National Assembly - 14 September 2000
TUESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2000 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:03.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Ms N G W BOTHA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that, despite the outcries of Patricia de Lille and Pagad that Ministers Maduna and Tshwete are accusing Pagad of the urban terror attacks without having any proof, media reports have substantiated the statements of the Ministers as the police have in their possession a report by an ex-Pagad member confessing to the involvement of Pagad in the urban terror attacks;
(2) calls upon the hon Patricia de Lille to put the interests of the safety and security of the entire populace and the community of Cape Town first and desist from appeasing mischievous sectoral interests; and
(3) commends the police for their commitment to end the spate of bombings.
[Applause.]
Mrs G M BORMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Independent Electoral Commission will open its 15 020 voting stations on the weekend of 16 and 17 September 2000 to register voters for the municipal elections;
(2) encourages all eligible voters to use this opportunity to check their details, if they have already registered, and if they have not yet registered, to do so on these days so that they will have the opportunity to vote for the party that will put all the people first … [Interjections.]
(3) calls on all South Africans to stand up and be counted by making their voices heard in the upcoming municipal elections, and, in so doing, prove that the recent acts of terrorism will not force any law- abiding South African citizens to suppress their voices.
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP: That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the United Nations General Assembly has declared 16 September as
the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer;
and
(b) South Africa, as one of the signatories of the Montreal
Protocol, is required to uphold the principles of the
Convention; and
(2) calls on the Government to -
(a) monitor the production, supply and use of ozone-depleting
substances;
(b) provide Parliament and the country with annual reports of the
success being achieved as a result of the measures being
implemented by the signatories; and
(c) provide Parliament with a list of those countries defying the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol. Ms P N MNANDI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that Zithulele Combi, the first black dealer to be awarded an exchange licence by the South African Reserve Bank, has been named South Africa’s best entrepreneur for the year 2000;
(2) believes that our democratic dispensation has given opportunities for black entrepreneurs to display their skills and talent and reach their goals; and
(3) congratulates Mr Zithulele Combi on his achievements.
[Applause.]
Mnr F BEUKMAN: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis - (1) met ernstige kommer kennis neem van die ontwrigting van ‘n Demokratiese Alliansie-vergadering op Maandag, 11 September 2000, in die Macassar-woongebied, Helderberg, deur ‘n groepie ontwrigters, van wie sommige T-hemde van die ANC aangehad het;
(2) met kommer waarneem dat dié optrede grens aan die gedrag van die ANC se ideologiese bondgenoot, ZANU-PF, voor en tydens die algemene verkiesing in Zimbabwe …
[Tussenwerpsels.]
(3) ‘n beroep doen op president Thabo Mbeki om toe te sien dat alle strukture en ondersteuners van die ANC die reg van vrye politieke optrede en die reg van politieke partye om vergaderings sonder ontwrigting te hou, respekteer;
(4) enige pogings tot die ontwrigting en benadeling van individue en politieke partye se reg tot deelname aan die politieke proses en verkiesings ten sterkste veroordeel; en
(5) versoek dat alle politieke partye wat aan die komende munisipale verkiesing gaan deelneem hulle tot die nakoming van artikels 16, 17, 18 en 19 van die Grondwet verbind, en aktief hulle ondersteuners daartoe inbind.
[Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr F BEUKMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes with serious concern the disruption of a Democratic Alliance meeting on Monday, 11 September 2000, in the Macassar residential area, Helderberg, by a group of disruptors, some of whom were wearing ANC T-shirts;
(2) notes with concern that this conduct borders on the behaviour of the ANC’s ideological ally, ZANU-PF, before and during the general election in Zimbabwe … [Interjections.]
(3) appeals to President Thabo Mbeki to ensure that all structures and supporters of the ANC respect the right of free political action and the right of political parties to hold meetings without disruptions;
(4) condemns in the strongest possible terms the disruption and prejudice of the right of individuals and political parties to participate in the political process and elections; and
(5) requests that all political parties that are going to be taking part in the coming municipal elections commit themselves to complying with sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Constitution, and actively hold their supporters to that.
[Interjections.]]
The SPEAKER: Order!
Chief N Z MTIRARA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House notes that -
(1) after numerous appeals by the UDM urging the Government, and, in particular, the Municipal Demarcation Board, to consult traditional leaders on the determination of electoral boundaries in their areas of jurisdiction, the Chairman of the Board, Mr Sutcliffe, has eventually relented and consulted the House of Traditional Leaders in Bisho on the matter;
(2) this consultation is of no consequence any longer, having come too late when the demarcations have already been done; and
(3) the recalcitrance on the part of the Government and its designated structures, the Municipal Demarcation Board, reflects their reluctance to be transparent and sensitive to public sentiment.
Ms M VERWOERD: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -
(1) notes that Martina Reuter, a foreign graduate student, was forced to move out of shared accommodation after being told that her black friends were not welcome in the house;
(2) believes that such incidents of racism cause deep offence to the majority of South Africans and deepen the historical divides that so many of us have fought so long to breach;
(3) urges the Human Rights Commission to investigate this matter with the utmost urgency; and
(4) assures Ms Reuter that -
(a) this House is committed to her right to freedom of association;
and
(b) that such prejudices are not those of the majority of South
Africans.
[Applause.] Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the ACDP:
That the House -
(1) notes with horror the actions of the four young men who viciously killed two innocent young people and attempted to kill a third just to steal their car;
(2) notes that these killers were found guilty and sentenced to 35 years in prison, making them eligible for parole after 25 years;
(3) acknowledges that it costs about R80,00 per day to keep one person in jail, and that R80,00 per day for four people for 25 years with only 10% inflation amounts to over R11 million; and
(4) calls on the Government to stop punishing law-abiding taxpayers and fulfil its biblical mandate to punish murders correctly by reinstating the death penalty.
[Interjections.] The SPEAKER: Order!
Genl C L VILJOEN: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die VF sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) kennis neem dat -
(a) 24 September 2000 Erfenisdag is en dat hierdie dag die afgelope
vier jaar gebruik is om 'n konferensie oor die regte en belange
van kultuur-, taal- en godsdiensgemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika te
hou; en
(b) die bepalings van artikel 185 van die Grondwet, wat moet uitloop
op 'n Kommissie vir die regte van gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika,
ook telkens by hierdie konferensies 'n hoë prioriteit geniet
het;
(2) sy ernstige kommer uitspreek oor die feit dat daar vanjaar nie alleen geen sodanige konferensie gehou word nie, maar dat die voorgeskrewe wetgewing hieroor weer eens vir later jare uitgestel word;
(3) in die lig van die ANC-regering se gebrek aan erns oor hierdie saak die Regering derhalwe versoek om aan die saak die prioriteit te verleen wat dit verdien; en
(4) erken dat nasionale taalwetgewing ‘n dringende behoefte is met ‘n baie hoë prioriteit om uitvoering te gee aan artikel 6 van die Handves van Regte. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Gen C L VILJOEN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the FF:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) 24 September 2000 is Heritage Day and that for the past four
years this day has been used to hold a conference on the rights
and interests of cultural, linguistic and religious communities
in South Africa; and
(b) the provisions of section 185 of the Constitution, which should
result in a commission for the rights of communities in South
Africa, have time and again received high priority at these
conferences;
(2) expresses its serious concern not only at the fact that such a conference will not be held this year, but that the prescribed legislation in this regard is once again being postponed for later years;
(3) in view of the ANC Government’s lack of seriousness regarding this issue, therefore requests the Government to grant the issue the priority it deserves; and
(4) concedes that national legislation pertaining to languages is a pressing need with a very high priority in order to implement section 6 of the Bill of Rights.]
Ms H M MPAKA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Black Economic Empowerment Commission yesterday outlined a comprehensive set of proposals for a national strategy on black economic empowerment to three parliamentary committees;
(2) congratulates the Black Economic Empowerment Commission on having produced an impressive report; and
(3) expresses the hope that the Government and Parliament will further engage the commission with the aim of refining and improving its proposals to accelerate empowerment. [Applause.]
Ms R TALJAARD: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:
That the House -
(1) notes that the recently released annual report of the South African Reserve Bank shows a meagre growth rate of 1% in the first quarter of 2000 and 1,5% in the second quarter;
(2) expresses its concern that this low rate falls far short of the projected growth rates announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech, and that the economy will have to stage a remarkable turnaround in the 3rd and 4th quarters if we are to reach the targets laid down by the Minister;
(3) further notes that this feeble performance contrasts starkly with growth rates this year in other emerging markets and a projected world growth rate of over 4%; and
(4) calls on the Government to take all the necessary steps to attract foreign direct investment as a priority, and to ensure an economic turnaround in South Africa to ensure that we link ourselves to the dynamic cycle of growth in the world economy and in the other emerging markets generally.
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear! [Applause.]
Mr M F CASSIM: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) it is common cause that the magistrate's courts of our land are
underresourced, overburdened and generally unable to mete out
rapid justice; and
(b) the executive director of the Association of Law Societies of
South Africa has offered the services of some of its 13 000
members, free of charge, to the state to help out as relief
magistrates, relief prosecutors and so on;
(2) is perturbed that the Ministry and the Department of Justice have not seized this generous offer with alacrity and gratitude; and
(3) calls on the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to meet urgently with the executive director, Mr Van Vuuren, to take the matter further and to achieve the modalities that are necessary to bring instant relief to the justice system.
Miss M N BUTHELEZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Job Creation Trust Fund has collected R62 million for the purpose of creating jobs, which will soon start providing employment;
(2) recalls that all ANC members of Parliament alone, out of all the parties, contributed to this fund;
(3) commends Cosatu, Nactu and Fedusa, their organisers and members - many from the lowest end of the salary scale - for organising and contributing to this initiative; and
(4) calls on other civil institutions to follow the lead of the trade unions in contributing positively to resolving the challenges that face our economic transformation and development.
[Applause.]
Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) welcomes the apology by Radio 702 talk show host, John Robbie, for his rudeness towards the Minister of Health;
(2) acknowledges a growing rift within the ANC regarding the cause of Aids, and welcomes a document written by leaders of the ANC’s national health committee which has called on the President and the Minister of Health to publicly acknowledge that HIV is the cause of Aids; (3) further welcomes the admission by Dr Essop Pahad that President Mbeki’s standpoint on the cause of Aids should have been communicated and handled in a much more effective manner; and
(4) challenges the Minister of Health, in the light of this, to take up John Robbie’s offer to be interviewed by him once again and, this time, clearly identify her standpoint on the cause of Aids to the people of South Africa, who deserve a truthful and unambiguous answer.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Ms A VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) welcomes the latest Corruption Index released yesterday by Transparency International as a valuable tool for measuring the fight against corruption on an annual basis; (2) calls on the South African Government to develop a similar index for our country specifically, as a necessity in the fight against corruption;
(3) notes that South Africa still ranks 34th out of 90 countries;
(4) acknowledges that we have not succeeded in improving our record in the past year; and
(5) commits itself, once more, to the fight against corruption without fear or favour, as the watchdog of society over Government.
Mr M R BALOYI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes the decision by the South African Rugby Football Union to impose massive fines on both the Lions and the Blue Bulls for overstepping the quota regulations in Currie Cup matches during the past month;
(2) further notes that the Blue Bulls wing, Rayno Hendricks, denied being injured in the game against Border in East London when he was replaced by a white player; and
(3) welcomes Sarfu’s disciplinary steps and hopes that this will eradicate racist attitudes and practices in rugby.
CONDOLENCES ON LOSS OF LIFE DURING SINKING OF SARDINE TRAWLER
(Draft Resolution)
Mnr G Q M DOIDGE: Mevrou die Speaker, hiermee stel ek sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Huis -
(1) kennis neem dat ‘n sardyntreiler vroeër vandeesweek aan die Weskus gesink het en twee bemanningslede hul lewe verloor het; (2) kennis neem dat hoewel vyf bemanningslede gered kon word, twee nog vermis word;
(3) innige simpatie betuig met die naasbestaandes wat in rou gedompel is deur dié tragiese gebeurtenis;
(4) die reddingspan bedank vir hul vinnige optrede; en
(5) die hoop uitspreek dat die soektog na die vermiste bemanningslede suksesvol sal wees.
Goedgekeur. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)
[Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I hereby move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that earlier this week a sardine trawler sank off the West Coast and two crew members lost their lives;
(2) notes that although five crew members could be saved, two are still missing;
(3) expresses sincere condolences with the families who have been plunged into mourning through this tragic event;
(4) thanks the rescue team for its speedy action; and
(5) expresses the hope that the search for the missing crew members will be successful.
Agreed to.]
APPOINTMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER FORMATION OF PAN-AFRICAN
PARLIAMENT
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move without notice:
That the House appoints an ad hoc committee to consider the proposed formation of a Pan-African Parliament, the committee - (1) to consist of 21 members;
(2) to exercise those powers in Rule 138 that may assist it in carrying out its task;
(3) to have power to confer with a corresponding committee in the National Council of Provinces; and
(4) to complete its task by 6 October 2000.
Agreed to.
AMENDMENT OF MOTION REGARDING 1TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF FIRST COUNCIL OF ICASA
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the motion adopted by the House on 12 September 2000, whereby the Speaker was designated to conduct the lot to determine the term of office of members of the first Council of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, be amended by substituting the Deputy Speaker for the Speaker.
Agreed to.
REFERRAL OF COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL SCHEMES LEVIES BILL TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That, notwithstanding Rule 290(1), the Council for Medical Schemes Levies Bill, upon its introduction, be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health for consideration and report.
Agreed to.
REFERRAL OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL TO AD HOC COMMITTEE (Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House refers the General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill [B 36 - 2000] to an ad hoc Committee of the House for consideration and report, and for that purpose establishes a committee in terms of Rule 214, the committee -
(1) to consist of 21 members;
(2) to consider the Bill in accordance with Chapter 13 of the Rules;
(3) to exercise those powers in Rule 138 that may assist it in
carrying out its task;
(4) subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces,
to confer with the corresponding Council committee and the Joint
Standing Committee on Intelligence; and
(5) to complete its task by no later than 5 October 2000.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SA PARLIAMENTARY OBSERVER MISSION TO ZIMBABWE
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker and hon members, Dr Manie Schoeman, who is on the gallery, was one of the members of the delegation sent by this Parliament to Zimbabwe. [Interjections.] [Applause.] On 17 May 2000, this House resolved to send an observer mission to Zimbabwe to observe the general elections of that country and to report to Parliament.
In carrying out this important mandate, the mission observed the elections and did not make any interventions into the electoral processes, nor interfere with the internal political dynamics and debates in Zimbabwe. In pursuing this mandate, the mission was open-minded, took a balanced approach and did not reach any conclusions until it had met all the relevant role-players.
What was also important about this delegation was that it was composed of various political parties representing diverse constituencies. Yet it acted as a united delegation representing Parliament and the people of South Africa. The resolve to co-operate and discuss political differences amongst ourselves and reach consensus enabled this delegation to present to this House today a consensus report that reflects what we saw, what we were told and what we experienced.
The recent elections in Zimbabwe were a product of a unique historical evolution and should, thus, be understood within this historical context. Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, was a British colony from the late 1800s to 1965. From 1965 to 1980 it was under the regime of Ian Smith. The people of Zimbabwe, under the leadership of Zapu and Zanu, waged heroic struggles against British colonialism and the regime of Ian Smith. [Interjections.]
The people of Zimbabwe were liberated from colonial rule following the Lancaster House agreement and voted for a new democratic government in
- It is a matter of record that there has been more than one general election in Zimbabwe after the 1980 independence. It is also a matter of record that in the early 1980s, there was a violent and bloody conflict in Matebeleland. Yet the June elections and the pre-election violence have stirred a lot of controversy in Zimbabwe, in the region and on the continent. It seems that the rejection of the proposed new constitution, in the referendum, was one of the most important aspects that formed the political context within which the elections were held.
The parliamentary delegation left home soil on 7 June 2000 to observe the period leading up to the general elections and the two days of elections. During our stay in Zimbabwe we received briefings from a wide range of political parties, media organisations, organisations from civil society and the SA High Commission. These briefings enabled the commission to develop an overall picture of the Zimbabwean situation.
The South African parliamentary delegation met and co-operated with observer missions from the region, from our continent and from the wider international community. Although we co-operated with these missions, we carried out our tasks independently and objectively, and we present to this House a report which was not influenced by any mission except ourselves.
The delegation further divided itself into six teams and visited some of the key provinces. Their mandate was to meet with the political parties, government departments, police, provincial registrars responsible for elections, and civil society to get briefings on the situation at local level. The mission had to observe the progress of the campaign, especially with regard to the prevalence of violence and intimidation. The mission visited the following provinces, namely Mashonaland East, Mashonaland West, Masvingo, Manicaland, Midlands and Matebeleland.
In the provinces we observed the logistic preparations for voting and the counting of ballot papers. We also familiarised ourselves with the location of counting stations. In our interaction with the role-players and stakeholders in the provinces, a number of complaints were raised with us. Many opposition parties were complaining about the manner in which constituencies were demarcated and alleged that the demarcation commission had displayed a bias towards rural constituencies which were perceived to be Zanu-PF strongholds. There was a problem with regard to the manner in which soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo were to cast their votes.
The mission further received reports from the election supervisory commission and opposition parties that this commission had been stripped of real power and capacity to fulfil its constitutional obligations. Reference was made to the fact that the Registrar General had taken over the function of accrediting domestic monitors. Other complaints included the role of the public broadcaster, the Zimbabwean Broadcasting Corporation, and the Zimbabwean police, which were alleged to have been biased against opposition parties. A major problem raised was the violence and intimidation, particularly in the rural areas, in the period leading up to the elections.
The mission received many reports of violence and intimidation, both during briefings in Harare and during briefings on its visits to the provinces. Some of this violence appeared to be systematic, planned and aimed at intimidating supporters of other parties and creating no-go areas. In other instances the violence appeared to be more a spontaneous result of the heightened political tension in the country. There were numerous allegations of intimidation in rural areas against farm workers in the form of the so-called ``re-education sessions’’. Many parties and organisations reported that the violence and intimidation emanated mainly from the ranks of Zanu-PF. The mission observed that no single party, however, seemed to have the monopoly on the use of violence.
Despite these problems, the elections were characterised by peace and calm and by a large turn-out on the two days of general elections. Voting was conducted efficiently and the counting process was characterised by a meticulous and transparent process of reconciling votes cast and ballot papers used. These were carefully scrutinised by polling agents, observers and monitors. The voting and counting processes on 24, 25 and 26 June 2000 proceeded very peacefully. All the contesting parties indicated that they would accept the outcome of the general elections.
The mission is of the opinion that despite incidents of violence and intimidation in the run-up to the elections, the results of parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe reflected the will of the people of that country. Having gone to Zimbabwe, the delegation has gained experience in the monitoring of elections. We learned lessons which were good and which could be adopted for our own conditions. There were also lessons which were bad and which we should avoid at all costs.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the South African parliamentary delegation. This delegation truly upheld the best traditions of our Parliament. It represented Parliament and carried and its responsibilities to the best of its ability. I firmly believe that the presence of this and many other delegations in Zimbabwe contributed to the lowering of tensions and intimidation during the two days of the general elections in that country. This delegation deserves a round of applause for a mission accomplished. [Applause.] I think this mission deserves a round of applause from the opposition benches, too. [Applause.]
A word of thanks to the South African High Commission in Zimbabwe for co- ordinating our programme and for ensuring that we met all the important role-players and stakeholders in Zimbabwe. Our mission would have been impossible without their unqualified support.
Lastly, a word of thanks to the people of Zimbabwe for the manner in which they conducted themselves during the two-day elections. We hope that the people of Zimbabwe will use the post-election period to deepen their democratic processes and solve their problems amicably in the interest of all Zimbabweans. [Applause.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, the collective sigh of relief from within Zimbabwe and the neighbouring states that the election did not end in total chaos and bloodshed cannot erase the impressions of a tyrant who abused democratic rules for self-serving objectives. A well-known journalist, Thami Mazwai, said:
Mugabe’s hands are dripping with the blood of political opponents and other Zimbabweans who have been murdered.
President Mugabe realised, in the months leading up to the elections, that nondelivery was likely to be the focus of the campaign. His reaction was to play the race card in order to divert attention away from his own failures. This ploy was only partially successful, and the Movement for Democratic Change managed to mount a truly multiracial campaign in response.
With the benefit of hindsight, there are a number of lessons that can be learnt from the Zimbabwean elections. I am not in the habit of quoting my colleague Jeremy Cronin, but he stated that the comparison between South Africa and Zimbabwe is irresistible. His analysis was that it is a case of … ``a ruling party with heroic liberation credentials. But it has alienated the urban masses, intellectuals, workers and professionals.’’ Zimbabwe has shown that, if political parties of this kind have to account for their record of nondelivery, the race card becomes very attractive.
Zimbabwe was a test close to home of our Government’s commitment to the vision of an African renaissance. The ANC Government, in order to protect old friends, sacrificed its own integrity with regard to our commitment to the African renaissance, as well as what is right and what is wrong. Kaizer Nyatzumba argued:
Turning a blind eye to violations of human rights, because those violations happen to be perpetrated by one’s friends, is hardly a noble quality.
As was the case with the Aids conference, it required our former President, Mr Mandela, to be the nation’s and the ANC’s conscience when he said that the public itself must bring down these tyrants. Silent diplomacy was the wrong approach, because it sent out the message that our commitment to the African renaissance will always be subject to the political friendships of the party in government. Policies of quiet diplomacy have their place in politics, but the limit of quiet diplomacy is the point at which innocent lives are sacrificed. That test was failed.
The arrogance of power was clearly illustrated by the statement of Zanu-PF vice-president, Simon Muzenda, as quoted in the state-owned daily, the Herald:
Even if we put a baboon in Chivu, if you are Zanu-PF, you vote for that baboon. Whoever we put, you vote for him. When President Mugabe is not there, I run the country. If I sign your death warrant, you will hang.
Although it can be said theoretically that the result on the election day reflects the will of the people, that will was distorted by pre-election intimidation and manipulation. The International Republican Institute said that, of the 90 elections the institute had observed in 40 countries since 1984 ``Zimbabwe’s is the worst we have ever seen’’. Our participants in the parliamentary delegation - with the exception of one - reported back that the mission was well-led by the ANC Chief Whip, Mr Yengeni, and that his conduct and the handling of the mission was beyond reproach. There was one exception, and that was the visit to President Mugabe to which non-ANC members of the mission and of Parliament were not invited. The fact that this meeting took place in addition to the official ANC delegation’s presence in Harare was inappropriate. It conveyed the impression that he spoke on behalf of all political parties represented in the mission, and that the meeting was in his capacity as leader of the mission, which was not the case.
This Parliament needs a formal and binding protocol which is more comprehensive than a code of conduct to guide the behaviour of future participants in such missions, especially where they are the leaders of delegations, and are supposed to act on behalf of everyone, and not on behalf of partisan interests.
In conclusion, Zimbabwe can either be a preview of what may happen in South Africa over the next few years, or it can be a warning - Mr Cronin has argued that case very convincingly. In South Africa over the next few years … [Interjections.] Well, there are about a third of the MPs on this side who agree with this viewpoint, and who agree with Mr Cronin. This may happen in South Africa over the next few years, or it can be a warning signal alerting us to the danger of the arrogance of power.
Zimbabwe must also serve as a reminder of how dangerous the racialising of politics in societies such as ours is. But, above all, Zimbabwe is a reminder that race cards are not trump cards. It can only divert attention away from nondelivery for so long before the Government is called to account for its failures. [Applause.]
Ms N N MAPISA-NQAKULA: Madam Speaker, hon members, on 23 June 2000 thousands of people across the length and breath of Zimbabwe went to the polls to vote in an election which the prophets of doom had predicted would either not happen or would not be free and fair.
I want to present to the House our own experience of that election, especially with regard to the question of violence. Comments by experts and others in the run-up to the election were so negative that it would not have been out of place to have expected to be confronted by scenes of a country on the verge of collapse. So negative was the assessment of that situation that it conjured up in one’s mind scenes of mad people carrying guns and other weapons of war, running amok in the streets of the country’s major cities and the countryside.
But the truth was that people were clearly not under siege. They went about conducting their normal daily business freely, without any signs of fear or intimidation. That, at least, was the picture we saw on our arrival in Zimbabwe. However, when we started to interface with the representatives of various NGOs, churches, trade unions, political parties and members of that country’s academia, a different picture, which was disturbing, emerged. We received reports of many instances of violent attacks on potential voters. This, we were told, had started immediately after the referendum on Zimbabwe’s new constitution in which the ruling PF party was defeated. Veterans of the liberation struggle, who had initiated farm invasions, apparently escalated that programme and, in the process, introduced violence that also affected farmworkers.
The farmworkers, we were told, were forced to attend what was referred to as re-education classes right through the night. It would seem that they were subjected to propaganda lessons on the history of Zimbabwe, the liberation struggle and the need to support the ruling party in the coming elections. It was also reported that supporters of the opposition were attacked by supporters of the ruling party, and their property destroyed. It was alleged that government displayed complacency in dealing with the matter and in some respects even colluded with the attackers.
It would seem that, following media reports on the situation and international condemnation, the attacks decreased. More pressure was applied on the perpetrators of the violence by the arrival of the international observers, which further reduced the levels of violence. Our delegation decided that one of the first things we had to do, given the reports of violence we were getting, was to meet with the war veterans, as they called themselves, who were reportedly spearheading the violence. The purpose was to verify the allegations and to make it clear to them that we were going to visit all areas of interest to us, including the farms.
During our meeting with them it emerged that the war veterans to a certain extent had been involved in acts of intimidation and violence against the farmworkers. Reports that the government was not doing anything about the violence were not entirely true. There was a daily television programme on the national broadcaster which was used by the police to give detailed reports of acts of violence in different parts of the country. This programme gave details of the number of attacks, perpetrators arrested, their political affiliation and other details. It was interesting to note that the perpetrators in the main were supporters of both the Movement for Democratic Change and Zanu-PF.
On the eve of the election there were major political rallies of the two main contending parties where further violence was reported. It was striking to note that there was a very strong police presence at Zanu-PF rallies, but at MDC rallies, in particular the one held in Harare, a small police contingent was deployed. This, of course, allowed people to commit acts of violence inside the stadium and in full view of the international media without any fear of police intervention. Indeed, the police never acted against the perpetrators.
On both the voting and counting days Zimbabwe remained calm and peaceful. No incidents of violence were reported. This was our experience in Zimbabwe. But this violence came from both sides in a cycle of attacks and counterattacks.
Those South Africans who so often hide behind amnesia when the ugly face of our past pops up should remember the period in South Africa leading up to our own 1994 elections in this country. Surely, we cannot have forgotten that part of our history so soon. Witnesses have appeared before the TRC to recount their own participation in acts of violence in the run-up to our 1994 democratic elections and even leading up to the local government elections.
Those from South Africa who have been calling for all manner of punitive actions against Zimbabwe never called for similar actions against South Africa, not even when it became clear that there was a third force with connections to the apartheid regime which was sponsoring violence in our country. In fact, one of the most brutal incidents of violence was the assassination of that gallant fighter, Comrade Chris Hani, which forced the racist regime to give South Africa a date for our first democratic election.
Members will remember the massacre of the people of Boipatong. Nobody demanded long before the elections in South Africa that our polls should be declared nul and void because of the violence. Indeed our elections have been declared free and fair since 1994.
When Zimbabweans went to the polls in that country’s democratic election, there were many instances of violent political attacks against potential voters, but the elections happened and they were declared free and fair, allowing the population of that country to elect a democratic government of their own choice after many years of brutal colonialism. Nobody was prevented from casting his or her vote. Those who wanted to participate in the election did so and, importantly, voted for the party of their choice.
The people of Zimbabwe have spoken. As responsible members of the international community, let us support our Government, led by the President, in their efforts to assist Zimbabweans on their road to political and economic recovery. [Applause.]
Mnu M A MZIZI: Somlomo nePhalamende elihloniphekile, mangithathe leli thuba ngibonge kuwe Somlomo nePhalamende elihloniphekile ngokuthi nasinika ithuba lokuyokwethamela udaba nokhetho lwaseZimbabwe.
Ngibonga kumfowethu oyilungu likaKhongolose, uTony Yengeni, owayehola lelo thimba lamanxusa. Walihola ngobuhlakani nangobuqotho. Ngibonga nakozakwethu esasihambisana nabo siya khona laphaya eZimbabwe nakuba sengidabuka nje ngokuthi ngibabonga nje ozakwethu omunye wabo, owayeyilungu ngale kwi-New NP, sengiyezwa makhathaleni useqembukile. [Uhleko.] Kodwa-ke kukhona engikusolayo ngalokhu kuqembuka kwakhe ngoba ngike ngezwa nasemsakazweni ekuseni nje kukhulunywa ngendaba yokuthi abehluleli empini ka-De Lange, ayebhekene kuyo no-Manie Schoeman, behluleka ukwehlulela ukuthi ngubani owehluliwe. [Uhleko.] Ngiyamsola naye uSoswebhu omKhulu ngoba phela umfowethu lo, u-Manie, wayehamba naye eseqenjini lakhe. [Ihlombe.] Ngamahlaya nje lawo. Engihlose ukukusho lapha, uma ngibonga kanjena, ngukuthi sasiye kokwethamela udaba lwaseZimbabwe. Nanku-ke umbiko futhi engethemba ukuthi bonke abantu bazowufunda uma bengaba nakho ukuthi bawufunde. Okumqoka nakhu: Ngokwenkolo, kuye kuthiwe uma sebekhulumile ofakazi ababili noma abathathu, basuke bekhuluma iqiniso. Kodwa kwezombusazwe angikholwa ukuthi kuyasebenza lokho. ILUNGU ELIHLONIPHEKILE: Cha, akusebenzi.
Mnu M A MZIZI: Akusebenzi. Mangikusho lokhu ukuthi umbiko esinawo lapha ngumbiko ohlanganisiwe waba ngumbonomunye. Kodwa ngithanda ukuphawula-ke kulokho engakubona ngamehlo enyama ngoba phela kukhona okunye esingakufakanga lapha embikweni. Umbiko esinawo wawunemigomo esasinikezwe yona yokuthi siyokwethamela laphaya, hhayi ukuthi siyoqapha. Sasingayile koqapha.
Kwenzeka-ke izimo eziningi laphayana. Amalungu ayakhumbula ukuthi kwakhulunywa kabanzi ngeZimbabwe singakafiki khona, kodwa-ke ubuhlakani esabenza kwaba ngukubonana namaqembu angaphakathi ezweni asinikeza imibiko eminingi. Engingathandi-ke ukuthi kulahleke lapho ngukuthi kwaba khona abanye abantu impela abalethwa phambi kwethu okuthiwa bahlukunyezwa ngalokhu nalokhuya.
Kokunye ukuhlukunyezwa kwabo, ngiyakhumbula sikhuluma nomame abasitshela ukuthi izikole ezazilinganiselwa e-150 zavalwa. Kwabaleka othishela kubonakala impela ukuthi impi yabe seyingenile, isisemnyango. Kuyezwakala ukuthi amakhosikazi abo adlwengulwa, edlwengulwa phela yizo izigagayi lezo zempi. Lobo bufakazi asizange sibe nalo iqiniso eliphelele ngabo, ngoba phela umuntu ngeke akhuluma ngento ayizwe ngomunye umuntu. Kuye kufanele into enjalo iqiniseke enkantolo. Ngababuza ukuthi ngabe amacala ayefakiwe yini enkantolo na. Baphendula bathi umuntu wayengalifaka kubani icala enkantolo ngoba amaphoyisa ayetsheliwe ukuthi zonke izinto eziphathelene nombusazwe nombangazwe azingabikwa futhi ngeke zemukeleka. Akukho nokuthi senzani lapho ngoba sabuka nje. Akukho cala esalizwa lokudlwengula nanoma elani.
Ake ngingene kulolu daba lwezigagayi zempi. Empeleni, sabe sesihlangana nazo izigagayi zempi. Kwakukhona umfo kaHundzvi engezwa kuthiwa nguyena owayezihola phambili, eyikhala eliphambili. UHundzvi wakubeka ngembaba. Sathi sisaqala ukubonana nje naye, esacela ukusibiza ngama-comrades, ngathi: Cha, mfowethu, mina ungangibizi nge-comrade ngoba ngiyazi ukuthi ama-comrades angenzani empilweni yami. [Uhleko.] Wavele wabhavuluka wathi: UyiNkatha wena! Ngathi mina: Ehhe, usho khona impela. Kwangethusa-ke ngoba wathi esuka wabe esethi: Uyabona wena, Nkatha, yini ningezanga eminyakeni emine eyedlule lapha eZimbabwe? Ngathi kuye: Uyabona, ukuba wawusicele eminyakeni engama-20 eyadlula, sasiyokuza, kodwa-ke sasingeke sigxambukele ezindabeni zaseZimbabwe singamenyiwe.
Kwaqhutshekwa nenkulumo kwathi uma sesibuza ukuthi uma ngabe sesiya ezindaweni zasemapulazini ngabe kukhona yini okwakuzophazamisa, njengoba babethi singazihlanganisi nezindaba zamapulazi. Sasingayanga ukuyokhuluma indaba yamapulazi laphaya, sasiyokwethamela inqubo yokhetho. Kwabonakala ukuthi kwakubaphatha kabi ngempela lokho. Kwaze kwathi uma esebhekisa ngakimi lo mfowethu onguzakwethu, uMpontshane - angazi-ke noma ngabe wayenza ihlaya yini, - wathi: Uyabona, uma niya laphaya emapulazini, niyohlangabezana nembibizane engaphezu kwalokho enanikwenza kuKhongolose nibagwaza ngemikhonto. Ngathi kuye: Hhayi-bo, kahle. Uyaphaphalaza-ke manje wena, awusakhulumi khona. Asizelanga lokho lapha. [Uhleko.]
Le ndaba yokufundiswa kabusha, yayingukuhlukumeza okungaphezulu emphefumulweni nasenyameni yomuntu. Mina, uqobo lwami, ngikwazi kahle lokho. Ngake ngathathwa kwathiwa mangiye kotoyitoyiza enkundleni yezemidlalo ngoba kwakuthiwa mangiphume emkhandlwini. Ngangiphoqelekile impela ukuthi amadolo lawa ngiwalinganise nesilevu. [Uhleko.] Ngangigijinyiswa yizingane zingigcwalisa inkundla leyo. Ngahlukumezeka ngoba kwakuyinto engangingayithandi. Baqeda lapho baya emzini wami bafika bahlabelela ngendlela yokuthi kwakungadilika umthangala wendlu, bethi mangingene emzabalazweni.
Mayelana nalokho kufundiswa kabusha, linye ipulazi esaya kulo. Uma sifika kulelo pulazi kwathiwa, cha, lapho-ke abantu babehlabelela ubusuku bonke. Kwakungukuhlukumezeka okungaphezulu lokho.
Akukhona okubi kuphela okwaba khona eZimbabwe. Kukhona okuhle esakucosha lapho nengithanda ukuthi iNingizimu Afrika ikwamukele ngoba kuyinselele. Amabhokisi abo okufaka amaphepha amavoti awafani nalawa ethu amancanyana. Baphatha ubhazabhaza webhokisi lamavoti okuthi uma kuphonswa kulo kungalokho kushintshwa. Nalabo ababeqaphe amabhokisi babeqapha ibhokisi elilodwa, balale phezu kwalo bebeke izandla kulo. [Uhleko.] Awethu-ke ayalahleka lapha ngoba maningi.
Ngale kwalokho, ubuchwepheshe babo bokwenza umsebenzi wokhetho babukhombisa ukuba phezulu kakhulu kwezinga. Ngakuthanda lokho. Ngakuthanda nokukhankasa kwabo. Lapha eZimbabwe, njengoba i-Zanu PF umgomo wayo wokukhankasa wawuthi ``Land is the economy, economy is the land’’, ngabona ukuthi i-Zanu PF yalanda into eyayisezinhliziyweni zabantu. Yakhetha yona. Izigagayi yazisebenzisa kulokho-ke ngoba zazihlala esangweni ziqaphile, ziqaphe ukuthi kungabikho muntu weqembu eliphikisayo ozoya kokhankasa amapulazini.
Ngakho-ke kithina Ningizimu Afrika ngabe siyayibona yini ukuthi injani indaba yomhlaba? Uma abantu bengaze bafike ekuthukutheleni, izoba yinkinga nakithi njengoba iyinkinga eZimbabwe. Sasingayanga ngalokho. Asingenanga kulolo daba ngoba sasesaba ukuthi uma umuntu ekhuluma ngezwe bazothi: Emuva! Njengoba nikhomba thina ngeminwe nje, le emithathu ekhomba nina nithini ngayo? Ngakho-ke kuyinselele kithina nakuHulumeni wethu ukuthi masikwazi ukulusheshisa nathi udaba lungaze lube yimbibizane, lube yinkinga kithi sonke. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu speech follows.)
[Mr M A MZIZI: Madam Speaker and hon members, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Speaker, and the honourable House for giving us a chance to observe the elections in Zimbabwe.
I would like to thank the hon Tony Yengeni, who is a member of the ANC and who also led the team of representatives. He led it with intelligence and honesty. I would also like to thank my colleagues who were members of the team, especially the former member of the New NP who, I have recently been told, has left his party. [Laughter.] I think there is something fishy about his defection because I heard over the radio this morning that the judges in the fight between De Lange and Mannie Schoeman failed to make a ruling as to who the loser was. [Laughter.] I also blame the Chief Whip because he was walking with the hon Schoeman as he was representing his party. [Applause.]
Those are just jokes. What I want to say as I thankfully talk like this is that we went to observe the situation in Zimbabwe. Here is another report which I think people will need if they have a chance to read it. The important thing is that, in a religious context, if two or three witnesses have spoken, what they have told is taken as the truth. However, in politics I am not sure if that is the case.
An HON MEMBER: No, it does not apply.
Mr M A MZIZI: It does not apply. I must say that the report that we have here is the report that has been agreed to by all. However, I would like to point out what I see because there are things that we did not include in the report. The report that we had contained instructions concerning the places in which we would observe the elections. We were not there as monitors.
Many different things happened. Members will remember that a lot of talks were given about Zimbabwe before we went there. The wise thing we did was that we met with political parties in Zimbabwe and they gave us different reports. What I want to mention is that there were people who were brought to us. We were told they had been victimised in different ways.
According to the women we talked to, the victimisation they suffered included the closure of about 150 schools. Teachers ran away since it was thought that war was imminent. It was reported that women were raped by war veterans. We did not get enough evidence to support those claims because one cannot rely solely on what one has heard. Such claims should be proved in a court of law. I asked them whether the cases had been reported to the police. They asked to whom they could have reported the cases because the police had been told not to record any politically related cases. They said they did not do anything, they just watched the situation. There were no cases of rape that we heard of.
Let me focus on the issue of war veterans. In fact we did meet with the war
veterans. There was Mr Hundzvi who, I was told, was the leader of the war
veterans. When he asked permission to call us comrades I said to him:
Please, brother, do not call me comrade, because I know what comrades did
to me.'' [Laughter.] He exploded and said:You are an IFP member!’’ I
said: Yes, you are absolutely correct.'' It surprised me because then he
said:Look, you in the IFP, why did you not come to Zimbabwe four years
ago?’’ I said to him: ``Look, if you had asked us 20 years ago, we would
have come. However, we would not have interfered in the affairs of Zimbabwe
uninvited.’’
A long discussion went on. When we asked whether it would be a problem if we went to farms they said we should not get involved with the farm issues. We did not go there to discuss farm issues. We were there to observe the elections. It was clear that they were not comfortable with that. By that time my colleague, the hon Mpontshane, pointed out to me that if we went to the farms, we would encounter difficulties that would be more serious than what we did to the ANC when we stabbed them with assegais. I do not know whether he was joking. I said to him: ``No, stop. You are out of order now. We are not here to discuss that.’’ [Laughter.]
The issue of re-educating people involved terrible victimisation affecting body and soul. I myself know that very well. I was once taken to a stadium where I was told to toyi toyi as a means of forcing me to leave the IFP. I was forced to fold my knees so much that they touch my chin. [Laughter.] Children forced me to run all over the stadium. I was traumatised because I was doing something I did not like. From there they went to my house and sang loudly so that the stone wall supporting my house could fall. They were forcing me to join their struggle.
Concerning the re-education of people, there was only one farm that we visited. When we got there, we heard that people had been forced to sing the whole night. That was a terrible abuse.
There was nothing bad that we found in Zimbabwe. There were good things we found there which I want South Africa to take as a challenge. Their ballot papers were not like ours, especially the little ones. They had a big box and when they threw papers in it there was no need to change the boxes. Even election monitors were monitoring only one box. They slept next to it and laid their hands on it. [Laughter.] Our ballot papers get lost because there are too many.
Besides that, their technology regarding the elections proved to be at a higher level. I liked that. I liked the way they conducted their election campaigns. As the policy of the Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe says: ``Land is the economy, economy is the land’’. I noticed that the Zanu-PF was campaigning for something that was near to the heart of many people. It chose to concentrate on it. It used war veterans as police since they were sitting at the gate policing. They were there to ensure that no political opposition was going to campaign on the farms. The question is, here in South Africa, do we see how serious the land issue is? If people reach a stage where they get angry, the land issue will be as big a problem as it is in Zimbabwe today. That was not the reason why we went there. We did not touch the land issue because we were afraid that if we talked about land they would say: Go back! As you point a finger at us, what about the three fingers that are pointing at you?’’ Therefore, this is a challenge to us and to our Government that we should quickly resolve this issue before it becomes a problem to all of us. [Applause.]]
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am sorry to bother you. It was really impossible to listen to the previous speaker as there is a problem with these systems. The problem is that one not only hears the interpretation but also the speaker himself on the same channel, which really makes it impossible to follow the debate. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! I have previously alerted the Table that ever since the switches have been in operation matters have become very difficult. It may improve the microphones, but it does not work for the hearing devices, and I understand that this problem is being addressed. I am afraid that until the problem is resolved, we will have to do the best we can. I would like to suggest to those controlling the sound at the moment that, when there is interpreting to which a large number of members are listening, they tone down the sound from the microphones at the podium. I hope that improves matters. Mr G B D McINTOSH: Madam Speaker, I think that you will have appreciated, from colleagues Mzizi and Yengeni’s speeches, that when Dr Hundzvi told us that we would not be welcome to visit the farms, both Mr Yengeni and Mr Mzizi did not like that idea at all and were quite determined to visit them.
I would like, on behalf of myself and my party, to thank you and this Parliament for mandating us to go to Zimbabwe. This Parliament has great authority and status when it expresses itself as a Parliament rather than as members of a party represented in Parliament. We can indeed be proud of our Parliament, particularly when we put South Africa’s interests first for that Parliament. I believe that we did that in a responsible way, and Mr Yengeni was our leader.
Our presence in Zimbabwe was significant, unique and important. The significance was because of our democratic and nonracial Parliament. Ordinary Zimbabweans admire and respect our democracy and economic prosperity. We were unique because no other observer group consisted only of members of Parliament. We were important because Zimbabwe is umbilically linked to South Africa. The Matebele and the whites migrated into that country, and still play a key role.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are powerfully linked in economic terms. We trade with them. They owe us hundreds of millions of rands. We can buy vegetables from Zimbabwe at Woolworths in Cape Town. It is estimated that as many as one million Zimbabweans work in South Africa. Many have studies and still are studying at our institutions. It is a small country with only 11 million people and 98% of them are black Africans. Its national budget is similar in size to that of the City of Johannesburg. They recognise that we are a very powerful nation when compared to themselves.
The second thing which I learnt was that voters who read, talk and are educated do not vote for racist agendas. Zimbabweans, and particularly the ``born-frees,’’ are well-educated. They have never had Bantu education. The people value law and order, efficiency and progress.
President Mugabe’s campaign was openly racist in chanting Pasi amaBunu''
[Down with the boers’’] and tribal in talking of indigenisation, which is
a codeword for promoting the interests of the Shona clans. President Mugabe
spoke at two Mass or Star rallies at which I was present and, on both
occasions, he was four hours late. His utterances were anti-white, anti-
British and he promoted the lawless and violent invasion of commercial
farms to intimidate workers and farmers.
Today, in Business Day, Dr Edison Zvobgo, one of his former Ministers, a Zanu-PF member and a member of Parliament, summed it up when he said that the land invasions had tainted what was a glorious revolution, reducing it to some agrarian racist enterprise. Voters, whether black or white, do not keep their brains nor their money in their skins. The voters of Zimbabwe wanted delivery and economic development. They are no different from voters around the world. That is a lesson we should all learn for South African politics. [Interjections.]
Allied to this was the commitment of the people of Zimbabwe to vote. I think the real message is that free and fair in Africa is complicated - my colleague, Mrs Mapisa-Nqakula, I think over-simplified the issue … [Interjections.] The point is that we need to recognise the fact that the people of Zimbabwe have struck a blow for democracy in Southern Africa. From nowhere, a party that had existed for nine months was able to mobilise 50% of the voters to support it.
Mr Mugabe’s activities have done severe damage to South Africa and our region. He has been like a child playing with matches, with all our futures. Almost single-handedly, he is making a joke of the African renaissance. Our President should tell him that. In the late 1950s the President, at least the then Prime Minister of South Africa, had to tell Mr Ian Smith that he had to settle and organise himself. It is time we did the same to President Mugabe.
I believe that this delegation has served the cause of democracy well, and I hope that members will read this report when it comes out. I am disappointed that they do not have it on their desks already. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Hon members, I will draw your attention to the fact that the report has been published in the parliamentary papers, and I hope members have actually read it before the debate.
Mr M E MABETA: Madam Speaker, hon members, I would like to start off by thanking the hon Yengeni for his report and the hon Mapisa-Nqakula for her remarks. These are important to our party, for two reasons. The first reason is that the hon Yengeni recognises the important negative role played by tensions and violence in Zimbabwe in the elections. The hon Mapisa-Nqakula’s remarks about the unequal distribution of police at voting stations is also very important. These two remarks, I think, will go a long way towards helping Southern African countries to plan an effective mechanism for organising free and fair elections.
I would like to say to the hon Mr McIntosh that the significance of this particular group in observing those elections was not because of the white farmers and the land invasions. It was not because of his particular party’s interest in those elections. It was important for South Africans historically, because we were paying tribute to the very important role that the frontline states in Africa and the people of Zimbabwe played in the brutal passage of our own quest for independence in this country. [Applause.] I do not expect him to fully understand and appreciate that. We have a long way to go.
I would also like to state that the UDM warned that in the run-up to the elections, intimidation was to be considered as a possible major problem, that elections would have to be free and fair, and that elections would have to be accepted by all. We know that before the elections took place, international observers asserted that intimidation was very high. Subjective and partisan statements made by some observers from South Africa on the situation in Zimbabwe were unhelpful and only served to exacerbate the situation.
The situation in Zimbabwe is instructive in our country, because here, too, the pre-election atmosphere was charged with high levels of political intolerance and intimidation, often without exception, resulting in the killing of political opponents. Of course, the political intolerance preceding the elections in Zimbabwe differed from the South African scenario, because in Zimbabwe we had overt official backing, sanction and orchestration of violence, whereas in South Africa we had an insidious covert phenomenon which, nevertheless, left one with no doubt that political parties which had come to be known as common denominators in the political violence in this country, were implicate.
We cannot be smug, therefore, about our own electoral experience while pontificating about the Zimbabwean scenario. It is a historical fact that African political systems are at their weakest or collapse during the phase of changes in the regime, owing to government reluctance or inability to manage this crucial phase.
The Zimbabwean government has been recognised. Their Parliament is sitting. We accept and respect that in the hope that the Zanu-PF party will honour and respect the findings of the courts on the by-elections in those areas where elections were challenged. We further urge the Zimbabwean government to adhere to the UN plan for the reversal of the socioeconomic decay and deterioration in that country.
We also urge the UK government to bear partial responsibility for the deterioration of political relations in Zimbabwe, in so far as they have reneged on their Lancaster House commitments. Our own Government will do well to demonstrate its seriousness about positive assistance to Zimbabwe by ensuring that political intolerance and intimidation are addressed in our own country. [Time expired.]
Mr D K MALULEKE: Madam Speaker, hon members, I would like to thank this House and the DP for the opportunity to serve the cause of democracy by representing the South African Parliament in observing the Zimbabwean elections. It was, indeed, an honour and a privilege. The DA congratulates the people of Zimbabwe on their determination to vote and on demonstrating their commitment to democratic values.
What has just happened north of the Limpopo is a clear signal to governments that think that because they have liberated their countries, they have a trademark over them. It is time they woke up and smelt the coffee. The people of Africa are no longer prepared to be ruled by tyrants. Multiparty democracy is in Africa to stay. No matter how poor people may be, they know what they want and how they would like to be governed.
South Africa and the world have a duty to assist the brave people of Zimbabwe to rescue their economy from politicians who would like to destroy the country just to stay in power. We should respect the views of Zimbabwe’s elected opposition and oppose economic sanctions against Zimbabwe. Our policy must be: firstly, economic engagement with the people and, secondly, strong political sanctions against the ruling party. We must be on the side of the poor, of enterprise and of economic good sense.
It does not make sense to displace some 3 million farmworkers and their dependants, paralyse commercial agriculture and risk famine in a land of plenty, by seizing two-thirds of white-owned farms. President Mugabe says he will settle 500 000 landless people on the farms. Even if he succeeds, which is unlikely given Zanu-PF’s track record on land reform, this is less than a quarter of the number of farmworkers who will lose their jobs and homes. South Africa must oppose this plan.
Mr Mboweni complained to Parliament recently that as far as foreign investors were concerned, the Limpopo was a river between two provinces of South Africa. The real problem is that the South African Government has not done enough to correct this impression. When Zimbabwe’s land invasions and the persecution of the opposition began in February, South Africa was like a neighbour who saw the house next door on fire. We had two options: to ignore the blaze and risk damage to our own land - hundreds of refugee farmers and farmworkers have already crossed our borders looking for asylum and work - or to help put out the fire. Unfortunately, President Mbeki opted for a third course of action. He sat down and had tea with the arsonist until the South African Government firmed up its stance on land grabbing. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr E I EBRAHIM: Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, political democracy in the form of a multiparty parliamentary system is a concept that many countries in the developing world are grappling with. At the end of the day, the true test of parliamentary democracy is its ability to create a better life for the people of that particular country.
Our President made the following observation:
… none of us seek to impose any supposedly standard models of democracy on any country, but want to see systems of government in which the people are empowered to determine their destiny and to resolve any disputes among themselves by peaceful political means.
In Africa we have a vision and a mission of an African renaissance, where we want to overcome the devastating past and ensure that Africa becomes a continent of democracy and peace, growth and development, and prosperity and the restoration of the dignity of all Africans. We shall have to rely a great deal on the principles of collective self-reliance, and the achievement of our goals depends critically on the collective interest of the developing countries being effectively addressed. What is critical here is the alleviation of poverty, the cancellation of foreign debt, the flow of foreign direct investment, fair trade and transfer of technology.
Any parliamentary election on our continent or, for that matter, in the countries of the South, must be viewed against the background of broader issues confronting the developing world and the impact of globalisation on developing countries. In a terrain where powerful global forces have the power to destabilise and destroy entire countries and economies, the successful holding and maintaining, for decades, of a democratic multiparty parliamentary system is an achievement to take note of.
Our region has set an example in the holding of democratic elections. We held a democratic election in our own country last year, and although sometimes marred by tension, it was nevertheless a successful election. Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia have had successful elections too, then followed Zimbabwe and now Mauritius. Although there is still war in Angola and the DRC, we can state with confidence that in the SADC region, multiparty parliamentary democracy is, indeed, alive.
Our presence in Zimbabwe was due to our commitment to encouraging, supporting and observing the workings of democratic institutions in our region. The Zimbabwean election was highly contested. Not since independence has there been such fierce contestation in a general election. We also found that the white community, for the first time since independence, exercised their democratic right to campaign and canvass, and eventually turned out in large numbers to vote.
It is accepted that democracy must serve the interests of many and not a few. International observing and monitoring of elections should be an important component of any democratic election, as long as those doing the monitoring do not have a hidden agenda of their own.
The alternative to regular parliamentary elections is a military dictatorship or a one-party state. The OAU has already taken an important and significant step in denying membership of the community of African nations to military dictators. A one-party dictatorship does not serve the interests of the people and violates the fundamental principles, of the Freedom Charter which states that ``the people shall govern’’. It is this principle that has inspired Africans, and in the last decade we have witnessed 25 countries holding multi-party elections so that the people can decide on the government of their choice.
We have witnessed democracy in Nigeria, and recently President Diouf of Senegal gracefully handed over power to his successor in an election. We see shining examples of democratic elections on the African continent, even though The Economist likes to contend that Africa is a hopeless continent incapable of allowing its people to freely choose their governments. The Zimbabwean election must be counted amongst those that expose the lie of this Afro-pessimism. The African renaissance, I would say, is still alive.
Mr Van Schalkwyk, in some respects, is probably right in his confusion. Zimbabwe teaches us that if the white minority refuses to share the wealth accumulated through gross exploitation of the majority of the people, yes, we could have a Zimbabwe-type of situation in South Africa. This is something which the hon member should not tell us, but address to his constituency, namely the captains of industry, the mining houses and the rural landlords. [Interjections.]
At a meeting in Maputo the other day a German told us that his visit to Africa taught him two important things. He said that there are two important things that are close to the African, and which have been a traumatic experience to them. One is the question of slavery, and the other is the question of land. Africans have been made slaves and their land has been confiscated by the colonial invaders.
Currently the world is crying for compensation for the Jewish people, because they suffered during the Holocaust. It is correct that 50 years after World War II they should get compensation. There is still a clamour that they should be compensated. Nobody speaks of compensating the African people for the atrocities they suffered during the period of slavery and during the land invasion of Africa. If the issue of compensation is raised, then, of course, the whole cry of racism is brought to the fore. [Applause.]
Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank God and this House for the opportunity to participate in this initiative which clearly contributed positively to a more peaceful election in Zimbabwe. Many people said our presence inspired a confidence which dispelled fear and intimidation. We were received with friendliness and encountered an overwhelming sense of anticipation, excitement and determination to see change in Zimbabwe.
I remember how welcome we all felt when greeting the Zimbabwean people with a wave and got an enthusiastic response, until I realised that our greeting was received as an open hand, and MDC supporters were thrilled. I did not, of course, mention it to my ANC colleagues, but I noticed a couple of days later that they had stopped waving. For me it would, of course, have been very rude and unfriendly to stop waving!
I was very impressed with Tony Yengeni’s leadership of the delegation. I congratulate you, Sir, on a difficult job well done. I believe every member of the delegation should be commended for the diligent and serious manner in which they applied themselves to their task. Everyone left South Africa determined to be impartial and unbiased. This, however, was more difficult than most would like to admit. I was particularly impressed as ANC colleagues unexpectedly found themselves on the defensive every time Zanu- PF, the ruling party, was criticised. In spite of this, I know of no member of the delegation who shrank from confronting the facts, even when it was dangerous or difficult to do so. [Interjections.] Balancing what we heard with what we actually saw was no easy task as, in spite of concerns and fears, Zimbabweans seemed determined to exercise their democratic right to vote the way that they had intended.
It is, however, my personal opinion that farmworkers and the rural people, especially those old enough to remember the days of liberation warfare and the massacre by Zanu-PF of huge numbers of Matebele, were thoroughly intimidated. I believe many of them voted Zanu-PF fearing reprisals against them personally and their communities collectively. These threats were made by Zanu-PF leaders and Mugabe himself. The land issue, although it was clearly being used as an election ploy and a means of intimidating farmworkers and rural people, was and still is an important concern.
However, most ordinary people were not even able to think about land, as their concerns focused on Mugabe, whom they blamed for their hardships and lack at every level. Women, in particular, expressed their contempt for Mugabe and his wife, saying they could not be bought with a bag of sugar, and that they refused to be treated like puppets and to be used and abused. Women also complained of Zanu-PF using rape and the threat of rape to intimidate them. From all accounts, it was clear that Zanu-PF-were responsible for the violence and intimidation tactics, but the report reads that the mission observed that ``there was no monopoly on violence’’.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired, hon member.
Ms C DUDLEY: However, there were reasons for this. I signed the report with no reservations and believe it is a true reflection of what the delegation observed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired, hon member.
Dr P W A MULDER: Mevrou die Speaker, in die wêreld het Suid-Afrika se politieke leiers nog ‘n groot mate van geloofwaardigheid. Dit kan nie van baie Afrikaleiers gesê word nie. Dit maak hierdie verslag en sy gevolgtrekkings baie belangrik. Hierdie verslag lyk feitelik en objektief ten opsigte van die sake wat wel daarin bespreek word. Opmerklik is tog die sake waarna glad nie verwys word nie, en wat sonder twyfel ook ‘n groot invloed op die verkiesing en sy uitslag in Zimbabwe gehad het.
Ek verwys hier spesifiek na die besetting van blanke boere se grond en die intimidasie en anti-wit rassisme wat daarmee gepaard gegaan het. Ons as VF se probleem met die verslag lê in die slotparagraaf, waar daar staan:
… the result of the parliamentary elections … broadly reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people.
Die VF verskil hiervan. Die uitslag verteenwoordig nié die wil of die wense van die kiesers nie. Op sy beste kon die verslag gesê het ``die gemanipuleerde wil van die kiesers’’, want die regerende party het dit nie op stemdag nie, maar tydens die aanloop tot die verkiesing deurlopend gemanipuleer, en dit maak so ‘n gevolgtrekking misleidend, wat ons betref. Ek sal vir agb lede ‘n paar voorbeelde gee.
‘n Gesonde demokrasie veronderstel dat kiesers ingelig word en alle kante van ‘n saak hoor voor hulle hul keuse maak. President Mugabe se party het ZIM$62 miljoen uit die staatskas gekry vir hulle verkiesingsveldtog. Die hoofopposisie, die MDC, het geen fondse uit daardie oord gekry nie en moes hul eie fondse werf. Dit is nie ‘n billike verkiesing nie. Televisie in Zimbabwe is ‘n monopolie van die Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation. Opposisiepartye het geen geleentheid op televisie gekry om hulle saak te stel nie. Dit maak ‘n normale demokrasie onmoontlik, want mense is nie ingelig nie.
In ‘n normale demokrasie is 50% stemme genoeg om ‘n verkiesing te wen, maar nie in Zimbabwe nie. Uit die 150 parlementêre setels kies president Mugabe 30 parlementslede wat hy ná die verkiesing aanwys. Die opposisie moes dus 63% van die stemme gekry het om die verkiesing te kon wen. Daarvolgens sou die ANC in 1994 met hulle 62%-meerderheid nie kon geregeer het nie.
Van die 5,1 miljoen geregistreerde kiesers het 1,2 miljoen vir Zanu-PF gestem. Dit beteken Zanu-PF het 24% van die stemme gekry, maar hulle het tans ongeveer 62% van die setels. Teen hierdie agtergrond maak die VF beswaar teen die sin in die verslag wat lui:
… the result … reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people.
Suid-Afrika se internasionale geloofwaardigheid is só belangrik, ons kan nie bekostig dat ons ter wille van goeie verhoudings of ter wille van politieke korrektheid ons geloofwaardigheid permanent daarmee heen laat gaan nie, en ek dink die verslag kon deurgegaan het bloot as ‘n feitelike weergawe van wat daar gebeur het in plaas daarvan dat ons lyk asof ons met hierdie gevolgtrekking Zimbabwe wil ter wille wees. Ons weet Mugabe se posisie is tydelik. Hy sal nie meer lank daar wees nie, en daarná moet ons met die werklikhede saamleef. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, South Africa’s political leaders still have a great deal of credibility in the world. This cannot be said of many African leaders. That makes this report and its conclusions very important. This report appears factual and objective in regard to the issues which are discussed in it. What is noteworthy are the issues which are not referred to at all, and which undoubtedly also had a big impact on the election and its result in Zimbabwe. Here I am referring specifically to the occupation of white farmers’ land and the intimidation and anti-white racism which went along with it. The problem we as the FF have with the report is contained in the concluding paragraph, in which it is stated:
… the result of the parliamentary elections … broadly reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people.
The FF differs with this. The result does not represent the will or the wishes of the voters. At best the report could have said ``the manipulated will of the voters’’, because the ruling party did not manipulate it on polling day, but consistently during the run-up to the election, and, as far as we are concerned, this makes such a conclusion misleading. I will give hon members a few examples.
A sound democracy presupposes that voters are informed and hear all sides of a matter before making their choice. President Mugabe’s party received ZIM$62 million from the treasury for their election campaign. The main opposition, the MDC, received no funding from that source and had to raise their own money. That is not a fair election. Television in Zimbabwe is a monopoly of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation. Opposition parties received no opportunity to state their case on television. This makes a normal democracy impossible, because people are not informed.
In a normal democracy 50% of the votes are sufficient to win an election, but not in Zimbabwe. Of the 150 parliamentary seats, President Mugabe chooses 30 member of parliament whom he appoints after the election. The opposition would therefore have had to obtain 63% of the votes to be able to win the election. In these terms the ANC would not have been able to govern with their 62% majority in 1994.
Of the 5,1 million registered voters 1,2 million voted for Zanu-PF. This means that Zanu-PF got 24% of the votes, but they currently have approximately 62% of the seats. Against this background the FF objects to the sentence in the report which reads:
… the result … reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people.
South Africa’s international credibility is so important that we cannot afford to lose our credibility permanently for the sake of good relations or for the sake of political correctness, and I think that the report could have gone through merely as a factual version of what happened instead of us looking as though we want to oblige Zimbabwe with this conclusion. We know that Mugabe’s position is temporary. He is not going to be there much longer and after that we will have to live with the realities.]
Mr S B FARROW: Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate the thanks to Parliament, my party and those members that attended the observer mission for a job well done.
The Zimbabwean elections have come and gone and the results are well known to the members of the House. Our report notes that violence and intimidation did in fact occur prior to the election, and Zimbabwean opposition parties and their candidates, in certain areas, were unable to canvass freely. This was confirmed by about 22 of the 27 stakeholder groups and many other private and personal contacts that we made while in Zimbabwe. Most of it was systematic and targeted, and clearly had the support of the Zanu-PF government. At the end of the day, under very adverse conditions of fear, threats and violence, democracy ruled. After 20 years, the Zimbabwean electorate, where possible, voted with their heads as opposed to their hearts in bringing an end to 20 years of one-party rule.
Without the rule of law democracy cannot flourish; without a free press and media uncontrolled by government influences, the electorate cannot be well informed of their choices; without multiparty democracy within the various spheres of government, the government cannot be held to account; without clear legislation and policies properly mandated by the electorate, chaos such as that experienced by the expropriation of land and associated land invasions will also be an occurrence here in South Africa; and unless our police force is impartial, our public will have no faith in bringing our criminals to book.
Much of Zimbabwe’s economy is vested in the agricultural and tourism industries, and the lack of rule of law there has contributed primarily to Zimbabwe’s present economic mess. This has spilt over into our country and the region in general. We must never allow the rule of law to be undermined in South Africa. One of the best briefings which we received was from the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union. They conveyed their appreciation of our President’s quiet diplomacy approach to President Mugabe, in particular to the politically motivated land invasions that were taking place before and during the elections. In retrospect one wonders how effective this approach has been, particularly in regard to the impact it had on Zimbabwe’s economy and the violence and killings that were associated with it.
Nearly 40% of Zimbabwe’s export earnings are derived from agriculture and in addition agriculture contributes some 18% of the GDP. About 76% of the total population of the country is entirely dependent on agriculture, yet President Mugabe has senselessly attempted to damage this sector of the economy. Our country has been intimately affected by the bad governance of Zimbabwe and yet for lesser reasons our Government chose to intervene in Lesotho. One wonders why. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Ms M C LOBE: Madam Speaker, comrades and colleagues, the people of Zimbabwe have expressed their will in the June 2000 parliamentary elections. Through their votes they have re-emphasised the fact that Zimbabwe will never be a colony again. Indeed the people have spoken. They have spoken loudly and clearly against discrimination, poverty, landlessness, hunger and disease. It is regrettable that their pre-election campaign was characterised by violence. We cannot deny the fact that even our own country’s elections have been characterised by these unfortunate incidents.
The experience of Zimbawe and our own experience should be a lesson to the rest of Africa that incident-free elections are an integral part of a democratic society. The Zimbabwean elections were run under the auspices of four structures. The first was the delimitation commission which was headed by a judge of the supreme court and was responsible for dividing the country into constituencies. The second was the registrar general who carries out all registration responsibilities in that country including voter registration, compilation of the voters’ roll and also providing the delimitation commission with the necessary information to delimit constituencies. He is also responsible for vote counting, the appointment of presiding officers and staff and the announcement of results. It is important to note that the registrar general has provincial counterparts who handle such responsibilities at provincial level.
Thirdly, there was the election directorate, which is constituted by senior representatives of relevant government departments and is responsible for all logistical arrangements for elections. Fourthly there was the electoral supervisory commission, which oversees the processes of registration, campaigning, voting and counting of votes. This body also has the authority to pronounce itself on the status of elections.
On the basis of briefings we received from both the registrar general and the provincial registrars, and based on our own observations, it was clear, even before the elections, that the above structures had done thorough preparations for voting and vote counting. However, we received complaints regarding various aspects of election preparation. For example, there were allegations that the names of a number of dead people were still on the voters’ roll.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, could you please lower your voices, so that the hon member’s speech can be heard.
Ms M C LOBE: The registrar-general confirmed this possibility, but was confident that no one could vote on behalf of a dead person due to tight procedures during voting, which included the use of a voter’s card and indelible ink. There were also allegations that the ballot boxes had removable bottoms, and that that would lead to fraud. The mission took it upon itself to follow up this matter and the allegation was proved to be unfounded.
As a result of the fact that a significant number of people did not appear on the voters’ roll, a supplementary voters’ roll was introduced to accommodate such individuals. This supplementary voters’ roll was not easily accessible to all candidates because it became available at a very late date, but it assisted a lot of Zimbabweans to exercise their right to participate in the fifth parliamentary elections in June.
Although the pre-election period was characterised by tensions, a lack of political tolerance and violence, especially on some commercial farms and in rural areas, the voting and counting process took place in a peaceful and calm atmosphere. It is very clear that the presence of observers contributed to this calm and peaceful atmosphere. The presence of a minimum of three police officers in each polling station also contributed to the peaceful conduct of the elections.
The prophets of doom predicted a very low voter turn-out as a result of violence, and that election days would be characterised by incidents of violence. Much to their surprise, more than 2,5 million votes were cast out of 5,1 million registered voters. About 50% of registered voters cast their votes, which makes the process not only credible but also legitimate.
The mission was impressed by the high voter turn-out, and the discipline and commitment of voters, despite the long queues. The mission was also impressed by the high levels of efficiency and professionalism on the part of electoral officers. In the interest of transparency and security, the ballot boxes were guarded overnight by the police and polling agents. These polling agents were provided with transport to accompany boxes to the counting stations.
Although the process of counting took very long, it was also extensive. This process was characterised by a meticulous and transparent process of reconciling votes cast with ballot papers issued. Any possibility of election fraud was ruled out by this extensive process. Despite all the reports from some institutions and the media, it was very clear that the election process in Zimbabwe was efficiently run and had an equally efficient and committed electoral staff.
As a country, we need to learn from this experience in order to improve our own electoral system. It is against this background that the ANC is convinced that the people of Zimbabwe have expressed their will. Indeed, Zimbabwe will never be a colony again. [Applause.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker and hon members, Africa continues to suffer destruction in its political processes because African cultures have been broken down by imperialists’ and colonialists’ conquests. The result is that the western type of political systems are then imposed upon them, and some leaders remain caught in the rut.
The climate prior to the elections in Zimbabwe was heated up owing to the land issue. There were sporadic acts of violence and intimidation. Certain areas were declared ``no-go’’ areas. In the run-up to the elections, tempers cooled off, and the Movement for Democratic Change brought to light political and racial contradictions in Zimbabwe. Two independent institutions, Amnesty International and the Helen Suzman Foundation, made these discoveries. A climate of terror did not create an environment which was conducive to free and fair elections. Violence and intimidation were most serious in rural areas, and the Zimbabwean print media and the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation disregarded participants outside Zanu-PF. They concentrated only on the ruling party.
However, at the end of the day, 82% of the voters believed that the ballot was secret. The MDC won 57 seats against the 62 seats won by Mugabe’s Zanu- PF. This is despite all the state machinery in the form of the army which was assaulting supporters of opposition parties and the funding which was at Mugabe’s disposal. It is, therefore, not illogical to say that had the elections really been free and fair, and had public funding been equally accessible to all parties, the MDC would have taken home the bacon.
The Zimbabwean election is a lesson to be learned by those in power. It is not the bullet but the ballot that places a party in power. Arrogance and intimidation do not help the cause of any party. Though the terrain was uneven and the going was tough, the Zimbabweans did well under those circumstances. The bottom line is that the findings of our parliamentary delegation regarding the fairness and the free nature of the elections in Zimbabwe are, by and large, corroborated by Amnesty International and the Helen Suzman Foundation. Under the circumstances, we would say: ``Well done, colleagues.’’
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, the PAC appreciates the debate on the report on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe and its president, Robert Mugabe, have been the subject of newspaper headlines, editorials, and television and radio comments. Some of these comments have been negative about Zimbabwe and its recent elections which were won by Zanu-PF.
The PAC leadership met a delegation of Zanu-PF members in Johannesburg before the elections. A PAC delegation travelled to Zimbabwe during the elections to express solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe regarding their land dispossession by colonial invaders led by Cecil Rhodes. The invaders called that country ``Rhodesia’’. They evicted Africans from the fertile land by force through the use of arms, and no one then spoke of the rule of law and human rights. Consequently, 0,03% of the settler population owns 12 million hectares of land, that is, 73% of arable land in Zimbabwe.
All that Mugabe and his colleagues demanded was that at least 50% of this land be returned to 12 million landless Africans wallowing in the quagmire of poverty, landlessness and unemployment. Justice-loving people believe that whatever mistakes Zimbabwe’s president made on this question of finally redistributing African land to African people, he is 100% right. As a Kenyan observer put it, ``Mugabe’s only fault is that he took too long to do it, but now that he is doing it, people who believe in fairness and justice must support him.’’ Rather than prove anything against Mugabe, the West’s accusations only prove how little it thinks of Africans’ rights to own anything or have meaningful independence. Could one even imagine a situation in which 4 000 Zimbabweans would be allowed to own 12 million hectares of land in Britain or France, or be entitled to recover land they stole from the British or French?
In this country our forefathers, in the wars of national resistance against colonial aggression, fought to retain the land of their ancestors. They realised the importance of this basic national asset. Wars of liberation, through Apla and other forces, were also primarily about land. Today this important asset has been compromised for flag independence and confused with national anthems. Unfortunately, although the Native Land Act of 1913 has been replaced with section 25(7) of the South African Constitution, it guarantees the properties of the haves, which have been acquired. Their economic oppression and their evictions from a small piece of land are a time-bomb. [Time expired.]
Mr M MPEHLE: Madam Speaker, before I start delivering my speech according to my notes, I would like to take off from the point that was made by the hon Mzizi, who drew our attention to the possible problems that could arise in our case with regard to the question of land.
I want to take the opportunity to assure and re-assure our farmers in this country that, for as long as they abide by the laws of this Government and for as long as they do not continue to paint our people’s bodies with black paint, they are safe in this country. The laws that we have made guarantee them that, provided that they operate within the framework that has been set up by this Parliament and this Government.
A number of previous speakers raised the question of land in Zimbabwe. That is the topic I would like to deal with, and I plead with all the hon members of Parliament here to take and put the land question in Zimbabwe in its proper perspective. I have not heard anyone here doing that job. So, my job will be to provide a framework upon which we can have a fruitful discussion in so far as the land situation in Zimbabwe is concerned. But, to do this, I must definitely give some historical background on what happened to the land of the Zimbabweans when they were invaded by the agencies of British colonialism, and what happened in Lancaster House where there was a meeting and negotiations for the resolution of the armed struggle in that country.
I should also warn and inform hon members that when colonisers invade foreign lands, they grab, they kill, they burn, they rape, and they loot. They herd together the subjects in the most uninhabitable areas in the conquered countries. They behave in the same way, be it in the Americas, Asia or Africa. They never consider the long-term consequences of their ungodly actions. They finally bequeath to succeeding generations complex and painful problems whose solutions demand, at times, very painful surgical operations.
Before we become judges - if that is what we must be - on the question of the land problem in that country, or whatever we want to call it, let us know and understand fully what happened to the land question yesterday - that is, in the past, before the Zimbabwean people gained their political rights. What happened around this land question in Zimbabwe yesterday enables us to understand what is happening today in so far as the white farms in that country are concerned; and that, in itself, gives us the basis on which we can plan and analyse what is going to happen tomorrow. The purpose of my speech is to provide a framework within which we can have this discussion.
The land problem in Zimbabwe began in 1889 when Cecil John Rhodes annexed that country. The annexation was in the interest of the British South Africa Company and British colonialism, wherein Cecil John Rhodes signed immediately what is known as the Rudd Concession with the king of the Ndebele, King Lobengula. The signing of that concession, which was a trick by Rhodes, gave away that country to the British South Africa Company.
Of course, the signing of spurious treaties was fundamental to the British policy of colonialism. Immediately after the signing of the Rudd Concession, Rhodes organised hundreds of white settlers and armed bandits. These white settlers, together with these armed bandits, entered Zimbabwe and set up their operational centre and base in what is today called Harare.
When they realised that they had been cheated by Rhodes through the infamous Rudd Concession, the Ndebele under the leadership of their king, Lobengula, went to war against the forces of the British South African Company in 1893. The Ndebele were, of course, ruthlessly crushed. The defeat of Lobengula’s forces virtually gave the British South Africa Company control over Matabeleland. Encouraged by its escapades, the forces of the British South Africa Company moved into the lands which were under the control and jurisdiction of the Shona-speaking people.
In defence of their land, the Ndebele-speaking and Shona-speaking people combined their fighting forces, but they were defeated in 1897. This marked a new chapter for the people of that country in the struggle in defence of their land, and at the same time, it was the opening of a new chapter. Britain had become the colonial overlord of Zimbabwe. Through a series of pieces of legislations, Britain acquired control over the economy of Zimbabwe, wherein funds from various activities in that country were repatriated to the British Treasury in London.
In line with the British colonial policy in South Africa in particular, the so-called native reserves were created in Zimbabwe. Those of us who have lived - and continue to live - in those areas which were designated native reserves will tell all hon members about these areas. They will tell about the condemned lives of those who were regarded as God’s stepchildren by the rulers of our country; and this continued up to the dawn of the new political dispensation in 1994.
By the beginning of the First World War, Zimbabwe had a white settler community which made up 3% of the total population, and which controlled 75% of all the economically productive land. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, may I start by congratulating the mission on a report that reflects thorough and systematic work and is quite user- friendly.
Mr J H MOMBERG: Mooi, Cassie! [Well done, Cassie!]
Mr C AUCAMP: Unfortunately, that is where it ends, Oom Jannie! [Laughter.]
The crux of the report is the conclusion that the results of the election broadly reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people.
Die vraag is of die vlag die lading dek. [The question is whether the flag protects the cargo.]
In other words, is the conclusion at the end justified in the light of the facts reflected in the report? I beg to differ.
Op stemdag het dinge blykbaar heel goed verloop, maar wat van die voorafgaande proses? In die verslag word die volgende genoem: [Apparently matters ran smoothly on polling day, but what about the preceding process? In the report the following is mentioned:] … Zanu-PF … received some Z$ 65 million per annum from the State. All the other parties … had to fundraise from other sources.
Surely, the playing field was not level at all. Secondly, the Zimbabwe
Broadcasting Corporation, which, as the report says, has a monopoly over
the electronic media, gave inordinate coverage to Zanu-PF. This is not a
true democratic process. To what extent was the will of the Zimbabwean
people'', as the report says, rather the will of theZABC’’ inflicted on
the people?
Die verslag maak melding van klagtes oor kiesafdelingafbakenings, oor kieserslyste en oor ‘n laat aanvullende kieserslys, maar gee nie ‘n uitspraak daaroor nie. Oor die klagte ten opsigte van stembusse waarvan die bodems dalk vals was, sê hulle dit is ongegrond. Moet ons aanneem dat die ander klagtes wel gegrond was? Dit wat betref die gebeure in die tydperk van 20 dae wat ons afvaardiging daar was, maar wat van die maande vooraf?
Wat van die intimidasie, van die verontagsaming van die beginsels van ‘n regstaat? Demokrasie, veiligheid en stabiliteit is oorboord gegooi toe gewelddadig van regeringskant op vreedsame optoggangers losgebrand is. Wat van die totale verontagsaming van ‘n bevel van die hooggeregshof en die skending van die reg op vryheid van uitdrukking van sy burgers en die eensydige steun van die Zimbabwiese polisiemag aan wetverbrekers?
Kom ek gebruik ‘n beeld. Die verkiesingswedloop het kop aan kop geëindig. Zanu-PF en die MDC is amper gelyk oor die wenstreep en almal sê wat ‘n pragtige wedloop. Ons afvaardiging kom daar aan nadat vier van die vyf rondtes al verby is. Hulle kyk en hulle sê nee, die manne hardloop mooi, hier kom ‘n ding.
Intussen vergeet hulle dat die wegspring totaal ongelyk was, dat die MDC vasgehou is deur onwettige inmenging en blokkering, dat Zanu-PF die eerste paar rondtes op alle onwettige maniere kortpad geneem het en deur ontoelaatbare metodes die opponente van die baan af geskouer het. Ons moet daarteen waak dat die kop aan kop uitslag ons oë sluit vir die onreëlmatighede.
Verder moet ek sê dat die optrede nie die toets van regverdigheid slaag nie. Sekere dele van die inhoud van die verslag onderstreep dit, en die hele ondemokratiese aanloop die afgelope maand sê dit ook. My dank aan die afvaardiging vir goeie werk, maar die AEB kan hom nie met die bevinding van hierdie verslag vereenselwig nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The report mentions complaints about constituency demarcations, about voters’ rolls and about a late supplementary voters’ roll, but does not make any pronouncements in this regard. As regards complaints in respect of ballot boxes which possibly had false bottoms, they say that these were unfounded. Must we accept that the other complaints were justified? This in regard to the events taking place during the period of 20 days that our delegation was there, but what about the months prior to that?
What about the intimidation, the disregard for the principles of a constitutional state? Democracy, safety and stability were thrown overboard when peaceful protesters bore the brunt of violent behaviour on the part of the government. What about the total disregard for an order of the supreme court and the violation of the right to freedom of expression of its citizens and the one-sided support given by the Zimbabwean police force to law-breakers? Let me use a metaphor. The election race ends neck and neck. Zanu-PF and the MDC almost cross the finish line at the same time and everyone says what a wonderful race it was. Our delegation arrives there after four of the five laps have already been run. They look and say that the men are running well, this is going to be quite something.
In the meantime they forget that the start was completely uneven, that the MDC was held back by unlawful interference and obstruction, and that Zanu- PF took short cuts in the first few laps in every possible unlawful way and shouldered their opponents from the track using impermissible methods. We have to guard against the even result making us blind to the irregularities.
Furthermore, I have to say that the behaviour does not stand the test of fairness. Certain parts of the content of the report highlight this, and the whole undemocratic run-up over the past month also indicates this. My thanks go to the delegation for the good work they have done, but the AEB cannot associate itself with the findings of this report.]
The election did not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people, and I think we must act accordingly.
Mr M A MANGENA: Madam Speaker, by all accounts the mission sent by this Parliament to observe the Zimbabwean national elections behaved professionally. It respected the Zimbabwean people and their electoral process. It was efficient and competent in the execution of its mandate. Murmurs of bias on the part of the mission towards Zanu-PF proved to have no basis. We congratulate the members of that mission for a job well done.
The more profound congratulations go to the people of Zimbabwe for successfully concluding their elections under very trying conditions. Those elections aroused intense passions worldwide. They took place under circumstances where the traditional and entrenched economic interests of some powerful people and their allies seemed under threat. It seemed Zimbabweans were no longer behaving like well-schooled and conditioned subjects of colonialism and neocolonialism. They have embarked on a path that challenged conventional rules of property ownership and generally expected reverence of the powerful countries of the North by all of us in the South.
The ruling party in that country was under attack from the international community and its media, and there was no doubt that a different electoral outcome than what we have at the moment was desired by many. It was therefore very good and even crucial that neighbours of Zimbabwe such as ourselves and other SADC countries, regardless of our views on their programmes, sent observers there to cushion them against pressures of the powerful Western countries. The more balanced atmosphere, to which we contributed by our presence, allowed them to exercise their rights and their sovereignty with less tension and pressure.
As African countries and societies, we should work hard to remove conditions that prompt others to come and monitor and observe our elections. Every time one or other African country holds elections, it is as if they are children writing examinations, therefore requiring invigilators. Of course we are, at the end of it all, given some ratings which determine whether we get aid or good treatment from the richer countries of the world. This demeaning situation can only be changed by us and we should do it. [Applause.]
Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, I, like many members of the South African parliamentary observer mission, would like to express my gratitude to the House for having been given the opportunity to participate in observing the recent parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe, and to make a contribution in the process of consolidating and strengthening democracy on our continent. The sense of gratitude is all the greater because, as the observer mission’s report states, we were very conscious of the importance of our mission, because Zimbabwe is South Africa’s neighbour and our nations share deep historical, political and cultural ties.
During the course of our mission the depth of these ties was clear at all times. It is clear that our nations are inextricably linked and our destinies intertwined. For this reason, whilst our mission was to observe, we could never do so merely as passive, unattached and disinterested outsiders looking on, safe in the knowledge that once our bags were packed, we would not be affected by what we had been observing. We were conscious that South Africa and Zimbabwe shared a history of struggle against colonialism and racial oppression, that the graves of the fallen heroes of the Wanghe campaign lie in Zimbabwe, that many Zimbabweans still bear the scars of the destabilisation campaign that was waged because of the Zimbabwean people’s support for our liberation struggle.
We were conscious that Zimbabwe is South Africa’s biggest trading partner on the African continent and the eighth biggest trading partner in the world. In 1998 South Africa imported R1 billion from Zimbabwe, much of it raw materials and agricultural produce, and exported R5 billion to Zimbabwe, mostly manufactured products. Over and above these formal trade links, there is vibrant and growing undeclared, mainly informal, trade between South Africa and Zimbabwe. Whilst it is difficult to quantify this trade, the fact that in 1996, 194 000 visas were issued by the South African Consulate in Harare serves as some indication of its extent.
We were very conscious of the fact that, notwithstanding the differences of approach and emphasis on certain issues, South Africa and Zimbabwe share the vision of a better Southern African region and a better continent, and we are co-operating in multilateral institutions such as SADC, the OAU and the UN to realise this shared vision. For these reasons we were aware of the damage and setbacks that South Africa would suffer should Zimbabwe fail and, accordingly, of the need to carry out our mission in the most disciplined and responsible manner.
Therefore, the remarks made by the hon Mr Van Schalkwyk are saddening. He made three very contestable statements: Firstly, that the South African Government was turning a blind eye to human rights violations. I think that is a repugnant statement, coming from the leader of a party that conducted a destabilisation campaign from which the Southern African region is only now starting to recover. Since 1994 the South African Government has embarked on probably the strongest campaign to bring peace, stability and democracy not only in Southern Africa, but on the continent as a whole.
Secondly, he alleged that the approach of silent diplomacy was wrong. There are many Zimbabweans who would differ with Mr Van Schalkwyk, including members of the Commercial Farmers’ Union who, when meeting with the delegation, thanked us and requested us to convey their sense of gratitude for the approach that our President had been following.
The third issue that Mr Van Schalkwyk raised was the visit to President Mugabe. We were surprised that he raised this issue because this matter had been discussed in our delegation and all members of the delegation had accepted the explanation given for that visit. The fact of the matter is that the work of the parliamentary observer mission had officially been concluded by the time that visit took place. Therefore, that visit had nothing to do with the mission. It is not contained in our report, and we do not know why Mr Van Schalkwyk raised the issue.
Lastly, the mission provided many of us with the opportunity to observe a nation that, in 20 years of independence, has succeeded in making huge improvements in the lives of its people. Zimbabwe has established an education system in which primary school attendance rose from 820 000 to 2 264 000 and secondary school attendance rose from 60 000 to 600 000 from 1979 to 1987. We observed that even in the remotest rural areas, there was access to schools and veterinary clinics, all within walking distance.
It is clear that our nations have much to learn from each other and much to gain from co-operating. We hope that the parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe have further strengthened and consolidated democracy on our continent, and that South Africa and Zimbabwe will continue co-operating to improve the lives of our people and the people of Africa. On behalf of the ANC, I move that the House adopt the report of the South African parliamentary observer mission. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before coming to the adoption of the report, I would like to express the appreciation of the Speaker and myself, not only to this Parliament for having sent this observer mission, but also to the delegation that went to Zimbabwe and the manner in which they discharged the mission that they had been given by this Parliament. Hopefully, they have set a precedent that is quite worthy of building on and in fact improving on in future. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Report adopted (Freedom Front and Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging dissenting).
ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL
(Introduction) The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker and hon members, after tabling the adjustments estimate of last year, circumstances necessitated that certain amounts be provided that were not included in the adjustments estimate. These amounts have been authorised in terms of section 71 of the Exchequer Act of 1975. Subsection 2 also determines that steps be taken not later than during the next ensuing session of Parliament for the appropriation of any amounts which had been utilised in terms of subsection 1. Madam Speaker, I move.
Bill together with introductory speech and papers tabled, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance for consideration and report.
COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL SCHEMES LEVIES BILL
(Introduction)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, the Medical Schemes Act of 1998 establishes a Council for Medical Schemes to perform all the regulatory oversight functions required for the implementation of the Act. The Council for Medical Schemes Levies Bill, in turn, establishes a levy financing framework for the Council for Medical Schemes. This is a very long speech which I have just made, therefore, I move.
Bill, together with introductory speech, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health for consideration and report in accordance with earlier resolution.
FINANCE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, the Finance Bill is essentially the requirement in law to confirm here a series of decisions that have been taken by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts so that expenditures that were deemed to have been unauthorised can now be regularised and properly accounted for. I move the Finance Bill of 2000.
Mrs R R JOEMAT: Madam Speaker, the objective of the Finance Bill reads as follows:
To charge the National Revenue Fund with certain unauthorised expenditure and to authorise other expenditure; to regulate the closure of certain obsolete revenue accounts; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
The expenses outlined in this Bill stretch over the financial periods of 1991 to 1997 as indicated in clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Bill, and amount to a total of approximately R4,3 billion. Clause 1 amounts to approximately R133,8 million or 3,12% of the total amount. The unauthorised expenditure has to be paid over to the National Revenue Fund. These funds will have to be refunded to the relevant departments as a direct charge against the National Revenue Fund. Clause 2 amounts to approximately R15,1 million or 0,4% of the total amount. This unauthorised expenditure has not been paid over and need therefore not be refunded. With regard to clause 3, the bulk of expenses as outlined in Schedule 3 to this Bill relate to the expenditure of the former TBVC states and the self-governing territories, and this covers 96,5% of the total amount, which is approximately R4,1 billion.
Frequently, we hear in this House that we must stop blaming apartheid, but the bulk of these expenses are from the former TBVC states and self- governing territories which were the creation of the previous apartheid government, whose members have now renamed themselves the Democratic Alliance. So, the words of the song After changes we’re more or less the same by Bob Dylan should fit the DA. [Interjections.]
Mrs M P COETZEE-KASPER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I observe that the television sets are off. What if a fire breaks out all of a sudden?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The screens are clear. It seems that is something that concerns the technical team. Can the technical staff just find out what is going on, or whether the sound system is affecting the screens, because if the sound system is on and we are recording, we can go ahead without the TV screens. [Interjections.]
Mrs R R JOEMAT: I am still speaking about the unauthorised expenses of the former TBVC states and the self-governing territories. The provincial public accounts committees in the provinces were tasked with investigating the circumstances in which the expenditure had occurred. They have made recommendations regarding the possible authorisation of these expenses. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in order to enable the provinces to clear the relevant book entries, therefore recommended that the unauthorised expenditure, as listed, be submitted for authorisation by Parliament.
The committee further recommended, as stipulated in the Bill, that any legal entitlement regarding the potential recovery of any losses to the state, owing to the unauthorised expenditure in question, must remain. We must emphasise that unauthorised expenses cannot be justified. We must ensure that unauthorised expenses are brought down to a nonexistent level in Government. The new Public Finance Management Act will be a deterrent to any accounting officer who is negligent or ignores proper procedures. In terms of the said Act the accounting officer must exercise all reasonable care by implementing effective, efficient and transparent processes of financial and risk management to prevent and detect unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenses.
The accounting officer will have to have the power to act against any person responsible for unauthorised or wasteful expenses. The Pubic Finance Management Act echoes the Public Service regulations by assigning greater responsibility and allowing greater powers to accounting officers, and provides the means by which any accounting officer will be held accountable. The effective management of finance in the public sector is pivotal to good governance in order to improve the quality and efficiency of service delivery. When the Public Finance Management Act was signed into law it indicated that the ANC-led Government had taken a significant step towards modernising financial management in the public sector. Therefore, the ANC supports this Bill before us. [Applause.]
Ms R TALJAARD: Madam Speaker, hon members, the Finance Bill before us today deals with the past in a number of ways, as the schedules show. Not only does the Bill seek to authorise certain categories of unauthorised expenditure and finally unwind a legacy of geographic Balkanisation, but it also serves as a poignant reminder of the vagaries of an inadequate system of financial management which we must symbolically bury today with the passage of this Bill.
The Bill before us seeks to wrap up the writing off of R4,1 billion in unauthorised expenditure, which was recommended to be dealt with in this manner by resolutions of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts. While the DP supports this Bill, it is with an element of concern at the impression which could be created by Parliament passing a law authorising that unauthorised expenditure be defrayed from the National Revenue Fund. We sincerely hope that this potential message will be drowned out loudly and clearly by the rigorous implementation of the Public Finance Management Act to ensure that our civil service becomes a lean and mean, value-for-money-based machine over which the Auditor-General can preside with far more stringent tools at his disposal, instead of having to issue qualifying statements with many of the departments’ accounts.
South Africa’s democratically elected Parliament has chosen to address the effects of inadequate public finance management through the passage of the Public Finance Management Act which came into force in April this year. In the aftermath of yesterday’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts hearing on the Public Finance Management Act, it is no understatement to say that we are eagerly awaiting Cabinet’s final green light, and targeted guidance by the Department of Finance and other role-players, for the Public Finance Management implementation plan to make its presence and its effects felt throughout the South African civil service so that we avoid instances such as the unauthorised expenditure we have in the Bill before us today.
While the Finance Bill seeks to authorise this expenditure, it does not do so in a blanket fashion to the exclusion of efforts to recoup the spent funds. Clause 5 of the Bill makes specific provision for actions of recovery of the money to continue, and states clearly that the Finance Bill may not be construed as affecting any action to recover unauthorised expenditure. Thus the Bill makes express provision to ensure that any legal entitlement regarding the potential recovery of any losses to the state, owing to the unauthorised expenditure in question, must remain. As this residual right is expressly maintained in clause 5, the Finance Bill should be favourably considered.
We must move away from the emphasis which South Africa’s public finance legislation placed on authorised and unauthorised expenditure in the previous Exchequer Act to a responsible and responsive public finance management approach under the provisions of our new legislation. This would be consistent with the axiom that managers should manage and that directors- general as accounting officers, should have the responsibility and ability to make assessments on whether or not the South African taxpayers, who are the end users of Government services in a context in which poverty alleviation is a poignant imperative, are indeed getting the maximum amount of bang for their taxpaying buck. If they fail to make this assessment they will clearly be accountable. It is in this context of unauthorised expenditure that the Public Finance Management Act should have drawn far clearer lines of political accountability for Ministers, vis-à-vis their directors-general. This will be one of the challenges that remain.
Clearly, a more focused approach to poverty alleviation dictates that we need to move to a system in which we sufficiently cost inputs and outputs and guard against squandering and irresponsible expenditure, with not only the rigour of the accountant, but also with the socially aware conscience of a true public representative that expects topnotch performance from the bureaucracy. At the same time, however, such a move dictates that we must draw far clearer lines of accountability for Ministers in the Public Finance Management Act and in the financial chain of accountability. It is hoped that this will indeed be the case as the Director-General of Finance has already assured Standing Committee on Public Accounts that Ministers have been amongst the most ardent attenders of workshops on the Public Finance Management Act.
It is worth reminding Parliament that the latest annual report by the Auditor-General yet again raises concerns about the weaknesses in state accounts. These weaknesses will not be taken away by the passage of a law such as the Public Finance Management Act, and many challenges remain if we are not to repeat many of the mistakes of the past which we seek to address in today’s Finance Bill. We need to be honest and upfront about the challenges that lie ahead if we are to realise the inherent value in the new Public Finance Management Act.
The clear and present challenge is the head-hunting of sufficient skills, both by Government departments and the Office of the Auditor-General, to ensure that we have the skills pool to effectively implement the Act. At the same time, the training of public finance managers at all three levels of Government will be a mammoth task and a sufficient and reliable source of trainers will have to be found to undertake this task. It is to be welcomed that Institute for Public Finance and Auditing, IPFA, and the Public Service Commission are already working on a project to ensure the necessary accreditation.
When the country’s Auditor-General warns us and slates the Public Service as a stagnant and bureaucratic employer, incapable of attracting enough top- skilled staff even if it could offer competitive salaries, we need to take serious stock of the problems in a rigorous and uncompromising manner. The ethos change in the civil service, which the Auditor-General has referred to, is a non-negotiable prerequisite to seeing a real turnaround in the state of Government finances and a reduction in the number of departments that receive qualified audit reports from the Auditor-General’s office.
Only a carrot and stick approach will move us away from the irresponsible approach to public finance management which speaks so clearly in Schedule 1 to the Bill before us today. While we have seen a dramatic drop in the level of unauthorised expenditure, down from R763 million to R156 million, the battle for sound financial management is far from won. We have the Public Finance Management Act as the carrot, which could act as a catalyst for the ethos change that we require in the civil service, but this will not be sufficient. We also need the stick, the stick that will be a deterrent to civil servants maximising their own self-interest and using the public purse to that end, as opposed to maximising the interests of the poor.
In his foreword to the Public Finance Management Act, the Minister cites its ambitious aims to modernise public sector financial management, and I quote:
The key objectives of the Act may be summarised as being to modernise the system of financial management, enable public sector managers to manage, but at the same time be more accountable, ensure the timely provision of quality information, and eliminate waste and corruption in the use of public assets.
Few would argue that the Finance Bill before us today contains at least elements of waste and corruption. Be it pre-1994 or post-1994, the principle of unacceptability stands unquestioned. It is with this acknowledgement in mind that the President has also, on numerous occasions, warned civil servants who maximise their own self-interest. The missing and admittedly short-term ingredient in South Africa is a strong and clear anti- corruption Act which could dovetail quite strongly with the new Public Finance Management Act and ensure that we eliminate not only wasteful expenditure, but also a corrupt siphoning off of revenue intended for service delivery and the poor. With these provisos and future indicators of the ethos change that we need and the challenges remaining for the Public Finance Management Act, the DP supports the Finance Bill. [Applause.]
Dr G G WOODS: Madam Speaker, further to what has already been said, in particular about the coming of the new Public Finance Management Act, the PFMA, we note that we will be changing the whole way we see unauthorised expenditure in future, and we, indeed, will be changing the whole way in which it is processed.
Up to now we have had to rely on this very heavy compliance approach and it has been very necessary. This, of course, means compliance with vast rules which govern the spending practices of Government. In fact, this is an expenditure control system that has been the only tool Government has had thus far, as it has sought to protect public funds from poor or dishonest use. As the new Act shifts us from an intense control environment to more of a performance environment, the rules will greatly reduce. I think the most obvious effect will be to significantly reduce the instances of unauthorised expenditure which otherwise arise because of technical reasons and where the state has in fact suffered no loss, these being those which are currently classified as unauthorised because, for example, they do not comply with some nonessential tender board regulation.
If we look at the Bill before us, particularly Schedule 1, there is actually a very small amount of actual loss to the state, most of it being there for technical reasons. If we further consider the total amount which constitutes unauthorised expenditure in the current year or immediate past years, then this is usually less than 0,5% of the full Government spending. Therefore there is no need for panic, even though there is still need for some concern. But all this does mean that in future we can expect a far thinner finance Bill when the new Act comes into being.
I think, contemplating the detail of the lists in the Bill before us, one will of course notice the odd incident which does demand our special attention, where an official’s actions are simply inexcusable. These actions need to be fully considered and responded to in order to send out the right message and to discourage repetition. Hopefully the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts, when investigating and processing these instances, and making its recommendations to Parliament, will achieve just that.
I would like to say a word or two about Schedule 3. Other speakers have also referred to this, the approximately R4 billion of the TBVC countries. Of course, this arrear is from a particularly difficult time in our history, and I think one is always going to be left with something of a question regarding the ease with which this R4 billion has been discounted and written off. We have 303 instances out of 305 which have been included in this list, and one always asks the question whether there was perhaps more that we could have done. However, at the time we had to be satisfied with the efforts from the provincial level that the records were simply in a state of disarray and I think they went a long way towards convincing us that there was very little chance of fully investigating those amounts and recovering them. However, as I say, it is an opportunity to close the door on another part of that history which we would like to put behind us, and for that reason we will certainly support this Bill.
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Madam Speaker …
Mr J H MOMBERG: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: May I just find out - because of the fact that Mr Lee is sitting with the New NP - whether a special ruling has been made for crossing the floor between the two opposition parties?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.] Please proceed, hon member.
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Madam Speaker, the amount of R4,1 billion referred to in Schedule 3 of the Bill represents the last direct monetary remains of the apartheid regime in respect of the former homelands and probably reflects only a fraction of the financial cost of a political ideology that caused so much human suffering and pain. It closes the book on money spent on the former homelands and reminds us never to repeat the same mistakes. The R4,1 billion being authorised in this regard equals the R4 billion of unspent money and funds reported by the Auditor-General during the 1998-99 financial year, representing nearly 5% of that year’s total budget. In the same way that we are critical of money wasted on a political ideology, we are also critical of wasted opportunities when budgeted funds are not spent.
We trust that the new Public Finance Management Act will have the effect to reduce the amount of money over or underspent. This puts a huge responsibility on the national Treasury, the Auditor-General, Government departments and this House. The UDM supports the Bill.
Mr L M GREEN: Deputy Speaker, hon members, the clearing of the accounts of the former TBVC states and self-governing territories has been an outstanding matter for a very long time. The legislation before the House today finally deals with this outstanding matter and, when passed today, will authorise the expenditure of R4,14 billion by the former TBVC states.
Our acceptance of this Bill today will enable the new provincial structures to clear the relevant book entries. This Bill also gives effect to resolutions by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts that R133,8 million of unauthorised Government expenditure, dating back to the early 1990s, be authorised by Parliament. The Bill will further authorise R15,2 million in unauthorised expenditure that had not been transferred to the Central Revenue Fund. For these reasons, the ACDP therefore supports the passing of this Bill.
Mr B NAIR: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister and members, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts had, over the years, grappled with the problems of unauthorised expenditure, non-adherence by departments to Treasury instructions, and the tender board rules, of proper financial management and internal controls, amongst other things. Some accounting officers have consistently failed to carry out these strictures, or recommendations that we had made. The latest Auditor-General’s report on national Government deals extensively with the problems of financial management. The issue that confronts us is how to contain financial mismanagement.
Now, thankfully - and this has already been mentioned by the previous speakers - we have the Public Finance Management Act which came into operation in April, and is in the process of being implemented. High- powered and well-motivated human resources and equally well-equipped technology are required for the successful engineering of the Public Finance Management Act. The Treasury, like Sars, must of necessity be well equipped, well motivated, efficient and business-oriented. The cost involved will be high and it will not be surprising if the Treasury demands greater resources for its enterprise.
Only yesterday the public accounts and finance portfolio committees were briefed by the Treasury on plans to implement the Public Finance Management Act. Emphasis is being placed on training of staff, recruitment of expertise and upgrading of technology so that effective financial management of revenue and expenditure, and of assets and liabilities, can be attained. This will mean proper internal audits and controls, monitoring and reporting, performance budgeting and accountability. Capacity-building will be intervowen and constitute an ongoing programme. In time, accounting will change from cash to an accrual system to ensure effective accountability.
In the past few years, many changes have been made in the management of public finance. The reorganisation of the South African Revenue Services and the resultant efficient revenue collection, have brought more money into the coffers of the state. Now, the reorganisation of the Departments of Finance and of State Expenditure into a single entity will ensure effective oversight over departments. Correspondingly, there will be greater delegation of powers to departments, which will, in turn, have to ensure proper delivery and accountability to the Treasury.
Given the will of the heads of Government to implement the Public Finance Management Act, and backed up by sufficient resources, in a few years we may witness the more efficient financial management of Government. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, I would like to thank all of the members who have participated in the debate for their support for this Bill. I think a word that one would like to convey is that essentially the spirit of the Public Finance Management Act is properly captured in the issues that have been raised here by members. These are the very problems that we are trying to deal with so that in future South Africa does not experience the sort of things that we find ourselves having to address in the Finance Bill. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time. BANKS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, the Bill that we are debating today essentially seeks to simplify and improve certain provisions of the Banks Act, which, in the process of administering the principal Act and through consultations with foreign supervisory authorities and international standard-setting bodies such as the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, were found to be advisable.
It improves the principal Act - makes it accord more with international banking standards and best practice as set out in the Basle Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision. These core principles are intended to serve as a basic reference for supervisory and other authorities in all countries and internationally. Accordingly, the amendments contained in the Bill are proposed in order to ensure that the South African legal framework, in terms of which banking institutions and banking groups are regulated and supervised, remains relevant and current, and in line with the latest national and international developments and standards.
After a lengthy process of consideration, the Standing Committee for the Revision of the Banks Act appointed by the Minister of Finance has approved the envisaged amendments described in the Bill. The committee consists of, among others, representatives of the banks, the Banking Council, credit unions, stokvels and the Postbank.
In summary, the amendments that we are effecting through this Bill are to insert certain new definitions; to provide for the designation by the Reserve Bank of more than one Deputy Registrar of Banks - this is really because of growing responsibilities; to provide for the confidential treatment of the due diligence report drawn up in consequence of conducting a due diligence audit on the financial condition of a bank; to substitute a process of review for the existing process of appeal against decisions of the Registrar of Banks; to empower the Registrar to authorise a banking institution to use or refer to itself by a name other than the one under which it is registered; further to consolidate principles of good corporate governance with regard to the membership of the audit committee of a bank; to abolish the judicial management of a bank that is in financial difficulties and instead thereof to render the process of curatorship of such a bank more comprehensive; to increase the minimum capital and unimpaired reserve funds required to be maintained by a bank from R50 million to R250 million; and to provide for addition capital and reserve funds to be maintained by banks in respect of their trading in financial instruments.
We also provide for the maintenance of an aggregate minimum capital and reserve funds in respect of a banking group; allow banks greater flexibility in the utilisation of their liquid assets; introduce further safeguards in respect of large exposures constituting credit risks to banking institutions; and, finally, we seek to create and prescribe penalties for certain further offences.
With these few words, I would like to open this debate on the Banks Amendment Bill.
Prof B TUROK: Deputy Chairperson, much as we welcome your accession to the
throne, I was hoping that the Deputy Speaker would be here because I have a
point to make which she would have appreciated very much. In the course of
our discussion of this Bill in the Portfolio Committee on Finance, we came
across a formulation that something must happen at his own expense''. The
committee said no, we must puthis or her’’, and the law adviser said no,
because the principal Act talks about his'' therefore the amending
legislation cannot talk abouthis or her’’. And it seems to me that this
is a matter that the House should be aware of, that we are stuck in a
groove of old legislation which is male dominant and cast in the language
of the past. I think some of the hon members here must take it up in the
right place.
This Bill is a rather important one because of the context. The object is to create greater certainty in institutions which are based on risk. We often talk about banks as ordinary businesses, forgetting that a bank is fundamentally a risk institution. They risk capital because they gear money that one puts into the bank and use that to invest in various places and this is done in an atmosphere of risk.
Last week I attended a conference in New York of some 2 000 delegates who were concerned about the state of the world and a great deal of discussion took place about the financial institutions and the financial regulation of those institutions worldwide. The conference was held in parallel to the United Nations Millennium Conference and it was attended by many heads of state and various leaders of the UN who participated in both meetings. What came out very strongly was a recognition that current economic uncertainty internationally is based on a crisis in the banking system.
This Bill of ours is meant to ensure that our own banking system is not only prudent and well regulated, but that it behaves in accordance with those requirements that are now recognised internationally. This is particularly important because of the recent crisis in East Asia, where there was a contagion effect in the whole economy because the banks had been lending too much.
Our committee was also cognisant of the fact that in the United States one of the largest banks, the LTCM, almost went bust because the gearing was too high. That bank had a certain quantity of money. They lent far more, on a very high gearing ratio, and therefore created a danger not only to that bank, but to the whole of the financial system in the United States and internationally.
One of the issues reflected in this Bill is the complexity of banking worldwide. We have local banks, we have foreign banks, we have conglomerates and we have branches. The definitions draw attention to three different kinds of banking institutions. Firstly, there is a banking group which is a part of a financial structure which is not involved in banking. But they are linked and therefore the prudential activities of the banking branch can have a serious effect on the other parts. Furthermore, this can affect the financial system irrespective of the domicile of that branch.
We therefore have conglomerates, which are worldwide, in which in one part there is risk and in another part there is not so much risk, but the one can infect the other. Then we have a branch of a bank, which is a foreign institution, which is not a public company, but nevertheless does banking in South Africa. Thirdly, we have a South African bank which conducts banking outside South Africa. So we have a huge complexity of relationships between financial institutions, hence the need for prudential consideration.
One of the safeguards that were brought in is that tertiary capital is required in the case of those banks which trade in financial instruments, because now we have a system worldwide which has instruments called derivatives, which are very volatile and create enormous hazard in the financial sectors all over the world. Therefore we want additional prudential requirements for those institutions.
I should say that the committee was also a bit concerned about a clause in
the original draft which said that people who are summoned by a board of
review are compelled to attend, and the committee felt that, in order to
have a safeguard, that person should have legal representation. However the
Department of Finance insisted that it should be at the individual expense
of the person summoned and that the Department of Finance or the Government
should not have to foot the bill. It is in that clause that the word
his'' was inserted and we could not get the wordher’’ in, because, in
the cause of gender equity, some will want ``her’’ to pay as well. I hope
the female members of the House will forgive that comment.
Finally, there is the question of the R250 million. Many members of our committee felt that this was too high for a new bank, ie that it would be prohibitive for a new black bank, for example. We discussed this at length and the explanation that was given us was that …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your speaking time has expired.
Prof B TUROK: Midsentence! Thank you, Chair. [Applause].
Dr G G WOODS: Mr Chairperson, this Bill reinforces and updates the key premises of the Banks Act and does so as a necessary response to recent developments in the banking industry. Among these developments are rapid changes in the banking industry with the formation of new financial-type collectives. Together with this has been the development of new marketplaces and the growing use of particular financial instruments. I think when such developments take place in an industry in which huge consumer interests are at stake, there is an obligation to revisit the relevant law and to evaluate its existing appropriateness and potential effectiveness.
However, firstly, just let us briefly remind ourselves of the key objectives of the Banks Act against which these amendments should be considered. Essentially the Act provides a framework of supervision for the banking aspects of financial services and issues the prudential rules it expects banks to follow. The prudential rules in significant part relate to the capital and the liquidity adequacy of banks, or to the capital ratio as we refer to it. Clause 12 of the Bill, which relates to section 70 of the Act, seeks to adjust this adequacy level, as mentioned by the hon Ben Turok, from R50 million to R250 million. I think this is where we expect to have some problems, or an outcry from the industry, because it is the most substantial amendment within the Bill. However, pleasingly, the banking industry, via the Banking Council, saw fit to support that, as they did the new definition of tertiary capital.
The other noteworthy amendments are those concerning the new treatment of separate entities which, in fact, constitute a banking group, particulars of which are adequately described in the Bill. I think the conducting of more confidential, diligent audits, as mentioned by the Deputy Minister, the changing of the appeal process to a review process, and the Bill’s additional protections in respect of large credit exposure risks and foreign banking connections all contribute to the Act’s regulatory objectives, which go towards ensuring a high level of efficiency in the provision of financial services, and do so in a way which adds further stability to the entire financial system. I think, in view of these positive amendments, we support the Bill.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, before I call Mr Rabie, some members are causing me to focus rather sharply on them. I will not identify who they are, but I hope they do not become the subject of my total attention.
Dr P J RABIE: Mr Chairman, hon Deputy Minister, hon members, the Banks Amendment Bill contains a number of internationally accepted amendments dealing with issues that relate to the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, and the New NP supports this Bill.
As some of the other speakers have already mentioned, the Expressions
bank'',branch of a bank’’ and ``banking group’’ are defined. Clause
1(b) stipulates the process of review to be followed if a decision has been
taken by the Registrar of Banks, and some of the relevant banks are not
satisfied with it. Clause 1(c) is also significant as it refers to liquid
assets. The consideration of the credit risk that long-term securities
entail is stressed in this context. Another feature of the Bill is the
repositioning of the definition of primary share capital, which means
capital obtained through the issue of ordinary shares, nonredeemable and
noncumulative preference shares, or prescribed categories of preferred
securities.
Clause 1(f), again, repositions the definition of secondary capital, also
obtained through the issue of cumulative preference shares, ordinary
shares, prescribed categories of debt instruments, and it also defines
unimpaired reserves, which relate to funds obtained from actual earnings,
prescribed percentages, including percentages of the amounts of any surplus
resulting from a revaluation of assets. Tertiary capital'' is defined as
accrued current-period uncapitalised net profits derived from trading
activities’’.
Clause 2 provides for more than one Deputy Registrar of Banks, allowing a maximum of four. It allows for more specialising and it may result in a flatter report structure. I think this is also a significant improvement in this particular Bill. Clause 3 provides for the conducting of a due diligence audit of the financial conditions of a bank in the interests of the bank under audit, and it is also in the interests of the depositors and possible future transferees.
At present the banking sector operates in a global economic financial environment. It is of the utmost importance that the South African banking sector be allowed to implement clause 5 of the proposed Banks Amendment Bill to allow the Registrar of Banks to authorise the use of a name other than the one under which the banking institution is registered, but by which the institution is generally known and conducts its business.
Clause 8 consolidates the position in respect of the members of a bank’s audit committee. The chairperson of the board of directors may not serve as a member of the bank’s audit committee and this is also in line with international best practice. Clause 12 amends section 70 of the principal Act which sets out the minimum capital reserves, as referred to by Prof Turok. The reserve fund requirements with which banks must comply increases from R50 million to R250 million. Bearing in mind that other types of banks, mutual or co-operative banks, can be started with as little as R10 million, it is also considered to be in the interests of the general public. Clause 15 is significant, because it further safeguards the interests of banks in respect of large exposures constituting credit risks to banks, and extends these safeguards to single controlling companies, local branches of foreign banks and foreign branches of local banks.
Die Suid-Afrikaanse banksektor en finansiële markte het ondanks ‘n hoë mate van turbulensie op die internasionale markte die dekade van die neëntigerjare baie goed deurstaan. In hierdie verband moet ons beslis verwys na die banksektor wat ‘n leidende rol gespeel het om die Suid- Afrikaanse finansiële sektor ‘n integrale deel van die internasionale markte te maak, en ek dink die hele ekonomiese groei kan slegs geskied indien ons hierdie kosbare kleinood van ons bewaar en verder uitbou.
‘n Beroep word op alle rolspelers gedoen, insluitende die Regering, om die banksektor uit te bou. Banke werk met openbare geld en daar is risiko daaraan verbonde. Die leen van geld is gegrond op ‘n baie hoë morele verantwoordelikheid. Banke het morele verpligtinge ten opsigte van aandeelhouers rakende dividende, maar dit is ook gebiedend noodsaaklik dat die banke hul aandeel in die bemagtiging van die agtergeblewe sektor uitbou sodat hierdie persone en rykdom- en welvaartverspreiding ‘n breër aansluitingsbasis kan vind. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In spite of a high degree of turbulence on international markets, the South African banking sector and financial markets have weathered the decade of the nineties very well. In this regard we definitely have to refer to the banking sector which played a leading role to make the South African financial sector an integral part of international markets, and I think that overall economic growth can only occur if we preserve and further develop this valuable asset.
We appeal to all key players, including the Government, to develop the banking sector. Banks work with public money and there are risks involved. The lending of money is based on a very high moral responsibility. Banks have moral obligations towards shareholders as regards dividends, but it is also imperative that banks develop their share in the empowering of the disadvantaged sector, so that these people and the distribution of wealth and prosperity may find a more general point of connection.] I studied an article which was published in Business Day on 8 September 2000, page 2, where South Africa’s microeconomic environment is analysed by a well-known professor attached to the Harvard Business School, by the name of Michael Potter. He says that South Africa has an outstanding asset in the macroeconomic front and he refers to the banking sector. He also says that our particular banking sector is extremely sophisticated, and that it allows us to compete internationally. In fact, he refers to our competitive edge. He ranks South Africa 13th in this regard.
However, we should not be complacent because some of the other sectors are anything but sophisticated. For example, our police protection is ranked third from the bottom. Only three other countries - Mexico, Venezuela and Ecuador - are regarded as higher risk than ours. I think this is a serious constraint, and we should really give our undivided attention to that. The positive news, however, is that South Africa is ranked 25th out of 58 countries in the macroeconomic area, but only 33rd in areas such as economic growth.
The banking sector is an integral and indispensable component for future South African growth. Potter says that South Africa and Turkey exhibit an unusual combination of ``sophistication in a developing economy. We will have to continue to cope with the unusual political changes which may inhibit or improve our competitive economic competitiveness.
Ons kan baie praat oor die banksektor. Laat ons hom nie die swartskaap maak nie. Laat ons hom as een van die kroonjuwele van ons ekonomiese sektor beskou en hom verder uitbou. [Applous.] [We can say a lot about the banking sector. Let us not make it the black sheep. Let us view it as one of the crown jewels of our economic sector and develop it further. [Applause.]]
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Mr Chairperson, we welcome the long-overdue amendments to this Bill. Both the introduction of a new definition of a banking group and the high amount of the minimum capital requirement now bring South Africa in line with the generally accepted international banking norms generally referred to as the Basle principles. This makes it possible for the Office for Banks to conduct supervision of financial conglomerates of which one or more banks are members. I notice that the Deputy Minister of Finance is in the House. Therefore, allow me to make an observation about the role of our formal banks and economic transformation. It is clear that there is a lack of progress and, seemingly, no sense of urgency in this regard. We therefore appeal to the Minister of Finance to alter the existing Government levy on all banking transactions to a low ad valorem rate of 0,05%. We estimate that this should generate an additional revenue of at least R10 billion per annum, which could be used effectively to enhance black economic empowerment, and thereby accelerate economic transformation in our country. The UDM supports the Banks Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members, the Banks Amendment Bill raises the aggregate minimum amount of capital and the reserve funds to be maintained from the R50 million which was laid down six years ago - that is a long time in monetary terms - to R250 million. We believe that this increase will not be harmful to small banks. I think that that was the argument during the debate in the portfolio committee. This increase has been necessitated by the growth in inflation, the expansion of the banks’ activities and the need to enable local banks to remain competitive in a globalised market. The Bill also provides for additional capital to be kept by banks that participate in financial instruments trade. It introduces a new provision that requires the separate entities that constitute a banking group also to maintain an aggregate of minimum capital and reserve funds. Another amendment will allow banks the flexibility to use their liquid assets for purposes of intraday accommodation at the Reserve Bank discount window. We also welcome the fact that a process of peer review will replace the current process of appealing against the decisions of the Registrar of Banks.
These amendments are necessary, and they are needed. Therefore, the ACDP has no difficulty in supporting the Bill.
Mr M S BOOI: Mr Chairperson, after long deliberations by the portfolio committee and looking into the principal Act preceding this one, the ANC has agreed on this Bill and is supporting it.
However, there were a few issues that were raised by the Bank Adjudicator which were quite important. The first point was the consideration of transparency - and how transparent appointments were going to be. To us, those were quite relevant and important issues which we applied our minds to. We said that we would have to continuously encourage and make sure that the Minister ensures that transparency does take place.
The second point was the issue of legal representation of those who are going to be called by the Registrar during tough times when they face liquidation. So, it would be very important that they have some legal representation. Without legal representation they might feel they are being interrogated, because of the wording used in the Bill. We thought that it would be quite sensible and reasonable for us to encourage them and allow in the legislation for them to have some legal representation.
I do not think that the issue of R250 million, as reflected, has to be viewed as something impacting on small industries or small, medium and micro enterprises, but it should rather be viewed as something that will assist us to assist the banking community to build some viability and more confidence. It is very important, within the South African and world context, as well as in the politics of globalisation, that we ensure that we have entry that is quite sound and acceptable within the norms of business in the banking community.
So the R250 million, from our point of view, is quite acceptable and we think that it will not impair the small banking community or the small, medium and micro enterprises from having a chance of getting in. Comrade Ben Turok has already indicated that, although the principal Act was adopted only in 1995, it has had a huge impact on the issue of gender sensitivity, which we have raised. We also hope that there will be quite a lot of improvement in how they look at that particular issue.
Relating to one of the last issues that was raised, clause 70A really defines what banks have to do as different groupings, that is, what do they have to do when they are aligned as a bank with different groups, how do they address that type of relationship, and how do we see the impact when the Registrar looks into this. Does the Registrar have to ensure that they are included, or are the people that are included in the banking community being treated in isolation?
We have always been saying that these issues are quite important in the banking community, and that whenever there is a bank that is involved with that particular community, the issue of risk which goes with banking is one that we always have to ensure we can counter. We should not just ensure that the risk is taken away by just being moralistic, or by just saying that the issues will not impact on the economy of the country. Therefore, we are saying that the banking community, in relation to that banking group, will always have to ensure that it takes responsibility in relation to the banking group, and that it does do so. So, what I am saying is that we support the Bill, and we go along with it. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairman, again, one would like to thank all the members who have participated in the debate. Clearly, we are not being controversial today because I think all the parties are supporting the Bill that we have placed before this House.
Regarding an issue that was raised by the hon Koornhof, I am not quite sure that I fully understood the proposal that he was tabling. However, I think the issue that he seeks to address is an issue which is occupying our minds currently. If one were to go even by the approach that has been taken by the Black Economic Empowerment Commission in the report that they outlined to Parliament yesterday, I think that there is an important message that is coming out of that, that we do need a more comprehensive approach but also an approach that seeks to bring in various players in trying to deal with this particular problem.
I think that the issue of investment for growth is an important one because it makes that point, which is: let us come together and focus on the question of growth and come to some agreement as to what to do. We will have an opportunity once the final report has been tabled to have more focused and more comprehensive discussions around the question of black empowerment. But, clearly, it remains a critical challenge that faces South Africa.
With those few words I would like to thank all those members who have participated. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The Bill will be referred to the NCOP for concurrence. Hon members, because of your kind co-operation, I am once again delighted to be able to conclude the business of this day early. The House is adjourned.
The House adjourned at 17:03. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister of Sport and Recreation on 4 September 2000
submitted a draft of the South African Sports Commission Amendment
Bill, 2000, as well as the memorandum explaining the objects of
the proposed legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson in
terms of Joint Rule 159. The draft has been referred to the
Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation and the Select
Committee on Education and Recreation, respectively, by the
Speaker and the Chairperson in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(1) Second Adjustments Estimate of Expenditure to be defrayed from
the National Revenue Fund during the Financial Year ending 31
March 2000 [RP 5-2000].
(2) Explanatory Memorandum to the Adjustments Estimate for 1999-
2000.
- The Minister of Transport:
Report and Financial Statements of the Road Accident Fund for 1998-99,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
for 1998-99. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on SMME sector, dated 31 August 2000:
The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, having held public
hearings on the promotion of the SMME (small, medium and micro
enterprise) sector and the role of banks, reports as follows:
The Committee and the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the
National Council of Provinces held the public hearings on 14 and 21
June 2000. The immediate background to the hearings was a workshop on
SMME promotion, organised by the NCOP, where it was reiterated that
access to finance was a critical issue and new initiatives were called
for in relation to banks.
The objective of the hearings was to examine the extent of the
involvement of banks in SMME finance and problems encountered in this
regard, as well as proposals to increase access to finance by SMMEs.
The hearings attracted a good deal of public attention. Many
individuals wrote to the Committee with specific complaints, and many
significant stakeholders gave oral evidence. The hearings were intended
to contribute to a positive way forward and to highlight the work still
to be done.
A. Banking Council and Associated Banks (Absa, Nedcor, Standard
Bank)
The Council began by highlighting a number of steps they had taken
since the Committee's 1999 hearings on bank charges and micro-
finance. These included the introduction of a new Code of Banking
Conduct, appointment of an Adjudicator independent of the Council,
the establishment of a community-based financial institution,
Sizanani, and the recent discussions with Khula around the
provision of venture capital.
The Council pointed to a structural tension between their
involvement in economic transformation and the maintenance of a
"sound financial sector". It acknowledges that there is a need for
economic restructuring, including the drawing of historically
disadvantaged people into the formal economy, income
redistribution and addressing problems created by low levels of
capital accumulation and entrepreneurial skills.
This needed to be balanced against the need to maintain a sound
financial sector in line with international best practice.
According to the Council, the unfolding international environment
is creating new competitive pressures, thereby placing certain
constraints on the banking industry in South Africa. These include
pressures to eliminate cross-subsidisation and to scale down less
profitable activities.
The Council presented a profile of the SMME sector in relation to
the cost and size of loans. It argued that the unit costs of
making loans to micro-enterprises were too high for banks, which
could also not provide the support needed for entrepreneurs with
limited managerial skills. They said banks could only become
involved in financing very small businesses through specialised
institutions such as Sizanani. The banks are, however, currently
very much involved in servicing the small and medium enterprise
sector and could expect to continue to be involved in this segment
of the market.
Absa, Nedcor and Standard Bank provided a profile of their
individual institutions, mission statements, total loan book and
some indication of their involvement in the SME sector. It was
apparent that the three institutions were using different
criteria, and from the information presented it was difficult, if
not impossible, to determine what percentage of the loan book was
going to black entrepreneurs. Indeed, some of the banks themselves
acknowledged that they had no real basis for measuring which of
their clients were previously disadvantaged individuals.
The Council proposed the establishment of community-based
financial institutions to service the micro and very small
sectors, which it said the banks could not finance. The Council
also proposed the strengthening of the NGO and retail finance
intermediary sectors that are currently involved in this function.
The Council also proposed the strengthening of the Sizanani
project. No clear answers were provided to repeated questions
about banks' engagement in "red-lining" practices.
B. Business Association, Investment Group, Financial Consultancy
1. South Cape Investment Network
The presenter referred to the constraints imposed upon smaller
enterprises by banks. The Network proposed that black-owned
and -controlled small businesses face more challenges than
those owned by their white counterparts. A case study was
presented of a bank manager who refused to open a cheque
account for an empowerment group.
It was reported that black entrepreneurs continue to face
hostility from white bank managers, who are unsympathetic to
the experience and plight of black-owned small enterprises.
The Network, in collaboration with other stakeholders in the
Southern Cape, has taken up the issue of racism in the
financial sector to the Human Rights Commission. Some of the
issues raised included staff and management attitudes, red-
lining and a general disregard for the South African context.
2. Western Cape Black Business and Professionals Alliance
The Alliance comprises several institutions operating
throughout the country, and consists of accountants, building
contractors, lawyers and the Black Management Forum. According
to them, a key challenge is the changing of an existing
mindset in the banking industry that sees black business as
representing a high risk. Banks are doing very little to
provide start-up capital, guarantees and bridging finance for
small black business.
The Alliance focused its submission on the construction
industry. Three areas were addressed: Provision of bank
guarantees, access to bridging finance and bank credit ratings
of construction companies. Black contractors are currently
receiving construction tenders through government procurement
processes, but are unable to source funds from the relevant
financial institutions. The Alliance reported that their
members are then forced to either forfeit the contract or
enter into a joint venture with a white company. According to
the Alliance, this trend does not contribute to economic
empowerment.
Similarly, access to bridging finance, credit ratings and
financing of commercial property in black areas are barriers
to emerging small entrepreneurs. A construction tender
requires bridging finance and a credit rating from a financial
institution. Banks have given several negative ratings to
members of the Alliance. They said that these problems are not
confined to micro and very small enterprises. They said that
small and medium established black-owned businesses (not just
start-ups) were encountering such problems.
3. EYETHU Butchery
The presenter, the owner of several properties and businesses
employing more than 40 people, is an established entrepreneur
with a proven track record. She has been a customer of
Standard Bank for the past 19 years. She characterises her
relationship with the bank as a "hands off" relationship that
has not contributed to her success or business growth. It was
reported that the local bank manager does not have a "passion"
or commitment to the development of SMMEs.
Bureaucratic requirements, imposed by the bank, have slowed
down the growth of her business. Several of her (white)
competitors have developed more co-operative relationships
with the bank manager and are receiving preferential terms
from the bank. Access to working capital is often restricted
due to stringent collateral requirements. It was reported that
when collateral is provided, banks are still hesitant to
provide access to finance. This impacts negatively on the cash-
flow and stock levels of the business, which in turn
influences the growth of the business.
4. Citizens Finance, Financial and Business Consulting
The presenter highlighted the important role of banks in
contributing towards the economic growth of the South African
economy. Previous government policies were not supportive of
SMME development, especially black-owned SMMEs. It is
estimated that black entrepreneurs received less than 2% of
the total bank credit under the previous government. It was
argued that the policy of banks has not changed in respect of
SMME finance.
Banks look more favourably to financing empowerment deals that
involve mergers and acquisitions. Banks view SMMEs as a high
risk, but poor performance of SMMEs is due to underdeveloped
entrepreneurial skill, which in turn requires access to
finance. There is no history of an understanding between banks
and black communities. The government has begun addressing
several of these challenges through the SMME strategy. The
effectiveness of the strategy needs to be evaluated.
Banks, in turn, have also introduced several measures,
including the Community Bank, that was recently closed down.
Banks have also established the SMME desks and the Sizanani
project. It was suggested that the government had
overestimated the role of banks in advancing the SMME sector.
In general, government policies have been correct, but the
implementation has been more difficult than envisaged. As part
of a way forward, the presenter proposed that SMME policies be
targeted and focused. The existing economic structure needs to
be changed. This is a long-term objective.
Banks must find new and creative ways of providing access to
finance. The SMME sector must be made less risky. More
training must be provided. The government must increase
funding to SMME programmes and actively support business
associations. It was suggested that consultation between banks
and the government needs to be strengthened to provide
targeted financial services. The presenter concluded by
proposing an improved communication between banks and the
government so as to establish a dynamic relationship.
5. Diakonia Council of Churches (DCC)
The objective of the DCC is to contribute to peace,
development and a better quality of life for the people of the
greater Durban. Individual congregations have expressed
concern over the increasing unemployment and poverty in the
region. The DCC is a result of a response to the local
situation. A project of the DCC includes life skills and
technical and small business training. In the past four years,
over 1 500 people have been trained in a range of skills such
as sewing, electrical installation, carpentry, construction
and motor mechanics. The presenter highlighted that the idea
of skills training is to generate "job creators" rather than
job seekers.
Several case studies were provided, which emphasised the
importance of access to finance in creating a culture of
entrepreneurship, facilitating employment and providing income
to large numbers of vulnerable people. Several barriers to
micro enterprise development were identified: Banks exclude
micro entrepreneurs on the basis that a minimum amount must be
maintained in a bank account; banks open accounts for people
with permanent jobs only; and banks levy excessive
administrative costs and conditions. The micro and very small
enterprise sector is an important income generator for a vast
number of people.
The DCC proposed a change in the banking "mindset" on risk and
economic growth. It also proposed the removal of collateral
requirements for certain loans in the micro and very small
enterprise sector, no minimum amount for loans, that interest
be charged at market rates and that loans not be linked to
savings. The DCC also called for improved sensitivity of bank
staff in local branches.
6. National African Federation Chamber of Commerce (Nafcoc)
The submission focused on the failure to accord organisations
like Nafcoc a more prominent role in the SMME programme, the
demographic make-up of staff in the Department of Trade and
Industry responsible for the SMME programme, and the slow pace
of land reform, as constraints faced by black entrepreneurs.
Nothing specific was said about banks and access to finance by
SMMEs.
C. SA Reserve Bank: Bank Supervision Department (BSD)
The presentation highlighted the importance of banking and the
significance of a sound, credible financial environment for
economic growth. The Banks Act of 1990 provided for "prudential
regulation and risk management" of financial institutions. This
Act, reflecting a number of concerns of the time, focused on the
regulation of deposit-taking institutions and prohibited non-
registered entities from accepting deposits. The BSD's main
function is to protect depositors and maintain sound credit
standards. The presenter stressed the importance of a sound
credible financial system, and called for circumspection when
addressing structural challenges.
It was reported that over the years a number of initiatives had
been taken to address constraints experienced by "unbanked
people". These included the passage of the Mutual Banks Act, the
promotion of community banking, stokvels, savings co-operatives,
village financial service co-operatives, the launch of the
Mortgage Indemnity Scheme and consultations with stakeholders
about alternative strategies to informal financing and micro-
lending.
There have also been moves to establish an effective regulatory
environment for the micro-lending industry through the Micro-
Finance Regulatory Council. It is possible that this Council will
facilitate the accepting of deposits by micro-finance
institutions. It was reported that FinaSol and the Financial
Services Association have been appointed as regulatory bodies for
the village financial service co-operatives. All of these
initiatives have more or less operated on the basis of exemption
from the Banks Act.
The presenters expressed the view that what was needed in the
medium to long term was to facilitate the emergence of new
institutions that might be more effective than banks in financing
SMMEs. They argued strongly that the government should not force
banks to lend to SMMEs, the so-called stick method. They felt that
greater success might be achieved by increasing competition in the
market. This might be achieved by encouraging the emergence of a
securities market as an instrument for accessing finance. Various
co-operative ventures could also be encouraged. The success of
this strategy will largely depend on the availability of financial
information.
It was reported that the Reserve Bank, due to improper practices
encountered by various institutions in the past, had expanded the
definition of a deposit-taker. This placed certain restrictions on
the emergence of what may be more appropriate financial
institutions. What was required, was a streamlining and refocusing
of legislation, including the Banks Act, the Companies Act, the
draft Collective Investments Schemes Bill and the draft
Investments Services Bill, to overcome current legislative
restrictions that make it impossible to access the securities
market for SMME finance. Redefining deposit-takers in conjunction
with the fine-tuning of the above legislation was called for as
part of a strategy to promote competition between financial
instruments. The presenters also supported greater compulsory
disclosure by financial institutions of their involvement in
community-based activities, including provision of finance to
SMMEs.
D. Government
1. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Chief Directorate:
Business Regulation and Consumer Services, and Khula
Enterprise Finance
The DTI highlighted the importance of the SMME sector as a
means of poverty alleviation, a vehicle for black economic
empowerment, in increasing competition and promoting job
creation. The many barriers to SMME development were re-
emphasised.
The National Enterprise Survey, commissioned by The Presidency
with the support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, had
reported that black-owned firms found it more difficult to
access finance than their white counterparts. The same survey
found that while access to finance was not a major problem for
South African companies in general, it was for black-owned
SMMEs. These problems were particularly acute for recently
established enterprises, i.e. those that are three years and
younger.
The survey highlighted the following problems experienced by
SMMEs in accessing finance: A lack of collateral and equity
finance, effectiveness of affirmative procurement, perception
of risk, failure rate of start-ups, management support
systems, high costs of operating SMMEs, and the adequacy of
credit guarantees. The survey also found that there were
relationship problems between bank managers and black
entrepreneurs, regulatory inconsistencies, problems with high
interest rates, the Usury Act, the Credit Agreement Act, a
lack of second-tier institutions and tax incentives.
Structural and institutional challenges require sustainable
interventions at several levels. As with other stakeholders,
banks have a crucial role to play in the formation of capital
in the economy. The DTI recognised the global constraints
experienced by banks in South Africa, and argued for an
approach which balanced the need for sound banking practice
against the imperative to extend services to people excluded
from financial services. The growth of the micro-lending
sector had exposed the slow responsiveness of South African
banks in entering profitable markets.
The government will continue to encourage banks to improve
access to finance for disadvantaged communities and also to
promote alternative financial institutions. It was noted that
it was becoming increasingly difficult to measure the extent
of credit extension to SMMEs due to definitional
inconsistencies, but studies have agreed that overall bank
credit extension was low. Another key challenge facing the
government was to work to improve banking practices in
relation to black entrepreneurs. It was noted that SMMEs
complained of continued discrimination and blacklisting.
The presenter highlighted that banks were crucial to any SMME
strategy as a result of their outreach, capital base, product
and expertise. Lack of competition in the banking sector
remained a fundamental problem. The DTI supported the
promotion of the micro-lending and credit union sectors as
alternative instruments, as well as the easing of regulations
to allow smaller banks to establish themselves. It was
reported that the DTI, in consultation with other departments,
was looking into the implementation of a disclosure
requirement mechanism. The presenter cautioned against simply
importing a US-based Community Reinvestment Act, given the
different structural model of US banking. There was, however,
support for compulsory disclosure of the type contained within
this type of legislation as a step towards financial reform.
The low level of bank utilisation of the Khula Guarantee
Scheme was also highlighted as a concern, and the DTI is at
present monitoring the unfolding scenario in this regard. The
participation of a range of stakeholders in developing a
strategy to address the many challenges facing the SMME sector
in accessing finance was supported.
D. Conclusion and recommendations
Improving access to finance for black-owned SMMEs is agreed by
virtually everyone to be a major priority of economic policy.
The hearings identified a number of "structural" and
"relationship" challenges that will have to be addressed in making
this priority policy objective a reality.
Structural issues include transforming the present financial
architecture to make it more appropriate to current priorities.
This was argued particularly in the submission of the SARB. A
number of scams in the 1980s led to the introduction of strict
controls over deposit-taking institutions, which, while still
warranted in many respects, tended to limit the emergence of other
financial institutions. Alternative institutions today are still
largely operating on the basis of exemptions from the Banks Act or
Usury Act, rather than according to their own purpose-built
regulatory framework. The Committee agrees with the SARB that
there is an urgent need for a systematic and inclusive review of
the broad legislative and regulatory framework of financial
institutions with a view to devising strategies to encourage the
emergence of a range of institutions that might serve this segment
of the market.
At this time, the Committee is of the view that the banks need to
play a more active role than they have to date. The banks
themselves agreed that provision of finance to small and medium
businesses was very much an activity they needed to engage in, and
that by co-operating in specialist divisions like Sizanani, they
could serve the "very small" sector as well. The only real debate,
even according to the banks themselves, was over whether, and how,
they could be involved in serving the micro sector.
The Banking Council suggested that the costs of finance, as well
as being linked to the size of an enterprise, was also a function
of the degree of access to collateral and the level of managerial
skill. The Committee proposes the exploration of creative
partnerships to address such constraints, to deal with the
perception of risk and co-operate in the promotion of alternative
financial institutions. Organisations like the Industrial
Development Corporation are already playing a crucial role in the
provision of finance, and need to be more actively drawn into the
strategy.
Mentoring is generally agreed to be a major challenge, both to
transfer skills and as a mechanism for reducing risk. Focused and
targeted training linked to loan applications is clearly required.
Ntsika Enterprise Promotion Agency has already launched several
mentoring programmes. Banks need to be engaged, both on ways they
can contribute to improving the efficiency of such programmes and
on how they can be validated in the process of loan applications.
The system of payment of government contracts also needs review,
particularly as it impacts on SMMEs. The Committee is aware that
the Public Finance Management Act should lead to ending the
practice of long delays in payment for work completed. However,
the question of finance for the period between the award of a
tender and completion of a contract needs attention. Black
business people complain that banks are currently not providing
bridging finance for SMMEs that have been awarded tenders. Being
awarded a tender, coupled with a proven ability to perform,
should, in the Committee's view, be regarded as a form of
collateral by banks. Relevant procurement authorities and banks
should explore this issue.
In addition to structural issues, there are clearly also a number
of relationship problems. There are too many black-owned small
businesses who complain that attitudes to banks are less than
positive and who feel that relationships are "at arms length", for
this dimension to be ignored. Entrepreneurs complain of an
alienating and unsympathetic environment, and there is a clear
perception that black businesses are viewed less favourably than
white.
The Committee draws attention to the fact that banks could face
litigation under equality law if they engage in discriminatory
practices, including "red-lining", which many say continue to be
prevalent. Equality law also obliges banks and other institutions
to establish proactive measures to combat the effects of
discrimination, particularly in relation to race, gender and
disability. The Banking Council, in its submission, also drew
attention to equality law and, in fact, invited aggrieved parties
to use this remedy to deal with any discriminatory bank practices.
Beyond this, the Committees believes that banks need to urgently
review what the SARB called the "politeness factor", and develop a
more positive attitude towards SMMEs. Steps need to be taken to
ensure that decisions taken by top management in this regard are
translated into meaningful change at the level of local managers
and officials.
Furthermore, in the Committee's view, there is an urgent need for
a uniform system of disclosure that will allow the performance of
particular institutions in providing SMME finance and other
national priority activities to be measured and compared to the
performance of other institutions. The Committee is of the view
that this will require legislative and regulatory intervention.
There was, in fact, virtual unanimity amongst presenters that
uniform disclosure requirements allowing for such measurement were
necessary. While the US Community Reinvestment Act was developed
in a specific context, different in significant respects from our
own, a broader discussion of the type of legislation that is
appropriate to specific South African conditions needs to be
encouraged.
The Committee noted that only one national black business
organisation representing SMME interests participated in the
hearings. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment that
the Nafcoc presentation offered little insight on the issues under
review, which the National Enterprise Survey identified as major
constraints. Black business needs an organised leadership to
champion their cause and lobby and negotiate in a more favourable
climate. The Committee hopes that organised business in general,
and black organised business in particular, will in future be more
proactive in presenting proposals to deal with the many
constraints that black small entrepreneurs face.
The Committee would like to thank all those who participated in
the hearings and endorsed the continued engagement between the
government, organised business, black business and banks.
Report to be considered.