National Assembly - 25 June 2008
WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2008 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:05.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
SANCA AWARENESS WEEK
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: First of all, before I move the motion without notice, I would really like to compliment you on your stunning outfit, it really is quite excellent.
Madam Speaker, I hereby move without notice:
That the House –
1) notes that Monday, 24 June, marked the beginning of the South
African Council for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism (SANCA) drug
awareness week and that Thursday, 26 June 2008, is International
Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking;
2) notes that this week aims to raise awareness regarding the
prevention and treatment of alcohol and other drug dependence;
3) recognizes that there is a massive and growing substance abuse
problem in South Africa that affects the most vulnerable of
communities including children, women and the disadvantaged leading
to many lives being ruined on a daily basis;
4) acknowledges the selfless role played by stakeholders in civil
society and in local communities in increasing public awareness of
this problem and by providing treatment for alcohol and other drug
dependants and their families; and
5) calls on all South Africans to stand together in fighting this
pandemic currently plaguing our communities so that the self-
respect and dignity of all those affected by drug abuse can be
restored.
Agreed to. PROCEDURE TO AMEND MONEY BILLS
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House, noting the provision of section 77(3) of the Constitution, instructs the Portfolio Committee on Finance to –
(1) consider a procedure to amend money Bills before Parliament with a view to introducing a Bill dealing with the matter;
(2) take into account the work already done by the Task Team on Oversight and Accountability on this matter, which was reported to the Joint Rules Committee on 19 March 2008;
3) report to the House by no later than 15 August 2008.
Agreed to.
STABBING OF MR M SKWATSHA
(Member’s Statement)
Mr O E MONARENG (ANC): Madam Speaker, following the stabbing of the Western Cape provincial secretary, Comrade Mcebisi Skwatsha by a certain Ndikho Tyawana while addressing an ANC meeting in Worcester, a provincial disciplinary committee was convened to consider the matter. The accused and his colleague have been found to have violated the Constitution of the African National Congress and as a result they have been expelled from the organisation with immediate effect. When an individual joins the African National Congress he or she makes the following declaration: “I, Oupa Monareng, solemnly declare that I will abide by the aims and objectives of the African National Congress as set out in the Constitution, the Freedom Charter and other duly adopted policy positions, that I am joining the organisation voluntarily and without motives of material advantage or personal gain, that I agree to respect the Constitution and the structures and to work as a loyal member of the organisation, that I will place my energies and skills at the disposal of the organisation and carry out tasks given to me, that I will work towards making the ANC an even more effective instrument of liberation in the hands of the people, and that I will defend the unity and integrity of the organisation and its principles, and combat any tendency towards disruption and factionalism.”
The African National Congress found Mr Tyawana and his colleague to have violated the Constitution …
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what this has to do with Parliament as opposed to an internal ANC matter?
Mr O E MONARENG: We, the ANC and not the DA, welcome the decisions made by the disciplinary hearing. I thank you.
CORRUPTION IN SOUTH AFRICA
(Member’s Statement)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: A recent survey shows that 90% of South Africans feel that corruption has become a way of life in the country and a further 85% believe that a lot of corruption takes place in senior levels of government. It is not surprising that South Africans think that corruption is endemic given the number of senior ANC members involved in corruption cases such as Travelgate, Oilgate and the arms deal. The fact that the leader of the governing party is still facing criminal charges for corruption reflects the shrinking moral fibre of the government in the ANC.
Access to state positions is abused by many in the ruling party for personal enrichment at the expense of the interests of the poor. The government is too lenient in curbing corruption in state institutions; instead of punishing and convicting corrupt government officials. All too often these individuals are moved from one government department to another. The government needs to refine its moral compass and take the lead to rooting out corruption from society. For its part the DA remains committed to a vision …
Prof B TUROK: Madam Speaker, are these matters not before the courts and, therefore, sub judice? Is it correct that these matters should be raised here under the protection of the Rules of the House?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: For its part the DA remains committed to a vision of a society in which there is zero tolerance to corruption as its record in the City of Cape Town and other municipalities throughout South Africa reflects.
Vulnerability of women and children in rural areas
(Member’s Statement)
Ms C N Z ZIKALALA (IFP): Madam Speaker, a report by the Presidential Working Group on Women has highlighted huge shortfalls in the provision of water and sanitation and the failure to end violence against women and children in our poorest provinces.
Despite all the achievements, and immense contributions of women in our country, the women in rural and poor areas, together with children, remain the most vulnerable members of our society.
The fact that women are so well-represented here in Parliament and in government should mean that gender issues become more prominent and take on an increased importance, and that more resources are allocated to the plight of the many women and children who are suffering in the rural and poor areas.
This, however, is unfortunately not the case as the suffering and vulnerability of women and children continues. We are failing these vulnerable groups. [Interjections.] Thula wena! [You shut up!] [Laughter.]
There is no doubting the strength of South African women and I believe that we, here in Parliament, can, and must, take the lead with this important issue and put a stop to the suffering of our many sisters and children who have no voice. All women in positions of power and authority must use the resources at their disposal to mainstream gender issues so that they receive the attention that they deserve. We owe this to the many women and children of South Africa who are trapped in suffering and misery and who are still abused every day. Awuthule wena! [You must shut up!]
ANC PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE IN KWAZULU-NATAL
(Member’s Statement)
Mnu D M GUMEDE (ANC): Kusukela ngomhla zingama-20 kuya mhla zingama-22 kuJuni 2008 uMbutho Wenkululeko, i-ANC, ubukade ubambe ingqungquthela yesifundazwe KwaZulu-Natali eMgungund lovu. Injongo enkulu ye-ANC ukwakha iNingizimu Afrika engenalubandlululo ngokwebala, ngokobulili nangokobuzwe. Silwela ukwakha iNingizimu Afrika ebumbene nesebenza ngokulandela imigomo yentando yeningi lapho zonke izakhamuzi ziyophila impilo enhle nenokuthula.
Ingqungquthela yesifundazwe KwaZulu-Natali iwuqhubele phambili umzabalazo wethu ngokuthi iyalele amagatsha kanye nawo onke amalungu ukuthi sisebenze singakhathali, ukuze siqiniseke ukuthi zonke izinqumo zengqungquthela eyayisePolokwane ziyafezeka.
Ingqungquthela ibuye yazibophelela ukuqhuba umzabalazo wokulwa nobuphofu kanye nokweseleka kwezinto eziyizidingo zokuphila njengamanzi, izindlu, imisebenzi, ezemfundo kanye nezempilo. Siyayihalalisela i-ANC ngokuba nengqungquthela eyimpumelelo enkulu. Halala kwi-ANC KwaZulu-Natali! Halala! (Translation of isiZulu member’s statement follows.)
[Mr D M GUMEDE (ANC): The African National Congress in KwaZulu-Natal held a provincial conference in Pietermaritzburg. The conference started on the 20th and ended on the 22nd of June 2008. The main focus of the ANC is to build a South Africa that is free from discrimination on the basis of race, gender and nationality. We strive to build a South Africa that is united and that works in accordance with the democratic values where all citizens live better and peaceful lives.
The KwaZulu-Natal provincial conference responded to our call by mandating all branches and their members to work tirelessly, to ensure that all Polokwane resolutions are met.
The conference also resolved to continue the fight against poverty and to deal with the lack of basic services such as the provision of water, housing, employment, education and health care. We congratulate the ANC for holding a very successful conference. Bravo to the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal! Bravo!]
NEED FOR transitional government in Zimbabwe
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs C DUDLEY (ACDP): Madam Speaker, the Movement for Democratic Change’s decision to pull out of the 27 June elections in Zimbabwe speaks of a people and a party committed to a democratic outcome against all odds! They said:
Elections are our game. We do not want to take to the streets or to pick up weapons to make our point; we are democrats.
When the MDC won the 29 March elections, 73% of the population voted against Mugabe. It was quite unbelievable that SADC states stood by - seemingly helpless.
The hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Susan van der Merwe, promised in this House that the South African government would watch closely for signs of violence and abuse and would respond if necessary. Hon Minister, do you know how many deaths, abductions and other horrors like chopping off of hands and feet, may have been averted if the South African government had taken its head out of the sand?
Calls for the Security Council to meet urgently to discuss Zimbabwe and the UN Secretary-General being more vocal on the situation; the new consensus emerging within SADC as Angola, Swaziland and the ANC if not government, become new critics, and today’s SADC meeting on Zimbabwe is promising and we hope will bring some action.
The intensified nationwide campaign of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe have totally put paid to any possibility of a free or fair election.
The obvious need now is for the formation of a transitional government that will include all parties to take the country through a period of stabilisation and recovery before holding new elections. This can, however, hold no place for Mugabe who has shown himself to be the cruel enemy of his people and has disqualified himself in every possible way.
Continuation of Prosecution of Arms deal
(Member’s Statement)
Mrs P DE LILLE (ID): Madam Speaker, just because the German prosecution authorities have stopped their investigation into German citizens and companies involved in the arms deal, does not mean the case is over, or that anybody in South Africa is off the hook.
The only reason that they have decided to stop the investigation is because they have been frustrated by the lack of co-operation by the South African authorities.
The responsibility for investigating and prosecuting South Africans involved in the arms deal rests with the National Prosecuting Authority and the NPA’s reluctance to co-operate with the Germans is an indictment on this government.
The NPA has subpoenaed me twice over the past nine years and I have handed over all the documents relating to the German investigation. But, because of political interference, the NPA has failed hopelessly to investigate and prosecute the crooks in our midst because, and I have said this before and I will say it again, corruption steals from the poor.
The ID will continue to fight for the truth in the arms deal and for an end to corruption in our country. It is only useful idiots that want to stop this investigation.
PROBLEMS AFFECTING EDUCATION
(Member’s Statement)
Mr I S MFUNDISI (UCDP): Madam Speaker, education in the country is beset by many problems, such as a poor or no culture of teaching and learning; a lack of discipline among teachers and pupils alike; a shortage of teachers and a lack of facilities in some instances. This may perhaps be traced back to the failure by government post-1994 to seek a philosophy for education, as did countries such as Botswana with their education for Kagisano and Tanzania with Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa or education for self-reliance.
After accepting 20 or so education departments, all that the new government did was to impose a new curriculum which was not well-researched and has come to be a bone of contention in the schooling system, because it was not internalised by the practitioners and the communities.
That almost all MECs for education in the provinces lament the poor training of teachers, the class sizes in most schools exceed the policy norms and teachers nowadays leave teaching in their droves is cause for concern.
The Department of Education will have to double their efforts to make teaching attractive and a career of choice. While efforts are being made to make education accessible through the no-fees schools, the problem is that schools go for months without amenities because of the bureaucracy that goes with the release of funds.
Another problem in this case could be that those who run the schools are not certain how to requisition for the funds. Interventions aimed at assisting schools in poor communities seem to bear no fruit as the schools do not own their terms to improve their performances. The UCDP calls on the department to assist the provincial departments much more.
MINISTER OF LABOUR’S REMARKS HAVE RACIAL UNDERTONES
(Member’s Statement)
Ms A M DREYER (DA): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour recently made rather bizarre statements about the recent High Court ruling that, for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act, Chinese people are regarded as black. If the Minister does not accept the ruling, he can appeal against it. Alternatively, he should respect the judgement and keep quiet about it. One would hope that as South Africans, we have put the race classification behind us. That Act was already scrapped in 1991, that is 17 years ago, but now it seems race classification is back with a vengeance; however, this time without any legal basis.
While the Minister is obsessed with dividing people into various race boxes, millions of South Africans are fighting for survival, confronted with real problems such as unemployment, poverty, crime and Aids. The Minister would serve South Africa’s people better if he welcomed the fact that many South African Chinese people have brought with them skills, entrepreneurship and a work ethic, and have created thousands of jobs.
MORITI PROJECT LAUNCHED AT MADIBENG
(Member’s Statement)
Mr G J SELAU (ANC): Madam Speaker, the ANC takes this opportunity to congratulate the Madibeng Local Municipality in the area of Brits, in the North West province of South Africa, for adopting a project called the Moriti project in the office of the executive mayor. In terms of this project, they identify orphans and child-headed households within their jurisdiction and assist them by way of education, food and shelter, through fundraising and requesting donations from supportive and sympathetic communities and individuals around the municipal areas and beyond.
This is informed by our history of ubuntu, in terms of which, for instance, if a child had no parents, the nearest relative would take the responsibility of taking care of that child as part of the family; where a family was without a child, the nearest relative would avail a child to be part of the family; and where there was no food in one family, the next family would provide.
The ANC’s national democratic revolution struggle aimed at building a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic, prosperous and caring nation is derived from the values mentioned in this statement, among other things.
The ANC calls on municipalities, government departments, traditional leaders and their communities, all formations and institutions of society to take this example and play an active role in changing the lives of South Africans for the better, irrespective of where they are.
The social development grants alone cannot be enough. The people shall share in the country’s wealth. Thank you.
PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF IFP
(Member’s Statement)
Mnu A M MPONTSHANE (IFP): Somlomo, iNkatha Yenkululeko izobamba ingqungquthela yesifundazwe ezoqala mhla zingama-27 kuya mhla zingama-29 kule nyanga kaJuni eNyuvesi yaKwaZulu-Natali eMgungundlovu. Le ngqungquthela ibaluleke kakhulu ngoba ilungiselela futhi yendlalela ukhetho oluzayo. Ngakho-ke sifisela zonke izithunywa ezizobe zihambele le ngqungquthela impumelelo. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu member’s statement follows.)
[Mr A M MPONTSHANE (IFP): Speaker, the Inkatha Freedom Party will hold a provincial conference at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Pietermaritzburg from the 27th to the 29th of June 2008. This conference is very important because it is in preparation of the next general elections. We, therefore, wish all the delegates who will be attending this conference all the best. Thank you. [Applause.]]
REINTEGRATION OF XENOPHOBIC VICTIMS
(Member’s Statement)
Mna R J MASHIGO (ANC): Ke a leboga, Spikara Batho ba go tšwa dinageng tše dingwe tša Afrika ka porofenseng ya Limpopo, Groblersdal, bao ba ilego ba hlaselwa ka lebaka la dikhuduego tša go sepelelana le lehloyo la batšwantle ba boletše ka molomo o tee gore bjalo ba ka bitša Afrika-Borwa legae gape. Seemo kua Mohlaletsi se kaonafetše morago ga gore mokete wo o ikgethilego wo o bego o swere ka la 8 June ka nepo ya go bušetša batšwasehlabelo bao setšhabeng. Yo mongwe wa batšwasehlabelo e lego Mna Freeman Nyanisi o rile: Tšohle di boetše sekeng. Ga go sa na ditšhošetšo. Ebile maphodisa a re etela ka dinako tšohle go dira bonnete bja gore re bolokegile.
Moketeng wo wa la 8 June, Molekgotlaphethiši wa Thuto e lego Ngaka Motswaledi, Kgošikgolo ya Bapedi ya motšwaoswere e lego Sekhukhune le Mna Masemola ba ile ba gatelela ntlha ye bohlokwa ya gore mengwageng ye e fetilego, balwela tokologo ba rena ba ile ba fiwa madulo ke dinaga tša ka ntle. Ba bangwe ba balwela tokologo ye, e be e le Mna Lawrence Phokanoka le Mna Flag Boshielo bao ba tswaletšwego profenseng ya Limpopo ka moka ga bona.
Bjalo ka ANC, re rata go leboga maitapišo a batho ka moka ba Mohlaletsi ka go dira bonnete bja gore khutšo le tšhireletšo di ba gona setšabeng. Thobela. (Translation of Sepedi member’s statement follows.)
[Mr R J MASHIGO (ANC): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those people who reside in the Limpopo province, in Groblersdal, who come from other states in Africa and who have experienced xenophobic attacks voiced that they can again call South Africa home. After a special celebration held on 18 June, with the intention of reintegrating the xenophobic victims into society, the situation became better. One of the victims, Mr Freeman Nyanisi said: “Everything is back to normal. The threats are nonexistent. The police even patrol at all times to make sure that we are protected”.
During that celebration of 8 June, Dr Motswaledi, the MEC for Education, Sekhukhune, the acting Paramount Chief of the Bapedi and Mr Masemola stressed the point that our freedom fighters in the previous years were accommodated in other countries. Freedom fighters, who fought for this liberation, such as Mr Lawrence Phokanoka and Flag Boshielo, were both born and bred in Limpopo the province.
As the ANC, we would like to thank all the people in Mohlaletsi for their efforts in making it possible that peace and security reign in society. Thank you.]
BICYCLES AS SOLUTION TO TRANSPORT PROBLEM
(Member’s Statement)
Mr J SCHWARTZ (DA): Madam Speaker, there is a well-known song called, There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing, sung by Katie Melua. She obviously has a very great fan in the Department of Transport who convinced the department to set aside money from the budget to buy a million bicycles which could be dished out to children in rural areas who cannot access public transport. This is a very noble idea but if there had been proper planning before the time, he would have found out that there are bicycle manufacturers in South Africa in the first instance, and secondly, that there is no manufacturer at all that can supply the million budgeted for immediately.
The result of all this is that the remaining R31 million will be unspent on a capital budget for which the Minister of Finance had to make income provision. The lack of planning by way of properly thought through business plans crops up in all departments and it is particularly true with regard to the provisions made for the appointment of staff.
We call on government to commit to proper planning when compiling the annual budgets so as to ensure that budget provisions are made only where necessary and with emphasis on poverty alleviation. Provisions made for funds that are unlikely to be spent place an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. Thank you.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME
(Member’s Statement)
Ms M M NTULI (ANC): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Indalo Yethu Environmental Scholarship Fund has ensured that 50 students will have an opportunity to study environmental science at higher education institutions next year.
The programme is part of the South African Environmental Campaign which was launched in 2006 by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The department in partnership with the Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the Old Mutual Foundation will also contribute to the training of 10 000 young people who would be trained as energy savers. The campaign is meant to stimulate conversation about energy efficiency and environmental issues.
This will contribute to efforts to raise public awareness about energy saving. Energy safety reduces both greenhouse gases and the need to build new power plans. The African National Congress commends the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Umsobomvu Youth Fund and the Old Mutual Foundation on their efforts to improve awareness about energy and environmental issues. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
COMPUTER SKILLS FOR CHIEFS IN GREATER LETABA MUNICIPALITY
(Member’s Statement)
Mna B L MASHILE (ANC): Magoši ka moka ao a welago ka fase ga Mmasepala wa Letaba kua porofenseng ya Limpopo a filwe thuto ya go sepedišana le tšhomišo ya dikhomphuta. Ramotse wa Mmasepala wa Letaba, Mna Joshua Matlou, o re: “Re ile ra tšea sephetho sa gore re akaretše baetapele ba setšo mo lenaneong la rena la thuto la go šomiša dikhomphutha ka ge e le bona ba etilego ditirelo tša mmušo pele mo dinagang-magaeng.”
Maloko a setšhaba le bašomedi ba mmasepala bao ba ka lekanago makgolo a mabedi le bona ba tšeere karolo mo lenaneong leo la go rulagantšhwa ke mmasepala. Re le mokgatlo wa ANC, re tshepha gore bjalo ka naga, gore re tle re kgone go fihlelela dikenywa tša tokologo, re swanetše go ema ka maoto re rute setšhaba gomme re tsošološe setšo sa go hlankela setšhaba. Go kaonafatša thuto le bokgoni mo setšhabeng ke seo re se hlokago go fihlelela ditoro tša rena tša go phethagatša bophelo bjo bokaone go batho bohle ba Afrika –Borwa. Mošate. [Legoswi.] (Translation of Sepedi member’s statement follows.)
[Mr B L MASHILE (ANC): All the Chiefs under the Letaba Municipality in the Limpopo province have been equipped with computer skills. The Mayor of Letaba Municipality, Mr Joshua Matlou, says: “We took a decision to include traditional leaders in our computer skills programme as they are the leaders of government services in the rural areas.”
About two hundred members of the community and municipality officials also took part in this programme that was organised by the municipality. As ANC members, we believe that for us to be able to attain the fruits of freedom as a country, we must strive to teach the nation and revive the tradition of working for the people. To educate people and equip them with skills are what we need to do, to reach our dream of a better life for all South Africans. Thank you. [Applause.]]
MINISTER OF LABOUR’S REMARKS HAVE RACIAL UNDERTONES
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Madam Speaker, the ANC has never been a racist organisation. [Interjections.] The ANC is very proud of its history; very proud of its struggles and battles against racism. The ANC is also very confident of the future, the future of a country that will be free of racism, a country and a society that will be nonracist, nonsexist and democratic.
The hon member, together with the one who is barking, remember that the court document says the following - if you have read it:
Having read the counsel of the applicants, and by agreement between the parties, it is hereby ordered as follows:
It is declared that South African Chinese people fall within the ambit of the definition of black people in section 1 of the Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998.
There has been much comment and, with respect, also distortion of facts and legal issues surrounding the application made by the Chinese Association of South Africa against this Ministry. The true facts are as follows:
The Chinese Association of South Africa sought an order in the main declaring South African Chinese people as falling within the ambit of the definition of black people. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for anyone to amend the Employment Equity Act. In essence, that is what I was communicating to journalists: Please read the court documents. It is very simple; there are only two or three sentences in it. Even a Sub A child can read it.
If you are racist, don’t rub it off on me. I have never been a racist and I will never be a racist. It came by three boats, the Drommedaris, Reijger and others, to South Africa. [Laughter.] They found me here, and I was not a racist. That is why I joined the ANC. [Applause.]
COMPUTER SKILLS FOR CHIEFS IN GREATER LETABA MUNICIPALITY
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon Mashile for bringing to our attention the inclusion of traditional leaders in the skills development programmes around the ICT sector. This is an important move. Many have accused this ANC government of not attending to those who are in rural areas, particularly in the traditional sectors.
We thank the Greater Letaba Municipality for including the traditional leaders in their development programme. They sit as traditional leaders on our Intergovernmental Relations Forum because they have their representatives there. We recognise the need for them to understand the importance of ICTs in our national development, a development that is not meant only for urban areas but also for rural areas, particularly also for our traditional areas. We have also set up e-co-operatives that are established in all provinces to assist municipalities and their citizens.
We, as a government and as the ANC party, have said ICTs must in fact be expanded to include all of our people. If it did not happen in the first few years it is certainly beginning to happen and these municipalities are showing us that it is possible to make ICTs part of our socioeconomic development. We thank them for having taken this direction and also thank Members of Parliament for bringing this to our attention.
Re a leboga. Re re le kamoso. [Legofi.] [Thank you. Keep it up and well done. [Applause.]]
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the member’s statement on environmental issues. We appreciate the sentiments expressed. The initiative, along with our partners in the NGO sector and the private sector, is to take environmental education to a new level.
I would also like to respond to the second part of the statement, namely to the reduction of greenhouse gases and the building of new power plants - three issues. The first issue is that recently we made public the result of the long-term mitigation scenario study which is the first effort by our government to agree on a framework to deal with this issue in future.
The second issue deals with the last power plant that we gave a green light to on environmental grounds. There was a specific requirement for that power plant to be carbon-capture storage ready and that is something that we will in future look into very seriously to ensure that we align ourselves with the international best practice.
The third issue is that I am quite aware that there is a parliamentary delegation on its way to the Kobe meeting in Japan to precede the G8 plus 5 meetings. We would like to wish them luck and in the same vein say that we have taken note that both the American and Japanese governments have said that they want to put pressure on us - South Africa and the other four developing countries - to agree on the target of cutting emissions 50% by
- Our message to them is quite straightforward: We will never agree to the developed world passing on their responsibilities to developing countries and expecting from us to start subsidising their ambitions and their lifestyles. We will only agree to that if the developed countries agree to clear midterm targets. And on that issue we are not going to compromise. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
COMPUTER SKILLS FOR CHIEFS IN GREATER LETABA MUNICIPALITY REINTERGRATION OF XENOPHOBIC VICTIMS PROBLEMS AFFECTING EDUCATION
(Minister’s Response)
TONA YA THUTO: Modulasetulo, o itse fa ke le motho yo o tlotlang bagolo, jaanong fa rre wa lekoko la UCDP a bua jaaka a buile ke iphitlhela ke idima, ke sa itse gore ke tla mo tlotla jang. O a itse gore dilo tse a di buileng motho a ka se re ke nnete. E sale ke bua ke kopa gore re se dire dilo tsa thuto dilo tsa polotiki ka gore ga gona motho yo o ka itumelang fa bana ba sa rutiwe.
O itse sentle gore re ntse re dira dilo di le dintsi. E ka sere fa re ema fa re bua gore bana ba tsene sekolo ba sa duele madi go bo go twe ga se selo se se siameng. Re a se dira. Mo dikolong di feta 5 000 bana ba tsena sekolo ba sa duele madi. Go a direga.
Dikolo di le dintsi di bone madi a a fetang a ba kileng ba a bona fa ba re bana ba tlise R25,00 kgotsa R30,00 kwa sekolong. A re dumeleng gore se ke selo se sentle, re tla netefatsa gore se dire botoka ka gonne re a itse gore go ntse go na le mathata. A re eleng tlhoko gore fa re bua re se bue jaaka e kete ga re batle dilo tseo di direga.
Sabobedi, ga se nnete gore dilo tse re di dirang ga di thuse; di a thusa. Re tsentse dibuka mo diphaposing, re aga dilaeborari, re aga dikolo. Le mo o nnang teng o a di bona dikolo di teng. Fa re bua ka barutabana, bana ba rutiwa ke barutabana ba bantsi go feta ba ba neng ba le teng ka 1993 fa o le kwa Bophuthatswana. O a itse le wena gore re ba okeditse, ba bantsi jaanong. Diphaposi ga di sa tlhole di na le bana ba ba ntsi jaaka maloba. A re amogeleng dilo tse, re bue nnete ka tsona. Go ne go sena dibasari; bana ba ne ba sa tsene mo diyunibesiting; re ne re sena dibasari tsa diFET; dilo tseo tsotlhe di tlile ka rona. Di amogele rra ka gonne re di baya mo diatleng tsa gago. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, you know very well that I have respect for the elderly, but if someone speaks in this manner like this gentleman from the UCDP, I find it very difficult to show my respect for him. I would also like to note that all the things he said were not true. I have requested that we should not use educational matters for political gains, because there is no one who would be happy if children are not taught.
It should be acknowledged that a lot has been done. The introduction of the nonpayment of school fees in more than 5000 schools is a reality and people should accept that it is happening and it is the right thing to do.
A lot of schools have received more funds than they ever had in the period when learners were asked to pay R25,00 or R30,00. We need to acknowledge that it is indeed a good idea, and we will ensure that it is done properly although there have been problems around this. We should be careful not to speak as if we are against anything which is being introduced.
Secondly, it is not true that we do not benefit from what is done. We provided books and built libraries and more schools. There are even schools where you come from. There are more educators now in our schools to teach learners than there were during the Bophuthatswana era. You know very well that we have employed more teachers now. Classrooms are no longer overcrowded like they used to be in the past. May we acknowledge that and be honest about it. There were no bursaries and even for the FET band, all these have been introduced by us. You must learn to come to terms with them sir, because we are offering that to you. [Applause.]]
Secondly, I really would like to congratulate all those Members of Parliament who made reference to work that is being done in the various municipalities, with respect to delivery of social services. In particular, I must express my great appreciation for the work done in the Letaba Municipality to provide Information, Communication and Technology training to traditional leaders and municipal workers.
As the House would know, it is our view that traditional leaders can indeed play a very important role in advancing development in their communities and in our country as a whole. Therefore, ensuring that they have the skills to advance the work of development that we anticipate they would is a welcome development indeed.
I would also say that I’m very grateful that the hon member made reference to the open welcome of foreign nationals back into their communities in the Limpopo province. I think this is a very positive development. But it comes along with a need for us to acknowledge that in the majority of communities in our country there was no attack on and violence perpetrated against foreign nationals. It was a minority of people who behaved in this way. The majority of South Africans have opened their arms, have been kind and have given wholeheartedly. It is these South Africans who reflect the true spirit of our democracy, and we believe we must thank them for their commitment to making South Africa belong to all who live in it. Thank you.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: I just want to respond to the statement made on energy efficiency. I want to join the hon member in commending all those people who are contributing to making sure that this campaign is a success, but would also like to say that the list is not exhaustive. We have seen provincial governments launching their own energy efficiency campaigns. Gauteng led in this regard with Western Cape following and I think that a number of other provinces - even if that has not been brought to my attention - are doing something.
Also, the African National Congress has led by example. Its pamphlets have already been distributed at some institutions. My own appeal would be that, in order for this campaign to be successful, we should all lead by example in this House; from our houses into our constituencies. It’s only when we work together that this campaign will be a success. I thank you.
NEED FOR TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT IN ZIMBABWE
(Minister’s Response)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C Van der Merwe): I would like to respond to the hon Dudley, the hon member from the ACDP. I think we should really not be disingenuous about this matter. The South African government, as the hon member and this House know, has condemned in no uncertain terms the violence committed in Zimbabwe. Earlier this week the South African government has also supported the United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement which begins with the condemnation of violence in that country.
What we have always done, and continue to do, is to work with our SADC neighbours, the African Union and the United Nations to find a solution to the current state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Even as we meet here today, our people are engaged in Zimbabwe as observers in the SADC Observer Mission. There are also members of the opposition in that team who are in our embassy in Harare. Through the SADC-mandated Facilitation Team they will work to bring that country to a peaceful resolution to their problems.
Once again, our interest is in a solution to the problem; not to further exacerbate a tense and volatile situation. We join the SADC region and the broader international community in urging Zimbabwean parties to co-operate fully with all efforts aimed at finding a peaceful way forward, including the possibility of a transitional arrangement. We will continue to do this until a solution is found. I thank you.
SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1) FOR PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING SECOND READING DEBATE ON CHILD JUSTICE BILL
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That Rule 253(1), which provides inter alia that the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate today on the Child Justice Bill [B 49B — 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).
Agreed to.
ZIMBABWE PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ELECTION ON 27 JUNE 2008
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows: That the House, noting that Zimbabwe is holding a Presidential run-off election on 27 June 2008 and in pursuance of the request from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, resolves that –
(1) a twenty-member multiparty delegation of the South African Parliament observe these elections;
(2) the delegation forms part of the SADC observer mission;
(3) the delegation observes the campaign in the run-up to the elections, the casting of votes and subsequently the counting of the votes; and
(4) the delegation presents the mission’s report to Parliament on its return.
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON CHILD JUSTICE BILL
Order disposed of without debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Report be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly noted.
CHILD JUSTICE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon members, it is with great pleasure that I introduce the second reading debate on the Child Justice Bill, particularly during this month of June. This month our country celebrates and commemorates the role played by the youth in liberating our country.
We are celebrating this month by creating a criminal justice system that gives children who find themselves in conflict with the law an opportunity to be treated in a manner that takes into account their vulnerability and socioeconomic problems created by the racial divide of the past and also to promote the spirit of ubuntu.
We are aware that this Bill has its origins not only within the context of international obligations but also through ANC policy that has always put children at the forefront in the reconstruction and development of our country. Thus section 28 of the Constitution regards every person under the age of 18 as a child and among others gives every child the right not to be detained except as a measure of last resort. What is important is that our Constitution advances progressive childcare and child development.
We have also ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We ratified this convention in 1995. The convention requires state parties to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children as well as children in conflict with the law.
State parties are also required to establish a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe penal law. Following the ratification of the convention, my predecessor the late Dullah Omar in 1997 approached the Law Reform Commission to investigate an appropriate child justice system. The investigation was consultative and involved discussions with all role-players, and I mean all members of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster, even in the broader sense of including social workers, academics, the judiciary – both the high and the lower courts; that is the judges and magistrates.
As indicated in the long title, the preamble and the clause setting out the objects of the proposed legislation, the Bill aims to create the criminal justice system for children in accordance with the values underpinning our Constitution. I am not going to go into the details of the Bill. I am, though, going to refer to aspects of the Bill in order to highlight important innovative policy areas that are in this Bill.
The Bill amends the common law relating to the minimum age of criminal capacity; it sets the minimum age of criminal capacity at 10 years with the possibility of review in the next few years. The Bill further provides for a mechanism to deal with children who lack criminal capacity.
The approval of this Bill by the National Assembly today will indeed be an historic event. The Bill is divided into various chapters, each dealing with the relevant stage of the criminal process. I must mention at the outset that although the Bill creates a new system for children, the system is not completely removed from the existing criminal justice system. In other words, it coheres very well with the current broad criminal justice system.
The Bill still reverts to the provision of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 to deal with certain matters such as bail. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Bill contain provisions regarding methods of securing the attendance of children at proceedings and the release or detention and placement of children.
I would also like to refer to an area which I think is of importance and also indicates the innovative approach that our Parliament has taken. The preliminary inquiry for these young offenders is one of the innovations created by the proposed legislation. The preliminary inquiry, although regarded as the child’s first appearance in court, is an informal pre-trial procedure which is inquisitorial in nature. One of the main objectives of the preliminary inquiry is to establish whether the matter can be diverted. Diversion is a big part of this legislation and what I like most is that there is quality assurance because diversion programmes must be accredited and service providers, because government can’t do it alone, must be properly registered. I think that is a great innovation.
I must also point out that the Bill includes a wide range of sentencing options such as nonresidential or community-based sentences; sentences involving restorative justice concepts such as restitution and compensation to the victim, correctional supervision and finally sentences involving a residential element, that is detention in a child and youth care centre referred to in the Children’s Act of 2005.
There is also an attempt to bring what exists together. I think what is also worth mentioning as an important strength of this Bill is the promotion of co-operative governance. This Bill requires various departments to work together to address services for children processed through the criminal justice system in a co-ordinated and holistic manner.
The Bill requires the alignment of policies, practices and intersectoral planning of the agencies of the criminal justice department. Also of importance is that the offences are actually placed in schedules. There are five schedules and they are determined in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. Once more I am hoping that my colleagues will elaborate, especially those who worked very hard in Parliament expanding on the policy informing the legislation. I must, at this stage, urge us all in this House without reservation to – and I am told that this is a possibility – support this Bill.
At this point I want to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, Comrade Yunis Carrim, for his excellent work, and the long hours he spent in discussion with all parties represented in that portfolio committee.
I also want to thank my Deputy Minister. From the very onset of this legislation many years back until the last discussions between the executive and the portfolio committee – I won’t tell you when that was - you have sterlingly contributed to the substance that is the essence of this Bill.
I must thank the subdirectorate in the court services, vulnerable groups, and many people do not know that South Africa can boast with having some of the finest drafters of legislation. And I want to thank, in my department, the very hardworking officials who worked tirelessly to produce the drafts that we, in Justice, present to this House. I do know that you have been complemented, even by the chairperson of the portfolio committee in private – ooh, I am divulging secrets here – but you have done very well and thank you very much. [Time expired.]
Mr Y I CARRIM: Madam Speaker, comrades and friends, the quality of a democracy and the prospects of its future are, in no small measure, reflected in the way it treats its children. And what better a test of this than the child justice system it opts for? So, this Bill tells more about us as a country and people and about where we come from and where we are going to than we might acknowledge. Which is why it is so important to get this Bill right and which is why, too, if it is important to pass Bills that are pragmatic, practicable and doable, it is also important not to abandon identity, principle, values and goals. If this Bill is about many balances, it is fundamentally a balance between the real and the ideal, between capacity and fulfilment, between now and then. In short, the Bill is both pragmatic and aspirational within the framework of an overall implementation strategy.
It is, in fact, a highly civilised Bill. Which is why, though issues of crime persistently divide this House, all the major parties, I understand, are supporting this Bill. How easy it would have been, with elections looming, to over politicise the issues of the Bill, but nobody succumbed, quite simply because all of us recognise the value of children in our society.
I’ll deal with the committee’s overall approach to the Bill and draw from our report published in today’s Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports. Other members will deal with specific aspects of the Bill. The approach of the committee in processing the Bill this year was similar to that of the 2002 committee, which revolved around two principal considerations; firstly, the need to balance the constitutional rights of the child and the rights of the victims of crime and the community to safety and security - there are glitches here in my typing - secondly, the need to ensure that the state has the capacity to effectively implement the new child justice system.
We are excruciatingly aware of the high levels of crime in our country and the capacity of children, no less, to commit crime. We are aware too of the public perception that the state is failing to curb crime. It’s precisely, indeed, because of these concerns that the Bill took the form it has. Of course, it’s important to be tough on crime, including crime committed by children, but this has to be part of a process of preventing and reducing crime over time, and ensuring that children don’t constantly re-offend, becoming part of an endless cycle of crime. What future has the country otherwise? Clearly, there need to be short, medium and long-term programmes, measures and targets as part of an overall sustainable long- term strategy to reduce crime by children as part of a broader approach to reduce crime generally.
There are, of course, many complex objective and subjective reasons for crime committed by children. A significant part of crime has fundamental material and structural roots, and unless we adequately address these systemic issues and develop a child justice system that is effectively based on both preventing and combating crime, we will not be able to reduce crime levels significantly. This is not to be reductionist, in other words, understanding crime simply as an outcome of the social structure, nor is it, indeed, to ignore the subjective choices children make to commit crime for which they must be held accountable. It is about finding a balance between the objective and subjective dimensions of crime committed by children.
We should not be romantic about children in our country or ignore the extent to which children, especially older children, subjectively choose to commit crime and must be held accountable. Nor should we downplay the state’s responsibility to ensure the safety and security of both the potential victims of crime and society. But we have to avoid an exceptionalism that borders on suggesting that South African children, basically African children, are inherently worse than other children universally and are incapable of being rescued from a predilection to committing crime; which borders, in effect, on neo-racist theories. It is in striking a path between these two extremes that the portfolio committee’s approach was directed.
The committee processed this Bill in a somewhat different context this year from 2002. Of course, public anxieties and frustrations about the levels of crime and the perceptions of the state’s failure have heightened. These are very understandable feelings and views and the committee is entirely empathetic. But we cannot shape legislation on a new sustainable model of child justice with both immediate and long-term goals surely on the basis of public emotion, as legitimate as these are, and as accountable as Parliament is to the public. The committee was careful to avoid being populist and short-term, whilst recognising the need to act in the here and now to reduce crime.
But there have been other changes too since 1992: Firstly, the significant advances in restorative justice since 2002 in South Africa. And what is restorative justice if not quintessentially African? And who should be better at it than us? Secondly, government departments and other state structures and NGOs have developed greater capacity to implement the Bill, and are already doing so. Its key aspects are being implemented, as the Minister and Deputy Minister know, on assessments and diversion. In a sense, the Bill is lagging behind current practice and serves little more than to provide a legislative framework for ad hoc practices that have emerged.
Thirdly, indeed there are about 18 000 children being diverted already. Fourthly, there are now more probation offices and more secure care facilities. Fifthly, there are progressive changes to other legislation that impacted on the way we processed ours, especially the Children’s Act.
While the state has obvious obligations towards children, it cannot substitute for the role of parents, who have the primary responsibility. This principle is expressed in the concept of parental rights and responsibilities in the Children’s Act. Clearly, unless we can re-establish functional families, we cannot solve all the problems of crime committed by children.
The committee is acutely aware of the capacity and other constraints of the state to implement the Bill. Various provisions in the Bill deal precisely with this. The Bill’s preamble, indeed, acknowledges:
There are capacity, resource and other constraints on the state, which may require a pragmatic and incremental strategy to implement the new criminal justice system for children.
We engaged rigorously with the departments and other state structures on their capacity to implement the Bill. Indeed, we spent about 20 hours; 12 hours in closed workshops and eight hours in the committee. We also put formal questions in writing and got a 43-page reply in writing from the department.
We undertook study visits, indeed, without pre-warning to the One-Stop Child Justice Centres and diversion service providers in Mangaung and Port Elizabeth. May I, by the way, welcome magistrates Schoeman and Goosen who are in the gallery today. Minister, you will be interested to know that I heard today that the Mangaung One-Stop Child Justice Centre has been identified by the United Nations, if I’m right, as a role model for such one-stop centres throughout the world, and I think we should congratulate them for that. [Applause.]
Overall, we feel that while co-ordination among departments responsible for implementation has improved recently, there is still some way to go, but we are utterly clear that the departments and other state structures certainly have the potential to implement the Bill. Of course, it will be challenging, but what else can we expect? Our point is that the Bill is only going to be implemented on 1 April 2010 and it gives the department plenty of time to prepare.
Obviously, there are aspects of the Bill that only the state structure should implement, but there are other aspects that the NGOs could assist with, and are keen to do so. It is important, however, not to conflate the roles of the state and the NGOs. Clearly, there is a need for greater co- operation between them, and the committee effected various amendments to the Bill to ensure this, and we shall seek to monitor it.
I want to, before I conclude, acknowledge, and the Minister has done so, the extremely valuable contribution of the department’s team which include Advocate Shireen Said, Mr Laurence Basset, Ms Thandazile Skhozana, Ms Corlia Kok and Mr Hennie Potgieter. Mr Basset, Minister, the key drafter, as you noticed, in particular, worked incredibly hard and with considerable patience and is the quiet hero of this Bill, I must insist. [Applause.] Ms Christine Silkstone, of the parliamentary Research Unit – a quiet person too – Minister, you don’t know her, also brought her formidable intellectual strengths and passion to bear on this Bill.
May I mention that last week when we were sitting in the committee at about 11 o’clock one night, her two-and-half-year old boy rang and said: “Comrade Carrim, I am from the toddler league of the ANC.” He asked: “Is this not a Bill about child justice?” I said yes. And he said: “If this is a Bill about child justice why do you have my mom sitting in committee meetings at 11 o’clock at night?”
Moreover, you will be interested to know that he said, when his mother reads to him at night, she’s now reading to him things like victim-offender- mediation. She is talking to him about family group conferencing. And when she sings in the kitchen while cooking with her partner she actually sings about things like that, so he wanted to know whether this is not victimising him as a child. The President, Deputy Minister and heads, I must tell you, historical materialism doesn’t always provide the answers for you. So, there we are! [Laughter.]
We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr Ann Skelton, whom I gather is in the gallery, Dr Jacqui Gallinetti and Ms Dhaksha Kassan from the Child Justice Alliance for their technical support and their unremitting passion for and commitment to children. You’ll have to accept that on clause 2163, subsection 133(g)(iv), subsection 6, I still don’t agree with you about the comma, but you are free to go to the NCOP to present it to them. [Laughter.]
I also want to thank researcher Tumisang Bojabotshena, who was great, as was Mr Neil Bell. Last night at 22h30, he was sitting with me as I went through the draft of the ATC document, so Mr Neil Bell is outstanding.
We are grateful to our committee secretaries, I hope they are here, Vhonani Ramaano and Lolly Phumelele Sibisi - I should have mentioned Lolly first, she will get upset - and Vatiswa and the Department of Social Development. I want to thank in particular, Conny Nxumalo and others.
In our committee, Bills are co-chaired and Mr John Jeffery, as a co-chair brought his considerable political and technical skills, not to mention his work ethic, to bear on the Bill. Some of his more innovative ideas, Minister, you’ll understand, I suspect come from his partner, Professor P J Schwikkard and possibly his 16-year old son, David. We are very pleased that JJ derives his genes from his son because we benefited from them.
I must also thank Mr Steve Swart - he’s been superb. In fact, it was very hard, Comrade Deputy President and the ANC, to believe that he is not our comrade, because of the way in which he acted in the meeting - I hope his party leader is not listening - as if he was an ANC comrade. Although, I must tell him that it’s a bit late for floor-crossing. It is about to end, mercifully.
But I must also thank Mr Len Joubert, wherever he is, because he was extremely patient, understanding and kind. Lastly, to the DA, in particular, I want to say, what strikes us at the end of the day is that we can have a national interest though we have some differences on this Bill. Eventually we all say, children matter, our future matters. [Applause.]
Finally, while the committee regrets the delay in finalising the Bill, we’d like to think it served ultimately to produce a better Bill. Certainly, the Bill is the outcome of considerable negotiations among a range of stakeholders and there is now substantial consensus on its content between Parliament, the executive, the NGOs, academic and other experts. The challenge now, I must stress, is for all of us to work together to implement the Bill effectively. The committee feels we owe this to the children of our country and we certainly need to do this to consolidate and advance our democracy. I reserve my nine seconds, thank you. [Applause.]
Mr L K JOUBERT: Madam Speaker, this Bill has been in Parliament for six years and its passing is long overdue but, as stated in the portfolio committee report, the delay served to produce, ultimately we think, a better Bill.
However, notwithstanding its long tenure in Parliament, it is still not a perfect Bill. However, the DA will support this Bill nevertheless, because we believe in the principle that children need to be treated as children in our justice system and children are not to be seen in prisons. An imperfect Bill protecting our children is 100% better than no Bill at all.
The interesting fact of this Bill is how all the political parties concerned, and that is the ruling party, the DA and the ACDP, worked together, I dare to say in a spirit of ubuntu, with a common interest and that is to improve the lot of our children. After all, they are the future; tomorrow belongs to them, but we have the power to determine their tomorrow to a great extent. To me it showed again that if you have a common interest, the ruling party and the opposition can work together in the interest of our country and our people.
Before I address the Bill as such, I would like to make certain acknowledgements. Firstly, I want to also express my appreciation to Mr Lawrence Bassett and his team of law drafters. Lawrence, I confirm what I wrote to you on Sunday: We owe you. Having said that, I want to give you a piece of advice. When I did my articles, I once had to drew up a will for a client. I took the draft to my principal and he asked me why I included certain clauses in the will. My reply was that the client wanted it like that. Then he taught me an important lesson. He said: Remember you are a lawyer, not a scribe. And I address this to all our legal draftsmen: Always remember that you are lawyers, not scribes and you don’t have to be diplomats either.
I also wish to express a special word of thanks to our two chairpersons. This Bill, as you heard, was chaired by both the hon Carrim and the hon J H Jeffery. The opposition was at a great disadvantage during the final stages of this Bill as I had a medical condition and my senior counsel, Dr Delport, was also on sick leave for most of the time. Nevertheless, they – these two chairpersons - did everything in their power to keep me on board and I want to note my appreciation for their professional approach in this regard.
Those who know me will have realised that all these nice words were to lay the table for something else. That something else concerns the preamble to this Bill. Before coming to the point, I want to express my appreciation for the efforts to accommodate my concerns in this regard, which are contained in the committee’s report. Without wishing to create the impression that I am ungrateful for these concessions, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to explain the sensitivity we have in this regard.
This Bill, as Mr Carrim said, will only come into effect in 2010. That is 20 years after apartheid was abolished, which means that no person born during the apartheid era will be affected by this Bill. However, the preamble refers to the position before 1994 and although I am keenly aware of the wrongs of the past, it belongs to the past. As a South African whose family tree goes back more than three hundred years in this country, I obviously also have scars. The oldest scar is that of my forefathers who came to this country as religious refugees and had to abandon everything they had and flee for their lives, leaving pots on the stove. They again lost everything during the Anglo Boer War. We paid a further price because my family did not support the National Party.
I have reconciled all this because I believe that if you keep looking at the past you have your back to the future. Why then refer to the past in a Bill that concerns our children? When will today and tomorrow become more important than yesterday? More importantly, if we really want to make this wonderful country work, we must only take from the past that that will make the future better for all. Let us leave the history out of legislation and leave it to the historians. Let us lawmakers learn from the past but rather concern ourselves with the future. I thank you.
Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, today’s debate on the Child Justice Bill represents a milestone in the development of the South African criminal justice system as it, for the first time, provides specific legislation for procedures to deal with children who have come into conflict with the law.
The underlying principles to the Bill are found in section 28 of the Constitution which states, inter alia, that “a child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child’’ and, more specifically, that children should only be detained as a measure of last resort and then separate from prisoners older than 18.
The Child Justice Bill provides the legislative framework for the special protection of children who have come into conflict with the law. The Bill also gives effect to the requirement that South Africa’s accession to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, must be taken up in our domestic law.
Madam Speaker, the Bill has been in the making – I disagree with Mr Joubert, it is actually been in the making for some ten years, with the first steps taken as far back as May 1997. Although it has taken a long time, the IFP shared the view of a leading criminologist who said: It is better to have a Bill, than no Bill at all.
The main objective of the Bill is to provide alternatives to the incarceration of the children who committed less serious criminal offences. The Bill sets the age of 10 as the minimum age for prosecution, while retaining the common law presumption of incapacity for children under the age of 14.
Some of the alternative sentences envisaged by the Bill include: community- based sentences, including rehabilitative diversion; restorative justice sentences; correctional supervision; residential requirement sentences; and residential facility sentences.
I would like to concentrate on two of these alternatives - diversion and restorative justice. According to the Child Justice Alliance, diversion is the practice of referring a child away from formal court procedures at any stage in the criminal justice process. It is not a soft option, but seeks to change the child’s pattern of behaviour so that he or she understands the impact of their crime on the community.
Restorative justice is not a new concept in South Africa, and can be described as uniquely African as it encapsulates some of the principles of ubuntu. These include actions such as an apology, restitution and reparation. Overall, the main objective of restorative justice is to allow the offender to rejoin the community and to prevent them from reoffending.
The IFP supports the Child Justice Bill. It provides legal certainty for dealing with children who have come into conflict with the law, and provides them with a second chance in life, while at the same time enabling them to take responsibility for their actions without having been incarcerated and exposed to hardened criminals which sometimes can lead to a life of crime and not rehabilitation. As Mr Carrim, the hon Carrim, said, the importance of the child is the most important thing. We all believe that our children are important – to ourselves, to South Africa – and this is a step in the right direction. I thank you.
Mnr I E JENNER: Agb Speaker, die OD bring vandag hulde aan die menigte kinderslagoffers wat gesterf het as gevolg van gruwelike moorde, verkragtings en ontvoerings, en dit ten aanskoue van familie, vriende en kennisse. Sommiges se dood is steeds onbeantwoord en dit het ’n ewige letsel op baie gemeenskappe gelaat.
Die langverwagte wetsontwerp oor kindergeregtigheid bring vandag troos in die harte van die menigtes wat deur hierdie gruweldade en misdadige vergrype teenoor kinders geraak is.
Hierdie deeglike wetgewing het egter ’n baie groot uitdaging, naamlik die effektiewe inwerkingstelling daarvan. Die uiters gebalanseerde wetgewing vereis ook kollektiewe verantwoordelikheid om sukses te bewerkstellig.
In my eie ervaring as ’n korrektiewe beampte en projekbestuurder by ’n jeugsentrum het ek gesien hoe baie jeugoortreders misbruik word in plekke van aanhouding, maar ook hoe hulle ontaard in die gehardste misdadigers wat in die meeste gevalle onverskillig en vreesloos opereer.
Die feit dat die konsep van “restorative justice” as ’n fundamentele aspek van die herstel, deurlopend in die wetsontwerp manifesteer, bring nuwe hoop en verdiep ons swaarverdiende demokrasie. “Restorative justice” poog om die oortreder en sy onmiddellike familie, die slagoffer en sy onmiddellike familie, asook die gemeenskap medeverantwoordelik en verantwoordbaar te maak vir die herstel, versoening en hertoelating ná vonnisoplegging.
Vir die eerste keer is daar ’n meganisme wat verhoed dat kinder- en jeugoortreders blootgestel word aan ’n omgewing belaai met kriminaliteit en die wreedheid wat daarmee gepaard gaan. Die wetsontwerp bring ook ’n einde aan die praktyk om jeugdiges te misbruik by misdaadpleging in die wete dat hulle ’n ligter straf sal ontvang. Die geskiedenis word vandag herskryf omdat hierdie wetgewing in Jeugmaand goedgekeur word, want dit bevestig dat ’n gesonde jeug ’n gesonde samelewing tot gevolg kan hê. Die OD steun die wetgewing en bedank alle rolspelers, ministeries, departemente, die portefeuljekomitee, nie-regeringsorganisasies asook die openbare samelewing wat ’n bydrae gelewer het tot die samestelling van die wetgewing.
Suid-Afrika kan dus die droom van wyle Ingrid Jonker laat voortleef, “Die kind wat net in die son wou speel … die kind is nie dood nie”. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr I E JENNER: Hon Speaker, the ID today salutes the many child victims who have died as a result of brutal murders, rapes and abductions, and that in the presence of family, friends and acquaintances. Some of these murders are still unsolved and it has left a permanent scar on many communities.
The long-awaited Bill on child justice today brings comfort to the hearts of the many who were affected by these abominable deeds and criminal transgressions against children.
This thorough piece of legislation, however, faces a major challenge, namely the effective implementation thereof. In addition, this extremely balanced legislation requires collective responsibility to achieve success.
In my experience as a correctional services officer and project manager at a youth centre, I have not only witnessed the abuse of many juveniles in places of detention, but also how they degenerated into the most hardened criminals who, in most cases, operate with indifference and fearlessness.
The fact that the concept of restorative justice, as a fundamental aspect of the rehabilitation, manifests itself throughout the Bill brings new hope and deepens our hard-earned democracy. Restorative justice strives to make the offender and his immediate family, the victim and his immediate family as well as the community, co-responsible and answerable for the rehabilitation, reconciliation and readmission after sentencing.
For the first time there is now a mechanism that prevents child offenders and juvenile delinquents from being exposed to an environment fraught with criminality and the brutality that goes with it.
The Bill also brings to an end the practice of using juveniles to commit criminal deeds knowing that they would receive a lighter sentence. History is being rewritten today as this legislation is being passed in Youth Month, thereby affirming that a healthy youth could lead to a healthy society.
The ID supports the legislation and would like to thank all the role- players, ministries, departments, the portfolio committee, non-governmental organisations as well as the public who made a contribution in the composition of the legislation.
South Africa can, therefore, let the dream of the late Ingrid Jonker be remembered, “Die kind wat net in die son wou speel … die kind is nie dood nie”. I thank you.]
Mr J B SIBANYONI: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon Members of Parliament, I would like to start off by joining the committee’s chairperson in welcoming the magistrate of Bloemfontein in Mangaung, Mr Schoeman, as well as the magistrate of Port Elizabeth, Mr Goosen. [Applause.]
When our committee was initially debating this Bill or talking about it, there were some doubts as to whether there is capacity on the ground to implement it, if passed. However, after visiting these two one-stop justice centres, our committee has confidence that in fact, there is hope. We also want to congratulate Mangaung on winning a prize.
The debate takes place not only during the Youth Month, but also on Youth Parliament day, an event during which the youth of this country gathers here at Parliament to debate issues affecting them.
We are debating a piece of legislation that brings major changes in the criminal judicial system concerning children in conflict with the law. It is a piece of legislation that embraces the values of ubuntu, which is similar to, but a little bit wider than humanity.
Kunesitjho sesikhethu esithi ‘umuntu mumuntu ngabantu’. Lesi sitjho sisithola eentjhabeni ezinengi zange-Africa. Abanye bathi ‘motho ke motho ka batho’. Abanye ubezwe besithi ‘umntu ngumntu ngabantu’. UmThethomlingwa lo uletha indlela yokuba abantwana abatjhayisana nomthetho bangasegiswa ngendlela ekusegiswa ngayo abantu abadala namkha iinlelesi zakadeni – sithoma ngokubotjhwa komntwana.
UmThethomlingwa lo uthi akukafanele bonyana umntwana nakabotjhwako athuthwe ngesikhwelo sinye nabantu abadala ngambana bazamtlhorisa ngeendlela ezinengi, njengokuthi umntwana lo angenziwa umalokazana. Nangaphandle kwalokho, bazamfundisa ubulelesi obuphala namkha obudlula lobu abotjhelwe bona. Alo-ke umThethomlingwa lo uthi abantwana kufanele bavikeleke bangavezwa ezintweni ezingabona ukuyaphambili. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[We have a saying that says: a person is a person because of other people. This saying is also used by many African nations. Some say ‘motho ke motho ka batho’. You will hear others saying: ‘umntu ngumntu ngabantu’. This Bill seeks to provide that children who are in conflict with the law should not be prosecuted the same way as adults or older criminals – starting with the arrest of a child.
This Bill states that it is not correct for a child who has been arrested to be transported in the same vehicle as old offenders, because they can abuse him in many ways, for example sexual abuse. Apart from that, they will teach him other ways of committing crime that is more serious than what he has been arrested for. Therefore, this Bill states that children should be protected and not be exposed to things that can destroy them further.]
Some people might think that treating child offenders more humanely than adult offenders is an indication of being soft on crime; but that is not so.
Kunesinye godu isitjho esithi ‘umntwana wami muntwana wakho nomntwana wakho muntwana wami’. [Again there is another saying that says: My child is your child and your child is my child.]
In the traditional African way of life, parents and the community at large co-operate in bringing up children, which includes their discipline, hence the saying: “Your child is my child; my child is your child.” As a member of the community, you are expected to reprimand any child you come across doing something wrong. In the past, it included reasonable chastisement.
The Bill, as it stands, has elements of restorative justice. For instance, if a child is arrested for assaulting another child, the offender’s parents and the victims’ will be invited to take part in discussions aimed at resolving the matter, if it can be resolved. Thus the views of the victims would be considered in diversion and sentencing. The offending child may be persuaded to apologise or make good the wrong he or she has done.
When a person has done something wrong and some action needs to be taken against that person, in isiZulu it is said: Uqondiswa izigwegwe [correcting the wrong]; it is not punishment or discipline the way we understand it, but rather to correct that person. We are going back to our roots in terms of this Bill.
The ANC national conference in Stellenbosch declared that the ANC should be a champion for the rights of children, especially the girl-child. The conference further committed to strengthening the criminal justice system to protect children and prevent abuse.
The Child Justice Bill strikes a balance between protecting children in conflict with the law and protecting the victims of crime committed by children. The Bill also balances the interest of the child with the interest of justice.
The Bill has provisions to deal with child offenders in such a way that the child offender accepts that he or she has done wrong. This will prevent any possibility of reoffending. The ANC supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, I firstly want to thank the Justice Portfolio Committee chairperson and the Whip for the extra time and also for your kind words. My thanks also go to all the officials involved led by Lawrence Basset and the nongovernmental organisations who helped us, led by Dr Ann Skelton and others, who assisted us during the drafting process.
Back in the year 2000, I was proud enough to represent our country in addressing an ancillary meeting of the United Nations Crime Conference in Vienna on the notion of restorative justice and the Child Justice Bill. It is thus quite emotional to address this House and to participate in this debate today. The Bill at that stage was undoubtedly pioneering worldwide in criminal justice reform. Regrettably, it has taken a number of years to finalise it and, in a certain sense, practice has bypassed us with the restorative justice principle being applied in practice and some 18 000 children already being diverted annually. Members will recall that I have raised the issue of the outstanding Child Justice Bill in numerous debates and during Budget Votes and that I regret the delay. However, I do believe that we now have a much improved Bill.
It is also quite emotional as we are all aware of the appalling conditions in our prisons. Hon Deputy Minister, you will remember that when we went to Port Elizabeth and we visited the juvenile section, there was that youngster who was about 14 years of age and he said to us, “die kinders was stout met my” [the children were naughty with me], obviously indicating that he had been sexually abused or raped in that prison. And we need to state this categorically, that, as far as possible and bearing in mind the safety of communities in society, children should not be kept in prisons where they will in all likelihood be abused and sodomised into a lifetime of crime in what has been referred to as the universities of crime.
The restorative justice and diversion approach for children in conflict with the law seeks to avoid this whilst ensuring that community safety is not compromised. This is an important aspect and the Bill recognises the present reality of high crime rates and adopts a proactive approach to crime prevention by placing increased emphasis on the effective rehabilitation and integration of children. This is to be achieved by encouraging child offenders to accept responsibility for the crime committed and to make amends for the harm caused, and this is the essence of the restorative justice approach. Diversion, we believe, would minimise the potential for re-offending and break the cycle of crime. It balances the interests of children on one hand and those of society with due regard to the rights of victims.
With the high crime rate, what may seem to be a desire for retribution is often actually a concern for public safety. We believe that, at the very least, this Child Justice Bill will potentially deliver at least as much public safety as the present system. Therein lies the appeal to us as lawmakers grappling with the demands of society for safer streets. The Bill provides special treatment for children in conflict with the law in a system that is designed to break the cycle of crime. It will thus contribute to safer communities and encourage children to become law- abiding and productive adults. The diversion programmes presently offered by the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders and other NGOs have a remarkable success rate with a very low rate of re-offending. Whilst the high crime rate does understandably result in a cry for retribution, the point about a retributive system is that you deal with a state and, at the end of the day, the victim is left angry and bitter, maybe with some feelings of vengeance satisfied whilst the child offender goes off to prison to learn new tricks.
Restorative justice is a victim-directed approach to crime prevention and the Bill seeks to include victims in crime diversion processes by means of restitution, consultation on diversion programmes, victim-impact statements as well as in victim-offender mediation. So, the appeal of this model is the acceptance of blame by the offender and the recognition of the need to address the harm caused. Unfortunately, this has not been the traditional approach where, in our criminal justice system, the offender seeks to evade accountability and the legal system has, to a large degree, degenerated into a contest between the state and defence lawyers to establish guilt or to obtain acquittal. Retributive justice is a form of criminal justice based on the response to crime primarily by punishing offenders, yet virtually, as I indicated, ignores the victims and communities hurt by crime.
Now, a well-known judge from New Zealand who has pioneered restorative justice holds the view that restorative justice offers to the world the healing power of repentance and forgiveness, of justice with mercy, of God’s love for all people. These are ideals, he says, in which all people can share. If there is to be true accountability in the community, it is time we breathe the spirit of justice.
We as the ACDP have no delusions about the magnitude of the task facing us in the light of the high crime rate, but submit that restorative justice will play a fundamental role in providing opportunities for active personal participation by the victim, the offender and their communities in responding to crime. We wish to make it very clear that adults who think that they can use children to commit offences, hoping that such children will be diverted, will be prosecuted under section 9 of this Bill read with the provisions of the Children’s Act.
In conclusion, it would be apposite to conclude by referring to the Prophet Micah who asked, “What is it that God desired of His people?” He said, “He has showed you, oh man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” And we as the ACDP respectfully submit that restorative justice satisfies this injunction. The key to success for this Bill is that the public feels safe from child offenders. The victim is involved and possibly compensated and the child offender has a change of heart, leading to a new life. The ACDP will support this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the most highlighted concerns since the turn to democracy in 1996 has been the protection of women and children. Our democracy brought to the fore a number of serious abuses and the reality of the children of South Africa and it was bleak.
The national Constitution and the Bill of Rights introduced rights that will certainly shape up human living, dignity and equality. However, it is the long awaited Child Justice Bill that will deal with and address the needs of our children. The courts of South Africa have always upheld that, in all matters pertaining to children, it is the best interests of the child that is the court’s primary concern and interest. It insists that all shall persuade the court’s decision. The Child Justice Bill serves to bring so much more stability to and fill so many loopholes regarding the wellbeing of the child.
In the overpopulated province of KwaZulu-Natal, poverty is one of the greatest challenges and there are many child-headed households which means that children are being deprived of education and there are many unfortunate reports of children in rural areas who are being made to labour under harsh conditions.
The awareness of children’s rights needs to be taken to the end of the earth, and our communities need to be educated on how to rear and develop the children of our country without infringing on the rights and the dignity of the child. We need to intensify the responsibility of parents towards their children. Neglect and abuse are too common and the rights of children are being exploited.
The MF hopes that the Child Justice Bill will not only create a greater awareness of the rights of children but also instil a greater sense of responsibility in parents, guardians and communities towards the children of South Africa. Let us all protect all our children, even if they are not ours. As we can remember, hon Sibanyoni just said, “Your child is my child; my child is your child.”
Ingane yakho ingane yami, ingane yami ingane yakho. Masikukhumbule lokhu. Siyabonga. [Your child is my child, my child is your child. We must remember this. Thank you.]
The MF supports the Child Justice Bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. It has nothing to do with the previous speaker; it has to do with a certain hon member, Martin Stephens of the DA, who finds himself remarkably comfortable on the ANC benches.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member. Please take your seat.
Mr M J ELLIS: I was rather hoping, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would tell him to come back to the DA where he belongs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn’t take him there in the first place!
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy, this is a very serious point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: From where you are seated, you have a problem, but don’t make your problem my problem.
Mr M J ELLIS: Look how comfortable he looks.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is your problem, sir. Will you please sit down? I am asking you for the last time and very seriously so. Sit down or take the afternoon off.
Ms C B JOHNSON: Madam Deputy Speaker and hon Ellis, it is very comfortable in the ANC benches.
The justice committee has processed many important pieces of legislation during this third term and this third democratic Parliament, but I would argue that this Bill before the House today is, possibly, one of the most important and difficult pieces of legislation that we have had to deal with. It raised many issues which we really had to grapple with and we had to take some really tough decisions.
The aim of the Bill is to prevent children who are in conflict with the law from growing up and becoming adults in conflict with the law. It brings about many important changes in the way children in conflict with the law are to be treated. We need to remember that when we deal with these children, they are after all still children. Before they are sentenced by a competent court, they are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we need to put measures in place when we deal with children.
The Bill contains new and innovative developments, the first being assessment. The assessment process is where a probation officer will assess each and every child for the purpose of establishing whether the child is in need of care and protection; will estimate the age of the child if the age is uncertain, and will make recommendations as to whether the child should be released or be detained in custody while awaiting trial, and also establish the possibility of diversion. Diversion is something that the hon Jeffery will deal with more fully. All children who will have to attend a preliminary inquiry will be assessed.
The second new development is the preliminary inquiry, which is an informal pre-trial procedure. It aims to look at the child holistically, at his or her personal circumstances, at the offence that he or she was alleged to have committed, and to place all of this before a court. Usually, these preliminary inquiries are attended by the child, the child’s parents, the prosecutor and the probation officer to get a sense of the specific circumstances surrounding that child.
The third important change we’ve made is that we’ve raised the minimum age of criminal capacity from the age of seven to the age of ten. This means that a child who commits an offence under the age of ten will not have criminal capacity and, therefore, can never be prosecuted for that offence. There was a lot of debate in the committee about this issue. People felt very strongly about it; some argued for ten years and others for the age of
- The tough question that we had to face was: At what age are children able to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and act accordingly?
Many of the submissions suggested the age of 12, but the committee felt that we should first increase it to the age of ten. We then inserted a clause to say that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development must, within five years, review the age of criminal capacity with a view to whether or not it should be raised to 12 years or remain at ten years.
When the police, therefore, have reason to believe that a child under the age of ten has committed a crime, they may not arrest that child but have to take the child and immediately hand the child over to the parent or an appropriate adult or, if the parent cannot be found or if indeed it is the parent who is neglecting or abusing the child, hand the child over to a child and youth care centre because the child may very well be in need of care.
With regards to children between 10 and 14 years, they are presumed to lack criminal capacity until the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child could appreciate the difference between right and wrong and could act in accordance therewith.
Finally, the Bill puts important measures in place to deal with the release or detention of children awaiting trial. Time does not permit me to go into detail but, as a general principle, where a decision is made that the child must be detained awaiting trial, then preference must be given to the least restrictive option in the circumstances. In other words, one would rather place a child in a suitable youth and child care centre before placing a child in prison or a police cell.
Where a child is held in detention, the child must be kept separate from adults and must be treated in a way that takes account of the child’s age and special needs. And adequate food, water, blankets and bedding must be provided and when there has been an injury or illness or trauma, then immediate health care must be provided to the child.
The hon Bloem has raised with this House, not once but many times, the issue of children awaiting trial who are in custody where either the parents cannot be found or are simply too poor to pay the bail. Hon Bloem, we’ve taken care of that for you in the Bill. We’ve looked at the matter. [Applause.]
To conclude, with regards to the detention, a lot depends on the secure care centres that we have in the country at the moment. These centres are crucial to the long-term success of this Bill. At the ANC’s 52nd National Conference, the resolutions state that, with regard to children in conflict with the law, the secure care centres must be capacitated and the establishment of additional such centres must be accelerated. The committee was, therefore, pleased to note that the Department of Social Development has already established 30 of these centres across the country, and has budgeted and planned for a further 20.
There is a saying that we worry so much about what a child will become tomorrow that we forget that he or she is someone today. I do believe that this Bill acknowledges that if we act in the best interests of our children today, then hopefully they will become responsible and law-abiding adults tomorrow.
I want to express my sincere gratitude to everybody who took part in the processing of this Bill. It is, really, a very good Bill. I am pleased and privileged to support this Bill on behalf of the ANC. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Child Justice Bill is a very important piece of legislation for our nation. The children of our country are our future. They are the foundation for our continued existence as a nation. They are an indispensable national resource. The success of this nation will depend on how we care for our children in terms of their health, and their education to make them knowledgeable and skilled citizens who can make a rich contribution to the national development of our country and advancement.
These days, we see much juvenile delinquency caused by drugs and other influences. It is important to come up with a Child Justice Bill such as this one. Many children have certainly found themselves in conflict with the law and consequently in prison. Many prisons that one visits these days are crowded with young people. I have personally visited many such prisons. In one prison, I was struck by the choirs. When these youngsters sing hymns, you can’t believe that you are in prison. You would think that you are in a church engaged in a very deep spiritual revival.
This Bill, among other things, provides for the minimum age of the criminal capacity of children. It deals with children who lack criminal capacity outside the criminal justice system. It has special provisions for securing attendance in courts and the release from detention and the placement of children. Due to the lack of such a law, many children have not been properly placed, and they have sometimes been mixed with hardened criminals. This is despite the fact that the Constitution is based on democratic values, social and economic justice, equality and fundamental human rights to improve the quality of life of all its people, and to free the potential of every person for all possible things.
The Bill is supported by the PAC. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Deputy Speaker, hon Minister and members, it is of benefit to our society that children of crime have laws that afford them the opportunity to embark on a process towards full restoration.
The Child Justice Bill spells out the just procedures best suited for a child criminal. The Bill aims to distinguish between child and adult criminals and to achieve the right balance of treatment so that the child is not treated more severely than its adult counterpart.
A key object of the Bill is to break the cycle of crime amongst our youth. The FD endorses the provision that the de facto minimum age for a child to presume to lack criminal capacity is established under the age of 10. The procedures are provided for and the obligation is placed upon the state to prove criminal capacity of the child over the age of 10 but less than 14 years old.
Society has an obligation, as far as possible, to protect the child’s growth. Although being exposed to a bad world, they must not be unduly influenced or forced to engage in criminal practices. We live in an imperfect world, but children need not be grouped with those who have the capacity to account for their actions. As such, the provisions spelling out procedures around diversion create just treatment to the child offender. Ours is still a traditional society that needs education about the impact of diversion on social institutes. Society will need to be educated that children can mend their ways given the right frames of reference and resources. The legislation, to be effective, must operate within a caring society, and unless we have reached that stage, restorative justice of the child is likely to be challenged. However, the FD believes that the legislation sets the right principles and standards to call society to help in the rehabilitation of the child. Therefore, the FD wholeheartedly supports this Bill. I thank you.
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, it goes without saying that we have a problem of crime in South Africa, but who are these criminals and where do they come from? Are they members of an alien race, either from a distant land or even a distant planet, who have come to live among us, but are completely dissimilar from us, having an entirely different origin, background, likes and dislikes? No, they are from among us, from among our communities. We know many of them, or at least their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, cousins, etc. Where did they come from? They probably started as petty criminals when they were much younger, as pick-pockets, housebreakers, bag snatchers and then graduated to more serious crimes such as armed robbery, car hijacking and murder.
One of the issues that we need to address is that most of the criminals committing serious crimes today were probably child offenders once and that many of the child offenders sitting in our prisons will end up becoming serious criminals. What do we do with the child offenders? Do we simply lock them up and throw away the key so they can’t come back and victimise anyone ever again? The facts are that South Africa has one of the largest prison populations in the world; the sixth largest in fact. According to the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, we have 348 prisoners for every 100 000 people. This is one of the highest in the world. Researchers say that South Africa relies on prison as a penalty far more uniformly than other democracies, but a further problem with stays in prison, according to researchers, is that they increase rather than decrease the chances of a person returning once released. This even applies to short stays. The figures are that approximately 60% to 70% of prisoners commit offences again. So, the fact that we throw our criminals into prison doesn’t seem to have an impact on crime. What the Child Justice Bill is endeavouring to do is to focus on the rehabilitation of the child offender, turning them into responsible adults who will not reoffend, as opposed to simply locking them up and throwing away the key.
Diversion, as other members have mentioned, is, therefore, an essential element of the Bill. Diversion is basically saying to a child: If you admit that you did it, and that you were wrong, instead of being prosecuted and appearing in court and having all the evidence heard at the trial, you can go on a programme aimed at rehabilitating you. And if you complete this programme you won’t be prosecuted and you won’t have a criminal record. You will be given a second chance.
Some of the objectives of diversion are, and these are contained in clause 51 of the Bill: To encourage the child to be accountable for the harm caused; to promote the reintegration of the child into his or her family or community; to provide those affected by the harm an opportunity to express their views on its impact on them; to encourage the rendering to the victim of some symbolic benefit or the delivery of some object as compensation; to promote the dignity and wellbeing of the child and the development of his or her self-worth and ability to contribute to society.
Diversion has been around for some time. Research shows that the percentage of reoffending of children who have completed these diversion programmes is low. According to the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders, Nicro, who run most of the diversion programmes, of the 60 791 children accommodated in diversion programmes from April 2004 to December 2007, only 7% of children had records of previously being diverted for other criminal charges.
This Bill provides a legislative framework for diversion and as it is new, it is something that we will need to review after it has been implemented for a while. One of the big debates during our deliberations on the Bill was whether all offenders, even the serious cases, should be considered for diversion. At the moment any case can be considered for diversion in terms of guidelines set by the National Director of Public Prosecutions. After considerable deliberations we felt that this should continue.
We, however, felt that serious cases should not be diverted, but there may be circumstances where you are unlikely to succeed as a trial and where diverting the accused may be something that is appropriate. We, however, set more stringent criteria. With regards to the serious cases, only the Provincial Director of Public Prosecutions can indicate that a case may be considered for diversion and only for exceptional cases and only after consulting the police investigating officers to hear their views and then there is also provision for listening to the views of the victim.
This doesn’t mean that all cases should be diverted. It is an option that can be considered. With regard to minor cases, the decision on diversion would be taken by the prosecutor and for the more serious ones the decision would be taken by the preliminary inquiry magistrate after considering a number of factors. When it comes to sentencing, in other words where the child is found guilty and needs to be punished, the Bill does not follow the approach of “lock them up and throw away the key”. The object of sentencing, and these are contained in clause 69 of the Bill, are to encourage the child to understand the implications of and be accountable for the harm caused; to promote an individualised response, which strikes a balance between the circumstances of the child, the nature of the offence and the interests of society; to promote the reintegration of the child into the family and community; and to use imprisonment as a measure of last resort and only for the shortest appropriate period of time.
Before deciding on the punishment a court can consider a victim impact statement, which is a statement by the victim which indicates the consequences of the crime on them. This gives the court and the child offender an opportunity to hear from the victim themselves. For the more serious offences a pre-sentencing report must be submitted, which is a report on the child and the types of sentences that would be appropriate for him or her, prepared by a probation officer.
The Bill then outlines a range of possible sentences. They can include community-based sentences, which are sentences that involve a child remaining in the community, and undergoing a programme in that community. There are restorative justice sentences, involving participation of the victim. And then, for the more serious cases, there are sentences of compulsory residence in a child and youth care centre or a reform school, or ultimately there is still imprisonment in prison.
The Bill does not encourage fines as a punishment, because invariably it will be the parents who pay and not the child. Instead it may look at symbolic restitution where the child, instead of a fine, provides a service or benefit or payment of compensation. We have specifically banned children under 14 years of age from being sentenced to imprisonment, because we did not feel that prison is an appropriate place for a child under 14. Someone once put it, “What chance does an under-14-year-old have if they are sentenced to prison?” The answer is probably: No chance. And they will be a danger to society for the rest of their lives, which, if they had to live to 70, would be another 57 years. This doesn’t mean that children under 14 walk free. They can serve a sentence in a child and youth care facility, as I already mentioned, and we have provided that if the case is very serious they can be sentenced to serve time in prison when they are a bit older, but a court will have to look at how they performed in the child and youth care centre and we will revisit the sentence of imprisonment if necessary.
We have limited it to children under 14 at the time of sentencing, not the time of commission of the offence, because our intention is clearly that prison is not a place that a child under 14 is equipped or able to handle. In the case where the trial of an under-14-year-old is being delayed so that the child is now over 14 and would have been under 14 at the time of sentencing if it had gone faster, I am sure the presiding officer will take into account that the child could not have been sentenced to jail had the trial been completed earlier.
We are saying no under-14-year-olds in prison, we are not saying over 14 year olds automatically go to prison. This is an area that, I am sure, was discussed a lot and it is an area that can be further debated. Children over the age of 14 can be sentenced to imprisonment, but the Bill limits it to very serious cases.
There are then two additional points I want to make in closing. The Bill is quite detailed. Some would feel too detailed as far as the steps that officials - and that is police officers, prosecutors, magistrates and judges - must take. This is because, while you have a number of officials in our justice system who are committed to the interest of justice, while at the same time considering the child as a human being, there are unfortunately a few others who simply are just not able to think. These are the people who order a child to be held in prison for stealing a loaf of bread on the one hand, and on the other hand releasing dangerous criminals on bail when there are strong cases against them. For these officials, unfortunately, we’ve had to spell things out.
The other point I want to make is an appeal to us here and to society at large that the dangerous criminals in our society, those who rob and kill and rape, are not aliens from a distant land or planet but are from among us. They are some mother’s son or daughter, as the case may be, and they were once children, whether in trouble with the law or just generally troubled.
Two hon members have made reference to a saying “Umntana wakho ngumntana wam; umntana wam ngumntana wakho.” Your child is my child; my child is your child. [Applause.] Let’s take this saying to heart. Let us mentor our youth, let us give them guidance, let us be there for them when they make mistakes, as all humans do, and children should be able to make more mistakes. Let us show them the right path.
The hon chair of the committee, the hon Y I Carrim, has thanked all the officials for their hard work on this Bill - I don’t really have time to repeat it – and the representatives of the nongovernmental organisations who also participated. I think what he left out was himself and I’d like to thank him. [Applause.] That is, the hon Mr Y I Carrim, for his commitment to the task at hand, his energy, his inclusivity and his innovation. I think he is a prime example of parliamentary best practice when it comes to chairing committees. I thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson of the portfolio committee, I would want you to consider taking me to lunch because I’m the one who influenced the hon member who has just spoken. I actually wrote that part for him. [Laughter.] Mine is a simple task now. At the time I was introducing the Bill, I was extending my thanks also to the previous chairperson of our portfolio committee, the hon Fatima Chohan, because she also contributed to the discussions around the Bill at the time that she was chairing. But I also want to say thank you to the Child Justice Alliance.
I must salute some of the members in particular of the NGO community, whom I recall working with in the early 1990s and we were discussing the very concept of the Child Justice Bill. I here would like to just single out Dr Ann Skelton. By the way, I got intermittent briefings about the robust discussions that were happening at the portfolio committee. I think mine is simply to say: Keep up the good work. This is just the beginning. Once the Bill is passed into law, we should make sure that it is implemented, not only implementable. I do think that the challenge does remain. On our part, as the executive, we commit ourselves to putting this as a priority of the JCPS cluster because, indeed, government is mindful of the importance of child care and development. In fact, I would venture to say that this Bill completes the policy circle - the circle of a comprehensive policy on child care and development. We thus commit to making sure that all of us, Parliament, the executive and the NGOs are in partnership for the good of the child so that we make this a reality. To those committees that have to be set up within government, we have to consider how that can be effectively done – not tomorrow but today. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT ON STUDY TOUR TO LONDON AND MANCHESTER CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT ON OVERSIGHT VISIT TO TSHWANE
Mr J P CRONIN: Deputy Speaker, the focus of the oversight work of the Portfolio Committee on Transport over the last year and a half has largely been on public transport preparations for the year 2010. I think members will be well aware that Cabinet has set up the key legacy that we want to derive from hosting the 2010 event and that is a decent legacy of public transport. I think we all recognise that public transport in South Africa is neither good nor effective.
Now, if we are to get this legacy right - in other words if we are to derive a public transport legacy from hosting 2010 - then the planning at city level, in terms of the host cities, needs to be completed already. The funding flow needs to be moving very effectively, and indeed we need to see the beginnings of significant implementation. It should also be noted that the President of the country in two state of the nation addresses in recent years, has mentioned bus transit systems as key elements of this public transport legacy that we want to see in South Africa.
The Minister of Finance has also indicated the commitment of the Treasury to seeing effective integrated multinodal systems in our major cities, and so it is in this context that the portfolio committee has been conducting oversight visits to all of the host cities. We visited all of them last year, except for Tshwane which we visited in February this year. We met with Tshwane transport officials for an entire day and listened to their plans. They are talking about Metrorail improvements, the upgrade of stations, the introduction of some new stations and also are planning - we hope they are still planning - a bus rapid transit system.
However, they raised a number of concerns with us. The SA Rail Commuter Corporation is planning a big Moloto rail extension from Tshwane, Pretoria, to Moloto but they’ve not consulted the city effectively. And so where they are planning to end up in Tshwane is not very suitable for the spatial planning and public transport planning that Tshwane is looking at.
We also had the impression that there wasn’t a very clear vision, frankly, coming from Tshwane officials around their preparations for 2010 transport. This might have been the result of the fact that there are two MMCs, members of the mayoral executive committee, involved in public transport; one is involved with roads and infrastructure and the other with public transport. And the reports we didn’t quite add up to a clear integrated perspective. There are also serious problems with regards to the bulk of the funding that they want for their 2010 public transport planning. The bulk of the funding is only earmarked for 2010-11, which is clearly too late to put in place the transport in time for 2010.
There are also problems with the Gautrain planning; often not connecting effectively with the Pretoria plan. Now, having listened to this and other host cities which we visited as well, the committee asked itself: “What’s going wrong?” Because we are quite concerned, to be honest, about what is going wrong, by way of preparation for public transport for 2010 and, especially for the legacy that we want to put in place beyond 2010. It was in that context that we motivated with Parliament to allow us to have a look at some international best practice, and we asked to go to the United Kingdom and in particular selected London and Manchester.
We selected London because right at the moment, as we speak, they are planning for the 2012 Olympic Games and we wanted to interact with their transport officials and related institutions to see what they are doing, by way of preparation for 2012. We also selected Manchester because Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Now, in going to these two cities, we were well aware that there are many differences, obviously, and one couldn’t just transpose experiences from the United Kingdom to South Africa. First of all, both Commonwealth Games and Olympics Games are essentially one city type event as opposed to the nine city event reality that 2010 would be.
Also, if you are talking about Manchester or London, you are talking about cities with very effective public transport systems already in place, which is not the case in our situation. However, that could be exaggerated as we learned when we were there, because both our counterparts in Manchester and in London underlined to us what a devastating impact the massive privatisation and deregulation of the public transport system had caused, that was pushed through by Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 1980s, and there was a great deal of disruption and undermining of the coherence of public transport systems; both in Manchester, London and elsewhere in the UK.
However, there’s been a significant turnaround in both of these cities and particularly in London. The turnaround has been powered by the fact that in both the cities there are very strong effective city-level transport authorities. In the case of London, it’s called Transport for London, which was established by Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor. It’s a powerful entity which is dedicated to city-wide public transport integration. It employs something like 17 000 employees and the turnaround that they’ve seen in the last civil years has been based on a bus system - getting their bus system to work very well and also having a congestion charging scheme. As they roll out good public transport, they also make it more and more costly for you to bring a car into the centre of the city. You can’t do that, unless you also obviously supply decent public transport for someone like myself who briefly lived in exile in London in the late 1980s.
London has changed its public transport perspective. It’s a much more user- friendly place. There are many more pedestrian malls and its much easier to walk around in London. You also see many people riding on bikes in the centre of London – something that was impossible, or near impossible, a few years ago. Their buses carry 1,8 billion passengers per year. It’s an incredible achievement, and very important. They said to us that the success of their planning and preparations for the 2012 Olympic Games, from a transport perspective, has had a lot to do with the fact that they got their funding upfront and very fast.
Once London had secured the bid for the Olympic Games, the National Treasury basically transferred the money upfront and very quickly to them. That’s one of the problems we are battling with now in South Africa; cities are planning nicely, very often, and sometimes not so effectively, for their public transport rollout for 2010 but the money doesn’t flow in. The Treasury agrees that it looks good, but is then not convinced that the business plan is effective and so on. The problem is then that the deadlines are pushed back and, frankly, we are running out of time if we are going to get a decent public transport legacy before 2010.
In Manchester, it is a similar story. They have a very effective transport authority. Manchester actually does not have a metro municipal council, it just has 10 different districts but they realised that one has to integrate one’s public transport and, therefore, they have established a Greater Manchester Public Transport Authority, and an executive which employs 550 people who are just dedicated to planning, funding, rolling out and regulating the public transport in Greater Manchester.
So, in conclusion, these two reports which we are tabling before the House this afternoon are trying to reflect on: Firstly, our experience in Tshwane and our concerns about Tshwane; secondly, some of the best practices that we think we can learn from elsewhere; and the imperative of getting this right as quickly as possible. We are, quite frankly, concerned – across political parties I should say - in the committee that we are losing time. We’ve no doubt that we will provide transport for visitors coming in 2010. We will more or less get that right, you know. We will fly by the seat of our pants perhaps, but we will get that right. Unless we move now much more effectively, which means decentralising appropriately to the city level so that we can align planning, spatial planning and transport planning, much more effectively. Unless we do that, we are not going to succeed in the important objective that Cabinet has set for us, namely, to derive from the hosting of 2010 not just a lovely event, but a decent legacy of public transport for all South Africans after 2010. The time has shortened. The portfolio committee really wants to underline that fact. Thank you. [Applause.]
MRS L MALONEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party:
That the Reports be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Reports accordingly noted.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION ON OVERSIGHT VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
Prof S M MAYATULA: Madam Deputy Speaker, on 17 March 2008, following the infamous racist video taken by four students of the Reitz Hostel at the University of the Free State, the Portfolio Committee on Education visited the university and had open and frank discussions with the management, the labour unions and student organisations. The report is contained in the ATC dated 19 June 2008.
The management informed the committee that the racist video was actually made in September 2007, but only surfaced on 26 February 2008.
We are going to share just a summary of events as reflected by Anton Fisher from the university. He said:
This was triggered by the council’s decision to integrate residences of University of the Free State. And an implementation task team was made up. Unfortunately for this integration there was resistance.
And to our surprise, according to Anton Fisher, the main opponents of this were the Freedom Front Plus. Not only were they opposed to this integration, they even tried to take the university to court, saying there was not enough consultation.
According to Anton Fisher, there were protest marches addressed by the Freedom Front Plus leadership, nationally and provincially, against this integration.
Ixhala ke kukuba ingaba iFreedom Front ibiyintoni ingxaki yayo. Amaxesha amaninzi … [The concern, therefore, would be that, I honestly do not know what the problem with the Freedom Front Plus is. Most of the time …]
… in this House we profess to be nonracist but many a time this is just as good as you are going to keep a distance from me if you are not like me. Let me choose a practical example. I am not going to mention names, but I asked a member who was in my committee who happened to be white – let me use that term – since we are buddies working together: “What would you say if my son were to propose marriage to your daughter?” He said: ``I don’t want to lie. I would never ever allow that to happen’’.
This is the reality that we need to accept. There are some people who would accept nonracialism as long as it does not affect them directly. Let us pronounce and shout but keep our distance. Therefore, when you have those different hostels, one being for whites and one being for blacks and you put them together, chances are that they are going to get to know each other. Once they get to know each other, they are going to do what the old apartheid regime didn’t want: These different people will be getting married and become one, one culture, one human element.
Sometimes I am proud of being a member of the ANC, because in the ANC we don’t talk about some of these things. We leave them out.
Kwi-ANC ufumana amakomanisi, abahedeni, sitshata wonke umntu, kwaye senza yonke into. [In the ANC, there are communists, heathens, and we marry everybody and we also do everything.]
Why? Because we declare ourselves human beings made in the image of God, irrespective of where you come from. [Applause.]
Xa sihleli neemanyano zabasebenzi zithi enye yeengxaki zazo kukuba iiklasi zaseFree State ziqhutywa ngohlobo lweparallel mode of instruction, zesesiBhulu nesiNgesi. Loo nto yenza ukuba bonke abathetha isiBhulu baye kungena kwiklasi yesiBhulu, abanye bonke baye kungena kule klasi yesiNgesi, batsho ke bahlukane. Bathi into abayicingayo ke bona kukuba endaweni yokuba umhlohli afundise abantu abahlukeneyo into enye, kutheni bengadityaniswa nje. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[When we met with the labour unions, we were told that the problem with the University of the Free State was the parallel mode of instruction. In this system Afrikaans–speaking students attend classes taught in Afrikaans and then the rest attend classes taught in English – which is the thing that divides them. The labour unions submitted that instead of the lecturer teaching the same thing to separate groups, they could teach the two groups at the same time.]
A lecturer must speak the language he understands but must be interpreted so that everybody else is able to understand him or her. That forces people together.
Ngethamsanqa kwiKomiti yeMicimbi yeSebe ebesinayo izolo iNqununu yeYunivesiti yaseMntla Ntshona ithe yile nto kanye bona bayenzayo ngoku. [Luckily enough, in the meeting of the portfolio committee that we had yesterday, the rector of the North West University said this was exactly what they were doing.]
And this is what we are proposing in our recommendation.
Enye yeenkxalabo yeemanyano zabasebenzi kunye nabafundi kukuba iKhansile yeyunivesiti imhlophe. Xa sisithi kutheni iKhansile imhlophe nje, bathi abantu unobuhlanga kutheni ujonga ibala. Baphinde bathi akuboni na ukuba ngabantu aba. Libala ngombala. Njengokuba siza kuthi masingathethi ngebala nje, ngoku liyangena ibala xa kufuneka behleli bodwa eReitz. Kodwa xa behleli kwiKhansile masingababoni ukuba bahleli bodwa; abakwazi ukucingela ukuba abanye abantu bathini ngale nto bayithethayo. Sithi ke iyunivesiti mayizame ukuyijonga naleyo into. Kanti neyunivesiti masiyithethe into yokuba emveni kokuba kwenzeke le nto … (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[One of the concerns of the labour unions and the students was that the council of the university is still white. When we ask why the council is still white, people would obviously intervene and call us racist and ask why we are looking at skin colour. They also ask whether you cannot see that these are people. While we are called upon not to focus on colour, colour begins to matter when they want to be put alone at Reitz. And yet when they are sitting on the university council, we should turn a blind eye to the fact that they are sitting alone; they are not concerned about how the other people feel about what they are discussing. We are, therefore, saying the university must look into this matter. However, we must also mention that the university itself, after this incident …]
Let me share what they did. They got this information on 26 February 2008. On 27 February 2008, the very following day, two students were barred from the campus.
Besikade sisabela ukuba kutheni aba bafundi bebabini nje. Le nto yenzeke ngo-2007, aba babini abafundi khange babuye ababini babuya. Ngaba babini ke abaye bagxothwa ngomhla wama-27 kweyoMdumba? Inqununu yaya kuthetha naba bantu. Khawufane ucinge! Ngoomama bane notata, bamnyama thsu; ndiyeke ndisebenzise loo mbala. Ngabafundi bamhlophe baya kwibala lemidlalo. Aba bafundi bamhlophe bathi kwaba bantu badala balingana nabazali babo mababaleke bakhuphisane. Babaleke abantu abadala besenza le nto kuthiwa mabayenze, kuba aba bantu bakhulu kubo. Ndiye ndabuza komnye umfundi ukuba, ukuba ibingumzali wakhe lo wenziwe le nto ebeya kuthini. Wathi lo mfundi ebengekhe ayithande.
Kukho umahluko omkhulu phakathi kwabafundi abamhlophe nabamnyama kulaa yunivesiti. Kuthi umfundi omnyama akuthetha le nto, omhlophe athethe leya. Bathe bakuthi abamnyama mayivalwe iReitz bathi abamhlophe mayingavalwa. Bathe abamhlophe, kuquka kubo inkokeli yombutho wabafundi beFreedom Front, kutheni siyenza nzima nje le nto. Ngabafundi nje abane abenze le nto ngoku nithi makuvalwe yonke le ndawo yokuhlala; masingayivali akukho nto yenzekileyo.
Sithi sakuthi abantu abamnyama mabancediswe kwizinto ebebengazifumani izolo, kuthiwe sinobuhlanga. Bade bathi abanye abantu, aba bantwana bezelwe ngo-1994 nje, kutheni usithi mababonelelwe. Ndithi buyela kuthi kwiAfrican National Congress. Sithi ngoku abantu abangoomama mababe kumyinge ka-50%. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[We wanted to know why the university dealt only with these two students. The incident happened in 2007, two students returned but the other two did not come back, and it is only these two students who came back who were expelled from campus on 27 February 2008.
The rector spoke to the victims of this incident. Can you imagine! The victims are four pitch black women and one man, yes let me use this colour. And the incident in short, is that white students were seen on a rugby field. And these white students say to these women – who are old enough to be their mothers – that they should run and play on the rugby field and compete with them. And these poor old women did as they were instructed since they regarded these students as superior to them. I asked one of the students if he would have liked the same to happen to his parents and he said no.
There is a huge difference between white and black students at that university. A black student pulls the other way and the white students pull to a different direction. The black students demanded that the Reitz hostel be shut down, but the white students refused. The white students, including the leader of the Freedom Front Plus student representative council, asked why we are making this matter very difficult.
They said that it was only four students who had done this and now there was a demand that the entire Reitz hostel be shut down. These students said the Reitz hostel should not be shut down because, nothing had happened anyway.
When we request that the previously oppressed people must be helped, we were soon told that we were racists. Other people complained that these children were born in 1994, and why do we, therefore, say they should be helped. I am saying you should come back to the African National Congress. Now we are saying women should at least get 50%.]
Why are we saying that? Is it because these women were not with us in 1994? In reality they were with us, …
… kodwa ibisithi madoda abathatha zonke ezi zikhundla.[… but it was us men, who took all these positions.]
It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with catching up. We are saying that you are human beings too; you can think; you can lead. Let us accommodate you; let us not pretend as if we are at the same starting block; you are far behind.
Yizani sibaleke kunye. Nokuba umntwana umhlophe, xa sisithi khawuvumele umntwana … ayinanto yakwenza neminyaka. Inento yokwenza neenkcukacha zamanani namhlanje. Nokuba ungajonga kwicandelo leeAccountants, bonke aba bantu balawula eli lizwe bamhlophe. Ayenzekanga ngempazamo ke loo nto, koko yenziwe kukuba abantu bethu bebebotshelelwe bengakwazi ukuyenza le nto. Abanakuyenza emva kweminyaka emithathu. Abanye mabakhe balinde side sifike ngoba khange siqale kunye. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Come and let us run together. Whether a child is white, when we say admit the child … that has nothing to do with years. It has to do with the details of figures today. If you look at accountants in this country, you will realise that they are all white. And this is not by accident, because even though our people could do it they were restricted. They cannot do it in just three years. Others must wait till we come because we did not start together anyway.]
It cannot be fair, and there is nothing racist about it. It is levelling the playing field. [Applause.]
Siyacela ke ukuba le ngxelo mayamkelwe ngoba sifuna ukuba ezi zinto zisicebisayo apha … [We, therefore, request that this report be adopted, because we want the recommendations we have made here …]
… to be implemented. Thank you. [Applause.]
MR O E MONARENG: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party that this report be noted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The motion is that the report be noted.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask why we are not going to adopt it rather than just note it?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the decision of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party is that it be noted. I am sure there are reasons for that.
Mr M J ELLIS: We will be quite happy to adopt it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But then there is no motion for adoption.
Mr M J ELLIS: Can I propose a motion for adoption?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you can’t, unfortunately. It’s the prerogative of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party and he says the report should be noted.
Mr M J ELLIS: That doesn’t look like it is the Chief Whip of the Majority Party. [Laughter.]
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly noted.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON OVERSIGHT VISIT TO INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS LEAD (HEALTH) PROGRAMME AT THE MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr G G OLIPHANT: Deputy Speaker, Deputy President and colleagues, we are talking about a report that was published in the ATC, Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, on 18 June 2008, on our visit to IKS, Indigenous Knowledge Systems - a lead project that is based here in the Western Cape.
Abanye bathi ezi zinto zezamagqirha, ngoko ke kuza kufuneka nivume xa ndinivumisa ndikule ndawo ndikuyo. [Others say that these are matters related to sangomas, and therefore, you should respond in the affirmative by saying, “siyavuma” when I call upon you to do so from here.]
The Indigenous Knowledge Systems is an area of scientific competitive advantage located at the Medical Research Council and funded by the Department of Science and Technology, DST, through the National Indigenous Knowledge Systems office called NIKSO.
Our visit to this project, which is located in Parow Valley in the Western Cape, was essentially to enhance our understanding of this programme and to measure its output against national priorities. Our assessment is that the IKS is still marginalised, sidelined and not adequately funded in order to realise its full potential.
On the other hand, indigenous knowledge holders and communities from which such knowledge is derived do not benefit. For instance, Hoodia - some of you know it very well - is a very popular medicinal plant used within the international health system across the world. The generators of this knowledge and the communities from where this plant is harvested remain poor and outside the formal economy.
We have 24 000 plant species in South Africa, as stated in the report. A total of 4 000 are used to manufacture medicines and 20 000 tons of medicinal plants are exported each year. We still have to investigate this matter to establish who the beneficiaries of these economic activities are and what are the fault lines relating to the nonincorporation of indigenous communities into this knowledge economy. Key to our mandate is the improvement of the quality of life for all our people, not only some.
The portfolio committee also visited a laboratory in Delft, also in the Western Cape, where we were shown how plants are processed and converted into tablets or capsules. They showed us a very interesting and impressive demonstration of excellence, only about 10 minutes’ drive from Parliament.
What was even more remarkable was the packaging and labelling of these capsules on site - some of them you see at the chemist across the road. The knowledge that our people possess on plants and herbs and their respective medicinal properties, represent enormous wealth that has not yet been exploited to its maximum potential.
One of their flagship projects at the laboratory is the patenting of the malaria strain. We hope that they succeed in their venture. The Department of Science and Technology has a programme called Farmer-to-Pharmacy, which means from the farmer to the pharmacist. This is what this project is trying to achieve.
People with money have over the years appropriated knowledge and registered intellectual property rights to themselves, to the total exclusion of the poor. This matter needs to be corrected. Funding from the Department of Science and Technology has not increased from what it was in previous years; it has remained the same. We have raised this matter with the department for its consideration and correction.
Other recommendations, which I am not going to repeat, are in the report and are being processed, and we need to follow up on some of these matters. When we return in the next session, we will be processing a piece of legislation called the intellectual property rights for publicly funded research. Basically, this is to avoid a situation where the state funds research and at an advanced stage their capitalist ventures buy some of the technology or appropriate some of the technology to themselves, patent it and from there start exporting it overseas and make money. Therefore, people who came with these technologies and with this knowledge do not benefit from them.
We need to correct this, and this law that we will be passing in the next term is precisely to try and address this situation. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
MR O E MONARENG: Deputy Speaker, I move on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, that the report be noted.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask why the report has not been adopted. I would like to propose an adoption. I am so sad.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that the report be noted.
Mr M J ELLIS: I would like to propose that the report be adopted. I am so sad.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are there any objections? Are you objecting, Mr Ellis? If not, take your seat. I promise you that you have worked hard to get a half-day and I am not going to give it to you. You are going to be here until adjournment. If you think I am going to ask you to leave, I won’t be doing that. [Laughter.]
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly noted.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS
Mrs W S NEWHOUDT-DRUCHEN: Deputy Speaker, the functions of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons are to monitor and evaluate progress with regard to the improvement in the quality of life and the status of children, youth and disabled persons in South Africa with special reference to government’s commitment in respect of any applicable international instruments and to duties and responsibilities in respect of any applicable legislation.
Prior to the workshop that we had as a JMC, I, as the chairperson, met with the facilitators to set up the objectives of this workshop, and the objectives were as follows: To review and evaluate the work done by the JMC since 2005, which included identifying its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its co-functions; identifying challenges to complete activities in the work plan; critically assessing the operational structures of the JMC and proposing alternative methods of working.
The objectives also try to help members understand the functions of the JMC in relation to South Africa’s international obligations and a deeper understanding of the tools available to Members of Parliament. They work with various sectors that the JMC also work with, namely children, youth and disabled persons.
We wanted to draft a programme that could be achievable and which include a range of activities that cater for all three sectors that we see to, and cover the five functions as well, namely legislation, oversight, public participation, co-operative governance and international participation.
At our strategic workshop the NA Table staff and the South African Human Rights Commission briefed us on the private member’s motion as well as international instruments. As the JMC we are responsible for the oversight work in relation to children, youth and disabled people, and we oversee the Offices on the Rights of the Child, the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons, the Umsobomvu Youth Fund as well as the National Youth Commission.
At our strategic workshop we in small groups, and made presentations, held discussions and looked at plans and programmes and the activities that could be reflected in our plans for 2008. Out of our group discussions we had an activity plan where we had 18 priorities. Members can go through that in the report.
In conclusion, it has been agreed that the JMC should co-ordinate the work better. Members are responsible to mainstream the work of the JMC with other portfolio committees. That is very important to us. We also seriously need to look at the meeting times of the JMC which are held on Fridays as it is very difficult to have a quorum on a Friday. The existing support base for us as a committee was not good this year; we only managed to get a researcher two months ago and our committee is functioning properly now.
Parliament needs to look at the functioning of the JMC, and as I have mentioned, we only managed to get a researcher this term and she has helped a lot with our committee work. The JMC needs to continue to work with the three sectors, namely the youth, children and the disabled sector, and we need to have a better understanding of their work. This report was adopted by the committee and we need to improve the relationship with the three sectors that we are working with. We also ask that this House adopt our report. Thank you. [Applause.]
MR O E MONARENG: Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
The House adjourned at 16:44. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 25 June 2008:
a) Cross-Border Road Transport Amendment Bill [B 51B – 2007]
(National Assembly – sec 75)
b) Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment Bill [B 18B - 2008]
(National Assembly – sec 75)
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government on the Local Government Laws Amendment Bill [B 28B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 24 June 2008.
The Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, having
considered the Local Government Laws Amendment Bill [B 28B – 2007] and
proposed amendments of the National Council of Provinces
(Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 25 March 2008, p 515),
referred to the Committee, reports the Bill with amendments [B 28C –
2007].
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications on the filling of vacancies on the Council of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, dated 25 June 2008.
In its report to the National Assembly on 10 June 2008, the Committee
recommended that the House submits to the Minister a suitable list of
candidates at least one and a half times the number of councillors to
be appointed on the Council of the Independent Communications Authority
of South Africa.
After consideration of the list of candidates, the Minister recommended
that, in terms of section 5(1B) of the Independent Communications
Authority of South Africa Act, Act No 13 of 2000, as amended, the
National Assembly approves that the following persons be appointed to
serve on the Council:
Mr F K Sibanda, Ms N Batyi and Mr T Makhakhe.
Having considered the Minister’s recommendation referred to it, the
Committee recommends that the National Assembly approves the
appointment of the above – mentioned persons.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill [B 50 - 2007], dated 24 June 2008.
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
having considered the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Bill [B 50
- 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) and the proposed amendments of the
National Council of Provinces (Announcements, Tablings and Committee
Reports, 7 May 2008, p 594), referred to the committee, reports the
Bill with amendments [B50A – 2007].
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill [B 4B - 2007], dated 25 June 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
having considered the South African Judicial Education Institute Bill
[B 4B - 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) and the proposed amendments
of the National Council of Provinces (Announcements, Tablings and
Committee Reports, 7 May 2008, p 595), referred to the Committee,
reports the Bill with amendments [B 4C – 2007].
- Report of the Portfolio Committee of Agriculture and Land Affairs on the Liquor Products Amendment Bill [B 22 - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 24 June 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, having
considered the subject of the Liquor Products Amendment Bill [B 22 -
2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it, and classified by
the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with
amendments [B 22A - 2008].
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology on the Human Sciences Research Council Bill [B 16B – 2007] (National Assembly – sec 75) and the President’s reservations about the constitutionality of the Bill, dated 24 June 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, having reconsidered
section 5(3) of the Human Sciences Research Council Bill [B 16B – 2007]
and the President’s reservations on the constitutionality of section
5(3) of the Bill (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 8 May
2008, p 599), recommends that the President’s reservations be
accommodated, and presents an amended Bill [B 16C – 2007].
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology on the South African National Space Agency Bill [B 20 - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 24 June 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, having considered
the subject of the South African National Space Agency Bill [B 20 -
2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by
the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with
amendments [B 20A - 2008].
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Protocol amending the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, dated 17 June 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the request for
approval by Parliament of the Protocol amending the Agreement between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of
Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, recommends that the
House, in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution, approve the
said Protocol.
Request to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Sudan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, dated 17 June 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the request for
approval by Parliament of the Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Government of Republic of Sudan for
the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion
with respect to taxes on income, recommends that the House, in terms of
section 231 (2) of the Constitution, approve the said Agreement
Request to be considered.