National Council of Provinces - 19 June 2008
THURSDAY, 19 JUNE 2008 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 15:42.
The House Chairperson (Mr T S Setona) took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Me H LAMOELA: Agb Voorsitter, met die volgende sitting van die Raad sal ek voorstel:
Dat die Raad -
(1) kennis neem —
(a) van die geweldige armoede en ellende wat op Willow Park,
’n plaas in Zeerust in Noordwes, heers waar die waardigheid
van mense op groot skaal geskend word;
(b) dat die Departement van Landbou in 2006 grond toegeken het
aan ongeveer 100 plaaswerkers, maar steeds besig is met
beplanning en met geen bystand en ontwikkeling tot dusver
gehelp het nie;
(c) dat armoede hoogty vier, waar ongeveer 15 persone per
bouvallige wooneenheid bly en dat kinders en grootmense dae
lank sonder enige kos gaan;
(d) dat kinders nog op kaal sementvloere slaap en dat die
distrik of plaaslike munisipaliteite onder ANC-beheer geen
bystand verleen, nadat soveel beloftes gemaak is nie; en
(e) dat ‘‘charity begins at home’’ en dit skandelik is om te
ervaar dat na 14 jaar in ’n demokratiese bestel, landsburgers
se grondwetlike regte steeds geskend word; en
(2) dus ’n beroep op die Premier van die Noordwes doen om in te gryp sodat hierdie haglike omstandighede ter syde gestel kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Ms H LAMOELA: Hon Chairperson, at the next sitting of the House I shall move: That the Council –
(1) notes -
a) the severe poverty and distress prevailing at Willow Park, a farm
in Zeerust in the North West, where people’s dignity is being
violated on a large scale;
b) that the Department of Agriculture allocated land to about 100
farmworkers in 2006, but they are still engaged in planning and
did not provide any assistance and development up to now;
c) that poverty is rife, with about 15 persons residing in one
dilapidated dwelling, and that children and adults have to live
for days without food;
d) that children are still sleeping on bare cement floors, while the
district or local municipalities under ANC control are rendering
no assistance despite making numerous promises; and
e) that charity begins at home and how disgraceful it is to
experience that, after 14 years into a democratic dispensation
citizens’ constitutional rights are still being violated; and (2) therefore appeals to the Premier of the North West to intervene and
bring relief to undo these perilous circumstances.]
Mnr J W LE ROUX: Agb Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:
Dat die Raad kennis neem dat -
(1) die Minister van Justisie, mnr Patrick Chinamasa, op 18 Junie 2008 bevestig het dat ‘‘Zanu-PF’’ oorlog sal maak as hulle die komende verkiesing in Zimbabwe sou verloor;
(2) die stille diplomasie van president Thabo Mbeki skouspelagtig misluk het;
(3) die gebeure in Zimbabwe die vure van Afrika-pessimisme verder aanblaas;
(4) alle patriotiese Suid-Afrikaners moet sorg dat die gebeure in Zimbabwe nie die demokrasie in Suid-Afrika skaad nie; en
(5) President Mbeki versoek word om in die openbaar sy misnoeë uit te spreek en om daadwerklike stappe te doen om die anargie in Zimbabwe te stop. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.) [Mr J W LE ROUX: Hon Chairperson, at the next sitting of the House I shall move:
That the Council notes that –
1) Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice, Mr Patrick Chinamasa, confirmed on
18 June 2008 that Zanu-PF will make war if they should lose the
coming election in Zimbabwe;
2) the quiet diplomacy of President Mbeki has failed spectacularly;
3) the events in Zimbabwe are fanning the fires of African pessimism
even further;
4) all patriotic South Africans must take care not to allow the events
in Zimbabwe to harm the South African democracy; and
5) President Mbeki should be urged to express his disapproval publicly
and take decisive steps to halt the anarchy in Zimbabwe.]
MURDER OF MR T G DLAMINI
(Draft Resolution)
Ms A N T MCHUNU: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:
That the Council -
1) notes that the tragic death of Mr Thembinkosi Gobsa Dlamini has
left the community of Ngwelezana numb and devastated;
2) further notes that, as Mr Dlamini was gunned down on Wednesday, 11
June at 15:45 in the office that accommodated the South African
Social Security Agency (Sassa), an urgent appeal is being made for
tighter security in all such offices;
3) conveys its condolences to his family and friends - may his soul
rest in peace; and
4) resolves that –
a) corruption has to be clamped down on;
b) investigations should lead to speedy arrest of perpetrators;
and
c) a call to return to “Ubuntu” be made.
How can Dlamini be mowed down like that for the good job he was doing? Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF TASK TEAM OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT PROBING THE VIOLENCE AND ATTACKS ON FOREIGN NATIONALS
There was no debate.
Question put.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I’m informed, hon members, that there is no speakers’ list. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Any declarations of vote?
We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Mr A T MANYOSI: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr D D GAMEDE: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Supports. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape? Mr N J MACK: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
XENOPHOBIC ATTACKS ON FOREIGNERS IN TOWNSHIPS
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the motion, as printed on the Order Paper, on behalf of the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces:
That the Council, noting that the spate of violence which broke out on 11 May 2008 in Alexandra township in Gauteng and later spread to other provinces, mostly affected nationals from other African countries, but also claimed South Africans amongst its victims, recalls that in the preamble to our Constitution, we honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land, we respect those who have worked to build and develop our country and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity, therefore resolves to –
1) thank the governments and people of the continent for the
solidarity and support shown during the struggle against apartheid;
2) express its appreciation for the contribution of the continent and
the region in helping to build the economy of South Africa;
3) reaffirm its commitment to African solidarity and integration of
the region and continent;
4) assure Africa and the world that these incidents were not
indicative of the views or the conduct of the majority of South
African citizens;
5) acknowledge the sterling work done by government, political
parties, civil society, nongovernmental organisations, community
organisations and individual South African citizens to provide
humanitarian relief to displaced persons;
6) convey the remorse of the Parliament of South Africa, as the
representatives of the people of South Africa, to all Parliaments,
governments and peoples on the African continent; and
7) express its sincere sympathy with the persons affected by the
violent attacks.
Question put.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): As there is no speakers’ list, I shall now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish.
In the absence of declarations of vote, we shall now proceed to the voting on the question, and I shall do this in alphabetical order. Eastern Cape?
Mr A T MANYOSI: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?
Ms N F MAZIBUKO: In favour. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr D D GAMEDE: Siyazekela. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Ondersteun. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Re a dumela. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON(Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Ondersteun. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Support.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
SUSPENSION OF JOINT RULE 154(2)
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, on behalf of the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, I move the motion as printed on the Order Paper:
That the Council: subject to the concurrence of the National Assembly, suspends Joint Rule 154(2), which provides that the Joint Tagging Mechanism may not classify a Bill before the expiry of the period stated in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, in respect of the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B 50 – 2008] (National Assembly – proposed sec 75) (see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 17 June 2008, p 1199).
Question put.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): As there is no speakers’ list, I shall now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish.
In the absence of declarations of vote we shall now proceed to the voting on the question, and I’ll do this in alphabetical order. Eastern Cape?
Mr A T MANYOSI: Eastern Cape supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?
Ms N F MAZIBUKO: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr D D GAMEDE: Siyakela. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Ondersteun. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Ondersteun. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Ondersteun. [We support.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All nine provinces have voted in favour. Therefore I declare the motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
APPROPRIATION BILL
(Consideration of Votes and Schedule)
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! Hon members, before I proceed, I would like to welcome, on your behalf, the hon Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, in our midst.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson and hon members, let me at this stage express appreciation to the select committees who, jointly and separately, had interrogated the budget applications and policy direction of departments, either separately or in clusters. I think that it adds immensely to the quality of democracy that we have in this country.
Clearly, a very important part of budget-making is to know that the elected representatives of the people will maintain their oversight responsibility. So this process, which is now being brought to conclusion, is essential within a democracy because elections are fought on one basis, and that is the right to be able to allocate resources to implement policy. So the allocation choices and the implementation outcomes are matters that require parliamentary oversight.
The Budget, this year, has been very different, of course, because the social and economic context has been quite different. When we rose in the National Assembly on 20 February to table the Budget, there were certain issues that we drew to the attention of Parliament in the first instance and to that of the entire country, and that is: Firstly, in relation to the global economic slowdown and the credit crunch, these were matters that we indicated. Our growth focus for the year was 4,2% as tabled then, but that was way above where market consensus was. We still believe that a significant part of that will be attained in this year.
The second issue that we drew our attention to was outside of our control and that was the rising oil price putting extensive pressure on development everywhere. When we tabled the Budget in February, the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil was $99. I think Brent crude oil is now probably trading at about $137 a barrel. That is a 40% increase in a very short space of time.
The third issue is that food prices have risen and we frequently feel that this is a South African phenomenon, but in many parts of the world the situation is a lot worse. The major staple food in South Africa is maize, and over two years the maize price has risen by 69%. We have a position of maize surpluses in South Africa at the moment. So, to some extent, the import parity pricing doesn’t quite have to work. But if you look at countries that have rice as their staple food and import rice, that price has risen by 131% over two years.
It is no accident that the countries that have experienced the biggest food riots are in fact those that are the biggest rice importers. These are countries like Cameroon and Gabon in West Africa and Haiti in the western hemisphere. But one can also see that Indonesia and other countries have been affected by this. This is a phenomenon that we need to understand because at the end of it people’s quality of life is measured and they look to the Budget and also to the choices government is making. So, engaging with the matters of the Budget is not a matter for the Select Committee on Finance sitting in this House or the Joint Budget Committee. It is in fact something that goes to the very heart of governance.
We don’t notice this when times are okay, but when times are tough I think all of our constituencies speak to us and ask us about our decisions. So, I think that perhaps this year, unlike previous years, there has been an opportunity to ask tough questions to the departments on how the money will be spent, how the policies will be supported and whether the quality of life of people would be improved. Added to that, I think, is the issue that has been constant throughout this year and will certainly be there when we table the Budget in February. To some extent, one part of it closed yesterday when the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, Nersa, granted a 13,3% increase to Eskom, but I think the energy supply constraints and the price issues have been very dominant and are likely to remain like that.
In this context, I think the test is whether the previous decisions have been taken - where to spend and what to spend on in this big debate that has happened in this House and elsewhere are on a surplus or deficit. All of those questions, I think, have to be revisited. And I think that I can stand before this House without fear of contradiction, arguing that our decisions have been correct in this regard.
We are running a very significant current account deficit. Therefore, we have to borrow savings from elsewhere in the world. And if we want to do that - if we also ran a deficit on the Budget - we would have to borrow substantially more and we would be a lot more vulnerable. And part of what the world is living through is a consequence of the fact that the United States has been running deficits on both the current account and the budget. So we, as a small open economy, have to take decisions differently. It is in that context that we must then look at where we are spending our money.
Also, let me repeat the outcomes of this spending. A lot of spending items are of course that link with our future, and that is education. But we must ask the questions beyond how much we are spending and ask what the money buys beyond teachers’ salaries and what we believe our schoolbooks cost. We’ve got to ask what the money buys and whether the quality of education is improving.
Again, what we’ve seen this year is that our public spending has grown very sharply, and there has been this public debate as well our fiscal position to be conservative. We’ve been able to demonstrate that with the economy growing at around 4,5%, and public spending growing at 9,3% a year above inflation for a long period of time. Even this year, whilst our spending is still strong around the 6,8% mark above inflation, it is lower than in previous years but still stronger and still favourable towards spending in respect of housing, the environment, education, health and social security.
And against that, on the other side of the line, the tax measures have been moderate and maintained. So, even on issues such as a fuel tax, people think that government earns more when the crude oil price rises. In fact, we tend to lose some money because people drive less. We have a tax of 127 cents per litre; regardless of whether the oil price was $99, as it was the other day, or $140 or $200, it will be 127 cents a litre notwithstanding.
Also, I think that in public finances the interest of this House would be primarily with the other spheres of government to ensure that the provinces and municipalities receive appropriate funding and then that they budget in line with national priorities, and that we see to it that the concurrent functions are properly funded and that the spending is properly implemented.
The hon Robinson has raised the issue of libraries in this House. I think hon members know that if we have allocated resources, somebody has to answer on behalf of all taxpayers whether the allocations in provinces and cities have actually funded the libraries that we have discussed in this House. And that’s the continuity of parliamentary oversight and that is what makes the discussion that we are concluding today so important.
Let me conclude by saying that we are going to live through very difficult periods. It’s going to be a highly politically charged period but it is also going to be a period when times are going to be tough not just in South Africa, but all over the world. One of the biggest hedge fund managers, somebody who has made a heck of lot of money over the past five years, has said things in banks have been bad and that they are going to get worse over the next year. That is a signal of a lead story in the Financial Times today. We are not going to be isolated from that.
Therefore, my plea to hon members of this House is to ensure that we remain abreast of developments. We don’t all have to pretend that we are economists but we are here because we chose to serve our people. And in the service of our people, we are also conduits for decisions and we must understand all of these events and ensure that our people are informed. We can say to our people repeatedly that we won’t mask the difficulties, that we won’t tell lies, that we won’t claim easy victories and that times are going to be tough, but we have to be responsible in the way in which we take decisions. It is public money and we only have the privilege of looking after it for all South Africans.
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the hon members who are listening. [Applause.]
Mr T S RALANE: Thank you, Chairperson. Colleagues, I’ve got a small mandate which is to reflect on the events that took place in the House in the last three weeks. Firstly, we seemed to be from different planets. Listening to the Budget Vote debates that took place in the House, there seems to be excessive back-patting. I think it’s an issue that is really worrisome because it is a matter that has to do with us as legislators.
Secondly, one of the critical things that came out in the debates, even yesterday, was the fact that members in the House argued on behalf of departments for more funding and I think it is a terrible situation. I think as we do our oversight it becomes critical for us to look at the allocated resources. It is not our responsibility to argue for more funding for people. Our responsibility is to focus on the little they have received and the extent to which it has been used by them accordingly. Therefore, the critical issue that we should have been looking at is the quality of spending.
Firstly, what has the R20 million been spent on? Secondly, is there value for money? If the department was given R20 million, in terms of what it has done, was there value for money? It was something that we really needed to deal with. Thirdly, were there any projects. We are going to do our constituency work now and will be confronted by the communities wanting to know whether there are projects on the ground. Fourthly, how sustainable are these projects?
We had a discussion in last week, during the FFC recommendations, where people were talking about bridges, and roads that are built and not maintained. A road is built, the rain comes and it is washed away. So issues of sustainability are critical, as are efficiency and economic effectiveness.
Let me share something with the members briefly. There is a report, for instance, that we have here, and these are preliminary results from the education departments across the country that are out on 31 March. There is a huge underspending on personnel in the Eastern Cape that amounts to R157 million. There’s a huge underspending of capital in the Eastern Cape which comes to about R161 million, but then there is overspending on something called nonpersonnel and noncapital expenditure. Gauteng has an overall underspending of R819 million. An amount of R243 million is underspent on personnel or educators. A total of R270 million is underspent on capital expenditure in Gauteng. Now, nonpersonnel and noncapital expenditure comes to R358 million. In KwaZulu-Natal there is a total of R45 million underspending on personnel and R37 million underspending on capital expenditure, R29 million on nonpersonnel and noncapital expenditure and so forth.
The questions that arise are: What are the implications of these trends in respect of the quality of education? What are the implications of underspending in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape in respect of educator- learner ratios, given the migration patterns that people are talking about?
Let’s go onto health: There is a huge underspending of R427 million on nonpersonnel and noncapital expenditure in the Eastern Cape. What this is telling us is that the biggest chunk here is drugs. What is the story? The story might be that there are no drugs in the Eastern Cape in clinics and hospitals and that’s the bottom line. So clearly there are issues of serious engagement with, firstly, the strategic plans and, secondly, the reports.
KwaZulu-Natal has a huge underspending of capital which comes to a total of R278 million; Gauteng, R185 million in the health department; Mpumalanga, R165 million; and Northern Cape, R124 million. And then there’s housing. There was R500 million withheld in the Eastern Cape, but still the Eastern Cape underspent by a total of R161 million. The Free State underspent too.
These are the kind of issues that we are going to be faced with as we are dealing with this Appropriation Bill. The Appropriation Bill is providing more money in many areas, but are we ready to do oversight over this money. As we speak, the preliminary underspending across nine provinces is R2,6 billion. We were not sure, when the books were audited, what the picture was going to be like. So clearly this is the kind of challenge that is facing all of us as we deal with this Appropriation Bill today; so much money at provincial and national government level. We therefore plead that the House adopts this Appropriation Bill. Thank you.
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Order! That concludes the debate. I shall now put the Votes in the order in which they appear on the Schedule to the Bill. I’ll now put Vote number one; any objection?
Vote No 1 – The Presidency – put.
Mr A WATSON: You are not going to see the objections in front of you, Chair; they are here. The DA wishes to record its objection.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Hon members, the objection of the DA will be noted.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 2 — Parliament — put and agreed to.
Vote No 3 — Foreign Affairs — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 4 — Home Affairs — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 5 — Public Works — put and agreed to.
Vote No 6 — Government Communication and Information System — put and agreed to.
Vote No 7 — National Treasury — put and agreed to.
Vote No 8 — Public Service and Administration — put and agreed to.
Vote No 9 — Public Service Commission — put and agreed to.
Vote No 10 — South African Management Development Institute (Samdi) — put and agreed to.
Vote No 11 — Statistics South Africa — put and agreed to.
Vote No 12 — Arts and Culture — put and agreed to.
Vote No 13 — Education — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 14 — Health — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Independent Democrats and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 15 — Labour — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 16 — Social Development — put and agreed to.
Vote No 17 — Sport and Recreation South Africa — put. Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 18 — Correctional Services — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 19 — Defence — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Independent Democrats and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 20 — Independent Complaints Directorate — put.
Division demanded.
The Council divided:
AYES - 26: Adams, F; Botha, D J; Gamede, D D; Goeieman, C M; Kgarebe, K A; Kolweni, Z S; Mack, N J; Madlala-Magubane, N M; Manyosi, A T; Masilo, J M; Matlanyane, H F; Mchunu, A N T; Mkono, D G; Moatshe, P; Mokoena, M L; Mqungquthu, N S S; Ntembe, B L; Ntwanambi, N D; Qikani, A N D; Ralane, T S; Sibiya, J M; Sogoni, E M; Sulliman, M A; Tau, R J; Tolo, B J; Van Rooyen, C J. NOES — 10: Chen, S S; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Le Roux, J W; Robinson, D; Thetjeng, O M; Van der Merwe, D J P; Van Heerden, F J; Watson, A; Worth, D A.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 21 — Justice and Constitutional Development — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 22 — Safety and Security — put.
Division demanded.
The Council divided:
AYES — 26: Adams, F; Botha, D J; Gamede, D D; Goeieman, C M; Kgarebe, K A; Kolweni, Z S; Mack, N J; Madlala-Magubane, N M; Manyosi, A T; Masilo, J M; Matlanyane, H F; Mchunu, A N T; Mkono, D G; Moatshe, P; Mokoena, M L; Mqungquthu, N S S; Ntembe, B L; Ntwanambi, N D; Qikani, A N D; Ralane, T S; Sibiya, J M; Sogoni, E M; Sulliman, M A; Tau, R J; Tolo, B J; Van Rooyen, C J.
NOES — 10: Chen, S S; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Le Roux, J W; Robinson, D; Thetjeng, O M; Van der Merwe, D J P; Van Heerden, F J; Watson, A; Worth, D A.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 23 — Agriculture — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 24 — Communications — put and agreed to.
Vote No 25 — Environmental Affairs and Tourism - put and agreed to.
Vote No 26 — Housing — put and agreed to.
Vote No 27 — Land Affairs — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 28 — Minerals and Energy — put.
Division demanded. The Council divided:
AYES — 25: Adams, F; Botha, D J; Gamede, D D; Goeieman, C M; Kgarebe, K A; Kolweni, Z S; Mack, N J; Madlala-Magubane, N M; Manyosi, A T; Masilo, J M; Matlanyane, H F; Mchunu, A N T; Mkono, D G; Moatshe, P; Mokoena, M L; Mqungquthu, N S S; Ntwanambi, N D; Qikani, A N D; Ralane, T S; Sibiya, J M; Sogoni, E M; Sulliman, M A; Tau, R J; Tolo, B J; Van Rooyen, C J.
NOES — 10: Chen, S S; Krumbock, G R; Lamoela, H; Le Roux, J W; Robinson, D; Thetjeng, O M; Van der Merwe, D J P; Van Heerden, F J; Watson, A; Worth, D A.
ABSTAIN — 1: Ntembe, B L.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 29 — Provincial and Local Government — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 30 — Public Enterprises — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Independent Democrats and Freedom Front Plus dissenting).
Vote No 31 — Science and Technology — put and agreed to.
Vote No 32 — Trade and Industry — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 33 — Transport — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 34 — Water Affairs and Forestry — put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Schedule put and agreed to.
APPROPRIATION BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Ms J M MASILO: Chairperson, it gives me great pleasure to make this statement on the Social Assistance Amendment Bill on behalf of the select committee. The Bill before us is long overdue. Allow me to quote from the preamble of our Constitution:
We, the people of South Africa, recognise the injustices of our past; honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
… improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person …
Subsection 3 of section 9 in Chapter 2 of the Constitution on the Bill of Rights is very clear under the equality clause that says, and I quote:
The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
We, as the ANC, resolved at the 52nd national conference in Polokwane that we would equalise the age of people who qualify for old age pensions. In the case of men, they have access to the old age pension when they have attained the age of 65. The implementation of this Act will be done in phases up until 2010. This will be equalised in full.
During the state of the nation address, the President indicated that government will equalise the age of eligibility for the old age grant between men and women. When implemented, men will also be able to access the old age grant when they attain the age of 60. Men who attained the age of 63 after 1 April 2008, men who attained the age of 61 after 1 April 2009 and men who attained the age of 60 after 1 April 2010, will receive an old age grant. Everybody will be on par by that time.
The Social Assistance Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Social Assistance Act, Act 13 of 2004. The purpose of this amendment is to do the following: To regulate the eligibility of men for an older person’s grant; to make further provision for the consideration of appeals against the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, by an independent tribunal; and to provide for matters connected therewith. The Bill makes provision for the amendment of section 10 of the Act so as to equalise the ages of eligibility for men and women for an old age grant over a period of time as suggested by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech. The Minister of the Department of Social Development must also appoint an appeal tribunal to look into all appeals against Sassa decisions.
In conclusion, we will make sure that we go and convey this message of great achievement to all our people in our constituencies as members of this House. We ask the House to support the Bill. I thank you, Chair. Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question in respect of the Fourth Order. The question is that the Bill, B17-2008, be agreed to. As this decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I need to ascertain very clearly whether delegation heads are present in the Chamber.
I shall now also allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote in terms of Rule 71, if they so wish. Is there any province wishing to make any declaration of vote? There is obviously none.
We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Mr A T MANYOSI: Eastern Cape supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?
Mnu E M SONGONI: Elethu. [We agree.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr D D GAMEDE: Siyavuma. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ondersteun. [Limpopo supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Mpumalanga ondersteun. [Mpumalanga supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Ondersteun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West? Mr Z S KOLWENI: Re a e thekga. [North West supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Die Wes-Kaap ondersteun. [The Western Cape supports.]
[Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT ON NCOP VISIT TO LIMPOPO IN TERMS OF PROGRAMME OF TAKING PARLIAMENT TO THE PEOPLE
Mr O M THETJENG: Chairperson and colleagues, we are gathered here today on the issue relating to Taking Parliament to the People in Limpopo province, which occurred in 2005. This is a province with towns that have peculiar names such as Phalaborwa — a mining town that is the entry point to the wonderful Kruger National Park. The town’s name means “better than Johannesburg”.
Indeed, we are better than what many think. We are an emerging platinum, diamond and coal-mining province, but our province also includes many other minerals. The only major work we have to do —with the help of the Department of Minerals and Energy — is the beneficiation for the communities where these mines are located.
Prospecting is continuing at a high rate in the province and the hopes are very high that more of the minerals and/or mines will be found.
There are many good things that are happening in Limpopo. There are also challenges. Let me deal with the challenges around the special schools that we visited namely, Letaba and Yingisani. Firstly, there are teachers who are not properly trained to teach learners with special needs. I think that this is a problem that does not only occur in Limpopo, but across the country.
I also believe that, as a country, we are starting to take these particular kids very seriously because we will be losing a nation if we do not take good care of them.
It becomes very difficult - maybe impossible - to teach a learner in sign language when the teacher is not skilled in the area of sign language. Both the teacher and the learner easily get frustrated, and no teaching and learning occurs. It is one of the challenges we found during the Taking Parliament to the People Programme. When we were doing a report-back, we also found that many of these issues are still outstanding.
These schools had challenges that we identified in 2005, but nothing was done by 27 to 29 August 2007, when a report-back visit was undertaken. In fact, pertaining to the special schools, when the select committee, led by the hon Sulliman, visited the province early this year, the committee found out that the situation has not changed much in the two schools we had visited.
Many of the principals had more complaints to raise than telling us good stories. The teacher-learner ratio is still very high in these special schools, and nonteaching staff is employed on a temporary basis, year-in and year-out. This is an untenable situation and we really need to correct it.
Some of the major challenges at these schools are things like the shortage of classrooms. I believe that there is a great need for special schools to be taken care of. As much as we are talking about the shortage of facilities in normal schools, we believe that there is a special need to attend to these special schools.
There is also a shortage of hostel accommodation. As learners come from far- away places, they need to be accommodated at these schools, and these facilities are not as available as they are supposed to be. Diagnostic and audiological facilities for learners with impaired hearing are not there, and there is a need to attend to those. Upgrading of sports facilities must be done.
Lack of well-equipped libraries and adequate computers are also cause for concern. Recreational halls to promote drama, music, indoor sport, etc are also not there. There is also a high rate of burglary in these types of schools owing to a lack of security fencing.
We believe that as much as you find that there is no security fencing in normal schools, it becomes even more difficult in the special schools where you do not have proper security fencing.
There were also challenges around the boreholes. Some of the problems relating to the lack of boreholes at some schools have been dealt with. At Yingisani special-needs school, the only notable progress was the provision of eight mobile classrooms that used to be lacking. Otherwise some of the things have not been attended to. We want to encourage authorities to do so.
At Hans Merensky School there is notable progress, with educators who were on contract now being appointed on a permanent basis, for instance.
Infrastructure challenges which were there have now been attended to. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has ensured provision of potable water by providing much-needed boreholes.
The biggest challenge facing special schools in Limpopo and many parts of South Africa is that they are not prioritised in the planning process. We have discovered that it is as if they are considered last in the main planning process.
The health centres also had challenges, but some of these have been resolved. Some of these challenges had included high staff turnover; unfilled vacancies; and a lack of transport for urgent transfers. Emergency medical services had been decentralised to deal with some of these problems.
However, in places where there was insufficient water, boreholes had been put in place.
The other biggest challenge around the health centres was the lack of telephones and faxes. Cellular phones were supplied for emergencies. We believe that more can be done around the issues at the health centres.
Outstanding issues in this area include the lack of security fencing around health centres. We believe that this is something that has to be attended to. Dilapidated infrastructure is also a concern. On the main, there are issues that are being attended to by the relevant department. It is just that it is taking much longer for them to attend to these issues.
We really believe that the matters that were identified need to be dealt with by the authorities. There are good things that have happened. For instance, the schools that did not have material now have the material they lacked.
There are issues that we believe the province needs to improve on. However, there are other issues that have been dealt with. I don’t want to take much of your time. Thank you so much, Chairperson.
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber.
In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Is there any province that wants to make a declaration? We shall now proceed to the voting in alphabetical order. Eastern Cape? Mr A T MANYOSI: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Elethu. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr D D GAMEDE: Siyavuma. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Ondersteun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mpumalanga?
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Supports.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): North West?
Mr Z C KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Ondersteun. [Supports.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the Report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
The Council adjourned at 16:54. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
(1) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following
Bill as a section 75 Bill:
a) Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of
Certain Matters Amendment Bill [B 50 – 2008] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
- Introduction of Bills
(1) The Minister of Public Works
a) Built Environment Professions Bill [B 53 – 2008] (National
Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 31093 of 30 May 2008.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Public
Works of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the
Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of
Joint Rule 160.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification
of the Bills may be submitted to the JTM within three
parliamentary working days.
(2) The Minister of Minerals and Energy
a) Mine Health and Safety Amendment Bill [B 54 – 2008] (National
Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 31063 of 16 May 2008.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy of the National Assembly, as well as
referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification
of the Bills may be submitted to the JTM within three
parliamentary working days.
- Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 19 June 2008:
a) Appropriation Bill [B 3 – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77).
b) Social Assistance Amendment Bill [B 17 – 2008 (Reprint)]
(National Assembly – sec 76).
National Council of Provinces
The Chairperson
- Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces in respect of Bills passed and transmitted
(1) Bills passed by National Assembly on 19 June 2008 and
transmitted for concurrence:
a) Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of
Certain Matters Amendment Bill [B 50 – 2008] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Security
and Constitutional Affairs of the National Council of
Provinces.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Council of Provinces
- Report of the Select Committee on Public Services on the Housing Development Agency Bill [B 1B – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 76), dated 18 June 2008:
The Select Committee on Public Services, having considered the subject
of the Housing Development Agency Bill [B 1B – 2008] (National Assembly
– sec 76) referred to it and classified by the JTM as a section 76
Bill, reports the bill with amendments [B 1C – 2008].
Report to be considered
- Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B50 -2008] (National Assembly- sec 75), dated 19 June 2008.
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having
considered the subject of the Repeal of Black Administration Act and
Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill [B50 -2008] (National Assembly-
sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.