WEDNESDAY, 6 JUNE 2007 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:05.

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

                       PRECEDENCE TO QUESTIONS

                         (Draft Resolution)

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name of the Order Paper as follows:

That, notwithstanding Rule 29(8) and Rule 113 (1), Questions not be
given precedence today.

Agreed to.

THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF MEMBERS OF THE PALESTINIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (Subject for discussion)

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to state that I am opening this debate at the request of the hon Acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party who had given notice of this motion. I would also like to recognise in this House the Ambassador for Palestine and member of the Palestine Legislative Council Dr Benjamin, who has come here this week, and to greet him. [Applause.]

I would also like to say that I am dedicating this speech to the memory of David Rabkin, a South African freedom fighter who died in Angola.

Forty years ago, Israel’s military unleashed lightning attacks against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, alleging provocations as justification. Within six days the Sinai, Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights had been captured. Apart from Sinai, these areas remain under Israeli military occupation.

While some justify Israel’s actions on the grounds of pre-emptive self- defence, the obverse was the truth. From the horse’s mouth, we learn who the aggressor was. Israel’s General Rabin stated: “I do not believe Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

Menachem Begin reminisced that the Egyptian army deployment in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was about to attack. “We must be honest,” he explained, “we decided to attack him.” General Dayan explained that many of the firefights with the Syrians were provoked by Israel. He said that the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmlands.

These are statements of an aggressor. Some claim Israel is justified, from its birth as a state, to defend its land and people by force. But, where is the morality? Fortress Israel, a militarist and aggressive state, defends stolen land that belonged to another people.

Dayan unabashedly explained:

Before the Palestinian eyes, we possess the land and villages where they and their ancestors lived. We are the generation of colonisers. And without the gun barrel, we cannot plant a tree or build a home.

Their first Prime Minister, Ben Gurion stated:

Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, what’s that to them? There has been anti-Semitism and Nazis. But what is that? Is it their fault? They only see one thing: We came here and stole their country.

Such statements contextualise Israel’s position and show it has not been interested in real peace terms. In 1897, the founding father, Theodore Herzl, stated at the Zionist conference: “Once in power, we will spirit the penniless population across the borders.” He was referring to Palestinians.

Therein lies the fundamental cause of the conflict. It stems from the Zionist worldview and belief in perpetual anti-Semitism that requires that Jewish people around the world, a faith group, should have a national home of their own. The biblical narrative was evoked to proclaim Palestine as a promised land reserved exclusively for the chosen people and their civilising mission. It sounds very familiar to a vision the Voortrekkers once had, that gave rise to racism, apartheid and a total onslaught on those who stand in your way, whether blacks or Arabs or Red Indians.

Many Jews do not agree with the Zionist worldview, which is what we are talking about, and declare that being anti-Zionist and critical of Israel does not equate with anti-Semitism. Far from being a land without people, as Zionist propaganda falsely proclaimed, the fact was that as indigenous people, the Palestinians, lived there and developed agriculture and towns since Canaanite times, over 5 000 years before.

Indeed, a delegation of sceptical Vienna rabbis travelled to the land in 1898 to assess the Zionist vision and then cabled home: “The bride is indeed beautiful but already married.” This did not deter the Zionists who plotted to abduct the bride and expel the groom by whatever means and then defend what they had stolen by creating fortress Israel. It sums up the tragic history of the Palestinians at the hands of an expansionist Zionist project that has been the source of the war for the past 60 years.

With the adoption of the UN partition plan in 1947, a Jewish homeland was accorded 56% of territory. The Palestinian majority was given 44%. They were never consulted. The Zionist accepted partition but never intended to honour it. According to this strategy, which by the way is public record, the intention was to roll out a campaign of terror, massacre, dispossession and expulsion. It drove out the Palestinians in an episode of ethnic cleansing that saw over 750 000 or two-thirds of the indigenous people at that time becoming penniless refugees. [Interjections.]

By the 1949 armistice, the Israeli state had expanded to 48% of the territory … learn a little bit of history. [Interjections.]

That was 60 years ago. The result of Israel’s war of aggression, 40 years this week, an extension of 1948, saw Israeli military occupation of the remaining 22% of land. The people within West Bank and Gaza are imprisoned under the most unjust conditions, suffering hardships and methods of control far worse than what we faced in apartheid.

Any South Africans visiting what amounts to enclosed ghettoes imposed by a Jewish people that suffered the Holocaust find similarity with apartheid. Comparisons with some of the methods of collective punishment devised under other tyrannies can be seen in a statement made in 1948 by cabinet Minister Aharon Cizling, who said after the massacre at Deir Yassin: “Now, we too have behaved like Nazis and my whole being is shaken.”

If anyone has any doubt, as they do, about what the ’48 and ’67 wars were about, they must listen to Ben Gurion who stated: “After we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and will expand into the whole of Palestine.” Mark Dayan’s words:

Our fathers reached the frontiers recognised in the UN partition plan of

1. Our generation reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the Six-Day generation has reached Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end.

Indeed the saga for the Palestinians continues, inevitably creating insecurity for Israeli’s as well. That is our concern as well. I don’t know about this crowd here because, as we know from our experience, they don’t know a thing about it. They don’t want to learn. Repression generates resistance and it’s no good blaming the victims. That is what this lot always do. [Interjections.]

The Palestinian people’s fate reflects that our indigenous majority, during the colonial wars of dispossession and the harsh suffering …

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let’s take the point of order, Minister.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that we have had reference to “this crowd” and “this lot” before and they have been ruled unparliamentary. I would regard them and ask you to rule that they are unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister, we insist that we refer to Members of Parliament as “hon Members of Parliament”. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: The hon gentlemen on my left … I didn’t hear any lady. Let me say that this Parliament must be unanimous in calling for Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the occupied territory …

Mr J P I BLANCHé: Madam, on point of order …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is another point of order. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members, we will take this point of order.

Mr J P I BLANCHé: Madam, you have asked the speaker to withdraw the remark. He has not done so. Will you please instruct him to do so. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Minister, please withdraw reference to “this lot” and say “these hon members”.

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: They are hon members and I withdraw the reference that I made.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: Thank you. I wonder if you could start behaving yourselves. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: Hon Deputy Speaker, the hon members don’t seem to know how to behave themselves when we are talking about something serious. I hope you are going to give me extra time for this.

I have to repeat and I hope I have the time: Our Parliament should be unanimous in calling for Israel’s immediate withdrawal, lifting the physical, economical and financial blockade; removing impediments to the freedom of movement, including the wall and the over 500 checkpoints; dismantling the illegal settlements; releasing 10 000 political prisoners; negotiating a just solution. These are necessary steps to create lasting peace, justice and security for the Israelis as well as the Palestinians.

Since 1998, when Chairman Arafat and the PLO agreed to accept 22% of historic Palestine, they showed they were ready for negotiations. We extend our solidarity to the 42 members of the Palestine Legislative Council, including two Speakers who, with 10 Ministers, have been detained without trial for nearly a year. It’s a shocking illustration of Israel’s disrespect for democracy, the law and basic human rights. We call for their unconditional and immediate release.

Let us join with the people of our country and the international community in the demonstrations this week. We make it clear to our Jewish community: These peaceful actions are aimed solely at the Israeli government, not at the people. The struggle for freedom is against the system and not the people.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, your time has expired.

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: I thank you, Deputy Speaker. I really thank the hon gentlemen for listening with such vigour. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I dedicate this speech to all of those who have died violently in both Palestine and Israel over the past 40 years.

Unlike Minister Kasrils, who has his own policy, I support the South African government policy of a negotiated settlement around two secure states. [Applause.]

It amazes me that for the second year in a row this Parliament has managed to find time to debate the Middle East situation. We have still not found the time to debate the Zimbabwean situation … [Interjections.] … or the report of the parliamentary mission to that country two or three years ago. [Applause.] Zimbabwe impacts hugely and negatively on South Africa and our people. Several million Zimbabweans are in our country, many of them illegal immigrants living from hand to mouth. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, please come back to the debate. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are on the Middle East, and not Zimbabwe.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Yes, I am aware of that, Madam. [Interjections.]

The fact is that we cannot debate something that impacts directly on us, but we can, after a few days’ notice, find parliamentary time to meet an hour early to discuss something which has no direct impact on our country. [Interjections.]

What is more important, Deputy Speaker, is that South Africa can have no impact, or very little impact, on the situation in Israel and in Palestine.

I think it is correct to say that the people in this Parliament, whether they are in government or in opposition, care about the people of Palestine and Israel. All of us, government and opposition, long for peace there, but our ability to influence the situation is really rather small.

It is becoming clear that the ANC, when it has the power to make a real difference, does little or nothing, but when it has no power, it rushes in to conduct hot-air debates and pass empty resolutions which will be ignored by everybody. Today’s debate is nothing other than an abuse of the time of Parliament. [Interjections.] At the drop of a hat, the ANC can give notice and within days we discover that Parliament can assemble and debate an issue like this, when the opposition has been trying for months to get issues of national significance some parliamentary time. I am talking about the DA trying to debate issues such as poverty, unemployment and crime. But none of these motions make it onto the Order Paper.

Another perplexing aspect is the fact that, whereas subjects for discussion do not result in motions, on both occasions when the ANC has forced this matter onto the parliamentary Order Paper, they have proposed resolutions. This is not in terms of our usual parliamentary procedure, and surely we do not want to have a situation where every subject for discussion results in a motion and divisions and whatever else follows.

In the circumstances, I hereby move an amendment, which reads as follows:

To amend the resolution by replacing it with the following:

 That this House –


  1) regards the continuing crisis in the Middle East between Israel
     and Palestine as one of the tragedies of our time;


  2) refuses to take sides between Israel and Palestine, but calls upon
     them both to cease all violence;

  3) reiterates that it is only through a negotiated settlement with a
     safe and secure Israel and a safe and secure Palestine that this
     intractable problem will finally be solved; and

  4) calls upon the United Nations and all countries of goodwill to
     exert pressure on both Israel and Palestine to sit down together
     at the negotiating table to commence negotiations and to continue
     with them as long as is necessary.

Deputy Speaker, one of the longest-running and most painful conflicts of the twentieth century was the situation in Northern Ireland. It took a miracle, but it finally happened, and the legacy of Tony Blair and his predecessor John Major is a peaceful territory, coexisting side by side, Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. One is a Catholic country, the other one is now co-governed by Catholics and Protestants. Many doubted that this could ever be possible. But it did happen, and if the Irish problem, which took up most of the last century, could be settled, then the Middle East problem can be settled as well.

I am not saying that Ireland and Palestine/Israel are analogous. All I am saying is that a melding of religion, of disputed land, of colonial overtones, and of continuing violence made that problem a particularly difficult one. We as South Africans must resolutely refuse to import the angers, the hatred and the religious divisions into our country. It is wrong to blame South African Jews for actions of the Israeli government. It would be just as wrong to blame South African Muslims for the Kassam rockets being fired at Israel. [Interjections.] It would be just as ridiculous.

We must remain equidistant and determined to help solve the problem. The Palestinian delegation which discussed this matter with the Foreign Affairs committee this morning made a hugely favourable impression because of the moderation of their views and the quiet dignity and charm with which they put their case. We want to hear what Israel has to say in answer to that.

It does not help to adopt the sort of attitude which Minister Kasrils adopts, because he becomes part of the problem. He does not become part of the solution. [Interjections.] The Palestinian delegation appealed to us to exert influence on the Israelis, and I want to say to you that you can only exert influence if you stay equidistant. If you become one of the protagonists, if you become an enemy of the state or the people of Israel, then they are not going to listen to you. They will simply dismiss what you have to say, and that is why they will dismiss Mr Kasrils. [Interjections.]

I think what South Africa can do is to be a force for peace in the world. When we have the authority, when we have some influence – and we certainly have on the Security Council now – we must use that influence to try to persuade big countries, influential countries, countries that are really involved in the Middle East, to exert pressure on both sides and we must get the United Nations finally to grasp the nettle of this problem. We can sort it out and I think now is an historic moment. Let us grab that moment and make it happen. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Gibson, you moved an amendment to a draft resolution that is not before the House. I am saying that later on in the day we will deal with the draft resolution, when that amendment will become appropriate.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam, I understand what you are saying, but the resolution appears to be on the Order Paper.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is on the Order Paper, but it is not before the House now.

Mr D H M GIBSON: I see.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the moment we are dealing with the Subject for Discussion on the Middle East. Later on in the day you may move the amendment. I am just saying that for the sake of this debate, the amendment is not recognised, because it is not relevant to what we are dealing with at the moment.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Thank you, Madam. Will I have another speaking turn then as well? [Interjections.]

Mr M B SKOSANA: Madam Deputy Speaker, the 2007 Israeli-Palestine conflict is a long way from the Balfour Declaration, announcing Great Britain’s intention to establish a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. The conflict is a long way from the UN General Assembly’s recommendation in 1947 to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, despite the growing hostilities between the two. The conflict is a long way from the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the strong rejection by the Arab states to the partitioning of Palestine and of the existence of the State of Israel.

The period between 1948 and 1988 was marked by a series of Israeli-Arab wars and Palestinian uprisings. The Palestinian authority, under the leadership of Chairman Yasser Arafat, recognised the existence of the State of Israel in 1988. Subsequently a number of peace initiatives and agreements, including the Oslo Accord of 1993, followed, leading to the Road Map in search of a lasting peace based upon a two-state solution, which this House supported in the past and should continue to support.

The IFP is therefore in disagreement with the draft resolution before the House as it stands. It does represent the emotional clichés we go through every year in this House, without moving that situation an iota.

There are broad principles, of course, which we agree with: that the creation of immediate ceasefire on both sides will create a climate conducive to negotiations, and that progress must be made to release all prisoners and hostages, including the two speakers and ministers, to move the peace process forward.

The IFP has consistently condemned violence, wherever it occurs. In respect of Zimbabwe, for example, our government did not adopt a prescriptive approach, yet this draft resolution before the House proposes to do so in the Middle East.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We don’t have a draft resolution before the House. The draft resolution is an item that is coming after this debate. Reference to the draft resolution in this debate does not help us.

Mr M B SKOSANA: With due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the approach will not make a lasting contribution to the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The IFP therefore submits the following amendment … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no amendment needed, because there is no draft resolution. [Interjections.]

Mr M B SKOSANA: I will deal with it. With due respect, Madam Speaker, without making the proposal directing it to the draft resolution, in the context of the debate, the IFP wants to propose that the Acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party should urgently meet with the Whips of other political parties represented in this House, to hammer out a fresh approach to South Africa’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring it back to this House for ratification.

The benchmark of our statecraft must be consistency in the shaping of our response to disputes everywhere. I thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Deputy Speaker, the ACDP calls on some Cabinet Ministers to be even-handed and fair to both sides in the Middle Eastern conflict. The Israelis and Palestinians must be encouraged to make peace with one another in the pursuit of a two-state solution.

To condemn Israel only, while ignoring the terrorist activities of organisations involved in the conflict, is irresponsible. The ANC that called for this debate has never called for a debate on the atrocities committed by the Zimbabwean government against its own people. [Interjections.] [Applause.] They choose to use quiet diplomacy when dealing with Zimbabwe, but condemnation when dealing with Israel. How can they justify their double standards and hypocrisy? If the ANC is serious about a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, then they must first put pressure on Hamas to recognise the state of Israel and its right to exist within safe and secure borders alongside the Palestinian state and other neighbours. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members, from both sides of the House!

Rev K R J MESHOE: Furthermore …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please allow the hon member to address us.

Rev K R J MESHOE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, the ACDP will not support the printed reprehensible draft resolution that ignores the history of the Middle East that did not start in 1967. We will, instead, support the hon Gibson’s call upon the United Nations and all countries of good will … [Interjections.] … to exert pressure on both Israel and Palestine to sit down together at the negotiating table to commence negotiations and to continue them for as long as they are necessary. I thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, I think we can do better than this. Please! I am assuring you of one thing: I think, with this sitting, we will be prepared to continue with even 10 members who would like to be part of this debate, and ask those who do not want to be part of the debate to please go and be busy elsewhere.

Ms C M P RAMOTSAMAI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am actually appalled by the members who have spoken before me. All of us in this House – left or right – benefited from the solidarity we got internationally for our freedom. And, whether you were oppressed or were an oppressor, you benefited from that.

It is therefore up to us as well to support the people of Palestine. Mr Gibson was talking about an issue of two sides. Here we are talking about the oppressed and the oppressor, and that is the reality of the situation.

This year, 2007, marks 40 years since the end of the Six-day War, which was waged between Israel and various neighbouring Arab states in 1967. The Arab states, at the time, voted to ensure the liberation of Palestine from the Jewish occupation. However, this ended in the total defeat of the Arab states. Since then, the peoples of Palestine have been subjected to various forms of challenges, human rights violations and oppression which have further undermined their chances of having a state of their own with secure leaders.

According to a number of humanitarian agencies, the occupied palestinian territory is faced with huge challenges in the area of socioeconomic development. Recently, Unicef issued a donor request amounting to US$25 million in order to meet the needs of Palestinian women and children. Women and children in Palestine have found themselves in the most vulnerable position due to continued military attacks by the Israeli army, and the ongoing public-sector strikes have gravely affected critical services such as immunisation and education.

Many a time, we as South Africans draw an analogy between what we went through during apartheid and what is going on in Palestine and with regard to the Palestine people. But the Palestinians’ suffering is far worse than what we went through.

The issue that continues to infringe on the rights of Palestine has been the creation of barriers which inhibit the free movement of Palestinians especially in the West Bank, in the way we were restricted during apartheid by pass laws, influx control, etc. These barriers have come in different forms, such as the many check points, road blocks as well as a concrete wall. This government of Israel controls 2,5 million Palestinians through a matrix of more than 500 check points and road blocks, as well as a 700- kilometre wall. Each town and village is surrounded by these check points and by road closures that cause extreme hardship for the people of Palestine. For a destination that would take one 20 minutes to reach, it takes the poor Palestinians seven hours owing to the wall of apartheid. This wall is highly monstrous, even cutting off the Palestinian farmers from their land. It cuts off children from their schools; it cuts off mothers from medical services for their babies; it even cuts off families – grandparents from their grandchildren. Even in the Bantustans, we were not surrounded by gates.

These enclosures are creating a huge amount of poverty and are stifling the economy of these villages and towns for the purpose of driving the Palestinian people out. Poverty has now spread to 26% of the population, compared to 17% in 2005. Unemployment reached 30% of the population in the first quarter of 2007, and 70% of the Palestinians living in Gaza are now dependent on food aid.

By any measurable standard, it must be seen as an unacceptable outcome that currently across the Occupied Palestinian Territory 66% of households fall below the poverty line, and that in Gaza, especially, 8 out of 10 families are struggling and cannot meet their daily food needs.

Furthermore, the decision of governments of the West to impose sanctions on the Hamas-led government in Palestine must be criticised. After Hamas won the legislature elections in Palestine at the beginning of 2006, the USA, the EU, Canada and Israel imposed sanctions on the Hamas-led government. These sanctions have impacted negatively on the capacity of the Palestinian Authority to deliver much-needed social resources to the people of Palestine. By withholding donor aid, they have actually directly contributed to the process of undermining the elected government of Palestine.

Also, on the other hand, the government of Israel refuses to release tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestine Authority, which has only served to polarise relations between itself and the Palestinian people. This situation has caused even more hardship for the people of Palestine. It is an indictment against all of us that today we are still discussing Palestinian self-determination and the continued aggression and deprivation. Today, as we speak, 40 years after the 1967 war, the reality is that the Palestinians control only 23% of their original land, and even that 23% is threatened by increasing settlements. How long must the people of Palestine suffer before countries like the USA and the EU act consciously?

It is important therefore for all of us as South Africans to understand the real reasons for this conflict. Many white South Africans believed what the apartheid government informed them about terrorists in South Africa. In fact, they did not see anything wrong with the Group Areas Act, the pass laws and many other unjust laws. But many of us who suffered against that regime were feeling the pain.

Today, while all of us South Africans – black and white – are enjoying life in a democratic country, let us not forget the people of Palestine. How can we make a contribution to the liberation of this nation?

Every time I relate to my own children how it felt to live under apartheid conditions, detention without trial, states of emergency, how we were woken up at night as kids by police to search for pass books, how we as students used to throw stones at the police who were shooting at us, as is happening today in Palestine, their response I get from my children is: “Mom, why did you allow them?” This, they say, because they do not understand how mighty the army was. I’m sure the children of Palestine wish they could be in a situation in which the present conditions they live in could also be history.

As it was during apartheid in South Africa, there are currently 10 000 political prisoners; 113 of them are women; 12 are children under the age of 16. As if that is not enough, there are also two babies in detention as well, and they are all languishing in jail.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member! Your time has expired.

Ms C M P RAMOTSAMAI: The latest is that 41 members of parliament are in jail, as are the ministers. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Dr P W A MULDER: Deputy Speaker, the FF Plus has much sympathy for the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination. When you visit my parliamentary office, you will see the flag of the Palestinian people displayed there.

What can South Africa and this Parliament do to help solve the conflict in that region? Sir, not what we are doing at present. In international affairs a country’s strongest asset is its credibility. One’s credibility is determined by the way one acts internationally as a government.

We can help the Palestinian cause by means of a balanced and wise international position on the Middle Eastern conflict. The motion in this House is a one-sided propaganda motion. One-sidedness is good for propaganda and for mobilising people, but is very bad for international credibility and if you want real solutions.

For true credibility, we should already have discussed a similar motion in this House on the incarceration of members of the Zimbabwean opposition. Then this would be credible. For true credibility this motion must also condemn the 285 projectiles that had been fired into Israel. For true credibility this motion must condemn the death of innocent people owing to suicide bombers. Then the international community will take us seriously and this debate will then help the Palestinian people. Thank you. [Time expired.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Deputy Speaker, Israel has no capacity on its own, financially, militarily or otherwise, to defy all the resolutions of the United Nations on the Palestinian question with impunity, without the support and encouragement of the big powers.

The Palestinians have accepted the two-state solution at great compromise when it is considered that in 1948 they had 94% of the land and the Israelis only 6%. Israel does not seem to be serious even about the two- state solution. It is now obvious that unless the USA and the European Union change policies on the Israel/Palestine question or the oil wells of the Middle East dry up, there will be no solution to the Palestinian question.

It seems that Israel will be told to do the right thing towards the Palestinians only the day the riches derived from oil are exhausted. The PAC calls for the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israel. It is ridiculous that a problem … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr A G H Pahad): Deputy Speaker, colleagues, today, as we commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Six-day War, it is important that we remind ourselves of some basic truths.

This debate cannot be a waste of time. The whole world accepts the reality that if we do not solve the Palestine/Israel issue, world peace and stability is threatened and will continue to be threatened. So, unlike any other issues, this issue is of fundamental importance to our own stability and the future of South Africa and the continent.

I’m reminded of Rip van Winkel – I hope our people still remember him. He went up the mountain and fell asleep for 20 years. And when he came down the mountain he discovered that there was a revolution in America. The problem is that some of my colleagues on my left – I don’t want them on my left; they should be on my right – cannot wake up from a 20-year sleep and cannot understand that the failure to resolve the Middle East issue threatens international peace and stability.

Let me state quite categorically that South Africa’s foreign policy on the Middle East is informed by the following principles: Firstly, the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence, which entail principled positions against the military occupation of the Palestinian people’s land; Secondly, a belief that there can be no military solution to the conflict and that peaceful negotiations are the only means of ensuring lasting peace, security and stability; Thirdly, this will be based on the foundation of a two-state solution, that is a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side-by-side with a secure Israeli state; fourthly, a comprehensive peace agreement between the Arabs and Israel, based on the Arab initiative; fifthly, a commitment to multilateralism in order to secure a sustainable solution; and, sixthly, a negotiated solution to the refugee problem.

Today there’s a misguided campaign to depict our policies on the Middle East as being so-called “one-sided, biased, partisan and lacking in objectivity”, and this has been reflected by my colleagues on the left. More dangerously, our policies are now being described as anti-Semitic.

What is the truth? As early as 1975 the international community, recognising that the inability to solve the Palestinian issue threatened international peace and security, passed Resolution 3236, which defines the inalienable rights of the Palestinians as, firstly, the right to self- determination without external interference, secondly, the right to national independence and sovereignty, and thirdly, the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted.

Many other UN resolutions and decisions of the International Court of Justice and other institutions have confirmed these positions. Let me state unequivocally that we are one-sided and partisan when it comes to supporting the inalienable right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

This is not a lunatic position; this is a position supported by the vast majority of the world. And we will not be silenced because of the erroneous suggestions and criticisms from the Israeli government, which depict our policies as being anti-Semitic, one-sided and not objective.

Let me make it clear to the people on the left that unlike, some of them, the ANC, since its inception, has been at the forefront in the fight against anti-Semitism, and this position will never change. Our policy with regard to the Middle East peace process is firmly based on all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, the Oslo Frame of Reference and the Arab Peace Initiative. And this is not debatable.

We make no apologies for the fact that South Africa is partisan when it supports calls for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side-by-side and in peace with Israel.

We are partisan when we publicly condemn the construction by Israel of the separation wall. We were partisan when we presented a written legal argument to the International Court of Justice and also participated in the deliberations in The Hague on 23 February 2004.

Again, these were not policies determined by a lunatic fringe. As you will remember – if you do read – the International Court of Justice found on 9 July 2004, by 14 votes to one, that, firstly, the construction of the wall by Israel, the occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, is contrary to international law; and secondly, Israel is under obligation to terminate its breaches of international law. It is obliged to cease forthwith the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and to dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts related thereto. That was the finding of the International Court of Justice, by 14 to 1. South Africa’s so-called lack of objectivity finds expression in our support for democracy and the outcomes of the democratic process in Palestine and Israel. We can’t demand democracy and then reject the people’s democratic choice when the people of a country, that is Palestine, elect their government democratically. This is not acceptable.

Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for the government of South Africa to recognise the democratically elected Hamas government, which now is the Palestinian government of national unity. So, unlike distortions, we are partisan when we criticise those that continue to recognise the Palestinian government of national unity and yet continue to impose sanctions against the government of that country.

If we do not accept this reality, any attempt on our part to increase the momentum to achieve democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere will flounder, because many people will ask: Does democracy mean that when certain democratic governments do not like another democratically elected government they will not accept it and will move for regime change in that country? So we are not biased in rejecting these notions. Actually, we are committed to principles in rejecting these notions.

Let me ask a question: Are we biased and partisan when we proclaim that until a comprehensive, just and permanent solution is found to the Palestinian self-determination issue, the Middle East region will remain a threat to world peace and security?

Let me state quite clearly that we are also unapologetic when we declare that the Arab Peace Initiative for comprehensive peace between the Arabs and Israel is in the interest of all the people in the region, including the Israelis, and is the best guarantee of regional and international peace and security.

Are we biased and anti-Semitic when we welcome this week’s Palestinian initiative for a comprehensive reciprocal and simultaneous ceasefire? This agreement states, inter alia, that: Firstly, Palestinian groups will stop firing rockets on Israel; secondly, Israel must stop military operations and offensive, including air strikes, ground offensive and naval attacks; thirdly, the ceasefire must expand to include the West Bank, and that this agreement, with other features, must be implemented as soon as possible.

It is my view that this ceasefire agreement is in line with the mood and atmosphere emerging in the region, for a peaceful solution that will be in the interest of all the people in the region, the Arabs and the Israelis.

It is now time for the political leadership in particular countries to understand clearly that the world situation has changed and that they will not continue to deprive the Palestinian people of their inalienable right to self-determination. We will continue, as South Africans, in the interest of all the peoples in the region, to ensure that the Palestinians do have a viable Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital and with the Israeli state living side-by-side and in peace with all the Arab neighbours.

Are we also partisan and biased when we express concern at the humanitarian catastrophe that is engulfing the Palestinian people because of the international sanctions and the illegal withholding by Israel of money that belongs to the Palestinians?

Are we biased when we call for the removal of the restrictions on the Palestinian people to move within their already occupied limited territory? I don’t believe so. I believe that we are acting in the interest of all the people of the region and indeed in the interest of international peace and stability.

Deputy Speaker, South Africa is biased in condemning all forms of violence against civilians by all parties involved in the conflict. We strongly condemn Israel’s policy of extrajudicial killings, which is in direct violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, to which Israel is a high- contracting party.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon Minister, your speaking time has expired.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr A G H Pahad): Okay, I’ll just end off.

We also condemn suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and the shooting of rockets into Israeli territory. Those who are biased … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Ms S RAJBALLY: Deputy Speaker, the MF is distraught at the thought of the Israeli-Palestine war. We denounce the war and call upon the international community to intervene in attaining peace for both parties.

The MF denounces the brutality and inhumane practices that this warfare has brought on human life in the area. It is incumbent on all to assist in bringing about peace in the Middle East. Assistance is not identified as supplying military assistance, ammunition and funding the war. This will only add to fuelling the war.

We denounce the arrest of members of the Palestinian legislature and call on international pressure to be put on Israel for their release.

If peace is to be attained in the Middle East, we need to have an international round table that shall guide Israel and Palestine to accept each other, as we have accepted our rainbow nation. After 40 years, it has to be realised that many lives have been taken in vain, and that these killings have to stop, if peace is to be attained.

My Bible says: “Aum shanti shanty shanty …”which means, “Bring peace, peace, peace.” I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S SIMMONS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the UPSA supports the draft resolution by the majority party as far as it calls for the suspension of all forms of violent action and the signing of a comprehensive truce.

There is an old saying that the first casualty in war is the truth, and it appears that it is most relevant when looking at the dispute between these two nations. It is, therefore, mind-boggling why any outsider would dare to be biased, given the eroded nature of facts available.

The UPSA wishes to caution the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs to guard against biased being in this matter. What is needed for the creation of peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike, is objectivity and neutral facilitation. Any bias towards any side will inevitably lead to the favoured side believing that it has a moral high ground, which would inflate the ideological superiority, which is unhealthy for peaceful negotiations. I thank you.

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: Deputy Speaker, for somebody who feels that the debate on this issue is a waste of time, the hon Douglas Gibson certainly wasted a lot of his time, standing up to talk to us for 10 minutes. If it was such a waste of time, why didn’t he simply sit down?

Concerning Ronnie Kasrils not supporting the two-state solution, which he claims, that is not true. I support the position of our government over and over, but what I am prepared to do is to dream. I am prepared - and I have said it - to hope that one day Muslims, Christians and Jews in the Holy Land, in the Middle East, can live together in peace. [Applause.]

He claims that we blame South Africa’s Jews. I challenge him now to show one example when this has been the case in terms of the government and the leadership of the ruling party. It’s never been the case. Incidentally, I am a Jew by the way, Douglas Gibson. Nobody has ever blamed me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Douglas Gibson.

The MINISTER OF INTELLIGENCE: I would like to also elucidate …

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the hon Minister whether he is aware of what Mr Job Sithole said in the House last week. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We first have to ask the Minister whether he would like to take the question.

The MINISTER FOR INTELLIGENCE: No, I’ll see you later. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to waste my time on that. We can see who is emotional. The ANC is supposed to be emotional on the issue of Palestine, given the real suffering there, just as the people of this country suffered. We see what they get emotional about.

The hon members on this side rant and rave about Zimbabwe. Why don’t you wait and listen? SADC has recently called on our President, who is also the president and leader of the ruling party, to mediate on behalf of the region with the role-players in Zimbabwe.

They didn’t call on Douglas Gibson or Helen Zille or Tony Leon or the others we have listened to. Tony Blair, no less, in case they don’t know, was here last week, and Tony Blair said exactly that, that the region, and not South Africa, should seek to resolve the problem with Zimbabwe and that he was very pleased that President Mbeki of this ruling party and government has been selected to mediate. So much for that issue.

As far as taking sides, hon Aziz Pahad has dealt with this, but I would like to inform the hon gentlemen to my left of the words of one Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa in 1998, who said when Chairman Arafat visited our country: “We too, we know too well that our freedom in South Africa is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” I noticed it is a group of honourable gentlemen. The honourable ladies have listened patiently and certainly are interested in what we have to say.

The hon gentlemen to my left can argue with Madiba, with Nelson Mandela, when he says that our freedom was incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians. They also don’t understand the experience of South Africa, which is what we bring to bear, hon Douglas Gibson, in relation to Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams wrote to the leaders of the ANC in this country, to both President Mandela and President Mbeki and to quite a number of us, to thank us for the role that we have played in assisting that process in Northern Ireland. We are ready to do that with Israel and Palestine, and in terms of that position, we don’t discard the suffering of the Jewish people.

In fact, we say, as we said about South Africa: The sooner they understand that repression breeds resistance and the crueller the repression, the more vigorous that resistance is going to be. They don’t understand that what was taught in South Africa was that when we made the eyes of the white community open up through our struggle and through international solidarity and pressure, which isolated South Africa, behold, hallelujah! The eyes and the ears of white South Africa opened up. We showed here as we have also seen in Northern Ireland and this is what we pray, hon gentlemen, that the Israeli government and people will see the truth. Unfortunately, you have all forgotten about it. Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move the motion as it stands on the Order Paper.

That the House, noting the 40th Commemoration of the occupation of the West-Bank, Gaza, East-Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights, calls for -

1) Israel’s immediate, unconditional and permanent withdrawal of all its
   forces to the 1967 borders;


2) all parties to contribute to the creation of an atmosphere of calm by
   suspending all forms of violent action and signing a comprehensive
   truce;

3) the removal of all further obstacles to peaceful negotiations
   including lifting the restrictions of movement of the Palestinians,
   dismantling of all Israeli settlements and the illegally constructed
   wall and ending of the financial blockade of the Palestinian
   Government of National Unity;


4) the release of all prisoners and hostages, including the more than 41
   democratically elected members of the Palestinian Legislative Council
   which includes two Speakers and ten Ministers; and


5) the start of unconditional negotiations with the legitimate
   representatives of all parties concerned in order to arrive at a just
   and fair solution in accordance with the relevant UN Resolutions, as
   the only way to create peace and security for Palestinians and
   Israelis alike.

We believe that this motion is correct, principled and balanced. We have taken note of the amendments moved by Mr Gibson. We can’t agree with those amendments. There are certain aspects that we agree with but we feel that those are incorporated in the motion as it stands. We can’t agree, for example, with the statement that says that we refuse to take sides.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can my hon colleague refer to the amendment that my colleague is going to move when it has not been moved yet? You ruled so accordingly. I would assume that you rule him out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you are right. We don’t have the draft resolution. Move the draft resolution. I thought that even if you have not requested to speak, I think we want to give you a minute to motivate and also give a minute to Mr Gibson to motivate, as well as to Mr Skosana, and then we will apply the Rules of the House to deal with the matter. Are there any objections to motion?

Mr D H M GIBSON: Would you like me to move the amendment now?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, do so now.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move as an amendment: To omit all the words after ``That’’ and to substitute:

the House -

(1) regards the continuing crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine as one of the tragedies of our time;

(2) refuses to take sides between Israel and Palestine but calls upon them both to cease all violence;

(3) reiterates that it is only through a negotiated settlement with a safe and secure Israel and a safe and secure Palestine that this intractable problem will finally be solved; and

(4) calls upon the United Nations and all countries of goodwill to exert pressure on both Israel and Palestine to sit down together at the negotiating table to commence negotiations and to continue them for as long as is necessary.

Madam, you said that you’d give me a minute to motivate. I think what we need to stress again is that what the ANC is saying and what the DA is saying in essence is not that far apart. The Minister responded to a speech and unfortunately responded to one that was not made by us. What we did was to stress, and we do stress, that we need to be even-handed, if we are going to play a role in persuading the power brokers of the world to get involved here and to bring these parties finally to the negotiating table. We urge the people in the ANC to forget about the street theatre and all the sweeping up of emotions and let’s see if we can get down to doing something constructive for a change. On that basis, I would like to ask the House to accept the amendment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your minute has expired. I have been more than generous.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Would you allow me just to say, Madam, that in the unlikely event of this amendment not being accepted, we will accept the one which the IFP hasn’t yet put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now give an opportunity to the hon Skosana.

Mr M B SKOSANA: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don’t think we will in fact reach a resolution in this House, when we sit around and look at the three amendments before us. In the past we have always had variants in this House when it came to the issue of Palestine, Israel and even the issue of Zimbabwe. Our proposal was seeking for a consensus. We will not reach consensus as this House and that is why we were proposing a process that the Acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party invites the other Whips of the other parties in this House to sit and decide on a fresh approach to the question of Palestine, using all the material put forward here by the Minister for Intelligence, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and by all speakers, including Mr Meshoe and … [Interjections.] … and Dr Pheko.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your minute has expired. I did not hear any amendment, sir. I thought you were going to propose an amendment. You are proposing a different process outside of this House.

Mr M B SKOSANA: We should try and resolve this matter in this House as we sit here. We will always be at variance. We are sending out the wrong signals to the world about these issues and we will never resolve these issues.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, sir. Mr Nel, we allowed you to give us your proposal and we stopped you short, before you could allow us to accept your draft resolution. I allowed people who have amendments to speak. We now have only one formal amendment from Mr Gibson. Mr Nel, you still have your minute to motivate.

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, this is a principled and balanced motion that we have put forward. We don’t think that the process of further discussion is going to change this. We can’t agree with certain aspects of the amendment put forward by Mr Gibson. We can’t say that we refuse to take sides between Israel and Palestine, but call on both of them to cease violence. We indeed call on everyone to cease violence but we can’t say that we don’t take sides. That approach is reminiscent of the ambivalent and prevaricating attitude of the DA’s political ancestors towards apartheid. [Applause.] There is right. There is wrong and we must stand on the side of right. We cannot refuse to take the side of peace, human rights and national liberation. We cannot do that. Many of the other aspects of the DA’s motion are carried in ours and I think they are probably better formulated in our motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your minute has gone. [Applause.] I put the amendment as moved by the hon Gibson. Are there any objections to the amendment moved by Mr Gibson? [Interjections.] Those in favour will say: Aye. [Interjections.] And those against: No. [Interjections.] I think the Noes have it.

Dr C P MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: May I refer you to the Order Paper. Point 2 on today’s Order Paper dealt with the subject for discussion. We have dealt with that and during that debate you ruled twice that we could not discuss the draft resolution, because we were then dealing with the subject for discussion. At the end of that debate, the ANC did not propose any resolution or any motion before the House. Then you ruled that we had then completed that point and that we were moving to the next item on the Order Paper, namely item 3. If we look at the wording, the subject for discussion dealt with the situation in Israel and Palestine, and in particular, it expresses itself with regard to …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think your point should be on what we are dealing with number 2 has been dealt with. Let us deal with item 3.

Dr C P MULDER: The point is, Madam Speaker that the subject for discussion, if you look at the wording, dealt with something different from what the resolution is dealing with. Fine. What I am asking now is that you allow declarations of vote on the resolution itself. Parties did not have an opportunity to express themselves with regard to the resolution before the House. You ruled that the subject for discussion dealt with something different and we could not discuss the resolution before the House. You have also given one minute to three parties to express themselves with regard to the resolution. You did not give the opportunity to make declarations of vote. In terms of Rule 81(1), parties are entitled now to three-minute speeches to make declarations and I ask you to allow that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are indeed right. The only parties that showed an interest at the time were the three parties that were given the opportunity to speak. We have the right to go back to Rule 89 and allow those parties that have declarations the opportunity to do so, before we put Mr Gibson’s motion to the vote.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The Rule says that it is three minutes. Are you proposing that it should be a one-minute speech?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am proposing that it should be a one-minute speech.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Is it an ad hoc ruling or something that is going to be set as precedent?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the first place, there was no debate at all. I felt that it is important for us to hear out what Mr Gibson had to say and what Mr Skosana had to say. Without a speakers’ list I allowed people to speak. I am asking those parties who would like to make declarations, please indicate this to and we would give you a minute each to do so. The parties are happy with it. Dr Mulder.

Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, I can’t say that I am happy with the one minute allocated, for the simple reason that the Rules make provision for three minutes. If you look at the debate that we have just had, to expect a party to express itself in sixty seconds on a subject for discussion is quite ridiculous and to do the same with regard to the motion, I think we should stick to the Rule and allow parties who want to make use of their three minutes in terms of the Rules, to do so. It will also give the ANC three minutes to make a declaration of vote with regard to the resolution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t know whether the Table staff will help, but there have been instances where a minute has been allocated to parties. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. I am asking assistance from the Table staff. The experience from 1994 is very helpful. The Rule does not say “three minutes” but says: “A declaration not exceeding three minutes.” It can be half a minute. [Applause.]

Dr C P MULDER: May I address you on this point, Madam Speaker?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Will you please take your slot. Dr C P MULDER: That is for the discretion of the member who makes the declaration and not in terms of what the Chair decides. The member cannot exceed three minutes. It is for the member to decide.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you please give us your declaration of vote, hon member. FF Plus, we are waiting for your declaration of vote. Either one of the two brothers. [Laughter.]

Declarations of Vote: Dr P W A MULDER: Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, geloofwaardigheid gaan oor regverdigheid en dit gaan oor billikheid; of dit nou gaan oor wat in hierdie Raad gebeur of wat buite die Raad gebeur, u moenie dat ons internasionaal ons geloofwaardigheid verloor nie. Die VF Plus het sy standpunt gestel rondom selfbeskikking en u sal verstaan waarom ons simpatie het met die Palestyne, met die Koerde, met die mense van Tibet, want ons glo dit is deel van die oplossing van hierdie land se probleme. Hierdie Parlement kan help met die probleem, ook wat die Palestyne betref, deur geloofwaardig op te tree.

Die voorstel soos hy tans bewoord is, is ’n tipiese “struggle”-voorstel; dit is eensydig, wat waarskynlik effektief sou wees in die dae toe die ANC nog in die “struggle” was. Ons verloor geloofwaardigheid as regering wat tot nou toe internasionaal baie geloofwaardig was om ons saak te stel, omdat dit so eensydig was. Dan verloor jy jou effek en jy word deel van die probleem.

Selfs die uitstalling hier: Ek wil graag weet of die VF Plus ook die podium kan gebruik in die saal vir uitstallings in die toekoms? Ek is nie seker wat die beleid is nie. Wanneer kan mens die Parlement gebruik vir slagspreuke opsit, vir uitstallings rondom jou “cause”? Moet jy ’n departement wees of kan mens dit so benut?

Die VF Plus dink die voorstel is eensydig en help nie die saak nie, met die simpatie wat ons vir die Palestyne het. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.) [Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, credibility is about justice and about equity; whether it is about what happens inside or outside of this House, you must not let us lose our international credibility. The FF Plus has stated its position regarding self-determination and you will understand why we sympathise with the Palestinians, with the Kurds, with the people of Tibet, because we believe that it forms part of the solution of this country’s problems. This Parliament can help with the problem, also with regard to the Palestinians, by acting credibly.

The proposal as it is currently phrased is a typical “struggle proposal”; it is biased and would probably have been effective in the days when the ANC was still busy with the “struggle”. As government we lose the credibility we have had on the international front until now to state our case, because it is so biased. Then the effect is lost and you become part of the problem.

Even the exhibition here: I would like to know whether the FF Plus may also use this podium in the hall for exhibitions in future. I am unsure what the policy is. When may one use Parliament for putting up slogans, for exhibitions regarding one’s “cause”? Must you be a department or can one utilise it like that?

The FF Plus feels that the proposal is biased and does not help the matter, with the sympathy that we have for the Palestinians. [Applause.]] Mr S N SWART: Madam Deputy Speaker, the ACDP stressed fairness and an even- handed approach to this issue and to resolve the Middle Eastern problem from South Africa’s perspective to have any credibility and influence in this situation. We believe that the IFP’s suggestion to find a resolution outside this House would have been the way to go because such issues can be very emotive and cause a lot of division. We as the ACDP cannot support the ANC’s resolution and we believe that the DA’s amendment should be supported. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N T GODI: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The PAC supports the motion as it is drafted. We believe that it is our international duty to support the oppressed people of Palestine just as we were supported during our own struggle. I went through the five points that are in the resolution and I am not sure which points specifically are rejected by those who have proposed amendments, whether it is the item that says that “negotiations should begin between the Palestinians and the Israelis” or the part that says that “prisoners and hostages will be released”, or the part that says, “obstacles to negotiations must be removed”; or the part about “violent actions must be suspended”; or the part that says “Israel shall return to pre-1967 borders”. I am not sure which part of those five points is being disputed and I don’t think you can have anything more reasonable than these five points. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we have heard all the parties giving their declarations of vote. We only now go back to the only formal amendment received by the hon Douglas Gibson. I put the amendment as moved by the hon Douglas Gibson. Are there any objections to the amendment moved?

Question put: That the amendment moved by Mr D H M Gibson be agreed to.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 55: Bekker, H J; Bici, J; Blanché, J P I; Botha, C-S; Buthelezi, M G; Coetzee, R; Cupido, H B; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Dhlamini, B W; Ditshetelo, P H K; Doman, W P; Dreyer, A M; Dudley, C; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gibson, D H M; Groenewald, P J; Julies, I F; Kalyan, S V; King, R J; Kohler-Barnard, D; Labuschagne, L B; Lee, T D; Marais, S J F; Masango , S J; Mdlalose, M M; Meshoe, K R J; Minnie, K J ; Morgan , G R; Mpontshane, A M; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Nel, A H; Nkabinde, N C; Pule, B E; Rabie, P J; Rabinowitz, R; Roopnarain, U; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Selfe, J; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau , S N; Simmons, S; Skosana, M B; Smith, P F; Smuts, M; Steyn, A C; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Waters, M. NOES -185: Abram, S; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Benjamin, J; Bhamjee, Y S; Bloem, D V; Bonhomme, T J; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Cele, M A; Chalmers, J; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gcwabaza, N E ; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Gomomo, P J; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hanekom, D A ; Hangana, N E; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jeffery, J H; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kasrils, R; Kekana, C D; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M M S; Lishivha, T E; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Madella, A F; Madumise, M M; Magau, K R; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlaba, T L; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Makgate, M W; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manuel, T A; Martins, B A D; Mashangoane, P R; Masutha, T M; Matlala, M H; Matsemela, M L; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Matsomela, M J J ; Mayatula, S M; Mbili, M E; Meruti, M V; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohlaloga, M R; Mokoena, A D; Molefe, C T; Monareng, O E; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Mosala, B G; Moss, M I; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Nawa, Z N; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt- Druchen, W S; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nyambi, A J; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Padayachie, R L; Pahad, A G H; Pahad, E G; Pandor, G N M; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S ; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Saloojee, E; Schippers, J; Schoeman, E A; Sekgobela, P S; Shabangu, S; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S ; Sisulu, L N; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Surty, M E ; Swart, S N; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tobias, T V; Tsenoli, S L; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C ; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L.

ABSTAIN - 1: Ndlovu, V B.

Question not agreed to.

Amendment accordingly negativited.

Question put: That the motion moved by the Acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party be agreed to.

Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, African Christian Democratic Party, Inkatha Freedom Party, United Party of South Africa, United Christian Democratic Party and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY SOCIAL SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE Cluster 2

MINISTERS:

               Government’s position on race and sport

1. Mr T D Lee (DA) asked the Minister of Sport and Recreation:

   What is the Government’s position on (a) race and sport today, (b) the Olympic Charter’s principle that there will be no discrimination on the grounds of race or political affiliation and (c) merit as a criteria for selecting teams? N1103E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Thank you, Deputy Chairperson. The first part of the answer is as set out in the hon Minister Stofile’s budget speech on 22 May 2007, and I quote:

We cannot continue with paradigms that perpetuate the apartheid stereotypes of some who are destined for greatness, while others destined for mediocrity and inferiority.

Therefore, I reiterate government’s position that sport is an important part of our society and that we will guide sport to achieve our vision of a deracialised South Africa which is also sensitive to gender and disability issues. It is unfortunate that today we are not in a position, 13 years after our first democratic elections, to say that we no longer have a society defined in terms of race. There is no doubt that much progress has been made, but we have not achieved our goal. We will, therefore, continue to promote transformation in our sport society so that we can look on with pride when all our children and youth are indeed able to start from the same line. In the process not only do we help to increase the levels of participation, but we also provide skills training and employment opportunities. It is only when the majority of our people participate in sport and have the same opportunities that we can say that we have achieved our goal.

The answer to the second part of the question is as follows: The principles contained in the Olympic Charter that there will be no discrimination on the grounds of race or particular affiliation is perhaps an incomplete statement. The Olympic Charter actually states as one of its fundamental principles:

Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

This we support entirely. However, we also fully support another fundamental principle in the Charter, namely that:

The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport without discrimination of any kind in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

In our country the human right to participate in sport is not universal and, until it is, we need to promote vigorously our transformation agenda.

As far as part (c) of the question is concerned, in a South Africa that is riddled with the legacy of apartheid, merit selection as the world knows it is still elusive. We must continue to build the context and conditions that will lead us to a situation of merit selection, not the selection on merit of a few who are equal, whilst the rest are excluded. This will be the same as national elections in the apartheid South Africa, where the franchise was only available to some, but not all.

Mnr T D LEE: Voorsitter, baie dankie aan die Adjunkminister vir sy antwoord. U moet onthou dat mnr Ebrahim Rasool, die Premier van die Wes- Kaap gesê het:

Al wat moet tel om in ’n nasionale span opgeneem word, is velkleur, “struggle credentials” en ANC-konneksies. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr T D LEE: Chairperson, many thanks to the Deputy Minister for his reply. You must bear in mind that Mr Ebrahim Rasool, the Premier of the Western Cape, had the following to say:

The colour of one’s skin, struggle credentials and ANC connections should be the only criteria for inclusion in a national team.]

While Breyton Paulse says:

People should not use us as tokens, it is so discriminating.

People have been put there and that is what Breyton Paulse is saying. People were put in teams because of their colour. It is so wrong. That is what he said.

Dit is wat mnr Rasool en dit is wat Breyton Paulse sê. Wat sê u, Minister? Met wie stem u saam?

Die ADJUNKMINISTER VAN SPORT EN ONTSPANNING: Voorsitter, baie dankie vir die agb Lee. Ek is oortuig daarvan dat ek hom redelik breedvoerig op al sy vrae geantwoord het. As hy daardie vraag ter tafel wil lê vir ’n volgende rondte antwoorde, dan sal ek hom dan graag antwoord. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[That is what Mr Rasool says and that is what Breyton Paulse says. What do you say, Minister? With whom do you agree? The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Chairperson, many thanks to the hon Lee. I am convinced that I gave quite a detailed reply to all his questions. If he wants to table that question for a next round of replies, I would gladly reply to it then.]

Mr B M KOMPHELA: Thank you, Chair and Deputy Minister. It was a well-made statement. Dealing with the challenges and addressing the legacy of apartheid in sport, what is the position and approach of the department in implementing equity, redress, and transformation in sport and federations in general so as to address this thorny legacy of apartheid?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Hon Komphela, the position is that we will vigorously pursue the agenda of transformation in sport, as answered comprehensively in the answer given. We will not stop until we have a finish/starting line that is equal to all our people. We did pass legislation in this hon House not too long ago that will give the Minister the powers to issue guidelines to address redress, transformation and equity in sport. We will do that vigorously, because at the end of the day transformation is a national agenda item and the sooner we are unified and consolidated behind the national agenda, the better for the well-being of all the people of this wonderful country of ours.

Mr B W DHLAMINI: Deputy Minister, as we know the United Nations has declared access to sport as a fundamental human right and there are those who say that we should leave sport to private people. I don’t know whether the Minister agrees with me that sport is a national asset and therefore it cannot be left to private concerns. My question is similar to what Komphela has asked: What instrument does government have to ensure that this constitutional requirement and the United Nations’ declaration allow access to sport for all South Africans?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Hon Dhlamini, I know you have very little time to ask your question but we should address each other as “honourable” and refer to “hon Komphela”.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Hon Chairperson, hon Dhlamini, we are all in agreement that access to sporting facilities does not exist in our country. That is why we vigorously pursued the Building for Sport and Recreation Programme. As the hon member is aware, that programme has been moved to the municipal infrastructure grant. I did on previous occasions ask for the co-operation and support of hon members of this House to engage with local authorities to make sure that we prioritise not only the building but also the upgrading of sporting facilities in our communities. Once it is in their IDP, then only can we access the MIG funds. Until such time that we succeed in creating a situation where people have equal access to sport, we will be faced with the challenge of transformation. I want to thank the hon member, because I know we can count on his wholehearted support in this endeavour. Mrs C DUDLEY: Hon Deputy Minister, transformation in sport in South Africa has been a much-needed focus and progress has been made. More and more South African heroes on national sport teams are from previously disadvantaged communities. The fact that so much more needs to be accomplished does not excuse bullying tactics or interference in the selection of sports teams. What we want to know is: Does government intend specifically targeting certain sports in terms of interference in selection or is this going to be across the board? Is swimming or tennis perhaps next?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Hon Dudley, I thought you were part of a debate where we discussed the Sport and Recreation Amendment Bill a few weeks ago in this honourable House. In clause 13, specifically, it states that government will not interfere in the selection of teams, nor in the day-to-day running of federations. So we will not say who is to be the president, the CEO or the board of that institution. Hon Dudley, hopefully you will remember that vigorous debate we had. It was a very proactive debate and we will not look at certain sporting codes only. We will look at the entire range of sports in South Africa. Thank you.

                Budget allocations to no-fee schools

1. Ms P R Mashangoane (ANC) asked the Minister of Education:

   Whether her department has been informed that some of the schools regarded as no-fee schools have not received their allocated budgets; if so, what are the relevant details? N1081E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, could I begin by saying that hon members of this House often indicate their desire for members of the executive to appear in the House for question time. I’m surprised, therefore, that the House is almost empty when members of the executive are here, indeed to perform their oversight obligation to the National Assembly. I would ask that some attention be paid to this in the future.

The answer is as follows. During my visits some school principals, certainly, have informed me that their schools did not receive their school allocations on time. When informed of this by schools, I’ve often contacted the provincial offices of our departments of education or the district offices and have been able to rectify the matter.

Prior to the implementation of the policy on 1 January 2007, we provided guidelines from national to provincial departments on the funding of no-fee schools. Since then, provinces have assured me that the guidelines are being implemented and that provinces have now made all the arrangements necessary to minimise the impact of the transition to no-fee schools, where schools were previously dependent on receiving funds from school fees.

There have been some failures in administrative procedures with respect to allocations. I have again asked my colleagues, the MECs, to ensure that no school is put under financial pressure as the result of the implementation of the no-fee school policy.

Our historic policy in support of the exercise of the right to education has brought positive benefit to millions of children. We will iron out the problem areas. We will work, and are working, towards a far more efficient implementation in the year 2008.

Mdi P R MASHANGOANE: Ke a go leboga mohlomphegi Tona ka phetolo ye bohlokwa yeo o e filego. Go ya ka tshedimošo ya gago, mohlomphegi Tona, ke magato a fe a tlaleletšo ao Lefapha la Thuto le a tšerego go kgonthišiša gore dikolo tšeo di amegago di hwetša tshedimošo ya maleba le gore ditekanyetšo-kabo di hwetšwa ka nako ke dikolo tša maleba?

Ke a leboga, Modulasetulo. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)

[Ms P R MASHANGOANE: Thank you, hon Minister, for your comprehensive response. According to your information, hon Minister, what further steps has the Department of Education taken to ensure that schools which are affected get the relevant information and that the budget is timeously accessible by the deserving schools?

Thank you, Chairperson.]

TONA YA THUTO: Ke a leboga Moetapele. O botsa ka Sepedi. Nna ke tla araba ka Setswana. Re ne re kopane re le mokgatlho wa baetapele ba thuto ka Mosupologo. Re dumetse gore re tla tiisa maatla a rona go fa dikolo kitso le madi ka nako mo ngwageng wa 2008.

Ngwaga o, o ne o le wa ntlha wa go dirisa molao o mošwa o. Ke kopile lefapha la me gore le tlhope dikolonyana go bona gore madi a rona a a fitlha mo dikolong, gape go leka go re bolelela gore re ka baakanya yang diphosonyana tse re di boneng mo ngwageng e. Re leka go baakanya phoso tsa rona go dira gore dikolo tsa rona tsotlhe di bone madi a tsona ka nako ka

1. Ke a leboga. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)

[The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Chairperson. You ask the question in Sepedi and I will respond in Setswana. We and the Council of Education had a meeting on Monday and agreed to work together to provide schools with funds and information on time in the year 2008.

We started implementing this policy for the first time this year. I asked my department to select few schools and to ensure that they do receive the funds on time so as to further help us correct the mistakes that we experienced this year. We will try to rectify our mistakes so that all the schools can receive funds on time in 2008. Thank you.]

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Hon Minister, I’m sorry if I’ll repeat the same question. I missed that.

My question will revolve around the unintended consequences of the policy. Because of limited time, I’m not able to describe those unintended consequences, but they have in fact led to some sort of vicious circle. Is the Minister aware of these unintended consequences; if she is, can she explain how she intends dealing with those unintended consequences of the policy? I thank you. The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Well, the hon member is asking me to speculate and I actually don’t like speculation very much. I like to speak to fact. There have been two particular areas of concern I’ve referred to, firstly that the allocations do not always reach schools on time. The provincial departments of education are addressing this.

A second consequence that has been drawn to my attention by school communities is that schools that are in the same poor area have not been declared no-fee schools by the provincial departments of education. Again, about the set of criteria that we utilise in discussion with provinces, we have stressed that in terms of the law there is a discretion that the MECs can exercise regarding the names of schools they submit to the Minister for declaration as no-fee schools.

If we need to actually look at the criteria that are currently being used we would certainly have to do that, but that can only be done following the department’s pilot analysis, which I referred to, in order to establish the impact and facts deriving from implementation this year.

Mev D VAN DER WALT: Dankie, Voorsitter. Agb Minister, daar is regtig net té veel skole geleë in baie arm areas wat duidelik kwalifiseer as “no-fee schools”. Tog is hulle nie as sodanig verklaar nie. Kan die agb Minister asseblief verduidelik wat die rede hiervoor is en watter kriteria hiervoor gebruik word? Dankie.

Die MINISTER VAN ONDERWYS: Voorsitter, ek kan nie baie Afrikaans praat nie, maar ek dink ek het daardie antwoord verskaf, so ek weet nie wat ek kan sê nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, there are really just too many schools in the very poor areas that clearly qualify as “no- fee schools”. Yet they still have not been declared as such. Can the hon Minister please explain what the reason is for this and what criteria are being used for this? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I can’t speak very much Afrikaans, but I think I have answered that question, so I don’t know what I could say. [Interjections.]]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): I take it you got the question, Minister?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Yes, I did get the question; indeed, I thought I had answered it.

The criteria that we utilise derive from the poverty analyses that are carried out through the centres. Therefore, we base our analyses on the definition of communities and school infrastructure as poor quality infrastructure, so it’s the poverty of the surrounding community that is the primary determinant.

However, it is clear, as I said to the hon Mpontshane, that the flexibility given to MECs, the discretion to actually say that in terms of the composition of this school, which may have very good infrastructure and so on, and which might reside on the border of a very poor community, that those attending are actually so poor that they are deserving of this declaration. So, we are asking that they look far more carefully at the manner in which they identify the schools and whether they are perhaps applying the criteria far too strictly, in terms of the way it is proposed in the Act.

However, I have said to the hon Mpontshane that I have directed my department to extract a representative sample of schools in order to identify exactly what occurred this year and then, out of that study, to advise us as to any changes that we might need to make.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Minister, no one was rushing to the mike, so I thought I would take this opportunity. At the same time, regarding the no- fee schools, obviously there was a situation where certain schools had been identified as being in more affluent areas, while in fact serving large areas of underprivileged people and sort of falling in a situation that was not really in keeping with where they were situated. Has the department been looking at this situation and is there a plan coming through to put that situation right? Thanks.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I try when I table my Budget Vote to present comprehensive speeches that deal with these issues and I’m having both my budget speeches in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces spoken to this issue.

There is the question of schools which have to exempt significant numbers of poor children. I’ve said that we need to develop policy in regard to how we might compensate, but of course you’d have to look at the income of the school and the level of exemption and so on. So, that aspect requires to be addressed.

The other aspect is that of schools which have very good facilities and which previously admitted well-off families’ children, but which now have very poor communities surrounding them, generally in the form of informal settlements. Those schools also need to receive some consideration, but all of this costs a great deal and therefore we’d have to look at an arrangement whereby to provide some form of support to these schools. I have said this previously, both to the House as well as to the National Council of Provinces.

We cannot immediately act because the data-gathering is not of a nature that allows me to make a decision one way or the other, but it is part of the analysis that I am currently carrying out, so that we have a scientific basis for making a determination.

  Boundary between Maruleng and Bushbuckridge local municipalities

1. Mr M W Sibuyana (IFP) asked the Minister for Provincial and Local Government:

   (1) Whether he has been informed that the present boundary between the Maruleng and Bushbuckridge local municipalities resulted in the (a) dissolution of the Bohlabela district municipality, (b) endorsement of the apartheid boundary and (c) division of certain farms into two, one half in Limpopo and the other in Mpumalanga; if so,

   (2) whether this is a reflection of proper administration; if not,

   (3) whether these boundaries will be moved back to where they were before the apartheid system in order to meet the desire of the majority of the Amakhosi and their subjects in the area; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

   (4) whether he will send a fact-finding team to confirm that the Olifants River as boundary before the apartheid era did not interfere with any person’s property; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? N1119E

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Established in December 2000 as a cross-boundary municipality, the Bohlabela District Municipality was later de-established as a cross- boundary municipality through legislation which was debated and passed in this House.

The question posed by the hon member therefore relates to a matter of principle in respect of which Parliament has already taken a decision. Whilst indeed he has a right to raise this matter, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by the engagement he seems to be asking for.

The hon member also makes assertions to which I must respond. Firstly, it is not clear which apartheid boundary he is referring to. The legislation enacted in 2005 did not effect any major adjustments to the boundaries of the Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces as defined in the 1996 Constitution.

The 2005 legislation, on the other hand, dealt primarily with the dissolution of the cross-boundary district municipality and the consequential relocation of the Maruleng and Bushbuckridge Local Municipalities into the Mokopane and Ehlanzeni District Municipalities respectively.

Whilst it is easy for some to attach labels to the boundaries we currently have, it must also always be borne in mind that all of them were either sanctioned by the Constitutional Assembly in 1996 or by our democratic Parliament and, where appropriate, by the independent Municipal Demarcation Board.

Finally I must say that regarding the so-called division of farms or properties, the hon member has provided me with no details. Consequently, I am not in a position to respond to this aspect of the question. If he could be kind enough in future to be less vague than he is with respect to this question, that would help me to engage with the issues he is raising. Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr M W SIBUYANA: Hon Minister, if you are aware of the boundaries in your provinces, you will know that the boundary that is there between the now Maruleng and Ehlanzeni Districts is an endorsement of the boundary which was created there by the apartheid system, which cuts the properties of some individuals in two.

I refer to Fleur-de-lis, if you know it. I refer to Sandringham. I refer to Morgenzon. They are cut in two. I ask the question: How are those farms going to be administered? They have one half in Limpopo and the other half in Mpumalanga.

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: I think the problem is not the fact that change has happened. I think the problem is that your memory is stuck in the past, and that is why you still see one half in one province and another half in another province. The fact of the matter is that the municipal boundaries have been redetermined and we have new provincial boundaries.

Mr W P DOMAN: I would like to welcome the Minister here. It is the first time this year that he is able to be present to answer questions. Mr Minister, the problem here is consultation with the people and the problem is that the Municipal Demarcation Board does not do that type of consultation and it is actually the government and the department that must do that. Do you agree that the department should be very engaged in the consultation process, and did your department draw up a consultation protocol or code so that the community’s minds can be at peace that the best decision is eventually taken?

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Well, I want to thank the hon member for his realisation, for the first time, that I am in the House, but it does not mean that I am in the House for the first time.

The facts as they exist do not justify the thesis that the hon member is putting forward. Consultations took place in all the affected municipalities whose boundaries needed to be redetermined. Even the hon member who posed this question was not making the allegation that the hon Mr Doman is making. I don’t know what the basis is on which he feels that he must make such a fantastic assertion, to the effect that there was no consultation with the people of Bohlabela. Mr W P DOMAN: Chairperson, I have another follow-up question.

Mr Minister, I make that assertion because of what is happening in Khutsong and also the court cases in Matatiele. There were consultations to a certain extent, but the people are not happy. I think that you and your department must take some initiative, that there is a specific protocol and if that has been followed then the decision will come and the people must just then accept it, but there is no certainty for people on how the consultations will take place.

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: The hon member must decide what it is he wants to discuss with me. Firstly, he says there was no consultation and now he says there was consultation but people are not happy. What is it that you want to discuss with me, in all seriousness? Do you know whether there is a difference between Bushbuckridge and Matatiele, and Bohlabela and Khutsong. You don’t seem to know that. What is it that the hon member wants to discuss with me?

Chairperson, I suggest that you ask the hon member to take himself seriously. [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order, order! There is one opportunity left. Mr Doman, please pose a question.

Mr W P DOMAN: My question is whether, in consultation, the hon Minister is sure that the communities are satisfied. Does he have a protocol? Does he have a process? I have never said that there were no consultations in Bushbuckridge. I am asking him why the people in Khutsong and Matitiele are not satisfied after he engaged in proper consultation. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: I don’t have a protocol which is determined by me independently from what he has determined as a member of this House. The protocol is contained in the legislation that you voted for in this House. In case you don’t know, I will tell you more about this piece of legislation, but outside the House, because I don’t think you and I must waste the time of this House.

           Timeous return of forensic alcohol test results

1. Mr M S Moatshe (ANC) asked the Minister of Health:

   Whether he has taken any steps to ensure the timeous return of forensic tests of suspected drunken drivers; if not, why not; if so, what steps? N914E

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, thank you very much and thanks to the hon Member of Parliament for the question. During the last year there have been major changes in all three of the forensic laboratories to ensure timely return of alcohol test results.

These changes include supply and installation of all of the required instrumentation, purchase and commission of a laboratory computer system, preparation of the laboratories for accreditation by the South African National Accreditation System – Sanas. The alcohol laboratories are ready and awaiting inspection.

The upgrading of quality control procedures and results now meet international standards. Changes in working practice to ensure a two-week turnaround for current samples and the reduction of the backlog to zero over the next nine months. A business plan has been developed for the reduction of the backlog and a procedure is in place for first checking samples from which results are required urgently ahead of a court case.

There is no backlog of drunken-driving alcohol samples at the Pretoria laboratory and Cape Town laboratory has reduced its backlog by 30%. The Johannesburg laboratory has had to be re-staffed, but is now on track for rapid reduction of its backlog. I thank you.

Ms A VAN WYK: Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, before I ask the hon Minister a follow-up question, I just want to say to hon Minister Mufamadi that apparently it is not the first day that you are in the House. It is the first time that Mr Doman is awake in the afternoon.

Hon Minister, thank you very much for your answer and also welcome back. It is good to see you back in the job. I would like to thank you for your positive response. It is indeed good to hear that progress has been made and that offenders will not go free because of some technical problems that we experienced in the past.

Too many people die on our roads, many due to drunken drivers out there. By when can we expect the backlog in the Western Cape and Johannesburg to be fully wiped out? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Thank you very much for those kind words of welcoming me back to Parliament. Thank you very much. Indeed, we are working flat-out to reduce the backlogs and Johannesburg laboratory has indeed had to re-staff the laboratory and they are now on track. So, I think we are doing quite well, but of course we need to do much more to ensure that there are no backlogs whatsoever. Thank you.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, Chair. Yes, hon Minister, welcome back. We hope you are well. With regard to the forensic chemistry laboratory in Woodstock, which is notorious for its backlog and where blood alcohol tests are performed to supply court evidence, a medical legal adviser to the Western Cape provincial health department is reported to have said, and I quote:

I think the delays in forensic chemistry are idiosyncrasies of law and political development.

They do not have a problem getting staff with highly specialised expertise and it is not a very highly paid job. Because of the need to fast-track the filling of quotas, resources were diverted into the training of underqualified staff, as accuracy is critical. Productivity suffers because of highly skilled staff having to invest their time in training, instead of focusing on their work. The workload is huge, with crime rates rising.

We are asking if this situation is being addressed and what the relevant details are there. Thank you, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Thank you very much for that question and that comment. I note the comment from the legal adviser but, as I said, this is the report I have from the Western Cape, the Woodstock forensic laboratory. I dare say that I don’t think any person will object to anybody training other people in order to make sure that we have indeed enough qualified people, because if we don’t have enough qualified people we will have these backlogs. I think that comment, in itself, is an indication of the need to increase the mass of the human resources that can address these issues. Thank you.

Mr G R MORGAN: Thank you, Chairperson. Madam Minister, welcome back. The speedy and reliable testing of forensic material, including blood from suspected drunk drivers, is obviously a critical part of our criminal justice system in terms of both the victims and the perpetrated injustice.

It is very good to hear that the backlog at Pretoria has been eliminated. Indeed, approximately a year ago that backlog was 2000, so that is good news. What I would like to ask, though, is a question on human resources in the Pretoria forensic laboratory. Between September 2005 and August 2006 there were 25 resignations from this particular laboratory. It does have a high turnover rate, because of competing needs and indeed these people have very high technical skills.

I’d like to know, Madam Minister, whether in your knowledge there is any particular reason why this unit has such a high turnover rate and what efforts are being made to fill vacancies in the Pretoria forensic laboratory. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Thank you very much. I am sure those who resigned would have given their reasons for resignation. I haven’t had the opportunity to read their letters of resignation in order to determine why they are resigning. However, what I would say is that, as you know, we have a human resource plan for the Department of Health and one of the areas that we are trying to address is precisely this area.

Indeed, the resignations are not only in this area. They are in quite a number of areas and the human resource plan tries to address those many issues. We have been working with other departments to try and see how we can prevent the resignations and also other issues that concern human resources in the Department of Health. Thank you.

Meeting of objectives of National Office on the Status of Disabled Persons

1. Mrs H I Bogopane-Zulu (ANC) asked the Minister in the Presidency:

   (a) Whether the objectives of the national Office on the Status of Disabled Persons, namely to facilitate the integration, co-ordination and monitoring of disability policy and programmes, are met; if not, why not; if so, (a) how, (b) what are the challenges and (c) how will the Presidency address those challenges in the future? N1079E

The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, the reply to the question is as follows. The socioeconomic and political challenges facing people with disabilities in our society are of such an order that the work of the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons – OSDP - will be ongoing for a long time to come. The OSDP certainly strives to meet its objectives, although challenges still remain. The activities of the OSDP are aligned with the strategic plan of the Presidency according to an allocated budget within the policy unit.

The OSDP has succeeded in integrating disability in the public and private spheres through collaboration and partnerships with all levels of government and with organisations representing the interests of persons with disabilities. Through hosting the International Day of Disabled Persons, and involvement with various other advocacy programmes, the OSDP has managed to raise awareness of the socio-economic and political barriers to the full inclusion of people with disabilities in the mainstream of society.

One of the most significant challenges we face in both the public and private spheres is ensuring that people with disabilities are integrated into the labour market. In the public sphere, Cabinet has taken a decision that by 2009 about 2% of the managers in the public service must be people with disabilities. The OSDP continues to drive various donor-funded projects aimed at empowering people with disabilities through skills development, training and entrepreneurial development. It also works with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research – CSIR on the development of the National Accessibility Portal Project, which aims to provide people with disabilities with knowledge of, and access to, information communication and technology.

The OSDP is also working with the South African Management Development Institute, or SAMDI, in order to align our Integrated National Disability Strategy. Focal persons for disability have been established in government departments and provinces. We do have co-ordinating structures as well.

I would like to mention that we did play a very important role in the successful negotiations around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that this Parliament ratified both the convention and the optional protocol. I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thanks to that portfolio committee and its chair. Is she sitting at the back? No she is not.

Our commitments with respect to this international convention will undoubtedly strengthen disability mainstreaming and integration. In partnership with Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the Youth Commission, we are conducting a research study to evaluate the status of the youth with disabilities in South Africa. A draft OSDP monitoring and evaluation framework has also been developed as informed by the government-wide monitoring and evaluation system. This includes disability-specific indicators, which are currently being reviewed concurrently with the Integrated National Disability Strategy - INDS.

Despite this, many challenges remain. These include inadequate statistics and data on disability in South Africa. This has consequences for policy and for monitoring and evaluation of policy. To address this challenge, the OSDP intends to commission research through universities and the Human Sciences Research Council in the future.

The OSDP also recognises the considerable fragmentation of the disability sector and it is hoped that the National Disability Summit, to be hosted by the OSDP in July, will strengthen the national disability machinery in order to forge important ties and integrate commitments towards improving the lives of people with disabilities. I thank you.

Mrs D M MOROBI: Thank you hon Minister for your elaborate and precise response. My follow-up question is whether quarterly reports from government departments are being considered to monitor the implementation of policies and programmes affecting people with disabilities? I thank you.

The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, I think that is a very critical point. I need to give some thought to it, so that we do some investigation regarding the extent to which government departments actually respond to the question as put. What I will undertake to do, is to ensure that it becomes one of the research areas that we need to look at, because I think it is a very important point that has been made. I thank you.

Dr U ROOPNARAIN: Chairperson, hon Minister, the draft report on the Impact of the Equality Act on the Lives of Women and People with Disabilities states that persons with disabilities, specifically those living with intellectual disabilities, find it difficult to access information regarding programmes on health issues and on economic opportunities.

For example, it was noted that persons with disabilities are often ignored when providing communities with HIV and Aids information. Existing information is often not available in a usable form. Coupled with this, how will somebody in a rural area like Mahlabahini or Nongoma access government programmes and information? Maybe you can help us there?

Maybe I can also use this opportunity to indicate to the chairperson of the joint monitoring committee on the youth child and disabled, who is not in the House but who would support me on this, to please assist in arranging a course in sign language for all MPs, because it is a barrier when we try to communicate with somebody who has intellectual disability or who cannot communicate with us. I thank you. [Time expired.]

The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: I think that maybe sign language is for those who can’t hear and not for the intellectually disabled.

Let me say that, again, you are very correct because it is not a matter for the health department only. There is an ongoing challenge for government as whole. If I may answer partly, as head of government’s communication and information system, we do continuously face a challenge of getting our information and programmes out to our people in the rural areas and in the language that they are most comfortable with.

This remains a continuing challenge for us in terms of getting that information out. All I can say is that we continue to address that matter, but that we are not yet succeeding in doing so. I would be very grateful if you could give us some concrete information, so that we can deal with these specific areas, which may well require it. I thank you.

Mnr S J F MARAIS: Dankie, Voorsitter. Minister Fraser-Moleketi het gister aan die Parlement erken dat die doelwitte vir die indiensneming van persone met gestremdhede nie behaal is nie. Dit wil voorkom asof die regering klaarblyklik nie dieselfde prioriteit gee aan die vermeerdering van persone met gestremdhede, as byvoorbeeld aan dié van vroue nie. Weinig of geen van eerste- tot die derdevlakowerhede in Suid-Afrika is suksesvol met die bereik van hierdie regeringsdoelwitte nie.

Die Breedevallei Munisipaliteit op Worcester het in 2001 ’n doelwit gestel om 3% gestremdes aan te stel. Worcester het ’n hoë konsentrasie gesig- en gehoorgestremdes, asook liggaamlikgestremdes en verstandelikgestremdes. Aan die einde van 2006 het die ANC-beheerde munisipaliteit ’n prestasie van 0,8% gehaal. Is die Minister bereid om sanksies te oorweeg teen van hierdie owerhede, wat klaarblyklik geen ernstige poging aanwend om hierdie doelwitte te bereik? Voorts, kan die Minister ook toesien dat vordering daarmee gekontroleerd aan hierdie Parlement gerapporteer kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr S J F MARAIS: Thank you, Chairperson. Minister Fraser-Moleketi yesterday admitted to Parliament that the goals set for the employment of people with disabilities have not been met. It appears as if government does not prioritise and value the employment of disabled people as highly as it does, for example, the employment of more women. Very few or none of the first to third-tier public authorities have been successful in reaching these government goals.

In 2001 the Breede Valley Municipality in Worcester set itself the goal of employing 3% disabled people. Worcester has a high concentration of visually and hearing impaired people, as well as physically and mentally disabled people. However, at the end of 2006, the ANC-governed municipality only succeeded in employing 0,8%. Is the Minister prepared to consider sanctions against these municipalities, which seemingly are not making any serious effort to reach these set goals? Furthermore, will the Minister also ensure that any progress made towards reaching these goals is reported to this Parliament in a controlled manner?]

The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, I am not yet a policeman. So I don’t know what you expect me to do. I don’t know about Worcester either. Therefore I didn’t think that I would be asked to respond to what may well be a specifically serious problem in a particular part of this country. That was not the question that was asked from me.

All I can say is that where we have laws passed by this Parliament, in terms of national norms and standards, in terms of the Constitution you would then expect all three spheres of government to implement these. Where the law is not implemented, we would then have to look and see what kind of steps we can take to get the responsible authorities to implement the law.

I think that in that case, Parliament itself can play a very helpful role, because working together as the executive and the legislature we will ensure that those authorities that are failing to implement our laws will now implement them. I am not sure just how we can use policing methods to compel people to do certain things. I think the best thing is for us to work together in the interests of persons with disabilities. I think that is the direction we should take. I thank you.

                 Understanding of policy on religion

1. Prof S M Mayatula (ANC) asked the Minister of Education:

   Whether (a) school communities, (b) school governing bodies and (c) parents in general understand the policy on religion and its distinction between (i) religion education, (ii) religious education and (iii) religious observation; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? N1083E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, the reply is as follows. I’m unable to speak of how the constituencies referred to understand our policy, but I can say that the Department of Education has disseminated a large quantity of materials on the policy to these constituencies, and of course I can also add that the policy and its particular approach and content is integrated into the life orientation learning area in the national curriculum.

I have, however, heard that a number of schools are struggling with implementing the religion in education policy in the curriculum. In some schools teachers apparently insist on teaching Christianity as the only true religion, while in others there are teachers who do not implement the new curriculum with its comparative religion focus in their teaching in this area.

I think it’s very important for us to realise and accept that the policy demands a mind shift in many of our communities. We need to create an environment where a comparative approach to religion is understood. Creating such an environment would take time and this certainly would not be solved by the materials we’ve provided nor the workshops that we’ve held on their own. It is through national debate, promoting a value where freedom of religion and understanding of all religions is encouraged and inculcated, that our policies will begin to enjoy national acceptance.

Prof S M MAYATULA: Chairperson, hon Minister, this is an important one about religion education and religious education. I wouldn’t be surprised if even many of our members here do not understand the difference between religion education and religious education. Even when we talk about the observance of this in schools, they don’t have a clearer understanding. Could you be so kind and just clarify these issues. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, firstly, religion education is a comparative content in the current new curriculum, and this seeks to assist young people to understand that there are different world religions. It’s usually the big world religions that are elaborated on in the curriculum and what we are trying to do with this approach is to promote the values in our Constitution, which promote respect for the dignity of others, respect for freedom of religion and other practises which are referred to in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, religion education is a comparative perspective on the religions of the world, their values, their content and the ethos that is communicated in each of them.

Religious education, in its traditional practice in South Africa and many countries, seeks to focus on one religion in the school. Generally in our country it has been Christianity, as derived from the Bible with a particular focus on the New Testament in many schools.

We moved away from that, given the new constitutional ethos of this country, and decided that education in schools is about providing children with full knowledge about the religions of the world. That is what we would do to teach the particular principles, rituals and practises of the specific religions that we belong to.

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chairperson, Hon Minister, from a different angle, certainly from my angle, the question involves values in education. I can safely say that what we see in our schools regarding stabbings, violence and sexual harassment is the result of the lack of teaching of absolute values in our schools. There was once a departmental project which was termed teaching of values in schools, but I no longer hear about it.

What further steps will the Minister take to resurrect this project, which we feel is very essential, teaching about absolute values? Because if you look in other countries like America, for instance, some of the problems that emanated at special schools were the result of this relativity where nothing was absolute. I thank you. [Time expired.]

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I must say I fail to understand the sociology of absolute values. There was a great deal of debate in crafting the Bill of Rights as to whether there are absolute rights or whether, in fact, we are talking of generic and generalised rights. I’m a bit concerned about it because it is a very static notion.

Now the issue of values in education is not a project. At the time the member became aware of it, which was in the mid 90s, it was introduced as a project because the process of developing the new curriculum of South Africa was at its infancy. But if the member looks at our curriculum, values are integrated into the curriculum and are not a separate part.

Therefore, what we should be teaching in every subject and learning area are these values of the Constitution that I’ve referred to; respect for human dignity, honesty, positive values and ethical attitude against some of the negative practises the member has referred to. It is a difficult area, that of ethics, particularly if you haven’t studied philosophy. It is something that is espoused actively and practically in our curriculum and, as I said previously, to fundamentally alter our conduct; it is not just the teachers who must be concerned about this. Each person in South Africa must make it their business to teach new values to our children and young people.

Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, Minister seeing you were so kind to start in Afrikaans, I will try to do this in English. Obviously, I’m standing in for a colleague. I have listened very carefully, and of course the rights of all are embodied in the Constitution. However, upon reading this question I’ve wondered whether any incidents were reported to you or your office regarding frictions between educators and learners or amongst learners because of this new curriculum that you have put together on these religious matters. If they do occur, would you explain yourself to those communities involved how to take nation-building further through the Constitution? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Baie dankie, agb Lid. [Thank you, hon member.]

Communities have written to me, while individuals in our society have also expressed concern about what they view as the diminution of attention, particularly to Christianity.

I have been able to write to every person who writes to me. It’s usually by e-mail, so I can reply and explain why we’ve developed this policy. I also indicate to them that we went through a very exhaustive process – our former Minister certainly, and the department - an exhaustive process of consultation. There was a nation-wide debate; we all had an opportunity through newspaper articles and other fora to express our view. This approach was found to be one that does speak to the essential values of our Constitution.

In terms of schools, I must say that I think our children are perhaps more tolerant than we are because we have not had interreligious intolerance among children in our schools or differences of opinion in a severe fashion. I also think schools have done a little better than we might have expected in terms of religious observances.

If a particular school wants to perhaps develop an aspect of one religion to a more detailed degree, the policy does allow a percentage of the time in the life orientation programme to be so developed, but without derogating from our intention to ensure this comparative perspective.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Minister, in September 2003 the then education Minister hon Kadar Asmal said that the policy on religion and education would not be implemented before teachers were properly trained and necessary learning materials provided. He added that departmental officials and provincial MECs would travel around the country to explain the policy to the public. Can the Minister tell us to what degree this has been done and how successful this approach has been? What are the challenges faced by the department in this regard. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: As to the travelling around the country, I’ve said there has been extensive consultation. A quantity of material has been provided to school governing bodies in meetings, to school management teams, the so-called senior management teams, and to teachers and these items are in use.

We have posters which reflect an overview of the policy as well as different religions of South Africa. We have very attractive engaging processes directed at young people, but assisting teachers as teaching material. We have books for learners, we have teachers’ guides in terms of life orientation, we have a brochure introducing the content of the particular subject focus, and we have foundation teachers’ material for young children. So it starts from an early phase right through the curriculum.

So, a great deal has been done and it is perhaps that reason which has given rise to my reply to the hon member Van der Walt, that we haven’t had the kind of dispute and conflict one might have assumed would occur in a country which had such a specific focus on one particular religion and very little attention to other religions of the world.

 Audit by Auditor-General on financial aspects of N2 Gateway project

1. Mr A C Steyn (DA) asked the Minister of Housing:

   Whether the Auditor-General has completed the audit on the financial aspects of the N2 Gateway project; if not, when is it expected to be completed; if so, what are the results of the audit? N1100E

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, I was amused a few minutes ago when the hon member referred to the answer that was given by the hon Dr Pahad as a precise answer after he’d been on the floor for five minutes. Talking about the issue of being precise, this is precisely what I would like to point out to the hon member. It is important that our questions are as precise as we would like our answers to be.

At no point did we in the National Department of Housing ask for an audit of the financial aspects of the N2 Gateway Project, so I have absolutely no idea what the member is talking about. What we had asked the Auditor- General to do was to look at value for money. We asked him to look at the processes, whether they in fact merited the amount of money that was spent and the lessons that we would have got out of that, whether they in fact merited the money we spent on that. This came about as a result of long drawn-out processes that we were subjected to by the City of Cape Town. We decided that we wanted to understand if in fact it is possible for a sphere of government to hold to ransom another sphere of government and how much money would go into paying for the time that we spent waiting for that.

We have not received any response from the Auditor-General. He is suffering the same frustrations I have suffered, of getting answers from various spheres of government, so he has not given me any response. When he does, I will table it in the House and I will make sure the hon Butch Steyn is there to understand what the Auditor-General is saying. Thank you.

Mr A C STEYN: I think, hon Minister, we should dispense with the semantics. Value for money to me is the same as financial aspects, and whether the department asked for it or not, the fact of the matter is you have confirmed that the Auditor-General is looking at whether we receive value for money.

I think it is obvious that we know that we have not received value for money to date and I think, just to remind you of your own words this morning, hon Minister, you indicated that we will not just get value from the houses, but also value from the knowledge.

I put it to you, hon Minister, that we will certainly get value from the knowledge of how that money was spent, especially seeing that you’re about to announce phase two tomorrow. Would you, therefore, not agree with me that the Auditor-General should speed up this process so that we can learn from the mistakes and we can apply them in the phases to follow and not repeat the mistakes? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: The pity about all of this, I think, is that the hon Steyn asked this question and put it on the Order Paper before this morning. This morning I invited him to the launch of 96 houses that were given over in the same project he is talking about, because we are in the process of completing 1 700 houses. I think he is stumped now for what question to ask further.

We have received value for money in the project. We continue to receive value for money and we can dispense with semantics. That’s what I said this morning - value for money. That’s what I’m saying this afternoon - value for money.

We did not ask the Auditor-General to audit any of the finances. What you’re talking about, perhaps, is what the city might have asked for. We would like to understand why we’ve been waiting for one year for the city to lease land. That’s what we would like to understand. Thank you.

Ms Z A KOTA: Minister, do you agree with me that this is just another DA attempt to get political mileage out of the N2 Gateway, knowing very well that they were responsible for the delays associated especially with the City of Cape Town?

Their intransigence and unwillingness with regard to the signing of the Land Availability Agreement has delayed the N2 Gateway project.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: I agree with the hon Kota. That is why I feel very sorry for hon Butch Steyn, because the question would have worked much better for him if we had not invited him and shown him that in fact we are getting value for money.

Yes, we have waited a year for the Land Availability Agreement to be signed by the city. I would like to find out from the Auditor-General what amount of money was wasted by … [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Please proceed, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: You know, the rattling of the brain of somebody who doesn’t use it often is very loud. [Laughter.]

What I was saying is we would like to know just what money has been used up by the developer while waiting for this and I think, yes, this would have been another DA ploy to try and explain away the fact that we waited for a whole year. I just want to point out to the House that I’m now very glad that the DA does get caught up in its own political ploy.

My suspicion is that the mayor was actually forced into signing that Land Availability Agreement after a faux pas by a member of the DA who ran to the newspaper to say that we had signed that Land Availability Agreement some time back, when in fact this was not true. I wish that member was in this House, then we could make sure that that member was held accountable for misleading the House. Soon after that statement had been issued, the Land Availability Agreement was signed. One year after we had requested that. One year.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Thank you, hon Minister. Order! Ask a question if you’ve got something to shout about. Order! Please take your seat, hon member.

Mr H B CUPIDO: Chairperson, hon Minister, in light of the challenges that government experienced during the construction of the N2 Gateway project, the first project, can the Minister give us any indication when the second project might come into operation? And will you follow a different approach in order to enhance the second phase, because the first phase took quite a long time? Thank you. The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Yes, the reason why we were so frustrated about this Land Availability Agreement was precisely because it was intended to ensure that the second phase could start promptly and produce something. The second phase was given over to FNB to build bonded housing and the City of Cape Town has finally signed and tomorrow we are viewing the first house of the second phase, which is a bonded house that will be unveiled by FNB. The hon member is invited to come and view this house.

To ensure that we can speed up this process we have asked FNB to ensure that we can do this in the shortest possible time. It is very important to us, because we would like to show that it is possible to have integrated human settlements right in the face of anybody who is driving by, virtually on the bed of what used to be a slum. When you drive to the airport, past that place which used to be a slum where our people would have rains and fire every winter, you will see that South Africa has a different plan for housing. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): The follow-up goes to the hon A C Steyn. Unfortunately, Mr Sayedali-Shah, you were busy heckling instead of pressing the button, so you didn’t get an opportunity.

Mr A C STEYN: Chairperson, hon Minister, do you still maintain that we have received value for money with phase one, considering that the supposed beneficiaries cannot afford to move into those units? Do you still maintain that we received value for money and that there were no financial irregularities that the Auditor-General should investigate? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: I love these questions from the DA. It gives me the opportunity to boast about what we’ve achieved on the N2. Now … [Applause.] I like you now.

Phase one was intended to be rental housing. Who we are accommodating on the N2 are those people who lived in slum areas, together with those people who have been waiting for such a long time for housing who may have lived in backyards. These people can afford the rent. They live in a backyard and they pay the rent.

We are offering them the opportunity to pay rent for decent accommodation. This is what we are doing. That rent is subsidised by the state and we have value for money. They live there now in complete dignity. You would have seen this morning that in fact they themselves are very happy with what they have. Imagine what would have happened now on the same stretch of land with the rains and the cold. There would have been a fire. There has not been a fire in that area for years now.

The children are safe; they play on swings - you saw them. The environment is friendly, so what more could they ask for? This is the dignity that we promised the people of South Africa and we have given it to them. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): I wasn’t aware that sweetheart questions also came from the DA, but that is certainly one!

              Steps taken to safeguard clinical trials

150 Ms M L Matsemela (ANC) asked the Minister of Health:

  With regard to the recent case of microbicide trials which led to some
  participants who were HIV negative becoming infected with HIV, what
  (a) has the government or her department done to ensure ethical
  conduct in clinical trials in general, and in this instance in
  particular, and (b) measures are in place to protect participants in
  clinical research trials?               N1084E

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: The National Health Research Ethics Council has been established in terms of the National Health Act, Act 61 of 2003. The role of the council is to promote and monitor the compliance of the South African Health Research Ethics Committees with relevant legislation, regulations, ethical guidelines and standards, and to build capacity for these committees.

The microbicide in question is the cellulose sulfate microbicide trial that was conducted by researchers from the Medical Research Council - MRC. Conrad in the US funds the study. After the department read in the media about the discontinuation of this particular trial by the Drug Safety monitoring Board, I called an urgent meeting on 6 February 2007 between myself and the President of the MRC, the MRC researchers conducting the study, the chairperson and the deputy chairperson of the National Health Research Ethics Council and the senior officials of the national Department of Health. I then requested the National Health Research Ethics Council to conduct investigations into this trial, and this commenced in February, and currently the council is interviewing the research participants. The council has submitted a preliminary report to me, but it is not conclusive as the data is still with Conrad and it is blinded. The council has requested the Department of Health to write to Conrad and request for the South African data to be unblinded so that they can do an in-depth review. The Department of Health has sent a letter to Conrad, asking them to unblind the South African data, and we are awaiting a response.

The Department of Health further published a number of guidelines, namely Guidelines for Good Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials on Human Participants in South Africa. This took place in 2001 and the guidelines were revised in 2006. These guidelines focus on good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials in general.

We also produced and distributed brochures to communities, explaining what you should know when deciding to take part in a clinical trial as a participant. This was done to empower communities to know their rights. This was done in the 11 official languages. Another document is Ethics in Health Research: Principles, Structures and Processes, of 2004. These guidelines outline the governance of research and ethics and they emphasise the importance of research ethics structures such as: research ethics committees; the National Health Research Ethics Council, as stipulated in the National Health Act; the registration, auditing and accreditation of research ethics committees; and they explain processes to be followed when seeking ethical approval.

The other document is the Guidelines on Ethics for Medical Research: HIV- Preventive Vaccine Research. The MRC of South Africa, in collaboration with the Department of Health, developed these guidelines. Their focus is on HIV vaccine trials and they emphasise critical elements that must be considered in commencing HIV vaccine trials.

We published regulations on the conduct of research on human subjects in February this year. The Department of Health has also established an electronic system for the registration of all clinical trials before they can commence. This initiative started in November 2005 and the register is the first in Africa and a collaborating register of the World Health Organisation. Thank you.

Ms M J J MATSOMELA: A warm welcome back to you, Minister. Thank you also for your comprehensive response. Minister, given the fact that the Department of Health has published all relevant guidelines and policies regarding the ethics of the conduct of research, including clinical trials, and that there is no adherence to that, what will your department’s next step be in ensuring that the research participants are truly protected and that there is compliance with the guidelines? Does the department therefore believe that the guidelines inform participants about uncontrollable variables and the risk embedded in these trials? I thank you.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Realising that the guidelines are not enforceable by themselves, when we put the National Health Act together, we made sure that the guidelines became enforceable through the Act itself. Therefore, a violation of the guidelines is in fact a violation of the Act – the legislation of this country. But I think that as communities and in particular the parliamentarians, we would also need to assist communities to understand their rights as they participate in clinical trials. I am hoping that members of Parliament would have read that document, because it is only then that we can interact with the communities and also guide them on what they must in fact understand if they participate in clinical trials. For example, the issue of informed consent - I think that this is a very very sore area in terms of the clinical trials that are conducted in this country. For example, if you just sat there and they gave you what the protocol on clinical trials requires and then asked you to participate, and on the spot you were asked to say yes or no - that is not informed consent! You haven’t interacted with your family, with the community, or with the advisory board structures that have been established by the National Health Act. Those are issues that we must really communicate to our communities, to make sure that they understand that they are not obliged to say yes or no right there just because the researchers want to conduct their research.

The other issue that I think is absolutely critical, which I hope the Members of Parliament will assist us with to ensure that communities understand and we ourselves understand, is that it is of no use saying that if there has been a complication in the clinical trials, all we can do is refer those who have this complication to the Department of Health. This is not good enough. It is not good enough. You’ll recall the cases that I reported some 3 years back, about the 52 women who were in fact infected through the clinical trials. I think it’s not good enough. I think some other form of compensation need to be put in place - for example, insurance. That particular woman who gets infected through that clinical trial might be the sole person on whom the family depends economically. Therefore, to just say to a person that we’ve dumped you in the public health sector to make sure that you get treatment, I don’t think that’s good enough. I don’t want to pre-empt what the National Health Research Ethics Council may come up with in its own report – the conclusive report - but these are some of the issues regarding which I would really urge Members of Parliament to ensure that they read the documents so that we ourselves do not just leave this responsibility to the Department of Health alone. Mr G R MORGAN: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that comprehensive answer. I certainly think that the Medical Research Council has handled this very well. They came to brief the committee, and I think certainly the majority of us in the committee were happy with their findings.

Indeed, Madam Minister, you have articulated the problems of testing on humans very, very well. The question I would like to ask you is in fact about microbicides in general. There is a Dr Anthony Mbewu of the MRC who told the health committee only two weeks ago that in order to achieve the planned reduction in HIV and AIDS by 2011, one of the areas we would need to put more research money into is microbicides. Considering that a very significant proportion of MRC funds are generated from external donors, who often determine the research mandate of the department, would you consider increasing the transfer to the MRC in the next financial year so that indeed more microbicides studies could be done?

In addition, I would be interested to know what your and your department’s view is with regard to research priorities that support HIV infection reduction for the near future. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Firstly, I think what we need to do with the clinical trials that are taking place, and I have alluded to some of the problems, is to sort out those problems and not just concentrate only on this particular clinical trial concerning cellulose sulfate microbicides. So we are going to all sites that conduct clinical trials on microbicides. But I think, obviously, we will depend on the MRC itself to give us its budget, and at the moment I think the resources that we have allocated to them were based on the budget they provided the department with.

I am not sure about discovering a vaccine by the year 2011. I would not venture into that area. I think it’s a very delicate area. You will recall that some years back we were promised a vaccine in 5 years’ time, 7 years’ time. So, I think to give timeframes is a very dangerous thing around this very complicated area. I think we must just do the work and if we should get the vaccine, we should all be happy that we did. This is why we have increased the allocation, as you will hear tomorrow when we table our budget, with regard not just to research but generally to the area of HIV and Aids. Thank you.

           Procedures and challenges in relation to XDRTB

1. Mrs C Dudley (ACDP) asked the Minister of Health:

   (a) What procedures must be followed when a patient is diagnosed with extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDRTB), (b) how successful are the measures that are currently in place and (c) what are the challenges facing the department in this regard? N1116E

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Thank you very much for the question, Mrs C Dudley. Once patients have been confirmed to have XDRTB, they are referred to an MDR treatment hospital for the initiation of treatment, if they are not in hospital already.

As the hospitalisation is for a period of at least four months, they need to be informed and counselled about the disease so that they can make the necessary preparations and or arrangements. Transfer is made as soon as possible once the hospital has finalised the travel arrangements for the patient. This should be within 24 hours of confirmation of the diagnosis. Members of the family should be screened for symptoms of TB. Those who are found to be symptomatic when tested for TB and drug-resistant TB, must start treatment with the first-line TB drugs immediately whilst awaiting the first-line drug Ssnsitivity test.

Once the first-line drug sensitivity test results are available and they confirm MDRTB, the patient will then be changed to the second-line drugs whilst awaiting the second-line drugs sensitivity test. If the second-line sensitivity test confirms resistance to amino glycosides, ie. Amichassine and canamisine and the fluid of quinolines act for XDRTB, the necessary adjustments in the drug regime are made and patient continues with the treatment. In the majority of patients, these measures have been successful.

We have had incidents where patients have refused hospitalisation for various reasons such as concerns about family and employment, in cases where the patient is a breadwinner; a lack of insight into the problem and disease as a result of poor education and counselling; and the stigma and fear of being isolated by the community as a result of negative and incorrect media reports on the disease. In some cases in the Western Cape, Gauteng and Eastern Cape an order of court has been sought to ensure hospitalisation and isolation of persons with XDRTB.

The main challenges are the increasing demands for hospital beds as more patients with MDR and XDR are diagnosed. This has resulted in patients waiting for long periods for beds. Additional beds in other hospitals have been identified to accommodate down-referred patients and relieve pressure on the central units. The long time it takes to confirm the diagnosis of XDRTB, which can take up to 12 weeks, is a delay in the isolation of the patient risking further spread of the disease. And this is due mainly to the fact that not much work has been done in the development of new diagnostic tools for TB, and there are no better tools anywhere else in the world.

The department is participating in a global project to evaluate new tests for drug-resistant TB which can diagnose MDR within 24 hours and greatly shorten the period of diagnosing XDRTB to about 6 to 8 weeks. These tests have been found to have high specifics and sensitivity, but have not been evaluated under pragmatic conditions, so the results of this will inform policy at a global level.

There is also lack of policy on isolation of patients with MDR and XDR, so that’s another challenge. This policy has been developed and circulated to provinces to provide guidance on the management of these patients. And the other challenge is the enforcement of the law in the hospitalisation of these patients. This remains a challenge and still has to be tested in a court of law. Thank you.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Hon Minister, you have mentioned the fact of not having enough beds available and I was thinking of the words of the Eastern Cape MEC, Nomsa Jajula, that the disease spreads like fire when you add petrol.

What measures are in place to prevent infected patients from being discharged from hospitals or living of their own accord, how effective are these measures and what would be needed to ensure a greater success in this regard? And then, just as you have mentioned our being behind in terms of new developments with drugs, I believe that this treatment of TB is something like 50 years old.

But it is good news that we are moving ahead in that direction here in South Africa. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: In the first instance I did indicate that, in itself, it is very difficult to diagnose MDR and XDR and that we are participating in this global project to evaluate some new tests. I think this will be very useful in diagnosing and therefore treating patients with these two conditions.

With regard to the hospitals, as you would have heard, the department and the various provinces are, in fact, releasing quite a number of beds to ensure that we create new beds for patients who require hospitalisation in this regard. We are also renovating a few hospitals in order to accommodate them.

We have put in place infection control measures to ensure that patients don’t infect each other and those affected also don’t infect the staff that work in these hospitals.

Another challenge that we face is that, even as we have increased the number of beds, we are not quite attracting staff to come and work in those areas. Again, I think it is sometimes because of misinformation, maybe because of the fear that people might infect themselves. We are doing everything possible to ensure that there is a clear understanding on how these diseases are spread and what it is that the department seeks to do.

And as I have said, we are creating new beds, we are releasing new beds but there are other problems that we are facing and we are addressing them. Thank you.

Mr A F MADELLA: Please, allow me to add my voice to those of the member who welcomed our Minister of Health back in the House and her job. We certainly wish her well in her health and her health become more better.

The hon Minister’s responses to hon C Dudley, as an actual fact, allow this House to reflect on the devastating impact of TB on our communities, and in particular its multi-drug resistant and extreme drug-resistant manifestations. Your answer has given us greater clarity on how your Ministry and the Department of Health are dealing with this major problem.

However, I wish to ask how we as Members of Parliament and public representatives can assist you and your department in strengthening your initiatives and programmatic interventions around TB and all its manifestations in our constituencies. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: We have produced quite a number of documents on tuberculosis, such as on the spread of tuberculosis, on the science and symptoms of tuberculosis, on its treatment, on issues of nutrition and a whole range of other documents. And I would hope that Members of Parliament have read those documents, because they are easily available and they are also on the website of the Department of Health.

But I think that Members of Parliament also have the responsibility to take certain messages to the communities. The importance of completing treatment is because of the reason that we now have MDR and XDR because some of our patients do not complete the treatment. Hence you get these complications. It is therefore absolutely critical that patients do complete their treatment.

For example, to treat ordinary TB would cost R100, but once you contract MDR, we are talking about R20 000 per patient per year. And that is money that could have been used for something else. Not that the department does not want to spend that kind of money, but we would have saved that money if the treatment had been completed.

I think it is important for Members of Parliament to understand the simple things that most of us were taught at school. If you cough, please put your hand over your mouth so that you don’t spread whatever germs. It is important for all of us to participate in this huge campaign, in particular to ensure healthy education in our own constituencies and communities and to ensure that patients do complete their treatment. Supervise, where possible, the Dots strategy, namely direct observed treatment strategy.

Those who assist us with this strategy must observe whether the patients are actually swallowing the tablets or not, because sometimes the patients will just put tablets in their mouth but they don’t swallow them, and we think they have swallowed them and they haven’t.

I am continually stressing the importance of nutrition, because you can give your patients as many tablets as you want to, if their nutritional status is weak and not up to the mark, those tablets will not do the trick. So, it is very important that we couple this with educating our communities about the importance of nutrition. [Interjections.]

Remember, I mean to advocate for nutrition but also for gardens in our backyards, so that we become self-reliant in terms of simple things like carrots. I dare not mention garlic. She mentioned it. I didn’t, but you know what is at the back of my mind.

All those things are absolutely critical. It is very healthy, she says, and I would concur with her that it is healthy. Thank you.

                  Gazetted municipal building codes

143 Mr V C Gore (ID) asked the Minister of Housing:

  (1)   Which municipalities do not have gazetted building codes;

  (2)   whether any mechanisms have been put in place to remedy the
       situation; if not, why not; if so, what mechanisms?      N1021E

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, thank you very much. The hon member knows that building codes comprise minimum technical norms and standards to ensure health and safety. These codes are used to consider and approve building plans of all types, for example, houses, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, factories and others. Typically they include design prescripts to ensure proper ventilation security regarding fire prevention, emergency exits requirements and other things.

I see you are nodding, which means you know exactly what we are talking about.

These codes are usually determined as a standard, by a standard-setting authority such as the South African Bureau of Standards, or the Agrima board, and they are in line with international best practice.

Hon Gore, these codes are municipal competencies, which reside and fall within the responsibility of the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government. He is here, so you can ask him your questions that are not specifically for housing. We have our own norms, which are dealt with by the National Home Builders Registration Council, or NHBRC. Thank you very much.

Mr V C GORE: Hon Minister, I would like to thank you for your very informative answer and for directing the question to the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government. There is a very important reason why I have asked you this question. It is because the ID has been involved in constituency work, particularly in rural areas with great tourism potential such as the Eastern Cape. There we have found that many municipalities and district councils do not have gazetted building codes. These municipalities have had to rely on the National Building Regulations and provincial special strategies in order to determine guidance for their building programmes.

The result is that unscrupulous developers, in the opinion of the ID, are able to use this loophole with a crack in the floor to exploit South Africa’s natural heritage. Some local communities have produced developments which, in the view of the ID, are not sustainable in the long term.

It is imperative for South Africa to avoid the situation of rapid development along our coastline and rather to provide development to serve all of our communities, not just the rich. When the hon Minister considers the task team, perhaps in consultation with the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government, then do investigate the effect of municipalities that do not have gazetted building codes, in relation to the establishment of undesirable developments along our coastline and other important areas by unscrupulous developers who exploit our natural resources and local communities. In this way, mistakes that have occurred in the past are not repeated, and thus we can continue to promote our heritage within this country. [Time expired].

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Thank you very much, Chairperson. Yes, hon Gore, I will take up that suggestion to set up a task team together with the Minister for Provincial and Local Government to see how many municipalities do have building codes. We are very worried about the kind of shoddy work that you are talking about and unscrupulous developers that are taking advantage of situations of this nature.

I just want to reassure you that, where residential property is concerned, we have the National Home Builders Registration Council, whose job is to ensure that every builder is registered with them. They do, in fact, ensure that certain norms and standards are met before and during the process of building a particular house for residential purposes.

We would like to think that we are covered, but the point that you are raising is a very legitimate one. Thank you.

Mr A C STEYN: Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, where municipalities do not have codes, as pointed out by the hon Gore, would the hon Minister please indicate to us what takes precedence? We have the national building regulations, but we also have the NHBRC technical requirements, so which one takes precedence over the other? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Thank you very much. For residential purposes, the NHBRC regulations take precedence, because a builder is required to register with NHBRC and the NHBRC gives that particular builder a certain warranty. The warranty is predicated upon ensuring that certain standards are adhered to. We would like to think that most builders in this country adhere to that, because otherwise they will be in serious trouble, should they build shoddy work and be required by government to rebuild or rectify that work.

In our case it is certainly the NHBRC.

Mrs Z A KOTA: Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, you will agree with me when I invite the hon Gore to attend the Portfolio Committee on Housing so that he can have an understanding of how to pose questions to you. This question is better dealt with by the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government than by the Minister of Housing. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: I actually did not mind responding to hon Gore because he now understands that it is the Minister for Provincial and Local Government who is supposed to answer his question, but if you are a member of my committee it would be nice to see you. I would like to concur with the hon Kota. Please do attend - we value your contribution.

          Increased fees at institutions of higher learning

1. Ms M J J Matsomela (ANC) asked the Minister of Education:

   (1) Whether her department will intervene after some institutions of higher learning raised fees by 20%, far above inflation of 5%; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

   (2) whether the registration fee is discriminating against poor learners; if so, what are the relevant details? N1082E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Chairperson; I did little bit of research in my question archives. And I‘ve found that I’ve answered similar questions on this particular matter on two occasions in this year, one in the National Assembly and the other in the National Council of Provinces. I really think the office that deals with questions needs to assist us in ensuring that we don’t have to repeat our answers to the House every few months or every year.

However, it is the responsibility of the higher education institutions to determine their own fee levels. I do remain concerned, as I’ve said in the last week, at the rate of increase in the fees of some of our universities, and I have been encouraging vice-chancellors, both in public as well as in private meetings with them, to set fee increases that are moderate and reasonable. Of course, the matter of legislation in this area remains open for consideration if no positive action emanates from the sector. But I would like independent action by the sector.

With respect to registration fees, all our public institutions in the country require the payment of a registration fee prior to enrolment. However, students who are allocated financial aid through the National Student Financial Aid Scheme are not required to pay registration fees upfront, as we have included these portions in the bursaries that are provided to them in order to ameliorate the problems that they confronted when this demand was made in previous years.

Ms M J J MATSOMELA: I thank you, Chairperson, I think the Minister will be aware of the fact that if the very same question is coming over and over again, this means that it’s not being so precisely answered.

But I would like to comment that we really are aware of and that we note the steps that are being taken by the Department of Education in addressing the issue of high fees in the institutions of higher education. And as far as the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, or NSFAS, is concerned, we are also aware of the steps that are being taken to address this issue. We would like that to be done much more speedily and we will be monitoring the situation, and at the right time we will definitely come back to the House with the same question if we are not satisfied after doing our monitoring. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: There is no question, but I have the precise answer ready. I have taken action. In 2004, there was no provision for upfront payments for students’ registration costs. I introduced that in January 2005. That is action. I don’t know what is more precise than that.

With respect to the matters that Members of Parliament come across when they do their constituency work, I think Members of Parliament should inform me of the instances they come across when the universities might not be doing what we have determined by law. There is no legislative provision at the moment that says the Minister sets the costs for tuition fees at universities. It is the competence of institutions. But the institutions have relied on fee income because their subsidy allocations were declining. From this year we have had a real positive increase in subsidy provision to universities and this will continue through the MTEF period. We have been engaging with the universities to say, given the positive contribution by government to your subsidy amounts, you must look at reducing the fee level portion of the income you derive in the universities, particularly from students. Universities have agreed and the vice-chancellors are discussing this. I don’t know what can be more precise than that!

Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Dankie, Voorsitter. [Thank you, Chair.]

Minister my colleague has been busy so … [Laughter.] … There are many indigent students who do not have any of your information on the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, and as a result these learners cannot access institutions of higher learning. What plan does your department have in place to disseminate information on this NSFAS and if there is any plan, to what extent is it monitored to ensure that it works?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I’m a little puzzled with respect to this one. Firstly, from 1999 every university on its application forms had a question inserted that states: Do you require financial aid? So, before you even enter university, university already identifies indigent students. If you are talking about student who don’t apply, I cannot answer the question, but if you are referring to students who have applied and filled out the form correctly, they have already indicated that they need financial aid. When they get to university, the university begins to assist them with the process of application.

With respect to children who require information about the scheme, we provide pamphlets widely from grade 10 right through to grade 12 in the schools in the country; rural and urban, rich and poor. So, we have done a great deal of advocacy work to ensure that the young people have access to information. Again, hon members can keep the information on the National Student Financial Aid Scheme with them in their constituency offices, and on their school visits they can talk about the scheme. This government is a very kind government; we allow every Member of Parliament to advertise the policies of government and make sure that every child knows what the ANC is doing for the children of our country.

So, members can provide information to young people, where they come across young people who do not have it. We have student financial aid offices on every campus in the country. The youth organisations are fully aware of the scheme. We are in contact with students in schools and we inform teachers. So we have done as much as any government should do, to ensure that the information is available. And the fact that the scheme is so widely taken up, in fact suggest that we are succeeding with our outreach.

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Thank you, Chairperson, hon Minister, related to the question of NSFAS, I know of some instances where students have obtained this financial help and they finish their studies but can’t repay the institutions and they get blacklisted. And, as the result, they can’t get employment because of blacklisting.

Now, with the new Credit Act, I know the contract is between the student and the institution. But, I’m just wondering, with the new Credit Act, whether there would be some relief for such students. And whether, although is not your competence, the department can intervene to assist such students who have been blacklisted, who can’t get employed for various reasons and who fail to repay universities? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Of course, the Credit Act doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t pay your debts. And I think that’s got to be very clear. We do try to exhaust every effort to assist debtors to repay their debts. And of course, the conditions of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme are very generous, because you only begin repaying when you are earning. The proof that our young people are honest and diligent young people is that this year R372 million has been repaid by students and is going back to fund other students and we should applause the young people of our country for such honesty.

So, in fact, we find more and more young people with the growth and employment and the growth in our economy. More and more young people are indeed beginning to find work. Of course we need to have many more jobs and employment opportunities created. We often find that we come across the students who owe us money. We look for them for several months and when we get them, they have bought a BMW at a very posh garage. We are called and told that this person needs us to remove them from the list because they wish to purchase a car and they can’t get a loan if they are on that list. How do you afford a BMW when you haven’t paid back the money you owe to NSFAS? In such instances we are not very kind, but generally when the students are honest, come forward, indicating that they are not working, we will exhaust all efforts we can to assist them.

Ms S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Chair. Hon Minister, I think you have brought us some good advice that one could contact you personally, should they discover such practices going on in various institutions.

I agree that you have introduced various kinds of information to the children in the manner of pamphlets and other news. Hon Minister, can you tell us if any monitoring has been done in respect of these institutions that are practising such malpractice? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Well, we do monitor. Obviously I get the report annually both on financial aid and on how institutions are using the finances the state provides to them. But, let me say that the financial aid offices on the campuses of South Africa are among the best administrative units we have for public finances on financial aid, if truth be told.

The problem is that many of our young people choose to attend our most expensive institutions. By the way, the fee levels are different across the country and it is at the smallest of our universities that they have the lowest fee levels. So, perhaps young people, given that we are improving quality in our universities, need to begin to consider universities such as Fort Hare, Zululand and so on as the universities of choice in order to influence the market and cause more expensive institutions to look at their fee levels. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Hon members, it is not allowed in terms of Rules of the House. We will ask the hon member not to do that again. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Chairman, I would be able to know what is in the tin.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): On that note, we would ask you, the hon member and Mr Doman to meet after the session. The time allocated for questions has expired. Outstanding replies received will be printed in Hansard. That concludes the business for the day.

See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.

The House adjourned at 17:29.