The fact is that afterwards, it will produce and bring dividends and profits for many thousands of years to come ... [Interjections.] That’s what it will be. So, protest, but bear in mind what we are doing with it, otherwise, if we were to follow that logic of the protesters, we would start no business because we would say


building this business will eat a lot of money. No. That is really looking at it in a very short kind of distance.

It is a business that will help bring money and also security and energy to the country. So, we support it. We are working on it. That debate does not go very far. It’s just a protest by people who heard that it creates bombs. We are not creating any bomb. We will never do so with nuclear. It will be used for peaceful purposes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr J A ESTERHUIZEN: Madam Speaker, hon President, while the rest of the world spends billions on technology and is succeeding with innovation to generate affordable, clean energy, our government prefers to spend millions on court cases to defend outdated nuclear energy.

You have just said that it was not your decision alone. However, even your Ministerial Advisory Council on Energy recommends that no new nuclear power capacity is required in South Africa. Is it not true that the largest procurement deal ever in the history of this country was specifically engineered so that Russia could


emerge as the preferred bidder; and other agendas, unknown, have been placed ahead of this country’s best interest? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, it was not meant for Russia to proceed with its agendas, nor was it made for America or France to proceed with their agendas. It was made for no agenda of any country. It is meant for South Africa.

What we do, we want the countries that have all the technology to deal with it. These countries will compete, so that we will see which one is the best. We have not agreed with any country, beforehand. The countries will have to bid. We will have to examine that by our scientists and we will take the decision that will favour the country in all respects that are necessary. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Question 11:


latest report from Statistics SA does indicate that the unemployment rate increased from 26,5% to 27,7% in the first


quarter of 2017, bringing the unemployment rate average to 25,41% for the 2000 to 2017 period.

The key reasons for these trends vary but they are all very much a reflection of the current global economic outlook. Economic growth globally has been very weak since the global financial crisis which started in 2008. This crisis has contributed to increased unemployment not only in South Africa but also in other countries.

There are also domestic factors that have contributed to weak economic growth in our case. These include but are not limited to the impact of the recent drought, which adversely affected the agricultural sector in particular. It is good that this sector is now recovering well. Even when our economy was growing it was not absorbing the large number of young people in particular who are looking for employment.

The government has introduced several measures since 2009 to reignite economic growth and create jobs. These include the National Development Plan, NDP, which outlines several sectors


and measures for taking the South African economy to a higher growth path.

The government also continues with measures to provide support to affected workers during this period. The Department of Labour continues to implement Labour Activation Programmes to support the Unemployment Fund beneficiaries and job seekers. The department, through the Unemployment Insurance Fund, UIF, has paid out more than R5 billion in the form of income support to unemployed contributors as part of social security safety net.
The UIF also undertakes a number of Skills Training Programmes through the Labour Activation Programme to raise the employability prospects of job seekers.

The department also administers the Training Lay-off Scheme, which is designed to assist companies in distress in order to avoid retrenchments. The Unemployment Insurance Fund benefits have also been increased up in order to provide the-much-needed relief on a much more improved scale and scope.


Our industrial policy continues to offer financial and other forms of support to black people as part of our transformation programmes, such as the Black Industrialists Programme. Our competition policy also continues to tackle cartels and the abuse of market power, and to use market inquiries to probe the state of competition in many parts of our economy. We will also be working hard to enter into more effective partnerships with the private sector and to enhance the compacts between business, labour and government.

In the NDP, we set the goal of creating 11 million jobs by 2030. This remains the goal that the government, business, labour and all South Africans must focus on achieving. I thank you Madam Speaker.


Nks F S LOLIWE: Ndiyabulela Mongameli ngempendulo yakho eyanelisayo.



I just want to check hon President; the youth are the hardest hit. Are there any programmes by any chance that are directed at alleviating the unemployment of our youth in South Africa? Thank you. [Interjections.]


yes, there are numerous programmes that focus on the youth and these have been talked about throughout the country and even on the national Youth Day, we spoke a lot about these because we wanted to communicate with the youth that there are programmes and that they must participate in this programmes that seek to address their plight. So, there are definitely programmes.

Some of the programmes are working very well already. With some of the programmes the youth themselves are in leadership in what they do for themselves. We have emphasised that as youth they must participate in shaping the future, which belongs to them.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon President, in fact, the question is incorrect. Truth be told, unemployment in South


Africa hasn’t remained steady, it keeps going up. The reality of it is that today, we are at an all time high as far as unemployment is concerned and young people are the most affected by it.

In truth, Mr President, 65% of young South Africans between the ages 15 to 24 are today unemployed. Worst of all, the only young person who has benefited from your government is your own son.
In fact, I want to quote what you said when you were describing Duduzane: “Duduzane is my only son who deals with money, you must help him.” Now ... [Interjections.] [Laughter.]

Mrs M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: On a point of order!

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: ... I want to hear, on behalf of the other children in South Africa, who are not Duduzane ... [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Please take your seat, hon President and hon Leader of the Opposition! There is a point of order.


Mrs M C C PILANE-MAJAKE: Hon Speaker, I am rising on Rule 88, which is about reflections upon judges and certain other holders of public office. It reads to the extent that it says: No member may reflect upon the competency or integrity of a judge of a superior court - the holder of a public office in a state institution supporting democracy ... [Interjections.] ... You wait ... referred to in section 194 of the Constitution or any other holder of a public office, whose removal from such office is dependent upon a decision of this House. The manner, in which the Leader of the Opposition asks his question, reflects upon the integrity of the President, whose removal from office depends from all of you, who continue to make insinuations upon the office that he occupies. Thank you, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I note the point and I don’t think the point of order should be sustained right now; however, I am not going to take a final decision now. I want to look at Hansard so that I carefully look at what the words of the Leader of the Opposition were. I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue with his point.


The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: ... And I quote: “Duduzane is my only son who deals with money, you must help him.” Mr President, I am here to speak on behalf of the Duduzanes, who are not politically connected – the young people who are unemployed, who are looking for work. Are you willing to concede here and now that your Presidency has only benefited a few and those who are connected to your family rather than the millions of young South Africans who are still without work? Can you concede today that your Presidency has failed South Africa’s youth? [Applause.]


firstly, the unemployment has been growing all over the world. [Interjections.] It is not in South Africa only as a result of global economic meltdown - just to correct that fact. You have asked your question, you can’t ask again. Allow me to answer you, yes. We need to put that correctly because your question implies that it is only in South Africa that has unemployment growing – it is a global problem that has been accepted by the global leaders as a time bomb to everybody else. It is not a South African problem only. It is a problem that faces the world


for a variety of reasons, which we could debate when we have time outside of Parliament.

Secondly, I have never heard that Duduzane’s business has benefited from the government, where I have influenced by saying give him something. [Interjections.] I have never done that. He is involved in business on his own accord. There were circumstances why he had to go do business. He started by working and later became a businessman. Because he is the President’s son, there is no law that says he can’t get involved in business. I deal with many young people who are successful.
If you have never met them, you are an unfortunate South African. You just met Duduzane only? You are a very unfortunate leader. I am sure even in your own party, there are many young people who are involved in business.

There is a situation that has created unemployment. It is not created by Duduzane becoming a businessman. [Interjections.] No, you are saying he is the only one who has succeeded, other haven’t. It’s not true. There many factors. You know some of them, for example, young people who come out of tertiary


institutions, today, if they look for employment with no experience - that then excludes them. It’s not Duduzane. It is the situation we have created. It is complex on as a result of a number of factors we could look at. So, it’s not true. You can’t single out a one young person and victimise them because they are the President’s son. It is not correct. It is unfair.

I have never assisted him on any issue. He is businessman. Whoever he does his business with, is his own business. That cannot be me, who must now answer how he got into business, is it correct? Must the son of a President, if even he has opportunities not take them because he is the son of a President, in order to prove a point? I don’t think that is correct. You are just being funny to a young man, who has gone to school, capacitated himself; he is now in business. [Interjections.] You may have a view of who he is in business with, and that is a different matter. You can discuss that differently. I think you are isolating a young man in South Africa simply because he is a son of a President. I don’t think it is fair. It’s not. He has right to become a businessman in South Africa. If he succeeds ... many other sons of mine aren’t


business people, nut they are my sons. It is very much unfair to this young man. You can’t even produce evidence that I had anything to do with his business. You are just politicising it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr G S RADEBE: Hon Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition


The SPEAKER: Who is calling me?

Mr G S RADEBE: This side, hon Speaker ...

The SPEAKER: Hon member, on what point are you rising?

Mr G S RADEBE: I am rising on this point, hon Speaker.

The SPEAKER: No, hon member, please ... [interjections.]

Mr G S RADEBE: Hon Maimane ...



... unomona ...


... that’s all. He is jealous.


... ibhalwe emehlweni.

USOMLOMO: Hlala phansi qabane.


Ms S J NKOMO: Madam Speaker, hon President, I seem to remember that the former advisor to the President’s office once addressed the same matter where he said that the President said, he must take care of Duduzane and the Guptas. It is out in the media.
Hon President, one of the root causes of the persistent levels of unemployment in our South Africa, noting that we have unemployment in other countries as well is the poor education levels, which creates a mismatch of unskilled labour together with insufficient skilled labour. This taken together with our onerous labour laws continues to create unnecessary barriers to


entry for new market entrants. How do you intend to address these issues? Again, Madam Speaker, it was definitely the former advisor who addressed the Duduzane and Guptas matter. It is known in the media that the President stated that they must be assisted. Thank you.


show me that evidence. Well, of course those factors are important. That is why we have ...


... ilungu lakho elihloniphekile seli semhlanganweni alisalalele noma [or] selilungile [right] ...


... conversations between the government, labour, business and civil society to discuss many of the issues you have referred to as to what can we do address those issues so that we can in a sense address the question labour and creation of jobs. Those are the matters we talk about when we meet. People do have views about many things, for example, business does entertain a view


that the labour laws are very stiff in the country and the workers believe it is not true. In fact, we have labour conditions in South Africa better than what they were before. So, these are matters that relate to the views that come as a result of which space people occupy. These are ongoing matters. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms D CARTER: Mr President, the world recovered from a 2009 economic meltdown and I want to read this to you: “Everyone that has shown expansion, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, even Greece has extended.” The only countries that are in recession is South Africa and Finland. So, you can’t keep on telling us the story. The fact is, Mr Zuma, we are creating insufficient jobs to meet the growing demand. The fact is, according to a new survey, we now have more people on social grants than those employed.
17,1 million unemployed against 15,5 million employed. The fact is, between 1994 and 2015; jobs in the manufacturing and mining industry have decreased by 20% and 18% respectively. The fact is that the key reason why unemployment rate remain relative


constant is because of your unsustainable growth ... [Time expired.] Okay. What do you intend doing about it, Mr President?


do not know where the statistics are coming from. There are more countries that have been downgraded. Don’t show me your cellular phone, because your cellular phone can be fed with numbers, but that’s not the issue. I am telling you that there are more countries that have been downgraded – just to help you, do more research you will get to the truth.

There are numbers of people who are gaining from social grants in South Africa. The reason why they are many is because the majority of people were denied education by apartheid. The numbers of illiterate and semi-illiterate people are more than in any country; that is why there more people who receive grants. It is a historical fact; it is not because the country has failed. The country is still addressing the legacy of wrong policies. That is the reality.


In other countries, everyone can find a job. In this country there are people who cannot find jobs because they don’t have skills because of the old policies. This government had nothing to do with that. In fact, this government is trying to correct that wrong. So, if you check the numbers you will realise the number are because of our history of apartheid. You can’t run away from it. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Question 12:


there is no application before the Constitutional Court for my impeachment. The Constitutional Court today has affirmed the separation of powers and outlined what is to be done in matters of this nature. South Africa is a democratic state where the right to protest and the right to approach the court of law are guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 17 of the Constitution also enshrines the freedom of expression and the right to assembly to demonstrate and protest. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr M P GALO: Speaker, hon President, we all know that you were deployed by the ANC as the head of state. You have repeatedly


informed this House that you were made by the ANC to be the person you are today.          Don’t you think it maybe for the good of the very ANC that groomed you if you step aside now and that the only option you have for you to retain your dignity as the President of the Republic of South Africa is to voluntarily step down without waiting for the ANC to recall you or being removed through the vote of no confidence. Just do it in honour of OR Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Chris Hani, Steve Biko, Solomon Mahlangu and other selfless struggle icons. Thank you.


think the hon member is indeed correct that my political life was made by the ANC and again the ANC elected me to be the President. The day the ANC think I can’t be the President, it will remove me. The ANC has not done so. I can’t do so.

I was not made by anybody else except the ANC nor was I elected to be what I am by anyone but ANC. The ones who are saying this President must go – you were not there you were still in the ANC
- they never put any effort to make me the President. If anything, they worked hard to try to stop it. So don’t worry.


Don’t even worry about anything, just sit in peace and rest. Don’t worry! Absolutely, there is no problem. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr W M MADISHA: Speaker, Mr President what is your response to the South African Council of Churches’ conclusion in the Unburdening Panel’ Report that under your presidency your government has lost its moral legitimacy to govern? And that this 5th Parliament of a democratic South Africa should dissolve and fresh national elections be held to secure a fresh mandate based on acceptable values and on integrity. Alternatively, Mr President, for the sake of the 54 million people of our country you must step down, because the poor people out there, they are not employed and they are poor. For the reason that in your realm there is great deal of corruption. Thank you.


the fact that the government or whatever has lost moral something - that is the view of the hon member. It is not the view of the majority of the 54 million, it is not. The ANC was voted by a huge majority since 1994. That is what it is. What he


said is a creation that is being created in the minds of people like himself because they are an opposition. The poor, oh sorry


... ngiyahoxisa ukuthi ...


... poor. When the hon member was part of the ANC, he did not see what sees now. Once he crossed the line, he then sees something which is imaginary, that the people now do not want the ANC. It’s him who crossed the flow and then began not to love the ANC.           He can talk – I mean, as an opposition, what else do you expect? There is no opposition that praises the ruling party. So, I am not surprised by this. I welcome that you have practiced to be able to criticise the organisation you were ready to die for few years ago. You have changed your mind and you have a right in democracy to do so.

However, do not then think we believe in what you are saying. We don’t believe in it. We have got the support of the people. And


if the people were not supporting us they would have said so, you would not be speaking on their behalf – they haven’t said anything. They haven’t. I have seen you always standing here - hho, hho, hho, hho, hho, hho! And I say thank you. What else can we expect? Opposition, opposition, opposition. Otherwise, people would not vote for you if you don’t do it. You are doing your job and I respect that. Thank you very much.

Dr C P MULDER: Deputy Speaker, hon President, in one of your previous replies just now, you said we should sit back and be happy. I am afraid if you look at the figures in South Africa, people can’t sit back and be happy. In your replies today - on numerous replies with regard to questions and follow up questions, every time - whether it was with regard to unemployment, recession, growth or downgrades, you referred to other countries and things that are happening to other countries.

All I want to say to you is that the citizens of this country do not want to hear about other countries. They want you as the President to give leadership in terms of what we need to do to


get out of the crisis in South Africa. The question I would like to ask you with regard to the question has been asked to you today is the following. The Constitutional Court today indicated that hon Speaker does have a discretion to allow a secret ballot if a motion of no confidence is brought in this House against you in person.

I want to ask the hon President, if such a secret ballot is being brought to this House, would you support the notion of a secret ballot, yes or no? Thank you.


Speaker, firstly, you can’t isolate South Africa from other countries. The global economic meltdown did not start here in South Africa. It was an impact of it having started in the United States of America. When you talk economy today, you can no longer take one country and insulate it away from others.
That is a logical thing that all other countries are going through specific things. You can differentiate because of the conditions, the level at which those kinds of impacts - what percentage do they have? I don’t agree with you that you must


just talk about South Africa only. The meltdown did not start in South Africa.

However, South Africa must therefore do a comparison, so to speak. That is very important. Therefore, in replies, I am dealing with actual facts of what has happened. I just wanted to put that on record. I will never stop doing so because South Africa is not isolated.

With regard to the decision of the Constitutional Court today, it has said, the Speaker has to decide the matter. In the past, how have we dealt with that issue here? I have faced seven kinds of votes of no confidence. How did we vote on all the seven? [Interjections.]

HON MEMBERS: [Laughter.]


Speaker, No, you have tried your best but you have failed. Why do you think we should do it differently this time? You are trying to see whether, you can win on this one or not? What has


gone wrong? Because that is how we have been voting? What is a problem?           My view is that we should do what we have done in the past. I see no convincing reasons why we should change.

If I might therefore say, which one – in a manner in which we have been voting before it has not been secrete and that’s how we have voted.        We have got instruments to vote here – let us use those instruments. You are trying to get a majority you don’t have by saying we should vote using a secret ballot! I think it is not fair, because you are trying to increase the majority you don’t have. That is my view. Let us vote the way we have been voting all the time. It will be the 8th time. I am sure by the time we get to December it will be more than ten.
Maybe, it is your job as the opposition to try and find alternative methods etc. Fact of the matter is that, you don’t have majority. And you are not going to have the majority.

In 2019, the ANC will win once again because you don’t have a majority. That is a problem. You can try, you can do everything
– unfortunately, you can go to court, the court will bring you


back to the legislature, that is what will happen. That is my answer. Thank you very much, hon Speaker.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, Mr President, you said here the last time that the ANC will rule until it - the tragedy is that you have lost four Metropolitan Municipalities. I want to discuss this matter as a matter of fact. The truth of the matter is that more South Africans are losing work under your presidency. The other truth is the fact that our state is now being run by a shadow state and funds are being channelled out or our country. What is also factually true is the fact that unemployment is on a permanent increase, that we have been relegated to junk status under your Presidency. What is factually true is that - in fact, I have issued to the Speaker of the National Assembly proof that you sought through emails and documents to assist in business deals. So, I am not here to say the ANC, who have already – they themselves have come out and say you should step down. I am not asking for an unfair majority.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Maimane, you time has expired.


The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: No, I want to ask a question here

... [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But you must do it within ... [Inaudible.]



The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: ... here it is. Does the President believe he is the best person in the interest of South Africa to lead South Africa or should you not step down now?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Maimane, please in future stay within your allocated time. Don’t add your own time. It becomes unfair on all other speakers here. Go ahead, Mr President.


Speaker, it is absolutely true that the people of this country prefer the ANC to lead them up to this point. There is no doubt about it. [Applause.]




question when you even taken more time, listen to the answer. Otherwise ...


... ngizosuke ngikubize ngomfanakithi bese bayakhala kanti awuyena umfanakithi. [Uhleko.]


The junk state is not for the first time in South Africa and there have been different reasons why it has. It has come and gone. Don’t make it as if it the first time when Zuma is a President. There are specific issues. There is no shadow government. We have a government that is ruling this country. We run it, we take decisions and we have been dealing with matters as appropriately as possible within the capacity given to every other thing. So, don’t mislead the country to think that people don’t want the ANC – led government. They love it! If you don’t love it, there is nothing strange, you are an opposition. If you


love the ANC - I can tell you, they will take you out of that leadership of the DA.

The issue of the Metropolitan Municipalities,         I can tell you - I can tell you. If we went to elections now, you would lose them
... Interjections.] ... No, absolutely. Because, people realise the mistake they have made. And I can tell you, next elections you will never have these Metropolitan Municipalities, never! We can tell you why these Metropolitan Municipalities were tight - because you talk as if you won them with a slide majority - not at all. You had to talk and beg other parties to help you form the municipality. That tells you that it could have been for anyone. You had to do many things not to sleep negotiating to get the parties to be on your side.

In fact, you being threatened by EFF that they may run away and you might find yourself out of it. Because it is a small little co-operation with other parties. Don’t talk as if you won this with overwhelming majority - you can lose it anytime... [Interjections.]




You are actually encouraging us to cause a re-election so that we can take our thing back. Absolutely!

In response to the final question, I think the people of South Africa did not make a mistake by electing me as the President of this country. I am fit and I am doing it very well. Thank you.

Ms D CARTER: Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to know if the President is prepared to accept the challenge. Let’s go for early elections.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, that is not a point of order, thank you.

Question 13:

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Deputy Speaker, the proposed National Social Security Fund, NSSF, will operate as a national fund responsible for administering mandatory contributions from


all workers for the provision of retirement, death and disability benefits.

The proposals are under discussion at the National Economic Development and Labour Council, Nedlac. The fund will serve as a single platform through which all workers can make regular social security contributions while they are still working to avoid falling into poverty in the event of retirement or disability. All income earners will be required to participate, and this will foster social solidarity and the sharing of risks among all workers.

Furthermore, the Fund will provide an income to the dependants of all contributors who happen to die before retirement. The benefits will be defined benefits where benefits are guaranteed in order to protect contributors and foster social solidarity. Those who earn low incomes will be supported through a contribution subsidy to reduce the burden on their disposable income.


The benefit design of the fund is crucial for the protection of vulnerable workers in our country. At present, the existing retirement benefit schemes are based on defined contributions rather than defined benefits. This means that the contributors have no guarantee of how much their benefit will be, and they face the risk of losing their savings in the event of poor market performance.

In contrast, the Fund will carry the risk of poor investment performance on behalf of individual contributors, and thus provide assurance of a guaranteed benefit to all workers and their households. I thank you.


USEKELA SOMLOMO: Sekuyimina manje! [Uhleko.]


angibhekanga ngemuva. Ngiyaxolisa.

USEKELA SOMLOMO: Ubheke eceleni ... ...



Somlomo ngiyaxolisa.


Ms H H MALGAS: Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the hon President for his reply which was much appreciated by us as the ANC and the public within South Africa.    [Interjections.] When it comes to this fund, hon President, it is part of the policy of comprehensive social security that will definitely be a new game changer with far reaching implications on the lives of our people in South Africa, providing the safety net for our vulnerable people and enhancing the lives of our people.

We know when it comes to this framework of comprehensive social security that it cannot be implemented overnight. Now, my follow-up question Mr President will be to you as a head of the
executive and the Cabinet: Has our ANC-led government or Cabinet thought of a preliminary implementation plan for this proposal or introduction ...            [Interjections.]


Mr M WATERS: Deputy Speaker, how long has this Minister going on for?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, hon member, there is a clock here; you have no business to be doing that!

Ms H H MALGAS: Therefore, Mr President has our ANC-led government or Cabinet thought of a preliminary implementation plan for this proposal or introduction of the national social security fund? I thank you, Deputy Speaker.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Deputy Speaker, as I said in my reply: This matter is under discussion at Nedlac. The matters of its implementation will certainly be considered once the conclusions and agreements have been reached on the discussions that are ongoing. Certainly, I am sure they will include the method of implementation of the programme. So, I am sure once it is concluded, there will be a plan on how to implement it. It will come; don’t worry.


The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr President, social security is something that the DA will continue to fight for. In this particular instance - that is why in the recent Budget Vote that took place here in Parliament - the DA proposed increasing the social grants by R4,5 billion. That would be funded by cutting allocations to ministerial jets and VIP security for you and your cabinet. I think it is better for the people.

So, the point is: It is actually entirely affordable to do the right thing for the citizens, and the ANC voted against it. I want to know: Can you explain at least to the people of South Africa, why the ANC chose VIP security instead of R4,5 billion for the people of this country who are most vulnerable?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Firstly, much as I was not in the House, I am sure that the ANC must have had very good reasons to vote against you: Because they are always logical; they always know; they are governing; and they know how these matters are handled. Your proposal is likely not to be informed by what happens in government because you don’t know.


The ANC knows very well why any provision that is in government exists. So, they wouldn’t vote with you when you make propaganda, almost for all kinds of things, like saying: When we are there we will increase everything. So, the ANC could vote on logic, on understanding of what happens in government. I am sure that is why they voted against you.

If your proposal - in the eyes of the ANC - was reasonable and informed by what happens in government, I am sure they would have voted with you –absolutely! [Interjections.] The reason is simple: They voted against you because they realise you are not informed by what is happening in government. That is the reason; simple!

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Deputy Speaker, there is something wrong with my speaker button, so I decided to press another button. [Interjections.] Mr President, allow me to welcome this noble initiative on the social security. Now, hon ... [Interjections.]


Prof N M KHUBISA: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: I see the hon members throwing some gestures to our hon member. What is happening there? Can you rule on that, please? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, please let us be orderly. Let us be in order; the rules don’t allow that. Go ahead, hon member.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: You know, Deputy Speaker, with all the matters that were brought to this House today in terms of the questions: Very little time was spent dealing with the questions; more was on grandstanding. That is what this House is all about. [Applause.] However, like I said Mr President, this initiative is actually welcomed. I think it is long needed by the people of this country.

Could you tell us - especially the farmworkers who have repeatedly suffer due to the alcohol foetal syndrome that they have inherited through the DA farm owners – whether you are going to get these farm owners to buy into this process and pay to this fund ... [Interjections.]


Ms A STEYN: Point of order, Chairperson.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What are you rising on, hon member?

Ms A STEYN: The member is misleading the House. He cannot say that farmers are just owned by the DA. It is members of the country that he is insulting at the moment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, you are politicking. That is not a point of order; you are contesting politics. No, it is not. Go ahead, hon member.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Mr President, would you ensure that farm owners who are responsible for the challenges faced by the communities, especially in the Western Cape – as a result of being paid with alcohol – will contribute to this fund, so that is makes it easier for government to compensate those?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Deputy Speaker, certainly the discussions are not excluding any citizen. The citizens who are in difficulties, like the farmworkers, will be included in the


discussions and indeed those who employ them will have to participate in ensuring that they are giving the salary that they can utilise to pay for these benefits.

So, that matter will be dealt with because we want to change that kind of life and I hope we are still not in that kind of situation where citizens are not earning wages but liquor. I hope you are talking about what used to happen before because if it still exists, then that is a serious matter. Perhaps the discussion might have to concentrate even more on those. We want all citizens, particularly those who work, to benefit from this fund.

It is a matter of must, the time has passed where some citizens were excluded from some programmes. So, that matter will be dealt with certainly. It must include them as well.

Ms S J NKOMO: Deputy Speaker, hon President, we are once again addressing the symptoms and not the causes. The question we should be asking is: Are our current policies proving the poor and most vulnerable with enough opportunities through


developmental programmes to break the circle of poverty and not the dependence on social assistance?

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Deputy Speaker, we are certainly addressing those issues. All our programmes and policies are changing the quality of lives of our people. Therefore, we are in a broader sense and in some details addressing those issues. The very fact that we have a lot of programmes that are skilling our people, capacitating them and making the participants in the economy is part of those programmes. There are many such programmes.

The only issue is that we are dealing with a huge problem that was created by those who were governing the country for many decades if not centuries. We are dealing with it but there are programmes that deal with that, including the issue of social grants. We have been saying that we need to find a way wherein we take those who are healthy but who are in there due to certain circumstances, to capacitate them, so that they can be out of that programme.


We should remain with those who really deserve to be part of the programme. What we cannot do is to say: Today, because a person perhaps can do something but in a sense it is difficult to do so. We are not preparing them because we will be throwing that person into misery. The system is being established as part of dealing with changing their status and their capacity so that they can participate differently in society. There are programmes and a lot of them. Thank very much, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr President. That concludes the Oral Questions.

The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I thought you were going to ask a question my friend. I was going to reply; there is an answer that I have for you but we will talk next time. Thank you very much! [Applause.]

Questions concluded.



The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, before I request the Secretary to read the first order, I would like to remark that earlier on I said that hon Maimane’s time is over and subsequently hon members on my left called on hon Malgas for time. I want to point out that he actually stopped speaking with 14 seconds on the clock which is there and controlled in front of us all.
Hon Maimane went over by 14 seconds and this was his own choice by over stepping the time allocated to him, it had nothing to do with who he is; because the impression given calling on hon Malgas time was suggesting that I had acted unfairly on Mr Maimane. I would like to make it very clear that members must please stay to the allocated time. When we sometimes do allow them to go over, it can’t be over 14 or 15 seconds; it becomes unfair and unreasonable. I hope that we will consistently act in that way.


(Consideration of Bill as amended by NCOP


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, I wish to remind you that on Thursday 15, June 2017 the Decision on the question on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill as amended by the NCOP was postponed. Now that is why it is back here. Are there any objections on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill as amended being passed?

There was no debate.

Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be passed.

Division demanded.

The House divided.

[Take in from Minutes.]

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.



(Consideration of Report of Standing Committee on Finance)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see the name of hon Thandi Tobias here, although I have a different name in front of me. Go ahead hon member!

MS T V TOBIAS: Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, the Financial sector Regulation Bill B 34D of 2015 was passed by the NCOP, subject to the proposed amendments on 25 May 2017, and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. The proposed amendment by the NCOP pertains substantially to three areas: Firstly, the protection of financial customers, in respect to matters that arose during the hearings on the transformation of the financial services sector.

Secondly, the alignment of the powers given in the Bill to enter and inspect premises subject to the Bill, to similar powers assigned in the recently passed Financial Intelligent Sector Amendment Bill B33B of 2015, and lastly, the amendments to


address issues in respect of financial conglomerates that arose during the public hearings on the Insurance Bill.

I want the members to listen to me. On the issue of closing the bank accounts which was raised during the public hearings on the transformation of the financial sector, the NCOP proposed to amend clause 106 of the Bill, to provide for the financial sector conduct authority, with the responsibility to make conduct standards in respect of refusal, withdrawal or closure of a financial product or a financial service by a financial institution. The committee supports these proposed amendments.

The NCOP further proposed amendments to clauses 132, 135, 137,

138 and 140 respectively, to align the powers given in the Bill to enter, inspect or investigate the premises subject to the Bill to similar powers assigned in the recently passed Financial Intelligent Sector Amendment Bill. Whilst the committee supports these proposed amendments, it found that these clauses required fine tuning, to ensure consistency with the Financial Intelligent Sector Amendment Bill. Hence, the committee removed the investigation powers that are given to the investigator.


Hon members, I also want to explain this that, no investigator can enter the premises without getting due authority from the owner of the premises, like they used to do during the apartheid system. They used to just kick the doors and enter the premises without due authority. So, this gives effect to that, that they must first get authorisation from senior officials, including the people who occupy the premises.

The committee further added for the inspections and the investigations that consent to enter private premises must also be given by the person apparently in control of the business, in addition to the occupant. So, you don’t just go there and ask the occupant to enter, you need to also ask the owner of the building to enter. This is the position in the Financial Intelligent Sector Amendment Bill.

Lastly, the grounds of issuing a warrant by the magistrate or the judge were aligned with the similar provision in the Financial Intelligent Sector Amendment Bill. So, we are aligning the Financial Sector Regulation Bill with the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, in respect of the amendments to address


issues of financial conglomerates that arose in the Insurance Bill. The committee supports the proposed amendments of the NCOP to Chapter 12 of the Bill.

These amendments further entrench the rights to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and the procedural fairness provided for, in section 33 of the Constitution and contained in the promotion of the administration of Justice Act of 2000.
There are two issues that the committee could not proceed with, in terms of Rules of Parliament, because they were not related to any amendments made by the NCOP Select Committee.

We also need to be clear on this that, if you want to make amendments to the Bill, you make so to the initial Bill presented. You cannot make amendments that were not made by the NCOP. So, the matters that were raised after, could not be accommodated, hon members. They will have to go to another process for them to be reconsidered.

There are two issues that the committee could not proceed with in terms of the Rules of Parliament, like I said. The cost of


transitional amendments in clause 304 on the additional transitional amendments to insert the new subsection 3 when performing duties or functions in terms of this section, the Minister shall take into account the cost of the implementation to businesses. [Time Expired.] The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since the member was introducing the report and there is no list of speakers, I now recognise the Chief Whip of the Majority Party.

The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Bill, as amended, be passed.

Declaration(s) of vote. IsiZulu:
Mnu R A LEES: Somlomo ... [Ubuwelewele.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members!


Mnu R A LEES: ... hayi, anginankinga, angiwatholanga amazambane ngesidlo sakusihlwa [dinner] bengidla isobho nje.


Hon deputy Speaker, the DA holds the view that the financial sector is a vital part of the economy, not only as the engine that holds the economy to run, but also in terms of its contribution to the economic growth and the creation of jobs. The financial sector contributed 21,6% to the South African Growth Development Plan, GDP, and provided 152 000 extra jobs over the past year. This is the sector that has steadily been growing despite the economic problems encountered over the past eight years.

However, in the last quarter, the financial sector slipped into recession. There is no question that the financial sector must be encouraged to continue to grow. Having said this, we accept that it cannot be a free for all, and that the regulation of the sector is essential in order to protect the interests of the ordinary person in the street, who is vulnerable to the many


sharks and shysters who take any opportunity to steal the hard- earned savings of our people.

We are pleased that the constitutional aspects of the warrantless searches that the DA raised when the Bill was first in the National Assembly, but which were not dealt with, have now been dealt with on these amendments. However, the Bill remains flawed. The first flaw is the exclusion of the National Credit Regulator, NCR, which results in a weak conduct authority for the millions of the South Africans who purchase on credits.

It therefore makes no sense to adopt a twin peaks system and then to allow a third peak or regulatory body to run parallel to it. This is a serious flaw and it is clearly a consequence of a turf war that the Department of Trade and Industry has waged and which the National Treasury has lost. The second is that, the full and comprehensive impact assessment has not been done, and thus the costs of the implementation of the Bill, particularly as these costs that will be passed on to customers, are not fully understood.


The implementation of this Bill without a clear understanding of the potential costs to the economy, and to either the creation of the new jobs or worse the last of more existing jobs in the midst of an economic recession in South Africa, we believe it’s unwise. These costs could ultimately act as inhibitors to financial inclusion and the associated economic wellbeing of the majority of the South Africans.

The DA introduced the amendments that were not able to be included, but would have required the Minister to be obliged, to ensure that the costs of the implementation, as well as the implications for financial inclusion of all the South Africans, were taken into account. The DA amendments that would ensure that the parliamentary oversight over the levies and fees to be charged by the financial regulators was also not incorporated into the Bill. As it stands now, it is the Minister who will now have a limited oversight over the levies and fees to be charged.

Deputy Speaker, this is the first of many Financial Regulation Bills to come. There is a real danger of well intention regulatory agenda being hijacked by the radical economic


transformation agenda. This could easily draw the prudential authority into politics. An easily identified example is the prudential authority’s role in issuing of licenses. This could do an enormous damage, should the reputation and the independence of the SA Reserve Bank.

Deputy speaker, we cannot and must not allow that to happen. The DA will oppose the Bill in its current form. [Applause.]

MS M O MOKAUSE: Deputy Speaker, the EFF would like to place it on record that we do not support the Twin Peaks Bill tabled here today. When we rejected the Twin Peaks Bill in December 2016 when it was tabled here, we thought that some of the issues we raised here will be dealt with in the NCOP. Also, we have hoped that, because we are raising the issues that concern the customers, the ANC will be sensible and do the right thing.
Obviously, it did not.

We also see that all the issues that were raised by the NCOP and what we have raised here remains unresolved, and it will be going to come back in failure to cause serious trouble. We have


raised the importance of NCR and we also raised the importance of dealing with financial crimes comprehensively. The continued existence of the NCR outside the so-called twin peaks, is ill- conceived, but also leaves out a key sector of the financial service.

There is also no guarantee that within the proposed framework of regulation, the customers will be protected, especially when the economy continues to deteriorate and the reckless lending becomes an easy way to high risk and quick returns for the lenders. Furthermore, we have also raised an issue of the Insolvency Act and how in it’s linking; it is with the proposed financial regulation.

The process to sequestrate and declare a person insolvent must be looked into much more thoroughly. But when it comes to the financial crimes, we have much more broader problems that needs strong legislation that is beyond the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, which Zuma has initially refused to sign, to protect his friends, the Guptas.


Otherwise, we will continue to have the Guptas owning companies like Trillian and Regiments, which operates in the returns of financial and transaction advisor with the Financial Service Provider, FSP, number. But all they do is to organise the inflating prices of tenders like they did at Transnet, when the Guptas looted more than R17,2 billion of the South African coffers.

Mr M HLENGWA: Hon Deputy Speaker at the outset we want to say that the financial sector cannot exist in a vacuum. It has to exist within the broader context of society and therefore it must subject to regular assessment and for interventions when necessary to be instituted to ensure that we protect the national interest. So we welcome the amendments by the NCOP and we believe that they seek to amend strengthen that which the Bill sought to achieve and endeavoured to do for South Africa.

We must not pretend as though the matter of the National Credit Regulator is not an issue. And the turf war between Department of Trade and Industry, DTI and National Treasury is unfortunate which must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. However hon


Deputy Speaker that being the case, we must not stop taking steps forward. And we believe that each intervention although it may be piecemeal interventions is necessary for what it is that we want to achieve.

We must not be ignorant to the realities of 2007 which led to the global recession which arose out of reckless lending as we saw in the USA. That being the case hon Deputy Speaker, we must look at the lending patterns and practices of South Africa to protect both the consumers and the economy of South Africa. So we believe that a process must now be started of looking at the issue of National Credit Regulator and for us to ensure that political will is translated into political action. This question cannot be left open ended as we see now.

Hon Deputy Speaker, we also appreciate the fact that this Bill is seeking to be aligned with Federal Insurance Contributions Act, FICA because it is our believe that we cannot have a situation where fraud and corruption and the illicit financial flows and where they are politically connected and where politicians might just got an open freeway of abusing the


system. So it is important that we induce a culture of transparency and for us to be able to nip corruption in the bud and if it means us dealing with the key questions of fronting, then we must be able to do that through this legislation and FICA.

Hon Deputy Speaker, the reported incidences where now consumers themselves are finding challenges with regard to understanding what is going to happen as far as this legislation is concerned, imposes the Bill responsibility now for us to be able to educate consumers so that they may be able to make informed choices and decisions about their financial situations. So hon Deputy Speaker we support this but we want to emphasise that the issue of the National Credit Regulator must be looked at as a matter of urgency. I thank you.

Mr Y I CARRIM: Deputy Speaker, comrades and friends – strictly speaking as I understand it, we should be discussing the amendments that came from the NCOP to us in the second round, not the actual original Bill which we had a long discussion on. But since the issue has risen, I want to deal with some of them


at least. Firstly, I think that – yes its true – the existence of the National Credit Regulator and the new market authority that is proposed is to some extend duplication.

But in the Bill as we explained painstakingly, we have set out very clearly the respective role and let me read you our Report. The first instance we should stress is that this was done co- operatively; the final proposal was done co-operatively between DTI and National Treasury. In fact, the National Credit Regulator representatives were present at almost all the meetings - they were allowed to speak freely so with the DTI representatives. The final proposals in the Bill came from consorted consultation between the two departments.

And we are saying that basically we understand that there are some measures inevitably of duplication but we recognise that the NCR is working reasonably well and at this stage it will be foolhardy of us just to resolve it. Though we don’t rule it out; consultation between the two departments and Cabinet as a whole and the majority party that could happen in the future. What we say for now is that the NCR will be responsible for regulating


the market conduct of credit agreements issued by the banks and non-banks; for example furniture retailers.

The financial sector conduct authority on the other hand will be responsible for regulating a market conduct of displace for other financial services that they may provide. To date, there has been a substantial overlap between various institutions and what this Bill does is that it simplifies it. Yes there is a blurring to some extent between the future conduct authority and the NCR but these matters can be resolved in practise. So it is not a train smash as far as that goes.

Secondly, there is a persistent concern about the cost of this Bill. Now the ANC more than any other party was concerned about to what extend the cost will be borne ultimately by the consumers. And it is not true Mr Lees - I am surprised you say that. There were extensive studies; in fact there they ran into pages and pages and we must confess that your average MP is not able to even read that. We had about at least three sessions if I can recall where we looked at the cost of implementing the Bill. And when you persisted on this, we had yet another input


so I am amazed Mr Lees that you are saying that – maybe it’s that this age that you get to, I hope I don’t get to it – you start losing your memory so fast – this was only last November.

But let me go on to say that we must be really clear, what is the issue here? We cannot afford anymore light touch regulation. We have to have more extensive, intrusive, intensive regulation of the bank – Why? We all know what happened between 2007 and 2008; the global crisis. We know too that the consequences are borne primarily or disproportionately by the lower income earners. We know too that over 90% of the retail banking market is occupied by just four banks. And we know too what consequences it will have for the poor and disadvantaged in a context like ours. So that is why we have this regulation to make the financial system more stable and to protect the customers again primarily the poor and disadvantaged.

The DA’s concern once again - it’s very interesting - every time we have a Bill before this Parliament the tackled monopoly, the DA opposes and yet interestingly the banks themselves have come to terms with it. In fact the banks themselves were concern that


we didn’t vote on this Bill last week which by the way was hilarious.

Let me come to this Chief Whip and Deputy Speaker, firstly last week Wednesday the final version of the Bill did serve before the committee – that’s a fact. Secondly, it is not the Rule in Parliament that you vote on the final version of a Bill. In fact, as it happens this is a D-version and C-version. It is the C-version because it comes back from the NCOP. Since 1994 - let me read to you what the legal advisors from Parliament say; the committee let me know this is the resolution passed by the majority.

The committee is not required to vote on the final versions of the Twin Peaks Bill. Secondly; since 1994 committees have not been required to vote on the D-version of Bills. Thirdly, until the NA rules provides for such voting, the committee will not vote for the D-version of Twin Peaks Bill. Fourthly, committees usually votes on the C-versions of Bills, section 75 Bills refer back by the NCOP and the Standing Committee on Finance acted correctly in doing this with the FSR Bill. Fifth, it terms of


the process adopted until now, the D-version of the Bill cannot be finalised until the committee votes on the C-version. Sixth, the committee believes that the final version of the Bill should be served before the House votes on the Bill. This should happen at least 48 hours before the House votes on the Bill except in the exceptional circumstances we also call later for upgrading the capacity Deputy Speaker of the committee system to do it.

So we are very clear, the final version of the Bill must serve before it comes to the House – agreed. But if you want us to vote in the final version of the Bill, you first have to get us to agree to vote on the amendments so might have to get the Rules changed. Our committee has no problem – change the Rules. We might have to vote twice on a Bill or we agree that we merely check as we must, before the Bill comes to the House that all the amendments have been effected as they should be.

So, we are fine with it but change the Rules. But having gotten to where we have, we want to take this opportunity, actually a much of what the more sensitive part may I add of the EFF said we agree with. And in fact almost everything that the IFP said,


we agree with. So this Bill is a framework Bill for the whole C- D of other Bills that are coming before Parliament to fundamentally overall the financials system and to ensure more
... [Interjections.]

Ms M S KHAWULA: Chairperson, on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, what is your point of order?


Nks M S KHAWULA: Angazi noma usekhohliwe into okumele akhulume [debate] ngayo njengoba sekaphatha izindaba ze-EFF, angasiphapheli la.

USEKELA SIHLALO: Lunga elihloniphekile, musa ukukhomba omunye ngomunwe.


Mr Y I CRRIM: Hon Chair, that’s perfectly reasonable for me to say. Can I end on this note; you can anticipate that because we are tackling monopoly capital that the DA will oppose every


Bill. To the EFF I want to say, yes, maybe this Bill has not gone far enough, but it is also in your policy interest. [Interjections.] It may not have gone far enough but the transformation of the financial sector hearings and the recommendations that flow from that will go a long way towards addressing your concerns as it will be the concerns of the ANC. This is merely the first Bill in a tranche of Bills that are to come to fundamentally alter the financial sector which is crucial to radical economic transformation. That radical economic transformation benefits not the elites but the poor and disadvantaged as it should. Thank you very much. [Time Expired.] [Applause.]

Debate concluded

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).

Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.

The House adjourned at 17:00.