Hansard: NA: Unrevised Hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 05 Dec 2023


No summary available.



Watch video here: Plenary 

The House met at 10:00.

The House Chairperson, Mr M L D Ntombela, took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.





Ms R M M LESOMA: Hon House Chair, fellow South Africans, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, the Committee on Financial Management of Parliament, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the Presiding Officers, I greet you all. We hereby stand before you to table three reports in one on behalf of the joint standing committee, which we are looking at and presenting. We will only walk through the recommendations that we are tabling for the 2022-23 annual report, the annual report on the Parliamentary Budget Office, as well as the Draft Annual Report 2024-25 Performance Plan, which was adopted by the committee in November and in September.

We urge and plead as we table this report for the consideration of the National Assembly for consideration and adoption thereof. The committee recommends that the executive authority should ensure and periodically do oversight in terms of the feedback as it appears before us. Our recommendation on the first report is that they should give us a progress report within 30 days upon the adoption of this report having equally been adopted in the NCOP as the Parliament, as it were.
The revised framework that has been provided or taken through the committee should be a thorough and a clear milestone breakdown of the resources required to ensure that the administration is able to successfully implement the revised reporting framework, which will then quantify and scientifically measure the performance of the institution. The committee further recommends that the filling of vacancies, which was an issue at the committee, starting from the administrative head of Parliament to all other critical senior management committees, must be filled with speed but without short cutting the processes that are expected in the HR protocols.

We further recommend that the broadcasting strategy that has been presented before us should also develop an existing legislative framework that will empower it to be programmatic and should be developed and reviewed by the broadcasting in line with the Public Broadcasting Bill that should be finalised by that time so that South Africans are able to watch Parliament proceedings on a non-paying system or channel unlike it is now with channel 108.

In terms of the second report, we further recommend that the EA, which is according to the periodical accounting, issues
oversight - notwithstanding that this committee must also embark on a physical oversight where we can also feel and touch the work that is done rather than just dealing with this desktop soft issues at work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, PBO, should consider measuring the satisfaction and perception of Members of Parliament in the same way that the non- financial performance of Parliament was measured to ensure that Members are satisfied. Not only members because members are doing the work on behalf of the electorate of South Africans as a whole, which is very important.

They must also provide us periodically with a detailed report on the role and responsibilities of the PBO advisory panel, the matters of governance and concerns brought to its attention and its efforts to have these resolved.

We must say, fellow South Africans, that the PBO when it was established ... but it also needs a legislative framework that it operates within and also ensure that there are predetermined objectives that are measurable and value added when the Auditor-General audits the department and entities also look at the value for money, not only the financial compliance as it were.
We are noting that the PBO is not well resourced, however, moving forward we will ensure that the executive authority takes to account to that.

The last one is that the transformational performance we are recommending on that one, that subheading that they must provide us a quarterly progress report as far as the achievements and targets related to transformation aspects, noting that transformation is not about only the human capital that you invest or acquire, but also the way you conduct and execute your business must also talk to that in terms of the
... [Inaudible.] ... and policies and systems in place must be transformative so that you are able then to respond to the current material conditions, as it were.

The oversight priority model must also be looked at and we recommend and will include it in the ... [Inaudible.] ... report that the Sixth and Seventh Parliament must look at that, that the country must ... the indicator dashboard to measure progress towards the achievement of the National Development Plan, NDP, goals and strategy towards improving public trust and confidence in Parliament. When there are public hearings or community engagements or stakeholder engagements must be done thoroughly so that there’s value for
money in terms of the input as well as the administrative processes, as it were ... [Time expired.] We are hereby tabling the report to the House for consideration and adoption. Thank you very much, hon Chair.


Chairperson, I move that the reports be adopted.


Declarations of Vote:
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: The role of this committee must never be overstated. It is the watchdog over the work and the budget of the national legislature, and that is why it is incredibly concerning when this committee falls short of this task. The oversight work of the committee should be the standard that we set of how we are meant to be holding the work of government to account. A joint committee, which has extensive powers that does not hold the executive authority of Parliament to account as it should, is a shame. There are several issues which ought to have been dealt with by this committee this year. The most crucial thing the reconstruction and the rebuilding of Parliament, which has taken nearly two years to have any meaningful progress. This is not only an expensive undertaking, but it requires the committee to work seriously to demand regular updates, and this is why it is
important that we recognize that the Houses of Parliament that were engulfed by the fire do not belong to us, but they belong to the people of South Africa. While we wait for the rebuilding projects to be completed, Parliament must find ways to get back to work fully. It has been the DA that has consistently called for the resumption of the business of Parliament and even in the financially constrained environment, we can never accept the throttling of Parliament’s work. More importantly, we can never leave the public behind. This is why we call for the temporary housing of Parliament so that we can have the full complement of Members of Parliament’s back at work and open the doors of this institution to the public once again. People must be able to access their Parliament, attend its sittings, and observe the work of its committees. This is a constitutionally protected right for its citizens.

Over and above the regular financial performance updates from Parliament’s executives, the committee ought to also respond to issues which arise pertaining to the finances of Parliament. Recently, it was alleged and later confirmed by Parliament itself that the salary of the Secretary to Parliament is not what the speaker and the NCOP Chair claimed it to be. When the Secretary to Parliament was appointed over
a year ago, we were assured that the R2,6 million salary package that was advertised would be the final offer that would be made by this institution. Yet it has been revealed that the Secretary to Parliament now earns over R4 million a year, a fact which was concealed by the Speaker and the NCOP Chair. Financial reports and documents that have been made public revealed that this House is likely to have been misled, not only is there an inexplicable salary hike, but this was also done in absolute secret and backdated to when the Secretary to Parliament’s contract began. This is the committee that should be demanding answers from the Speaker and the NCOP Chair. The DA has made numerous requests for the full facts around this matter because we know that misleading Parliament is an incredibly serious offence. If indeed the Speaker and the NCOP Chair are guilty, then we ought to have found out through the accountability mechanisms of this committee. As usual, the members on this side of the House and the committee will be quick to shut down questions and slow to act when it comes to accountability. But I have news for you. We are not going to let this matter go. Not a single cent of public money should be spent without the knowledge of those who are meant to hold the executive authority of Parliament to account. We must do better with public finances. These accountability mechanisms are there for a reason. Parliament
has often been found wanting throughout this entire Sixth Term in terms of the oversight role that it plays. If we cannot hold the arm of the legislature head accountable, how do we expect to hold government accountable for its work? We must do better. We must be better. We owe that much to the people who elected us to office.

Ms O M C MAOTWE: House Chair, the EFF rejects the report tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on Financial Management of Parliament. The sitting of this Parliament today, including committee sittings, committee meetings, and public participation are broadcasted on DStv channel 408 - a pay to view channel - instead of the SA Broadcasting Corporation, SABC. It means we are using Parliament, an institution that is supposed to be the most accessible and the epicentre of South African participatory democracy to market and advertise MultiChoice of Koos Bekker, instead of encouraging people to pay TV licences and watch their Parliament on an SABC channel.

We are told that there is a contractor appointed to fix Parliament after it burnt down. It is now clear that there is no political will to move Parliament to the City of Tshwane even when there is a cost benefit analysis study paid for by Parliament which shows that such a move will benefit both the
public purse, the people, and the state. Why is the ANC hell- bent on holding onto an apartheid relic? Why such a rush to restore Parliament, spending billions of rands instead of building a new Parliament in Tshwane - a peoples Parliament. We are not told about the timeframes, the amount of the contract awarded, or how much has been spent thus far.
Instead, the new Secretary to Parliament is busy presenting a new strategy. A new strategy is less than eight months before we get a new Parliament executive that will not be formed by an ANC majority. We are going to implement a different strategy to make these peoples Parliament instead of some elite arrangement here in Cape Town. It is nothing but a looting scheme.

The people of South Africa want to know: Did Parliament increase the salary of the Secretary to Parliament, by how much? Who authorised it, and when? We do not want to hear stories that the matter is before some elite committee of Parliament, we want answers. Finally, we want to know because that money could have been used for other important measures. We have been calling for Parliament to build capacity for language services and legal support to ensure that all languages are allocated appropriate resources and Members of Parliament can receive the needed assistance to draft Private
Members’ Bills, but no, you take the money and give it to one man. We reject this report, House Chair. I thank you.

Mr N SINGH: Hon Chairperson, I am just going to follow my two colleagues in saying that they have adequately canvassed ... [Interjections.] ... I need injury time. They have adequately canvassed the issue of the salary package of the Secretary of Parliament, and this House deserves a response to that. And the second issue that they have adequately canvassed is the issue of a more permanent venue for the Seventh Parliament as we move towards it next year. I do not think we should expect new Members of Parliament to come here and wait until 2026 for all 400 of them to be seated in Parliament. So, they must do something. Where we are is not suitable, hon Papo, and the new parliamentarians deserve better. I understand, and we accept that the secretariat is doing something about it and that they will be providing us with a report which will be considered by the various bodies that are responsible for accommodation. We look forward to the report sooner rather than later.

Having said that, hon Chairperson, in this Sixth Parliament, this institution identified only two strategic priorities and we approved them. One was strengthening oversight; the other was enhancing public participation in parliamentary
activities. I must say we fell short in both these areas. A system of participatory democracy is one in which the people and institutions must be allowed to participate in the process of making decisions that affect them, whether it is looking at Bills or here in Parliament. If we look at the court findings in this regard on SA Veterinary Association versus the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court held that, and I quote:

Democracies the world over varies in form and tradition. However, they share that common foundational value of government by the people.

They ruled against us. In Doctors of Life International versus the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Constitutional Court also referred to public participation and ruled against us as Parliament. More recently, and our committee and the Committee on Environment considered this, was a SA Iron and Steel Institute versus the Speaker of the National Assembly, and the Constitutional Court held that Parliament was duty bound to facilitate public participation and not amend legislation when it goes to the NCOP without going back to the public. We have now been asked to relook at the legislation. So, these are matters that we need to look at as we move forward – the
issues of public participation. Very quickly on the question of questions. Hon Chairperson, we have questions unanswered from February this year. That is my party and I think all the parties will say the same. We cannot have questions unanswered, and we are told that on 9th January they will expire. What is the point of us submitting all these hundreds of questions without getting answers. The last thing we must look at in Parliament is the question of information technology, IT. The IT department is under capacitated. There is one or two people that are required to do all the work. We must ask them for the work, and they are very obliging. But let us do something about ensuring that that IT section of ours is capacitated and we ... [Time expired.] ... We will support this support. Thank you, Chair.

Mr S N SWART: House Chair, the ACDP would like to commend the executive authority and all staff on the unqualified audit outcome with no material findings which Parliament has sustained for the past nine years, and this despite many challenges facing the institution. We do note, however, that there will be a R200 million budget reduction that was announced in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, and this will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the core business
of Parliament, and we need to be briefed how the institution will absorb this budget production.

The ACDP also shares the concerns that in the same manner as government departments, Parliament is reliant on the executive
... [Inaudible.] ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Excuse me, hon Swart. Hon Mathole, please mute.

Mr S N SWART: ... The ACDP shares the concern about the way in which Parliament is funded in the same way as government departments. This is the same problem faced by the judiciary and the slow progress in negotiations with the Minister of Finance on funding appropriate to Parliament remains a major concern. We also share the concerns about Mr George’s salary and await answers on this.

Chairperson, given the funding constraints, one of the issues we need to consider is our oversight. Our oversight of the executive, and we can clearly improve our oversight.

Sufficient and significant efficiency in oversight refers to the functions of Parliament in terms of Section 231 of the Constitution. And while the negotiation and signing of international agreements is the responsibility of the executive, international agreements that relate to specific issues must be ratified by this Parliament. And in my experience, Parliament signs these agreements and they only come to Parliament a few years later. Only then do we have a say in these agreements. An example of this is the upcoming 2022 changes to international health regulations currently being negotiated by the World Health Organization. These treaties will have far-reaching implications on the sovereignty of states when it comes to global health issues. The ACDP and other parties have raised concerns in Parliament about this issue and following the parliamentary question, we were given the assurance that the pandemic treaty would be brought to Parliament for ratification. But it is not clear about these amendments to the international health regulations. This is extremely concerning given the far- reaching implications of those amendments. And I would urge every parliamentarian to look at this.

That is why the ACDP and other parliaments around the world, and I know that hon Shaik-Emam of the NFP has also raised formal objections to the World Health Organization on this matter, and we trust that this aspect will be given more
urgent attention by Parliament in the exercise of its oversight role. I thank you.

Mr N L S KWANKWA: House Chair, Parliament has as its vision to be one of the leading activists and responsive people’s Parliament that improves the quality of life of South Africans and ensures quality in our society. However, a lot still has to be done by this Parliament to ensure participation and the involvement of ordinary South Africans, especially those ... [Inaudible.] ... often when it comes to committees such as finance. What happens is a select few nongovernmental organisations, NGOs, which are funded by the West, which always seek to influence, even participate in budgetary process and the law-making process that takes place especially in the finance cluster.

We have to open it up to make it possible for ordinary South Africans to be able to make submissions orally and encourage them to come and influence the law-making process. It’s important... [Interjections.] ...


... ukhona lo mntu ungxolayo tata.

... I can’t speak now.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Just hold on. Hon Candice, could you please mute. Hon members, please take care of your gadgets.


Qhubeka Mnumzane.

Mr N L S KWANKWA: ... Thank you ever so much. House Chair, it’s also important that the issue that sent us around the remuneration of the Secretary to Parliament is resolved and that the executive authority or Parliament deals with this matter very transparently so that there can be proper accountability for it.

It’s also important for Parliament as an institution to form what we saw in Ireland. Ireland and EU country have a Portfolio Committee on EU Affairs in addition to having a Committee on International relations. Because they prioritize the EU bloc over and above for example, in the general international relations.
In other words, since we are members of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, BRICS, in order to help Parliament to process resolutions and decisions that are taken at BRICS level, especially the BRICS Parliamentary Forum. It is perhaps important for this Parliament to establish a committee on BRICS affairs, something along those lines, so that this Parliament is not left behind by the decisions that are taken at BRICS and are able to cascade them to the relevant departments.

The other issue which has been of concern for us for a long time has been this issue where Parliament must go with a begging bowl to National Treasury, to an executive member of government, which is a Minister asking for funding, instead of Parliament being treated like a different arm of the state, where representations for its funding should probably be made to the head of state rather than to Ministers in order to respect the seniority and the independence of Parliament as an institution.

There needs to be better communication. We have droisd the ball in so far as being able to produce magazines and communication about the constituency work that Members of Parliament are doing around the country. That was important to
be able to keep track of where the other parties are keeping up with their commitment to service communities and to also share ideas about how creative and the extent to which different Members of Parliament in our Parliament are able to service their constituencies.

There also needs to be proper checks and balances put in place to ensure that the constituency offices which are opened around the country, serve the purpose for which they were opened and not that they are serving as branch offices or regional offices of political parties. Thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon House Chairperson, the National Freedom Party will support the report presented here today. Allow me also to draw your attention to the fact that a housing complex in Churches was blown up by the Zionist state of Israel, causing many casualties. And yet here we have people behaving like a Judas. Let me begin by congratulating Parliament for the services it provides and makes available to us. I would like to say that the members’ facility provides an excellent service... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Please proceed.
Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: ... I would like to commend the members’ facility, the legal services and many other of our structures in Parliament for the services they provide, and in the very short term, I must admit. I hear some of my colleagues complaining about the Secretary to Parliament earning R4 million, but why is no one complaining about the chief executives, the CEOs, in this country earning R500, 000 a day? I repeat, R500,000 a day while their workers are starving, and we are talking about a R4 million a year. Do members of Parliament realize that what you earn, together with your benefits, you earn about R2 million a year? Do the math and see how much that adds up to in my opinion, the R4 million is justified for the quality of service we receive from our current Secretary to Parliament. So, I don’t think we should complain about that.

But let us go out there and address the issue of how company’s CEOs can earn R500,000 a day and we think it’s okay while your staff are hungry. Nobody is caring about those people. Why shouldn’t that money be redirected so people can earn a better salary and a better wage?

The next question I would like to ask, Chairperson is that Parliament is in Cape Town. I think we need an estimate of
exactly how much it costs us to travel from Pretoria. You have Ministerial offices, staff, cars and everything there. They have all these staff from all ... [Inaudible.] ... flying to be interviewed here, to be interrogated here and fly back with accommodation and everything. Does that make financial sense? No, it doesn’t. Can we rethink this so that we can save taxpayers’ money? Nobody will say anything about it. But let me ask you another thing, why is nobody raising anything here about constituency funds? Why nobody wants to say let’s have an independent auditor to audit and make sure not a single sent spent by the parties.

Chairperson, I raised this in the Joint Standing Committee once, not a single party stood up and said yes, you are correct, let’s do that. The money is being used by political parties, at the expense of the parliamentarian. And that’s why they can’t perform constituency services. Thank you very much.

Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Chairperson, members of this August House and the people of the Republic of South Africa good morning. Today, we are presenting the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Financial Management of Parliament, which plays a pivotal role on the oversight of Vote 2 Parliament, which is the arm of the state.
Over the years, the committee has advanced various budget recommendations to strengthen the capacity and the capability of Parliament as an institution. This is critical for Parliament to execute its constitutional mandate as the tribune of the people.

We welcome the unqualified outcome without material findings that the institution has received over the past nine financial years. Parliament has led by example, ensuring prudent financial management and good governance. For an institution to function optimally, it must have sufficient human resource capacity, and the appointment of key senior officials such as the Secretary to Parliament, the Chief Financial Officer and the Head of the Parliamentary Protection Service has done much to stabilise Parliament’s human resources. Very importantly, however, when Mr George took office, Parliament further improved its services to citizens. Just as with the question of the financial statement, which I have already mentioned, this has been achieved.

We can also talk about the issue of Parliament’s performance plan. It is very important to mention that it differs from the previous system of ticking boxes, as it now includes an impact assessment. This means that when the performance plan is introduced, it assesses what the National Development Plan, NDP, has done, which stipulates that we must tackle unemployment, poverty and inequality by 2030. Parliament’s performance plan is aligned with this.

One of the crucial areas we have focused on is public participation, which is a central tenet of our constitutional democracy. The Freedom Charter enshrined this precept in its first laws, namely that the people should govern. As a Parliament of the people, the mechanisms and approaches to public participation should ensure that people from all walks of life have the opportunity to make their voices heard in the parliamentary decision-making process. However, this parliamentary process, which requires public participation, does not mean that everyone who makes a proposal in the public hearing must accept it.

It is therefore very important that Business Unity South Africa, Busa, was able to petition the Deputy President of the Republic, Hon Mashatile, last week. It was also able to point out to NCOP Chairperson hon Masondo that there is still a little problem on the issue of National Health Insurance, NHI. After all, this is the people’s Parliament. The order that should have been in the NCOP last week Thursday was stopped so
that the offices concerned can deal with these people because we believe that Parliament as the tribune of the people, it listens. That’s why it was stopped. So that does not mean that we are going to remove the NHI Bill from the agenda of Parliament because it is a mandate that the people have given to the ANC itself. So, we cannot shift that responsibility.

What is also very important here, another major area that enhances Parliament’s work is the communication strategy. The work of Parliament is the public and through various mediums of communication, it also increases the work of Parliament proceedings increase access to information on the work of Parliament, the power of Parliament lies in its ability to ensure that Parliament is indeed, the tribune of the people.

We have noted and welcomed the finalization of the institutional broadcasting strategy, which is dependent on the finalization of the South African Broadcasting Corporation Bill. Since hon McGluwa raised this issue, there is already a strategy that has been adopted by the latter. We are just waiting for the Portfolio Committee on Communications to complete its work. But what is very important here is that Parliament has successfully adapted to the changed conditions caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the tragic fire that burned the Parliament building.

It is very unfair that the hon Gwarube would come here and says that people do not have access to Parliament. Parliament is functional. Since 2020, when there was the coronavirus, we have adopted the rules under which we work with the hybrid system. The hybrid system means that people from the public have access to it. So, Parliament is functioning, the hybrid system is functioning... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Radebe, hold on for just a minute. Hon members, let us not drown the speaker. Please don’t drown the speaker. If the speaker flies high, please fly low so that we complete the business of the day.

Mr B A RADEBE: ... Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Gwarube raised the issue of the burning of the Parliament building that it has affected the work of Parliament. Of course, it has affected the work of Parliament. Crucially, however, we cannot simply say we are building a modular structure to rebuild Parliament when the cost of the structure is almost as high as the cost of rebuilding the Parliament building. We have to be financially prudent here, that’s why we have the hybrid platform. Even the private sector is still working with the hybrid system. So, Parliament is working, and it is delivering the Bills as it should. But what is very important here is that when it comes to the issue of restoring Parliament, as the saying goes, “Every cloud there is a silver lining.”

We have an opportunity here to rebuild Parliament so that it can reflect the norms and standards of the African continent. Hence, we commend the Secretary to Parliament for convening the public participation process with this work of reconstructing Parliament where the entire public is able to give input on what kind of Parliament, they want. What is better than that, Mr Masipa? The issue of Parliament determining the type of ... [Inaudible.] ... of infrastructure that. We are going to have an African Parliament and the Secretary of Parliament has done a good job.

Chair, it is also very important that on the day you commemorate the death of Nelson Mandela, we as Members of this Parliament must learn that this Parliament did not come into being without the sacrifices of the South African people. So, everything we do here must reflect the sacrifice of people like ubaba uTambo... [Time Expired.]
Question put.


Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.



There was no debate.



Chairperson, I move:


That the Report be adopted.


Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party, Freedom Front Plus, African Christian Democratic Party, National Freedom Party and African National Congress.

Declarations of vote:

Ms A M M WEBER: The responsibility of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment is to ensure that the environment of South Africa is protected. In 2019, the Auditor-General handed the department to qualified audit opinion, which is about audit. In 2023, for the first time, the department has received an unqualified audit opinion, did the agency to comply become a paper exercise. While the department has improved greatly in reaching the set targets and an expenditure of 98% of the appropriate budget, it is of great concern that there is no visible improvement of activities on the ground. The goal posts have been moved
continuously ... [Inaudible.] ... change. Targets reduced from

149 to 78 and some critical targets removed, which gives the impression of improvement when in actuality there is none.

In 2019, most of the 138 monitoring stations were inactive due to vandalism. In 2023, they have only 15 monitoring stations, of which only four are active due to load shedding. Without proper monitoring of the toxic air emissions, how do we measure South Africa’s contribution to combat climate change. SA National Parks, SANParks, from the dismissal of the chief executive officer, CEO, costing us over R25 million to 84 ranger vacancies not being filled, which increased poaching.
Is the target set against the appropriate outcome? No, the target for rhino poaching should be zero not 125.
The noncompliance which legislation by mines and industry is destroying our natural wetlands and biodiversity through acid mine, drainage and chemicals reaching the target of zero waste to landfill site is only a whisper. The pollution of diapers, plastic sewage and invasive plants are destroying our waterways and access to drinking water.

In 2018, 90 learners received bursaries to study to become an environmental science technician, but their studies were cancelled due to lack of funds. The department proudly exceeds their target of issuing 100 bursaries. The concern is whether the learners will be able to complete their course. Maybe the targets should be measured on actual graduates. The fight to protect our environment will not realise, and lesser targets and outcomes are aligned to produce a positive result on the ground. Thank you.

Mr M N PAULSEN: House Chairperson, we reject this report because we have made a commitment to serve the poor and working-class people by holding this ANC government to account. In the 2021-22 financial year, the department had 134 targets for the first quarter and achieved 94 of those targets, making it 70%. In the 2022-23 financial year, the number of targets was reduced to 70 and the department achieved 53 of those targets, making it 76%. If the 53 out of 134, this department would have achieved less than 40%. In the 2023-24 financial year, the number of targets was further reduced to 60 and the department achieved 51 of those targets. If that 51 was out of 134, this department would have achieved 38% of its targets. That’s what the ANC is, under achievers.

The department had a target of 30% for procuring goods and services from companies that are owned by 51% owned women. This target has been removed as part of the socioeconomic transformation and empowerment of previously disadvantaged community. House Chairperson, can you please stop the noise there?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Let’s proceed, hon member.

Mr M N PAULSEN: Protect me. Protect me from the ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I’ll take care of

that, hon member, please proceed.
Mr M N PAULSEN: Why is this department and this ANC-led government abandon black ... [Interjections.]

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: On a point of order, House Chair. I really didn’t want to disturb my member, but really it can’t continue. I’m signalling to you, and you are just allowing it to continue. Therefore, if that is how they want the House to continue, we can also howl, and we will do that. I’ve been signalling to you ... [Interjections.] ... just keep quiet I’m not talking to you. I’m not talking to you, keep quiet.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, please address me.

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: If you continue, we will also do that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you very much. Your concern is noted, hon member. Please proceed, hon Paulsen.

Mr W T LETSIE: He has no points to make.


Mr M N PAULSEN: House Chairperson, the fishnet pattern on this Palestinian café symbolises the relationship between
Palestinians and the Mediterranean Sea. As you will know, the Zionist entity has Israel, the Mediterranean Sea and Palestinians can no longer fish in that sea. The ANC government has done the very same to our indigenous fishers. They’ve Israel the oceans and given it almost exclusively to their friends who have monopolised their oceans. Voters have the power to peacefully remove this ANC when it goes to the polls next year and elect the EFF, the only party that cares about the poor, about women, and about indigenous South Africans. You mustn’t be scared of the white people ... [Inaudible] ... the EFF ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulse! Hon Paulse! Hon Paulse!

Mr M N PAULSEN: ... [Inaudible] ... we fear fokol, especially
... [Inaudible] ... white people.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulsen! Hon Paulsen! Hon Paulsen, could you please just a second. Hon Paulsen, don’t accuse me on things and scared, I’m not scared of you as well. No, don’t. Please don’t do that. Address the House. Hon Paulsen, please. Please address the House, I will take care of the decorum. I will take care of the decorum. A
point has been raised about the noise. I have repeatedly requested members to pipe down, so please no one is scared of anyone. So please, Mr Paulsen, your time is up. Thank you very much.

Mr M N PAULSEN: ... [Inaudible.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you very much, hon Paulsen.

Mr W T LETSIE: Why are you so always angry?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): That is not necessary. Hon members! Hon members, please. Hon members! Hon members, can I make a humble plea to you. Can we all be responsible for the decorum of the House and allow the debate to flow freely and uninterrupted. And what strikes me funny is that after all the chaos then the member leaves the podium with a smile. Then I don’t understand ... [Inaudible.] ... So please let’s ... it means we can proceed with this debate without all the animosity conflict, please. The IFP.

Mr N SINGH: House Chair, let me say with the smile to hon Paulsen, what goes around comes around. However, you did
apologise but thank you very much ... [Inaudible.] ... suggests an improvement in audit findings and the fact that the department did not incur any unauthorised expenditure during the year and the review must be commended. We note that the iSimangaliso Wetland Park corrected all causes of findings that were identified in 2021-22, and ... [Inaudible.] ... remains a cause of concern with repeated findings. Although hon Paulsen spoke about the targets, we note that the targets were not met, targets were reduced, and this is something that we must not accept in the future.

While financial audits are extremely important, it’s more important to have performance audits and departments set targets, and in many instances, you find that the monies are all spent but the targets are not met. Therefore, one can’t reconcile that. If you meet your targets, you spend your money, but you spend your money and you don’t meet your targets, which means there’s something wrong there. The climate change, air quality and sustainable development branch initially as an example, set 18 targets which were scaled down to eight. Then eventually they only achieved 63% of the eight. Now, that’s certainly not acceptable, given that climate change is upon us, and this must receive high priority and attention.
We implore SANParks and the department to ensure that they’re greater security measures to prevent crime that is spiralling out of control in our national parks, particularly Table Mountain National Park where there has been rising number of criminal activities. All our prime tourism destination must give visitors the comfort, knowing that their safety is ensured. Going to Durban, we find that headlines in the newspaper Durban holiday water blues, erratic state of beaches are red flag for tourism, and here is where the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment should be intervening and seeing how they can assist local government. We will support this report with those concerns. Thank you.


Me T BREEDT: Huisvoorsitter, oor die algemeen het die departement en sy entiteite beter in hul oudituitkomste as in die vorige jaar presteer. Almal, behalwe SANParke. SANParke het ’n ongekwalifiseerde oudit met bevindinge en daar is onder andere ’n te kort aan voldoening en gevolgebestuur.

Daar is verder kommer uitgespreek dat daar nie besonderhede oor die poligraaftoetse, wat op amptenare van SANParke gedoen is aan die komitee verskaf is nie. Die komitee was ook bekommerd oor die hoë mortaliteit van renosters, veral in die
Kruger Nasionale Park, wat direk as gevolg van stropery is. Ook was hul bekommerd oor interne korrupsie, bedrog, en georganiseerde misdaad, bo en behalwe stropery.

In gesprekke met rolspelers en organisasies in die industrie en met spesifieke verwysing na die Kruger Nasionale Park, is daar meer kommer wat ontstaan. Daar is gemerk dat kampe agteruitgaan; die toiletgeriewe in ’n swak toestand is of totaal afwesig is by sekere uitkykpunte, hides [wegsteekplekke] en ver afgeleë plekke; toiletgeriewe vir gestremdes meestal afwesig is; daar ’n gevaarlike rioolsituasie by die Afsaal-piekniekplek is; en dat daar heel waarskynlik riool in die riviere ...

Mr M A TSEKI: Order, Chairperson?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Excuse me hon member. Please take your seat, there is a point of order. What’s your point of order hon member? Hon Tseki, what is your point of order?


Leloko le qhwetswe?

Okay, you may proceed hon member. You may proceed.


Me T BREEDT: Daar is ’n gevaarlike rioolsituasie by die Afsaal-piekniekplek en dat daar heel waarskynlik riool wat in die riviere ook inloop, as gevolg daarvan.

Verder merk hulle dat daar in die park deur die weermag, parkeraad en selfs afleweringsvoertuie gejaag word, wat natuurlik ook ’n impak het op die toestand van die paaie.

Hierdie organisasies dui ook aan dat hul voel dat die veiligheidskwessies binne die park daadwerklik aandag sal moet geniet, anders het ons weer ’n Tafelbergsituasie op hande. So kan ons op die lysie van al die parke afgaan en die probleme identifiseer.

Alhoewel die nasionale departement nie direk verantwoordelik vir provinsiale parke is nie, wil ek tog die Molopo Natuurreservaat in die Noord-Wes noem, waar diere van die dors gevrek het. Die departement het daarvan geweet en daar is nie opgetree nie. Daar is egter gevra dat die nasionale departement moet ingryp. Dis ’n skreiende skande. Hoe kan ons dit aan ons diere doen as hulle nie self kan praat nie? Ons sal beter na ons natuurreservate moet kyk. Ek dank u.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members on the virtual platform, you are also requested to raise your hands, if you have any objections to make.

Mr W M THRING: Hon House Chairperson, as we consider this report, the ACDP notes that South Africa’s forests are crucial for the delivery of building a capable state that serves the people. Forests are rural economic drivers and are of considerable importance to the national economy. Yet, this industry, like so many others in South Africa, is facing several challenges.

The ACDP notes the conflict in the department, given that the forestry branch, which is a directorate, has a large number of employees. Over 71% of the branch’s budget goes to the compensation of employees, which means that only 30% of the allocated budget goes to forestry work and the directorate intends to increase the number of employees.

The mismanagement that the portfolio committee noted is that the branch has forests and nurseries that could be used to generate income, but are not doing so, due to poor management. Regarding acknowledging that targets are not met, the Minister has acknowledged that there is a breakdown across the value chain, due to mismanagement and the process of maintaining the forest has broken down.

This department should be upskilling management and staff to leverage on the vital role that wood and ... [Inaudible.] ... replaced in the economy. According to a report by Dr Heath, the Director of Research and Protection at Forestry SA, the sector has been beset by economic, social and environmental challenges. Dr Mahangu, the Chairperson of the Forestry Sector Charter, informed the committee that there is a need for better collaboration between government and the council to deal with pressing issues, such as timber looting and forest fires, citing a need for interdepartmental collaboration to effectively deal with issues related to land and water.
Something so simple, yet this department seems incapable of implementing it. Thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, the National Freedom Party, will support the report tabled here today and let us welcome the improvement in the audit opinion, which is now unqualified findings. However, we do note that a lot of the targets have not been met, and of course, we are calling on the department to ensure that these targets are met and that, in line with expenditure, we get value for money.

However, let me also remind this House that I must agree with hon Paulson, when he talks about what is happening off the Gaza coast. And constantly, hundreds of fishermen are being chased, harassed, intimidated and killed by the state of Israel and the Israeli Defence Force. And, in fact, they go further. Over 200 boats have been ceased. Some people think it is normal. I wonder whether what is happening there is normal, or whether some of the people who think it is normal, are normal. That is where my concern is.

However, be that as it may, one of the concerns I want to raise is the issue of the fishing industry. If you just see what is happening in Lamberts Bay, where the department is calling for different fishermen to form one co-operative, which I think is totally unacceptable. They are all supposed to be fishing for their own income, and here we want to now ask them to form a co-operative. The entire communities has to form a co-operative, which I think is totally unacceptable. I think it is something we need to look at, particularly the
community of Hout Bay, Lamberts Bay and all those that are affected.

The other issue is the issue of environment. It looks like black lives don’t matter. What happened in Merebank, Wentworth all these years and with Engen, Mondi, Sahpra, the high-level emissions and the number of people that were affected with lung infections, cancer, TB and things? Very little or nothing has been done about it.

The NFP will support this report, but these are matters we believe we should take into consideration. There was a report by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, but very little has come of it. Thank you very much.

Mr S M JAFTA: The AIC supports this report. Thank you.


Mr P M P MODISE: House Chairperson, The ANC supports the adoption of this Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report, BRRR. We acknowledge the enormous responsibility that the department is tasked with in terms of the Constitution, which include measures to manage, to protect and conserve South Africa’s environment and natural resources, to afford everyone an environment that is not harmful to their health or their
well-being, and to have the environment protected for the benefit of the present and the future generations.

We note the current complexities that have been posed by extreme weather conditions. Be that as it may, the ANC supports the climate change legislative framework, which aims to help South Africans to respond to the reality of climate change, including the increased risk of droughts and floods, to guide the country into a more sustainable and climate- resilient path.

Now, we note that the department has taken us to an improved unqualified audit opinion for this current financial year. We, however, implore on the department to address the concern that has been raised by the Auditor-General regarding the investigations of the regular expenditure of the department.

Notwithstanding the improved performance of the department, the incurred irregular expenditure reflects poorly on the department’s performance, which the department must adequately address. We agree unequivocally with the Auditor-General that the current irregular expenditure investigations must be completed first, followed by the past years’ irregular expenditure, and that we manage to keep a detailed report of
this particular performance. The ANC supports this BRRR. Thank you very much.

There was no debate.


The Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party, Freedom Front Plus, African Christian Democratic Party, National Freedom Party and African National Congress.

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Fighters, Freedom Front Plus and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.



The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon House Chairperson, I move that the report be adopted.
Declarations of vote:

Mr J ENGELBRECHT: Correctional Services is a receiving department, which means that problems originating elsewhere ends with them which makes their work exceptional challenging.

I have been said that judging by this report this year is doing great. The vast majority of targets were reached and for the second year running they achieved an unqualified audit but the low target set by the department just overachieved those targets do not have an impact on service delivery.

We cannot celebrate mediocratic. Our prisons have a perpetual overcrowding problems. Let me be clear ... [Inaudible.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Excuse me, hon member. There is a problem. Can I try to solve it? Hon Modise, please mute. You may proceed, hon member.

Mr J ENGELBRECHT: Why have interdepartmental solutions not being investigated? At the Department of Justice, the courts and the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, need to be consulted to reintroduce night courts so that the high demand attending figures can be lowered. It was done before and it work.
The objective of rehabilitation programmes is to provide offenders with skills that will be used on a released minimise the offending. The Department of Correctional Services achieved its target in long operation skills programmes but only 16 000 inmates participated expect to 39 000 the previous year. But the target was reached.

The true measure of success here is the percentage of released prisoners reoffending. Offenders are requiring new skills in prisons but not the kind that will make law abiding citizen out of it. We need a new approach. I strongly suggest that the department has an engagement with Dr Casper lotter a conflict criminologist affiliated with North-West University. He is doing great work on recidivism.

Lastly, while the self-sufficiency and sustainability framework at the Department of Correctional Services is commendable, I want to draw attention to what is happening at the Drakenstein facility. Cruelty to animals and mismanagement going on there can undo all the positive achievements. To cast the shadow on this programme urgent attention is required there. The DA will not support this report. Thank you.
Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Chairperson, South Africa has a prison population of 157 000 inmates in various correctional centres in the country and the capacity to only accommodate 120 000 of those. So, this provide inhuman living conditions in prisons exacerbating problems of crime, sickness and prison make it impossible to rehabilitate such prisoners.

The department is known about this and the recent 2017 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services raised alarm about this overcrowding. The committee in the deliberation is still concerned about the accuracy and reliability of information, which is available on the reportable incidences. They still use manual reporting and there is a need to implement the e-commerce or e-correction system.

The judiciary inspectorate must also be taking note that there must be a sexual abuse of boys and men, which needs to be reportable incident. The Thabo Bester embarrassment also demonstrated that the Minister said they will deal with this overcrowding but failed. Instead, they want to outsource prisons. The EFF will make sure that that comes to an end and is not happening.
Chairperson, I think there needs to be a different approach to this overcrowding. Minor offences need not be kept in prison. There should be encouraged of be monitored to do community service. As the EFF, we reject this.

Prof C T MSIMANG: Hon Chair, our justice system stands as a source of inspiration for development nations throughout the world as it needs and exceeds international standards. Despite this, the Department of Correctional Services still has a number of shortcomings, which desperately need to be addressed

In the 2022 to 2023 financial year, the department recorded an underspending for almost R107 million. This is despite the fact that more than six of the largest targets in line with its mandate have not been achieved.

The various outstanding vacancies that they adhered to be filled to the department do not inspire much confidence that it is adequately equipped to effectively deliver on constitutional mandate to the people it directly owe indirectly says.

Hon Chair, I want to take this moment to congratulate the department for achieving yet another unqualified audit opinion and for its reduction of audit findings. However, I will be doing injustice if I did not point out the many challenges the department is faced with such as overcrowding in correctional facilities, the intimidation of violence and amongst inmates as well as the huge backlog of cases in court of law notwithstanding the above. The IFP accept the report. I thank you, Chair.

Mr F J MULDER: Hon Chair, let us be reminded that the mandate of the department is to uphold and protect the Constitution and the rule of law and to retain inmates in safe, secure humane conditions in correctional centres to provide needs base rehabilitation programmes and reintegrate offenders into community as law-abiding citizens. But what do we find in reality, House Chair, the continued misuse of state resources and persistent weaknesses in instances of conspiracy, accountability and performance.

In this report, the achievements report by the annual report materially differed from supporting evidence. Reported performance achievement of the SA Human Rights Commission are not supported by reliable evidence.
The backlog in court cases result in delays on effective, efficient administration and the justice system conviction process and efficient administration of the justice system conviction process and performance of the department’s mandate. Hon Chair, the FF Plus will not support this report.

Mr S N SWART: House Chair, while the department received another unqualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General has again put emphasis on matters relating to uncertainty on the outcomes of all the litigation that the department is involved in. The department is a defendant in many lawsuits and the outcome of these cannot be determined, and no provision for any liability that may result in the additions to the financial statements has been inserted, and this, the ACDP does find it concerning.

If we look across all state departments, the issue of state litigation and those contingencies is an aspect that the Auditor-General continues to raise. Overcrowding remains a problem at correctional centres and the ACDP has continually raised this issue. We believe that not enough has been done to expedite criminal trials, as that has an impact on the remand detainees that are costing the state hundreds of rands per day. When we travelled to the Free State, we found a remanded detainee that owed a bail of R100, but it cost the state R300 a day to keep him in remand detention. So, clearly, that is an issue which we raised and which the judiciary addressed.

We also believe and support restorative justice programmes, where the inmate is not a danger to society. We believe that this contributes to the rehabilitation and will reduce any amounts of recidivism. There are a number of concerns that have been expressed in the committee’s report, and I think that these are issues which are ongoing and clearly need attention. We also see the challenges that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, JICS, is facing, and whilst they attempt to do their inspections of the correctional services to their best ability, they are also constrained.

In view of these numbers of issues and the ongoing issues which over many years have not been addressed, the ACDP will sadly not support this report. I thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, once again I see hypocrisy at its highest level in this House. Let me tell you why I say this, if you look at the Washington Post report on the inhumane manner in which prisoners, now this is going back to the days of apartheid where you’re being detained without trial. Most of these people have not been charged, but they are living under the most inhumane and degrading conditions in Israeli prisons, and nobody seems to feel anything about it, but yet, they are complaining that there are some that are committing crimes in South Africa, yet they committed no crimes. Look at on what conditions? These have committed crimes, let’s protect them, their lives matters and those don’t.

This is the DA and others who have no mercy on human beings in Palestine. Now, Chairperson, I see a lot of emphasis is on overcrowding. Yes, it’s a problem, but why not get to the root cause of the problem? Unless you reduce crime, you’re going to continuously be building more and more correctional facilities. You know, I was in Limpopo over the weekend on an oversight, and that’s the matter that came up. Are we going to eventually build a police station in every street corner?
That’s the direction we are going in. Why not get to the root cause of this dysfunctional state we in, so that we can reduce crime? Let’s sit down together and address the contributing factors and one factor that came up, I can tell you time and time again, was alcohol, but of course, some of them don’t have a problem with it.
There’s also a problem with tuberculosis because of overcrowding and the health conditions in the correctional facilities. I really believe that the criminals must be dealt with, with the contempt they deserve, when you know what they’re doing. You cannot do it at the expense of the victims. The victims must pay to provide them a beautiful service, the three-course meal in prison and provide them with all the facilities many of them can graduate from. So, I think that we need to have a relook into in terms of how we treat criminals in this country. If you treat them with kid gloves, it will become a business, and that’s what it is right now. The NFP supports this report. Thank you.

Mr S M JAFTA: We support the report, hon Chair.


Ms A RAMOLOBENG: House Chair, the ANC supports the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report, BRRR, on Correctional Services. The ANC has been and remains an advocate for self- sufficient and skills development. Through skills development, meaningful contribution into the economy becomes possible.
Rehabilitating offenders and equipping them with the necessary skills after incarceration, will contribute to a safer South Africa. Moreover, effective rehabilitation will contribute to reduced reoffending. Incarceration must be safe and human. Both the inmates and officials must be and feel safe.

We commend the department for the continued implementation of the self-sufficiency and sustainability framework and encourage it to expand this and ensure that more inmates benefit from this House chair. All targets set under the. rehabilitation programmes were met. We appreciate this, as rehabilitation is the heart of the Department of Correctional Services. The department completed eight infrastructure projects in the period under review. We applaud the department on its improved audit outcome in the beginning of the Sixth Administration, 2019-20.

The department received a qualified audit outcome with 214 findings. Since then, the department has improved. This year, the department received an unqualified audit with 110 findings, with the area of qualification being uncertainty on the outcome of exceptional litigation. House Chair, the overcrowding of correctional centres continues to be a concern for the ANC. Overcrowding compromises the rehabilitation of inmates and places the safety and security of inmates and officials at risk.
While we understand that the Department of Correctional Services is at the end of the justice value chain, we encourage the department to find effective approaches to reduce overcrowding. House Chair, the ANC supports this report I thank you.

Question put.


Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Freedom Front Plus dissenting and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting.)

Report accordingly adopted.


There was no debate.


Ms G K Tseke moved: That the Report be adopted.


Declaration(s) of vote:

Dr M M GONDWE: House Chairperson, notwithstanding the fact that Transnet incurred an R5,7 billion losses, it is now also
costing the economy more than R100 million per day in lost revenue owing to the operational inefficiencies at our ports. Last week Monday, the DA conducted an extensive area oversight over the Durban Port and the magnitude of the crisis that we witnessed unfolding at this specific port convinced us that unless private sector participation in the operation and management of our ports is urgently prioritised, the situation at our ports will only continue to worsen. We reject the
R47 billion guarantee facility provided to Transnet by the government last Friday, as it will not assist this beleaguered entity in addressing the operational, financial and governance challenges that it is currently experiencing. Despite being extended an R254 billion debt bailout by the government, Eskom’s net loss after tax worsened from R11,9 billion to
23,9 billion in the 2022-23 financial year, and so did its ability to keep the lights on.

We've been subjected to almost 17 years of load shedding by us by Eskom House and the economic impact of this load shedding is beyond astonishing. Eskom itself informed the committee that in the previous financial year, load shedding cost the economy a staggering R300 billion and 5% of the country's GDP was lost due to load shedding.
We welcomed the recent load shedding judgment handed down by the Pretoria High Court, the judgment found that the countless but preventable failures by this government, including its failure to prevent load shedding have infringed the rights of its citizens and the Constitution. This landmark judgment underscores what we already know, the ANC government is a failure. It is failing to remedy the electricity crisis that it has perpetuated and enabled for almost 17 years and must be voted out of government come May 2024.



Mnu W T LETSIE: Uyaphupha lo mama.


Ms N M MHLONGO: House Chairperson, greetings to the president and the commander-in-chief of the EFF, officials, commissars
... [Interjections.] ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Order, hon members!

Ms N M MHLONGO: Must I proceed, Chair?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): You may proceed, hon member.

Ms N M MHLONGO: ... and ground forces of the 26 July Movement. We want to send a special greeting to all the young people who went out in their numbers to register to vote for the EFF during the voter registration weekend of 18 and 19 November.
We want to encourage those who are above the age of 17 years to go out and register to vote, and they can still register to vote online, which is open 24 hours. The EFF rejects the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises and we reject it for these reasons, the EFF is the only party that said this Ministry is not necessary and should be disbanded. We said to take Eskom and Alexkor to the Department of Minerals and combine it with the Department of Energy. We said to take Denel to the Defence Department, SA Airways, SAA, Mango and SA Express before they were deliberately collapsed, we said to move the SA Forestry Company Limited, Safcol, to the Department of Forestry. We didn't just say move them, but the strategy must be aligned to building state capacity and massive industrialisation.
Instead, we see people who are hell-bent on deliberately collapsing our SOEs so they can sell them to their friends at a very cheap price.
Eskom reported more than 5 000 hours of load shedding in 2023 alone and the year has not even ended. Transnet has come to a complete standstill, people are still stealing money from SAA and the less we say about Safcol and Alexkor the better. We want to express that Eskom is the only company that advertises that people must not use their product, which is upsetting.
The Minister accounts to no one but himself. He comes to Parliament and the committee when he wants to, not when he is supposed to. He is the Cabinet, the legislature and the judiciary in one. Mr Jamnadas is looting state assets with his friends.

The report tabled here today does not give us a sense that people appreciate the calamity and destruction of our SOEs and that is why, as the EFF, we reject this report. Thank you very much.

Mr E M BUTHELEZI: House Chair ...


Sihlalo, izindaba zalo mnyango zifuna ukuba zishayelwe izandla. Awukho umnyango oyinhlekelele njenga lo futhi sesikhulume kakhulu njengamalungu aleli komidi sichaza ukuthi lo mnyango awunaso isidingo. Ngoba kunakho ukukhuluma ukuthi
mawuhlakazwe bese ukuthi izinkampani zisiwe eminyangweni eqondeneyo kufakazela khona kanye ukuthi umsebenzi walo mnyango awukho ngaphandle kokuthi umosha imali.

I-NationaL Development Plan enhle kakhulu kabi, lo mnyango uyahluleka ukwenza lokho okulindeleke kuwo uze unikele ekutheni uze ube yimpumelelo njengephupho lezwe. Kunye kuphela esikushoyo thina ukuthi ukukhuluma okuningi akusizi namazwi amaningi sesiwakhulumile saze sancama. Ukuhluleka kwalo mnyango lo kuchaza kanye kuphela ukuthi iqembu eliphethe amandla selihlulekile futhi seliphelelwe yisikhathi.
Sekuyisikhathi ukuthi abantu bakithi balikhiphe emandleni.


Ngicabanga uma ufuna ukwazi kabanzi ngokuhluleka kukaHulumeni udinga ukuthatha lo mnyango nazozonke izinkampani eziqondene nawo uzibeke phambi kwakho ubuke zona, yisona sibuko esifanele izwe lisibuke ukuthi lo Hulumeni we-ANC usuhluleke kanjani.
Iqiniso lithi noma ungamiswa lo mnyango uqedwe ungabisabikhona, izinkampani zonke zifakwe ngaphansi kwezamandla nani, kodwa uyohlala njalo uwumlando ofana nalo ubandlululo la safunda khona ukuthi izimali zabantu zehliswa kanjani ngemilenze nokuthi lezi zinkampani ebekufanele zakhe amathuba emisebenzi ziyaqede kanjani. Inqwaba yabantu bakithi ihlezi emakhaya ngenxa yokuthi ugesi awukho, izinkampani
ziyavala, abatshalizimali abakwazi ukuza ezweni lethu ngoba ugesi lo oyisisekelo noma oyingqalasizinda esibalulekile awukwazi ukuthi uthembekale.

Ngakhoke iqembu elibusayo uKhongolose kufanele ube namahloni ngokusibeka kule nhlekelele. Ngakhoke siyanxusa ukuthi ithuba elihle selifikile. Abantu bakithi abakhuculule lokhu kungcola, bakhuculule lenca esixake kangaka neshonisa phansi izwe lethu kanye nabasunguli bale ntando yeningi laoho bekhona abanawo ukuthula bebona ukuthi leli qembu esalikhetha ukuthi liphathe izindaba zethu seliphenduke amanqe namankentshane. Siyabonga, Sihlalo.

Mrs H DENNER: House Chair, the President named the following as being government priorities for the year 2023, load shedding, unemployment, poverty and the rising cost of living and crime and corruption. South Africans are still suffering due to severe load shedding with stages all over the place.
Unemployment is at an all-time high, even though the ANC celebrates a 0,7% decline in the narrow definition, we still have one of the highest unemployment rates in the world, higher than some war-torn countries. Load shedding contributes to this situation.
Poverty and the cost of living keep rising. Food and fuel prices are through the roof, and the government stubbornly refuses to protect our food security by refusing to protect our farmers. Crime like murders is at a two-decade high with
68 people murdered in South Africa every day, and the police are powerless to stop it. Thus, if the ANC fares like this with the areas identified as key priorities, it's no wonder that everything else is falling to pieces even quicker.


Daarom is dit van kardinale belang dat die regering sy lang korrupte vingers van ons openbare entiteite moet afhou. Daar is geen entiteit waaraan die ANC raak wat nie ’n omkeerstrategie benodig nie, want hierdie ANC regering beskik nie oor die vermoë om behoorlike, eerlike en volhoubare bestuur van enige entiteit toe te pas nie. Ek hoef u nie eers met die voorbeelde te trakteer nie. Die chaos by Eskom, Transnet en die SA Lugdiens, SAL, spreek vanself, want waar in die wêreld het u al gesien dat ’n entiteit wat ’n monopolie oor die verskaffing van krag of spoorvervoer of lugvervoer het, ’n volstrekte verlies maak? Dit kan mos slegs aan swak bestuur en korrupsie onder die ANC toegeskryf word. Hierdie entiteite kan slegs deur privatisering gered word. Maak
hierdie departement toe want dit is net ’n kontantkoei vir ANC

knoeiery. Ek dank u.


Mr S N SWART: House Chair, the Department of Public Enterprises has oversight over a number of state-owned enterprises, SOEs, including Eskom, Transportation network,
Transnet SA, Denel, SA Forestry Company, SAFCO, and Alexkor. Now, we all are fully aware of the impact that Eskom has had, and the power outages that have devastated households, businesses, individuals and of course also impacted other infrastructure such as water, information technology, IT, service delivery at health and education.

And once there are newer forms and investments are being considered, load shedding is continuing and is expected to continue for a number of years.

In this regard the ACDP welcomes the full bench of the North Gauteng High Court, which last week declared the load shedding at schools, hospitals, police stations unconstitutional. And gave the Minister of electricity two months to address this issue.
Now obviously the challenge will be hard to implement this judgment at these essential areas and that is going to be the question and whether the Minister could in fact be found in contempt of court if steps were not done to address these issues.

The ACDP is also deeply concerned about the logistics crisis at Transnet. Transnet freight rail was the heartbeat of the economy, particularly the mines, to carry cargo around the country.

Sadly, due to mismanagement and an inability to protect rail lines from thieves, freight volumes have plummeted. With the Minerals Council estimating, inefficiencies may have cost the country a staggering R150 billion in forfeited minerals exports last year alone. Some estimate that this crisis at Transnet is even worse than the crisis at Eskom.

And clearly far more needs to be done to address the serious logistics challenge at our rails and our ports with the tens of thousands of containers that are waiting to be offloaded. I thank you.
Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: House Chairperson, the NFP will support the report tabled here. Well, of course I was surprised. I didn’t know whether this was some dream or whatever it is. When I saw a report that the rail transport, passenger rail, will be resuming. At a fraction of the cost between Durban and Johannesburg and Cape Town ... [Inaudible.]

I think it’s worth R430 travel from Durban to Cape Town. Now, I think that’s a remarkable achievement and I think we should congratulate ourselves for that. We’re looking forward to that for a long time because many, many people not only travelling, but of course you’ll enjoy the scenery. It’s perhaps an experience just traveling by rail, and we used to do this many, many years ago. So, let’s congratulate them in any case.

But now, my one concern House Chairperson is SA Airways, and I’m shocked at what I have now found out, that we sold 14 of our aeroplanes at R35 million each. We released it back to ourselves at R44 million, ok. So, in other words, we gave our
14 aeroplanes away for nothing. After giving it away, we gave them R9 million each on every airplane.
And that’s what we did for FlySAfair and that’s why FlySAfair is where it is today. Now we need an explanation that really, really, we need an explanation.

Alright, on the issue of ... I want to just touch on the FF Plus. Yes, you are correct. You are worried about people
that are dying here, 700 people died in the last 24 hours in Palestine. You haven’t said a word.

To the IFP you are raising concerns about the failures of state-owned enterprises, SOEs and things, maybe you should tell us. What have you done? One single thing you have done wherever you govern, to improve the quality of the life of those people there. I must congratulate the DA at least; you are bringing energy. You are taking your own energy. But what have the IFP done [Interjection.] no water, ... [Inaudible.]
... no housing ... [Interjection.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Shaik-Emam, there’s a point of order could you please take a seat. Hon Singh what is your point of order? Order hon members, please.

Mr N SINGH: House Chairperson, point of order: House Chairperson, will the hon member, take a very reasonable
question which, he talks so much about the IFP? I’m sure you will be the one that asks the question. Thank you

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Shaik-Emam would you take a question from the hon Singh?



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Oh, you will not take the question.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: But let me tell you, why I won’t take the question of the NFP. Because I know the NFP has got great division, has serious problem, but all created by the IFP. The NFP supports it, thank you very much. [Time expired.]

Ms J C N MKHWANAZI: House Chair, hon members, the ANC, the leader of the society, the government and the government of 2024, supports the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report, BRRR.

House Chairperson, the ANC notes with concerns that the processing of the BRRR of the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises was not accommodated with more accountability. At
the heart of this apparent contradiction was the inability of the four state-owned enterprises, SOEs, that’s Alexkor, Denel, Eskom and SA Airways, SAA, to submit to their annual reports and annual financial statements to satisfy the accountability and oversight objectives.

However, House Chair, we must not lose sight of the fact that these four SOEs that I have counted before, are currently implementing restructuring and turn around plans which made it difficult to share both annual reports and financial statements for the detailed assessment by the portfolio committee.

Nonetheless, accommodating concerns for the accountability remains their overriding objective. After the implementation of the restructuring and turn around plans, accountability will get much more attention around the four SOEs.

Once Transnet submitted its annual report and a financial statement, this SOE paid a lip service to its annual performance targets. In short House Chairperson, Transnet performed dismally against its annual performance target.
However, honourable Chairperson, hon members, what is clear from the evidence is that Transnet performance was hampered by external sectors, compromising but not limited to the unavailability of locomotives, load shedding and the bad weather conditions.

The solutions of these external factors because as the ANC we are taking the lead, of course not outside Transnet purview, hence the ANC is convinced House Chair, that with the right support of the Department of Public Enterprises, Transnet can withstand these external factors. House Chairperson the ANC supports the BRRR. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.




tshitshinya gore pegelo e e amogelwe ke Ntlo e.


Declarations of Vote:
Mr S NGCOBO: House Chairperson, the mandates of the Department of Science and Innovation is to boost social economic development in South Africa through research and innovation by providing leadership and enabling environment and resources for science, technology and innovation. This is a very important function and we do need groundbreaking science and innovation in order to enhance the well-being of South Africans. But sadly, the ANC-led government has lost billions of rands in corruption over the years, leaving such important department as the Department of Science and Innovation seriously underfunded.

While cadres have been enriching themselves, their families and friends, critical departments like Science and Innovation have been neglected. Minister Blade Nzimande has been failing to ensure enough funding for the Department of Science and Innovation is secured. While the department has received clean audits outcome, it is concerning that there has been a decline from 92% to 80% in the department’s performance achievement, especially around support for university of technology and
Tvet graduates and the development of high skills in critical areas.

The department has also failed to monitor entities under its watch to ensure that they comply with legislation. This is why entities like Technology Innovation Agency has regressed and received an unqualified audit opinion with material fundings. The Technology Innovation Agency submitted financial statements for auditing which were not supported with full and proper records, and that effective measures and appropriate steps were not taken to prevent irregular expenditure of
R4,5 million as per Public Finance Management Act, PFMA.


After next year’s general election, the DA-led government will ensure that departments like Science and Innovation have enough budget to carry out meaningful research and innovation to enhance the well-being of South Africans through science and innovation. I thank you.

Mr M SHIKWAMBANA: House Chair, the EFF rejects the Budgetary Review and Recommendation report tabled by the Portfolio Committee of Higher Education, Science and Innovation. It is clear that there is confusion and lack of strategy to use science, technology and innovation to produce knowledge,
information, skills and talent needed to support, facilitate and fuel a massive industrialization and economic growth. The report does not seem to appreciate this gap and instead, we are dealing with recommendations that were copied from the previous report because there is no political will to tell the truth.

Officials in the Department of Science and Technology are telling us that since the relocation of the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Technology under the Minister of Higher Education, Dr Blade Nzimande, the department and its entities are being turned into a site of corruption. What used to be a vibrant and exciting space of research and development, it is now just an administrative side.

We suggested, including recommendation that the budget must be increased to account for 2,5% of the GDP by 2024. We suggested recommending an increase of research grant scholarship and fellowship in the midst of the budget cut. We also suggested, including a recommendation to say that all schools must be connected to high-speed fibre. The building of artificial intelligence laboratories in all universities and Tvet colleges. The building and upgrading of the computer labs in all schools. The mandatory intakes of science and technology
enrolment in institutions of higher education. Synchronise research and development objectives with economic growth.

We have been tabling these recommendations, but because the government is still failing to give learners flushing toilets in the rural schools in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo, and students at institutions of higher education are going to sleep with empty stomachs, the resistance to include these recommendations as people are focused to budget cuts. Thank you very much. We reject!

The ACTING HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon member, I would really appreciate that you respect that watch.

Mr S S ZONDO: Hon Chair, science, technology and innovation are crucial drivers of sustainable economic competitiveness, as well as socio economic development. These are the ... [Inaudible.] ... to ensure the relevancy and the committed ... [Inaudible.] ... of South Africa in a global market. As a result, we can just indicate that our worth millions and even billions of rand to ensure success. We want to accept this Bill and support it, but with the Minister that we have, that we don’t have trust on him currently, we are reluctant to support this Bill. Because supporting this report will mean
that we are giving him a blank cheque to go and do everything that he wants, as he has failed to give us an assurance that with him leading this department, we are going to for a better South Africa.

This department’s 2022-23 budget allocate of R9,1 billion may have been inadequately to ensure that the department at all its problems there is a part of mandate. More than 94,7% of the total budget has only gone up to three programmes out of the five. On top of failing to meet all the performance targets, the department has seen as underspending approximately R24,4 million. This is definitely the fact that crucial positions remain vacant within the department, which is possibly contributing to the significant downturn of the 92% performance which was achieved in 2021-22.

Nevertheless, the IFP accept the report although that we are still ... [Inaudible.] ... that the ruling party should give us someone who’s energetic. Who is new. Who has a vision. Who will take this department forward, rather than having an old and visionless Minister that we have. I thank you.

The ACTING HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Thank you. I now recognise the FF Plus. While the FF Plus comes before the
podium, may I plead with hon members who will speak that there was a watch at your left-hand side, and it must be respected, and I will ensure that it does get respected. Thank you very much.

Dr W J BOSHOFF: Hon Chair, I promise to respect the innovation of the watch on my left-hand side. The Department of Science and Innovation is one of the key departments in economic growth – or it should be. The saying goes that there are only two sure things – death and taxes. We could add change. When change is positive, it is the result of innovation. It is when science, or even technology, is not left on a proverbial shelf to be admired but implemented to enhance the lives of people.

South Africa has much room for innovation. We have rich resources, yet most of our people are poor. We know we have to move away from fossil fuels, yet we know it is not as easy as substituting potatoes with sweet potatoes. We have innovative people, but not always the systems to make most of it. We have the advantage of clear and silent southern skies, yet we find it hard to let it benefit those living below it.

The Department of Science and Innovation is indeed a bright star in the governmental sky. Generally, the department and
its entities receive good audit opinions and reach most of its goals. It may be unfair to criticize its impact because we don’t know how things would be without it. Yet, the department is underfunded. The goal of spending 1% of national budget on science and innovation seems to slip further out of reach. It is stuck at 0,88%, where it is unable to harness the natural resources in such a way that the jobs are created in South Africa and products exported, rather than the other way round.

Now the fiscal clip, which has been mentioned often, is not something to be to fall off, but is something to descend cautiously. And that’s what happens to science innovation, a department starved of the funds it needs to reach its goal. I thank you.

Mr W M THRING: Hon Chairperson, as we consider this Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report, BRRR, the ACDP agrees with a policy brief put out by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, OECD, which states that scientific advances and technological changes are important drivers of economic performance. The ability to create, distribute and exploit knowledge has become a major source of competitive advantage, wealth creation and improvements in the quality of life. Science and innovation unleashes the positive impact of
information and communications technology, ICT, on the economy and on society. It promotes the application of recent scientific advances in new products and processes. It is evident that a high rate of innovation leads to a shift to more knowledge-intensive industries and services, as well as raising skill requirements.

Clearly the constructs of science and innovation are invaluable to the socioeconomic development of South Africa. However, according to this report, this development will not be realised, where only 53% of planned targets are achieved with 99,6% of the total allocated budget spent. It will not be achieved when infrastructure plans of technical and vocational education and training, TVET, colleges are not approved as planned. It will not be achieved when the Auditor-General identifies material findings relating to four delivery programmes against university education, TVET skills development and community education and training, CET. It will not be achieved when the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, TVET colleges and universities, including the University of SA, Unisa, have outstanding audits. It will certainly not take place when the higher education and training portfolio rakes up irregular expenditure of some
R1,7 billion.
The ACDP acknowledges the recommendations in this report but we will not hold our breath in seeing its implementation.
Unlike the ACDP, the ANC has shown that it lacks the moral and intestinal fortitude to implement the Zondo Commission's recommendations and those to fix Eskom, Transnet and the Passenger Rail Agency of SA, Prasa, amongst other state-owned entities, SOEs. I thank you.

Mr B S YABO: Hon Chairperson, we must be worried that people who hold aspirations to run a country can't figure out the difference between a declaration for Science and Innovation and Higher Education. We must be very worried. Running a country is a serious enterprise.

The ANC supports the adoption of this report without reservations, as we have seen the department’s outstanding efforts and the entities’ efforts to promote social and economic development. Despite severe funding constrain, they have effectively co-ordinated their activities in line with the objectives of the National Development Plan. Beyond reasonable doubt, we are confident that the department and the entities strive for success despite apparent difficulties. The committee observed critical findings after carefully reviewing the department’s and some of its entities performance, and the
planning materials. By noting the meaningful engagements that could further shape recommendations to the department and its entities, we hope to see a more in-depth intention from the department to investigate the root causes of problems that need more focus and attention. Perhaps we should also take note of the fact that we need to interrogate the effects of the sunset clauses on the performance of some of these departments that are slow in the uptake of the mandates to deliver to our people.

We must commend the department for retaining its clean audit. To us this reveals that the department is generally well managed. Its performance should direct greater attention to interrogating the performance, achievement and the impact on the lived reality of South Africa’s citizens.

We have also expressed our concern regarding the regression in the audit outcome of the Technology Innovation Agency, TIA. However, we are hopeful that with our recommendations, there will be strengthened oversight of implementing the audit action plans of the entity. As the ANC, we look forward to continuing with the excellent work of the department post the electoral victory of 2024. Thank you very much.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.



Chairperson, I move that the report be adopted.


Declarations of vote:

Ms K L KHAKHAU: Chairperson, the value one has for everything in life is always measured by how much they are willing to sacrifice for it. And in this department, the sacrifices again, the poor students who depend on a sound Department of Higher Education and Training budget that will not lock them out of educational opportunities that would have otherwise, giving them a fair shot at one day, landing meaningful jobs, putting food on the table for themselves and their family, fighting generational poverty and living dignified lives.
The 2 billion National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, and 390 000 000 universities downward budget adjustments are clear indications of how little the ANC cares. Dignity for students is an unimaginable offering for the ANC. You do not care about Thabang Mohapi and every other poor young person in South Africa, whose qualification is their families only shot out of poverty. If you did, NSFAS wouldn’t be the disappointing and dysfunctional mess is it. Students wouldn’t be battling hunger, depression, destitution and anxiety across campuses all year, because God knows, when their NSFAS allowances would be paid. If you cared, students would not be living in NSFAS-funded shacks in Madalabara, Limpopo, while you play victim and sleep matters under the carpet.

This is why you will be voted out of power in the next elections. Students deserve a competent and caring government
- a DA government with a proven track record of good governance. Yes, the DA gets things done. With the DA government, students will have unobstructed access to quality education. So, I urge all young South Africans to visit www.check.da.org.za and register to rescue South Africa and our future. I thank you, Chair.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): I now recognise the
EFF. The EFF? Order, hon members. The EFF? Order, hon members.


Mr M SHIKWAMBANA: House Chair, indeed, 2024 will be our 1994 next year when we go and vote. The EFF reject the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, Science and Innovation and its entities. We are here again to debate the very same things that were copy and paste from the previous reports with no consequences.
While students are suffering in the institutions of higher learning, particularly Technical and Vocational Education and Training, TVET, colleges. Here are recommendations, informed by our lived experience and interactions with students and young people in the institutions of higher learning on a daily basis.

The report must recommend that there must be a wide scale investigation into corruption in the higher education sector, and these must include all entities with NSFAS and sector education and training authority, Setas, in particular. The report must recommend that the Minister should hand over the Professor Jonas Berlin’s report on the NSFAS collapse and corruption. The report must also state that an urgent war room be set up far from the Minister of Higher Education that must prioritise the payment of allowances to ensure that all
students have study materials, a place to. stay, eat and attend all classes. Lastly, the report should have included a firm recommendation that there must be an investigation into the corruption of Seta. We know it is not the students involved in this corruption, it is administrators benefiting from this corruption.

We know that the current chairperson of NSFAS was recorded sitting at the airport with his cronies, who decided that they must appoint Werksmans attorneys because they have a corrupt partner who will narrow the investigation to protect all of them from this corruption of NSFAS and also sacrifice one person, the now fired CEO. But this report does not include any of these. Instead, it pretends as if everything is fine in NSFAS, and we know that there’s a huge corruption there at NSFAS. As the EFF, we reject this report. Thank you very much.

Mr S S ZONDO: Hon Chairperson, the future of this country is gloomy if we fail to direct and invest in state resources into ensuring the quality education for and invest into the youth. Moreover, investment into education is almost futile if the government efforts are not effective on the productive needs of industries. The IFP notes with concern that the goal posts of youth development kept on shifting more than a decade ago.
South African youth were deemed unemployable and now in 2023 when the youth are adequately skilled, they are unable to find employment and are thus prevented from the positive contribution to the country. No one can challenge me when I highlight that youth key demographic, therefore, it is crucial that we development and co-ordinate the post-school education and training system that is responsive to the socioeconomic of need of this country. Despite the pillar of this objective set by the department, enrolment in TVET and Seta sectors have been below the set target even after the constant eradication of which the funding remains the biggest hindrance to assess the higher education.

We are concerned that the department is achieving only 53% of its planned targets and yet more than 99,6% of the total allocation budget was spent in which the regression in comparison of the 2021-22 financial year. As much as we want to accept this report, there are looming reports that are saying that the borders and the fireworks to stop the corruption in this department - in NSFAS, is still not being able to be detected and there are no measures in place to ensure us and give us confidence that the department is looking at the matter and we are going to have it stop in the near future. But there are lot of ghost students that are
receiving NSFAS and those ghost students that are receiving NSFAS it is through the department and the officials of NSFAS and the alliance of the ruling party. We need there ... [Time expired.] ... unless we accept the report. Thank you, Chair.


Dr W J BOSHOFF: Agb Voorsitter, die Departement van Hoër Onderwys klink asof dit ’n akademiese suort van departement moet wees maar eintlik is dit ’n maatskaplike departement. Die enigste departement wat meer geld as die Departement van Hoër Onderwys deur die Nasionale Finansiële Hulpskema vir Studente, NSFAS, uitdeel is die Departement van Maatskaplike Ontwilkkeling self, met meer as ’n miljoen studente wat toelae van NSFAS ontvang.

Nou dit is nie ’n slegte idee om mense te kry om te studeer nie. Inteendeel, die potensiaal daarvan om mense uit armoede te lig is byna oneindig, maar daar is twee probleme by NSFAS. Die een is dat dit maklike is om verkoue in ’n kinderhuis uit te roei as om korrupsie in NSFAS uit te roei. Die tweede een is dat die geld nooit terugkom nie. Dit is nie beurse wat terugbetaal of selfs teruggewerk moet word nie. Dit is doodgewoon geld wat weggegee word.
Nou, Suid-Afrika het ’n probleem met te min geld. Dit is hoekom die aansuiweringsbegroting hier en daar en orals geld weggevat het, ook by die Departement van Hoër Onderwys. Dit beteken dat ons universiteite en veral die tegniese en beroepsonderwys-en-opleidingskollege, TBOO, wat reeds nie op peil kan presteer wat hulle funksie of hulle doel kan laat bereik nie, met nog minder geld moet klaarkom. Die gemeenskapskolleges of die sogenaamde community colleges, wat eintlik regtig vir die mees kwesbare mense bedoel is, is eintlik nêrens in hiedie begroting nie.

Nou goed, uiteindelik beteken dit dat die staat se geld op is en hierdie groot herverdeling van welvaart van die belastingbetalers na die studente kan nie voort gaan nie.
Uiteindelik is die een ding wat moet gebeur is dat NSFAS begunstigdes op die nasionale databasis vir belastingbetalers geplaas moet word sodat hulle terug kan betaaal sodra hulle begin verdien. Dit sal die departement uit sy krisis kan lig en dit kan beteken dat meer mense beurse kan kry, ook die missing [vermiste] middel.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, the NFP supports the report tabled here today. Allow me also to advise this House that in Palestine we saw our presentation by Dr
Mads Gilbert. According to Dr Mads Gilbert the bombs are thrown only when children are coming out from school. I would love each and everyone of you to see this presentation and engage with Dr Mads Gilbert first and because he live there, he experienced it and he serve the people in that community and you will get a clear picture of what is going on. Can you imagine! You know that children are coming out, and as you know that they are coming out that’s when you throw the bombs. Do you know why is it deliberate? And I agree with you, hon member. It is because it an attempt to wipe out an entire generation. That is what it is all about. I would like us all who are mothers, fathers and grandfathers to picture this - your child coming from school indiscriminately there is a bomb thrown against them. That’s a problem.

What I don’t see here, would this R12 billion that we allocate for the National Student Financial Aid, 60% of them drop out in the first year. Which means over R7 billion is thrown in the bin. That is what it simply means. What are we doing abut it? The other thing is that we are giving funding to Student Financial Aid and there’s is this perception that it is free I can do what I wants. What mechanisms do we have in place to ensure that these students actually attend college. Go and see them. They are partying all weekend and not going to the
college at all and there’s no mechanism to monitor that you are giving the money and they must attend school. That’s why 60% are dropping.

A further 30% drop out because they fail mathematics in any case. You can look at the money that you are spending but you are not getting value for it. The NFP supports that, but I think we need to put mechanisms to have accountable and get value for money. Thank you.

Ms J S MANANISO: House Chairperson, let me start by indicating that as the ANC we are not obsessed y the 2024. Our responsibility is creating a better life, 365 days.
Chairperson, can you protect me from howling.


The ACTING HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon member, order, don’t drown the speaker. Allow me to do so. Hon members don’t drown the speaker. You are allowed to heckle but not to drown the speaker.

Ms J S MANANISO: The ANC supports the adoption of the budget review and the recommendation report. Let us take this opportunity to thank all members of the portfolio committee, PC, by ensuring that when we engage with the department, they
make sure that they do recommendations and take trace in terms of what the department has to do.

The spending of 99,6 of the total available budget for 2022-23 to achieve 53% of the plan, 111 target was concerning. The impact of the budget should lead to the achievement of the planned objectives. We commend the department for obtaining a clean audit opinion on its financial statement. The same must be obtained on the annual performance report.

We are pleased with the performance of the Quality Council For Trades and Occupations, QCTO, the SA Qualifications Authority Saqa and the Council on Higher Education, Che. These entities have showed that despite the financial constraints they did more. They all receive clean audits with over 90% achievement on their 2022-23 annual performance, APP, targets. Our primary concern is the poor audit outcomes of the Sector Education and Training Authority, the National Skills Fund, NSF, with irregular expenditure within the higher education portfolio, which was R1,7 billion in 2022-23. It is critical to note that adhering to the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA, prescripts is not a choice but a requirement. We explore our Sector Education and Training Authority, Setas, to ensure that
they comply with the PFMA and that consequence management is implemented.

The committee will continue to monitor and implement the audit action plan as adhered by the Auditor-General’s, AG’s, findings.

Chairperson, what short of all members who spoke here is that on the daily basis as members of the PC they make sure that they refer issues that has to do with the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS. So, they are not truthful to themselves. They are not truthful to themselves. They are doing well in terms of ensuring that they do their work on daily basis. Thank you.

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.




The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, earlier we suspended the proceedings. Now we proceed.
I just want to verify with the Table Staff if we have hon Kubheka on the line? And if you are on the line, hon Kubheka, I would ask you to ... [Interjections.] ... Yes, you are on the line. May I please request you to show your face. Open your video, hon Kubheka. Nomsa? We are waiting, hon Kubheka Quebec. We need to proceed. Please just switch on your video so that we can do this. You are on the line.

Ms N J KUBHEKA: Yes, I’m on the line. It seems as if the video doesn’t want to open, Madam House Chair. Can maybe the host assist me?

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: On a on a point of order, House Chair. Last week, House Chair, you ruled that one of my members may not take her minutes, that were allocated to the EFF to do a declaration.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Wait, we are not there yet ...

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: ... so, now we are going to wait for the ANC? No ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Wait, wait, I don’t know what you are talking about. You are not doing that now. please take your seat.

Hon Kubheka!


Ms N J KUBHEKA: House Chair, my humble apology. I’m trying to press on the camera, it says it’s unable to access the camera.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Kubheka, I think

you were ... yes ... Who’s that now?


Hon Kubheka ...


Ms N J KUBHEKA: It’s me ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay. Listen, hon Kubheka. I think the last time you gave the same ... [Interjections.] ... hon members on the platform, please mute. The House is in session.

Hon Kubheka, so ... for ... you have been told before and you could have at least alerted Parliament so that you could be assisted, because I have a report that they’ve been calling
you, the whole day today, so that you can prepare for this and you did not respond.

Hon Chief Whip, your hand is up!


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon House Chair, good afternoon to you and to the hon members. Hon House Chair, it is with regret that the same thing is happening, which co ... hon Kubheka was called into order, and we cannot waste the time of this august House by saying one and the same thing. I suggest that you find accordingly, as the Presiding Officer, this is just too much. And we want to apologise as the ANC caucus for such an embarrassment time and again. I submit.
Thank you.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Let me say this, that hon Kubheka, we have been trying to call you to make sure that you are ready for this moment, and you did not respond to the calls. And knowing that you have a duty to perform today, in your name, you should have really asked for assistance. And for now, I take it that hon Kubheka is not in the House, because the instruction is that you should be able to show your face as we do this reprimand. So, since you are unable to
show your face and the same reason as the Chief Whip says is given, this matter will be processed differently and ...

Ms N J KUBHEKA: Madam house Chair, my humbly apology. I’m
trying to log-in ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, unfortunately for now, I’m giving a ruling and I don’t expect any person to talk on this matter. I’m giving a ruling that hon Kubheka ... [Interjections.] ... no, no, hon Ntlangwini, what’s your problem?

Hon Kubheka, please listen to me, I’m ruling on the matter and I told you the background. So, I’ll just say, this process of reprimand has actually failed and it is not Parliament or the Presiding Officer, the Speaker, that should be blamed on this matter. But we informed you, as I said, we have been trying to call and we couldn’t find you. So, please wait ... is your video on now?

Ms N J KUBHEKA: Now it’s on, Madam House Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you. please remain on your video, as I do this. Please remain there, please remain. Remain on the video, please, hon Kubheka.

Ms N J KUBHEKA: Yes, Madam House Chair. I’m on the video


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes. Just remain there. So, I’m not sure if it is because I’m speaking, that it is not going straight to her. What should happen? I don’t want to blame her because maybe the cameras are on me, instead of being on her. What should happen?

Information and Communications Technology, ICT, could you please clean the video of hon Kubheka! ICT, I can’t speak to hear without her face being here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, hon Kubheka, for trying.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, on the 28th of November the House adopted the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members Interest report concerning hon James, hon
Kubheka and hon Kohler. The report recommended a reprimand for the members concerned.

It is noted that hon James and hon Kohler are no longer members of this House, and therefore, the reprimand will be issued for hon Kubheka.

A reprimand is in the House is a public act aimed at ensuring that discipline is meted out fairly, transparently and applied consistently.

I will now issue the reprimand and request hon Kubheka to stand or open her camera on the virtual platform, that is done.

In terms of the Constitution, before members begin to perform their functions, they must pledge faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution. They also pledge to obey respect and uphold all other laws and perform their functions to the best of their ability. These pledges are not simply for individuals, they also serve to foster the image and standing of Parliament as an institution of the people and in whom the people place their trust.
The Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosures of Members Interest is intended to provide a set of ethics and values for members when discharging their responsibilities. It comprises minimum standards of behaviour including upholding propriety, integrity and transparency. Among other requirements, the code obligates members to annually declare their financial interest in a Public Register. The obligation allows the public to confirm that no member may have been exposed to a conflict of interest.

Hon Kubheka, you have failed to disclose your financial interest from 2022, and therefore, fallen short of the conduct expected of you. It is apparent from the committee report that you were provided fair opportunity to present your records and not having done so to adequately explain your failure. Your action had the potential to erode the public trust in Parliament.

Hon members, this is unacceptable and deserving of repercussions.

I have now concluded to reprimand, and you may resume your seat. And thank you, hon Kubheka, you may close your camera.
Ms N J KUBHEKA: Madam House Chair, with due respect, can I say something?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No. Thank you very much. This is how the reprimand is done. All the explanations, you were given opportune time to them to the relevant office, not in the House. In the House is just a reprimand. Thak you very much.

Ms N J KUBHEKA: Thank you, Madam House Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, we proceed.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, on Tuesday the 28th of November the House adopted the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members Interest report concerning hon Cele, the Minister of Police.

The recommendation of the report, agreed to buy this House, is that the member enter an apology in the House for his conduct towards Mr Ian Cameron, the Director of Community Safety and
Action Society, nonprofit organisation, during a community meeting with the SA Police Service, SAPS, and the communities of Gugulethu and Nyanga in the Western Cape on the 5th of July 2022.

Hon members, please. What’s the problem?


I have been informed that hon Minister Cele will be on the virtual platform. Can I confirm that, Joe? Okay.

Hon Cele, I now ask that in accordance with the sanction ... what is the problem in this House now? Please, hon members, can you respect the House?

Hon Cele, I now ask that in accordance with the sanctions of the House ... with the sanction, the House has agreed to you to enter an apology for your conduct.

The hon Cele!


The MINISTER OF POLICE: Hon Chairperson, hon House and members, at this juncture, according to the matter that is in front of me, I have written to the Speaker about the matter and we have not exhausted the correspondence with the Speaker.
She has acknowledged the letter but has not responded. And then I request to be given to be given the opportunity to take that matter forward with the Speaker of Parliament. Thanks, Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Cele, your request has been granted. We will await that. Thank you very much.

Hon members, I will now proceed ... hone members, I will now ask the Secretary to read the Tenth Order.


Mr G MAGWANISHE: Hon House Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon Deputy Ministers, hon members, on 30 January 2023, the Chairperson of the SA Human Rights Commission informed the National Assembly of the resignation of Commissioner B Malatji, with effect from 31 January 2023. On 24 April 2023, he alerted this House that a further five vacancies would arise when the term of five commissioners expire on 31 December 2023. In all there are six vacancies to be filled, of which four are full time and two are in a part time capacity.
Section 193(4) of the Constitution provides that the President on the recommendation of the National Assembly must appoint the members of the SA Human Rights Commission. Section 193(5) of the Constitution provides that the National Assembly must recommend persons nominated by the committee of the Assembly and approved by the Assembly by a resolution supported by majority of the members of the Assembly.

Section 5(2) of the SA Human Rights Commission Act provides that the recommendation must also indicate whether the member is to be appointed in a full time or a part time capacity.

The matter was referred to the committee for processing on 16 January 2023. On 4 May 2023 respectively. The committee advertised the position requesting members of the public to nominate candidates for appointment. The names of all those who applied or were nominated were published on Parliament’s website for comments.

The shortlisted candidates were screened and their qualifications verified. Interviews took place on 14 and 15 November 2023. After deliberating, the committee resolved to recommend the following persons for appointment as fulltime commissioners. Dr W Boshoff, Ms E Khwinana, Mr Chris Nissen
and Prof T Madlingozi. In addition, the committee recommended that Adv Sandra Makwoasha and Mr A Gungubele, be appointed as part time commissioners.

The committee also considered the appointment of the chairperson of the commission as required by the Act and recommend that Mr C Nissen be considered for that position.

The committee also recommended that the term of office ...



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Dunjwa, really!


Proceed, hon member.


Mr G MAGWANISHE: The committee also considered the appointment of the chairperson of the commission as required by the Act and recommends that Mr C Nissen be considered for that position.

The committee also recommends that the term of office of all those appointed be seven years. We recommend this report for your kind consideration. I thank you.
Declarations of Vote:

Adv G BREYTENBACH: Hon House Chairperson, the committee is enjoined to recommend for appointment for the Human Rights Commission two part time commissioners and four fulltime commissioners. Interviews were held over a period of two days and 13 applicants or nominees were interviewed. The quality of the interviews was overall also disappointing and some incumbents have reapplied.

The Human Rights Commission has overall underperformed and their audit outcomes have not always been satisfactory.
Therefore, the current commissioners cannot be absolved or blamed in this regard.

All the applicants were interviewed by the committee and the vetting results were unfortunately only made available after the interviews, however they were dealt with. All the applicants were carefully weighed in considering the light of the requirements for commissioners and the shortcomings of the current commissioners.

We found nine of the candidates to be wholly unsuitable for appointment, either due to a lack of suitable expertise or experience or due to a very poor track record.
The DA however does support the following candidates: Ms E Khwinana, as a fulltime candidate, W Boshoff as a fulltime commissioner Chris Nissan as a fulltime commissioner and André Gama as a fulltime commissioner.

The nominees were so disappointing and we cannot in good conscience recommend six commissioners out of the 13 candidates – interviews that were done and assessed. Yet with what we have before us, we call on other members to make choices based on merit instead of political alliances.

The appointment of inexperienced commissioners will further delegitimise this chapter 9 institution. An appointment based on skill and experience will ensure that the commissioners can reinvigorate an importance of the Human Rights Commission in investigating and reporting on human rights abuses. I thank you.


UGq B J MKHWEBANE: Sihlalo ngithokoza kwamambala. Siyihlangano yeEFF, esingakutsho ngeKomitjhini yamaLungelo woBantu kukobana bahlulekile iminyaka yoke le ukwenza umsebenzi wabo.
Begodu siyihlangano yeEFF esingakutjho kukobana laba esibambe imikhulumiswano nabo basebenze kuhle, kodwana asikakhahlwa kukobana kulaba esibkhambise amabizo wabo bona bakhethwe kukhona abangakabuyi. Obuyileko nguNom Nissan ongusihlalo.
Yena unalo ilwazi yekomitjhini.


Siyihlangano yeEFF sikathabi ngombana uNom Sibanyoni naye onalo ilwazi, begodu usebenze khulu eMpumalanga ngesizathu sokobana bekenza umsebenzi wokunceda abantu ababesebenza emaplasini agade bahlukunyewza bosomaplasi.


Again, we were not happy that Mr Tele who is having a disability was not recommended just because he had challenges with his financials which issue we know each and every black person who must still go back and support their families, is having.

As the EFF we also do not appreciate with the outgoing chairperson and some members of the committee, is that they were failing to make sure that they promote human rights in the country. However, further as well they delayed to issue the Eastern Cape report where the current ANC-led government has failed ...

... abantu basePumalanga Kapa.


... because of the issue faced by children dying of malnutrition.

Therefore, that is not recommended ...



... bona sibe neKomitjhini yamaLungelo woBuntu ...


... which is failing to do their work.


Hon House Chairperson, currently ...

... sisalindele umbiko wakaVelabahlinze wemiguruguru laphe abantu base-Phoenix balahlekelwa mindenabo. Nagadesi sisalindele iKomitjhini yamaLungelo woBuntu bona ikhuphe umbiko lowo.

They are not issuing it.


Families need closure in that particular aspect. They cannot do that. And what I would say ...


... kukobana siyihlangano yeEFF nasithatha umbuso ...


... that institution must be fully funded. For at the moment, they are not properly funded, they cannot do their work because of the fact that they do not have resources. However, we are happy that the new breed when we are in government, they will have the resources to do their work properly.

Ngiyathokoza, Sihlalo.


Prof C T MSIMANG: House Chair ... [Interjections.] ... the SA Human Rights Commission’s inability to retain staff members has been a cause for great concern in recent years.
Furthermore, it’s inability to adjust to budget constraints has caused its performance to dwindle, especially relating to producing reports promptly. By now, we all know how
unacceptably long it took for the commission to produce a report on the 2021 July unrest, and we heard that this was due to the report writer resigning, amongst other things.

The internal instability the commission has experienced, especially in relation to the controversy surrounding the former acting CEO, has also once again indicated that this entity is in need of strong ethical and capable leaders and commissioners who will work tirelessly to ensure that they follow through on their mandate. Therefore, the appointment of the proposed part time and full-time commissioners comes at a time when the commission desperately needs it. Through these appointments, the commission will retain some degree of continuity whilst also adding new commissioners that will hopefully bring much-needed innovation and creativity, especially in adjusting to the severe budget constraints in a manner that will not compromise the commission’s output.

The IFP would like to commend the committee for following a fair and transparent selection process. We know the consequences of appointing commissioners who are not adequately qualified to perform the task. The sanctity of following the parliamentary selection processes that are based on meritocracy has time and time again proven to be the most
effective way to appoint commissioners. We cannot allow for institutions as critical as the commission to underperform or delay production and release of reports. Therefore, it is our hope that these commissioners ... [Time expired.] ... will be able not only to continue where the people ... [Time expired.]
... but also to go above and beyond to restore the entity ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Professor?

Prof C T MSIMANG: ... of the standard we have grown accustomed to. I thank you, hon Chair.

Dr W J BOSHOFF: Hon Chair, the SA Human Rights Commission is faced with enormous challenges including the irresponsiveness of government to request information or failure to implement the commission’s recommendations and insufficient resources to effectively promote good practice and facilitate capacity building. The FF Plus is in favour of two of the recommendations of the committee to fill the vacancies as members of the SA Human Rights Commission, namely, W Boshoff and A Nelson. The FF Plus will however not support the report as it stands. Thank you, Chair.
Mr S N SWART: House Chair, the ACDP is deeply concerned about the institutional decline at the SA Human Rights Commission. This obviously impacts on its effective delivery of its constitutional mandate and has an impact on the effective protection, promotion and monitoring of human rights in South Africa. There are a number of issues that the Auditor-General raised and the underperformance was very clear to the members of the committee. When we conducted these interviews, this issue had to be taken into account and someone had to accept responsibility for the commission’s decline and that somebody was the previous chairperson, Professor Majola, who accepted responsibility.

When one has to consider the nominations and who should serve as commissioner, one has to strike the balance between holding people accountable and then, of course, the need for continuity and institutional memory. The ACDP supports the appointment of Reverend Chris Newson. He’s a very passionate person and he really works very hard to protect human rights. He’s always really performed very well in the interviews, and he’s always on standby. We also argued strongly for Advocate Gham to be retained due to his extensive experience, his institutional knowledge and the fact that he’s busy with a number of projects and reports.
Sadly, his nomination was not accepted by the committee. We as the ACDP believe that the commission will be far poorer off for this mission. We also share concerns about the inexperience of a number of the nominees that the committee accepted and this came to the fore during the interviews. When one then looks at the state of the commission, this is a matter of extreme concern, given the fact that the new commissioners who have been nominated will have to really turn around the commission to ensure that human rights are protected. I thank you.

Mr B N HERRON: Chairperson, we have no declaration, but we support the recommendations. Thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, the NFP support the report as tabled here in terms of the recommendation of those nominated to serve on the commission. How ironic, Chairperson, that we stand here today to discuss a very important topic, and that’s human rights and appointing a commission. And yet, in full view of us, there’s human rights violations all over the world.

So, I do hope that this commission will also look at those with dual citizenship that are fighting on behalf of the
Israeli Defence Force committing atrocities. By virtue of them having dual citizenship, I think we have some rights in being able to deal with that. I hope that this Human Rights Commission will consider that. Also, I hope that they will consider the human rights violations, particularly in KwaZulu- Natal, where the rights of our of our councillors are being violated, where they are being killed, and where their spouses are being killed because of a choice that they want to make on which political party they belong to and who they will want to serve and how they will want to serve in an ethical manner.
So, I do hope that you know this will be part of the mandate to deal with it.

Now, I think we are quite satisfied that all processes have been followed, that the best candidates have been chosen in this particular case to serve on this commission. Yes indeed, all due processes we believe have been followed. I think we must admit that some of us have agreed on some of them. Not everyone can agree on everything. We’ve seen that that’s normal in this House. But we’ve agreed to disagree, but ultimately we’ve come up with the names of those that we believe will be best suited for the position.
On the issue of Chris Newson as the chairperson, once again, the NFP will support that because I think we believe he is articulate. He has the passion for this kind of work. In any event, he has been in the commission for a long period of time. He has the expertise, and he has the skills. I think he will do justice. While they were concerns raised about the performance of this commission, we believe that they must do something about it to address this.

And lastly, I want to say that let us not forget once again the issue of the Israeli Defence Force members from South Africa that are serving there. We need to find some common ground as to how we get them to answer for their human rights violations. They are South Africans in any event. They can perhaps get some recommendations from this commission as to how we should actually prevent this. And lastly, I want to touch on one issue. Politicians are also targets and Human Rights Commission needs to come in here when there are allegations made about politicians and things using the public domain or coming here and we have it withdrawn after the damage is being done. I think we need to look at that in a sensitive manner. The NFP supports this recommendation. Thank you.
Mr S M JAFTA: Hon Chairperson, the Human Rights Commission performs an important role in our constitutional democracy. The selection of each commissioner must be based on competency, talent and exceptional track record. For us, the candidature of the recommended candidates is beyond doubt, Professor Madlingozi the best performing candidate and his commitment to social justice and human rights will enrich the wealth of the commission.

The work of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services has been outstanding. The calibre of members like Member of Parliament Janji, Member of Parliament, Swart and Advocate Breytenbach must not be underestimated. The recommended candidates are a function of competency of these members. Our hope is that Human Rights Commission will gain meaningful insight from these candidates. They are dedicated staff and committed professionalists. Professor Madlingozi and other candidates are trailblazers and will ordinarily improve the efficiency, capacity and performance of the commissioners’ work. We support all the recommended candidates. I thank you, Chair.

Ms A RAMALOBENG: House Chair, today marks 10 years since the passing of one of the world’s greatest human rights champion,
former President Nelson Mandela. Tata set the tone for human rights in South Africa and abroad. During his term, Chapter 9 institutions, such as the South African Human Rights Commission were established to support constitutional democracy. His contribution to the rights and freedoms we enjoy today, will never be forgotten. The ANC’s proposal to the final Constitution declared that the Constitution shall as far as possible empower the poor and the vulnerable to enforce their rights and shall inter alia create a Human Rights Commission and a Public Protector to perform this function, hon Mkhwebane. The establishment of the SA Human Rights Commission is one of the gains of our democracy.

In an effort to fill the vacancies which would arise in the commission, the committee invited suitable qualified South Africans to serve as commissioners. The call was well received. Amongst the factors the ANC looked at in selecting candidates were a balanced between continuity, change, women representation, the infusion of young blood, and looking at the aspects of skills, education, and expertise, hon Breytenbach, not to what you have alluded.

We recommend the appointment of the following candidates as full-time commissioners: Mr AC Nissen, Ms ENB Khwinana, Dr WH
Boshoff, and Prof T Madlingozi. On part time basis, we recommend Advocate S Makoasha and Mr AA Gungubele. We recommend commissioner Andrew Christopher, also known as Chris Nissen as chairperson of the SA Human Rights Commission.
Commissioner Nissen is a respected man of cloth, holding high moral ground, who has made a meaningful contribution in the struggle for liberation of this country. Having been on the receiving end of the brutal apartheid system, which dispensed injustice to the black majority as a youth, commissioner Nissen has a depth understanding of the meaning of justice, hon Mkhwebane. As commissioner responsible for civil and political rights, Mr Chris Nissen has often been ... [Interjections.]

Mr M MANYI: On a point of order, Chair.


Ms A RAMALOBENG: ... in issues relating to migration of refugees ... [Interjections.]

Mr M MANYI: On a point of order, Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Please, take your seat, hon Ramolobeng. What is your point of order, hon member?
Mr M MANYI: I think the member is harassing Adv Mkhwebane.


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, that is a point of debate. Proceed, hon member ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.]

Mr W T LETSIE: Speaking is not for everyone.


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Letsie, please, stop trying to be in the House. Proceed.

Ms A RAMALOBENG: Thank you, Chair, our understanding of harassment might be different. But as I continue, obsession might ... I have an obsession. As commissioner responsible for civil and political rights, Mr Chris Nissen has often been involved with issues relating to migration and refugees ... [Interjections.]

Mr M MANYI: On a point of order, Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Take your seat, ma’am.


Mr M MANYI: Chair, I rise in terms of Rule ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members. Are you now making orders?

Mr M MANYI: I rise in terms of Rule 83. Rule 83 does not allow a member to do what she is doing, reading every thing word for word. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, that is not a point of order. Please, do not waste our time. We have until
8 o’clock to be here. Do not stress us more. Proceed ma’am.

Ms A RAMALOBENG: Thank you, House Chair, Mr Chris Nissen has often been involved in issues relating to migration and refugees, policing and human rights, decriminalisation of petty offences and the status of human rights defenders. Many of us may recall that Mr Nissen played an instrumental role in negotiations and calming the situation where protesting refugees occupied the Central Methodist Church in Green Market Square here in Cape Town in 2020. Even in the face of physical assault and threats of his life by the protesting refugees, he continued performing his duties diligently. Whether it is murderers of the cape flats or farm evictions in the Western Cape, or protests, Mr Nissen, on behalf of the South African Human Rights Commission, is the first port of call in many
instances with his ability to unite and find peaceful and lasting solutions to problems faced by South African communities across all racial lines, cultural and gender lines. We believe that the trinomial commissioner will lead the commission well.

The appointment of Ms Khwinana and Adv Makoasha demonstrate our commitment to the representation of women and their assertions to the highest echelons of power. Both women are legally qualified and highly skilled. They expose the values of our Constitution, have demonstrated commitment to justice and the rule of law, and are champions of human rights. Having Adv Sandra Makoasha on the commission, who becomes the youngest nominee, is an investment into the future. We believe that she will contribute good ideas which will be beneficial to the commission and the country. We believe that Dr Boshoff, Prof Mandlingozi and Mr Gungubele will bring in their diverse skills and expertise, which they have acquired over the years. Dr Boshoff has experience in local government for 18 years and has served for two terms in the Public Service Commission.
Prof Madlingozi is respected locally and internationally as one of South Africa critical voices in the legal academy. His academic career aligned in socially and morally engaged struggles for social justice and democracy. Mr Gungubele
possesses the experience and character which will be beneficial to the institution. He has worked extensively with civil society, has a heart for people and champions the values of the Constitution.

Chair, the portfolio committee expressed serious dissatisfaction with the commission’s decline in performance over the term. While reasons for poor performance were preferred, a drastic step of overhauling the commission had to be taken. While there should be continuity, there equally should be a change. All the recommended candidates did exceptionally well in their interviews. All interviewees indicated that the process was fair and were equally happy with how they were interviewed. We also believe that we have delivered a credible and a fair process, and we believe that the candidates will execute their responsibilities exceptionally well. We wish all candidates well. House Chair, the ANC therefore supports this report and the recommendation.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, order. Hon Lotriet, you are ready with the mic. You are ready to speak.

Question put: That Mr A C Nissen, (full-time commissioner and chairperson), Ms E N B Khwinana (full-time commissioner), Dr W
H Boshoff (full-time commissioner), Prof T Madlingozi (full- time commissioner), Adv S Makoasha (part-time commissioner and Mr A A Gungubele (part-time commissioner) be recommended for appointment as commissioners of the SA Human Rights Commission.

With the objections noted, hon members, even though a division was not requested, in terms of section 193(5)(b)(ii) of the Constitution: Persons recommended for appointment as commissioners must be approved by the majority of the members of the Assembly.

As there is no demand for a division, members will be required to record their support for the nomination in order to establish whether we have the required majority support of the recommendation.

Bells rang for five minutes.


Hon members, the Speaker has determined that in accordance with the Rules, a manual voting procedure would be used and that the Whips would conduct a headcount of members in the Chamber and on the virtual platform for the purpose of ascertaining quorum and voting.
Question put: That Mr A C Nissen, (full-time commissioner and chairperson), Ms E N B Khwinana (full-time commissioner), Dr W H Boshoff (full-time commissioner), Prof T Madlingozi (full- time commissioner), Adv S Makoasha (part-time commissioner) and Mr A A Gungubele (part-time commissioner) be recommended for appointment as commissioners of the SA Human Rights Commission.

A quorum being present in terms of Rule 98(1), voting commenced.

Hon Letsie, you appearing again?




The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): I am going to remove you, honestly. That is the last warning. You will be removed.

Mr W T LETSIE: I am sorry. I wanted to say maybe ntate Meshoe wanted to vote against ACDP.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): No. Do not go further. You do it, I am removing you from the House.


Nominations of Mr A C Nissen, (full-time commissioner and chairperson), Ms E N B Khwinana (full-time commissioner), Dr W H Boshoff (full-time commissioner), Prof T Madlingozi (full- time commissioner), Adv S Makoasha (part-time commissioner and Mr A A Gungubele (part-time commissioner) accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 193(5)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, 1996.

Recommendations agreed to.


Mr G MAGWANISHE: House Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, the Bill amends the National Prosecuting Authority Act of 1998, to provide, amongst others, for the establishment of an investigative directorate against corruption as a permanent entity within the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA. The Bill also aims to provide for the appointment of investigators to ensure greater investigative capacity and capability. The committee is
acutely aware of the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough. Amongst others, the Bill is criticised for not settling aspects related to the NPA's independence, and by extension, failing to guarantee the independence of the proposed investigative directorate.

A further criticism relates to the failure to adequately address the security of tenure. The committee considered the urgency of the proposed amendments. The committee will address the issues raised in connection with the Bill and the need for legislation that comprehensively addresses aspects relating to the NPA's independence in its legacy report for the attention of the Seventh Parliament. In addition, the committee urges the Minister to introduce such legislation before the end of January 2025. Regarding the vetting of investigators, the committee requests that the President and the Minister of State Security intervene to ensure that this is prioritised so that the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption’s, IDAC, work is not delayed in any way. We recommend this report for your kind consideration. Thank you.

There was no debate.
The Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Declarations of vote:
Adv G BREYTENBACH: House Chair, hon members, we are here today to discuss a piece of legislation that the Deputy Minister of Justice refers to as stopgap legislation in a country plagued by lawlessness, crime and criminality, greylisted by the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, because we cannot get our house in order. This House is expected to occupy its time with stopgap legislation. The Directorate of Special Operations, DSO, commonly known as the Scorpions, was a specialised unit of the NPA formed by President Thabo Mbeki and tasked with investigating and prosecuting high-level and priority crimes including organised crime and corruption.

An independent, or so we thought, and multi-disciplinary unit with a unique methodology, combining investigation, forensic intelligence and prosecution, the Scorpions were known as an elite unit that was involved in several extremely high-profile investigations, especially the Arms Deal, Jackie Selebi, Jacob Zuma and Tony Yengeni. President Thabo Mbeki announced the establishment of the Scorpions in June 1999, promising a special and adequately staffed and equipped investigative unit
to deal with all national priority crimes, including police corruption. It was formally disbanded in January 2009 and replaced by the Hawks. Many in the House today probably enthusiastically voted for the disbandment. The model has been criticised for undermining the separation of powers between investigators and prosecutors. However, it was successful with the Scorpions achieving a conviction rate of over 90% during its tenure. By February 2004, they had completed 653 cases comprising 273 investigations, 380 prosecutions and 349 prosecutions resulting in convictions, representing an average conviction rate of 93%. Between 2005 and 2007, they initiated
368 investigations, completed 264 and prosecuted 214 with a conviction rate of 85%.

During that period, they also seized R1 billion in assets and contraband worth R1 billion. In 2007, in the run-up to the ANC 52nd National Conference, Mr Zuma ran for the ANC presidency, challenging the incumbent President Mbeki. A key part of his campaign platform was the disbanding of the Scorpions. In hindsight, we know why he was so eager to get rid of the Scorpions and later to decimate the NPA. The Constitutional Court found that the disbanding of the Scorpions had been constitutionally invalid. In considering whether the Hawks had sufficient autonomy to pass constitutional muster,
international norms, and the Constitution provided the state must establish some independent body to investigate corruption. So the legal question was whether the Hawks fulfilled this role. Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke and Justice Edwin Cameron found that the Scorpions as a unit had been nominally independent of the executive branch, but the activities of the Hawks were effectively directly controlled by the Minister of Safety and Security, who had executive authority over the police and was, therefore, insufficiently insulated from political interference. The Constitutional Court judgment did not disband the Hawks and reinstate the Scorpions. Instead, Parliament was then given 18 months to make the legislation compliant with the Constitution. We still haven't done so.

Here we are 10 years later and the best that this government can come up with is stopgap legislation. This is from a government that will have South Africans believe that it is serious about combating crime and especially corruption.
Excuse me if I'm not convinced. We are being asked to recreate a smaller scale model of the DSO in the same place with the same problems and when it becomes inconvenient, it will be just disbanded with the same ease by the same simple majority in this House, ANC politics at its very best. The Minister
will carefully control the budget by controlling the budget of the NPA and will continue to function at a lower level, beset by problems, both structural and financial. We should be here establishing a truly independent, separate from the NPA, probably a Chapter 9 institution that will be able to combat corruption and organised crime and make South Africa safe again for South Africans. It should be in control of its budget, negotiate with the National Treasury and be accountable to Parliament. It should be a requirement that a heightened majority is required to disband it, so it cannot be dissolved for the sake of protecting politicians. Instead, we are here with a sorry, incomplete and wholly unsatisfactory piece of legislation that took so many years to bring to Parliament. What a shame. What a disgrace, and yet we have no choice but to support it. It is better by a minuscule margin than nothing at all. We will not oppose it simply because it may well make the position in the short term somewhat more tenable. It is not by any means a solution and the Seventh Parliament will have to pay attention to fixing this massive problem. I thank you.


Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Sihlalo, ngiyathokoza.

Chairperson, with the proliferation of corruption across all sectors in the country the Public Protector got three clean audits and performed 90% of her work. You are lied to. So, as the EFF we are saying this institution's failure of justice and their inability to timeously and effectively stop corruption and make the corrupt to account since there is a lot on my right-hand side. One of the most ineffective institutions of criminal justice in the country is the National Prosecuting Authority, which has not been able to successfully prosecute white-collar crime in particular.

Not only that, the NPA has never prosecuted anyone for apartheid crimes, despite volumes of evidence made available to it via the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, TRC, and their failure currently ...

... sinomndeni ...



... of the Cradock Four ...

... umndeni owalahlekelwa ...



... their family members.



Umndeni kaNokuthula Simelane ...


 ... the Cosas Four, and the Nyoka family, just to mention a few. They have failed to do that to this day. One of the most glaring weaknesses of the criminal justice system is the poor quality of the investigations, which inevitably leads to poor prosecutions. The responsibility to investigate, however, must primarily remain with the police. They've failed to even prosecute the Nulane case, we all have seen that. So this Bill seeks to create an investigative directorate in a piecemeal way which, as the EFF, we do not support. I mean, the NPA currently and even the Investigating Directorate together with the Hawks, are rushing to charge people to appear before the court and embarrassingly have to withdraw those cases and strike them off the roll. The very same NPA entered into an unlawful settlement with ABB. I mean, allowing such a multibillion trillion company not to be prosecuted, is
unlawful, it's provided nowhere in their law. They have a backlog or the current workload of court process, both in the district and their regional courts of around 180 000. So, I think we do not support this rule.

We've said, as the EFF, that we oppose this legislation and we still assert that we would want to see an NPA which is a Chapter 9 institution, which is independent, which is fully funded, not an NPA which is currently failing to prosecute the Steinhoff corruption, not the NPA which is currently failing to hold the President to account on the Phala matter. They are failing and they are not performing their responsibilities. As the EFF, we reject this Bill.


USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk M G Boroto): Nizophuma la ngo-10 ebusuku ngiyanitshela. [Ubuwelewele.] Nyambose!


Hon Mthethwa, what is it, sir? Professor, just take your seat. Let me just hear ... Are you rising on a point of order?
Prof C T MSIMANG: Hon House Chair, as a key component of our justice system, the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Help me! Sir, can you sit a bit, Professor. Thank you. Hon Mthethwa, why are you rising?

Mr E MTHETHWA: Chair, on a point of privilege: I would like to caution this House on the violation of Mr Msimang’s rights. I think it is disheartening to see elderly people laughing at Professor Msimang on his disability. I think he needs to be assisted rather than to be laughed at. Thank you, Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, okay, let’s leave it at that. Hon Msimang, it is your opportunity. Thank you.

Prof C T MSIMANG: ... plays a crucial role that must be beyond reproach and free of political interference. It is essential to address the concerns raised regarding the amendment Bill which some argue fails to address the issue of independence of the NPA and its newly established Investigative Directorate against Corruption or the IDAC. Independence and security of
tenure are fundamental in the fight against corruption and the ever-changing types of political interference. In ensuring a just and fair justice system, every aspect of the NPA must operate without fear, favour or prejudice, solely guided by the Constitution and the rule of law.

The IFP concurs with the portfolio committee's view that this Bill needs to go further in settling the aspects related to the independence of the NPA and the IDAC. It is essential, additionally, to recognise the Bill is an intermediate measure, limited in scope and pending the recommendations of the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council. To prioritise this matter, we propose placing in the Legacy Report of this committee and ensuring it receives urgent attention from the Seventh Parliament in 2024 the critical importance of the issues raised, and we urge the Minister to introduce the necessary legislation before the end of January 2025. In addition, an urgency must be placed on the vetting of investigators so they may proceed with their given mandate. By addressing these concerns and acting without delay, we can strengthen the independence of the NPA and the IDAC. The IFP supports the report and I thank you, hon House Chair.
Mr F J MULDER: Hon House Chair, South Africa need to prevent a repetition of State Capture during the nine wasted Zuma years. Hon President Ramaphosa ... [Inaudible.] .... The state still experiences serious corruption and organised crime and there is still no real reference to the building in binding criteria applicable to effective, efficient and corruption machinery of the state laid down by the Constitutional Court in 2011. This is a serious omission that have to be corrected.

The Bill fall short of what is required in law. Any failure to have proper regard to the criteria, Minister, unless undermine the important work of the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council and imperial efforts to counter corruption in the various ways recommended by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. The FF Plus is not in support of the Bill. Thank you, Chair.

Mr S N SWART: House Chair, its undeniable that the Directorate of Special Operations, Scorpions, were a very effective crime fighting unit and there had not been disbanded we would not have the levels of state capture and corruption as we have today.

The ACDP participated in the oposition of the disbanding of the Scorpions. Today, we consider this Bill and as we have
indicated in the committee, we believe it does not go far enough in setting out the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, independence as well as that of the proposed Investigating Directorate against corruption. It also fails to deal with the crucial aspect of security of tenure as set out in the register judgement when setting such Anti-Corruption Agencies.

The DA and the ACDP submitted a joint submission in an attempt to improve the independence of the Investigating Directorate and to improve the Bill. We suggest that the clauses be inserted that improve the security of tenure as well as the appointment process. The appointment process should be transparent and open, allow for nomination and applications and include a public interview process and a term of office should be one term for the national director with an increase retirement age of 70. This were eminently reasonable suggestions. Sadly, the committee did not accept the recommendations mainly due to what was considered time constraints.

The committee consider the agency of the proposed amendment, which are very limited in scope and intended as an intermedia measure to improve the Investigative Directorate capacity. We appreciate that the committee indicated that there were
outstanding issues in the legacy report. We also suggested from the ACDP side that the aspect of this should be included in the report of the portfolio committee that they then become binding on the next Parliament. However, we do believe regrettable that far more could have been done to ensure the independence of the NPA, and of course, to ensure the independence of the proposed Investigative Directorate against corruption.

We believe that it is very necessary in view of the high levels of cases that the state had to consider as well as the State Capture that far more could have been done. I thank you.

Mr B N HERRON: House Chair, we support the Bill but we share the concerns that has been expressed in the House regarding the slow progress of prosecutions arising out of corruption that three decades even the State Commission of Inquiry into state capture. We also share the concerns around the slow pace of prosecutions arising out of the apartheid era trustees, which no amnesty was applied for or granted. Thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, the NFP will support this Bill. But we also believe that the wills of justice turn very slowly in South Africa. There is no doubt about it. But I
think this is very much needed initiative. There is no doubt about it.

However, I am very concern, Chairperson, that if you do not adequate funding available this institution will also run into trouble. And I am very worried because just in KwaZulu-Natal, you need these entire team. That’s how much the corruption is taking place in KwaZulu-Natal alone. And whilst I heard some of my colleague’s talking about this, let me tell you some of the corruption that is taking place and why is very important to ensure that there is a vetting process so that people don’t get bought off. What we find very often is this, those that are governing particularly in local government level are using money to buy people. That’s what is happening. Over and above, buying councillors and things they turned to buy police officers and things. If you look at the corruption in this IFP-run municipalities is in KwaZulu-Natal.

I hope, Chairperson, that there would be enough powers in the hands of these investigators that even if they get an anonymous call as far as corruption they must be able to go and investigate it. Let us not try to defend from IFP to Tugela, to Pongola to Abaqulusi. Just now there is a latest. Another one, the IFP ... [Inaudible.] ...
Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: Order, Chairperson.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Shaik Emam, please take your seat. Inkosi?

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: A member gives the list of those accused of being corrupt or have been arrested and charged for corruption. He is always preaching about.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member, that’s not a point of order. You should have said maybe you want to ask the question. That’s not a point of order. Proceed, hon Shaik Emam.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, corruption is rife. Its public knowledge that it is all over. I am not sure why we all don’t read the same media. I am not sure why. But I think the problem is this that we don’t want to admit that there are high levels of corruption that we sustain ourselves to this corruption. We promote it actually. That’s why we appoint people there. That’s why we appoint people from our own political parties.
So, what I am saying to you is public knowledge, Chairperson, public knowledge about the levels of corruption in the IFP-run municipalities particularly in KwaZulu-Natal. It is for that reason. I want to urge these particular team, they must do everything in their power to deal with these corrupt officials to such an extent, Chairperson. Maybe we need to consider disqualifying political parties where there is corruption where they govern where they are participating the election.
It’s the only way. You will ensure that there are services that are delivered to the people on the ground. We need to make sure that we hold political parties accountable for the action of their officials. The reason why they won’t be taking action against the officials is because they know how they sustained themselves. That’s what they benefit. So, the corruption is rife in kwaZulu-Natal. The IFP will not support the Bill. Thank you.

USIHLALO WENDLU (Nk M G Boroto): Babu Nyhontso ngibuyile ungangithethisi futhi. Akekho ke manje.

Mr X NQOLA: House Chair, hon members, the ANC rises in support of the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill in a Supreme Court of Appeal judgement involving a case of
corruption. The court made the following remarks: The seriousness of the offence of corruption cannot be overemphasised. It offends against the rule of law and the principles of good governance. Courts must send out an unequivocal message that corruption will not be tolerated and that punishment would be appropriately severe.

Chester is not an exaggeration to say that corruption of the kind in question its away at the way fabric of our society and is the scourge of modern democracies.

As the Sixth administration draws to an end, it is important to reflect on some of our achievements as the ANC government. In his maiden state of the nation address in 2018, President Ramaphosa made the commitment of turning the tide of corruption in our public institutions. He announced that urgent attention would be given to the leadership issues at the National Prosecuting Authority to ensure that this critical institution is stabilised enable to perform its mandate unhindered without any fear, favour or prejudice.

Indeed, the leadership issues at the NPA were attended to and the National Director of Public Prosecution was appointed.
keeping true to his promises shortly after the address in terms of section 84(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The State Capture Commission was established to investigate matters of public and national interest concerning allegations of state capture, corruption and fraud.

The terms of reference were concerned predominantly with the practice of executive members of the state and the nature of their relationship with private individuals.

The commission has been critical in ensuring that the extend and the nature of capture is established that confidence of the public institutions is restored in that those responsible for any wrong doing should be identified.

It must be noted that the ANC gave its full support to the Commission of Inquiry. The commission ultimately found that the State Capture indeed took place in South Africa on an extensive scale and made recommendations, which are being implemented.

In 2019, the Investigating Directorate against corruption was
established. In this year’s state of the nation address,
President Ramaphosa pronounced that the Investigative Directorate against corruption will be a permanent feature of our anticorruption law enforcement efforts. This move is aimed at ensuring the effective implication of the recommendations of the State Capture Commission.

The Investigative Directorate against corruption investigate corruption related crimes uncovered by the commission and the commission of the SA Revenue Service and Public Investment Corporation.

A prosecuting led investigation model is the most effective way to prosecute crime and corruption as demonstrated by international best practice. This Bill aims to provide for the appointment of investigators in investigating directorate against corruption and investigators to ensure greater investigative capacity and capability.

We have considered the urgency of the proposed amendment, which are limited in scope and intended as an intermediate measure to improve the Investigative Directorate capacity.

Pending the recommendations of the National Anticorruption Advisory Council, a balance is needed. We are of the view that
there is a need for legislation which comprehensively addresses aspects relating to the NPA independence.

This Bill is a significant step towards enhancing the NPA independence and ability to prosecute high level of crime. Overall, this Bill is a crucial step in strengthening South African’s anti-corruption efforts and ensuring that those who engaged in corrupt practices are held accountable for their actions.

The ANC has long supported an Independent Investigative Directorate and Prosecuting Authority. We have been unequivocal about rooting out corruption and maleficence. By there are some criticism towards the Bill. This permanent structure is established by legislation and you enjoy legislative protection.

We must stand united against corruption and embrace accountability, transparency and good governance. The ANC support the Bill. I thank you.

Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.


(Second Reading Debate)

There was no debate.


Bill read a second time (Freedom Front Plus dissenting).



Mr G MAGWANISHE: Hon House Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers and hon members, briefly the Bill creates the offences of hate crimes and hate speech and put in place measures to prevent and combat these offences. It is clear from the frequent incidences of hate in South Africa, including incidences of racism that existing law is inadequate and does not act as a deterrent.

There is a need for a clear message that conduct motivated by hate will not be tolerated and as such perpetrators will be harshly punished. The Bill therefore seeks to address the
frequently occurring conduct of persons, sometimes violent, who are motivated by a clear and defined prejudices. The National Assembly adopted the Bill on the 14 March 2023, and it was transmitted to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence. The NCOP processed the Bill, and on the 15 November 2023 passed the Bill with amendments returning to the National Assembly for concurrence.

The committee considered the proposed amendments with which it agrees. These are largely technical in nature, except to provide for taking of victim impact statements, if the victim is deceased or from an organisation or institution with expert knowledge or experiences of the group to which the victim belongs or is perceived to belong. Reduce the maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed from eight to five years and change the word ‘regional court’ in the definitions to ‘court’. We recommend that this report be adopted.


Chairperson, I move that the Bill, as amended, be passed. Thank you.

Declarations of vote:
Mr W HORN: House Chair, despite some improvements to this Bill by the National Council of Provinces, it still does not pass constitutional muster when it’s considered in the context of the precedents and pathways for criminalisation of speech provided by the Constitutional Court - far from it. So, what does these presidents say? In 2001, in the case of Mamabolo, the Constitutional Court with great clarity, held that, and I quote:

Freedom of expression, especially when gauged in conjunction with its accompanying fundamental freedoms, is of the utmost importance in the kind of open and democratic society that the Constitution has set as our aspirational norm.

The court also said that this was specifically so because of our past, during which thought control, censorship and enforced conformity to the governmental theories severely limited freedom of expression, and that therefore future limitations should be limited to absolute necessity.

In 2020, in a judgment that dealt with the constitutionality of the Riotous Assembly Act, the case of the EFF versus the Minister of Justice, the court, in very simple terms, again
said that section 16 of the Constitution and the four criteria mentioned in there, namely, advocacy of hatred or violence based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, would not be problematic. But this Bill goes far beyond that.

In Qwelane, the Constitutional Court made it clear that when assessing hate speech provisions that went beyond section 16 and these four criteria, whether the prescription of speech takes the form of criminalisation or not, would be important to determine constitutionality. The court, yet again in very clear terms, issued the following guidance on the circumstances in which criminalisation could be considered, and I quote:

Our approach accords with that of the United Nations Rabat Plan of Action where it is recommended that criminal sanctions related to unlawful forms of expression should be seen as a last resort.

Emphasis on last resort. Yet, during the processing of this Bill that neither the department or the Human Rights Commission could place on the record any statistics or analysis on the number of complaints and cases brought in terms of the existing legislation, the Prevention of Unfair
Discrimination Act, or any research or objective facts that could even provisionally indicate that the existing measures available under Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, PEPUDA, to deal with hate speech has been proven to be unsuccessful.

In addition to the grounds that will constitute criminal hate speech was expanded significantly and way beyond the four criteria contained in section 16 during the parliamentary process purely based on the feelings and the subjective use of those who advocated for the expansion of the list. An approach and a process that stubbornly turned a total blind eye to the pathway set by our Constitutional Court. Talking about feelings, while this Bill pretends to establish an objective test to determine whether serious harm was suffered as a consequence of speech, a careful reading shows that the subject of feelings of victims represented by the term “psychological harm” will determine whether people will be held criminally liable. This is really, without admitting to it, criminalising the causation of offense, something the court also warned against in Qwelane.

Add to this the over broadness on the one hand, and the vagueness of the Bill on other critical aspects, for example,
that it still does not contain a definition of hate as well as the nonsensical and self-defeating nature of the clauses which pretends to protect the rights of academics, journalists, artists and religious groups. It is clear that the President, after today, if he receives and considers proper legal advice, we will soon put this Bill on the same shelf on which the Protection of State Information Bill has been sitting since 2013 - a shelf reserved for Bills which were approved by this ANC dominated national legislature in a fit of irrationality unreasonableness. This is therefore a last and unique opportunity for this Sixth Parliament to not strengthen the perception that we struggle to act in a constitutionally compliant manner when making laws. Reject this report.


Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Ngiyathokoza, Sihlalo.


Chairperson, when the Bill was tabled in the National Assembly in March, the EFF supported the Bill because we believed that it was and is still a necessary legislative intervention to deal with the spiralling out of racism and other crimes of hate in this country. The Bill seeks to address the Republic’s obligation regarding racism, racial discrimination, sexual
bigotry and other related crimes. It aims to provide for the prosecution and appropriate sentencing of hate crimes and hate speech accordingly.

Since 2008 some examples, you will remember a video which surfaced, a group of white South African farmers brutally assaulting a black man and accusing him of stealing from their farm. In 2015 a group of white South African students, said the University of Free State, were caught on camera assaulting and humiliating black university staff in a racist incidents that received widespread media attention. In 2019 a racist incident occurred at a particular Durban beach where a group of white men assaulted a black woman in a racially motivated attack. So, we see all this happening and these are just a few examples of many cases of racism and assault that have occurred in South Africa.

On behalf of the EFF, we acknowledge the work done by the NCOP on this Bill. While we generally agree with the purport of the Bill, particularly in relation to the protection of vulnerable groups such as those belonging to the LGBTIQ community, we were and we are still worried about the broad brush nature in which the Bill defines racism. If the legal definition of racism is given a general application effect, it risks
creating a false equivalence between racists and those fighting against racism.

We warned then as we do now that those fighting against and calling out racism, which is inherent in this country, must never be punished by racists who are too quick to go to court. I mean they have just indicated now that this Bill will just sit there. If we can work together to make sure that we eliminate this serious scourge.

We have acceded to the convention on the elimination of racial discrimination as a country, though there is equality court, but now as the EFF we are happy that now the issue of racial discrimination and hate crimes will be criminal offense. Our support for this Bill is based on the importance of addressing hate crimes and hate speech as well as the need for statutory provisions to combat racism and prejudice against the vulnerable groups.

In conclusion, the ultimate solution to this problem of racism as country does not lie with the issue of legislative reforms, but radical transformation of the country to restore the natives to their humanity and their land. As much as we would want to do that, we will have to start by saying ...

... sikhulume ngesintu sikwazi kobana soke simaSewula Afrika sazi amalimi woke, sizokwazi bonyana ...


... we are progressively dealing with the issue of racial discrimination. That is the only way to deal with racism of the settler minority in this country. Thank you, Chairperson.


me with the Prof? Okay, he is fine now; he is coming.


Iza muntu wasemzini.


Before you proceed, Prof, can I ask our team of the front Table to assist Prof. All of us are now aware that it is very human to do that, and I will honestly appeal to that. So, we should be accommodative and give support to all members.


Muntu wasemzini ungaqhubeka.
Prof C T MSIMANG: Hon House Chair, freedom of speech is a fundamental right, as enshrined in our apex law, the Constitution, Chapter 2: Bill of Rights. While the Constitutional Court in the Guyana judgement recognised that hate speech is not protected speech, it is essential to note that the limitations of freedom of expression must, and I emphasise, must, be narrowly defined and strictly applied.

Racism in any form must never be tolerated. It has far- reaching divisive consequences, and only negatively impacts upon the social cohesion that the vast majority of South Africans are striving towards in this country, where all are equal, and all can live peacefully and in harmony with one another.

The NCOP has finalised their deliberations on this matter, and undertaken the very necessary public participation and invitation for submissions by stakeholders. This is welcomed, as this is a very necessary aspect of our participatory legislative process, and one that we have been below par on in this Parliament.

We support providing the court with a discretion regarding sentencing, however, we remain of the opinion that existing
laws are, on balance, sufficient to deal with and punish hate speech in South Africa. We have the Constitution, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, as well as the common law offense of crimen injuria.

In cognition, while we completely support protecting all in South Africa from discrimination, prejudice, hate speech and racism of any kind, we also have a duty to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms of all South Africans are not eroded in the process. Subject to the above concerns, the IFP supports the report and Bill and I thank you.

Mr F J MULDER: Hon House Chair, when the Bill left the National Assembly, it did so with the Bill encompassing subjective types of harm such as emotional harm, and rebellious concepts, such as social harm, which it defines as a detriment that undermines the social cohesion amongst people of South Africa. The definition of harm was wide, hate undefined, and a bizarrely increased jail sentence for three years to a maximum of eight years, despite many publics submissions asking for the jail sentence to be scrapped.

Nevertheless, there was hope and expectation that the National Council of Provinces would remedy many of these problems,
particularly after the numerous public submissions asking them to do just that. The National Council of Provinces failed dismally to give effect to the public’s input that hate should be defined as a criminal law, so that people know when they are breaking the law beforehand, which is reasonable.

Die VF Plus is van mening dat hierdie nog een van vele stukke wette is, wat net eenvoudig in die Grondwet gaan opeindig, om dan uiteindelik weer terug verwys te word na hierdie Huis toe. Die VF Plus steun nie hierdie wet nie. Dankie.

Mr S N SWART: Chair, the ACDP broadly supports the hate crimes element of this Bill, but we did express our concerns. And despite welcomed exemptions and improvements to the provisions relating to hate speech, we believe it will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is important to note what the courts have already said in this regard. In the SANDF matter, the Constitutional Court said freedom of expression lies at the heart of democracy?

The Constitution recognises that individuals in our society need to be able to hear, form and express opinions and views on a wide range of matters. It also impacts on the right to
religious freedom. In the Segal matter, the Constitutional Court said the right to entertain such religious beliefs, as the person chooses is the right to religious freedom; the right to declare these views openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal; and the right to manifest belief by worship or practice is the essence of religious freedom.

I think it is very important to consider the Qwelane Constitutional Court judgment, which was in a civil remedy setting. The court said very clearly that hate speech is speech that travails beyond merely offensive expression and can be understood as extreme devastation, extreme vilification, which risks are provoking discriminatory activities against that group. This is a very important point.

Thus, expressions which are merely hurtful, especially when understood in everyday parlance, are insufficient to constitute hate speech. Offensive speech is protected by freedom of expression, and I think this is the challenge that has been with this Bill, where one tries to strike that balance.

The ACDP agrees that anyone, in whatever setting uttering any racial utterances must be held to the full extent of the law.
However, what we are dealing here with is criminalisation of hate speech, which is a very high bar. I also need to just mention that the Maseke judgment made it very clear that utterances against the Jewish community, arising from what is going on in Palestine can also be offensive, and we need to bear that in mind about what we are saying in the context of that incident as well.

Now, the Bill was referred to the NCOP, and despite objections from civil and religious groups that was broadly accepted, except there was a slight change to the criminal penalty - eight years down to five years - it is still excessive. The Cabinet’s Bill introduced was three years for what you say.
Now, I am not talking about hate crimes, which is a separate issue, which needs to be faced the full extent of the law.

Hate speech laws have been used internationally against Christians, street preachers, and we have to be very careful of that. So, the ACDP reiterates its opposition to this Bill. I thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, the NFP supports the Bill tabled here today. Now the question that I want to ask is: Why is it a hate speech if a white person says something about
black person, but not hate speech, when a black person insults a white person? I have been a victim of it myself, where I was told, the ANC’s got Pravin Gordhan, the IFP has hon Narend Singh, and the NFP has got Shaik Emam. How long do we want these little Indians in our political parties? So, that is hate speech for me.

However, let me also say, let us not be selective. When we talk about discrimination, it’s discrimination if you discriminate against anybody based on race, on religion, on gender. And for that reason, I have always said that we need to call ourselves South Africans and take away this white, Indian, black, coloured. Coloured is derogatory; it should be removed from the vocabulary. And let us call ourselves all South Africans.

Hon Swart, when the Zionists say that even the Jewish are not of their own, you don’t regard that as hate speech. When they said that Africans are barbaric and subhuman, you didn’t take offense to that. Why? I cannot understand why you persist in, what I call, hate speech by yourself, when you try to divide Muslims and Christians too, because that is what it is tantamount to.
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, I rise on Rule 85. The hon member is casting aspersion on me by saying that I am guilty of hate speech. I would ask you to rule in that regard.

The ACTING HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): No, I will come back to it.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: No, when you divide anybody on race or religion, it is hate speech. Now, let me tell you, the Zionists have said this themselves, that they are superior to Jews. The problem is not the Jews. The Jews are saying that they live side by side, but the ACDP under Mr Swart is saying and is raising concerns about hate speech of the Jewish people. Now he is running away from the truth, because even the ACDP is promoting the division of religion. The fight in in Palestine is not about religion, but it depends on the votes that they are going to get out of a certain sector but failing miserably anyway. Let me say that.

So, let us respect everybody equally. DA, don’t talk too much, because you come here and talk about hate speech, but you are part and parcel that have done nothing to protect the dignity of the people and the children that are being massacred irrespective of what religion they belong to. And you will not
do it, because it is about money. Let me give you another 30 silver coins.

The ACTING HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): No, no, no,
hon Shaik Emam, just ... Hon member, I wanted you to stay here by the podium, while your time is up. Now, just stand up.
Thank you very much. Hon Swart, the Member said, why do you persist in this hate speech? That is a debate. Okay? It is a matter of debate, but remember, all of us, as the hon members are being cautioned not to encroach, in terms of directly reflecting on the integrity of a member. You may then leave the podium. Thank you.

Ms W S NEWHOUDT-DRUCHEN: Hon Chairperson, on the 8th of January 1912, hundreds of South Africans met in Bloemfontein, to establish the national organisation to protest against racial discrimination and appeal for equality before the law.

It was that day that the ANC was established, declaring to have all Africans together as one people to defend the rights and freedoms, building national unity and promoting national unity as the historical objective of the ANC.
For centuries, human dignity and equality were consistently denied for the majority of South Africans. The freedom we enjoy today was fought for. We chose constitutional democracy as our new way of life. We adopted the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land, to heal the divisions of our past and to bind in all South Africans. We adopted it to create inclusive society based on values and equality and human dignity.

Our Constitution is an important tool to transform society. Human dignity is the central value of the objective normative value system established by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court in the case of Dawood versus Minister of Home Affairs explained that the Constitution asserts dignity to contradict our past in which human dignity for black South Africans was routinely and cruelly denied. It asserts a tool to inform the future to invest in the democracy, respect with intrinsic worth of all human beings.

Human dignity therefore informs the constitutional adjudication and interpretation at a range of levels. It is a value that informs many, possibly all other rights. Humanities historical development across the world is littered with hatred of varying intensity, fuelling in many instances, blood
conflicts and leaving behind the litany of injustices. It is important that we confront hatred as the root cause of many of the social, economic, and political challenges that humanity has been seized with since time immemorial.

Chairperson, while we have made great strides by enacting progressive legislation in an effort to foster social cohesion and have established important state institution, the damage caused by centuries of colonial rule, the entrenched division, degradation and humiliation and hate are still embedded in the minds of people. Our nation is still deeply divided. It is still shocking that many children born during the democratic period can display acts of racial intolerance towards one another.

We support the enactment of the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill as it seeks to give effect to the Republic's obligations regarding prejudice and intolerance. It seeks to provide for the prosecution of persons who commit offences referred to and provides for appropriate sentences. The Bill seeks to provide for the prevention of hate crimes and hate speech and provide for effective enforcement measures.
Chairperson, from time to time we witness violent conduct of persons who are motivated by clear and defined prejudices, whether it is hate crime or hate speech targeting women or certain racial groups or members of the LGBTQI plus community, or whether it is persons living with disabilities. Hate exists and cannot be tolerated.

This Bill seeks to address that the message of deterrence is important. We want to live in a country free from hate and prejudice where we are united in our diversity. The Bill is critical for the realisation of a united nation. While it is not a silver bullet or a panacea to all our problems, the status quo cannot continue to exist.

We cannot turn a blind eye to hate crimes and hate speech, which often make rounds in our country. The Bill will allow hate crimes and hate speech to be comprehensively prosecuted. The Bill will send a strong message that hate, and prejudice are unacceptable in our society. As the leader of society, the ANC supports this Bill. I thank you, Chairperson.

Question put that the Bill, as amended, be passed.

There was no debate.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and African Christian democratic Party dissenting).

Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.



Mr G MAGWANISHE: House Chairperson, the Bill proposes to amend the State Liability Act of 1957 to provide for structured settlements for the satisfaction of claims against the state in cases of medical negligence. The Bill is intended as an interim measure to address rising medical legal claims against the state and the outcome of a larger investigation into medical legal claims by the SA Law Reform Commission.

The committee is informed that the commission's report is very close to being finalised. The committee is not in favour of a piece meal amendments to legislation and is of the opinion that at this stage, it is not desirable to proceed with the Bill.

It recommends that legislation to amend the State Liability Act be tabled once the commission has released its report and
after meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including the National Treasury and the Department of Health, are done. We recommend that this report be adopted. Thank you.


I move that the report be adopted.

Declarations of vote

Mr J ENGELBRECHT: Chairperson, thankfully this Bill will not be passed today. What led to the need for this Bill is, however, a serious matter. The extent of medical negligence litigation against the state and resulting cost have reached levels where there is a serious negative impact on service delivery in the public health sector and endangers every South African constitutional right to have access to healthcare services.

Because of failures at national government and the realistic threat of collapse of some provincial departments of health, an influx of lawsuits based on constitutional infringement is fast becoming a reality and will only become greater shoots than systemic problems in the public health sector and concerns about the quality of public health services are not addressed. The current conditions in public health services
have deteriorated to such an extent that the poor quality poses a threat to the financial sustainability of the government sector.

This can be ascribed to the fact that healthcare authorities seem to be in denial with regard to the failure of the health care system and the fact that authorities lack understanding of relevant legislation. Poor health services are caused by system failures and human failures which requires intervention from authorities from national, provincial, and local government.

This, coupled with ever increasing patient numbers and the lack of planning of how to deal with this has put pressure on health resources further compounding poor healthcare services. This government does not prioritise implementing existing medical negligence solutions. They prefer to blame lawyers and the Contingencies Fees Act for the healthcare crisis. This government claims to be caring a caring government. The mere existence of this Bill is an example that this is not the case at all.

Instead of identifying and addressing the problem, which is weak administration, leading to shockingly poor health
services, they choose to rather treat the symptoms of the problem, which is the tremendous outflow of money as a result of medical negligence and malpractice litigation. In other words, the objective of this Bill is to limit the instances and amounts of money you could claim from government if treatment in a public healthcare facility resulted in bodily harm or death. It says a lot.

Any court examining legislative amendments to implement the solution aimed at nearly curtailing the outflow of cash to settle claims, will do so against the backdrop of the existing healthcare system and the constitutional duty of the state to provide access to proper health care and the constitutionally protected right of the injured party to bodily integrity and access to the courts.

Therefore, any solution which forces an injured victim back to the very institution that injured him or her in the first place can only happen if and when that institution is operating efficiently and effectively and can guarantee consistent quality healthcare with an acceptable standard.
Currently not the case.
This Bill will not be enacted during this term. It will be for the Seventh Parliament to do that. The new government will have to find a way to address the problems in the public health sector that goes beyond yet another piece of amended legislation and implement the legal instruments and reports already in existence.

Until this is done, any attempt to change the basis of compensating the victims of medical malpractice by the state is premature, ill time and ill considered. The DA is in support of this report. Thank you.

Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Chairperson, the State Liability Bill was introduced as far back as 2018 to provide the legislative mechanisms, since terms of which the state deals with the increasing rate of medical negligence claims lodged against the state. The problem of medical legal claims is a growing concern and has been for years.

The failure by Parliament to update the State Liability Act of 1957 has provided an opportunity for rogue legal people who are swindling the state and the victims of medical negligence. of the monies due to them. I think we have seen as well, one
of the attorneys in the Eastern Cape who ended up claiming the money for himself.

Parliament has failed to take a comprehensive look at the necessity for these amendments and other amendments needed related to ... [Interjections.] ...

The ACTING HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon Sharon, you will be taken out. ICT? Thank you.

Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Yes, it is not only a said indictment against this house, but it also demonstrates a scant regard for the need to protect state resources and to protect victims of medical negligence. The Bill lapsed at the end of the term of the Fifth Parliament, and this House has done nothing of significance between 2019 and now to prioritise this type of legislation.

The committee now claims that it is not desirable to continue with this Bill because there is a comprehensive review of legislation needed so as to avoid introducing legislation on a piece meal basis. While we agree with the assertion, we are of the view that if Parliament was serious about this. This kind of work ought to have been done years ago.
Perhaps many of the alleged rogue units or rogue elements who are benefiting from this legislative laxity are part in causing this delay and working with some in the ruling party.

So, since 1994 the state has spent in estimation R150 billion and this money should have been used in building 24-hour health services, employing enough nurses as well as making sure that each and every medical centre has the necessary medication. This is badly affecting the poor and the marginalised.

We agree that there must be a comprehensive review, but we condemn the delays. The committee ought to have conducted this work itself over the past four and a half years, but it failed. That is incompetence. We do not support this report.


Prof C T MSIMANG: House Chair, the State Liability Amendment Bill is needed to provide protection from state medical malpractice. It is particularly important that people are protected under legislation, especially, when it comes to healthcare, and the fact that many people in this country are forced to use substandard state services. The IFP has long sounded the call for professionalisation in all government
departments. This is especially important as a high level of standard must be exercised in the health department, even the implications on human life and quality of life.

It is unfortunate that despite our calls for well-functioning health care system in South Africa, we have one of the lowest standards of state healthcare. Our hospitals lack necessities such as water, electricity, reliable intake of medical supplies, and a general lack of health practitioners. Simple items such as printer-toner cartridges for admin needs at hospital are coveted items, and yet the governing party feels that it is ready to take care of the highest standards of all the South Africans deserve through the ill-conceived National Health Insurance, NHI, almost as if they are blinded to the realities of our current state of clinics and hospitals.

In its latest move to gear up for the NHI, the amendments have been brought forth through the State Liability Amendment Bill to cater for possible shortcomings, as if the government is covering its tracks before it has even begun. The amendments to the Act state that if you have a successful claim against the state for medical malpractice, the states will only pay out corrective action if you use a state hospital, and if you use a private healthcare, the state will only pay the mega
rate that the state institution would charge. These amendments are shockingly dire for South Africans. What confidence does a person have after they have been found ... [Interjections.]

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): No, this 10 second is more than enough. Thank you very much.

Prof C T MSIMANG: Subject to the above concern, ... [Interjections.] ... we accept the Bill, and I thank you. [Time expired.]

Mr F J MULDER: Chair, while the state has increasingly been held liable for harm arising from crime over the last few years, the Department of Health has seen a substantial surge in litigation, respect of harm due to medical malpractice. The increased medical litigation trend, which has actually been linked with the general decline in public healthcare standards, is a real crisis. The principal difficulty with the provisions of this Bill as it stands, is that it is nothing more than a stopgap interim solution pending possible greater legislature reform.

The focus seems to be on limiting the compensation which victims of such malpractice are lawfully entitled to, whilst
failing to address the obvious shortcomings which there is in terms of patient care in our state hospitals and other institutions. The Bill intended read prospective application is neither justifiable nor reasonable. The FF Plus welcomes the committee’s rejection of the state liability Amendment Bill. Thank you, Chair.

Mr S N SWART: Chair, this is a very significant day. We as the ACDP have opposed this Bill in the previous Parliament and in this Bill. Now, the main motivation was the financial strain caused by medical claims against the Department of Health.
What I want to focus on is that, when we had the public hearings in the previous Parliament was the childbirth incidence of medical health. We have found it totally unacceptable that the state would not want to compensate poor women that have complications with childbirth resulting in children either dying or being born with cerebral palsy and are expected to rely on the same public health facilities for treatment for the rest of the lives of those poor children, it’s absolutely disgraceful.

Now, let me give you an example, N Sifumba versus the Health Eastern Cape, the mother sought and was denied emergency medical treatment. The hospital staff failed to monitor the
baby’s heart at 30-minute intervals, failed to detect or take precautions against fatal distress, failed to transfer it to another hospital, failed to perform a caesarean section. The child’s brain injury resulted in cerebral palsy, and the court held that the defendant was negligent and granted relief. Now, the state says no, that poor woman is not entitled to relief, it must be staggered over the rest of the life of that child, which would even cost more. According to the submission of the Legal Resources Centre during our public hearings, what is rather urgently needed is steps to address the systemic failures and shortfalls in the public health sector facilities provided to woman for childbirth in order to guarantee the rights of the woman.

So, what Parliament is doing today by rejecting this Bill, is in fact, protecting the rights of women. We believe and we urge the Department of Health to rather investigate those shortfalls that are cause in woman complications with obstetrics, causing babies to die, causing babies to be born with cerebral palsy and other injuries. Those are very important, rather than trying to limit those women from claiming as a result of these injuries.
Of course, the Bill also wants to prescribe to the courts that there’s another. challenge there of the separation of powers, and the actuaries gave evidence to say that over the long run it will cost more to the state, more to the state. So, how can this be cost savings? The ACDP believes that during these 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Against Women, we submit that the medical malpractice during childbirth is a critical issue that deserves our attention. We welcome this report, and we welcome the rejection of this Bill. I thank you.

Mr B N HERRON: House Chair, we have no declaration. Thank you.


Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, yes, and the NFP notes and supports this report. We welcome the fact that this Bill will be temporarily withdrawn until we resolve the matter. However, let me start off by saying, yes, I do understand when a child, particularly, is born, and as a result of negligence of medical practitioners, it’s a serious concern because that affects the rest of that child’s life. Equally, I’d like us also to be mindful of the fact that they were over 500 children. Let me repeat, Chairperson, over 500 children. The mothers that were about to give birth to these children could
not get an anaesthetic despite being overdue. Many of them died, the children died, and the mothers died.

The Zion State of Israel, when searching those vehicles that were transporting medicine, deliberately pull out the anaesthetic so that there’s nothing available. Now, can you be more barbaric than that? So why are we selective when we talk about anyone, and yes, one child dying is one too many. What about those hundreds of children which were deliberately murdered? That is the term. So, let us be consistent when we when we talk about wanting to meet our proper and decent healthcare services. Now, I think the question that we need to ask here, Chairperson, firstly is, yes, those that have suffered as a result of malpractices or weaknesses in the health system must be compensated.

On the other hand, we need to ask ourselves, why is there so much of medical negligence? One reason is, we are employing anybody and everybody, recruiting anybody and everybody, not those that have a passion for healthcare. When you advertise and there are 20 million people that are now unemployed, anybody and everybody is going to apply for the job, that’s one of the problems. Then you have those that have two different jobs, running from one to the other one. They don’t
have the necessary facilities and or the medication and things. Then you have the problem of high levels of corruption, Chairperson, between corrupt legal practitioners together with healthcare workers and those that claim to be victims.

So, I think that we need to balance this to ensure that those that suffer are not victimised, but at the same time, be very careful that we are not exploited as a state because people believe the state is a cash cow, we just pay and pay and pay, and that must stop. We can’t allow that to continue. So. in conclusion, the NFP will support the adoption of this report, and let’s go into it and see how we can find a balance on this. With that said, let us not forget the plight of the children of Palestine who have been dying by this Zionist State of Israel’s conduct ... [Interjections.] ... Thank you. [Time expired.]

Ms N H MASEKO-JELE: Hon Chair, members of the legislature, members of the House, the ANC rises in support of the report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services. In the case of the Nyathi v MEC for Health, the court explained that the concept of state liability in South Africa was statutorily introduced in terms of the Crown
Liabilities Act of 1910. It describes the Act as a relic of a legal regime which was preconstitutional and placed the state above the law. Effectively, the state operated from the premise that, “the King can do no wrong”. That state of affairs ensured that the state and by parity of reasoning, its officials could not be held accountable for their actions. The provision has since changed drastically. Fast forward to the constitutional dispensation. The founding provisions contained in the preamble to the Constitution of 1996 echoes the principles of the Freedom Charter, by stating inter alia that the Constitution as the supreme law lays the foundation for the democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law. Accountability is an important value in our democracy.

A person who suffers damages as a result of negligent medical treatment has the right to claim compensation or satisfaction for damages in terms of common law. Once and for all ...

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon member Maseko- Jele, one second. Hon members Dr Groenewald and the young lady in the yellow outfit, and here Dr Gondwe and the hon member
who is looking at you, can we all be in the House please? Thank you. You may proceed.

Ms Z MAJOZI: Chair, before she proceeds, can you address me properly?

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon Majozi.


Ms Z MAJOZI: Thank you.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Thank you, and ... also ... what I said as well. Thank you so much.

Ms N H MASEKO-JELE: A plaintiff must therefore claim damages once for all damages already sustained or expected in future. The State Liability Amendment Bill of 2018 aims to amend the principal Act so as to provide for structured settlements to the satisfaction of claims against the state as a result of wrongful medical treatment of persons by servants of the state. The Bill is intended as an interim measure to address rising medical legal claims against the state, pending the outcome of a larger investigation into medical legal claims by the SA Law Reform Commission, SALRC.
We are not in favour of piecemeal amendments to legislation, hon Mkhwebane. ... nothing stopgap about the Bill.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Order, hon members. Hon members.

Ms N H MASEKO-JELE: Ours is the recommendation that legislation to amend the State Liability Act be tabled once the SALRC has concluded its investigations and after meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including the National Treasury and the Department of Health. The ANC supports the report.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Thank you. Order, hon members. Hon members. Hon members. Haibo! Hon members. Hon Marshall? Hon Sonti? Hon Sonti, we have heard you. May I proceed if possible? Thank you very much.

Question put. That the Report be adopted.


Motion agreed to.


Report accordingly adopted.


(Second Reading)

There was no debate.


Bill not read a second time.



There was no debate.


Ms G K TSEKE: Chair, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Freedom Front Plus, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Report accordingly adopted.


(Second Reading debate)


The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Chairperson, this is the first substantive amendment since the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Ipid, came into operation on the 1st of April 2012 and the processes of affecting amendments to the Act commenced in 2016 following the Constitutional Court judgement in the McBride v Minister of Police and Another. The Bill seeks to entrench the institutional and operational independence of Ipid, as well as to make it expressly clear that Ipid must be independent, impartial and must exercise its powers and functions without fear, favour or prejudice in line with the McBride judgement where Judge Bosielo made certain pronouncements concerning the importance of the independence of Ipid. In the McBride judgement, the Constitutional Court stated that ascertaining what the independence of Ipid should be requires the determination of a wide range of factors, amongst this being the method of appointment, the method of reporting disciplinary proceedings, the method of removal of the executive director from office as well as security of tenure.

In order to give effect to the abovementioned assertions, the process of appointment of the executive director of Ipid has
been amended with a view to providing for a certain level of transparency. The drafting of the amendment in this clause was guided by the regulatory framework that governs the appointment of heads of national departments.

In terms of the new procedural requirements for selection of a suitable candidate for appointment as executive director, a panel will be appointed by the Minister to assist the Minister in identifying suitable persons for appointment. Thereafter, the Minister shall submit the name of a selected candidate to the relevant parliamentary committee, which will either confirm or reject the nomination. I know that the opposition will want to argue that Ipid must be independent from the Minister of Police and therefore the appointment of the executive director must be aligned to Chapter 9 institution appointments. The point which they are missing is that Ipid's mandate is not to investigate the Minister but to investigate police conduct in the exercise of police powers.

I am certain that we are all aware that the conducting of investigations is a core function of Ipid. As such, without investigating officials, Ipid will not be able to fulfil its mandate of investigating any alleged misconduct committed by a member of the SA Police Service, SAPS, or municipal police
service. It is therefore imperative that Ipid attracts skilled and experienced investigators who will be able to carry out their duties diligently.

To achieve this objective, the Bill sets out new qualification requirements for appointment as Ipid investigator. This means that the investigators to be appointed at Ipid will, after the commencement of this amendment, be required to have a diploma or a degree. A matric certificate alone will no longer be accepted.

To increase the retention of staff and to entrench its investigators’ powers, the salary dispensation of Ipid’s investigators shall be determined by the Minister of Police in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance, and it shall no longer be on par with the SAPS members appointed as detectives, as stated in the principal Act. The Bill also seeks to bestow upon Ipid’s investigators an additional function of taking buccal samples so as to further enhance their investigative powers. Ipid’s investigators will also be empowered to subpoena persons to appear before the investigator or provincial head. This is another mechanism in which the investigative powers of Ipid’s investigators will be enhanced.
Inherently, in certain circumstances police officers will have to exert a level of aggression in order to affect arrests. It is therefore unreasonable and restraining to subject them to an investigation every time minor offences are used in the exercise of their duties. It also unnecessarily overloads the Ipid.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Thank you, hon Deputy Minister. Your time is expired, sir.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: I stand here to urge the House to support the amendment Bill. Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr A M SEABI: Chair, hon House Chairperson, hon Minister, Deputy Minister of Police, other Ministers and Deputy Ministers present in the august House, hon members of this House, today’s debate on the tabling of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Bill ... [Interjections.]

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Voositter, op ’n punt van orde:


I just want to know whether it is acceptable that Members of Parliament could have lunch or dinner in this House? The hon member here is eating in the House. I don’t think it is acceptable. Can I have your ruling on it please.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon member, can I just indicate that all of us are aware that we are not allowed to drink any liquid except water. Secondly, to eat as we eat we are also not allowed. Hon member, may you desist from doing that. Proceed, hon Seabi. [Interjections.] Of course, it’s wrong, but I’m not too sure the reasons whether she has high blood pressure or sugar issues. I am still going to check that. Thank you. [Interjections.] Hon members, I didn’t see the member, and I am cautioning the member. Hon Seabi, can you sit down. Hon Groenewald, can you assist me with the member so that I can be direct.

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Chair, can I ask the hon member to raise her hand. Can you just raise it so that everybody can see who you are. It is Johan here in front of me. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon members! Hon members, can we stop the gestures. Hon Sonti, no, we cannot preside all of us in the House. It becomes chaotic. There
shall be no chaos here. Hon members, hon Groenewald is correct. In terms of Rule 64(g), you are not allowed to eat, speak on the phone, drink nothing other than water, read a newspaper any other conduct that disrespect the decorum of the House. Hon member, please ... no, no, you are not a spokesperson. Hon members, I am making a ruling, and you are making a joke out of it. No, no! Hon Sonti ...

... kutheni bethuna?



Hon member, whoever is that member, please go outside and find your lunch and come back. Just do that so that it becomes clean and orderly in this House. Thank you.

Hon member, I am talking to you. You know yourself. Please take a leave and come back later so that we can proceed. Hon member, just for the sake of progress, please do that. Hon members, no! [Interjections.] Yes, you are shouting at me. [Interjections.] But you are interacting now. If we are bored
,hon members, please excuse yourself and come back to the House when you are ready. I cannot call you more than three
times as if I’m joking. I will call you two times and the

third time you will leave the room.


Mr V GERICKE: Chairperson, on a point of order: Can I advise you?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): On which Rule?


Mr V GERICKE: I think it is Rule 84 if I’m correct.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Proceed!


Mr V GERICKE: Can I ask you as the Chairperson. While we concur with the Rules that we must not eat in the Chamber, after the Chairperson had made a ruling, and rightfully so, not in dispute, is it necessary to expel the member? Is that not a humiliation? Is it also right for another member to tell a member to raise his/her hand in order to identify the member? Can that be right? That is utmost humiliation of the member in the House. I sadly do not agree. I agree with you that you have may reprimand the member when the member is eating or transgress the Rules, but we should not expose people to humiliation.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon members, I have made a ruling. Your points nevertheless are valid but there’s no Rule that talks to that in terms of Rule 84. But I heard you, you said you think so you might not be accurate. I will request that we proceed with the debate and the business of the day.

Secondly, hon member while you are correct on a humanitarian and also respect, I didn’t expel the member but I said she must go out and finish her lunch and come back. You must also be very accurate on that.

Secondly, hon members, do assist the presiding officer by keeping quiet so that is clear and also the ruling is very clear. If you scream, then it becomes a chaos. It is just an appeal and I know we get exited sometimes. Thank you very much.

Mr A M SEABI: Hon members, today’s debate on the tabling of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Bill takes place exactly 10 years since the departure of Tata Nelson Mandela from this world of the living. As we commemorate 10 ears since Madiba’s passing, we should do so mindful that this democracy we so much cherish was not free.
Many compatriots lost their lives, families lost their loved ones, and many disappeared without trace. We owe it to Madiba and all the liberation stalwarts to continue entrenching the democratic system that guarantees and protects each other’s rights.

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Bill 2023 was approved by Cabinet for introduction in Parliament on 24 May 2023. Prior notice of its introduction was published in the Government Gazette No 48756 dated 7 June 2023. The Bill was subsequently introduced in Parliament by the Minister and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Police on 20 July 2023 as a proposed section 75 Bill. The Bill was officially tagged as section 75 Bill by the parliamentary the Joint Tagging Mechanism in terms of the Joint Rule 106(6) on
16 August 2023.


On 6 September 2023, the Portfolio Committee On Police adopted a motion of desirability on the Bill and decided to continue with the processes to consider the Bill. The majority view was that there is an urgent need to strengthen, through legislation, the institutional and operational indolence of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Ipid, and
give effect to the Constitutional Court judgment in the case of McBride v Minister of Police and Another.

Whilst there were concerns about the lack of certification of the Bill by the Office of the State Law Advisor as it relates to apprehension on the constitutionality of clause 4 of the Bill, the committee underscored that the principles of the Bill are accepted. The committee’s adoption of the motion of desirability is in line with the National Assembly Rule 286(6)

The committee reiterated that it has taken due regards and consideration of the legal advice provided and will ensure that its processes are in compliance with the Constitution, laws and regulations of the country and National Assembly Rules. The decision was necessary as Parliament is the only body that has a mandate to legislate the structural and operational independence of IPID in accordance with section
206 of the Constitution.


We must also emphasise that the decision was taken with full consideration of the legal advice provided and that every step of he process will be guided by legal considerations.
Hon Chairperson, our democratic system is premised on the principle of representativity and participatory democracy. It is born out of our lodestar policy principle as enshrined in the Freedom Charter that the people shall govern. Informed by the said principle, the call for public submission on the Bill was opened on 12 September 2023. That advertisement was published in all official languages in national and regional newspapers. The deadline for submissions was set for 02 October 2023 and was extended to 6 October 2023 to allow for late submissions.

In addition to the public for the call for submissions a social media campaign was launched to create public awareness of the amendment Bill. Several media statements were issued by the committee’s chairperson and the committee directly invited stakeholders in the policing environment to comment on the Bill. The Portfolios Committee on Police received a number of substantive and nonsubstantive public submissions on the Bill. Most submissions highlighted the significant power vested in law enforcement agencies to use deadly force and deprive citizens of liberty and thus the need for independent oversight when such power is abused. The submissions were further based on clause 4 relating to the appointment, term of office and remuneration of the Ipid executive director. Clause
16 amending section 28 of the principal Act relates to the categories for Ipid investigations. The important point to emphasise is that public participation is meant to allow citizens and interested parties to have a say in the process of drafting legislation.

During public hearings the committee considered South Africa’s obligation under the ratified Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Opcat, for possible inclusion in to the Bill, the directorate forms part of the South Africa’s national preventative mechanism as required under Opcat.

Together with other legislated oversight bodies such as the Judicial Inspectorate For Correctional Services, office of the Military Ombud, Health Ombud and the SA Humna Rights Commission to conduct inspection to cites where persons are deprived of their liberty.

After many deliberations the committee decided not to extend the scope of the Bill to include Opcat obligations. The decisions was based on the various factors amongst which was a concern that such inclusion will cause a fragmented approach
to the implementation of the convention where it will be dealt with in different pieces of legislation.

In addition to consultations with academic stakeholders during the public hearing, the committee engaged with Ipid and the Civilian Secretariat for Police Services.

In conclusion, House Chair, allow me to thank members of the Portfolio Committee on Police, the Minister of Police, the Deputy Minister of Police, the Acting Secretary for Police and his team, the executive director of IPID and her team and our support staff for the efforts to process this highly anticipated and significant important Bill. We had robust but respectful deliberations on the Bill which was encouraging and highly appreciated. Lastly, I wish to thank the public for their submissions and participation in the legislative process. Public participation is central to the business of Parliament as enshrined in our Constitution. Hon members, the ANC supports the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Bill. I thank you.

Mr A G WHITFIELD: House Chairperson, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate was established in terms of section
206 of the Constitution in order to serve as an independent
watchdog of police conduct. In this debate it is important that members understand the nature of IPID’s independence, which is enshrined in the Constitution and whether said independence can or should be strengthened.

In this regard, it is instructive for the House to note what the Constitutional Court had to say about independence of such institutions in the Glenister judgment, which was cited in the McBride matter, and I quote:

What is required is not insulation from political accountability, but only insulation from a degree of management by political actors that threatens imminently to stifle the independent functioning and operations of the unit.

Now, since the beginning of the Sixth Parliament, IPID has featured prominently on the parliamentary and public agenda. The noise surrounding the unlawful suspension of Robert McBride and the non-renewal of his contract as executive director still echoed in the corridors.

In 2016, the Constitutional Court, ConCourt, had charged Parliament to amend the IPID Act to limit the Minister’s
powers, arbitrarily remove the IPID executive director, which Parliament did.

Now as the Sixth Parliament begins to wind down, IPID is back in the news thanks to the introduction of a new amendment Bill, which initially sought to remove Parliament’s role in the process to appoint the executive director of IPID.

When this Bill was introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Police, it arrived without the requisite constitutional certification from the chief state law advisor.

Furthermore, both parliamentary legal services, as well as an independent senior council, found the Bill in its original form to be unconstitutional. The astounding arrogance and brazen determination of the Minister and Cabinet to knowingly introduce an unconstitutional Bill exposes the ANC’s utter contempt for Parliament and Minister Cele’s nefarious agenda, to fully capture the South African Police Service.

In spite of this glaring constitutional flaw and in spite of objections from all other members of the committee except the ANC, the ANC ultimately wielded their majority and agreed to
process the Bill in order to rectify it. Or, to put it more

plainly, to fix the executive’s mess.


So, why was the original Bill considered to be unconstitutional by three separate legal minds? It is because the original Bill removed Parliament’s oversight role in the appointment process of the executive director of IPID, which already existed in the principal act in section 6.

So, in order to rectify the flaw, the committee has simply reinstated an existing provision in the principal act, effectively ticking a box instead of using the opportunity, to strengthen IPID’s independence.

In this messy game of cut, copy, paste between Cabinet and committee, Parliament has ultimately retained its bare minimum oversight role in the process to appoint the executive director, ED. However, this is only after the Minister has nominated his candidate and only for Parliament to approve at the end of the process.

The problem is that the Minister has already demonstrated in this Sixth Parliament through the appointment of the current
executive director, how he can manage the outcome through his disproportionate influence over the process.

In July 2020, the Minister brought his nominee for executive director to Parliament. After a selection process run by a panel appointed by the Minister and constituted with the following political actors; Minister Ndabeni Abrahams, Minister Lamola and Deputy Minister Matale, as well as the Secretary of Police, a position appointed by the Minister of Police. Without as much as a sliver of scrutiny, the ANC members in the committee at the time, moved swiftly to rubber stamp the Minister’s nominee and the triumphant Minister marched on proudly stomach out, chest in.

I have argued strongly since 2019 that to adequately secure IPID’s independence, Parliament must play an even greater role than the IPID Act envisages, for reasons perfectly illustrated by the 2020 process. It must be Parliament that appoints an independent panel of experts to shortlist applicants and Parliament that conducts the final interviews in order to transparently assess the suitability of the applicants.

Thereafter, Parliament must recommend a suitable candidate for the Minister to appoint. This would draw the appointment
process out of the shadows and into the light for the public to scrutinize, by placing Parliament at the beginning of the process and not at the end.

Regrettably, the ANC have decided to retain the status quo, which, based on recent experience, does not adequately insulate IPID from the degree of management by political actors which directly threatens to imminently stifle the independent functioning and operations of the unit which the Constitutional Court demands.

This Bill falls short of this requirement. Instead of strengthening Parliament’s arm by sending the Minister back to the drawing board, after he so clearly revealed his nefarious intent, the ANC has chosen to try and unscramble his unconstitutional egg, which will have the inevitably consequence of leaving Parliament with egg on its face and relegating IPID from a police watchdog ... [Interjection.] [Inaudible.] ... lapdog. [Time expired.]

Mr V GERICKE: Madam House Chair, colleagues, the EFF is a democratic party based on the principles of justice and the democratic Constitution. And will defend the culture of human rights wherever we go. No member, regardless of colour and
creed or religion, will be insulted or humiliated in our presence, wherever EFF members are present.

House Chairperson, the Independent Investigative Directorate, is a constitutional entity. Established in terms of section 206(6) of the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution envisioned that this would be an independent body guided only by the law to which members of the public would lay complaints against the police. The IPID is therefore constitutionally required to be independent and to be free from political interference.

While section 6(611) of the IPID Act, authorizes the Minister to remove the executive director from office on specified grounds, the section is silent on oversight of the Ministers action by Parliament. This potentially grants the Minister wide-ranging powers to interfere in the operations of IPID, and the Minister, of course, did when he decided to unlawfully dismiss Mr Robert McBride as the head of IPID.

House Chairperson, the Constitutional Court judgment in the Robert McBride case has far reaching implications for this Parliament and its committees. The judgement emphasized that the state of independence of IPID and the role of the Minister
in the appointment and termination of the executive director of IPID ...

It is vividly clear in this judgment that the Constitutional Court has given direction in terms of the separation of powers. Our constitutional democracy is based, inter alia, on the principles of fairness, justice, and the separation of powers.

The court in this matter confirmed the constitutional imperative that the state cannot be referee and player at the same time. It is against this background that the committee had to amend certain sections of the IPID Act.

House Chairperson, part of the objectives of the McBride case, was to ensure that power is not abused by any public office bearers, be it the deputy director general, DDG the Minister be at the mayor, it does not matter. No abuse of power will be allowed in this dispensation.

It is for this reason that the court has ruled that the Minister does not have the right or ... [Inaudible.] ... standing to interfere in the appointment or termination of the
executive director of IPID without the involvement of Parliament.

The EFF concurs with the judgment of the Constitutional Court in this regard and holds a similar view that no person, regardless of title or position, may assume authority that is not in alignment with the roles or responsibilities and mandate of such an office.

The EFF further holds a view that no political interference should be condoned by virtue of a concealed section in any law that may jeopardize, compromise or conflict, the independence of IPID or any other institution of states.

The independence of IPID should be protected at all costs. This institution is bound to investigate transgressions and violations of the police. For this reason, we hold a very strong belief that this institution cannot account, and this is a very critical point, Madam House Chair, cannot account to the same person, who is also a political principal of the perpetrators that the IPID must investigate.

The judgment is written and designed in such a way to prevent interference of any kind. And for this reason, Madam House
Chair, the EFF submits that the authority to appoint and suspend the executive director, must be exclusively the role and responsibility of Parliament. This will ensure that nepotism, favouritism, cronyism, corruption, and political interference will be ruled out in this regard, which has become a culture of the ANC.

The Bill still falls too short of these requirements, and still leaves too much power to the Minister. While we are satisfied that the Bill deals adequately with the judgment of the Constitutional Court on the McBride case alone, we are of the view that that the legislature could have done much more to broaden the amendments and to strengthen the role of IPID.

Madam House Chair, to my colleague, that is referred to 1912 with regard to the ANC. I want to draw your attention to the fact that in 1912 something else significantly happened. It was when the Titanic sank, in 1912. History tells us that 7550 people were on the Titanic. Only 2224 survived. It’s because cracks came into the Titanic. And the water started to invade the Titanic.

This afternoon I’m reminded that the almighty ANC, is busy sinking. You were just once the admired party of this country,
but you are sinking, you are drowning in the water, because of the fact of abuse of power, corruption, perennialism, nepotism and the more we talk to you, the more you howl at us.

It is the sign of your arrogance, the public of South Africa, will no longer tolerate. The EFF is the next government to step up, it will make sure that we rule this country. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Order hon members. Hon members, hon members, we now shall proceed, I recognize
... hon members order, order hon members. You shall indicate when you are done, hon members. Sonti, you will advise me when you are done. Thank you, I now recognize hon Majozi.

Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon House Chairperson, accountability and transparency are the cornerstone of our democracy and the pillars upon which His Excellency Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi founded the IFP. Therefore, we will remain fervent in our support of those mandated to act as watchdogs over departments and entities that are tasked with maintaining the rule of law in our country. The low levels of public trust in the SA Police Service means that entities such as the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Ipid, must take up their
role in criminal justice proceedings by ensuring that investigations against the police are carried out effectively.

The independence of our criminal justice system and all entities should be of great concern to all of us, especially considering our country’s recent history of state capture and corruption. Therefore, the IFP remains convinced the Ipid must remain impartial to any influence that can hamper the fulfilment of its mandate. It is with this in mind that we cannot accept the Bill's intent to centralise control over the appointment of the selection panel and the Ipid’s executive director in the hands of the Police Minister in the Cabinet.
As the IFP has repeatedly stated, especially in recent weeks, the involvement of Parliament in appointment processes has been crucial in retaining the integrity of these selection processes and safeguarding them from succumbing to influence and bias. We have continuously said that and proposed in the committee, to let the process of selecting a panel be a parliamentary process and so by virtue via the Portfolio Committee on Police, but it fell on deaf ears. We cannot allow a single Minister to be the coach, player, and referee at the same time.
Under the leadership of the current government, we have witnessed the devastation caused by political influence and agendas in crucial government departments, and we have seen how this has nearly compromised the integrity of our justice system. Instead of wanting absolute power, the Minister should be advocating for the Ipid to increase its footprint as currently it is only operational where it has offices, perhaps the Minister should focus on how we'll address the budget constraints to ensure that the services of the Ipid reach all South Africans. In consideration of the comments made, the IFP rejected the Bill and subsequently, we rejected the report as well. Thank you.

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, if you look at the process that this Bill followed, it is actually proof that the ANC government is allergic to accountability. When this Bill came to the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised my objection because the time was too short, there was not enough and thorough thinking about it as far as consultation was concerned and everything was pushed by the misuse of the ANC’s majority to get this Bill to this House today. If I say accountability, then it’s no surprise that the governing party does not want to be accountable.
Let’s look at what happened with this process. The Minister, knowing that the Bill is unconstitutional, even went to a private senior counsel that cost the taxpayer about R78 000 for an opinion, ignoring the recommendations and findings of the state law adviser, but it still continued. Now, the question is the following. Did Cabinet know about the fact that it is unconstitutional? I actually asked the question but I did not get a clear answer. So, I have no doubt that even the Cabinet knew that it is unconstitutional. That is proof of the disrespect of the ANC government towards the electorate of South Africa because you don’t want to be accountable. You are in government and you will do as you wish, specifically when it comes to the Minister.


’n Verantwoordelike regering sal alles in sy vermoë doen om te sorg dat hy deursigtig is. Hierdie wet en die wetsontwerp en die proses wat gevolg is, is herhaaldelik bewys dat die ANC absoluut disrespekvol teenoor die kiesers van Suid-Afrika is. Hy wil nie verantwoordbaar teenoor die kiesers van Suid-Afrika wees nie. Die Minister van Polisie beklee ‘n uiters belangrike portefeulje, want elkeen van ons wat hier sit, elke Suid- Afrikaanse burger, elke vrou en elke kind is afhanklik van die optrede van die polisie om hul veiligheid te waarborg. Maar jy
het ’n Minister wat hom nie steur aan wat die opposisie hom teen waarsku nie.

Ek wil vandag sê dat u moet verwag dat hierdie wetsontwerp weer ’n keer in die Konstitusionele Hof sal draai. ’n Verantwoordelike regering sal moeite doen om in belang van die kiesers te sorg dat daar deursigtigheid is.

The FF Plus will not support this Bill. Why can’t we just have the same committee, like for instance the SA Broadcasting Corporation, SABC, Board or like the Judicial Service Commission, where Members of Parliament can ask questions to specific candidates for the executive of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Ipid, organisation.

Therefore, I want to put it clearly that the ANC is actually also ignoring this House and is disrespectful towards this House. I thank you.

Rev K R J MESHOE: House Chairperson, more than 7 000 SAPS officers have been arrested in the last five years for crimes including cash-in-transit heists, kidnapping, rape and murder, but shockingly, only 686 of these, under 10%, were convicted.
South Africa desperately needs a truly independent organisation to investigate crimes committed by the police. Members, if the Independent Police Investigative Directorate is to be independent, it cannot have its leader appointed and removed by the Minister of Police. According to section 4 of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act, “The directorate functions independently from the SA Police Service,” and secondly, “Each organ of state must assist the directorate to maintain its impartiality and to perform its functions effectively.

In short, the police cannot independently and properly investigate their fellow police officers. Every organ of the state must help the Ipid to police the police independently and properly. The Constitutional Court has also ruled on the matter. According to the judgement of McBride vs Minister of Police and Another, the executive director of Ipid cannot and should not be appointed, dismissed or disciplined by the Minister of Police. Parliament should bring another amendment to change the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act to prevent this from happening and thus be in line with the ruling of the Constitutional Court. If nobody can successfully investigate his or her boss, even then, how can the Ipid investigate the police while its executive director reports to
the Minister of Police? We believe it should be the Minister of Justice. Although the ACDP has noted the inclusion into the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Act of some parliamentary oversight in the appointment of the executive director of the Ipid, we believe that this is not enough.

The Bill gives the Minister of Police the power to appoint the panel to advise him or her on the selection of the Ipid’s executive director and the Minister of Police is still the one who nominates the Ipid’s executive director. Although the Parliamentary Oversight Committee will have the right to reject the Minister's nomination, the majority of members of that committee are likely to agree with the Minister because they are likely to belong to the same political party, as is the case now. In conclusion, The ACDP rejects the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Bill. The people of South Africa deserve a police force they can trust, and only a truly independent and even effective Ipid can deliver that. I thank you.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, I think first of all, the question we must ask ourselves is, if, and this is, I think it’s what is confusing the Minister. First of all - no they
won’t, it’s all under the control of the Zionist State of Israel – So, it’s their way or no way. However, the question I think is, if the Minister commits a crime, who does the Minister gets accountable to? Which law enforcement structure is responsible to prosecute the Minister? Now, is the Minister not politically deployed, not a police officer, politically deployed? If he is a politically deployed, then my understanding is that the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, IPID, cannot investigate him because there are other law enforcement agencies that are responsible for that.

If that is the case, then there’s no conflict. However, if the Minister is accountable and can be investigated by IPID, then it's a different situation. I think that’s the question we need to ask ourselves. Our understanding is that, no, the Minister is not responsible and cannot be investigated by the IPID because he’s not a police officer, he’s politically deployed, that is our understanding. So, maybe once we clear that, then we'll have a better understanding whether indeed he is the referee and the player or not. So, the IPID has to report to somebody. If he is politically deployed, then there’s nothing wrong with him reporting to the Minister. So, I think that’s the first thing. Having said that, let me tell you, IPID is not one of my favourites, and I’ll tell you, why?
It is because, IPID, to some extent, not as a result of them or because of IPID itself, but because of the Act which has put a certain amount of fear into the police officers.

I don’t hear anybody talking about the way police officers are dying in this country, but I hear about people talking about others dying, criminals dying as a result of police action, and that is where I have a problem. There’s not enough protection for police officers, perhaps maybe, we need a separate unit just to investigate these police killings, and what measures can be put in place to protect the police officers from the criminals, because our focus is to protect the criminals rather than the police officers. The IPID has come here now, okay, with its watchful eye watching every action of the police officers to the extent that police officers can’t act, and when they can’t act timeously, they are dying. So, maybe we need a better understanding of what the position is as far as the Minister is concerned. What measures are going to be put in place to protect the police officers and not fear IPID because they can’t conduct themselves. Thank you very much. The NFP will support this.

M.Gen O S TERBLANCHE: Hon Chairperson, hon members and fellow South Africans, in a country like South Africa, legislators
understandably wanted to ensure that the new democracy had sufficient scope for public participation to best promote human rights. There’s certainly been a very clear attempt to build in checks and balances to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated again. Police brutality and even murder were commonplace to control and deter opponents of South Africa’s former regime.

The departments as the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, IPID, formally, the Independent Compliance Directorate were established to investigate complaints against the SA Police and the Municipal Police Service, MPS, to protect the public. For some secret and unknown reason, this Draft Amendment Bill did not follow the prescribed route of being tabled in Parliament. In terms of Rule 279(2) of the National Assembly, any Bill submitted by a Minister must be certified as constitutional by the Chief Legal Adviser and must be properly drafted in a format consistent with normal legislative practice.

If it’s not certified, the Bill must be accompanied by a report or legal opinion on why it has not been certified. Yet, the Minister has failed to explain to the committee why he was so intent on this Bill moving forward, despite it being
unconstitutional and despite the objection of various opposition parties. It appears that it was an attempt to bulldoze this Bill through at all costs, to provide even greater powers to the Minister with less Parliament oversight, and to ignore the Constitutional Court judgment of McBride which ensured structural and operational independence.

The DA’s minority view is that the Amendment clause 4 is insufficient to protect IPID from political interference. Currently, IPID is unable to fulfil its intended role, mainly due to budget constraints. It manifests itself in severe shortages of both human and physical resources that causes an ever-growing backlog of the cases that IPID simply cannot investigate. The Civilian Secretariat for Police Service, CSPS, missed the golden opportunity with this Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, their hazard approach won’t yield the required outcome and the 7th Congress will have to go down this path again. The DA do not support this Amendment Bill.

Ms N P PEACOCK: Hon House Chair, before I get to my speech, let me first speak to some members who were just here at the podium. Hon Groenewald and hon Terblanche, you debated in the portfolio committee. You said what your issues were. ... because you could not get what you wanted through ... because
it's what you believe ... that whatever you say should go. If it does not happen according to ... you ... you'll come and say something different. From the speech that I'm going to highlight, I will stipulate some of the things that you say we did not follow, and we did. We explained that to you. The problem is that if you want to believe what you want to believe, there's nothing we can do. We have to pass this Bill.

We are participating in this debate in order to communicate our support for the amendment of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act following the court judgement that highlighted some areas in the Act that should be amended. We should perhaps remind ourselves that the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, Ipid, is an organ of state established by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act to, among others do such things as: to ensure independent oversight of the SA Police Service, SAPS, and municipal police service; to align provincial strategic objectives with that of the national office to enhance the functioning of the directorate; to provide for independent and impartial investigations of identified criminal offences allegedly committed by members of the SAPS and the municipal police service; and to make disciplinary recommendations in
respect of members of the SAPS and municipal police service, resulting from investigations conducted by the directorate.

In section ... I want the members that were here not to interject but to listen to what I'm going to say. In terms of section 206(6) of the Constitution, an independent police complaint body established by national legislation must investigate any alleged misconduct of/or offence committed by a member of the Police Service in a province. This constitutional requirement has found expression in the establishment of the Ipid through the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act of 2019.


Hulle sal mos nie hoor nie want hulle praat. Ja, hulle sal nie hoor nie.

The purpose of the directorate is to ensure independent oversight of the SAPS and the municipal police service. The thrust of the directorate is to conduct independent and impartial investigations of identified criminal offences allegedly committed by members of the police and municipal
police service and ... appropriate recommendations when wrongdoings are identified.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Peacock, could
you please take your seat? There’s a point of order.


Mr M MANYI: Chair, I just wanted to find out if the member could take a question.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Peacock, can you take a question?

Ms N P PEACOCK: I'm here to deliver my speech. I'm not here to respond to questions. The independence of oversight bodies that are mandated to investigate alleged police misconduct and criminality is internationally regarded as a key cornerstone in ensuring police accountability and public trust ... that police members are not above the criminal justice system.
Police impunity has been raised as a major concern by the Portfolio Committee on Police due to the lack of ... [Inaudible.] ... sanctions through internal mechanisms against members of the police who are accused of serious criminal acts, including murder, aggravated assault and rape.
The structural and operational independence of the directorate was brought into sharp focus during the 2016 Constitutional Court challenge brought by the executive directorate against the Minister of Police. The McBride judgement concluded that the directorate, through the executive director, did not have sufficient safeguards against potential political interference, where the Minister can unilaterally dismiss the executive director from office. The court outlined various similarities between the Ipid and the Hawks as anticorruption bodies in their need to be independent and highlighted that the Hawks enjoyed more independence from political interference than the Ipid. The Constitutional Court highlighted the method of appointment and removal from office of the Ipid’s executive director as a test to the operational structural independence of the Ipid. The court highlighted the fact that the principal Act provides for parliamentary oversight over the appointment process of the executive director while being silent on parliamentary oversight over the removal from office. The Constitutional Court found that the unilateral power of the Minister of Police to institute disciplinary action against and dismiss the executive director is inconsistent with the Constitution. The McBride judgement instructed Parliament to remedy the constitutional defect and in the Fifth Parliament the committee duly complied by
processing the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Amendment Act of 2019 through the insertion of section 6(a). That is why we are correcting that insertion into the principal Act, providing that the executive director of Ipid can only be removed from office based on a decision taken by the relevant parliamentary portfolio committee, and that such resolution must be adopted by the National Assembly. That is what we are doing today. [Interjections.] Anyway, you are not in the committee, so you won't know what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, the Bill had a turbulent start in Parliament. The office of the Chief State Law Adviser did not certify the Bill as constitutionally compliant as it was deemed that the proposal that the Minister in consultation with Cabinet should appoint the executive director without any parliamentary oversight ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Peacock, please take your seat. There’s a point of order. What is your point of order, hon member?

Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Chairperson, the hon member is violating Rule 83, which says that a member must, as far as possible, refrain from reading his or her speech, but may refresh his or
her memory by referring to notes. I mean, she's busy reading and she was in the committee. She must just speak. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you, hon member. Hon members?

An HON MEMBER: Oh, she’s speaking to the gallery.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... [Inaudible.]

... Hon members, a member has a right to raise a point of order and the Chairperson will rule on it. So, please give me a chance to do so. Hon members, yes the rule says that but members have a right to look at what they are reading and to focus on what they are reading. Maybe she doesn’t want to be disturbed but wants to focus on that. So, we will allow it, hon members. So, it’s not sustained. Proceed, hon member.

Ms N P PEACOCK: Thank you so much. I’m not a lawyer by profession, so I’ll read what I’ve prepared.

Unfortunately, the Bill had a turbulent start in Parliament. The office of the Chief State Law Adviser did not certify the Bill as constitutionally compliant as it was deemed that the
proposal that the Minister, in consultation with Cabinet, should appoint the executive director without any parliamentary oversight ...

Rightfully so, many questions have been raised as to why an unconstitutional Bill was submitted by the executive and why the committee decided to process the Bill. A simplistic view would’ve been to just reject the Bill. That is what they wanted. Indeed, the situation placed the committee in an extremely difficult position, between sending the Bill back to be rectified or to exercise our constitutional mandate as a legislator to rectify the deficiency, while simultaneously reinforcing the independence of the director. We chose the latter and decided to forge ahead in order to bolster the directorate and ultimately enable a greater impact on the conduct of the police.

It was well established and canvassed during our deliberations that parliamentary oversight of the method of appointment and removal from the office of the executive directorate are equally important as a test for the operational and structural independence of the directorate. There was never any doubt in our minds that the offending clause would be rectified. The drafter of the Bill interpreted the McBride judgement
differently and admitted that the offending clause must be corrected.

The original ... [Inaudible.] ... was to merely reinstate the section of the principal Act dealing with the appointment of the executive director but the committee strengthened this provision by insisting that the Minister of Police must appoint a panel to assist him in identifying a suitable candidate for the position of executive director, thereby enhancing the appointment process; and that the Minister must report the nomination to Parliament and the relevant parliamentary committee to approve or reject. There's an option.


Daar is nie ’n rubber stamp [stempel] nie.


The Bill further clearly stipulates that the directorate is accountable, both to the Minister of Police as the executive authority and to Parliament. We will continue our legislative oversight role over the directorate through budget appropriations by annual reports, in-year monitoring and annual reports. We are satisfied that Parliament has a
significant safeguarding oversight role to hold both the directorate and the executive accountable. Before I step away from this podium ...


... wil ek net graag met agb Groenewald praat. Agb Groenewald sê die ANC is onverantwoordelik en disrespekvol maar ek het dit by hom gesien. Na hy sy speech [toespraak] gesê het toe stap hy uit. So, dit sê mos dat wat jy sê is wat jy ...

... practise, because you were supposed to sit and listen to our responses. We had to sit ... to you and then you decided to leave, which we understand ... it’s in your nature.

Ja. [Tussenwerpsels.]



Hon Whitfield, we know that you contributed well in our debate
... of which we are still saying that what we did was to strengthen the Bill. It's not that we did not want the Bill to be engaged ... It was corrected or it was stated that the Bill was never ... It was unconstitutional but as a governing
organisation and as the legislative body, we had to take a decision. So, those who said that I was reading, I had to read because I had to prepare but I do understand the content of what I was saying. Thank you so much.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE: Hon Chairperson, thank you to hon Peacock. It is very clear that some of the members of the opposition have a problem with Minister Cele because their input here is completely irrelevant to what is before this committee. We are discussing an amendment to the IPID Bill which is a parliamentary process. The committee that presented the report here, chaired by hon Seabi, is an extension of this august House and it has brought a report before this august House. Not a report of the executive. It is wrong to create an impression that what we are debating here is an executive report. It is not; it is a parliamentary report, and we must deal with that as such.

I think the report that we are having, which the House must support, has clearly dealt with the issues which were shortcomings within the legislation that govern IPID. Initially, the Minister could remove the executive director without taking onboard this august House, including the appointment of the executive director.
What we have today here is a version where those powers of the Minister have been curtailed, if not removed. He or she can’t expel an executive director without the participation of this House, including the appointment. Without the participation of this House, it is not possible. An impression is created that this piece of legislation we are passing will make that possible.

I must however appreciate the comments of hon Gericke with regards to this Bill because he does concede that it addresses though not in the manner that you would have wished the Bill to address. It is unfortunate that he vied into the titanic space which I think must be left to the electorate next year. Our people will decide who will be coming here, and we are confident that the African national Congress will remain victorious. Thank you, Chairperson.

Debate concluded.


Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

There was no debate.


Chairperson, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.


Report accordingly adopted.




(Second Reading debate)

DEVELOPMENT: Hon Chairperson, thanks for the opportunity. Hon members, I think it’s good to say good evening. I’m privileged to present to you work that has been done over a long time and wish to thank all those who made inputs to shape the product we are presenting this evening. A word of thanks goes out to members of the portfolio committee who steered the process
taking proposals through the public consultation process. Those sacrifices are recognised and are going to bear fruit.

We know that the South African population is approximately 60,6 million, and now that arable land in South Africa is 12 million hectares, as indicated by the World Bank 2021 statistics. Studies further show that we need 1,3 hectares of arable land to grow food to feed one adult person for a year. If we balance the 12 million hectares of arable land that South Africa has with the population indicated, the majority which are young people under the age of 30, we notice that we are just making it since we are, at this very moment, sitting at 2 hectares available to feed one person per year. In other words, a little more.

It is however evident that if nothing is done to preserve the size of arable land we have in our country, we will easily tip over and change from being a net exporter of food to a net importer. Using stats modelling, we can safely project the South African population to 66 million in 2028, during which our arable farming land would be severely decreased unless we intervene and intervene now.
Food security is not only a right as enshrined in the Constitution of our Republic, but subsection 2 of Chapter 2, clause 27, clearly says the following, and I quote: “The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.”

The only piece of legislation at the disposal of our government with which we regulate agricultural land, is the subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970. As we can all appreciate the objective and purposeful intention of this piece of legislation is to prevent unjustifiable splitting of agricultural land into uneconomic units and to some extent prevent change of land use.

As can be understood, the legislation which was enacted 24 years prior to our constitutional democracy has a lot of limitations. We therefore have had to develop a law that will enable government to preserve not only high value agricultural land, but to also ensure that, irrespective of who owns agricultural land, such land cannot be used for anything else other than production of food and fibre, even in instances where agricultural land changes hands through sale transactions that is preserved for agricultural purposes.
Carefully included in the preservation and development of this Bill are the following: Identification and registration of high value agricultural land, evaluation and classification of such land, declaration of protected agricultural areas, management of Agroecosystems and authorisations, appointment of inspectors, establishment and management of a national Agroecosystems information, and the appointment of technical advisors to Minister and MECs.

One of the gross shortcomings of the subdivision of the Agricultural Land Act of 1970 is that it excludes land under the ownership of government in all its spheres. Owing to this loophole, we have lost prime and high value agricultural land when private landowners would first donate pieces of their high value agricultural land to government before returning to construct factories and other non-agricultural private businesses on the same land. So, the preservation and development of Agricultural Land Bill addresses this shortcoming that occurred in the year 1970.

Enactment of this Bill into law will not only preserve the already known mapped agricultural land, but will also enable the state to further develop, map and register additional land to ensure expansion of the current 12 million hectares,
thereby increasing our ability to ensure food security and export potential, which in turn will increase our revenue and create additional jobs ... [Time expired.] ... We therefore hereby present to the House this Bill for your consideration. Thank you.

Dr M M E TLHAPE: Deputy Ministers and Ministers in the House, House Chairperson on the platform, the agricultural fraternity, hon members. The Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill, here in referred to as PDAL, recognises the need for a national regulatory framework to co- ordinate the preservation and development of agricultural land in a proactive manner, to prevent the fragmentation of agricultural land, to minimise the loss of agricultural land, and to provide for food security. The ANC supports the approval and adoption of the PDAL Bill. We support this Bill, as it is a valuable and critical step towards our goal of leveraging the power of agriculture to transform South Africa by transforming lives and taking our people out of poverty, destitution and hardship.

Urban migration is a global reality that we face, as well as the ongoing development of cities encroaching on peri-urban and rural land. This reality reminds us that high value
agricultural land is a scarce commodity and nonrenewable resource, and that the pressures exerted on agricultural land make it increasingly difficult to effectively and sustainably produce sufficient food. The lived reality of our people in informal settlements, and especially underdeveloped rural areas makes us ever-present and conscious of our duty under section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution to ensure that everyone in the Republic has access to sufficient food by taking measures aimed at enhancing the preservation and optimal use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. It has become more than 350 years in South Africa since we were exposed to land grabbing, which saw a lot of our indigenous populations lose their key productive land resources through erosion of their land rights.

The ANC has taken a stance to foster conditions enabling equitable access to land and engage in land reform. We therefore need to create an environment of sound land administration and establish policies for its protection and preservation. We, as the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Deputy Minister, will continue with assisting subsistence and smallholder farmers to be major suppliers of agricultural products in the industry in order to increase food security.
In order to sustain food security, we need an integrated system of plant and animal production practices in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors, so as to have an agroecosystem that complements ecological and biodiversity conservation in order to meet the present needs without compromising the future needs. This Bill therefore, which received an overwhelming support during public participation, serves to protect all designated agricultural land.

As stakeholders in the agricultural sector, we are fully aware that there will always be competing varied uses of land, such as in mining, forestry, conservation, residential development, etc. There must always be a cost-benefit analysis that takes into account the socioeconomic as well as environmental aspects. All things considered, in the face of competing land interests, we must nevertheless ensure that the broad objectives of the PDAL Bill to preserve agricultural land for prosperity remains paramount.

Some of the comments we have received during public participation indicate the needs and emphasis on developing capacity within the department and government in general, in order to implement its laws and policies. This was mostly demonstrated with agricultural support services, extension and
training support, as well as veterinary health services. I trust that the department will take cognisance of this and institute the requisite corrective measures.

The department must make sure that it provides the necessary research towards advanced technology and upscale the supply of inputs like seed and fertilizers to our small-scale farmers.
This will assist to drive down the cost related to these inputs, which make it difficult for local producers to compete with international competitors and increase food production.
We are committed as the ANC to enhance collaboration with all stakeholders that are involved in food security, biodiversity conservation and agricultural extension, while making sure that we adopt a strategy of capacity building for farmers to be at the centre of food security.

It is our collective responsibility to uphold the constitutional obligation to preserve and promote the sustainable development of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products, for the primary purpose of sustaining and enhancing human life for the benefit of the present and future generations. We all know that the value of life, land and livelihood, and unless we work together to achieve the goals envisaged by this Bill, we
will not only do ourselves disservice, but we will do a disservice for the future generations. I thank you.

Mr N P MASIPA: House Chairperson, the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development currently administers the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Sala, of 1970. The main objective of Sala is to control the subdivision and use of agricultural land. According to the Act, agricultural land cannot be subdivided without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. However, the act is only administered by the national department and only on private-owned land.

The Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill’s objective, on the other hand, is to protect all agricultural land within the Republic and provide for establishment of committees and appointment of technical and other advisers to advise the Minister, MECs and competent authorities. The Bill aims to create a performance assessment framework, establish and manage the national agroecology information system and provide for appeal procedures, amongst others. Additionally, the Bill will enable the Minister to make regulations and determine norms and standards, provide offences and penalties, and provide for an amendment of the Subdivision of
Agricultural Land Act.


The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act made the protection of high value agricultural land owned by the state statutory bodies, communal land and land administered by traditional authorities very difficult. The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act does not provide proactive planning and special development guidelines for agricultural land and is therefore ineffective and inefficient in the current legislative framework and land administration planning trajectory. The Bill aims to address this shortcoming.

Let us be clear, this is not a perfect Bill at all, because many aspects are dependent on regulations. Though regulations will address many problematic and questionable areas within the Bill, there are still problematic provisions like section
1. The question is: Can the state as a regulator or policeman be responsible for regulating its own land? In section 4, we fail to see the purpose of equitability within the Bill.

The DA warns that this section must not be abused to create regulations that are not within the true purpose of the Bill. Section 26(g), which profiles the ownership, is not necessary, because the deeds and registry are there to serve this
purpose. The continuous loss of agricultural land to nonagricultural land uses undermines the primary role and legislative mandate of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development to ensure the use of agricultural land for food production and security as per constitutional requirement. However ...


... re na le bomenetia bja ANC bjoo bo tshwenyago.

During the public hearing, the Bill received overwhelming majority support in all nine provinces. Concerns were raised that the Bill is silent on communal land ownership and management, including the lack of title deeds. The Bill’s content was at times confusing to members of the public because the Bill was badly written by the ANC officials.
Communities also expressed frustration over houses being built on their farmland without their consent. Communities accused mining companies of invading high value land meant for crops and animal grazing. Communities lamented the insufficient protection from the government and traditional leaders, who often allocate land to businesses without their concern ...

E le ka lebaka la bjona bomenetia bjo bo tletiego ka mo go ANC.


The majority of submissions made supported the Bill. In our view, there are no constitutional problems with the Bill.
However, we are concerned about the poor implementation ...


... le bjona bomenetia bjo bo tletiego ka mo go ANC.

That said, the DA warns the ANC government about its lacklustre approach to land reform. This Bill is not about saving the ANC’s woeful performance on land reform ...

... le bohodu bjoo bo tletiego ka mo go ANC.



It should never be construed as an instrument to introduce more red tape in land administration and more corruption in the ANC because that is not the purpose. South Africa needs to
build on the achievements made by our hardworking farmers by creating an enabling environment that supports productivity.

Bjale, ge re eya dikgethong tia 2024, yena ...


 ... John Henry Steenhuisen will be leading this committee to ensure that we implement it properly ...

... go phala bona ba mokgatlo wa ANC.



...niyahamba niyaphuma.


We will ensure that we implement this Bill properly. Thank you, Chair. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulsen? Order, hon members.
Mr M N PAULSEN: Welcome once again. House Chairperson, the policy and Bill provide for the not dividing and rezoning of agricultural land, ostensibly to protect it from unsustainable and noneconomical uses. It repeals a Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970. The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970 is an apartheid era law that has been used to protect and benefit wealthy commercial producers and has survived until today. It curtailed competition and land access for smallholders by limiting agricultural land to the farm size distribution of the 1970s. This has created a shortage of and consequently has inflated the price of small and medium sized farms relative to large farms. The repeal of this apartheid law was passed by Parliament in 1998, was never signed into law. This constitutes a failure of the ruling party.

The Bills policy objectives are clustered around the inherent needs of those engaged or seeking to engage in agricultural activities, namely, access to available and sustainable utilisation of natural agricultural resources, including soil, water, grazing land, among other objectives. The preservation, conservation and development of agricultural farmland is an ideal undertaking and a crucial policy initiative to ensure long term sustainable land use. However, preserving,
conserving and developing arable land for sustainable use is but another proxy side show which is forestalled in futility and another abuse of emotions of the people for political expedience. You must be true to your word, Deputy Minister. If we’re going to agree to this, you must act upon it.

Consequently, few questions come to mind, such as firstly, which land is farmland, where is it located? What is the size of this land? Secondly, who owns the farmland, for what agricultural activity? What is the yield and level of productivity of such farmland? These questions are central in understanding and appreciating and conserving arable land, agricultural land or farmland. Conserving agricultural land is just as important as our ancestors sought to conserve and protect land in ancient history from land degradation, erosion and destruction of biodiversity.

However, preserving land should also take into consideration the changing population demands and the change in land use dynamics of a developing and expanding society like South Africa. Essentially, of the farmland ownership, the land ordered of November 2017, found that whites on 72% of the total of 37 million hectares of farm and agricultural holdings and agricultural land; followed by Coloureds at 5,3 million
hectares or 15%; Indians at two million hectares or 5%; and last, right at the bottom, sadly, disgustingly, Africans was 1,3 million hectares or 4%. Others at 1,2 million hectares and co-owners at less than half a million hectares at 1%. For as long as the above ownership patterns remain unchanged and unjustly skewed in favour of less than 10% of the population, the question of who owns the land will always hound any legislative efforts. To redistribute, preserve, conserve farmland in this country, land should be preserved and conserved for future use.

The land has ... [Inaudible.] ... acquired and lost, remarried, or all manner of ways, systems and mechanisms like forced dispossession, colonial, military conquest and legislative plunder and theft, as illustrated by the Glen Grey Act and many other colonial and apartheid era laws such as the Native Land Act of 1913. As things stand, and this was properly expressed by the aspirant emerging and small-scale subsistence farmers in all the municipalities and towns where these public hearings were held, and notwithstanding the Bills objectives, the process of engaging the public through hearings is unfortunately a waste of time as it is done with unchanged ... [Interjections.]
Dr J C NTWANE: House Chairperson and members, standing on Rule 83, the member is reading word by word and very slow. Thank you, House Chair.

Mr M N PAULSEN: It’s unfortunately a waste of time, just like you, it’s a waste of time as it is done with ... [Interjections.] ... of land ownership.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulsen! Hon Paulsen! Hon Paulsen! Hon member, frankly, I haven’t seen him. I haven’t seen him reading that way you explained. He has been picking up his head from time to time to look at the audience, so it’s not sustained. Go ahead, proceed, hon Paulsen.

Mr M N PAULSEN: Thank you very much, House Chairperson. You have very foolish people in the ANC, but these are the ones that will be gone next year. She sits in the back benches and when they reduce the seats will be gone. Central to participants inputs particular emphasis was on an urgent need for the state to immediately ... [Interjections.]

Ms N P MAHLO: House Chair, I stand to ask if the member is calling us foolish ...

Rena, re maiilo ka gare ga Ntlo ye?


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, is that a question?

Ms N P MAHLO: It is. I’m just asking you if it is parliamentary ...

... go bitia maloko a mangwe maiilo naa? Ke tiona?



The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Ohh, thank you very much. I’m sorry, I did not pick it up, hon member, but I will look at it and come back to you.

Mr M N PAULSEN: That’s been foolish behaviour. Thank you very much, House Chairperson. Particular emphasis was an urgent need for the state to immediately make land available accessible and to be redistributed on an equitable basis, taking into account the population dynamics, demographics and current patterns of ownership shown above. The EFF supports
the Bill, Deputy Minister, as it was a necessary piece of legislation to build on when the government in waiting assumes political power and state power after the 2024 general elections. Thank you very much.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulsen, thank you very. Before you leave the podium, hon Paulsen, just before you leave the podium, can I check with you, did you say members are foolish?

Mr M N PAULSEN: I said that one that made the foolish comment is foolish, House Chairperson. Therefore, I said that she’s in the back bench and she will be returning when they reduce less than half next year ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Okay. Thank you. Hon members, it does not serve any purpose for us to use coarse language that is objectionable to other members. Therefore, please let us respectfully address members in the way that we should. It’s not necessary really. It only disturbs the flow of a debate, so we should refrain from doing that. Thank you very much. The hon Inkosi Cebekhulu!

Inkosi R N CEBEKHULU: Angibonge Sihlalo, uMnyango weZolimo , woMhlaba nokuThuthukiswa kweZindawo zaseMakhaya uhambe ngonyawo lonwabu ukufuqa lo mkhakhaso okanye lo Mthethosivivinyo ukuba uxoxwe ukuvikela umhlaba kusenesikhathi emhlabeni ikakhulukazi kwawona uhulumeni awubuyisele ebantwini. Umhlaba olungelwe ukulinywa ovundile omningi uxuzunyelwe yizimayini, izindawo zokuhlala, ukhwakhiwa kwezimboni nexaxathela yezitolo.

UMnyango kuhle ukubheke okwenzeke emapulazini umbuso owawuthengele ama-Trust nama-CPAs lapha abahlomuli bakhe imizi esikhundleni sokuba kuqhutshwe ezolimo nomkhiqizo ukusizakala nokwandisa amathuba omsebenzi, Sihlalo weNdlu ehloniphekileyo.


The land issue is rather a sensitive one in this country given our history with illegal displacement of certain communities from their ancestral land. By prioritising the preservation of land for agricultural use, the Bill aligns with the IFP’s commitment to driving the economy and protecting displaced communities. One of the challenges is that those who own land often sell it to the highest bidders resulting in fertile areas being diverted to various developments such as solar
panels for generation of electricity, golf estates, shopping malls, residential and all that.

As the population multiplies together with the increasing effect of climate change using access to arable land becomes necessary to meet the growing demand for agricultural produce. This Bill addresses the challenge by classifying land for specific purposes, safeguarding it for agricultural use unless reclassified by dual processes, placing discretionary powers with government. The IFP supports the Bill because is not only fosters economic growth through agriculture, but also ensures the security of tenure for the emerging farmers. Security of tenure is crucial for entrepreneurs providing them with this psychological safety needed to invest and trade without external threats. House Chairperson ...


 ... sengigcina nje uMnumzane osuke lapha uthe nezindawo zasemakhaya zimelwe ukufakwa. Asiphambene nokuthi izindawo zasemakhaya zisizwe kwezolimo kodwa okungathi siphambene nakho ukuthi ziphathwe njengamapulazi okuhwebelana. Kuhle sikuhlukanise ukusetshenziswa komhlaba. Umhlaba wasemakhaya kufuneka ubhekelwe ngokuthi uhulumeni awusize bavuse amasimu
abantu balime, baphile ukuze isizwe siye phambili. Hhayi ukuthi kube indlela yokuhwebelana kuphela. Ngiyabonga.

Ms T BREEDT: Hon House Chairperson, the parliamentary processes followed for the Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill was nothing other than a box ticking exercise for the ANC. My ANC colleagues refused to see sense into proposed amendments, even those that would have improved the Bill. Legal services also seemed to be playing it safe in fear of going against the agenda of the ANC. The amendments that were eventually agreed to were so miniscule, that it could have been left out.

Generally, the Bill was accepted with strong reservations regarding certain clauses, the implementation of the bill in general, the capacity of departments, the clashing with other legislation and that there are other more important legislative amendments that rather need the department’s focus.


Verskeie organisasies en spesifiek landbou-organisasies het insette ten opsigte van die wetsontwerp gemaak. Baie daarvan was skriftelik en het nie net breedvoerig na die wet verwys
nie maar ook na spesifieke probleme verwys en voorstelle gelewer oor hoe dit aangespreek behoort te word.

Een so ’n probleem is die voldoeningsinspeksies — compliance inspections. Die wetsontwerp maak voorsiening vir inspeksies wat teen ’n persoon se privaatheid en waardigheid indruis, asof dit nie net ’n oortreding van voldoening is nie maar asof dit ’n ernstige misdaad en kriminele oortreding wat gepleeg word is. Amptenare wat met die inspeksies getaak gaan word kan sonder ’n voorafgaande reëling of afspraak die landbouer se grond betree en inspeksies doen wat nie geweier mag word nie. Dit wil ook uit die wetsontwerp blyk dat amptenare wat met hierdie magte getaak is selfs meer magte as die SA Polisiediens, SAPD, gaan hê. Dit is mos nie reg nie. Dit dreig in teen basiese menseregte. Die regering kon ook tot op datum nie ’n databasis van al die grond wat in sy besit is skep nie.

House Chairperson, I’m sorry, but there is somebody disturbing



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Dunjwa? Sorry about that, hon member.
Hon Dunjwa, please mute.


Alright. Hon member, you may proceed.

Ms T BREEDT: Thank you, hon House Chairperson.


Om nie eers te praat van die kontroversiële grondoudit ’n paar jaar gelede nie. Sekere munisipaliteite weet nie eers van sekere landbougrond wat in hul besit is nie. Daar was gedurende die openbare deelnameproses talle voorbeelde, maar gevalle in die Setsoto Plaaslike Munisipaliteit in die Vrystaat staan uit. Daar is kleinskaal- en opkomende boere wat grond by die munisipaliteit huur. In die een geval het die munisipaliteit nie van die grond geweet nie, in ‘n ander geval het die boere nie geweet dat die huur betaal moet word nie en in ander gevalle het die munisipaliteit nie eers geweet dat hulle veronderstel is om huur vir daardie grond te vra nie.
Hoe gaan ’n regering ’n databasis van geskikte landbougrond kan bybring?

Verder is daar nog ’n leemte. Tradisionele landbougrond is veronderstel om ook onder hierdie wetgewing bestuur te word maar tradisionele leiers is aanvanklik nie geraadpleeg nie.
Kommer is uitgespreek dat net soos met ander wetgewing soos byvoorbeeld die Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, Spluma, [Wet op Ruimtelike Beplanning en Grondgebruikbestuur] hulle hulself aan die wet gaan afvee as hulle nie geraadpleeg word nie. Daar is ook in verskeie provinsies gemeld dat tradisionele grond wat aanvanklik vir landbougrond bedoel was, onder die gemeenskap aan myne uitverkoop is en dat dit ’n probleem is.


Public participation was also a nightmare. It started with the cap on the distance that transport will be arranged for community members. This inadvertently negatively affected communities and the unintended consequence was that communities were excluded from public participation.

The Bill education programmes were also problematic. The Free State’s public participation had to be moved on because those programmes were not completely done.

Many of the participants were also not farmers or farmworkers or people that were directly affected by this Bill, but normal South Africans that came to the public hearings because they wanted land. It was actually in fact like an ANC imbizo.

Ek sluit af. Ek dink dit is veilig om te sê dat die wet en sy implementering landbouers weereens in die steek gaan laat. Ek dank u.

Rev K R J MESHOE: Hon House Chairperson, the Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill aims to address shortcomings of the subdivision of the Agricultural Land Act

MODULASETULO WA NTLO (Mong M L D Ntombela): Ema hanyane ntate Moruti.


Hon Z, please mute your gadget!

The hon Z in blue has been appearing very frequently on the screen. Like the red hon Z. Now it is now the red hon Z. Please, be careful of your gadgets.

Thank you, hon Meshoe, you may please proceed.
Rev K R J MESHOE: The Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill aims to address the shortcomings of the subdivision of the Agricultural Land Act and entrench regulatory measures for the security of high potential agricultural land. This Bill is debated at a time when there is a move for farm land and animals to be taken away from food producers in rich countries because of the synthetic need and food industry being promoted by Bill Gates, the American billionaire who blames cows for contributing to climate change. Thus farmers has expressed anger and have staged wide spread protest at their government’s drive to tackle nitrogen pollution through a major reduction in a number of pigs, cattle in the Netherlands. Australia and Canada have also been targeted.

If this is happening to rich countries today, it will be Africa tomorrow and the ACDP is vehemently opposed to this money-making industry that will put our health at risk. There is starvation in South Africa, with are alarming employment figures. Many families are on the breadline and not even affording a good meal a day. Children are suffering malnutrition.
We have enough trouble with children suffering with cashioco without polluting what little protein they may access. These potentially casino genic effects that are intended to be manufactured for widespread consumption could have particular serious human health effects.

All agricultural land, must be preserved to continue growing produce crops raising animals of all kinds and supplying real meat and food for Africa. Yes our agricultural land is a scarce commodity. It must be protected and wisely managed because we all need to eat real food from the ground as God intendent not from laboratories sponsored by Bill Gates.

All our farmers should be protected and incentivised to produce more food in our country so that ultimately South Africa will potentially become the bread basket of Africa, the United States, US, and Europe, particularly at the time when lab meat eaters shall have become tired of chemical field meat and food produced in laboratories. South Africa should be ready to be a blessing and an answer to countries that would be begging for real food because they would have been fed what is not human. Thank you, House Chairperson.

Information and communication technology, ICT, could you please help the hon blue Z to or could you please remove her from the platform.

I have just been informed that the hon Z is the hon Deputy Minister Burns-Ncamashe. He has been assisted out of the platform for now.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon House Chairperson, the NFP will support this report and the amendment, but not satisfied. Let me tell you why we are not satisfied. First of all I think we should not only include agricultural land, but all land in the country.

Secondly, we believe that land must fall under the mandate of the national government. If you do not do that you will see what is happening in the Western Cape where land is bonded to the United States of America. Where land is being sold to foreigners and where land is being sold to foreigners while the Khoi and San the rightful heirs to the land until this very day have not even seen sight of their land.
So, that is why we believe it must go to national government. I think the FFPlus, you are absolutely correct mam. What about the traditional land and what about the Ingonyama Trust land which the apartheid government decided to cause havoc and not a single family in that Ingonyama Trust land like I said the other day that many rights of ownership or anything over the land!

Now the commission that did its work, hon Minister and hon Chairperson, when are we going to do something to ensure that every owner of the land, even in that Ingonyama Trust land must get back their land right now. I think it is absolutely correct that they should. Why should it be under the control of the ... it is the same thing under the apartheid. It is exactly what the Zionist is doing in Palestine taking away their land! It is what the DA is doing in the Western Cape selling the land away to the foreigners! It is what the IFP is doing in KwaZulu-Natal! Controlling the lives of the masses there by holding on to the land and not giving the rights and the tittle deeds, but the very same people Chairperson come here talk about ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Shaik Emam, there is a point of order.
What is your point of order, hon member?


Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon House Chairperson, the hon Shaik Emam is misleading this House.

He is saying the Ingonyama Trust belongs to the IFP. That is not true

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, that is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.

Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon Shaik Emam must not mislead this House. It is an obsession and he must take it to ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, that is not a point of order, it is a point of debate. If you have a problem with that there are correct processes to follow.

Hon Shaik Emam, you may proceed.

Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Yes hon House Chairperson, what is happening the people under the Ingonyama Trust land are being held hostage. You toe the line, otherwise you will have no place to stay. You build your house with your money, the land
is controlled by somebody else. Alright. So that is the problem we have.

Hon House Chairperson, I do not know where I said the IFP is the one! I said the Ingonyama Trust land which is controlled by the IFP. Who can run away from that fact? The fact of the matter is this: The people living on Ingonyama Trust land if you say you care so much about those people, why not you do your best to ensure that they get the right title and interest on that land? You will never do it. You will never do it because you want to control and what is more you even take levies from them under the Ingonyama Trust. You even make them pay, but the land do not even belong to them! You do not even develop it! You have never done anything for them for the last
50 to 60 years! You are really a disgrace to the people in Zululand!

However, anyway let me just say this: This land belongs to the Khoi and San and it must go under the control of government and the Minister under the national government. [Time expired.]

Moh N P MAHLO: Modulasetulo, bahlomphegi bao ba lego ka mo gare ga Ntlo ye ye botse, ke re dumelang kamoka boiegong bja mamohla. ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo ka gobane re a tseba kamoka gore, gore re buietiwe naga ya gaborena, re humane dipampiri tieo di bontihago gore naga ke ya rena, go sa le bothata ebile go boima go ingwadiietia dinaga tieo tia gaborena. Efela ke nyaka go le tsebiia taba ye, gore le ge go le boima bjalo, ANC e lokiia taba ye. Re tla ba ra fihla moo, ebile re tlile go fetiiia tieo kamoka ga tiona.

Ke nyaka go le botia gore le tsebeng gore Molaokakanywa wo re o beago mo o tlile go re thuia go rarolla mathata ao a bego a le gona nakong yela ya kgethologanyo, kua morago – mohlang wola ba re gateletie, re bolawa ke tlala, ebile re sa lekane go ya ka ekonomi ya naga ya rena. Re be re le mo lefaseng la rena, efela batho ba rena ba se na meiomo. Bjale, Molaokakanywa wo o tlile go gapeletia gore re buietiwe tie dingwe.

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and government, shows administration that is going to make sure that our people are going to be assisted. They are going to be assisted by this Bill which we have agreed
upon all of us in the meeting. I wanted to tell this House that the public hearings on the Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land, PDAL, Bill, to mention just few. It was supported by all the institutions that are relevant. For instance, we have the South African Institute of Race Relations and the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa. We also have the African Agricultural Transformation Initiative, Minerals Council South Africa and Black Agricultural Commodity Federation. We also have Inyanda National Land Movement and the Southern Africa Rural Women’s Assembly. Those are the institutions that were supporting this Bill, which were there for us. It means that the Bill was really supported.

This Bill aims at regulating all agricultural land and instil the regulations and measures to ensure that there is protection of high potential agricultural land. The department should make sure that municipalities around South Africa understand the importance of taking farming as a commonage through their responsibilities and the PDAL seek to achieve that.

The municipality should not only see housing as the most important need to our people, but also farming and development
of our food security to enable us to be self-sufficient and less dependent on foreign markets. Investment in technology will be key. We want to integrate technology in the agricultural sector through data collection and management, properly analyse demand and supply to local farmers in the market.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Mahlo, there is a point of order. Could you please take your seat?

Mr M N PAULSEN: Thank you for your indulgence, House Chair. I just want to know: Is it parliamentary to read ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, I

can’t hear the hon Paulsen.


Mr M N PAULSEN: ... incorrectly from your own notes? She can’t

even read.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I can’t hear, hon Paulsen. What’s your point of order, hon Paulsen?

Mr M N PAULSEN: House Chair, I just want to know if it’s parliamentary to read incorrectly from your own notes?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, that’s not a point of order. Please proceed ... Just a second. Hon Papo?

Mr A H M PAPO: I think it’s a bit atrocious and insensitive that if some members make a mistake when reading English becomes a laughing matter. When we know in many of the parties there are people who try English every day and we don’t laugh at them.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members ...


IsiNgisi akusona inkulumo yethu sonke noma kungaze kuvele iphutha lapho. Akusona inkulumo yethu sonke.


So, it should not be an issue. Really, it should not be an issue. Please proceed, hon Mahlo.

Ms N P MAHLO: Thank you, hon Chair. We are also engaging on research to incorporate artificial intelligence atmosphere into our production process to boost local production and meet industry demands in the sector. Let me also say that the
production research and technology will allow us as a country to invest in the growth of the sector for the purpose of alleviating the vulnerability of crops and livestock. We need to note that the land and agricultural policies in the past were not favourable to the majority of our black people, and as a result, the PDAL Bill seeks to address that.

We are going to reverse the injustices of the past towards the land matters which we saw a lot of the indigenous people in our rural areas ...


... kua ga boMasipa ...


 ... lose their land through force by the colonisers. WE all know that. We also want to overcome the shortcomings of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Sala ...

... ye o bego o bolela ka yona, ntate Masipa, ya 1970 ...


 ... by facilitating co-operative governance in the public hearings which were conducted across all the nine provinces.

Ke kwele ba bolela mo gore go be go ka re ke “imbizo”.


Yes of course, it was the imbizo of the ANC where the ANC-led government ...

... yeo batho ba e thekgago kamoka.



According to Dr Manketsi Tlhape, on public consultation, she said and I quote: “We are here as the committee to engage directly with you as our stakeholders.” [Time expired.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you very much. There is a point of order.

Mr M MANYI: No, Chair. She’s saved by the bell, but I was going to say that the member is misleading the House ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): That is not a point of order, hon Manyi. Hon Mahlo, thank you very much. Your time is up, madam.

Ms N P MAHLO: The ANC supports the report. Dr Tlhape said that we must work hard ... [Time expired.] ... win the election.


... kamoka.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): When the hon Lesoma was seated here, she did mention ...


... into yokuthi asihlonipheni isikhathi sethu.

When you are requested to leave the podium. Hon members, I think the podium has got some magic, because it makes members say things that they never prepared to say. So, but please, let’s respect the time and the and the Rules of the House.
There’s magic at the podium. A member from the AIC? Cope? [Interjections.] Hon Chief Whip?
An HON MEMBER: No, I did not feel that magic at the podium. Tata, uxolo [Apologies, father.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you. Al Jama- Ah? The hon Mbabama.

Ms T MBABAMA: House Chairperson, according to Wandile Sihlobo, an agricultural economist, only 13% of South Africa’s land surface is suitable for crop production, with only 2% to 3% considered as high potential. In light of these statistics, it stands to reason that legislation, whose main aim is to preserve and develop this land, is long overdue. The DA welcomes this piece of legislation and applauds the spirit of collaboration under which it was put together by the different stakeholders. This in the hope that this Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land, PDAL, Bill, once promulgated into law, will in its implementation also address the failures of the ANC government under specifically land reform which seeks to increase access to mostly agricultural land in South Africa.

It is reported that up to 90% of prime agricultural land transferred under this government’s redistribution and
restitution programmes is not being used productively. Across the country, farms that were once thriving going concerns are now unproductive, with the land lying fallow and mostly covered with invasive plants such as the acacia tree. Not only did the ANC government buy and transfer these funds at great cost due to corruption and lack of after settlement support, amongst other things, they embarked on a further programme of trying to rehabilitate these farms, also at a great cost. And guess what? There was more failure.

As usual, the ANC government was throwing good money off the bad. Instead of facing up to their gross mismanagement of the land reform process and the rampant corruption, the failing ANC government tried to palm off their failures to, of all things, the Constitution.


Khawufane ucinge nje.


Thank God that with the guidance of the largest opposition party, the DA’s sanity prevailed. When the DA takes over power from the ANC in the upcoming 2024 elections, we will ensure that legislation that makes sense for the future of this
country will be currently implemented with the appropriate funding and human resource capacity.

Mr V GERICKE: Chairperson, on a point of privilege, please.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Yes, hon member. What’s the point of order?

Mr V GERICKE: Yes, can I ask the hon member: When does the DA intend to take over?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: No, hon member, that’s

not a point of order. Proceed, hon Mbabama.

Ms T MBABAMA: I urge the people of South Africa to ensure that they are registered to vote for the DA in the coming elections so that we can rescue our beautiful country from the stronghold of this ignominious government. I thank you.

Mr N CAPA: Chair, let me first reiterate the position that the ANC supports this Bill. This is a Bill with which we are proud that it is not opposed by anyone, except opposing the ANC itself and not the Bill. Hon Chair, according to the Development Bank of Southern Africa, there’s only 35% of land
that is under irrigation, and only in this land, 15% is in the interest of the people of South Africa. Therefore, we cannot afford to lose any of this land to any group that is interested in it. This therefore means that something must be done, and therefore this Bill has always become necessary.

This Bill, Chair, also addresses the issue of the traditional leaders being consulted. We were advised wisely by the legal advisers that there is no need for consultation, but the committee felt it wise that they must consult, and it was done, and they did submit that to the traditional leaders.
Therefore, that is the position that was taken by this committee, the committee, which was united, which was so comradely, which was so appreciating the inputs by the people. In the public participation, all the people felt that this Bill is necessary, although many people insisted that there is a problem of landlessness, and therefore, this was also addressed. The Bill is addressing the protection of the agricultural land, not the landownership.

There is this issue that landownership is addressed somewhere else. The Acts were produced and were quoted, and everyone knows that we do have such legislations that are for the distribution. We do know that the ANC is having the process of
land distribution and restitution, and therefore, all these are strengthening the democracy that is always the target of the ANC, targeting to assist the people of South Africa. I’m worried that hon Masipa thinks or believes that he can demobilise the people or deliberate people who were liberated and deliberate them from their liberators. That is a mistake. The ANC has worked in a way that everyone is convinced that this Act that has been created by this government, is in the interest of the people of South Africa, and therefore, there is no way that no one cannot support it.

It is the issue of the people of South Africa who want to protect their land, and when this land is protected, we will have food security, when there is food security, there will be happiness and no hunger in South Africa. This is what the ANC is about, not all other things that the people are forcing us to talk about. I told you, and it was said that the issue of landownership is addressed someone else, not in this Bill.
This Bill is covering all the issues because in all the public hearings, people were given opportunities, people made their inputs and all the people maintained that the Bill is necessary, and they supported it.
I’m happy that even in this House we all support this Bill. Therefore, I wonder if you support the Bill that is created by the ANC... you’ve got no reason to support the ANC for that matter because these are the ideas that were created, these are the ideas that were always the objective of this government of the ANC to liberate the people of South Africa and take them out of starvation. Therefore, we support this Bill, and we want everyone to support it. No one who is sensible who cannot support this Bill. Thank you.

DEVELOPMENT (Mr M Skwatsha): Chairperson, let me thank all the political parties for supporting this necessary Bill. I don’t have much to say, I just want to say that the issue of 2024 is going to come, let’s not worry about it. Mziwakhe Mbuli has a poem that says...

... ukulimala kwengqondo ukulimala komuntu.



You know, the DA speaks about the ANC corruption, and they are worried that this must not be abused. It’s very, very curious to note the consistent omission on speaking about the worst
form of corruption from the side of the DA. The annexation of our land by the colonizers and the definite 1913 Land Act, and you know, strangely and unfortunately, the DA deliberately sends our people to attack us, you know. They have carefully chosen the two speakers who are the ones who are used to. attack their own people.

AN HON MEMBER: Yeah, yeah!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Order, hon members.



DEVELOPMENT (Mr M Skwatsha): The issue of land is an emotive issue and I really want to agree and support that. In fact, it is in that regard that you can see that South Africa has really been blessed by having such a visionary leadership like the ANC ... [Interjections.] [Time expired.] hank you very much, sir.

Debate concluded.


Question put:

Bill read a second time.

There was no debate.


The Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.


Report accordingly adopted.




(Second Reading Debate)


House Chair, hon members, Deputy Ministers who are here, the Chair and the members of the portfolio committee, and I also greet the millions of youth in South Africa who represent our aspirations as a nation.
President Nelson Mandela, in his maiden speech of the state of the nation in May 1994, positioned young people at the centre of our development discourse. And this is what he said:

The youth of our country are the valued possession of the nation. Without them, there can be no future.
Their needs are immense and urgent. They are at the centre of our reconstruction and development.

We, therefore present the National Youth Development Agency Amendment Bill, having due regard to these words because they still ring true today as they did at the dawn of democracy.

This Bill will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, and strengthen its responsiveness.

The Bill, amongst other things, ensures that the role of the agency is clarified in relation to other players in the youth development space. The agency establishes provincial and local offices to respond to the public outcry that they are not visible in the provinces, especially in the deep rural areas.
Of course, it will also strengthen and empower the board with capacity to better perform their fiduciary duty. The boards will be representative of the demographic and geographical diversity of our beautiful nation.

The Minister responsible for youth is the custodian of the administration of the Act, in line with the establishment of the Department of Women, Youth Persons and Persons with Disabilities.

Hon Members, young people are the majority of the population in this country and, therefore, it is imperative as we continue to entrench our democracy that their concerns and needs are adequately addressed.

Overall, government’s role in youth development is to create an enabling environment that empowers young people to reach their full potential and contribute positively to society.

So, this Bill contributes to the creation of that enabling environment. And the bill will improve the operations of the NYDA in dealing with the recurring challenges that hinder service provision to the youth. It will also build an NYDA of the future that will be fit for purpose.
The Bill also allows the NYDA to report on the status of youth in the country every two years to this Parliament, which wasn’t the case before. And this will strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of youth development initiatives and also informs the necessary interventions.

The NYDA is not a panacea for all our youth development challenges, rather it is an essential state actor that will help us to turn the wheel towards a better life for our young people.

But we must also understand that to deal with youth challenges, we must take an all of society approach. It cannot just be the NYDA, it’s government and all the spheres of government, it’s the private sector and other players.

Hon members, let me also express our appreciation to the public, who shaped this Bill, the private sector, civil society, but also our gratitude goes to the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities for managing the public hearings that enhanced the contents of this Bill.

So, I urge you to support this Bill. Thank you, House Chair.
Ms C N NDABA: House Chairperson, I want to inform the House that this Bill was supported by all members of the portfolio committee except the DA. Of course, you know the reason why.

But I also want to reassure the young people of South Africa that their lives are safe in the hands of the ANC.

The preamble of the National Youth Development Agency Act, Act

54 of 2008, recognizes the heroic struggles of generations of youth to bring about freedom and democracy in South Africa. It goes on to state that youth development is central in the reconstruction and development in the country.

Furthermore, it also notes that government must take reasonable measures within its available resources to achieve progressive development of South African’s youth and that interventions for youth development must be implemented in a cohesive, seamless and integrated manner. Hence the NYDA must give resonance to youth development in South Africa, and indeed it has done that.

The NYDA has obtained its 9th clean audit, receives a sizable allocation from National Treasury and has managed to double
its income through partnerships and donor funding, with the aim of fostering youth development in the country.

As the NYDA has evolved and grown in the last 15 years, it was necessary to amend the Principal Act with the ever-evolving needs.

The National Youth Development Agency Amendment Bill [B11- 2022] was tabled in Parliament and referred to the committee on the 9th of June 2022 for the information and for the joint tagging mechanisms on Rule 159 for tagging and tagged as a section 75 accordingly.

The Bill seeks to amend the National Youth Development Agency Act, 2008, so as to insert new definitions to amend the provisions relating to the objects of the agency, to amend the functions of the agency, to amend provisions relating to reporting by the agency, to provide for organs of state to assist the agency, to provide for the governance responsibilities of the board, to provide for additional board members, to provide that a board member may not be reappointed for more than two consecutive terms, to provide that board members must submit their financial disclosures like assets, Members of Parliament to amend matters pertaining to the
meetings of the board, to amend the funding of the agency, to authorize the Minister and to make regulations and to provide for matters connected there with.

The committee received its first briefing on the NYDA Amendment Bill from the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities on the 22nd of November 2022.

In facilitating effective public participation of the NYDA Amendment Bill, the committee conducted in person and visual public hearings on the 24th of October 2023.

The committee received six oral submissions from individuals, various groups and organizations such as civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, NGOs and the NYDA.

In addition to the public hearings, the committee received 14 routine submissions from the public. The written submissions were submitted electronically via e-mail and online.

The majority of submissions were in support of the Bill, with several indicating areas for strengthening provisions.
The department responded to the issues raised during the public hearings on the 31st of October, 3710, and 14 November 2023.

Thereafter, the committee was briefed by the department on the 7th, 10th and 14th of November 2023 on the revised Bill as a working document with further inputs received from members of the committee at every meeting.

The committee also deliberated on the working document, the

... [Inaudible.] ... with the amendments on the 21st of November 2023.

Given the inputs received from members of the public, insights from further deliberations as well as advise from the parliamentary legal adviser, the committee realized that it was necessary to amend a provision of the Principal Act, which was not included in the Bill as introduced.

The proposed amendment sought to align the National Youth Development Agency Act, Act 54 of 2008, to the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA, Act 1 of 1999, to reflect that the National Youth Development Agency is listed as Part A of schedule 3 of the latter Act.
The National Assembly granted the committee permission to amend the provisions of the Principal Act, which were not included in the Bill on the 28th of November 2023.

On the 8th of November 2023 the committee deliberated clause by clause on the A list and the B list, thus deliberating on the Bill in its entirety. Both the A list and B list were adopted with amendments.

The committee notes that the DA does not support the Bill and provided a minority view in this regard.

I’m not going to present all the clauses, hon members. I think hon members can read all the clauses as per our reports of the portfolio committee.

The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, having considered the subject on the National Youth Development Agency Amendment Bill [B31–2022], National Assembly section 75 refer to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B13-B2022].
The Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities requests the House to move for the adoption of this Bill. And thank you very much, hon members. The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you, House Chair.


Me G OPPERMAN: Op 14 November vanjaar het die Portefeuljekomittee oor Vroue, Jeug en Persone met Gestremdhede oor die wenslikheid van die wysiging van wetgewing oor die Jeugontwikkelingsagentskap, beraadslaag. Volgens die departement is een van die agentskap se doelwitte om te verseker dat die onreg van die verlede reggestel word deur voorkeur te gee aan voorheen benadeelde groepe met ’n spesifieke fokus op die bevoordeling van swart jeug.

Die DA erken dat Suid-Afrikaners nog met vele ekonomiese ongelykhede sukkel maar alle jong mense, ongeag hul velkleur, verdien gelyke toegang tot geleenthede. Die DA ondersteun nie guns op grond van velkleur nie. Hierdie wysigings neem ons weg van nierassisme en verdeel ons jeug op grond van ras.


When the DA raised its objection to the Bill, with specific reference to the contentious clause 4(1)(d), the chairperson
warmed my heart deeply. I want to quote her verbatim. She said:

Youth in South Africa are youth. It's inclusive, whether you are black, white, purple, disabled, LGBTQIA+. Before there was the perception that the NYDA is for the ANC. It is for all young people of South Africa.

Sadly, in the end the ANC party line prevailed. The director- general then defended the clause, saying that the Employment Equity Act has not yet been implemented due to some reviews taking place to make it stronger, as if to say that clause 4(1)(d) does not pose a problem yet.


Die DA se 2020-23 alternatiewe mediumtermyn- begrotingsbeleidsverklaring het gewys dat die snoei van die agentskap die staatkas R4,5 miljard oor die medium termyn sal bespaar. Die uitbreiding van die agentskap in enige vorm is dus teen ons standpunt en ons kan geen wetsontwerp ondersteun wat daarop gemik is om dit te doen nie. Die wetsontwerp beoog om die doelwitte van die agentskap te wysig, waarvan ’n hoofdoel was om te poog om die jeug, veral jong mense met gestremdhede, te bevorder. Hierdie wysigingswetgewing het
hierdie frase egter nou verwyder en vervang met die bevordering van jeug, veral die jeug wat binne die aangewese groeperings val, soos in die Wet op Gelyke Indiensneming beoog word. Die DA maak daarteen beswaar dat enige spesifieke voorkeur of guns aan een persoon bo ’n ander gegee word op grond van ras want werkloosheid ken geen velkleur, geslag of kwaal nie.

Die DA staan hierdie wetsontwerp teë op grond van die volgende redes. Dit stel ten doel om voorwaardes soos in die Wet op Gelyke Indiensneming uiteengesit as ’n beleidsoorweging in te stel. Volgens kluosule 4(1)(d) sal hulp aan sommige jeug, met uitsluiting van ander, verleen word op grond van hul velkleur.

Die wetsontwerp poog om die mandaat van die Jeugontwikkelingsagentskap verder uit te brei. Die meerderheid van hierdie mandate word egter reeds deur ander departemente geïmplementeer, so hoekom poog die agentskap om ander departemente se mandate te dupliseer? Daar is geen aanduiding wat met die bestaande loodsprogramme sal gebeur sodra hierdie wetsontwerp geproklameer is nie.

Hierdie wysigings sal nie die grondwetlike ideaal van nierassisme verwesenlik nie. Dit sal wel rassisme en
diskriminasie verdiep en ’n uitog van jong mense wat deur hierdie agentskap effektief van geleenthede uitgesluit word tot gevolg hê. Ons verwerp hierdie wysigings want die DA beywer ons vir ’n toekoms waar gelyke geleenthede vir almal beskikbaar sal wees ongeag jou velkleur, want onder hierdie onbevoegde ANC regering, bloei ons almal bloedrooi.

(Maiden Speech)

Ms M S LETLAPE: House Chair, let me first greet the commander- in-chief and president of the EFF Julius Sello Malema, commissars and fighters, with an unemployment rate that is alarmingly high, South Africa has more than 10,2 million young people aged between 15 and 24 years’ old who are not in school, who are not in training and who are also not working. The young people of Jozini, uMhlabuyalingana, Musina, Taung, Rustenburg, Madibeng, Soweto, Tembisa, Metsimaholo, Qoboqobo and Tsolo in Amathole and O R Tambo districts in the Eastern Cape wake up every day with no hope of going to school, no hope of getting some form of training and no hope of earning a living.

The young people of Nyanga, Khayelitsha, and Belhar in the Western Cape, have completely lost all hope and are now
turning to crime, joining gangs, substance abuse and gambling. We wake up to newspaper articles, and frontline articles of children as young as 12 years old in the sex workspace trying to provide for their households, but we are here to debate what has now become a tender administrative desk of the ANC Youth League. A body envisioned by young people who once had their creativity, youthfulness and ambition, is now reduced to a desk of equally less creative youth league of the liberation movement that cannot pay its bills and is busy fighting the Sheriff's Office who are just doing their work. The Bill is not concerned by the high levels of crime. The Bill is not bothered by the millions of young people who are stuck in the passage of youthhood and are supposed to be transitioning to adulthood. This means our young people will forever be young because some even get to the age of 35 years without ever getting a meaningful and decent job.

Instead, we are here dealing with appointments of board members, access to organs of the state tenders, board meetings and funding for the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, which spends more than 89% of its budget on salaries, administrative and operating expenses, travelling and rental for the ANC Youth League. The young people of Kuruman.
Paballelo in the Upington area, in Pampierstad in the Northern
Cape, Ditsobotla in Lichtenberg, J B Marks in Potchefstroom and Vryberg in the Naledi Local Municipality, have not seen, heard or received any intervention from this NYDA. The National Youth Development Agency Bill should concern itself with the question of jobs.

The Bill should be obsessed with jobs for young people. Young people want jobs. We want jobs. We want jobs that pay a living wage, jobs that are trained for and jobs that will contribute meaningfully to the development and growth of South Africa.
All we want and all young people want is jobs. Instead of making social cohesion, the function of the NYDA is to use high-level English of some vague economic participation to make youth advisory, research and development. The NYDA's primary function should answer the question of how and when these jobs for young people will come from. The function of the NYDA should answer the question of how young people will participate in the localisation and massive industrial development.

It should be clear how the NYDA will ensure that there are functional offices in municipalities in the country with efficient, reliable and meaningful services. There must be an NYDA in Umzimkhulu, in Nkandla, in Mnquma, in Thembelihle, in
Nama Khoi, in Taung, in Moses Kotane. In Collins Chabane, in Mogalakwena, and all other municipalities proper stationary, high-speed internet and access to information led to the establishment of small businesses and manufacturing. It must be an NYDA that has both gender and geographic spread across the country and inclusive of all young people, to ensure meaningful impact instead of self-centred amendments that make no difference whether we agree or not, agree here in the National Assembly. There is nothing in these amendments that will stop the appointment and deployment of highly underqualified, and semi-literate members of the ANC Youth League NEC, many of whom at times do not even possess any
post-secondary qualification. The young people must register to vote by their millions through IEC online platforms, and we must make use of our collective numbers to vote the ANC out of power and give the EFF state power to deliver jobs and economic liberation for young people. Let's all go out and register to vote because 2024 is going to be our 1994. Thank you, Chair.

Mr W T LETSIE: House Chair, on a point of order: I wanted to ask that illiterate if they want to take a question but you did not materialise. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Sonti, what is your problem?

Ms N V MENTE: Point of order, Chair!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes, member Mente.


Ms N V MENTE: Chair, on a point of order: No, you cannot allow that. Letsie just said he wanted to ask that illiterate.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): What?

Ms N V MENTE: You cannot allow Letsie to insult members of the House. [Interjections.]

Mr W T LETSIE: I meant literate, sorry!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order! You see now, I can’t even hear what the member is saying. Hon Letsie, did you say that?

Ms N V MENTE: He must withdraw!

Mr W T LETSIE: No, I meant literate.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, wait. You don’t tell me what to do, hon Mente. I am still talking ... you put your order ... I am taking care of it. Hon Letsie, did you say that?

Mr W T LETSIE: No, I meant literate. I don’t know if she heard

correctly or not. [Interjections.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Letsie, it is fine, I will look at the Hansard and come up ... because I did not hear you. Hon Sonti was making a lot of noise in the House. I will come back with that. Hon Ntlangwini, what is your order?

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: House Chair, on a point of order: The whole afternoon since this morning, hon Letsie has been interrupting this House and you don't want ... [Interjections.] ... you only hear hon Sonti. The whole morning. Why are you guys so scared of this guy? Why are you scared?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, hon, please sit down. Sit down, this time he raised his hand. Please sit down. That is why I called his name. Please sit down. [Interjections.] No, hon Ntlangwini, everybody has a right to state a point of order. Please, don’t do that. Hon Papo?
Mr A H M PAPO: House Chairperson, on a point of order: When you make a ruling, you must also take into consideration the member misled this House by saying the youth league members who are on the board of the NYDA have no post-matric qualification.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon member Papo, please sit. That is a point of debate. I can't rule on that.

Mr A H M PAPO: No, I'm saying you must be aware ... [Inaudible.] ... It is not the truth.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay, that's a point of debate for me.

Mr A H M PAPO: It is not the truth.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes, I'm not here to find that out, please. Hon members on the platform, please stop pressing that button to speak. Nobody allowed you to speak, and hon Manyi, you also pressed there and spoke. I wanted to call you to order and hon Sonti. was making noise. So please, let's respect this House. [Interjections.] Stop it. Hon Sonti, please, don't do that. Hon member Manyi?
Mr M MANYI: Chair, on a point of order: When you do your order take into account the fact that the member misled the House again because when you asked him a question, he changed the story ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, that is not a problem. I ruled on that one. I don't have to take any advice. I ruled. Let's proceed, hon members. Hon Makoti, please stop.

Ms M D HLENGWA: Hon Chairperson, youth unemployment remains one of the biggest threats to the future potential of our country, as 4,7 million young people in our country remain in a state of despondency, as they wonder how they can convert their qualification and life skills into food on their table. Unfortunately, like many other instances, this unemployed young people are largely from the previous disadvantaged group in our country.

The South African youth constitute nearly one third of our entire population. Therefore, it is our duty, as those in position of leadership, to ensure that we work tirelessly to provide these young people with an extensive platform that will provide employment opportunities. In our view, the implementation of this Bill will contribute to doing just
that. Over the years, we have seen how the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, has delivered on designing and implementing policy and programmes that address challenges uniquely to our country’s youth.

Therefore, the IFP is in full support of this Bill intended to achieve the NYDA’s mandate further towards initiating, designing, and piloting socioeconomic programmes that empower youth. As a country facing a high level of unemployment, we need to shift our focus towards creating empowered youth that is self-reliant. In this regard, entities such as the NYDA play a key role in the provision of youth entrepreneurship, development and support, youth advisory and information services, and the issuing of grants.

Lapha i-NYDA sifisa ukuthi ikwenze konke iye kuwo wonke amakhona. Yingakho senze lo Mthetho ukuze ukwazi ukuthi babuye bazosho ukuthi senze lokhu endaweni ethile nalokhu ukukhuphula izinga lentsha yethu.


... share sentiments of the minority view that unemployment affects all South Africans, the IFP wishes to highlight that
we cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand, when it comes to those who are constantly disproportionately affected, which remains the youth from previously disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those residing in rural areas and outside in our cities. The IFP supports the Bill.

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


Ngixolise Ma, ngithe IFP ...



... because they did not put your name down.

Ms T BREEDT: House Chair, the NYDA Amendment Bill is meant to, amongst others, amend the provisions relating to the object of the agency and to amend the functions of the agency. There can be as many amendments as can be, but this will not improve the functioning of this agency.

One of the new objectives of the agency is to promote the interests of the youth, particularly youth who fall within the
10 designated groups contemplated in the Employment Equity Act.

Nou of die wet nou korrek is of nie, weet ons almal wat in die praktyk gaan gebeur.


The NYDA will prioritise who they want to and that is normally the politically connected and children of ANC cadres. Youth development will never be a success, if the only measure to qualify for such development is your race. Youth empowerment should not be based on the colour of your skin, but on socioeconomic factors. We have many poor, but smart young people that can add to South Africa and its economy.


Die huidige NYDA het eintlik nie bestaansreg nie, want dit faal in al sy kritieke mandate en het geen waarde toevoeging tot Suid-Afrika se jeug nie. Die NYDA is ook, sedert sy ontstaan, bekend vir sy skandale, beweerde korrupsie en bedrog, wanaanwending van fondse, om maar ’n paar voorbeelde te noem. Dit het sedertdien nog nie verander nie. Die NYDA is verder slegs winsgewend en tot voordeel van sy raadslede. Die enigste jongmense wat baat daarby is die ANC-kaders en hul kinders.
Die NYDA gaan baie meer werk moet doen, as wat dit tans doen en ook ontslae moet raak van oorbetaalde raadslede, en regtig mense moet kry was ’n verskil wil maak. Jeugwerkloosheid is ’n treinramp en ons kan nie so aangaan nie.


In an article: “South Africa’s unemployment is a ticking time bomb and anger rises with millions jobless” they highlighted a few shocking statistics.

Analysts say the official unemployment number doesn’t even count those who have given up on finding work and dropped off the grid and that a more accurate assessment would be that nearly 42% of South Africa’s working-age population is unemployed.

South Africa has the highest unemployment rate in the world, according to the World Bank, outstripping Gaza and the West Bank, Djibouti and Kosovo. They are all your friends. When it comes to youth unemployment, the rate is 61% for 15 to 24- year-olds, according to official statistics, and a staggering 71% if you add those who are no longer trying.
These are the youth the NYDA are supposed to be focused on, but with their skewed priorities, they dismally fail in attracting the youth to programmes.


Dit is uiters moeilik om enigsins aan boord te wees met ’n entiteit wat so rasbehep is, alhoewel hulle amptelik beweer dat hul hulp verleen aan alle Suid Afrikaners en wat soveel twyfelagtige bande met die ANC het. Sommige wysigings in die Wetsontwerp is nie te sleg nie, maar kan mens enigsins ’n betekenisvolle verandering of impak verwag van ’n entiteit met soveel bande met die ANC en wie se leierskap nou al ’n paar keer aangekla was van korrupsie en kaderontplooiing, veral as mens sien dat die werkloosheidsyfer, veral onder die jeug, aanhou om ten ergste te groei? Die entiteit sal eers al hul bande met die ANC moet breek en wegdoen met swart ekonomiese bemagtiging, SEB, en mense aanstel op meriete, voor mens enigsins kan verwag dat enige ander veranderinge aan die wetsontwerp enigsins ’n verskil kan maak. Ek dank u.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): As I wait for hon Shaik Emam to take his seat, fortunately, my Table staff has been able to trace what hon Letsie had said. The recording says: I wanted to ask if that illiterate wanted to take a question.
Hon member, it is here. You then proceeded when I asked whether you said that, by saying that you wanted to say illiterate, and that behaviour is completely out of order. I will now instruct you to withdraw.

Mr W T LETSIE: Chair, I meant ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, I don’t want the explanation, hon Letsie.

Mr W T LETSIE: I withdraw.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, please, wait. I can’t even hear hon Letsie. Hon Paulsen, I am dealing with hon Letsie. Please, stop. That is why I don’t even hear what the members are saying. Hon Letsie, can you just withdraw.

Mr W T LETSIE: I am withdrawing for the third time. I am withdrawing. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Thank you. No, don’t go further. No, no conditions, hon Letsie. It is here, please.
Thank you.
Mr W T LETSIE: I am saying that I am withdrawing for the third time with no condition.

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


Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Chairperson, the NFP will support this Bill, but in supporting this Bill, I want to address a few issues. Number one, through you, Chairperson, Minister, we spend a lot of money on boards. And you can see the performance, despite having these boards, particularly with the state-owned companies. Now, if you look at the latest statistics, 25 329 young girls, children - and that is why I repeatedly go back to KwaZulu-Natal and the performance when we come here and brag and say we do a lot - gave birth to children. And of these, 544 were 10-year-olds and 12-year- olds. I’m talking about KwaZulu-Natal alone.

So, what is it that we are doing in these rural municipalities? Nothing. You know, if you take a country like Russia? They have sports development with coaches paid by the local authorities, the municipalities who work together with the different schools and things, to produce athletes of the highest calibre - sportsmen and women. And this is why they do
so well in sports. Nothing is happening in these municipalities, as far as that is concerned.

However, I will tell you what we find and that’s why you have a 60% dropout in the first year in college. Okay. Alcohol, partying, being manipulated. These kids are vulnerable. So, you have politicians that manipulate them, convince them they will give them the world, they’ll give them gold, when there is no gold in the area. And they fall for it. That is the problem we are finding ourselves in.

Minister, through you, Chairperson, last year, I produced 37 girls as beauticians. When I raised it here in Parliament, I then went ahead and produced another 12 now in Durban, with eight barbers. With South Africa having a youth unemployment rate of 70%, you can only get a haircut from a foreigner, when you want one. I produced eight barbers in Durban and 12 girls as beauticians. In Cape Town, I just produced 15 beauticians and I am about to produce 10 barbers.

However, let me say this to hon Breed, they were whites, they were coloureds, they were Indians, and they were blacks. It didn’t matter what religion or what party you belong to. Every
one of them had an equal opportunity. And I am so glad that all of them have graduated.

So, we can do more. There are 4 500 wards. If we take this to every ward, we will create 36 000 job or business opportunities. Let us use the advantages of this board and create these opportunities for these youth, because they are the future of this country. I thank you very much. The NFP will support this Bill.

Ms T Z MAKATA: Hon House Chair, the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, plays a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of the youth development in South Africa. A reflection on the NYDA's work highlights its commitments to addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by the country’s youth. The agency's initiatives, the programmes and the interventions are designed to tackle unemployment, skills development, and empowerment.

By examining the impact of the NYDA’s work, one can gain insights into the effectiveness of its strategies in fostering positive change and creating opportunities for the youth of South Africa. The NYDA holds a significant importance as a key
player in the battle against youth unemployment and in promoting empowerment.

With South Africa grappling with high unemployment rates, particularly among the youth, the NYDA’s initiatives aim to provide job opportunities, entrepreneurship support and career development programmes. By understanding the significance of the NYDA's role, one can appreciate how it catalyses economic inclusion, giving young individuals the tools and resources needed to secure sustainable livelihoods.

The agency's efforts not only contribute to individual success but also plays a vital role in the broader economic development of the nation. Then NYDA catalyses skills revolution amongst the South African youth by recognising the importance of equipping young people with the skills demanded by the modern job market.

Through various training programmes, mentorship initiatives and partnerships with education institutions, the NYDA strives to bridge the skills gap. This emphasis on skills development is crucial in preparing the youth for the evolving job landscape, fostering innovation, and ensuring that they
contribute meaningfully to the country’s social economic growth.

A deeper exploration on the NYDA's role in the skills revolution sheds a light on proactive approach to nurturing a skilled and competitive youthful workforce. Reflecting on the NYDA's work allows for assessing its impact while recognising its significance in combating unemployment and empowering the youth.

Additionally, understanding the NYDA is a catalyst for a skills revolution, underscores its role in shaping a more resilient and capable generation of the South African youth. The NYDA, along with youth initiatives spearheaded by the Presidency, has significantly impacted the landscape of youth development in South Africa.

One notable initiative is the Youth Employment Service, the YES programme, which has been instrumental in bridging the gap between education and employment for young individuals. In collaboration with various private sector partners, the YES programme creates partnership and job opportunities fostering practical skills and experience.
Additionally, the presidential youth employment skills reflecting the commitment at the highest level emphasizes the importance of the youth inclusion in the workforce with its integrated interventions and incentive, the scheme works synergistically with the NYDA to address the pressing issue of youth of unemployment.

The combined impact of this initiative is measured in terms of reduced unemployment rate and the empowerment of young people to contribute actively to the country's economic development. The existing policy framework, including the National Development Plan 2030, the National Youth Policy 2030, and the Integrated Youth Development Strategy, provides a road map for comprehensive development. By enhancing these policies, the government demonstrates a commitment to adapt changing circumstances and emerging challenges.

The National Development Plan 2030 sets long term goals for the nation's development and by integrating youth central strategies, it ensures that the aspiration and the needs of the youth are central to the country's growth.

The National Youth Policy 2030 is a guiding document specifically focused on the youth demographic, outlining
strategies for empowerment, education, and social inclusion. Enhancing these policies involves a continuous review and adaptation processes. It entails incorporating feedback from stakeholders considering and involving socio economic landscape and ensuring that the policies remain relevant and that they are responsive to the changing needs of the youth.

The appointed individuals who do not have voting power will use their experience to ensure that the initiatives of the NYDA align with the broader policies of government. This will promote a more cohesive and integrated approach to youth development. This cost-effective measure will also enhance accountability, transparency, and the overall effectiveness of the NYDA.

The ANC's strong endorsement of financial disclosures, particularly concerning the National Youth Development Agency board members, highlights the party’s dedication to anti- corruption principles, transparency, and accountability. This commitment underscores the ANC's value and ethical standards, setting a commendable example for institutions engaged in youth economic development.
The emphasis on financial transparency aligns very well with the ANC's core principles and reinforces the importance of integrity and accountability within the NYDA's leadership.
This collective commitment enhances trust and credibility, fostering an environment of openness and pursuing the NYDA's mission.

It is very important, also hon members and hon Chair, that as young Members of Parliament, we must make it habit to read so that when we stand here and speak to the young South Africans, we at least give them some information that has credibility and some truth in it.

The NYDA board members, some of them as we speak now are Doctor of Philosophy, PhD candidates, the chairperson has various masters degrees and the majority of them have post graduate qualifications. I think as us, upholding that element of being honourable when we bring discussions to this Parliament must at least provide information that is truthful.

And lastly Chair, just in the few seconds that I have, there's everything similar with the youth of South Africa, but at the end of the day, privilege has a colour, and we cannot overlook that. Thank you, hon Chair.
Ms N K SHARIF: House Chair, the National Youth Development Agency, is meant to serve young people by providing them with skills and job opportunities in a country where 4,9 million young people are unemployed, 4,9 million young people do not have jobs. The high amount of young people without a job is testament to a failing government that takes so much away from young people but provides them with nothing.

Government’s failure continues to leave young people in a perpetual state of despair with no hope for the future. To be fair, we must always balance our opinions. Where there is bad, there is also some good. So let me start by giving the NYDA some props for the work that they have been doing as young people in leadership.

Unqualified audits they have received meeting and, in some instances, going beyond their key performance indicators and for the great fundraising efforts they have done. Since the new board has come into office, we are indeed seeing an improvement in the functioning of the NYDA, and this is welcomed.

However, there are still many challenges that need addressing. Firstly, the reach of the NYDA must be improved. Minister, the
need for more officers around the country is essential. The committee was adamant that by expanding the reach of the NYDA, many more young people in areas where there are no jobs will be able to get opportunities. Too many young people do not even know what the services the NYDA provides or how to find them and this must be drastically improved.

The age of board members became a topic of contention between the department and the committee during the processing of this Bill. The committee unanimously agreed that any person from the age of 18 should be considered. It is not up to us to determine what young people can do and put an age limit on that. We are looking forward to young people putting their names forward to make a change in the country and it is exciting to see the innovation and problem solving coming from young people. Testament is all the young Members of Parliament, MPs in this House speaks for itself.

The biggest issue for the DA is that there has to be better access to the NYDA and its services must be open to every single young person, no matter who they are, and no matter where they come from. This access must also be given to future boards of the NYDA.
The addition of race quotas into the Bill will take away opportunities from young people. This is the main reason that we as the DA cannot agree to this amendment Bill. It is our view that all young South Africans must be treated equally, all young South Africans must be given equal opportunities to improve their lives and all young South Africans deserve to live in dignity in the country of their birth. This is our constitutional right. Minister young people are the majority, and these young people will vote the ANC out. I thank you.

Ms F A MASIKO: House Chairperson, hon members, the vibrant youth of South Africa close to three decades post the democratic dispensation, the youth dividend in the country continues to be one of our greatest assets.

The youth across the length and breadth of this country still drive and motivate all of us to do better as a people. We ought to be reminded daily that young people matter in making us realised the potential that our country possess to be a great nation, a nation that will never repeat the ugliness of the apartheid system for which we are known world over.

Young people remain the centre of the country’s development
and our integral part of Vision 2030. The National Democratic
Plan our country’s long term vision, singles out young people as key to the development of the country. It highlights that South African youth population present an opportunity to boost economic growth, increase employment and reduce poverty. It is for this reason that youth empowerment is a national priority. We are thus compelled to continue fighting for the ideals of the national democratic society. It is not by accident that youth development was placed as a critical focal point of our democracy. It was a deliberate move by the ANC-led government to build an inclusive and prosperous country that leaves nobody behind, one which needs interest and inspiration of young people are taken to heart. Therefore, the establishment of the Youth Development Agency as a successor to the National Youth Commission, the Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the Provincial Youth Commission must be celebrated as a major milestone in our quest for sustainable youth development interventions.

Hon members, we are under no illusion about the daunting challenges that lie ahead and the expectations of our young people. We dare not fail them like the DA and its allies, which continued to undermine the will of the people and attempt to distort what the National Youth Development Agency, NYDA, was established for. They have long called for the scraping of the NYDA. It therefore, comes as no surprise that
today they are repeating the very same call that they have strung sang for the scrapping of the National Youth Commission, the Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the Provincial Youth Commission.

In the last few months through the public participation process, the young people of South Africa have expressed their will without fear or favour. They did this through a free and fair democratic process were in the public general and the youth in particular were afforded an opportunity to expressed themselves on how they feel the NYDA can better service them.

The ANC is amongst many in South Africa that have accepted the will of the people and herewith support the National Youth Development Amendment Bill. We shall attend and deal with any attempt that seeks to undermine our commitment to realise economic transformation and the creation of a social order that will benefit the majority of our people and not an elite few masquerading as representatives of our people.

It is through democrats and champions of the interest of young people of South Africa. We have listened and we have heard our people and are repositioning the NYDA as a critical asset of our developmental objectives as it plays a pivotal role in
shaping the Youth Development Agenda emphasising inclusivity and equality regardless of political affiliation. Its mobilisation efforts and ability to form partnerships across sectors contributes significantly to its influential role.

To those who wish to contribute to building a South Africa for all are seen by providing constructive criticism, not destructive criticism that seeks to tear down progressive legacies of youth development in the country. Anyone can be negative and points out mistakes. It takes patriotic South Africans to strengthen the institutions that we have fought so hard to build and to fortify them by giving productive imputes on strengthening and reaffirming their importance.

The NYDA is commitment to inclusivity is reflected in its effort to empower young people regardless of their political inclination. This emphasis on inclusivity not only aligns with democratic principles but also reinforces the idea that youth development should transcend political divides focusing instead on collective advancement of the nation. It is through such efforts that young people like Rendani Mutheiwana, 29 years, is making headways in medical entrepreneurship after launching her prosthetics business at the height of COVID-19 with the help of the National Youth Development Agency. Born
and raised in the rural village in Vhembe District in Limpopo, Mutheiwana opened Rendani Mutheiwana prosthetics in Makhado after she applied and received the grant funding for the medical business. Her story is one of resilience amongst young people who choose to become job creators instead of being job seekers.

What the DA is rejecting today is a reality of young beneficiaries across the country who have partnered with the NYDA to amplify the role of youth in the development trajectory of South Africa.

We as the ANC remain proud of the achievements of the NYDA. We are cautious of the fact that the organisation alone cannot address each and every single challenge that faces the youth. We need the support and commitment of other stakeholders in society including educational institutions, businesses, labour and civil society organisations. Youth Development is everybody’s business, hon members.

Chairperson, ours is a nation that values its future. Our movements value its youth and children, and despite these challenges, we will continue to invest in young people and lead any and all efforts to develop them. I thank you.

First of all, let me just say that the amendment says NYDA should go to the provinces and to the rest of the country. So, I don’t know why you are talking as if it’s not.

Secondly, if you think more than 700 million that the NYDA has is going to solve the youth problems of the country, you are mistaken. It means, you cannot count. The rest of the budget, government, national, provincial, local, private sector, must deal with the challenges of the youth. so, it just doesn’t make sense to thin 700 can deal with everything when there is a trillion that can deal with it.

Thirdly, affirmative action, all it says is that the majority of the people who are unemployed are blacks. Therefore, the majority of those who will benefit will be the majority who are unemployed if we are talking about unemployment. We are not talking here about job reservation that you used to do. We are talking about fare demographic and geographical distribution, not job reservation that you know. You are mistaking affirmative action for job reservation and is not.

Fourthly, you are saying there is no marriage. Marriage and ANC are not mutual exclusive. There are lot of people
marriage, youth and other people in the ANC of marriage, not of mutual inclusive. Don’t talk as though marriage is somewhere else. Marriage is there in the ANC. We can prove it. We are here. Thank you.

Second Reading debate – National Youth Development Agency Amendment Bill [B 13B – 2022] (National Assembly – sec 75).

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon House Chairperson, hon members of the executive and hon members of the House, ladies and gentlemen, the Ad hoc Committee on Flood Disaster Relief and Recovery was established to give effect to Parliament’s constitutional obligation to oversee the implementation of government relief measures to address the flood impact.
The committee’s work followed up on that of the previous ad hoc committee that was established to assess the extent and response to the damages incurred in the provinces of KwaZulu- Natal, North West and the Eastern Cape. The committee conducted the follow up with the relevant sector departments and parliamentary committees to ascertain the actions taken regarding the previous committee’s findings and recommendations.

Facts finding visits to the provinces affected by the floods in December 2022 and February 2023 were conducted to verify the information received from the departments against the real experiences of the affected communities. The visited provinces where the sites were a national state of disaster was classified and subsequently included the province of Gauteng, Free State, Mpumalanga, Limpopo and North West, inclusive of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape.

In summary, the committee found as follows: The City of Tshwane’s political administration showed absolutely no interest in prioritising the plight of communities affected by the recurring floods around the municipal area. The committee also detected that in the Free State there was a lack of political leadership, especially in the area of Parys, and the
lack of preparedness to furnish the committee with the relevant information.

The Mopani District and the Greater Tzaneen local municipality in Limpopo, experienced also limited co-operation from the political leadership and rendering the committee’s oversight visit to certain areas futile as it could not engage meaningfully with the acting representatives who demonstrated little understanding of the content that they were delegated to present.

We were also faced with a situation that in the Mfuleni and Sedibeng area, there was absolutely no submission made. Later when they eventually did so during the second oversight visit, there was a time lapse that occurred that caused the presentation to be declared non-fulfilled because of the expiry date by National Treasury. We experienced the well organised City of Johannesburg where we received full political and administrative support.

Furthermore, the North West provincial government has made minimal post disaster interventions, and it doesn’t bode well for the work that needs to be done. The slow spending of disaster grants by flood affected municipalities is a source
of concern. State organs appeared to subject emergency disaster projects to normal procurement processes.

Government’s decision to shift the focus away from temporary residential units is to be welcomed and is in line with the committee’s previous pronouncements. We have seen the interventions that has been made by certain organs of state and recommend that climate change be factored into preparations for potential future disasters, and that disaster pro-municipalities interact with the Council for Geoscience.

It’s not all doom and gloom hon members, because we have also witnessed the tremendous progress since the work of the first committee, especially in Kwazulu-Natal on water infrastructure as well as road infrastructure. We’ve also seen young professionals’ engineers stepping up as project managers, whose executing the task very diligently and it bodes well for the future, and we call on the involvement of more qualified young people in addressing the challenges the country face.

Lastly, the insourcing has cut costs and increasingly in certain municipalities we see that municipalities have reverted to insourcing rather than exuberant outsourcing. I
must state that we received co-operation from the different departments.

Thank you to all the political parties that participated. However, we are disappointed that in certain instances we only had the ANC and the EFF participating in these crucial oversight visits. We call on the Chief Whips of the opposition parties to keep their members accountable for not attending to this critical work that need to be done. I thus recommend to the House the adoption of the report. Thank you very much.

Ms E R SPIES: Hon Chairperson and hon members, I only joined this committee a few months ago and only attended about three out of the four oversight visits but the experience that I gained was extremely useful. One aspect that we cannot ignore is that disasters are here to stay, and the effects of climate change is real. Climate change, extreme events and related disasters pose significant challenges - not only for the poorest and the most vulnerable populations - but also for leaders in disaster and emergency management.

Effective leadership entails preparing for and responding to increasing intensities and frequencies of extreme natural hazard events. This places a huge responsibility on all
spheres of government to be prepared and to place a much higher value on working together in a more collaborative manner. National Treasury is yet to report on the expenditure of approved disaster funding by some provinces and municipalities, the disbursement of disaster relief, the nations that have been paid and the reconsideration of budget reductions in respect of KwaZulu-Natal and the Department of Social Development.

The Portfolio and the Select Committee on Water and Sanitation are also yet to report on the oversight work done around facilitating access to supply of drinking water in certain districts. The Portfolio and Select Committees on Social Development, Health and Social Services have also yet to report on oversight work done in relation to psychosocial and humanitarian support in the aftermath.

Progress reports from the Portfolio and Select Committees on Human Settlement also needs to undertake work in relation to housing provision, also matters that are still outstanding. The Portfolio Committees on Forestry, Fisheries and Environment also still needs to provide a further update on oversight work undertaken in the North West provincial government.
What I feel was very interesting is the responses of communities to disasters. We observe the very weird or very strange phenomena, and maybe it’s also how desperate our people are. It’s that people deliberately themselves in disaster prone areas for them to be prioritised for housing provision, which is quite a concern and a huge challenge. And the Department of Human Settlements on top of that, is confronted with the policy gap where there is no provision for relocating people to dwellings larger than 40 square metres as prescribed in the housing policy.

Further challenges experienced included the scarcity of land, post disaster assessment delays and due to difficulty accessing flood affected areas. But also, insufficient responses to ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Nxesi the Minister, please. Proceed, hon Spies.

Ms E R SPIES: Very important also is the role of non- governmental organisations. Although the observation was that NGOs wants to overshadow government’s role, I think it should not be seen as wanting to overshadow government’s role, but
rather to embrace and value them because in most disasters, it is the work of NGOs stepped in and saved the day.

Introducing an intergovernmental service delivery forum, as is proposed comprising of all provincial government line function departments, is not necessarily a bad initiative. But the inclusion of NGOs and the private sector is imperative if we want to make impactful progress. An example that was mentioned and discussed in our report to the committee, is that Khutsong area in the West Rand is one of the identified areas in which this new forum is going to be put to test as a response to their problems. Although solution orientated proposals have been recommended, the required interventions remain minimal, dealing effectively with the problems like, for example, Khutsong requires drastic solutions which is not provided for in the current disaster funding arrangement.

A commission of inquiry to guide provincial governments approach the non-natural disasters is so aggressive.
Commissions has a tendency of delaying progress, whilst the plight of the people worsens. The non and underspending of allocated disaster funding is of huge concern. A case in point is the Lepelle-Nkumpi municipality. During oversight, it was established that they have spent 0% of their budget, and this
municipality was identified as one of the 66 dysfunctional municipalities. They experienced challenges with senior management and province and district had to step in. I believe more stringent measures must be implemented to keep officials accountable, as well as proper consequence management. How do you justify spending R4,2 million on a 600 metres road as was found in Tzaneen in Limpopo?

Although the committee as a whole is functioning well, and I must commend the two chairpersons, I would like to consider that a team of technical experts not associated with any of the many municipalities and provinces affected, to accompany the committee on oversights. The reason being is that you find that many of the municipal and provincial officials, manipulate reports and put their best foot forward to impress and at times misleads the committee. The DA will support the report. I thank you.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: House Chair, the committee was established to provide oversight to the work of government in providing relief to the victims of the floods that affected Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the North West in February 2023, and the consequent declaration of a National State of Disaster on 13 February
2023. This was after yet another committee to provide oversight on the relief work following floods in KwaZulu- Natal, the Eastern Cape, the North West, Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga in 2022, to this particular floods. The floods that
... [Inaudible.] ... in 2022 is demonstrative of not just sheer incompetence, but a sadistic disregard to the lives of the poor people, particularly of the poor section of the society.

The report of the committee itself found that there were undue delays in the implementation of disaster relief efforts, weak internal controls, inadequate intergovernmental co-ordination, failure to spend allocation resources within the prescribed timeframe ... [Interjections]

MODULASETULO WA NGWAKO (Moh M G Boroto): Moleboheng? Ke mang Moleboheng?

Moleboheng, please ... [Interjections.]


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: ... [Inaudible.] ...
Modise ... [Inaudible.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Majodina, please ... [Interjections.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I was trying assist to you. I was trying to assist you when you were asking who’s Molebogeng. Therefore, I was giving you the details who Molebogeng is. Moleboheng ... [Inaudible.] ... Modise. Thank you, House Chair.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Alright. Thank you. Can we proceed? Hon Mkhaliphi, my apologies for these disturbances. Thank you, proceed. Hon Mkhaliphi!

Ms H O MKHALIPI: Thank you, House Chair. I was muted, can I continue, House Chair?

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes, please.


Ms H O MKHALIPI: The report of the committee itself finds that there were undue delays in the implementation of disaster relief efforts, weak internal controls, inadequate intergovernmental co-ordination, failure to spend allocated resources within the prescribed timeframe, and the ineffective contract monitoring that contributed to many of the service
delivery failures. The victims of all these delays and the lack of effort by government were the poor victim of the floods. In Kwazulu-Natal, for instance, the committee mentioned that there are still people missing from the 2022 floods and that there are over 20 bodies still lying unclaimed at state mortuaries such as Phoenix. Many people from 2022 floods have not been placed in permanent homes as yet as the government has failed to identify pieces of land upon which the new homes are to be built.

eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and KwaDukuza Local Municipality failed to even spend the allocation given to them to respond to these disasters. As a result, some families will spend yet another Christmas without place to call home. This is not just incompetency. It is strenuous conduct by all three spheres of government. In provinces such as Eastern Cape, there simple has not been enough money allocated for disaster relief and even the little money allocated has been misused by the government there.

The Port St Johns Local Municipality, for instance, applied for R197 million, but only received R13,3 million which is not even close to half the amount requested. With these funds the municipality completed four projects, leaving a balance of
R237 000, which was returned to the fiscus as the amount was too small to be committed to any meaningful project. This happens against the ... [Inaudible.] ... of perhaps the most serious devastation in the Eastern Cape coming out of these floods. The people of Port St Johns have been failed by the national government intervention.

In Gauteng, the City of Tshwane was simple not interested in playing any collaborative role with other government departments. Therefore, the victims of flood in that municipality have been left out to hang by that administration. In North West no relief. Government there is still talking about planning to roll out relief work almost a year after the disaster. The Free State government did not even bother engaging the committee as they had their priorities elsewhere, not with the people, not with the poorest of the poor.

In all to this date roads that have been destroyed even by 2022 floods, we’re towards the end of 2023, have not been fixed. Water infrastructure has not been restored. People who are displaced and rendered homeless have not been found homes, yet. The dead have not been buried. School have not been fixed. The missing have not been found. It’s a disaster on its
own, that’s tell us that all we need to know about this government and its willingness to actively seek solution to this problem of our people. Therefore, House Chairperson, we reject this report. Thank you.

Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon House Chairperson, this committee was tasked with the responsibility to oversee the response and implementation of the relief measures by government in affected provinces following floods in the provinces of the Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the North West in February 2023. For anyone who has taken the time to consider this report, there are several common threads that emerge. These include the following, the majority of provinces and municipalities are not prepared when natural disasters strike, while little to no budget set aside to deal with these crises. In many cases poor infrastructure and lack of infrastructure maintenance result in natural disasters such as floods having a great impact on affected communities. Temporary emergency accommodation is provided at great cost, where funds could instead be diverted to the provision of permanent homes. Supply chain management processes are viewed as an obstacle for provision of disaster relief.
Disaster funding allocation received post disaster are never sufficient to deal with the relief and rebuilding efforts. As the IFP we’ll also wish to highlight some issues of concern picked in the report. This include the fact that temporary accommodation provided to those who lose their homes in flood, for example, is often not fit for human habitation. In Nellmapius Community Hall in Tshwane, where occupants have been in the shelter since February 2022, conditions were described as deplorable, while break-ins and burglary were commonplace. Safety was compromised and ablution facilities were nonfunctional and needed agent repair. This is not acceptable.

We further want to question the exorbitant amounts that are being spent on temporary emergency accommodation, TEA. For example, in KwaZulu-Natal the Astra Building was secured for
24 months at a cost of R2 500 per bed per night, with 531 beds occupied. This amount to over R1,3 million a month, and almost R32 million for the rental period. The IFP views this as wastefully expenditure, could this money not have been better spent in the provision of permanent housing. In addition, 24 months it’s far too long to leave people languishing in temporary housing.
Also, deeply worrying is the fact that many of the problems identified in the first special report remained persistent, including undue delays in the implementation of disaster relief efforts, weak internal controls, inadequate intergovernmental co-ordination, failure to spend allocated resources within a prescribed timeframe. It is further unacceptable that multiple portfolio committees failed to submit their progress report regarding oversight work undertaken. Therefore, the National Treasure did not report back on expenditure, donation and budget reduction related to disaster relief efforts. Government needs to be better.

The extreme weather conditions that have become a hallmark of climate change are not expected to be better. They are expected to get worse. Government cannot afford to be asleep at a wheel. Disaster management cannot start after the disaster has occurred. Government needs to take proactive steps to lessen the damage and reduce the number of life lost. For example, homes must be moved away from floods place, infrastructure maintenance must be prioritised, especially for roads and bridges, which are often the first to be lost during flooding. Prevention must form part of the disaster management. While the IFP is in support of the committee’s recommendation, it is clear that there is much work that needs
to be done in the field of disaster relief recovery. I have 12 seconds. [Time expired.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, 12 seconds is over. Hon Groenewald!

Mr I M GROENEWALD: Hon House Chairperson, a disaster ... [Inaudible.] ... fast and is destructive in such a way that it affects people to a point that they lose everything. Their livelihoods destroyed in a very short period of time. The people affected in such incidents is the poor or private sector. The question that arises is that what urgency and time do government react to such events? The report before us confirms that it’s about a year or more before actual assistance is delivered. For someone to lose its livelihood, you won’t be able to convince that the implementation is slow due to challenges. To sleep one night cold and wet is one night too much for those that had home.

For a business to lose the income of one month, you won’t be able to convince to keep the doors open until help arrives. Therefore, to create hope for both without delivering is devastating. To help some but not others is infuriating. The report stated that in the aftermath of the Vaal River floods
of the December 2022, and February 2023, the financial loss and the cost of repairing flood damaged infrastructure has been quantified and the relevant application submitted to the National Disaster Management Centre. Therefore, a year later, at least an application was ... [Interjections.]

What is not in the report is that after all of this time, the rest of the Vaal River corridor is not mentioned, like that of the flood affected further downstream, like Matlosana and Lekwa-Teemane. Places that were not only affected by floods, but also by crime, where criminals came with robots going into buildings and steal whatever they could find. However, those areas aren’t even declared as a disaster area. Why? The reason as in many instances in the report, is the inability of the municipality to contribute to the quick and effective response needed in disasters. The time it took government to respond was too little, too late.

Business is closed and other had to recuperate themselves and people had to seek for a warm bed on their own, as government had forsaken them. In Parys the community even built a bridge, faster than government could assess the quantity and the damage. The ANC is obsessed by telling a good story but it’s not honest with the community about the inabilities. The ANC
must admit to being bad at governing, and even more so when it comes to actual setting party politics aside and help where there is a need and responsibility on government to do so.
Therefore, your inability will show when the flood of voters will not be voting for you next year. Thank you, House Chair.

Mr W M THRING: Hon House Chairperson, the ACDP notes that the floods of February 2023 wreaked havoc in at least seven of our nine provinces, causing loss of lives, damage to property, running into billions of rands with commensurate loss to the economy of South Africa. The 2023 floods follow on the heels of the April 2022 floods that hit Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, where more than 300 millimetres of rain fell in 24 hours, with 459 people losing their lives, 88 people went missing, 4000 homes were destroyed, 40 000 people were left homeless, 45 000 people lived temporarily unemployed and the cost of infrastructure and business losses amounted to over
R38 billion.


The research study, conducted by the University of Witwatersrand in Brighton, professors Stephan Greb and David Nash, emphasised the preparation for big rainfall events in all of our cities, with particular reference to the infrastructure and drainage systems preparation. According to
a report by the Auditor-General SA, the government’s response to the April 2022 flood disaster was inadequate from impact assessment to the delivery of relief. The report found that the response was slow compared to plan milestones and that there was inadequate coordination between municipalities and provincial departments. The report also found delivery failures due to the lack of capacity and inadequate project management impact assessments, not enabling appropriate planning and response and ineffective monitoring and contractors and the quality of goods and services that they delivered.

Now, hon House Chairperson, the ACDP notes the recommendations in this report, which candidly speaks to the poor state of municipal finances, it speaks of the slow pace of releasing post disaster rehabilitation funds, it speaks to the lack of schedules regarding the movement of people from temporary to permanent homes, as well as the inability of municipal and provincial governments to spend disaster funds, amongst others. The findings and the recommendations of this report confirm the argument is over, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable, conclusive and even damning. The ANC has failed the people of South Africa and must be replaced by the ACDP, come 2024.

Nk R M M LESOMA: Asibonge Sihlalo ngaphambili, sibingelele amalungu eNdlu ahloniphekile, oNgqongqoshe, oSekela Ngqongqoshe nabo bonke ebesibambisene nabo ikakhulukazi ekomidini, sibonge ukuthi sikwazile ukuhambela izindawo ebekufanele ngabe siyazihambela. Sisho ukuthi abantu bakithi bazibonele ngawabo amehlo ukuthi ngobani abantu ababakhathaleleyo, hhayi labo abakhetha amacala la bethanda khona uma ngabe sekubonakala ukuthi babanjiwe bavele obala bese sebayanyamalala. Abathi eThekwini ayikho i-disaster committee noma i-disaster unit sathi uma sibheka sathola ukuthi kukhona bancibilika kuhle kweqhwa wangaphinde wababona.

Kodwa ke siphinde sibonge zonke izinhla zezinhlangano ezizimele, ama-NGOs, abahamba ngabodwana, izinhlaka zikahulumeni zontathu, umsebenzi omuhle abawenzile nakuba bekuqala ukuthi sidibane nale hlekelele. Kuningi bakwethu esikufundile lapha ikakhulukazi ukuthi izinhlaka zikahulumeni kufanele zikhulumisane nezinhlelo zikahulumeni zibonise ezikwenzayo.


District development model or management must add value because this was the time to ensure that the intergovernmental
relations and district model also then does exhibit that it does exist. But when ...

 ... sesithi siyaqeda noma sesithi siyawuphothula umsebenzi wethu, kwacaca inqola isihamba kahle kuyalunga konke. Kuningi engakufunda nePhalamende lesikhombisa elingakuthatha ilungise ezinye zezinhlelo nengqubomgomo ikakhulukazi ukuthi ukwabiwa kwezimali uma kukhona inhlekelele izikhathi ezihanjiswa ngazo komasipala noma kohulumeni basemakhaya nendawo ukuthi ihanjiswa ngayiphi inyanga ngaphandle kokuba kuphele ukwabiwa kwezimali konyaka lowo. Akuhambisani ukuthi yini ebhekeleke ukuthi umphakathi izinhlaka zikahulumeni zikulethe zikulungise emphakathini. Uthola ukuthi akuhlangani kahle bese kuthi okunye kwalokhu okwenza uthole ukuthi umsebenzi ...


 ... of technicians or visibility study and the proper project plan before you implement it then gets undermined because ...


... sonke sifuna ukubonakala ukuthi kwenzekile kodwa singakuthathi ukuba sikufake ezingqondweni ukuthi kubakhona umsebenzi ongemuva wabantu phecelezi ...

Technicians that must do before we implement...


 ... kodwa okunye esikubalulayo ukuthi kuningi esekwenzekile uma ngabe ukhuluma ngokulungiswa kwemigwaqo ikakhulukazi kuyenzenka sibonge noSanral la esacela ukuthi akengenelele ngoMnyago weZokuthutha benganikezwanga imali.


They prioritise all the spheres of government, the provincial and local government.


Bayilungisa imigwaqo kwaba khona amabhuloho esikhashana. Manje sekufanele alungiswe baqinisekise ukuthi aba esimeni okuyisonasona esibheke ukuthi kubeyiso njengayizolo ...


... before the disasters.



Kodwa okunye esikushoyo siyanxusa ukuthi omasipala nezifundazwe baqikelele okokubani uma ngabe kukhona
inhlekelele uma ngabe kukhona ikomidi likazwelonke elihlanganisa izindlu zombili mabeze khona ngoba asizile lapha ngoba sizofuna ukubona ukuthi abantu benze kabi noma kahle.
Sizothi masibambisaneni njengoba senza bekhala bethi abazitholi izimali ikakhulukazi abantu baseThekwini nabaholi baseThekwini. Sawubanga umsindo sakhulumisa noNgqongqoshe weziMali wayiletha imali kodwa masekuthiwa kufanele balule izandla ngenxa yokuthi masiqala ukusebenzisana nabo kwakhona lokho ukuthi kuhambeka kancane kodwa baqala bayisebenzisa imali.

Sithi izisebenzi zikahulumeni nazo, abasebenzi bawo umkhandlu abenza uhulumeni kube yiwona owenza umehluko noma ubonakala ukuthi ukhona. Akubona osopolotiki kumbe abaphakamiselwa izandla noma kumbe abavoteliwe kepha izisebenzi zikahulumeni siyazinxusa nazo mazenze abakuholelayo bakwethu ngoba isizwe siyisizwe ngohulumeni kanye nezisebenzi zikahulumeni ukwenza izimpilo zabantu zibengcono.

Besesinxusa kulo mbiko esesiwufakile ukuthi laba ababizwa ngokuthi ama-construction mafias hhayi bakwethu maluju.
Sekwanele ngoba babuyisela emuva igalelo nesivinini mangabe uhulumeni kufanele enze ngalo. Sithi uhulumeni izinhlaka zokuhlengahlengiswa komphakathi iqoqo lezokuphepha,
isifundazwe, uhulumeni wasemakhaya, uhulumeni kazwelonke mabaqiniseke ukuthi isandla somthetho sithatha indima yaso kuma-construction mafias ngoba basebuyisela emuva.Sithi uma sesiqhubekile basibuyisele emuva.

Bese sithi kohulumeni basekhaya ikakhulukazi mabaqiniseke ukuthi bayazinakekela izindawo zabo ngoba wawubona mawuhambela ezinye izindawo sebeletha izinkinga zabo abangazenzanga ngoba bekufanele bazilungisele ...

...because is more of maintenance issues.



Sesehlela ngezansi kuleli thuba esinikezwe lona sithi uSihlalo wekomidi uma ethula lo mbiko ubabalile omasipala, ngeze ngabuyela emuva kodwa engifisa ukukuqhakambisa noma ngikutomule ukuthi sancoma uhulumeni noma umkhandlu waseJohannesburg okokuthi mabaqiniseke izinto eziphakanyiswe uMcwaningi-Mabhuku jikelele abakhulumisene ngazo mabazilungise ngokukhulu ukuphuthuma ngoba kukhombisa ukuthi ukungaphathwa kahle kwezimali kukhona laphaya. Siyaqikelela kodwa ngendlela sathi uma silokhu sixoxisana nabo wabona ukuthi ikhona leyo nkanuko.

We also need competent officials who have financial skills and otherwise, so that they can interact, interrogate finances so that when we make follow ups regarding money, we can be able to see that there is value. We are happy that currently the Auditor-General has been very strong in terms of not only financial management protocols and prescript, but also to ensure that there is value in terms of the end-users or the recipients of the services. With that ...

 ...uMbutho weSizwe i-ANC, sibeka lo mbiko siwuxhasa sibabonga abavumelana nathi. Sibayeka abangavumelani nathi ngoba abasoze bavumelana nathi bayazazi izingxaki zabo. Sithi le Ndlu ayiwusekele lo mbiko. Sibonga kakhulu ithuba elisinike lona.

Mr M R MASHEGO: House Chair, good afternoon in the meeting, and everybody in the podium. House Chair, our country has experienced incident of flooding disasters in the past two years that have left many households and communities negatively affected and without homes, especially the working class and the poor, who are the most vulnerable society.
Not only have the flooding disaster affected the people’s lives, but they have also destroyed important infrastructure that is the core of the provision of basic services such as roads, water, sanitation, and human settlement.

Our government has to move with speed to restore basic services to the affected communities and households and ensure that we develop sustainable interventions in the affected communities. We have seen government’s efforts in responding to the flooding disasters and we welcome some of the interventions that have been made to ensure that the basic services are restored, and plans are in place to ensure that we develop sustainable solutions, whether affected households and communities, but also the future responses to these disasters, as we accepted the climate change has become part of our lives and experiences.

It is important to highlight some of the temporary sustainable interventions of the ANC-led government, in responding to the recent flooding disasters. Among the temporary interventions, the areas where the water supply has been destroyed, water tankers were provided for those communities, according to the Department of Water and Sanitation reports, the Tongaat area, for example, was being serviced by the by at least 20 water
tankers and another 48 static tanks, were installed as a point of water collections for the communities.

Thanks to the Gift of the Givers who donated 14 boreholes. Of course, most of the water of the boreholes, does not qualify to be suitable for usage, but it was used for washing, bathing, and flushing.

The ANC-led government has taken steps to restore water through the rehabilitation of water treatment plants in several affected municipalities, such as eThekwini. It has been suggested that if eThekwini had maintained its stormwater drainage system, the damage to water and sanitation was structure due to the flooding, disaster would have been minimal.

This is because we as we arrived there, we found that most of the areas that have been affected was not necessarily affected by disaster. But they have been there even before the disaster, so the municipality did not just do its work, hence this position that you are putting.

As ANC we welcomed the ministerial intervention in the in the metropolitan municipality to implement projects that would
have alleviate sewer spillages whilst also implementing initiatives to refurbish, upgrade and maintain operations.

According to the Minister, the intervention in the eThekwini will improve water and sanitation services, reduce blockages, and prevent water leaks while improving revenue connections.

The ministry has initially approved the intervention for the period of three years, while possible extensions, depending on how the intervention is progressing, it will be allowed.

House Chair, as ad hoc committee, we have undertaken oversight visits to the affected areas and all of us agree that some of the affected communities were built in areas where there are high chances of flood. And I’m sure everybody shall know that KwaZulu-Natal, KZN, people are building the houses on top of mountains in, in Gauteng in the Jukskei River, in Mpumalanga in the middle of the river, people are building houses there.

All of us in the committee agree that it will be necessary for the ANC-led government, let me just say this, all of us in the committee agree that it will be necessary for the ANC-led government to relocate all households to a suitable area.
We call upon the ANC-led provincial government to provide the necessary support to the Sedibeng District and its local municipalities to ensure that no household or families retain their original flooding lines.

We have emphasized that relocation should come with all the social and economic amenities that go with it, in order to create ... [Inaudible.] ... for human settlement.

Furthermore, as the ANC, we are consistent with our support to the Department of Human Settlements, decision to prioritize the eradication of mud houses and the building of breaking new grounds, especially in rural areas like the OR Tambo District Municipality, where people are still living in mud houses.

As a committee, we are encouraging every community to utilize building materials that are adaptable to climate change. In addition, the committee has held all government department and their entities in the Free state Province to start an ongoing community awareness and education campaign to provide household with the knowledge and the skills they need to prepare for the implementation.
Hon members, many of the affected municipalities have no capacity to respond to the flood disasters, and that have recently occurred due to the number of challenges relating to both financial and human resources. Most of the municipalities have got no revenue base. Local municipalities have been reluctant to enforce land use management regulations to limit the emergence of informal settlement, particularly in areas where flooding would cause a state of emergency.

For instance, we will find that the traditional leaders give a stand to people in the flood area and as and when the flooding is coming, the traditional leaders are no longer there to deal with those particular issues.

Furthermore, the committee emphasized that while local municipalities in the Northwest Province should maintain water and sanitation infrastructure by using municipal infrastructure grants that have been allocated from the National Treasury, clearing drainage water system is also crucial, particularly as the rainy season is coming.

Last but not least, the ad hoc committees directed the Department of Human Settlement and the City of eThekwini to provide communities with a comprehensive plan, to relocate
individuals with temporary emergency houses. Just as a matter of using ... hon Spies, you will know that indeed... [Interjection.] Thank you very much the ANC supports the report. [Time expired.]

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Chairperson, allow me to welcome the report that is tabled here today. You get two kinds of disasters. One is a natural disaster and the other one is an unnatural disaster. What we are experiencing in Palestine is an unnatural disaster with over 40,000 homes in Gaza alone that were destroyed. Which is about 45% of the structures in Gaza. With over 11,000 women and children massacred by the Zionist State of Israel, with support of some of my counterparts in this House and in the country as large.

HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members, order.


Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Now Chairperson, one thing we can’t disagree on, is that climate change is having an effect worldwide. And it is here to stay.

Now, what have we learned from these natural disasters, and what are we doing about it? Does it need to take 49 deaths and 4000 homes destroyed, for us to understand that people living
on the riverbanks, it will collapse if there is a disaster, if there’s heavy flooding, rainfall, tornadoes? You don’t need a rocket scientist for us to know that.

But why is it that we allow them to live there? We drive by every single day as public representatives. And then when there’s the disaster we want to run and act and say we’re going to do this and do that and whatever it is, some will take food parcels and get some support and they’re getting some votes. Why? Why do we need to wait? Why can’t we be proactive instead of reactive?

That is why, as the NFP, we’ve said House Chairperson, particularly on housing, give every South African family, including a single parent family, a piece of land. By that, you’re giving them their dignity and their identity.

Going to Limpopo, this week, the police committee, I think my colleague, hon Gericke, will confirm with me. We’ve hardly seen any informal settlements in that 200km or so, we travelled on to and from. Beautiful houses built by these people because they’ve given the land, and they built their own homes.
Now that is what we need to do all over the country. So, there’s no point in coming here. Finding faults, attacking the processes that we have been following to try and correct these things. But when we’ve got the opportunity, we’re doing very little or nothing about it.

Going to rural KwaZulu-Natal, KZN, as an example, and I always say KZN because I go there. Where is the drainage system?
Where is the sewage system? Nothing, non-existent. Just go and look at the condition that which the people live. So, when there’s a natural disaster, surely, they must be affected more than anyone else. So, what do we need to do now? Change that, go and change the way ... [Interjection.] The NFP supports, House Chair. [Time expired.]

Ms D R DIREKO: Hon Chairperson, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority, hon members, we are approaching the national elections, and it seems like it has become a silly and exciting moment for some members of the opposition. And as the ANC, we are not surprised because we are used to their clownish behaviour. So, every time they come here and clown around, we just let them to expose them.
We are in a situation where a political party consisting of one or two members, such as the new kid on the block, the axed Public Protector, comes to this podium and tells us that they are going to rule this country. Then you ask yourself, what’s wrong with these people? What are they actually smoking? ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members!

Ms V GERICKE: Point of order, Chairperson!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Yes, hon member.


Ms V GERICKE: May I ask you, Chair, for clarity? When a person enters this House and has been sworn in, they are a fully- fledged Member of Parliament. There are no newcomers, there are no old members. I would like you to decide on that, because that is discriminatory.

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

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Let me say this. Rule

84 reads as follows and I quote:
No member shall use offensive, abusive, insulting, disrespectful and inappropriate or unparliamentary words or language.

Hon Direko, Ms Mkhwebane is a member of this House, and we should not look at where she is coming from. Thank you very much. Please proceed.

AN HON MEMBER: She must withdraw. `

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, please, I have ruled. I cautioned hon Direko to please respect other members. Hon Direko, take your seat. Hon Ntlwangwini, what is your point order?

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: Thank you, House Chair. This abuse has been continuing since the morning up till now. We have tolerated it and she must with... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): No, no, no. Hon Ntlangwini, I will now make you to withdraw. I will not allow you to continue. This is not a point of order. I have ruled on this matter. And if the Chair has made a ruling, you do not
need to come and lecture me on how to make a ruling. Please

don’t do that.


Ms D R DIREKO: ... Thank you, Chair. We live in a time when climate change poses catastrophic risks, adverse weather conditions such as floods, droughts and fires that affect human life, our natural biodiversity and our social and economic infrastructure. The impact of these disasters will disrupt social and economic activities.

The past disaster has led to a very serious and painful situation in which people have lost their valuables, their property, both private and commercial. People have lost their loved ones and, in some areas, crops have been washed away by the floods, which is a very painful experience. The flood disasters in KwaZulu-Natal, the Northwest and the Eastern Cape have shown how quickly the government can respond to natural disasters. They have also highlighted the weaknesses of other state systems ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order! I can hear what you are saying there. I don’t want to hear it again. Proceed, hon Direko.
Ms D R DIREKO: ... The ad Hoc Committee was a critical intervention which enabled Parliament to monitor all government interventions. The Department of Co-operative Governance and the Traditional Affairs, Cogta, and the Department of the National Treasury have a central role in supporting local municipalities to ensure that they respond to the disaster.

In our first oversight visit, we found that some municipalities were unable to declare the disaster, unable to apply for funds from the National Treasury, and that their Disaster Management Centres were not operational and up to the task. As a committee, we then engaged both the National Department of Cogta and the National Treasury to assist the municipalities. On our second visit, we found that there was some positive progress, even if it was not 100% satisfactory, but some work was being done. But we can even confirm in our report that something was done during our second visit.
Disaster finance disaster financing is an area we need to continue to adapt to ensure that... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Direko, please take your seat. Hon Manyi, what are you rising on?
Mr M MANYI: Thank you, Chair. I am just checking if hon Direko can take a question on whether she’s been to eThekwini ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Ah, ah, don’t proceed. When you ask me whether she can take a question, stop there. Let her respond. I will ask her. Don’t go on. Hon Direko, are you ready to take a question?

Ms D R DIREKO: ... I’m not on ANN7, so I won’t take any



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

Ms D R DIREKO: The national departments should also dedicate capacity to support provincial and local government to receive... [Inaudible.] ... administratively and in implementing the intervention. A disaster requires business unusual, and our regulations and policies should enable that eligibility.

Regarding the spending capacity of municipalities, we found that most municipalities received grants for their annual expenditures, but most municipalities were not able to
properly account for the funds received from the National Treasury. They have not been able to utilise the funds properly. Therefore, it is a challenge to give them another grant because one does not know if they are using these funds as allocated by the National Treasury or if they are using them for something else that could jeopardise the intervention in the disaster.

The National Disaster Management Centre is critical, and we are confident that the government will improve its system and capacity for effective co-ordination. We welcome the Appropriation Adjustment as part of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, which allocated R1,5 billion for the National Disaster Management Centre for municipality and the support for the disaster.

We condemn the lack of co-operation by the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality which has a negative impact on the lives of our residents. Political differences should also not result in compromising service delivery.

We are also concerned about some of the municipalities that were affected by disasters without applying for the funds for the disaster or declaring the disaster. Ngwate community in
the Free State is one such community. We recommended that the municipality should investigate the causes of such disaster, adequately profile the affected households and later engage with them regularly and also ensure that a geotechnical report and environmental studies are done for future infrastructure planning. The municipality should also finalize its Disaster Management Plan and find technical and geo-hydrological solutions to protect the ... [Inaudible.] ... Water Treatment Plant from future flooding.

The other challenge we also have is the challenge of special planning. Some of the human settlements are in disaster-prone areas. Another disaster that we are facing is not necessarily a natural disaster but is because some of our municipalities have not been able to maintain their infrastructures. That’s why we had this flood. The lesson we have learned from this disaster shows us that some of the disasters can be prevented. We need to educate our communities on what to do in the event of a disaster. We need effective government disaster response centres that will properly communicate with our communities when disaster strikes. We also commend the Auditor-General because with the lessons we have learned from the COVID-19, we were able to secure the funds for this disaster because at least from those lessons, we knew exactly what areas to look
out for to ensure that public funds are protected from those who would take advantage of it.

Chair, during the day we have heard the DA making a lot of noise about accountability, but one wonders if they understand what they were talking about.

The Ad hoc Joint Committee on Flood Disaster Relief and Recovery was set up to ensure that our people received services and that we oversaw all three levels of government that learned about the disaster response, which I understand is part of effective accountability. However, the DA was only a part-time member of the committee. They were only interested in participating in the oversight visits in KwaZulu-Natal. But in all the other provinces they had no interest. This raises the question of what they are actually talking about when they talk about oversight. Because it seems as if they like to put themselves in the limelight ... [Time Expired.]

Debate concluded.


The Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting). Report accordingly adopted.


Ms V S SIWELA: Hon House Chairperson and hon members, the Powers and Privileges Committee investigated allegations of contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly during the state of the nation address on 9 February 2023, as requested by the Speaker on 07 September. The incident involved members disobeying the Speaker's authority and disrupting a Joint Sitting of Parliament. The affected members were Mr Julius Malema, hon N F Shivambu, hon M Dlamini, hon N Q Ndlozi, hon S Tambo and hon V Pambo. In terms of the Rules of the National Assembly, Rule 214, the committee must handle contempt matters and report its findings. If a member is found guilty of contempt of misconduct the committee must recommend appropriate penalty.
Adv B J MKHWEBANE: Chairperson, the point of order is that hon Siwela referred to the president of the EFF as Mr Sello Malema.

An HON MEMBER: So what? He is, he is! [Laughter.]


Adv B J MKHWEBANE: He is an hon member like others you have mentioned.

An HON MEMBER: He is Mr!


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, please do me a favour.

An HON MEMBER: Ah, Busisiwe must just relax.

The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I did not even hear what the member was saying. Hon Siwela, could you please take your seat again. Hon member, I did not hear what you were saying. Hon Mkhwebane, would you please repeat your point of order.
Adv B J MKHWEBANE: I’m saying I heard her saying Sello Malema. So, I was saying if he can address him as Mr Sello Julius Malema or hon.

An HON MEMBER: You are clowning, “wena” [you].


The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, it is a requirement that whenever we address members, we address them as Mr or hon. That’s what it should happen.

Ms V S SIWELA: Chairperson, I said Mr Malema. So, I can evenly say hon Malema because he is an hon member.

On September 26, 2023, the committee appointed Adv Anton Katz Senior Counsel as the initiator for the hearings. The affected members were informed that they could be assisted by a fellow member or request legal representation from a nonmember, but it would be at their costs. Notices of the hearing and charges against the affected members were served on 7 November 2023 with the hearing scheduled for 20-22 November. Members were notified that they could give an explanation either orally or in writing, with written explanations due by 16 November 2023. Each member was charged with a single charge of contempt of Parliament.
The attorneys of the affected members applied for a postponement of the hearing on 18 November 2023. Adv Tembeka Ngcukaitobi Senior Counsel, representing the affected members, argued that the committee should appoint an independent chairperson to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and refer the matter to the committee for its final determination. The committee did not agree with the postponement application.

The initiator on behalf of the committee charged the six affected members with contempt of Parliament and as the as the chairperson I entered a plea of not guilty in their absence.
The Secretary to the National Assembly, Mr M Xaso, was the only witness called to give evidence.

Hon members, having engaged with the evidence presented by the initiator, the committee found the evidence presented persuasive in terms of the arguments and evidence put forward. The initiator submitted that the affected members warranted a penalty that was sufficiently serious. To this end, he recommended that the penalty set out in section 12(g) of the Act would be appropriate. The initiator submitted that another appropriate penalty for the six affected members would be an order to apologise in person and physical in the House to the
President, the Speaker and the people of South Africa in terms of section 12 subsection 5(c) of the Act.

The committee find the submissions of the initiator persuasive and reached consensus that the members must be ordered to apologise as spelt out by the initiator in 5. With respect to the penalty of suspension without remuneration, the committee agreed by consensus that the suspension must be for 30 days starting from 01-29 February 2024, instead of the 10 days proposed by the initiator.

The committee recommends that the National Assembly impose the following penalties with respect to the six affected members: an order to apologise in person in the House to the President, the Speaker and the people of South Africa; suspension of the members without remuneration for a period of 30 days, whether or not the House or any of its committees is scheduled to meet during that period starting from 1 to 29 February 2024 as set out in section 12(5)(g) read with section 12(g) of the Act.


Ndza khensa. Inkomu.
The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you very much, hon member. Actually, this is a reminder that Rule 82 says, in the House and in mini-plenary sessions members must refer to one another in respectful terms. I think hon Siwela recognises that, and she did that.

Chairperson, I move:

That the Report be adopted.


Declarations of vote:

Dr A LORIET: Chairperson, rights come with responsibility. Our rights are not unfitted. A person or a group’s right do not automatically supersede that of another person or a group.
This is equally so for Members of Parliament and political parties. That is why we have The Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act. The Act does not only protect certain members’ rights and privileges, but all members’ rights and privileges. The immunities provided are also not absolute but have limitations.
Section 7 of the Act is quite clear on what acts are prohibited in respect of Parliament and its members. In brief it refers to the prohibition of acts that would improperly interfere or impede with the exercise or performance by Parliament, or a House , or a committee or a member in exercising his or her functions as a member. It prohibits the obstruction or any threat of a member of his functions as a member and it prohibits any act to create or take part in any disturbance within the precinct of Parliament. And it prohibits a refusal to comply with an instruction by a dully authorised person.

The Powers And Privileges Committee met and found the six members of the EFF guilty in terms of the Act after due processes and resolved on the sanctions that have to be supported or rejected by this House.

Chairperson, any Member of Parliament has a right to attend the Sona and to hold the President to account. But it is not a special right of only one party. The disruption of Sona impedes and interferes with the rights of all other members who enjoy that right. How many Sonas have been disrupted by the EFF since 2014?
The HOUSE CHAIRPRSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulsen, please, you are shouting at the top of the voice. I am just saying don’t forget yourself as you are shouting on top of your voice.

Dr A LORIET: The year 2023 was not an isolated event, but a regular occurrence where the rights of other Members of Parliament are trampled on. Citizens of the country are denied the right to listen to the Sona address all because one party believe their rights trump everyone else’s. Chairperson, the DA supports the report and the sanction. But the sad part of all of this the reality is that most probably at Sona 2024 all of us and the Republic will once again be exposed to the same tired spackle of desperation by the EFF. We support the report. Thank you.

Ms N V MENTE: House Chairperson, the EFF rejects the report of the Powers And Privileges Committee into the baseless and irrational allegations of the so-called conduct constitution contempt against the president and commander-in-chief of the EFF, the deputy president, secretary-general and the commissars. We have approached the court for the matter to be heard on an agent basis.
The so-called contempt of Parliament was nothing but a peaceful protest. We are for peaceful protest because in all our activism we protest without engaging in violence. Since our formation as the EFF in 2013, we have always held protests peacefully. It is called peaceful protest because we do not engage in any act that is act violent. The president of the EFF had both his hands visibly raised, holding a placard and simply expressing disapproval. There is no rationale and any rational person who can view this act as an act of violence.

We have to accept that from time to time Parliament will become a platform for peaceful protests. The highest political platform one can lead and protest to express disapproval, discounted and rejection of the status quo if anything ...

The manner in which armed police charged towards the democratically elected Members of Parliament wijth guns inside the sitting of Parliament, was the violence we should all be scared of and we should all be talking about today. The fact that this is done to protect Mr Cyril Ramaphosa from accountability when the former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo said that Mr Ramaphosa must explain the dollars found in inside his sofas and matrass at his fam in Phala Phala. It is
even more troubling that Members of Parliament find it very much comfortable and secured with the corruption that Mr Cyril

The ANC is abusing its majority in this House. The same way it did when it protected Mr Zuma and had to be called out by the Constitutional Court that it failed to hold the executive accountable and was complicit in the state capture and mismanagement of state resources. History is repeating itself today. The ANC does not want Mr Ramaphosa to be held accountable by Parliament for Phala Phala. Instead, they are abusing committee processes rushing to adopt irrational and nonsensical reports. We shall meet at court.

The continuous persecution of EFF leaders and members is as a result of shielding thieving and the thieves that have been not held accountable by Parliament. The ANC leaders will always be held accountable by the EFF. Every Sona is going to be disrupted for as long as no one is held accountable, for as long as the Phala Phala matter is not resolved, for as long as we have not found the source of the money that was found in the Phala Phala farm. We are going to heed the call that was made by Judge Sandile Ngcobo to say this matter must be investigated. Thank you very much.
Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon House chairperson, we cannot afford any room for the sanctity of this House to be trampled on. As leaders in our country, we want to be respected and we want our authority to carry weight. Therefore, we cannot be seen disrespecting the very institution that we want South Africans to hold in high regard.

I rise to express the stance of the IFP on the recent actions taken by the Powers and Privileges Committee, of which I am a member. The committee, after affording accused members ample opportunity for explanation and defence, has sanctioned six members of the EFF for contravening the Powers, Privileges, and Immunities Act. Unfortunately, we are at a point where we need to make example of those who choose to make a mockery of our political mandate to serve this country. In our society, criminal elements are roaming around streets causing disarray and furthering lawlessness, and every day we publicly criticise the police’s inability to bring these criminals to justice. It is with this in mind that we must unapologetically call upon anyone that displays ... [Interjections.]

Mr V GERICKE: Chairperson!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Why are you rising, hon member?

Mr V GERICKE: Can I rise on a point of privilege? I need to understand what is ... [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: Which Rule is that?


Mr V GERICKE: What is criminal about this action?

Mnu M HLENGWA: Heyi wena Msangano hlala phansi.



Sit down, hon member. You are wasting our time. Madness must fall.

Mr V GERICKE: Chairperson!




Keep quiet, Dunusa.
Mr P M P MODISE: What point are you rising on? [Interjections.] Which point is he rising on?

An HON MEMBER: How do you say you are mad?


An HON MEMBER: Which Rule? [Interjections.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Please mute the hon Hlengwa and hon Modise. Please remove them from the platform. Hon member, go ahead with your point of privilege.

Mr V GERICKE: Thank you, Chair. I need to understand, I am new to this House. I wanted to know what is criminal ... [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, please address me.

Mr V GERICKE: Say that again, sir?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Please address me. You are supposed to address me.

I am ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): And from your point of privilege.

Mr V GERICKE: Yes, I apologise ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I find nothing unprocedural.

Mr V GERICKE: I want to understand what criminal about this action is, because we are creating a perception here that a criminal act has been committed?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, can I address that after she has spoken?



Mr P M P MODISE: But a new member can’t just speak,
Chairperson, no.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Information and communications technology, ICT, I requested that the hon Modise be muted. [Interjections.]
Mr W T LETSIE: They gave me an off day.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Mente, are you rising on a point of order?

Ms N V MENTE: Yes, Chair, I am rising on a point of order. Please rule, Chair. And the member on the podium must withdraw. She said the members that are affected by this report are criminal.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Mente, I have said I will make a ruling after this member has done her part. I will make a ruling on it. Hon Ntlangwini!

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: House Chair, it is very disappointing that one member gets to disrupt this House. All of you, the three presiding officers we had from morning until now are failing to rule on this specific member that keeps on interjecting, and you are saying he must be muted, that’s one; secondly, that member must withdraw while she is still there. To say the Members of Parliament are criminals and the incumbent President is a criminal. She must withdraw that. She can’t say Members of Parliament are criminals.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you very much, hon member.

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: That side of the House, and not this side.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you, hon Ntlangwini. Hon Majozi, did you say these members are criminal?

Ms Z MAJOZI: No. I can repeat, Chairperson, this thing is a skill ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Majozi ...

Ms Z MAJOZI: You don’t it from a weave ... [Inaudible.] ...


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Majozi ... no,

you don’t have to repeat. I am asking you ... [Interjections.]
... whether you did?

Mr N SINGH: On a point of order, hon Chairperson.


Ms Z MAJOZI: I did not say that.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Its fine. If you did not say it, I will make a follow up on it and make a ruling. I will make a follow up once we have listened to the Hansard.

Ms Z MAJOZI: Should I continue?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Yes, you can proceed.

Ms Z MAJOZI: ... and every day we publicly criticize the police’s inability to bring these criminals to justice. It is with this in mind that we must unapologetically call upon anyone that displays lawlessness, regardless of who they are and what position they occupy.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Okay, hon Majozi



Ms H O MKHALIPI: On a point of order, Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): There’s a point of

order from the hon Mkhaliphi. [Interjections.] Hon Mkhaliphi!
Ms H O MKHALIPI: No, Chair, I will allow the national chairperson to come. Thanks.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Singh, your hand was up.

Mr N SINGH: Hon Chairperson.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Yes, what’s your
point of order, hon Singh?


Mr N SINGH: My point of order is that you indicated to the House that you will make a ruling after listening to the member and reading Hansard. I don’t think you should be cajoled into making a ruling when you still have to listen ... and the member is quite clear, she has not called anybody a criminal. It is abundantly clear that she has not done that.
She has been unnecessarily harassed by members of the House in that regard. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you, hon Singh. It is for that reason I wanted to check with the member whether she did say that or not. She put it very clear that she did not. However, I am still at liberty to go to Hansard
and check and come back with feedback on this matter. That doesn’t militate against her continuing with her speech until she is finished.

Adv B T BONGO: Chairperson!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I was going to call the hon Bongo because he also had his hand up. Hon Bongo, can I hear you?

Ms H O MKHALIPI: But Chair, you asked me if I have a point of order, and I said let me allow my national chairperson to take it, and you didn’t allow her.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Mkhaliphi, I did not see the hand of the hon Mente. At the moment, I am requesting hon Bongo to make his point.

Adv B T BONGO: No, Chair, my hand was not up.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Okay. Hon Mente!


Ms N V MENTE: Chair, you ruled that you’ll go and listen to
Hansard. The member continues with her speech and repeat her
utterances in relation to police and what was happening on the day that we cannot allow lawlessness to continue in the House by criminals. Now, with that said, must we still go to Hansard? She must withdraw.

Mr K CEZA: Chairperson, the national chairperson is correct that this member ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, please.

Mr K CEZA: Chairperson, my hand is up.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Wait, hon member. Who is that?

Mr K CEZA: It is hon Ceza, Chairperson.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): No, no, I am busy making a ruling. I will give you a chance.

Mr K CEZA: Oh great, thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, I don’t think we need to do this all the time. I have made a ruling on this matter, and I want the member to continue with her speech. I have made a ruling that I will come back with feedback on it. So, I don’t have to repeat that, honestly. Hon Majozi!

Mr K CEZA: Chairperson.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Okay, sorry, just a moment. Hon Ceza, what your point of order?

Mr K CEZA: Chairperson, I implore you that I remind the House about Chapter 2 of the Constitution of this country that says in section 17: Everyone has a right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions. This man is insinuating ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ceza ...


Mr K CEZA: ... her taking a platform and insinuating that it is criminal that ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ceza, no.
Mr K CEZA: ... the Constitution ... [Interjections.]


Ms L L VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, that is a point of debate.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): No, hon Ceza.


Mr K CEZA: It’s wrong. It must be ruled upon.


An HON MEMBER: On a point of order, Chair.

Ms L L VAN DER MERWE: Why is he replying to her speech, Chairperson?

An HON MEMBER: On a point of order, Chair.


Mr K CEZA: Why do you feel pained to respond when you are not spoken to by the Chairperson?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ceza, you go on like this, I am going to mute your mic. I am going to ask ICT to mute your mic. Please, don’t do that. And you know that you aren’t supposed to do that. Hon Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party!
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY: Hon House Chairperson, on a point of procedure, I think we should proceed with the debate. So, protect our rights as well, hon Chairperson, that we have been sitting the whole day here in the House. So, the item on the Order Paper now is declarations on the report of Powers and Privileges. We cannot have Members of Parliament disrupting this sitting at this stage. So, if they had an issue, they should have been part of the proceedings of the hearings of this matter. Hon House Chairperson, please, can we proceed. Those who want to disrupt must be muted or kicked out of this House.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Thank you very much, point taken, hon member. Hon members, can we proceed on this matter. Thank you very much. I would not allow any similar kind of behaviour again. Hon Majozi, please do your part.

Ms Z MAJOZI: Thank you, hon House Chairperson, the IFP firmly supports the sanctions imposed by the committee. Reinforcing the principle that accountability and adherence to regulations are paramount to smooth functioning of our legislative processes. Thank you, Chair.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I will revisit the Hansard and come back with feedback tomorrow. We do not have to entertain anything again. Hon member, you can take the platform.

Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chair, I would like to say that the Freedom Front Plus supports the full report. But I would also like to say that this is too little, too late. We have seen in this debate how often the sittings have been interrupted. Hon Chair, whether we like it or not, the impression created by these sanctions and this report is that, because there have been disruptions involving the President, the ruling party suddenly has to act. We need to be honest with ourselves as to why we have double standards.

I would like to say and address my message to the hon members of the EFF, especially to their leaders who they refer to as Commander-in-Chief, hon Malema. Hon Chair, you refer to him as commander-in-chief. I would like to say to hon Malema that a commander-in-chief protects his members by ensuring that they are disciplined, that their actions ... [Interjections.] ...

AN HON MEMBER: We can’t be told by you.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: ... Listen carefully that they abide by the discipline and the rules of discipline ... [Interjections.]


Mr V GERICKE: Point of order, Chairperson!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I see two hands from the EFF. Hon member, could you please take a seat? Hon members from the EFF, whose point of order, is it? Ok, hon member, go ahead.

Mr V GERICKE: Chair, we agree with the Deputy Chief Whip of The Majority Party.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member, please. We are past that. There is a member on the platform delivering a speech. No, no, not now.

Mr V GERICKE: I rise on Rule 31, on a point of privilege.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Would you please take your seat? Please proceed hon member.
Dr P J GROENEWALD: My advice, hon Chair is that if you are a real commander-in-chief, then you must ensure that your members are disciplined, and you must set an example.

Ms N V MENTE: I am rising on a point of order, Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Manyi.


Mr M MANYI: Hon Chair, the member on the podium is basically saying members of the EFF are not disciplined. We object to that he must withdraw that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Manyi, there is nothing unprocedural here.

Dr P J GROENEWALD: I can see, you are a newcomer here. This whole thing is about ill-discipline by members of the EFF.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Groenewald? Hon Ntlangwini.

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: Thank you very much, House Chair. First of all, let me just state it to the member on the podium that will never take advice from a guy that have led an apartheid
army. So, he has no right to give the EFF advice and we will never take advice from him. He also has no right all our member ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini? Hon members, Can I take this moment now? I wish to remind you of the provisions of Rule 92. Which deals with points of order.
Specifically Rule 92(9), which provides that, and I quote:

Members may not disrupt the proceedings by raising points of order that do not comply with this rule.

I have heard and ruled on numerous points of order, most of which do not comply with Rule 92. They are therefore not valid points of order. They are baseless. Hon members, raising spurious points of order or points of order that have already been ruled on is an abuse of the rules of procedure and of members’ right to freedom of speech. If you, members, continue to raise points of order that do not comply with this rule, it may be seen as an attempt by one or more members to disrupt the proceedings. Please do not attempt this. I am making a ruling, hon Manyi.
In this context, I wish to remind members of the judgment in the case of Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and others. Where the Constitutional Court ruled as follows and I quote:

The privilege of free speech can never go so far as to give members a license to disrupt the work of Parliament, which may be paralyzed and prevented from doing its job.

And that is precisely the case now. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now proceed with the business of the day. And we must continue. So please, there is a member on the podium. Give him the opportunity to present his arguments. You may proceed.

Dr P J GROENEWALD: ... Thank you, hon Chair. It is quite surprising because I have heard a couple of times today that these members have jumped up. And said you have to refer to us as hon members. We are quick to say that we are hon members in this House. And we want to maintain decorum in this House.
Then we must at least behave like hon members. You have to ask yourself what example you are setting for the people of South Africa.
Finally, I did not expect the EFF to follow my advice and the reason is very simple, you do not have a commander-in-chief, you only have a “Mickey Mouse” commander-in-chief. That’s what it is. I thank you.

Ms N V MENTE: House Chair!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I have said I am not longer going to entertain... [Interjections.] ...

Ms N V MENTE: No, you cannot do that. You cannot do that.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... Can I go ahead by saying Rule 92 provides that, and I quote:

The Presiding Officer’s ruling on a point of order is final and binding and may not be challenged or questioned in the House. A member who is aggrieved by a Presiding Officer’s ruling on a point of order made subsequently in writing to the Speaker request that the principle of subject matter of the ruling be referred to the Rules Committee. You have got that liberty.
I therefore urge hon members not to challenge or question my ruling at the moment in the House, but to use the relevant structures and remedies provided for in the rules. Shall we proceed hon members? The ACDP.

Mr S N SWART: House Chair, the ACDP supports the report and the sanctions recommended. We, like other Members of Parliament, MPs, and guests, and the public watching state of the nation, sona, were shocked at what can only be said was a storming of the stage. We believe that a strong message must be sent and that such conduct will not be tolerated. This is in our view, necessary to protect the decorum of the House and to ensure that the rights of us, as other MP’s, to participate in sona to hear the President and to hold him to account are not infringed upon. I thank you, House Chair.

Mr B N HERRON: House Chair, we support the report and the sanctions. The EFF’s annual charade has passed its sell by date. Their theatrics are predictable where they try and land a new hit following their one hit wonder, pay back the money. Their playbook of points of order has become tedious and their points of order are unsustainable and illogical.
It’s unfortunate and unacceptable that this conduct once again delayed the start of the state of the nation, sona, and led to unnecessary chaos. Despite being asked to leave the House, the EFF chose to rather get on the stage and approach a sitting President. Rushing onto the parliamentary podium was egregious conduct and unbecoming Members of Parliament and those who did so should face the appropriate sanction. Thank you.

Mr M MANYI: On a point order Chair!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Manyi, what is your point of order?

Mr M MANYI: Chair, the members misleading the House because the EFF did not approach the President. It’s not true ... [Interjections.] ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): That’s not a point
of order. Please take your seat. You may continue, hon member.

Mr B N HERRON: I have concluded, Chair. Thank you.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Have you concluded? Ok. Thank you very much.
AN HON MEMBER: No, he is done reading.


Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Chairperson, I think we have to admit one thing, we can repeatedly put members before the ethics committee. We can find them guilty. We can impose penalties. That will not solve the problem. This House has been abused time and time again. It has gone so far as to make us the laughingstock of the international community. While we are behaving like this, you get messages from people telling us that this is a circus. Why should the decorum and dignity of this House be questioned? Because a handful of people decide to do as they please. What about the respect of everyone else who has an equal opportunity to represent their constituencies in this House, why should we behave like this?

Hon Chairperson, what is being abused here is standing up on points of order under the rules of procedure. When you rule on a particular matter, no one is allowed to stand up for another point of order on that matter because you have ruled on it, but that is being abused again and again.

No, no, no. Perhaps you should listen a little bit... [Interjections.] ... I can give you a list of accusations and allegations against your leaders in the EFF. I can give you a
list you won’t like. Go home tonight, sit down and ask yourself, is it really it really true that we are one of the most honest, diligent and committed parties? ... [Interjections.] ...

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Point of order, Chairperson!


Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: ... from VBS bank, to farms, to On Point engineering, to the bankruptcy of Limpopo province ... [Interjections.] ...

AN HON MEMBER: Who are you to speak about those things? Because you are also corrupt.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: ... you don’t protect us. This member keeps claiming that our members are corrupt, and you are not calling him to order, Chair. This one was eating the money of his workers.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members!

AN HON MEMBER: Hon Shaik-Emam is correct ...


... nnete ya baba ...



Ms O M C MAOTWE: Chair, on a point of order!


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, the ruling I have made on this particular issue that we are dealing with at the moment is that, allow members to make their arguments. I will therefore not allow any points of order because they are unnecessary and spurious.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: No Chair, you can’t do that. You are out of


AN HON MEMBER: No, it can’t be. A person will just speak and

be out of order.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... Proceed, hon Imam.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: ... The point I’m trying to make is that, you have committed an offense, there are rules in place. This is not a spaza shop, ok. There are rules in place... [ Interjections.] ...
AN HON MEMBER: You are singing for your supper and think that they could make you a Minister.

AN HON MEMBER: Chair, you are degenerating the House.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, could you please assist the House to go ahead with the debate. You will get a chance ... [Interjections.] ...

Ms H O MKHALIPI: Protect us from this member.


AN HON MEMBER: It’s not a debate this one.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I cannot address points of order that comes simultaneously.

Mr B A RADEBE: Point of order, Chair!


Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: No, House Chair. My hand was up before her hand.

Ms O M C MAOTWE: On a point of order, Chair!
Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: I’m not taking an order from you. You are

not going to say that to me, you white man.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini, I will give you a chance.

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: But Chair, my hand was up before her hand. You are not going to say that. Who the hell do you think you are? You are not going to say that. I don’t take instructions from you.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: Who’s that, Tash? Who’s that?


Mr B A RADEBE: Point of order, Chair.


Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: I will never take instructions from a white man.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon member!


Ms O M C MAOTWE: Chair, why do you take points of order from DA members, but you don’t take points of order from the members of the EFF? What is so special about the DA?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, please listen. I have made rulings on these matters. I will not entertain any point of order with regard to the issue at hand. I have made it very clear. So, I request you to give a member on the platform a chance to complete his side of the story.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: No, he must not abuse us.


AN HON MEMBER: But you are abusing yourself.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Any objection with regard to this which is happening I am not going to allow it.

Ms O M C MAOTWE: My has is up, Chair!


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chair, I understand you have made the ruling, and we respect that, but the House is descending unless these members who are ... [Interjections.] ...

AN HON MEMBER: But why do you take the DA’s point of order?


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: ... we are going to be here till the morning ... [Interjections.] ...
AN HON MEMBER: You are scared of whites.


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: ... You are going to assist us because you are not allowing the House to continue with the business.

Ms O M C MAOTWE: What is so special about her? ... a point of order from the DA. No Chair. You are not consistent with your own ruling.

Mr B A RADEBE: point of order, Chair!


Nk O M C MAOTWE: Radebe yima kancane nawe.


Mr B A RADEBE: Point of order, Chair!


Just take our point of order please.

Mr B A RADEBE: Point of order, Chair!


much House Chair... [Interjections.] ...
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Chair, my hand has been up. Please recognise me?

Nk O MAOTWE: Ama-points of order owathathayo abantu abanjani?


point/question of procedure. Hon Mente made her statement without any interruption. Why can’t other members be allowed to do the same. She has said everything she wanted to say in that statement. But the House is being disrupted by the EFF Members. Why can’t you mute their microphones? ... [Interjections.] ...

AN HON MEMBER: Nobody is disrupting the House. If we are not allowed to speak, then nobody is allowed to speak, because you have decided.

AN HON MEMBER: Can we assist you, Chair?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members, please lower your hands. It is not my intention to create the kind of situation we have now. The speeches that are being made here do not necessarily mean that you, hon members of the EFF, are
guilty. The way you are going about it makes you look as if you are already guilty. I have spoken out on this issue. We cannot keep coming back to the same question ... [Interjections.] ...

Mr V GERICKE: Chair, but you cannot make a blanket ruling. You cannot do it on every person.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... and I would like to request members that are coming in from the virtual platform to be aware that they are stepping the flow of the debate in the House. Please don’t do that. Hon Manyi, please lower your hand.

Mr M MANYI: On point of privilege, Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): No, lower your hand I am not entertaining anything now. Hon Sonti, I am not going to entertain that. Hon Tetyana don’t do that.

Mr Y TETYANA: We are raising a point order on you, Chair.


The CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): No, no. don’t do that.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Chair, please recognise me, my hand has been up?

Ms N P SONTI: Sizawuphuma ngo-eleven ...


AN HON MEMBER: You must assist them to go out.


Ms N P SONTI: This is my first time to speak.

Azange ndikhulume tu.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Paulsen, hon Sonti, a ruling has been made.

Ms N P SONTI: Khawundivumele Sihlalo wami?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I have made a ruling and I will clarify it again. Any point of order that
has anything to do with what is taking place at the podium, I am not going to allow it.

Ms H O MKHALIPI: Chair, it’s very easy. Just tell Shaik-Emam to stop abusing the EFF members. That’s all. Tell that Shaik- Emam who was wanted by police here in the precinct to stop abusing the EFF... [Interjections.] ...

AN HON MEMBER: Chair, we want to assist you, please recognise us?

Ms H O MKHALIPI: That Shaik-Emam owes his workers. He eats the money of his workers.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Mkhaliphi?

Mr S TAMBO: He ate the money of that party of his.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Tambo, ... [Interjections.] ...


Ms N P SONTI: Uyabagxotha ke ngoku

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... hon Mbatha, ... [Interjections.] ...

AN HON MEMBER: What did I do now?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... hon Makamba- Botya, you are leaving me with no alternative but to remove you. Please stop doing what you are doing ... [Interjections.]

Mr M N PAULSEN: What did I do?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): ... I request you to allow us to continue. Because I have made a ruling already that we are not going to allow what you are doing. That’s exactly what I said. I will not listen to any point of order in regard to what is being said on the platform. Can we allow a member to go ahead?

Ms O M C MAOTWE: Chair my hand has been up. Can I please be recognized?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I will not recognize any point of order with regards to this issue.

Ms O M C MAOTWE: It’s different one, Chair. It’s a point of
privilege. Can I please be allowed?


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): I will not recognize any point of order, whether it’s whether it’s a point of privilege, what I’m not going to recognise it.

Mr S TAMBO: You don’t know what you are. It’s illegal what you
are doing, Chair.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): If you have a problem with the decision of the Chairperson there are procedures to follow. Do what you are supposed to do. But for now, the House must continue. The House is not collapsed, you are trying to collapse it and are not going to succeed. Hon Shaik-Emam, please proceed.

Mr A M SHAIK-EMAM: Chairperson, the National Freedom Party is satisfied that not once, but on many occasions the EFF have brought the House into disrepute, and we will support this report. Thank you very much.


Can I ask you a question, Chair?

Hon Chair, please recognise me!




Ms B MATHULELWA: Chair, please recognise me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Babalwa, please, do not do that.

Ms G K TSEKE: Hon House Chairperson, contempt of Parliament in normal circumstances is a very serious matter. It is worse when it is carried out by Members of Parliament, MPs, who have given an undertaking to abide by the very Rules of Parliament that are designed to provide both the decorum and dignity to the highest structure in the legislative arm of the state.

The scenes that the people of our country were subjected to on the 9th of February this year, do nothing to lift the dignity and the decorum of Parliament. However, rather drive a narrative amongst the people that parliamentarians have no
respect for them. People who have taken the time to tune in to the state of the nation address to hear programmes that will change their lives have to sit through a spectacle thrust upon them. This is just abusing our people.

Hon House Chairperson, so for the ANC it gives us no pleasure that we have to deal with contempt of Parliament by members of the EFF, who claim they will lead the country after the next elections. We will not allow such demining ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): The hon Tseke.

Ms G K TSEKE: Yes hon House Chairperson.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Could you please take a seat. There is a point of order.

The hon Manyi.


Mr M MANYI: Hon House Chairperson, my point of order is:


Can you please keep quite!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): The hon Manyi, what is your point of order?

Mr M MANYI: Hon House Chairperson, they are making noise. I cannot even hear myself.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): The hon Manyi, what is your point of order?

Hon members, order, please, order!


The hon Manyi, what is your point of order?


Mr M MANYI: Hon House Chairperson, I rise on Rule 89 which is being violated. For the chairperson of the EFF was clear in her submission that the matter is in court.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): That is not the point of order.

Please take your seat that is not a point of order!


Please continue hon Tseke.
Ms G K TSEKE: Hon House Chairperson, at this point in time, we have as Parliament come under very severe scrutiny and criticisms by the judiciary. Acts like those of the EFF only serve to strengthen a view perception and narrative about Parliament.

Parliament is a place of debate and engagement in ideological, theoretical and conceptual analysis. It is a place where engagement or the interpretation of the application of law is debated. It is a place where we seek to convince one another that our political party has a superior argument. It is a place where we are supposed to ensure that our oversight results in a qualitative better delivery of basic services to our people.

Hon House Chairperson, it is not a place where violent and disruptive protest is carried out in the Chamber. It is not a place where you think that by hailing insults you have a superior argument. It is not a place where you hold up placards as if you are in a demonstration or a protest.

Everyone knows that you cannot approach a person.

Hon House Chairperson, can I be protected.
Everyone knows that you cannot approach a person at the podium physically in the way it was done on the 9th of February.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Do not drown the speaker, hon members. Do not drown the speaker.

Ms G K TSEKE: Hon House Chairperson, thank you.


Hon House Chairperson, this happened when the Minister of Public Enterprises was approached on the floor during a Budget Vote session some years ago by the EFF members. The Powers and Privileges Committee and the National Assembly at that time found against the EFF and we are here again today.

Hon House Chairperson, the antics of going to court and trying to insinuate that the Speaker of the National Assembly is the one who has a case to answer is typical of the conduct of the EFF that we have all become accustomed to, but we will never ever accept.

Hon House Chairperson, if the EFF do not agree with the rules then they should try to change them through the provided procedure. However, they will not because they know that they cannot get the support of the rest of the National Assembly to
change them. And so, the best that they can do is to disrupt as they are doing today.

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: Hon House Chairperson, on a point of order.

Ms G K TSEKE: Hon House Chairperson Rule 214 of the National Assembly prescribe that the Powers and Privileges Committee must deal with the contempt in accordance with the procedure contained in the schedule to the Rules of the National Assembly and this has been done.

The arguments that the committee had to listen to which sought to change an agreed structure of the committee ...

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini, please take your seat.

Ms O M C MAOTWE: House Chairperson, Chair.


Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: But why are you violating our rights to call point of orders.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini, please take your seat.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Our hands are up. We are respecting you and you do not recognise us.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini.


Mr S TAMBO: Hon House chairperson, you are deliberately provoking us.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon members I will repeat, I will repeat. What you are doing here is merely wanting to disrupt this House. My ruling is that I will not entertain any points of order until the matter is done with. If you are not happy with what I am doing, please you know what the procedures are. Follow the rules. They are actually your rules as well.

Mr S TAMBO: Hon House Chairperson, it is not that we are not happy, what you are doing is illegal. It is illegal.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Tambo, please do not do that. Otherwise I will have to remove you from the platform. Do not do that.

Continue, hon Tseke.


Ms O M C MAOTWE: So, you want to abuse us. You are so out of order.

Chair, I want to bring to your attention that.


Ms G K TSEKE: Thank you very much, hon House Chairperson.


The arguments that the committee had to listen to which sought to change an agreed structure of the committee ...

Mr B A RADEBE: Hon House Chairperson, on a point of order.


We cannot have our member disrupted.


Ms G K TSEKE: ... on how it should function ...


Ms O M C MAOTWE: Chair.
Ms G K TSEKE: ... reflects a rejection of rules by the EFF which they agreed to. Such an approach means anything goes.

Ms M O C MAOTWE: Chair, I want to bring to attention that information technology, IT, people ...

Ms G K TSEKE: If you do not like it, just change it. Pure anarchy.

House Chairperson, arguments of bias about any committee members is nothing new. Committees are represented by members who have independent minds and can think for themselves in relation to the subject matter, facts, events and the application of procedures.

House Chairperson, we do not work ...


Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: On a point of order, House Chairperson.


This is a clear violation of our rights.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini.

Just a second, hon Tseke.
Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: House Chairperson, our member’s hands have been up the whole of this afternoon. You do not want to recognise them.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini.


Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: It is pure violation of our rights.


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini, how many times should I repeat myself for you to understand?

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: No, but it is our right to call points of order!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini, you have a right to make a point of order.

Mrs E N NTLANGWINI: And then I cannot call a point of order that is not right.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M L D Ntombela): Hon Ntlangwini, you have a right to make a point of order, much as the Chairperson has a right to make a ruling. I have made a ruling. If you are
not satisfied, you cannot contest it here and now. Thank you very much.

Ms G K TSEKE: Thank you, House Chairperson.


Hon members, arguments of bias about any committee members is nothing new. Committees are represented by members who have independent minds and can think for themselves in relation to the subject matter, facts, events and application of rules.

We do not work on perception as we were been told by the EFF. We work on the basis of evidence-based facts. The terms of the committee was an objective of an enquiry that involved the committee making inferences from the evidence of the conduct of the EFF affected members.

Hon members, the EFF members were given the opportunity to defend themselves, but rather chose to walk out and not participate in the hearing. Same as in the previous case and instructed their legal representative to do likewise.

The ANC fully supports the recommendations of the Powers and Privileges Committee on the six EFF members. I thank you very much, hon House Chairperson.
Division demanded.


The House divided.

The House Chairperson Mr M L D Ntombela announced that the Speaker had determined that, in accordance with the Rules, a manual voting procedure would be used and that the whips would conduct a headcount of members in the chamber and on the virtual platform for the purpose of ascertaining quorum and voting.

A quorum being present in terms of Rule 98(1), voting commenced.

AYES – 263: (ANC – 195; DA – 49; FFPlus – 6; ACDP – 1; Good –

2; NFP – 1).

NOES – 30:(EFF – 30).


Question agreed.

Report accordingly adopted.


The House adjourned at 22:15.