National Assembly - 04 April 2001
WEDNESDAY, 4 APRIL 2001
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 15:00.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers and meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NEW MEMBER
(Announcement)
The Speaker announced that the vacancy caused by the death of Mr I B Ntshangase had been filled, in accordance with item 6(3) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution, 1996, by the nomination of Ms A N Luthuli, with effect from 2 April 2001.
OATH
Ms A N Luthuli, accompanied by Ms B O Dlamini and Mr B A D Martins, made and subscribed the oath and took her seat.
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mrs M A A NJOBE: Chairperson, 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 -
(a) 7 April is World Health Day with the theme being mental health;
and
(b) this is in recognition of past neglect, the high burden on
society and human rights abuses;
(2) welcomes Government’s increased spending on mental health programmes and services;
(3) calls on the Government to further ensure that an environment that links medical models with community programmes is created;
(4) further calls on the Government to ensure that where services exist they are accessible, appropriate and comprehensive; and
(5) urges individuals and communities to stop excluding those who suffer from mental and brain disorders, and to promote tolerance and acceptance towards those who have disabilities.
[Applause.]
Mrs G M BORMAN: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that Deputy President Zuma has announced that he will not be opposing President Mbeki for the leadership of the ANC;
(2) records that prior to this statement, South Africans were not aware of the possibility of the Deputy President standing for election; and
(3) resolves to request the hon the Deputy President to reconsider his decision.
[Applause.]
Prof L B G NDABANDABA: Chairperson, 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 -
(a) with appreciation that thousands of reservists assist the SA
Police Service on a daily basis;
(b) that these reservists are volunteers and are not paid for their
services; and
(c) that these reservists are exposed to the same dangers as full-
time members of the SAPS; and
(2) acknowledges the vital role played by reservists in assisting the SAPS in fighting crime and protecting our communities.
Mr M K LEKGORO: Chairperson, 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 President of the Republic, the hon Thabo Mbeki, met with representatives from the religious fraternity;
(2) further notes that the meeting discussed arms procurement, poverty relief, the Aids pandemic and other matters of national interest;
(3) commends the religious fraternity for embarking on this most important initiative; and
(4) expresses the hope that the religious fraternity will co-operate with the Government in tackling poverty and the effects thereof and in fighting the Aids pandemic.
[Applause.]
Mr I J PRETORIUS: Mnr die voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) met ontsteltenis kennis neem van die toenemende aantal gevalle van geweld, veral op voorstedelike treine, waartydens baie pendelaars dwarsoor Suid-Afrika op ‘n daaglikse basis gedood, ernstig beseer of beroof word;
(2) erken dat die jongste voorval van ‘n pendelaar wat gister vroegoggend in Kaapstad wreed vermoor is, dringende optrede noodsaak;
(3) dit skokkend vind dat die Regering toelaat dat die toestand op treine so agteruitgaan dat pendelaars nou hulle lewens op die spel plaas elke keer as hulle trein ry; en
(4) die Minister van Vervoer, Metrorail en die SA Polisiediens versoek om dringend ‘n onafhanklike ondersoek na die probleem te loods om daardeur die veiligheid van pendelaars te verseker. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr I J PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, 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 dismay the increasing number of incidents of violence, in particular on suburban trains, during which many commuters right across South Africa are killed, seriously injured or robbed on a daily basis;
(2) admits that the most recent incident of a commuter who was brutally murdered in Cape Town early yesterday morning necessitates urgent action;
(3) finds it shocking that the Government is allowing conditions on trains to deteriorate to such an extent that commuters are now putting their lives at risk every time they travel by train; and
(4) requests the Minister of Transport, Metrorail and the SA Police Service to conduct an independent investigation into this problem as a matter of urgency in order to ensure the safety of commuters.]
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Chairperson, 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) notes with shock that from a total of nearly 30 000 applications received for special pensions, nearly 16 000 applications still await adjudication and that only one in every five applications have been approved to date;
(2) believes that the Special Pensions Amendment Act of 1998, Act 75 of 1998, which is aimed at compensating people who have missed opportunities during the struggle period, has therefore not achieved its aim;
(3) expresses its dismay and dissatisfaction that this situation has been allowed to develop over the last few years, depriving people of what Parliament intended them to receive; and
(4) calls on the Government urgently to address this sad derailing of affairs, and especially on the national Treasury to put its own house in order on this matter.
Mrs N R SHOPE: Chairperson, 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 Minister of Social Development, the hon Zola Skweyiya, and his department had a reception party in Gugulethu;
(2) further notes that this is the first budget reception party to be held in an historically disadvantaged area;
(3) believes that this move assists in bringing the Government closer to the people; and
(4) commends the Minister and his department for embarking on this important initiative.
[Applause.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairman, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the PAC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Soweto Teachers’ Choir commemorated its founder and choirmaster, the late Jabulani Mazibuko, last Sunday and that Prof J M Khumalo of Witwatersrand University was among the dignitaries;
(2) notes that in 1987 the Soweto Teachers’ Choir toured the United States of America and sang at the United Nations before the Special Committee Against Apartheid, winning much sympathy for the anti- apartheid, anti-colonial struggle in South Africa;
(3) observes that the music of the Soweto Teachers’ Choir has not been played by the SABC for a long time; and
(4) urges the SABC to pay attention to this authentic African music in order …
[Time expired.]
Mr J P J BLANCHÉ: Mr Chairman, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the FA:
That the House - (1) notes Judge William Heath’s remarks that ``corruption governs a South Africa led by people who are not serious about fighting it’’;
(2) further notes that corruption has become the norm rather than the exception in South Africa due to the ANC’s lack of political will to combat corruption in all spheres of society, including government contracts;
(3) calls on the Government to ensure that it leads by example; and
(4) urges the Government to ensure that the necessary steps and investigative bodies are in place to investigate, without delay, any allegations against any politician, public servant or private company.
Mr A C NEL: Chairperson, 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 belligerent remarks of Cape Town Mayor, Mr Peter Marais, regarding his appearing before the Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation;
(2) believes that his remarks indicate not only obstinacy and obduracy, but also ignorance of the law; and
(3) cautions Mr Marais to study the legal implications of his actions, to study our Constitution and to respect the powers of Parliament as defined in our Constitution, regardless of how they may compromise his delusions of grandeur and power.
[Applause.]
Mr I O DAVIDSON: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move:
That the House -
(1) expresses its shock and outrage on behalf of all the people of South Africa, and especially the poor, at the ANC’s inability to address the spiralling and out-of-control fuel price, which since President Thabo Mbeki came to power on 16 June 1999, has increased by a massive 47% to R3,77 a litre;
(2) notes that since President Thabo Mbeki came to power in June 1999 paraffin has increased by a shocking 274%;
(3) further notes that when President Mbeki came to power in 1999 the exchange rate of the rand was R5,98 to a dollar and it has since dropped to a new record low with this morning’s fixing at R8,15 to a dollar, indicating a drop of 36,3% since 1999; and
(4) urges President Thabo Mbeki to restore confidence in South Africa as an investment destination by addressing maladministration, job creation, corruption and crime and, when next he surfs the Internet in order to find solutions to problems, to redirect his search to www.da.org.za.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, your time has expired. The rest of your notice will be printed. I think that when the hon member said that he was moving, he actually meant that he was giving notice.
Mr M A MZIZI: Chairperson, 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 Tshepo Matloga was brutally murdered on 26 March and that his body was dumped in the Arabie Dam, almost 200 km from the scene of the crime;
(2) further notes that Matloga’s remains were recovered from the Arabie Dam on 2 April by the SAPS; and
(3) congratulates the SAPS personnel on their sterling work in recovering the body under very hazardous circumstances, including being threatened by crocodiles.
Mr G P MNGOMEZULU: Chairperson, 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 -
(a) the significant contribution that community involvement made in
ensuring the conviction and long prison terms for the murderers
of Valencia Farmer;
(b) that the community contributed to the arrest and conviction of
the abductor of little Lebogang;
(c) the successful arrests in the case of the biggest cash-in-
transit heist in Phoenix; and
(d) the conviction and long jail sentence meted out to a Pagad
member last week;
(2) congratulates the SAPS and the communities for proving that close co- operation in the fight against crime is effective;
(3) believes that community participation is critical to crime prevention and needs to be strengthened; and (4) calls on communities and the SAPS everywhere to emulate these concrete examples.
[Applause.]
Adv A H GAUM: Mnr die voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis daarvan kennis neem dat -
(1) Minister Mosiuoa Lekota, Minister van Verdediging, se onlangse uitlatings tydens die BBC-program Hard Talk, naamlik dat die omvang van plaasmoorde nie skrikwekkend is nie, ‘n klap in die gesig is van honderde plaasboere wat daagliks vir hulle lewe en hulle veiligheid vrees en nie deur die SA-regering beskerm word nie;
(2) die lighartigheid waarmee mnr Lekota die erns van die misdaadsituasie in ons land afgemaak het, getuig van die ANC-regering se halfhartige houding teenoor hulle mees basiese plig, naamlik om die mense van hierdie land te beskerm; en (3) mnr Lekota boonop te kenne gegee het dat hy nie die raming van kriminoloë, naamlik dat daar elke 26 sekondes ‘n vrou in SA verkrag word, en die bekende feit dat ons misdaadsyfer van die hoogste in die wêreld is, aanvaar nie, wat die Regering se taktiek versinnebeeld om die land se mees knellende vraagstukke, soos misdaad en HIV/Vigs te ontken. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Adv A H GAUM: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House notes that -
(1) the recent remarks by Minister Mosiuoa Lekota, Minister of Defence, during the BBC programme Hard Talk, namely that the extent of farm murders is not alarming, is a slap in face of hundreds of farmers who daily fear for their lives and safety and who are not being protected by the SA Government;
(2) the light-hearted way in which Mr Lekota brushed aside the seriousness of the crime situation in our country bears testimony to the half-hearted attitude of the ANC Government towards their most basic duty, namely to protect the people of this country; and
(3) Mr Lekota moreover indicated that he did not accept the estimate by criminologists that a woman is raped in South Africa every 26 seconds and the well-known fact that our crime statistics are among the highest in the world, thereby symbolising the Government’s tactics of denying the existence of the country’s most pressing problems, such as crime and HIV/Aids.]
ELECTION OF DR PIETER MULDER AS LEADER OF FF
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Deputy Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that the hon Dr Pieter Mulder has been elected as leader of the FF;
(2) congratulates him on his new position; and
(3) expresses the hope that he will continue to play a positive role in strengthening peace and democracy in our country.
Agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think it is incumbent on the Chair also to express on behalf of the presiding officers our felicitations and good wishes to Dr Mulder. May he lead the FF with the great skill that he has.
FIRE AT JOHANNESBURG BLOCK OF FLATS
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Deputy Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes the tragic fire in Johannesburg in which six people died and 12 others were injured after a block of flats caught alight, possibly as a result of an illegal electricity connection; (2) calls on all citizens to take heed of the danger of flouting building safety regulations; and
(3) extends its sympathy to all those who have suffered loss in this tragic incident and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.
Agreed to.
EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF OPERATION OF SECTIONS 51 AND 52 OF CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, on behalf of the hon the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House gives its consent that the President by proclamation in the Gazette extend the period of operation of sections 51 and 52 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 (Act No 105 of 1997), in terms of section 53(2) of the said Act for a further period of two years, with effect from 1 May 2001.
Agreed to.
SECOND READING DEBATE ON HOUSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, 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 253, the Second Reading debate on the Housing Amendment Bill [B 7D - 2001] (National Council of Provinces - sec 76) be conducted today.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON FILLING OF VACANCIES ON COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY
Ms L M T XINGWANA: Chairperson, hon members, I am privileged and honoured to present to the House the Report of the Ad hoc Committee on Filling of Vacancies on the Commission for Gender Equality. We believe that this is a good team that will meet the challenges facing the Commission for Gender Equality at the dawn of the African century.
All the candidates were nominated on the basis of merit selection, and I would like to emphasise that the team will bring diverse skills and experiences which we believe will enrich the commission. We have well- respected academics, gender activists, and women from the working class and from the rural areas. We also have most of our provinces represented in the nominations. We believe that this team will also be representative in terms of gender.
The concern raised about the need to address the gender imbalance within the commission has been acknowledged. We have now added a man who was supported by all the political parties in the ad hoc committee meeting that was held yesterday. The concern raised concerning ethnic or tribal representation was rejected outright by the committee as unconstitutional. This was also not acceptable since our criteria - I repeat - was based on merit selection and not on tribal or ethnic considerations or party- political lines.
Besingenakuze siwugqibe lo msebenzi ukuba besijonge ukuba amaMpondomise namaQwathi akhona na kolu luhlu. [We would not have been able to complete this work if we looked at whether the Mpondomise and Qwathi clans are present in this list.]
Definitely, this commission could not cover all the tribes and ethnic groupings of South Africa, such as Ndebele, Venda, Greek, Chinese and Portuguese. We, however, have amongst our nominees Dr Meintjies, an outstanding gender specialist from Wits University, whom the committee believes will be able to represent various communities, including church groupings, university academics, professionals and ordinary rural women. Dr Meintjies was nominated by the Women’s National Coalition, which is representative of various political parties in this House.
Over and above that, we have other candidates who, like her, speak Afrikaans and other languages, and who can address diverse communities and cultural groupings throughout the country. The ad hoc committee therefore believes that the team is representative and inclusive, and the committee has tried its best to nominate the best qualified candidates to fill the vacancies in the Commission for Gender Equality.
The committee further believes that the nominees will meet the challenges facing the Commission for Gender Equality, that is equity, development and justice. The ANC therefore recommends that the House adopts the report. [Applause.]
Mrs B N SONO: Mr Chairperson, the commission observes:
It cannot bring about gender equality without the support of and partnership with individuals and organisations.
This is from a framework policy document produced by the commission’s head of policy and research, Mihloti Mathye. That is a reality check. The last time I did an audit of the political landscape, not all women and men in the country belonged to the ANC. As a result a significant proportion of the women and men in this country do not have representation on an institution established through the Constitution and supposed to be independent.
The exclusion of all candidates nominated by the DA component bears testimony to this. Once again, the ANC women’s leadership have exhibited their inability to rise above narrow party-political partisanship. [Interjections.]
There has been a single alteration, an addition of another man to the list, which did not come about because ANC women thought it prudent, but because of unhappiness from opposition parties. Members of the ANC ad hoc committee openly admitted that they were excluding candidates proposed by the DA purely on the ground that they, as the ANC, are not represented in the Western Cape, affirming the notion that commissioners are political appointees. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
The recent developments have all but discredited the commission as an agent for transformation and a watchdog for gender equality. According to the Constitution, the commission … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, please take your seat.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, there is such chaos in the House, it is impossible to … [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, when someone is taking a point of order, I think you need to afford the Chair the opportunity to listen to what the point of order is.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, the same discourtesy which was shown to me is being shown to the person who is trying to address the House. I ask you to call the House to order. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I think we are dealing with a very important subject and I think you would like to know what the hon member at the podium is saying.
Mrs B N SONO: Mr Chairperson, firstly, the recent developments have all but discredited the commission as an agent for transformation and a watchdog for gender equality. Secondly, according to the Constitution, the commission is meant to be one of the state institutions strengthening constitutional democracy. Thirdly, according to section 181 of the Constitution, it is an independent institution which must be impartial, exercise its powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice.
It is against this background that the DA cannot vote for this list, and would like to appeal to President Mbeki to send the list back to the National Assembly with the directive that the commission be fully representative and inclusive.
Prof H NGUBANE: Mr Chairperson, Ministers and colleagues, last week the IFP could not accept the list of nominees selected to fill positions on the Commission for Gender Equality. Today the IFP is happy to support the names on the new list, as the list now fulfils the specific constitutional requirements of a broad gender representation. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
We are very pleased indeed, and we must thank the ad hoc committee for taking our concerns on board. I hope these debates have helped to focus our minds more precisely on the differences between gender issues and women’s issues, which in usage we tend to conflate. I congratulate the new incumbents and wish them all well in their demanding new task. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to say to the hon member that she is selling out at a low price? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Who was the member who said that?
HON MEMBERS: Ken Andrew!
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Mr Andrew, would you like to explain yourself? [Interjections.] Order, please!
Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, it is a political comment. With an insignificant and almost irrelevant concession to the IFP they have succeeded in swinging the IFP vote, and in my view it is selling out at a low price. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Considering that the matter is of a political nature and the Rules do allow, within their ambit, the making of political comments, I think I will rule that it is not unparliamentary. [Interjections.]
Mr V B NDLOVU: Ngisacela ukubuza Sihlalo, kuchaza ukuthini ngempela ukuthi kuthiwe umuntu emele abantu, kuthiwe udayisa umuntu - ngento engenamsebenzi! [Chairperson, what does it mean when one says that someone who is representing people is selling out - for something worthless!]
If the IFP is representing the people here and Ken Andrew says that we are selling out at a low price, what does that really mean?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think yesterday when the Speaker made a ruling - and over the number of years that the Speaker has ruled on this subject - she indicated where the cut-off point is. If an hon member makes a comment which goes against the grain of an individual member in the House, that is ruled out of order.
She further ruled that comments that are in respect of a department or a political party are permissible. Unless you want me to take this matter on review, which I can, going on the basis of what has so far been the guidance given by the presiding officer, that is the Speaker, I think it is permissible. Mrs Seaton, I will take you first.
Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, I ask that you take the matter on review.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I will gladly do that. [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, your ruling, with great respect, was quite clearly correct. What the hon Ken Andrew said is not unparliamentary, and your ruling is therefore correct. [Interjections.] If that is going to stop people nagging you, though, then take it on review. I am sure that your final ruling will bear out your original ruling.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think that since what you are saying is not inconsistent, I will take this matter on review and rule after looking into the matter further.
Mrs M E OLCKERS: Chairperson, the New NP is reiterating its standpoint on this issue, as we put it to this House five days ago. What happened in the ad hoc committee is that the report we are debating here represents a missed opportunity by the ruling party to ensure inclusivity, national reconciliation and nation-building. [Interjections.]
It is a travesty of a proper process for appointment, and one of the worst examples of the ANC using its parliamentary majority to force through a commission that, until yesterday’s political manoeuvring, only had one man and 10 women, as the ANC wanted it. This list - which consisted of one man and 10 women, and has since become two men and nine women - can, by no stretch of the imagination, be nominated for a commission which is regarded as speaking on behalf of the women of South Africa.
They are candidates that the ANC wants. There is not a single candidate from any of the opposition parties. The DP nominated four outstanding candidates with national and international reputations for promoting women’s development. As far as the majority party was concerned, the trouble was that they were politically incorrect. The New NP agrees that among the candidates before this House, there are many worthy nominees. However, there are some even worthier candidates that have been excluded by the ANC majority purely on political grounds. Yes, this list has been adapted so that another man could be appointed. But the group should be more representative and inclusive. We certainly still cannot support the list as it is. Members of the ANC in the ad hoc committee openly admitted that they were excluding candidates proposed by the New NP and the DP as a political quid pro quo for removing an ANC office-bearer from her post in the Western Cape. According to the Constitution the Commission for Gender Equality is meant to be one of the state institutions … [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, I am sorry to interrupt the person who is speaking, but may I draw your attention to the fact that when speakers of other parties address the House, the House listens with a modicum of respect. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] I now have to shout in addressing them. It is bad when people do not know how to behave themselves. [Laughter.]
I am making the point that when members of my party or the New NP attempt to address the House, there is an absolute barrage of noise, to the extent that the people speaking have to shout and scream, as I am having to do now. I am asking you to assert your authority. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Please be seated. Hon members, I think I indicated yesterday that the Chair has one of two options: either to be robust, in which case hon members would generally express dissatisfaction with the fact that the Chair is robust, or to allow you to use your own discretion, thus allowing for the smooth flow of the debate. Of course, you are not being obliging in that respect. That makes it very, very difficult for the Chairperson to guide this particular House. I would like to appeal to you to make it easy for the debate and the business of this House to flow. But if you would like me to be robust, of course, I could be.
The Rules allow for a fair amount of interjections. But they cannot allow for a situation which gets completely out of control. So, I would like to appeal to hon members please to allow the speaker at the podium to be able to express his or her point of view. Proceed, hon member.
Mrs M E OLCKERS: Mr Chairperson, the hon the Minister of Safety and Security has just reiterated what I said, ie that this was a quid pro quo for the ANC losing a post in the Western Cape government, because he says it was tit for tat. He has just confirmed what I insisted was a political ploy.
By their conduct, the majority of the ANC in the ad hoc committee jettisoned any pretence of independence and impartiality in voting to nominate as candidates for appointment by President Mbeki only those persons who are in favour with the ANC or who are members of the ANC, if my colleagues in the IFP would note.
What has happened here once again demonstrates the ANC’s growing inability to distinguish between party and state. The New NP seriously questions whether the taxpayer’s money should be spent on this commission. The commission has always lacked credibility. It has always been ANC-SACP dominated. It has been intolerant of independent, dissenting voices. They attempted to get rid of Farid Essack, previously the only man on the commission, because he dared to query certain decisions. [Applause.]
Miss O N MNDENDE: Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members of Parliament, it is a pity that some of the members who came to speak here were not part of the interviewing committee. I was sorry to hear some of the things they said. I also want to say that the UDM supports this report. [Applause.]
The process of filling the vacancies on the Commission for Gender Equality has been a very interesting activity by the ad hoc committee, a group of women and men who tried hard to put aside their differences, both political and personal, in order to concentrate on the needs and concerns of all South Africans, irrespective of their race, class or geographical background. The committee members sometimes had high tempers and agreed to disagree, something that has shown that through dialogue, honesty and tolerance people can find constructive solutions that will benefit all South Africans.
Based on the representivity reflected in the commission, the choice of commissioners on merit and experience and the agreement on their terms of service, we hope that they will perform the way they are expected to. Visibility, research and listening to the people’s needs by speaking to them and not about them, will also help the development of the needy and the vulnerable, especially in the rural areas.
Lastly I want to emphasise that the Act on this commission must clearly state the role of representivity according to political parties. Today we are hearing from other political parties that the nominees are members of other political parties. In our debates it happened now and again that some political parties claimed that their candidates were not being considered, yet the belief was that we should look at the candidates according to merit and that we should also look at equality. This would, in future, prevent the committee which deals with these interviews from being delayed. It must be clear that selection should be above party politics. The UDM supports the report. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Chairperson, the fact that this debate is before this House five days after it did not receive the majority vote, raises a few questions. Why was this process not opened again for reapplication? Does the commission reflect the demographics of South Africa? Is there a fair representation of men on the commission?
Although the composition pertaining to gender has increased from one male to two, it still does not make it acceptable. The ACDP submits it does not reflect a balanced equation, as two out of eleven does not constitute a balance. The ANC have, through manipulation, managed to appease the IFP by getting their man on the list, and this ensured the support of the IFP. There is no doubt that the commissioners are political appointees and this raises some major concerns as to the role and function of the commission. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, please take your seat for a moment. Hon member?
Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, on a point of order: I think it should be noted that he is not our man. [Laughter.]
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Chairperson, the commission should serve all communities, and not only a particular sector of our society. We trust that the commission will focus on the main issues facing our nation and that they will ensure that their policies are conducive to building and strengthening, and that traditional families are not eroded or replaced by skewed ideologies.
Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, again there is no respect for certain members of this House. You silence this side of the House when other members are speaking. I really appeal to you because I experience it all the time.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES; Order! Hon members, it seems to me that it is the conviction of this House that I should start asserting the authority of the Chair. [Applause.] I have no other option but to do so. I would now like to appeal to you please to allow the proceedings to go on without undue levels of noise. I will now be tough with members who are not going to be playing by the rules.
The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Chairperson, whose man is it anyway? [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I wish, hon Minister, that I could give you a reply, but I am not in the privileged position of beimg able to do so.
Dr P W A MULDER: Chairperson, I can assure you that it is not our man. [Laughter.]
At this hour we usually address an empty House, but thanks to the efforts of the hon Momberg and his red notices, today I am addressing a full House. Even the Cabinet is here today. Maybe I should rather use this opportunity to explain the FF policy on self-determination, rather than speak on this issue. [Laughter.]
Dit gaan vandag oor die Grondwet, en spesifiek oor hoofstuk nege se grondwetlike instellings, liggame soos ‘n menseregtekommissie, ‘n kommissie vir geslagsgelykheid en wat daarmee saamgaan.
Ons voorstel in die verlede was dat hierdie sover moontlik konsensusbesluite moes wees. Ek wonder selfs of ons nie ‘n twee derde meerderheidsvereiste moet inbou nie, iemand mag dit vandag voorstel, om seker te maak dit is konsensusvoorstelle. Ons voorstelle vir persone uit die Afrikanergemeenskap is nie aanvaar nie. Ons name was onder aan die lys gewees: nommer 10 en nommer 12. Toe dit moes opskuif, is dit nie opgeskuif nie. Ons verskil dus van die samestelling.
Ons vraag is: hoe moet ons as Suid-Afrikaners, en lede van die opposisie die geloofwaardigheid van hoofstuk nege instellings help bevorder as die aanstellings eensydig is?
Die VF gaan daarteen stem. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[What is at issue today is the Constitution, and especially Chapter nine state institutions, bodies such as a human rights commission, a commission for gender equality and related issues.
In the past we proposed that as far as possible these should be consensus decisions. I even wonder whether we should not stipulate a two-thirds majority prerequisite, someone may propose it today, to ensure that they are consensus proposals. Our proposals for people from the Afrikaner community were not accepted. Our names were at the bottom of the list: number 10 and number 12. When they were supposed to move up, this did not happen. We therefore disagree with the composition.
Our question is: how can we as South Africans and members of the opposition help to promote the credibility of Chapter nine institutions if the appointments are biased?
The FF will vote against this.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members, the ad hoc committee has since come up with an amended list regarding terms of office for the commissioners. In the first report, the committee had terms of office in three categories, and in the amended list the terms are divided into four categories. The Commission for Gender Equality should be more representative and should not be seen as the domain of the women, as this tends to perpetuate a perception that only women can deliberate on issues pertaining to gender.
The introduction of an 11th name in the place of the person whose name had sparked the controversy in respect of the committee’s submission is most welcome. In the light of this and the urgency of the finalisation of the filling of vacancies, as well as the interest this matter has aroused amongst our people out there, the UCDP supports this report. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, hon Ministers, I think it is about time that we stopped bickering amongst ourselves and allowed work to be done. The MF believes that the Commission for Gender Equality should have been established a long time ago. The ad hoc committee has done its job and the MF supports the formation of the Commission for Gender Equality and the selection of the ad hoc committee.
The MF also believes that the commission should ensure equal gender opportunities for the disabled as well, since they possess various skills and could prove to be productive in the workplace. The MF recommends that in addressing these issues, more emphasis be placed on assisting rural women who lack skills and are marginalised in society. It also recommends that legislation be passed to ensure the protection of the girl child.
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, hierdie komitee het verlede week die toets gedop; toe kry hulle ‘n hereksamen en het toe so ‘n bietjie meer punte gekry, maar nog steeds die toets gedop. Ek het verlede week tydens die debat daarop gewys dat geslagskwessies verskillend manifesteer in die onderskeie gemeenskappe. Daarom moet ons so ver as moontlik alle gemeenskappe hierop verteenwoordig kry. Daar was ‘n gulde geleentheid daarvoor en daar is slegs so ‘n bietjie dekoratiewe veranderinge gemaak - alhoewel die verskil tussen ‘n man en ‘n vrou seker bietjie meer as dekoratief is.
Aangesien die kommissie nie verteenwoordigend is nie, kan die AEB nie die saak ondersteun uit. Ons spreek ons spyt uit dat die komitee nie beter werk daarvan gemaak het nie. Ek wil net die voorsitter daarop wys dat die eerste toets reeds deur hierdie komitee gedop is. Indien hulle vandag die tweede toets sou slaag, dan is dit seker regverdig dat ons ‘n derde en beslissende toets volgende week sal hê. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, last week this committee did not pass the test; then they rewrote the test, and gaining a few more points, but they still did not pass it. During last week’s debate I pointed out that gender issues manifest themselves differently in the various communities. That is why we must, as far as possible, get all communities represented here. There was an excellent opportunity to do this, but only a few decorative changes were made - although the differences between a man and a woman are probably a bit more than decorative.
Since the commission is not representative, the AEB cannot support this matter. We express our regret that the committee did not make a better job of this. I just want to point out to the chairperson that this committee has already failed the first test. If they were to pass the second test today, it would surely be fair to have a third and deciding test next week.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the report be adopted.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 254: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, O; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, G B; Bhengu, N R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M G; Buthelezi, M N; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chohan-Kola, F I; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Douglas, B M; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Ebrahim, E I; Erwin, A; Fankomo, F C; Ferreira, E T; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gillwald, C E; Gininda, M S; Gogotya, N J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hlengwa, M W; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabandla, B S; Mabudafhasi, T R; Magashule, E S; Magubane, N E; Mahlangu, M J; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Makwetla, S P; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J M; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Manuel, T A; Maphalala, M A; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Matsepe- Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbadi, L M; Mbulawa-Hans, B G; Mbuyazi, L R; Mfundisi, I S; Mgidi, J S; Mkono, G D; Mlambo-Ngcuka, P G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mncwango, M A; Mndende, O N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Moeketse, K M; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mogoba, M S; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokaba, P R; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloto, K A; Momberg, J H; Mongwaketse, S J; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moosa, M V; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Mpahlwa, M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembi-Mahanyele, S D; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mufamadi, F S; Mutsila, I; Mzimela, S E; Mzizi, M A; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncube, B; Ndabandaba, L B G; Ndlovu, V B; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubane, H; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, S B; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Pahad, A G H; Pahad, E G; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodike, M N; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Routledge, N C; Saloojee, E; Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, E A; Scott, M I; Seaton, S A; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Shabangu, S; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcau, S N; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skosana, M B; Skweyiya, Z S T; Slabbert, J H; Smith, P F; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, S V; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Woods, G G; Xingwana, L M T; Zita, L; Zondo, R P; Zuma, J G.
NOES - 58: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bell, B G; Beukman, F; Blaas, A; Borman, G M; Bruce, N S; Clelland, N J; Cupido, P W; Da Camara, M L; Davidson, I O; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gaum, A H; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Maluleke, D K; McIntosh, G B D; Meshoe, K R J; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Ntuli, R S; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schoeman, R S; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Singh, A; Smit, H A; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Swart, P S; Taljaard, R; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Waters, M.
ABSTENTION - 1: Pheko, S E M.
Question agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted in terms of section 193(5) of the Constitution.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, those who wish to leave the Assembly may do so now, quietly and quickly. Order! Order! Hon members who are departing, please do so quickly.
HOUSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, hon members, comrades and colleagues, housing delivery in the past seven years has satisfactorily addressed the housing needs of the poor within an environment plagued with socioeconomic challenges.
Unemployment and low wages have substantially affected affordability levels in the housing sector. Private-sector investment in disadvantaged areas has diminished. The Government has, however, designed a number of strategies to address these challenges. They include an infrastructure investment approach to stimulate the economy in both rural and urban areas; an urbal renewal strategy to upgrade public infrastructure and boost local economic development; and an integrated, sustainable rural development strategy to enhance the quality of life of the rural poor. These strategies, though, must be placed within the context of the overall plan for economic growth and job creation.
In the interests of good governance and effective delivery, two critical issues have to be addressed by Government. These issues are, firstly, accountable and transparent processes and, secondly, directing Government assistance to the poor. It is with this in mind that we are tabling the Housing Amendment Bill of 2001 to legislate procedures aimed at achieving greater accountability in the housing delivery process, and ensuring that assistance provided by Government to the poor is not misappropriated by criminal elements in society.
The promulgation of the Housing Act provided a comprehensive, regulatory framework for the effective delivery of houses for poor and disadvantaged households in South Africa. The Act laid the foundation by defining the roles and functions of the three spheres of government in housing delivery. It obliged the Minister of Housing to phase out the housing subsidies of the previous dispensation, and made provision for the establishment of the National Housing Code.
The Government has been monitoring the housing environment and evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the housing policy. This is done in order to ensure that our national housing programmes achieve what they are meant to achieve, while, at the same time, looking after the interests of the state and the taxpayer.
I wish to table the amendment to the Housing Act, Act 107 of 1997, which constitutes an effort to address the inefficiencies of state institutional arrangements that we have identified. We are seeking to plug the gaps in the housing policy and also to tie up loose ends by doing the following: abolishing the South African and provincial housing development boards; transferring the powers, duties, rights and obligations of the provincial housing development boards to the MECs responsible for housing; providing for the establishment of panels to advise the Minister and the MECs; empowering the Minister to determine procurement policy in respect of housing development; and putting in place regulatory measures to restrict the sale or alienation of state-subsidised housing.
I want to reflect on the principles that led to the amendments we are proposing. The abolition of the housing development boards at national and provincial level is the result of a careful study of their powers and functions, an audit of their performance and a consultation process with the provincial MECs of housing.
I must mention that since the coming into operation of the Housing Act the South African Housing Development Board has not come into existence. We feel that a board of 15 persons - which was the maximum allowed by the Act
- is too cumbersome for quick decision making. Attendance of board members has proved to be difficult, as most of them are busy individuals who are already preoccupied with their duties, thus derailing the delivery that they set out to facilitate.
The provincial housing development boards had substantial powers to decide on projects and allocate public money to these projects. In addition, public housing assets such as land, houses and flats were under the jurisdiction of the boards. Given that the members of the boards were nominated by the different sectors in housing and appointed by the Minister or the MECs, the issue of whether there was sufficient public accountability by the boards arose. Because board members are sometimes involved in the housing industry themselves, the question of potential conflict of interest also came to the picture.
Over and above the aforementioned factors, the promulgation of the Public Finance Management Act of 1999, provides extensive measures to ensure that state funds are protected. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Ms M M RAMAKABA-LESIEA: Mr Chairperson, Deputy President, Ministers and members, it is so sad to find that there are people in this House who will do anything and waste their precious energy to oppose a straightforward Bill.
May I start by saying that the ANC congratulates the Minister and the entire Department of Housing on a wonderful job well done. The hon the Minister must rest assured that the ANC welcomes this Bill without any reservations. The ANC’s view is that this Bill is the basis on which the housing delivery process can be evaluated.
As a senior citizen, I will focus my attention on the sale of state- subsidised houses. It hurts me, both as a mother and a leader, to see people who have lived in shacks for so many years, not owning a house, giving that house up for almost nothing. It was at that time that we got our people to realise the importance of owning a house. Clause 7 of this Bill restricts the sale of state-subsidised houses until after a period of eight years has elapsed. If, for some reason, one would like to sell one’s house, one will have to offer it to the provincial housing department first.
This is not seeking to tamper with any individual rights to property, as some in this House would like the public to think. This Bill seeks to ensure that housing the poorest of the poor, which remains one of the priorities of the ANC-led Government, is achieved. This clause also states that the advantage of offering one’s state-subsidised house to the provincial housing department is that one will still be eligible for a subsidy in the province to which one will be relocating. May I bring it to the attention of hon members that if we do not put a stop to the sale of state-subsidised houses right now, we will be bluffing ourselves and making a mockery of all the Government’s efforts to house our nation. More than anything, we will be wasting the taxpayer’s money. We will never even get close to solving the problem of the housing backlog that most of our people are complaining about.
The Department of Housing will be spearheading the urban renewal development project, and it will be extremely difficult to achieve some of its goals. For instance, the eradication of informal settlements remains the Department of Housing’s sincere objective. I do not see this being possible in the light of this option of the state-subsidised houses. Frankly, we are engaging in a futile exercise. It is only fair that the Minister should do something about this problem - whereby the Government is paying R16 000, and in the case of the Western Cape, R17 500 - in order for the poor in South Africa at least to gain shelter, and so that this very shelter should not be sold for R500, R200 or whatever ridiculous amount one may think of.
We should all realise that there is a problem. Whatever the reason is why these people are selling their state-subsidised houses, the point is that they are preventing the Department of Housing from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to house the poor.
I am so happy about this Bill, and I sincerely believe that the hon Rhoda of the New NP is happy too, because he has on several occasions appealed to the Minister to draft legislation regarding the sale of state-subsidised houses. I am surprised that since he stopped being a New NP member and became a DA member, he has changed his mind. We are, however, not sure whether he has changed or has been changed. [Laughter.]
What makes matters even worse is the fact that the sale of state-subsidised houses is not only a futile exercise, but also contributes greatly to the perpetuation of the very crimes we are fighting. We should not hamper Comrade Steve Tshwete’s efforts to fight crime by making the situation conducive to crime taking place. For God’s sake, his voice has even gone hoarser than before, shouting to the public: ``Stop crime!’’
There are more shebeens as a result of the sale of houses, because this is what these houses are converted into. As a result of the sale of houses there is too much drug trafficking. These poor people are making it easier for drug traffickers by selling them those houses, which they do not use for residential purposes. From this, one can clearly see that the people who are purchasing these houses are not the poor and the needy.
This practice is prevalent here in the Western Cape, and the responsible government has not done anything to solve the problem. But they shout at the top of their voices when someone decent intervenes. The corruption we are dealing with is the creation of those who were governing before the ANC came into power.
Now they have even formed what they call a Democratic Alliance, just to continue the oppression of the poor. I sincerely think that the DA has to conduct some serious political introspection. [Interjections.] Eight of the nine provinces have welcomed this Bill - all but the Western Cape. They are good at criticising, but not at providing solutions. [Interjections.]
These members clearly prove that the DA does not have the interests of the poorest of the poor at heart, hence they oppose anything that endeavours to improve their lives. I was shocked to find … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr A SINGH: Chairperson, for the information of the hon member who has just spoken, the Western Cape Housing Development Board works very effectively.
This Bill, the Housing Amendment Bill of 2001, totally abolishes the South African and the provincial housing development boards. The abolition of these boards transfers all their powers and functions to the MECs responsible for housing in the provinces. The MECs will have the responsibility of using the power of the boards.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a panel to advise the Minister. The abolition of the provincial housing development boards should be the duty of the provincial legislatures. They should decide on these boards. If they decide that these boards are not competent, they should do something about it, and not ask the national Minister to abolish them. Because certain provinces are experiencing problems with their provincial boards, whilst others are operating professionally and in a transparent manner, why abolish what is working in this country?
What we really needed was for the Minister to urge all provinces to use the KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape examples of how effectively a provincial housing development board can really work. These provincial housing development boards, if they work effectively, ensure that proper checks and balances are put in place with regard to decisions affecting housing development boards in these provinces. These bodies have worked tirelessly to get rid of political controversy and make decisions that are not of a political nature.
The Housing Amendment Bill makes provision for the appointment of a panel to advise the Minister. If this is not an opportunity for a new political appointment, then what is it? Jobs for pals, as the DP always says? If this is going to be one of those kinds of appointments, then the delivery of houses is doomed to failure. If decisions are left to the sole discretion of the provincial MECs, then there are no safeguards to prevent housing funds from being distributed to communities on a party-political basis. It is at the sole discretion of the Minister to determine where housing funds are spent in each province.
What the DP suggests, if this Bill is passed in this House, is that the panel should be made up of professionals such as civil engineers and members of the SA Institute of Town and Regional Planners and other role- players from the housing industry, who are elected on the basis of a transparent and democratic process in order to give the Minister the best advice ultimately to make decisions. The DP will not be supporting this Bill, because we believe it is doomed to failure. [Applause.]
Mr B M DOUGLAS: Chairperson, today we are debating a Bill against the backdrop of a very sad situation in which children and adults have died in a fire in Johannesburg, because they were so desperate that they were crammed into small spaces. They are victims twice over, having been denied access to land and shelter, as well as the right to home ownership. Today the very same people who profited from those laws - which were not beneficial to us - are talking about high and low prices. It is a shame. Many black people paid the highest price. That is why all of us can celebrate today, make these laws and not talk about prices. We are not dealing with vegetables here. We are not in the market.
The Bill before us today has its yeas and its nays, because it is not only an intentionally progressive document which has delivery as its aim, but also a political document. It has its impressions and perceptions and could have some ramifications.
The replacing of the Housing Development Board, which was more of a transitional arrangement, with a broadly political and civic representation in boards - which, unfortunately, lacked legitimacy - was more accommodating and contained checks and balances to neutralise political or ideological experiences. However, some of these boards were bloated, ineffective and slow and did not really bring about any changes in people’s lives.
But with those appointments, it would be wise if the MECs were to consider appointing those very same people or examine the disadvantages when appointing these boards, because those who pay the price must be in the driving seat of the delivery vehicle. One hopes this appeals to the MECs when this panel is appointed. There is a little bit of concern since no guarantees are given to the MEC of a certain ideological orientation with this carte blanche type of appointment regarding powers of procurement and the sale and alienation of state-subsidised housing - a major job-creation and delivery instrument.
Section 10 of the principal Act has good intentions, and the Minister and other speakers elaborated on this earlier. Of course, it limits speculation where drug lords become the chief beneficiaries of these scams, and the poor become very destitute and gullible in respect of those who prey on them. They really become victims of mashonisa [loan sharks], where they borrow money and if they cannot pay it back, they lose their houses. However, many people are also guilty.
Ek wil in Afrikaans sê baie mense neem besit van die huise en verkoop dit teen die prys van ‘n appel en ‘n ei, en trek terug na hul vorige omstandighede in die plakkerskampe. So die `guilt’ is tweeledig. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[I would like to say in Afrikaans that a lot of people are taking possession of these houses, only to sell them for next to nothing and then return to their former circumstances in the squatter camps. The guilt is therefore of a dual nature.]
However, we should also remember that some people have a disempowering effect on black empowerment because black empowerment becomes a casualty. We must remember that many white people, in the past, could, because of the laws, acquire property and extend their houses and, today, they can change their houses into office blocks or guest houses. Today some of them have insurance companies and IT companies. Others are renting out their properties.
So, it shows that we have to be careful with this eight-year process because some people might, in the end, be disadvantaged. Some people might not be able to get a loan to improve their houses or, after having improved it, they might decide to sell it and move into a better house, or rent it out and start a business, or initiatives or developments for themselves.
This economic emancipation in the Act needs some revisiting or some adjustment. Nevertheless, we need to give it a chance and see how it goes. We support the Bill. Mr J DURAND: Mr Chairperson, housing development in South Africa has played a powerful unifying role, bringing disadvantaged people together in sometimes extremely difficult circumstances. The New NP and the DA believe that the benefits of housing assistance should reach as many homeless people as possible, because by giving people ownership of their land and assistance in building their homes, we are creating the national pride this country desperately needs.
Housing development also serves as an engine for economic growth, providing business opportunities for the private sector, and employment for the poor. The ownership of land and housing is the most common vehicle to financing, and could be used to finance a business and create wealth.
The stated purpose of the Housing Amendment Bill is to allow for the abolition of the South African Housing Development Board and the provincial housing development boards and the creation of advisory panels that must be established by the Minister. The main reason for this amendment, as was argued by the ANC and some of its appointed officials, was the fact that most of the housing boards were corrupt. However, if one were to make some enquiries, one would find that the provincial boards in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal worked very well, and most of the role-players were happy with the work that was being done. The only provinces that experienced problems were those led by the ANC. The investigation into corruption in Gauteng, where housing subsidies were claimed for empty spaces in the veld is still fresh in our minds. All this happened while Dan Mofokeng was the ANC MEC for housing. [Interjections.] We know that.
Do not mend what is not broken. Are there no competent and efficient leaders whom the ANC can appoint as MECs? Should the provincial housing development boards be abolished by law? What guarantees do we have that someone like Dan Mofokeng will ensure that there is an alternative mechanism which will ensure that checks and balances are put in place in respect of all decisions affecting housing development in the provinces? This amendment places the control of provincial housing assets in the hands of an MEC like Dan Mofokeng.
The repeal of section 8 of the Housing Act that determines the continued existence, establishment and functions of provincial housing development boards cannot be supported in terms of the Constitution of this country. Housing is a Schedule 4 function, namely, one of the concurrent national and provincial competencies. Section 8 (13) of the Housing Act already makes provision for discretionary rights of provinces, to have either a board or another body dealing with housing matters. By repealing this section, national Government is effectively depriving provinces of the right to choose.
The insertion of section 10A deals with the restriction on the sale of state-subsidised housing by the beneficiaries, their successors in title and their creditors in law, unless the development or site has first been offered to the relevant provincial housing department. Although the stated intention of this clause can be supported, what are the practical problems? The manner in which it is to operate is impractical. Beneficiaries will have to have direct access to the provincial housing departments. This infers that beneficiaries will have to find their way from far-off rural towns to the provincial housing office in order to register the fact that they wish to sell and implement the process.
In order to resell or re-allocate the vacant houses, provincial housing departments would need to establish a databank or a waiting list of potential beneficiaries. Currently, each municipality has its own waiting list for its area of jurisdiction. Provincial departments would have to secure the premises against vandalism and illegal occupation.
The total effect is that provinces would increase their housing stock, and that would have an impact on administration and staffing of provincial housing officers. In Gauteng most housing stock is managed by the city councils through private-public partnerships. Let us not redesign the wheel
- it is running smoothly. Let us remove obstacles and deal with corruption effectively.
The principal Act, and also the Constitution, is based on the sound principle that a function should not be performed by a higher sphere of Government if it can be performed by a sphere closer to the people. The principal Act further seeks to entrench the role of municipalities in housing delivery. We should recognise and reinforce this role, not negate it.
Municipalities and financial institutions are not exempt from selling the property should the beneficiary default. This amendment is flawed in two ways. Firstly, it does not address the corruption that occurs under people like Dan Mofokeng, in which more than R35 million was lost and which will make it very difficult for poor people to access housing. The standing committee on housing in Gauteng was severely criticised by the Public Protector.
Vandag lees ons in die media in Gauteng dat die Openbare Beskermer reeds in September 2000 ‘n verslag vrygestel het oor probleme in die departement. Daar is beweer dat meer as R35miljoen uit die staatskas verdwyn het toe Dan Mofokeng die LUR en Mathole Motshekga die premier was. Dit is omdat kontrakte toegeken is en betalings gemaak is vir werk wat nie plaasgevind het op lee ruimtes in die oop veld nie. Die saak word nog deur die Heath spesiale ondersoekeenheid bekyk.
Die ANC-voorsitter van die staande komitee, Mohammed Dangor, die berugte Jessie Duarte se broer, het raad, advies en inligting van die DA verwerp en ook feite in die Openbare Beskermer se verslag geïgnoreer … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [We read in the media in Gauteng today that the Public Protector released a report in September 2000 already about problems in the department. It is alleged that more than R35 million disappeared from the Treasury when Dan Mofokeng was the MEC and Mathole Motshekga the premier. This is because contracts were awarded and payments were made for work that was not done on empty pieces of ground in the open veld. The matter is still being investigated by the Heath special investigating unit.
The ANC chairperson of the standing committee, Mohammed Dangor, the infamous Jessie Duarte’s brother, rejected advice and information from the DA and also ignored facts in the report of the Public Protector …]
Mr J H MOMBERG: Chairperson, on a point of order: I want to know what the
hon member means by die berugte Jessie Duarte'', which meansthe
infamous Jessie Duarte’’? [Interjections.]
Mr K M ANDREW: She is not a member.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Mr Ken Andrew, I am still considering the matter. Hon member, I think that the reference to the person that has been mentioned is not protected, and therefore the comment is permissible.
Mnr J DURAND: Die Openbare Beskermer het die inligting van die DA en ook die feite in die verslag geïgnoreer. Die DA sê: Skors Mofokeng! Skors Motshekga! [Interjections.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr J DURAND: The Public Protector ignored the information of the DA and also the facts in the report. The DA says: Suspend Mofokeng! Suspend Motshekga! [Interjections.]]
Mr D A HANEKOM: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is the hon member not confusing some of the people he has mentioned with Abe Williams who is now sitting in jail for corruption? [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, that is not a point of order. Hon Durand, you may carry on.
Mr J DURAND: Die DA sê: Skors Mofokeng … [The DA says: Suspend Mofokeng …]
… as we do in such cases. Skors Motshekga! Skors Dangor! Alles het onder hulle neuse plaasgevind. Paul Mashitile, die LUR vir Behuising sal binne die volgende twee weke ‘n volledige oudit in die behuisingsdepartement van stapel stuur. Die DA glo hierdie oudit moet in alle ANC-beheerde provinsies, veral in die Vrystaat plaasvind. Dit is nie nodig om nuwe rade of panele saam te stel nie. Wat nodig is, is ‘n deursigtige proses waarby alle politieke partye en rolspelers betrokke is met die samestelling en funksionering van die rade. In belang van Suid-Afrika en al sy mense, in belang van deursigtige, skoon regering kan die Nuwe NP en die DP nie hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Suspend Motshekga! Suspend Dangor! Everything happened under their noses. Paul Mashitile, the MEC for Housing will launch a complete audit within the next two weeks in the department of housing. The DA believes that this audit should take place in all the ANC-controlled provinces, especially in the Free State. It is not necessary to establish new boards or panels. What is necessary is a transparent process in which all political parties and role-players are involved in the composition and functioning of the boards. In the interest of South Africa and all its people, in the interest of transparent, clean government, the New NP and the DP cannot support this new amending Bill.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members the next speaker, the hon Mr D G Mkono, is making his maiden speech. I request hon members to give him the opportunity to go through the rites of passage.
Mr D G MKONO: Chairperson, I rise in support of this amending Bill. There are some interesting amendments provided for in this Bill. Firstly, with respect to houses built with funds provided by the authorities, the Bill seeks to promote a pre-emptive right in favour of the MECs. The Bill also provides for the MEC to act within certain parameters. In fact, the Select Committee on Public Services of the National Council of Provinces has recommended the insertion after section 10 of the principal Act, of a completely new section, ie section 10A, which deals with the restriction on the voluntary sale of state-subsidised houses.
Whilst the intention of the amendment is to restrict speculation in state- subsidised housing, it needs to be borne in mind that in various instances our people were not allowed to own houses, and I believe that where such ownership has passed on to individuals in respect of houses which they have occupied for more than eight years, these provisions will not apply.
Regarding provisions in the Bill providing for the abolition of the South African Housing Development Board and the provincial housing development boards in favour of the MECs for housing, I believe this brings Government closer to the people. However, the advisory panels provided for in the Bill should be staffed by persons with impeccable backgrounds, and should not be a dumping ground for failed bureaucrats and other civil society pals of MECs.
I have also noted that Minmec Housing was consulted on the recommended amendments. I believe that civil society, interest groups and NGOs should also in future be requested to make inputs.
As this Bill introduces measures which are people-friendly, we wish to commend the hon the Minister and her department.
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Mr Chairperson, the ACDP notes with concern the abolition of the South African and provincial housing development boards, and the transfer of all their powers, duties, rights and obligations to the Minister and MECs for housing.
The national Government is eroding the rights of provinces and imploding the concurrent competencies of provinces. Reasons cited for abolishing these boards are that the administrations are not operating in an equitable, accountable and transparent manner. Ipso facto, transferring these powers to the Minister does not mean that he or she will operate in a fair, transparent, competitive or cost-effective manner as reflected in section 217 of the Constitution. The Government now becomes partisan, and its neutrality now becomes questionable.
If there are any persons acting mala fide, then they should be charged. If rules are not adhered to, then the regulations should be fine-tuned. Nothing precludes the Minister from temporarily suspending that particular board and undertaking the necessary restructuring, but to take the drastic steps of abolishing these boards leaves room for suspect assumptions. The ACDP does not support the Bill.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Mr Chairperson and hon members, the provision of housing to citizens of this country is one issue we look forward to. The establishment of the advisory panels - one national and nine provincial - is a step in the right direction because housing development boards have failed their litmus tests. We only hope that the Minister and the MECs will remain in charge as laid down in the Bill, and that at the end of the day they will take responsibility and be accountable for all their actions.
It is just unfortunate that the terms of office of these panels are not specified in the Bill and a situation may arise where their membership may be terminated at the drop of a hat. It is as unsafe as it is unacceptable to stipulate in the legislation that periods will be determined by the Minister or MECs at appointment.
The UCDP fully concurs with the two new clauses relating to the restrictions on the voluntary and involuntary sale of state-subsidised houses. We hope this will regularise the allocation of houses and all related matters. The UCDP supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, may I at this stage take this opportunity to compliment the hon M M Ramakaba-Leslea and the hon D G Mkono on their maiden speeches.
The MF supports the Housing Amendment Bill and applauds the national housing programme for including, as part of its objectives, the prioritising of the needs of the poor; meeting the special housing needs of marginalised women and people with disabilities; and encouraging and supporting individuals and communities in their efforts to meet their own housing needs by assisting them in accessing land and services and providing information.
The MF supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr K M MOEKETSE: Chairperson, Deputy President, hon members, the Government has recently established support institutions for various departments. Likewise, the Department of Housing established the provincial housing development boards in the hope that they would support and add value to the housing delivery process. Our ongoing evaluation process in the department led us to realise, in sadness, that the provincial housing development boards were not helping us to achieve our primary goal of housing the poorest of the poor. This makes it logical to abolish these boards, for the reasons I will outline.
When an investigation was conducted to assess the activities of the boards, it was discovered that most of them were not operational at all. In fact, one direct question was asked as to how many of them report back to their sectors about the activities taking place in the provinces. Out of 100 board members all told, only one could answer in the affirmative. From this answer we could sense that there was no accountability at all. As for those who have been complaining about the checks and balances, they should be applauding the abolition of these boards.
It was further discovered that board members were being paid for doing virtually nothing. The tasks that they were supposed to be performing are being performed by the provincial housing departments. The screening, evaluation and assessment of applications were ultimately the work of the provincial departments. We then asked ourselves: Why are we still paying these people? It makes sense that we should abolish the boards.
We have come to realise that it was not clear how decisions were being made by private individuals or board members with regard to the approval of projects. Questions such as why project X should receive priority over project Y, could not be answered. Furthermore, prioritisation of areas of development was a problem, as the MECs were not given powers and this led to further transparency problems.
This left us with a big question: Can we leave this huge responsibility to private individuals with no direct accountability? We were left with no alternative, but to do away with these boards. This inevitably makes saving important. This Bill seeks to do just that.
The House will recall that these provincial boards consisted of 15 to 18 members. When combined nationally, one is looking at over 100 board members, each claiming R10 000 per month. Adding o the cost is the service given to these board members by secretaries who also have to be paid.
In essence, maintaining these boards means double costs. Worst of all, these boards sometimes met once or twice a month, or even quarterly, but still members claimed and qualified for an amount of R10 000 per month. If we are really concerned about overspending, we should realise that when one overspends, one does not get value for one’s money.
It is against this background that the Bill before us seeks to replace these provincial boards with panels consisting of only six members. The panel will operate in a task-based fashion. They will be called in for specific issues and will be paid for specific work. These panelists will not need secretaries, telephones and huge offices maintained by provincial departments, but will simply give assistance as and when it is required. I must add that these panelists will be people with high expertise and qualifications in those specific areas. This will, in return, enhance housing delivery and add value to the taxpayer’s money.
To say our people will not be properly serviced when the power vests in the MECs is politically incorrect and misleading. There is a Constitution in place which protects the rights of all citizens. The powers and functions of the MECs will be well-defined. Furthermore, delivery will be speeded up, since it will no longer take 3 to 5 years just to approve the applications, as sometimes happened with the boards. We surely will not have incidents of applications getting lost. We are now looking at the approval of applications within two months.
Some hon members are complaining that too much power has been given to the Minister to dismiss panel members. [Time expired.]
The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, a few days ago the Western Cape province and the unicity council proposed dissolving the local RDP committees which are responsible for allocating houses. Do hon members know what the reasons were? They said it was because there was a lack of accountability and there was a need to place this responsibility with government officials. We are now doing this at national level, and they are crying foul.
But I will tell hon members why they do not want us to get rid of the boards. The boards are a remnant of apartheid institutions. In the Western Cape it is quite evident that the housing development board was selective in terms of distributing resources. All or almost all ANC councils are denied subsidies, because people heading those councils are ANC members. This is what they are doing. [Interjections.]
Secondly, people are saying this is unconstitutional: we have checked with the state law advisers; we are on track and there is nothing unconstitutional about the amendment. Thirdly, let me inform hon members about something. Some members are claiming that the KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape housing development boards were the only boards that were functioning properly. This is incorrect. Gauteng, the Northern Cape, the North West, KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape are going to spend all their money and they are leading in delivery. This has nothing to do with those two boards. It does, however, have something to do with the work that has continuously been done by the administrations of the councils in the provinces.
When we did an audit and took a decision to amend this Bill, the heads of the departments in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal were part and parcel of these task teams. I am surprised that some hon members are now working against the same policies that they promoted earlier. I would like to remind hon members that some people are saying this and that about Dan Mofokeng. When all of these irregularities were taking place, the boards were present and in existence. If they are so perfect and good, then why did they not identify the problems we had?
Hon members should also remember that Dan Mofokeng was not a developer: he was in the department, and the people who gave us reports that the work was being done were some engineers and contractors. This had nothing to do with Dan Mofokeng. The reports of the Auditor-General and the Public Protector found no wrongdoing by Mofokeng. This is one reason why we felt that departments should be responsible for taking care of taxpayer’s money.
I wish to remind members on my left that the measures that have been put into place to deal with corruption are not an invention of the DA, the New NP or anybody from my left. What we are dealing with now are remnants of what we inherited from their former parties. These measures have nothing to do with them. [Interjections.]
The ANC is leading in terms of fighting corruption. We do not care who is involved in corruption. We are going to fight corruption and ensure that all measures are efficient and effective. There are members who feel that the role of the municipalities is going to be diminished. This is not true. Municipalities will continue to play a role, and if they want to be developers they may do so.
We are saying that the boards are not accountable to the public. The MEC and the Minister are accountable to Parliament and the legislature. If something goes wrong, one does not go to the boards, but comes to us here. Therefore, there is no reason why the people who are responsible for the disbursal of funds should be hands-on in terms of implementing policies. That is why we have taken this decision.
There are people who are worried that poor people will not be able to access their subsidies. They should be worried, because they are not close to the people. The ANC does not worry about this. We have district councils, municipalities and people who work on the ground, and we are going to ensure that the poor access their subsidies to accelerate delivery. [Interjections.] Hon members on my left will be worried because they are very far from the people.
A problem has been raised that we are getting rid of the boards and not individuals. Let me tell hon members something. What we as this ANC-led Government want to do, is to deracialise society. We are not going to leave the Western Cape provincial board to continue to select who they want to give subsidies to. These subsidies belong to the poorest of the poor throughout the country, and the ANC is going to ensure that it disburses these subsidies properly. Hon members on my left have reason to worry, because most developers belong to these parties. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Decision of question postponed.
The House adjourned at 18:43. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces: Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
Report and Decisions of the 5th Extraordinary Session of the Assembly
of Heads of State and Government of the OAU/AEC, held in Sirte, Libya
from 1 to 2 March 2001. Paragraphs 1.2 and 2.4 reflect that the draft
Protocol on the Pan-African Parliament had been adopted with amendments
to Articles 4 and 25:
CREDA INSERT REPORT
National Assembly:
Papers:
- The Speaker:
Report on the First ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, held in
Brussels, Belgium from 9 to 12 October 2000. Dr R H Davies, Ms R
Taljaard and Ms N M Tsheole attended the meeting:
CREDA INSERT REPORT
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
- First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 4 April 2001:
1. Introduction
The Committee submits this factual progress report flowing from
its Fourteenth Report, adopted by the House on 2 November 2000, to
the National Assembly on the Strategic Defence Procurement, under
the following headings:
2. Ministers' views on Fourteenth Report
The Ministers of Finance, of Defence, of Public Enterprises and of
Trade and Industry expressed their views on the Committee's
Fourteenth Report at a press conference on 12 January 2001. Three
Ministers (the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Finance and
the Minister of Trade and Industry) appeared before the Committee
on 26 February 2001 to further clarify their views. The Committee
is currently considering the Ministers' views and is to include
its response to those views in its next substantial report to the
House.
3. Letter of Leader of Government Business
The Committee received a letter from the Leader of Government
Business on 19 January 2001, expressing views on the Fourteenth
Report and certain related issues. Subsequent correspondence
between the Speaker and the Leader of Government Business was
noted by the Committee. The Committee is currently considering
these views of the Leader of Government Business, and is to
include its response in its next substantial report to the House.
4. Inclusion/exclusion of Special Investigating Unit
The differences of opinion that arose within and outside the
Committee regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the Special
Investigating Unit as per Fourteenth Report was decided upon on 28
February 2001. The Committee will further elaborate on this
decision in its next substantial report to the House.
5. Forensic Investigation Team
The Committee had an exploratory meeting with four agencies in
Pretoria on 13 November 2000 with a view to establishing a joint
investigation team. Three of these agencies subsequently formed a
joint team. The joint team reported to the Committee on 7 February
2001 (see Appendix below). Future briefings/meetings with the
investigation team will be on a need-to-be basis.
6. Other outstanding issues from Fourteenth Report
The Committee continues to make progress on certain issues related
to intended interactions, ongoing investigations and areas of
monitoring.
7. Conclusion
This Report represents a factual account since the tabling of the
Committee's Fourteenth Report, and the Committee is in the process
of drafting a substantial report to the House, for tabling in due
course.
APPENDIX
PROGRESS REPORT: INVESTIGATION:
STRATEGIC DEFENCE PACKAGES
PREAMBLE
This is a joint report by the Office of the Auditor General, the
National Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the
Public Protector.
It is given to SCOPA as a report back after the meeting of 13
November 2000.
The uniqueness of this joint investigation is noted in that though
they have different mandates and different reporting requirements
the agencies are co-operating and working very closely together in
this investigation. In view of the nature and extent of the
investigation we have agreed to produce a joint report to SCOPA
towards the end of July 2001. This report will contain the
findings of any investigation that will be finalised at that time
and also the status of matters still in progress at that time.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Having considered the special review by the Auditor-
General of the selection process of the strategic defence
packages at the Department of Defence, as well as certain
documentation referred to it, and having heard evidence, the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts recommended an
independent and expert forensic investigation into the
matter.
1.2 An investigation team comprising of IDSEO (Directorate
Special Operations), the Office of the Auditor-General and
the Office of the Public Protector was formed to investigate
the matter after the explanatory meeting convened by SCOPA
on 13 November 2000. It was decided at this meeting that the
Auditor-General would be the co-ordinator of the proposed
investigation in order to facilitate the combination of
skills, legal mandates and resources and report back to
SCOPA as and when requested.
1.3 An investigation charter giving a clear description of the
investigation team's functions, modus operandi and other
relevant detail pertaining to the investigation was compiled
by the Auditor-General, after meetings held between the
above agencies on 16 November 2000 and 1 December 2000.
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this document is to brief the subgroup of
SCOPA dealing with this matter on the progress made with the
investigation.
3. FINANCE
The original estimated cost for the investigation was
R13,5m. However this amount included R3,35m for the Heath
Special Investigating Unit (SIU). As a proclamation was not
granted to the SIU, the responsibilities and costs relating
to the SIU had to be transferred to the other agencies. At
this stage the Auditor-General has taken over most of the
responsibilities of the SIU which will have the effect that
additional funds will, most likely, be required by the
Auditor-General.
The costs presented above are at best described as a guess-
estimate. It is very difficult at this stage to determine an
accurate figure. The possibility of additional funds being
required as the investigation progresses is a reality. More
accurate figures will be available as the scope of the
investigation becomes clearer.
4. RESOURCES
The skills, legal mandates and resources of the different agencies
have been effectively facilitated. The investigation team
currently consists of the following core members which were
allocated to the task team:
* Three members from the Auditor-General (Two CA's and one
advocate).
* Five members from IDSEO/Scorpions (Two advocates and three
investigators).
* Two senior investigators from the Public Protector (One
advocate and one attorney - one of them with military
expertise).
Additional resources can be tapped from the different agencies as
and when required.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
* A central office for the use of the three agencies has been set
up.
* Computer hardware, a network system and a data base computer
package have been acquired (notebooks have been provided for
each team member).
* Telephone and fax facilities have been installed.
* All other logistical and administrative arrangements have been
finalised.
* Steps have been taken to secure the central office.
6. PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED IN INVESTIGATION
The basic process to be followed during the investigation is as
follows:
* Obtaining access to all documentation.
* Perusing all documentation.
* Interviewing sources/individuals both under oath and informally
(Locally and Overseas).
* Mapping the different processes.
* Evaluating the allegations.
* Formulating conclusions.
7. CONTRACTING OF EXPERTISE
The following expertise will be contracted to assist with the
investigation:
* Chartered Accountants and auditors.
* Forensic auditors/accountants.
* Legal expertise.
* Technical experts (naval and aeronautical).
It has been decided to make use of outside audit firms with the
necessary skills and international contacts. The cost of these
contracts will be borne by the Auditor-General.
8. BROAD FRAMEWORK OF INVESTIGATION
8.1 Alleged irregularities
* Documentation from the various departments, Parliament and
Cabinet have been requested.
* The statutory records of 68 entities have been requested.
* Three audit firms of specific companies have been summonsed for
documentation.
* Some informal interviews have already been conducted.
* One formal questioning has been conducted.
* The bank statements/information of 24 entities and individuals
have been requested.
* A proposal has been received from an audit firm with respect to
the compilation of company structures, the flow of funds between
bank accounts and the capacity of the entities. An appointment
will be made soon.
8.2 Cost to state of the Gripen and Hawk deals.
8.3 Selection of prime contractors for the LIFT programme
(Hawk)
8.4 Selection of sub-contractors for all the programmes
8.5 Review of the arms procurements process and system
8.6 Review of all final contracts (NIP and DIP)
9. DOCUMENTATION
Access to documentation held by the following entities has been
agreed to by the Executive.
* Department of Defence (DOD).
* Department of Finance.
* Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
* Department of Public Enterprises.
* Cabinet.
We are currently in the process of finalising the logistical
arrangements regarding the handling and access to documentation
including documentation in SCOPA's possession.