National Council of Provinces - 11 November 2008
TUESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2008 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:04.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Ms B L NTEMBE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the NCOP I shall move on behalf of the ID:
That the Council –
1) notes that the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government
made known on national television the decision to reincorporate
Khutsong into Gauteng province;
2) further notes that it is not easy to admit a mistake in the face of
opposition and to rectify it;
3) commends the decision taken, which shows that the community is now
taken into account, after much uproar and running around in the
streets of Khutsong, to have their voice heard;
4) marks the timing of the decision, nearer to the time of the
national elections, in the face of the threat by the community of
Khutsong that they would not vote.
Mr B J TOLO: On a point of order, Chairperson, this hon member is misleading the House; that is not what the Minister said. The Minister said there would be a consultation process. So, the hon member is misleading the House. Thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I will study that motion. In terms of the Rules, I have the right to study the motion. I will study the motion and if we have to amend it, then we will amend it. I will be in contact with the member and will also look at the statement which the Minister has made.
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE
(The late Ms Miriam Makeba)
Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, on behalf of the Chief Whip, I move without notice:
That the Council —
(1) notes —
(a) the sad passing away of the embodiment of our continent’s
struggle for freedom and heroine of the people of Africa, Miriam
Makeba, who was born in Johannesburg on 4 March 1932 and died at
the age of 76 after a concert in Italy;
(b) that for more than half a century Mama Africa, as she was
affectionately known around the world, became ‘‘mother of our
struggle’’ and ‘‘South Africa’s first lady of song’’ who brought
the intricate rhythms of her protests against the apartheid
regime to millions of listeners around the world and remained
our country’s spokeswoman against the brutality of the apartheid
government;
(c) also that Mama Africa was forced to go into exile in 1960 when
South Africa banned her from returning to her birth country as
she was deemed to be ‘‘too dangerous’’ and a ‘‘communist
revolutionary who was galvanising the world’’ against the then
white apartheid government of South Africa;
(d) that Mama Africa was a legend who, for many years, preached
peace, compassion and goodwill through her music and continued
to inform the people of the world about the brutality of the
apartheid regime and its forces;
(e) her exceptional personal and artistic profile, which embodied her
creative spirit borne out of love for her country and the
determination for a better South Africa which has earned her
many accolades and the hearts of many people across the world,
making Miriam Makeba a living legend; and
2) takes this opportunity to convey to the Makeba family and the music
fraternity its deepest condolences and wishes them strength in this
trying and difficult moment.
May her soul rest in peace and her music and loving memory console us!
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Is there any objection to the motion?
Mr O M THETJENG: On a point of order: Just on a point of correction, when he read the date of birth it sounded as if he said “1982”. If that is the case, we request that it be corrected. But if what is written reflects the correct year, it will be fine. I’m not objecting to the motion, but I just want to check if the year that he gave is correct.
Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, I did not say 1980 or whatever the hon member mentioned. I’ve got it in writing here in front of me.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: So the correct thing is in the motion. Thank you.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
ELECTION OF SENATOR BARACK OBAMA AS FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT OF THE USA
(Draft Resolution)
Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council —
(1) notes the election of a son and hero of African descent, Senator Barack Obama as the first African-American President and the 44th President of the United States of America;
(2) acknowledges that this is a landmark in the history of the world, which ushers in the beginning of a new era for the political landscape in the United States and globally;
(3) shares the optimism of world leaders in general, and African leaders in particular that under the leadership of President Obama the United States government will continue to inspire and work alongside leaders in the international community in addressing all the major issues of concern to humanity, especially those relating to peace and security and the fight against poverty, hunger and poor health; and
(4) takes this opportunity to convey the sincerest congratulations of the people of South Africa to president-elect Barack Obama for standing tall on the shoulders of the world, and our renewed assurance to work together with the people of the United States for a better and safe world.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
ALLEGATIONS OF TENDER FRAUD IN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
(Draft Resolution)
Ms B L NTEMBE: Chairperson, I move without notice, as follows:
That the Council –
1) notes that allegations of tender fraud in Correctional Services in
the amount of R200 million were reported by the Sunday papers of 9
November 2008;
2) further notes that according to our laws no one is guilty until
proven guilty;
3) expresses concern that unless an investigation is launched into the
allegation, it will be believed; and
4) therefore calls for an investigation into the matter to satisfy all
South Africans as to whether the allegations are true or not, and for
the outcome of such investigation to be published.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Is there any objection to the motion? [Interjections.] In the light of the objection the motion may not be proceeded with. The motion without notice will now become a notice of motion.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Chairperson and hon members who are with us today, we know that when we make laws it is a journey. It is a journey that we have to walk, along with the citizens of our country, and the destination is when we implement that law and it changes the lives of people.
As we implement, we start realising that there are some gaps here and some weaknesses there and then we have to correct things. That is what is being addressed by our Constitution.
In order to give effect to the constitutional right to a safe environment, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism reviewed environmental legislation in 1996. The review resulted in the development and promulgation of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998, Nema, as the overarching framework legislation for environmental management.
Chapter 5 of Nema introduced the framework for integrated environmental management and the enabling mechanism for replacing the environmental impact assessment regulations, which had been introduced in 1997 through provisions of the Environment Conservation Act of 1989.
Although titled “integrated environmental management”, the scope and provisions included in the Act of 1998 very much limited integrated environmental management to one tool only, the environmental impact assessment, EIA. During 2006 the drive towards a more efficient and effective environmental impact management system for South Africa was initiated.
This project of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, together with our provincial partners, aims not only to rationalise the use of EIAs, but to introduce a system truly based on integrated environmental management. This system will include a streamlined EIA process; the introduction of tools other than the EIA for environmental management; improved co-operation and co-ordination between the organs of state; an integrated environmental authorisation process; and bringing all economic activities, including mining, into one central environmental management system.
As a first step in this regard, in 2006 Nema-based EIA regulations were promulgated. Although improving on many of the deficiencies identified through the implementation of the former EIA system, that is, the EIA regulations of 1997, many of the mechanisms to streamline EIAs could not be introduced as the principal Act either by implication prohibited it, or did not enable such provisions in subordinate legislation. It accordingly became evident that amendments to the principal Act were required.
The amendments referred to above were subjected to a long and extensive consultation process, first through the process run by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and then through publication by Parliament in August 2007, followed by public hearings and various deliberations by the portfolio committee responsible for environmental affairs and tourism. That is why I said that it is a long journey that we have to walk together.
After this extensive process the portfolio committee is satisfied that the amendments introduced through this Bill are, firstly, necessary; secondly, will greatly improve the efficiency of EIAs and other future tools without compromising on effective environmental management, and lastly will bring mining into the environmental management system governed by the National Environmental Management Act in a pragmatic way.
In terms of improved efficiency, this is achieved in four ways: firstly, the introduction of enabling provisions to introduce new and often more appropriate tools; secondly, provisions for exclusions and exemptions based on set criteria; thirdly, provisions for improved co-ordination and co- operation between government institutions; and fourthly, provisions for integrating environmental or related authorisation processes.
These provisions are critical to address, in a responsible manner, the various development initiatives emanating from the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa, Asgisa, and are also specifically important at this point to address the various interventions required to implement the electricity response plan. These include the ability to manage and control impacts through norms and standards, to prescribe requirements through guidelines and to issue integrated environmental authorisations, to mention just a few of the opportunities that the amendment will offer if and when enacted. This improved efficiency can, however, not be at the cost of effective environmental management and the protection of the environmental rights enshrined in the Constitution. To ensure effectiveness in this more efficient system, the amending Bill introduces various checks and balances. They include, amongst other things, minimum requirements for environmental authorisations, qualifying any discretion that the Minister or competent authority may have, and limiting exclusions and exemptions to certain provisions of the Act only and subjecting them to meeting strict criteria. In addition, provisions around public participation have been strengthened substantially.
The Bill further enables co-operative governance by introducing mechanisms for various types and levels of co-operation agreements and, through recognising other regulatory processes, the current situation of regulatory duplication in some instances can now be avoided.
Chair, a fundamental shift in the amendment is the introduction of the environmental authorisations, not only as the outcome of an EIA or any of the potential new processes introduced by Chapter 5, but also applicable to the authorisation, licensing, or permitting processes emanating from any of the specific environmental management Acts, for example the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, the National Environment Management: Air Quality Act, and the National Environmental Management: Waste Management Bill.
This, in turn, enables integrated environmental authorisations. In other words, a developer that currently may require two or more different authorisations from the environmental authority will, in future, be able to obtain all authorisations through a single process instead of going from pillar to post.
The Bill, however, also goes further and enables integrating authorisation processes with other government regulatory processes such as planning, water, heritage-related permits, permissions or authorisations.
This aspect of the amendment then brings me to what I believe is a major and important achievement of the law reform process, the inclusion of mining in the Nema environmental impact management regime. Mining was introduced in the 2006 EIA regulations after the Minister of Minerals and Energy granted consent that it be listed as an activity to be subjected to EIA.
This consent was, however, conditional. The conditions included that such inclusion may not result in a duplication of regulatory requirements and that the Minister of Minerals and Energy must retain mandates given to her through the enactment of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002.
Environmental management for mining was regulated by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Act and its regulations in a manner that is in many ways similar to that provided for in the National Environmental Management Act. It must be emphasised, however, that there are also important differences. Bringing mining activity in the EIA regulations into effect would have resulted in the duplication of regulatory requirements and so the conditions stipulated by the Minister could, accordingly, not be met as long as the status quo in terms of the legislative framework was in place.
Various attempts have been made in early drafts of the Bill to address this dilemma, including assigning competence to the Minister of Minerals and Energy for implementation of Nema and relying on the co-operative governance mechanisms mentioned above to deal with the duplication.
During the consultation process and deliberations in the committee, both the portfolio committee and the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism were of the view that this was not a satisfactory solution as there would, in fact, still be two statutes governing environmental impact management and, accordingly, two impact management systems.
After intensive negotiations at various levels an agreement was reached, first between the relevant Ministers and later in Parliament, that environmental impact management should be governed by Nema only and that the provisions in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, in this regard, must be transferred to and contextualised in Nema.
For pragmatic reasons, it was further agreed that the system will be implemented by the Department of Minerals and Energy for an 18-month period, after which it will revert to the environmental authority. Bill 36D of 2007 gives effect to this agreement. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act provisions not already contained in Nema, and that are considered to be strengthening environmental management of mining and other activities, have been adapted and adopted. This includes provisions around rehabilitation, closure, financial provisions, monitoring and reporting and environmental management programmes. Integration of environmental and mining authorisations has also been provided for.
The Bill specifies the rules and responsibilities of both Ministers. The Minister of Minerals and Energy is the implementing agent and will for the 18-month period consider and grant or refuse applications for environmental authorisation related to mining. The granting of such environmental authorisation is conditional for the granting of a mining-related permit, licence, authorisation or permission.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism will be responsible for legislation, regulations, policies, strategies and guidelines related to environmental impact management for all activities, including mining and will, in addition, be the appeal authority for environmental authorisation granted or refused for mining activities by the Minister of Minerals and Energy.
The enactment of the Bill will, for the first time since environmental impact management was introduced in South Africa, bring mining into the system that is governing all other identified activities. Mining will, for the first time, require environmental authorisation which is not only part of a mining licence, permit, right, etc, but is an authorisation in its own right that can be refused or appealed, and is enforceable through the very strong enforcement provisions of Nema.
The environmental authorisation and the process to obtain it must adhere to the requirements of Nema. At the same time, this authorisation can, in terms of the process, be integrated with the mining authorisation process to ensure efficiency.
Additional requirements for mining houses as a result of the amendment are minimal but necessary, as it relates to weaknesses in the mineral and petroleum resources development system. It relates to issues such as public participation and consideration of alternatives. It should, however, be mentioned that the bringing into effect of the listing of the 2006 EIA regulations would have had the same effect and these requirements should accordingly have been anticipated since 2006.
In conclusion, the amending Bill radically improves the environmental impact management system of South Africa. Many of these improvements can be implemented with immediate effect and are eagerly awaited to address current pressing issues such as infrastructure development emanating from the electricity crisis. I thank you. [Applause.]
Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, Deputy Minister, hon members, the National Environmental Management Act is now being amended to refine the integrated environmental management system in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Bill proposes new enabling provisions that make it possible for environmental management instruments, other than environmental impact assessments, to be introduced.
The Bill also seeks to provide for agreement between organs of state in order to enable them to align regulatory processes. The Bill provides enabling provisions in order to allow a process, conducted in terms of another regulatory system, to be used as a basis for granting environmental authorisations in terms of the Act. The Bill again proposes that the integrated environmental authorisation may be issued where different Acts regulate the same activity or where multiple authorisations require a similar process.
In order to give effect to the general objectives of integrated environmental management, as laid down in this Act, the potential consequences for or impact on the environment of listed activities or specified activities must be considered, investigated, assessed and reported on to the competent authority.
Consultation between competent authorities and consideration of legislative compliance is important. The Minister or MEC may consult with any organ of state administering the legislation relating to any aspect of any activity that also requires environmental authorisation under this Act in order to co-ordinate the respective requirements of such legislation and to avoid duplication. The Minister or MEC, in giving effect to Chapter 3 of the Constitution and section 24(4)(a)(i) of this Act, may after consultation with the organ of state contemplated in subsection (1) enter into a written agreement with the organ of state in order to avoid duplication in the submission of information, or the carrying out of a process relating to any aspect of any activity that also requires environmental authorisation under this Act.
We are happy that there is an alignment of environmental authorisation in this Bill. If the carrying out of a listed activity or specific activity contemplated in section 24 is also regulated in terms of another law or a specific environmental management Act, the authority empowered under that other law or specific environmental management Act to authorise that an activity and the competent authority empowered under Chapter 5 to issue an environmental authorisation in respect of that activity, may exercise their respective powers jointly by issuing separate authorisation or an integrated environmental authorisation.
South Africa needs an effective environmental management programme that will speed up development in all sectors. The Minister of Minerals and Energy, MEC or identified competent authority may require the submission of an environmental management development programme before considering an application for an environmental authorisation. The environmental management development programme must contain information on any proposed management, mitigation, protection or measures that will be undertaken to address the environmental impact that has been identified in a report contemplated in subsection 24(1A), including environmental impacts in respect of planning and design, preconstruction and construction activities. The rehabilitation of the environment is extremely important.
The environmental management programme must set out time periods in which the measures contemplated in the environmental management programme must be implemented. It must also contain measures regulating responsibilities for any environmental damage, pollution, pumping and treatment of extraneous water or ecological degradation as a result of prospecting or mining operations. The applicant must inform his or her employees of any environmental risk which may result from their work and risks must be dealt with in order to avoid pollution or the degradation of the environment. We support the amending Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr A WATSON: Hon Chairperson, Deputy Minister, hon members, with all developments, particularly in a growing economy like ours where the state is a major role-player in infrastructure developments, environmental management is not an optional extra. This is even more so when much of these developments are aimed at correcting past economic and infrastructural imbalances in the rural areas of our country.
In the rural areas the environment has, until recently, remained untouched and unspoiled. The rapid expansion of mining in rural areas in recent years has, however, caused an even greater impact on the environment which cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.
The National Environmental Management Amendment Bill introduces a range of new environmental management instruments which must be welcomed. These include norms and standards and environmental management frameworks, all of which, if the associated regulations are drafted in good faith, will speed up approvals for appropriate developments without compromising the environment. It is pleasing to know that the portfolio committee accepted the DA’s proposal to have the associated regulations for the environmental instruments brought back to Parliament for oversight after the Minister has drafted them.
The DA’s spokesperson on environmental affairs, hon Gareth Morgan, has already dealt with much of the detail of the Bill as passed by the NA; therefore, I will refrain from going down that path. I am happy that the process in the NCOP has been thorough and that the further amendments introduced by the C version of the Bill and incorporated into the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill, Bill 36D of 2007, go further in strengthening the role of environmental assessment, particularly with regard to prospecting, mining and exploration.
I do believe, however, that the role of the Minister of Minerals and Energy should have been diluted rather than strengthened in regard to environmental assessment. That job is the job of Environmental Affairs and that is where it should be.
A very positive amendment is the insertion of the new subsection 24N(1A) which makes the submission of an environmental management programme compulsory in regard to prospecting, mining, exploration, reduction and related activities before an application for an environmental authorisation is considered.
I have said that I am happy that the process in the NCOP has been thorough. Also, I still feel that public hearings in the provinces in general should indeed still be directed at the people at large but that closer interaction with the industries and stakeholders involved should be sought. This is an area that needs serious attention, but it must go hand in hand with the proper redetermination of the NCOP cycle in regard to section 76 legislation.
The massive influx of legislation experienced this past year is not conducive to the formulation of good legislation. On the contrary, it is counterproductive and should never have been allowed. We are guilty of passing rushed laws which cannot be good for democracy.
The DA supported the passing of the Bill in the NA and now supports the provinces in passing the amendments of the NCOP. I thank you.
Ms Y NAHARA (KwaZulu-Natal): Thank you, Chairperson. The amendments made by the department do not need an explanation. If I could have done it my way, I would not have come here. The Deputy Minister, the hon Mabudafhasi, has given a very clear and thorough explanation as to where we are heading and what we want to do.
Hon Moatshe has given all the reasons why this Bill had to be amended, but just to make an input, I would like to say two things about the amendments. The first point concerns the provisions that the Bill seeks to address, namely to refine the integrated environmental management systems in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The second point concerns the proposal that the integrated environmental authorisation be issued where different Acts provide for regulation and where multiple authorisation is required.
This is so important that I cannot emphasise it enough. From my personal experience, we needed these provisions yesterday. This will address one of the main problems, namely the delays in the EIAs that we experience in the provinces as well as many other issues concerning the environment.
You will find that there are accusations made by developers that this government is not serious about development. There is also conflict with our own small businesspeople who are unable to get the necessary authorisation in time. Project managers end up losing the very same jobs that we want to create for our people to the big developers or businesspeople who have the money to go to the private sector to do these assessments. As a result it has reduced the number of construction developers that we could have had by now.
It has also affected some of our people who have inherited land and who have wanted to do something different from agriculture or farming and who would have preferred to have community game reserves and other initiatives. To date, some of them did not achieve their goals because of the delays of the EIA and all the relevant issues. One cannot really overemphasise the need for these amendments to take place.
Having made this point, I would just like to say one thing about the previous speaker who said that he is happy that the portfolio committee has taken their proposals from the DA. I am not sure whether the speaker is correct. As the provinces we held public hearings and I can assure you that, as a chairperson in KwaZulu-Natal, I spoke to our own people who were talking about these issues.
I doubt that the DA is actually our teacher because our people know what they want and we were sure about what we wanted to amend. As I stand here, I can assure you the people in Nongoma know why I am here and they know why these amendments have to be made. I normally do not like to be told that someone did something for me, when I can do it myself.
Other than this, I really would not be doing justice to the matter after the chairperson, hon Moatshe, has explained the various issues that are so important to this Bill. The KwaZulu-Natal committees, both agriculture and provincial NCOP, met and considered the public hearing proposals and we included those we felt should be included. We deliberated extensively on this Bill and we ended up agreeing that we support this Bill fully with all the amendments. Let me end by saying that wherever you find “imbokotho” [rock], you have no doubt that things will go right. I thank the hon Minister.
Ms A N T MCHUNU: Chairperson, we in South Africa, as in many developing countries and emerging economies, have to strike an equitable and workable balance between our many developmental needs and objectives and the preservation and protection of our environment.
If we are to achieve the high economic growth rates needed to prosper and free many of our people from the poverty in which they are now trapped, our environment will most definitely suffer and bear the brunt of our increased activity if we do not take the necessary measures to try to protect it.
It is for this reason that we must ensure that issues concerning our environment are taken seriously and that there is legislation in place to provide protection for the environment and ensure its sustainability.
The National Environmental Management Act provides for the overarching legislative framework for environmental governance in South Africa. There was widespread support for this Act, which has transformed the landscape of our environmental legislation.
The Bill before us today proposes a number of amendments to the principal Act which will strengthen it and ensure that objectives are reached. This Bill will also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the integrated environmental management system by, amongst other things, moving away from the environmental impact assessment as the only environmental assessment tool, and enhancing environmental co-operation and co-ordination where an activity falls under the jurisdiction of more than one organ of state.
In a dynamic environment it is imperative that we are aware of the many changes and developments that occur and ensure that the necessary amendments are made to our legislation to ensure that it is still effective and able to achieve the objectives for which it was enacted.
The National Environmental Management Amendment Bill will do just that, and the amendments proposed will ensure that issues concerning our environment are given the attention they deserve. However, the deletion of “committee” and “forum” and replacing them with “the Minister may establish a forum or advisory committee”, all by himself or herself, may be a point of concern. We are human beings and it is always wiser to work with people in committees or forums, rather than giving all the powers to the Minister to determine the committees or the forum that may assist with this job.
This is what the IFP has to say to you and the world. [Interjections.] Thank you very much.
Mr W M DOUGLAS: Chairperson and hon members, the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill constitutes framework legislation for the fulfilment of responsibilities contained in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and I quote:
Everyone has the right –
a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing;
and
b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and
future generations ...
The ACDP is delighted that what started out as a major concern in the mining industry in 2006 over unwarranted delays in the processing of environmental impact assessments, or EIAs, has now at last been resolved.
The National Environmental Management Amendment Bill created such a hullabaloo mainly because it attempts to resolve one of South Africa’s leading “green” problems, which is mitigating the impact of prospecting and mining, particularly in highly sensitive areas such as wetlands. We have this Bill today as the result of an agreement between the Minister of Minerals and Energy and the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the subject of which department is to be responsible for mining- related environmental issues.
Also, an agreement was reached that the wording of the National Environmental Management Act, Nema, and other related environmental legislation was to be likewise amended as far as it was linked to mining and exploration issues in the same context.
Furthermore, the ACDP is pleased that both Ministers have at last agreed that there should be one environmental management system and that this system should be prescribed by the environmental authority. The Minister of Minerals and Energy had an existing mandate in terms of environmental management for mining and this must be retained, and the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism was the custodian of the environment and must be enabled to fulfil this function, also in terms of mining.
The ACDP is fully satisfied that this Bill addresses the issues of the main problems facing this industry and we support this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, can I just remind you that it is unparliamentary for any member to take a nap in this House or even to sleep. I may be bound to name some names if I catch you doing that. [Interjections.]
Me E PRINS (Wes-Kaap): Dankie, Voorsitter. Ek is bewus van die besorgdhede wat geopper is deur die verskillende rolspelers met betrekking tot die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Nasionale Omgewingsbestuur. Ek glo nogtans dat hierdie wet ’n goeie raamwerk voorsien om ons gemeenskappe se grondwetlike regte, let wel, in die volgende opsigte, te beskerm: die reg tot ’n omgewing wat nie ons gesondheid en lewe bedreig nie; die reg dat ons omgewing deur redelike wetgewing en ander relevante maatstawwe beskerm word in soverre dit besoedeling en ekologiese verval betref; die reg dat omgewingsbewaring bevorder moet word en dat daar seker gemaak word dat volhoubare ekologiese ontwikkeling geskied; die reg dat natuurlike hulpbronne so benut word dat dit in lyn is met regverdigbare ekonomiese en maatskaplike ontwikkeling.
Die volgende punte het betrekking: die wet rasionaliseer die gebruik van “Environmental Impact Assessments” - omgewingsimpakstudies - deur meer buigbaarheid te skep in die aansoek van EIA prosesse. Baie rolspelers beskou die uitbreiding van diskresionêre magte van owerhede as die afwatering van omgewingsbestuurbeginsels. Dit word erken dat diskresionêre besluitneming ’n hoër vlak van verantwoordlikheid vereis, maar ek glo dit is haalbaar.
In ’n ontwikkelende land het ons meer verfynde EIA prosesse nodig. Die wysigingswetsontwerp poog om hierdie buigbaarheid te voorsien, veral in die manier waarop daar met die minimum vereistes in artikel 24(4) gehandel word, en in die uitbou van ’n vrystellingsbepaling in artikel 24M.
Die daarstelling van geïntegreerde bepalings om samewerking te verseker, soos vervat in artikel 24K, en samespanning van besluitneming soos vervat in artikel 24L, word gesteun. Deur die voorsiening van ’n bepaling wat ander regulerende prosesse erken, kan duplisering van regulering in sekere gevalle aangespreek word. Dit word nogtans erken dat die praktiese implementering van hierdie bepalings op ’n verantwoordelike manier gedoen moet word, met die beskerming van die omgewing as die eerste prioriteit.
Die daarstelling van geïntigreerde omgewingsgoedkeurings is ’n positiewe stap. Hierdeur word verseker dat omgewingsgoedkeurings nie uitgereik word wat slegs op EIAs gebaseer is nie, maar ook in oorleg met lisensiëringsprosesse voortspruitend uit enige van die omgewingsbestuurwette, byvoorbeeld, die wet op biodiversiteit, die National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
Dit verseker ook geïntegreerde goedkeuringsprosesse met ander regeringsregulerende prosesse soos beplanning, water, erfenis-verwante permitte, ens.
Dit word weereens vereis dat die praktiese implementering van hierdie bepaling op ’n verantwoordelike manier gedoen word.
Die wysigingswetsontwerp bevat steeds sekere maatstawwe wat noodsaaklik is vir ’n effektiewe en genoegsame impakbeheerstelsel. Dit sluit in die minimum vereistes vir omgewingsgoedkeurings, waardeur gekwalifiseer word dat enige diskresie wat die Minister of enige bevoegde owerheid mag hê, aan streng kriteria onderhewig is.
Die invoeging van publieke deelname as ’n vereiste vir alle EIAs is van kardinale belang. Dit sal verseker dat alle rolspelers goed ingelig is oor omgewingsregte. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Ms E PRINS (Western Cape): Thank you, Chairperson. I am aware of the concerns that were raised by the different role-players in respect of the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill. I, nevertheless, believe that this legislation provides a good framework to protect the constitutional rights of our communities, please note, in the following respects: the right to an environment which does not endanger our health and lives; the right to have our environment protected by reasonable legislation and other relevant measures insofar as pollution and ecological degradation are concerned; the right to promotion of conservation of the environment and to ensure that sustainable ecological development takes place; and the right to natural resources being utilised in such a way that it is in line with equitable economic and social development.
The following points refer: the Bill rationalises the use of environmental impact assessments by creating more flexibility in the application of EIA processes. Many role-players regard the expansion of discretionary powers of authorities as the dilution of environmental management principles. It is acknowledged that discretionary decision-making requires a higher level of responsibility, but I believe it is achievable.
In a developing country we need more refined EIA processes. The amending Bill attempts to provide this flexibility, especially in the manner in which the minimum requirements are dealt with in section 24(4), and in the development of an exemption provision in section 24M.
The creation of integrated provisions to ensure co-operation, as contained in section 24K, and co-operative decision-making as contained in section 24L, is supported. By way of the provision of a clause which acknowledges other processes, the duplication of regulation in certain cases can be addressed. It is, nevertheless, acknowledged that the practical implementation of these provisions must be done in a responsible manner, with the protection of the environment as the first priority.
The creation of integrated environmental authorisations is a positive step. This ensures that environmental authorisations which are based on EIAs only are not issued, but that consideration is also given to licensing processes arising from any of the environmental management Acts, for example, the Act dealing with biodiversity, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
It also ensures integrated authorisation processes with other government regulatory processes like planning, water, heritage-related permits, etc.
It is once again required that the practical implementation of this provision takes place in a responsible manner.
The amending Bill still contains certain measures which are essential for an effective and adequate impact control system. These include the minimum requirements for environmental authorisations, whereby the qualification is made that any discretion which the Minister or any competent authority might have, be subject to strict criteria.
The inclusion of public participation as a requirement for all EIAs is of cardinal importance. This will ensure that all role-players are well informed about environmental rights.]
The introduction of tools other than EIAs for environmental management is a positive step. This will alleviate the unfortunate pressure that has been placed on the EIA tool to address all impacts in all instances. For example, we are looking forward to the use of norms and standards as an option to reduce the need for EIAs in instances where EIAs are overkill.
The stronger linkage that has been created between forward-planning tools and EIAs is another positive amendment. In the Western Cape we believe that effective land use and environmental planning and management, inclusive of EIAs, must be integrated to ensure effective promotion of sustainable development. This is emphasised by the fact that we have amalgamated environmental management and planning into a single department in the Western Cape.
One of the most significant aspects of the amending Bill, and probably the reason for the lengthy law reform process, is the inclusion of mining under the Nema umbrella. To me it makes perfect sense that mining, as one of the major industries responsible for physical land transformation, should be measured against the same standards as all other development activities. Challenges, however, will now be for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the Department of Minerals and Energy to consistently implement the amending Bill. Future challenges to ensure effective co-operation and alignment will be enormous and this law reform process is only the first step. Thank you. Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Chairperson, it’s quite interesting that the IFP is speaking to the world. I’m not sure whether they have turned into an international NGO, but I doubt if countries like Cuba will take what the IFP is saying seriously because they know that the ruling party is the ANC. When the ruling party of any country speaks people tend to listen carefully.
Hon Chairperson, as I was coming here, the hon Watson gave me a sweet – I’m not sure whether his intention was to try and sweeten my speech on the debate as such. So far there’s nothing political which I heard him mentioning today other than to repeat what their leaders are saying in the NA.
Suffice it to say that when we are dealing with this kind of legislation we take our mandate from our provinces, and I think what they’ve raised was not a matter of saying that this House must just rubber-stamp what is being said in the NA.
But it must be mentioned that prior to 1994 South Africa was characterised by the lack of a sound environmental and natural resource management legislative and policy framework.
The protection, management and preservation of the environment and natural resources were regarded as unnecessary responsibilities that were left fragmented and scattered in a number of government departments. This resulted in enormous environmental degradation and the appalling state of our country’s wealth of natural resources.
As many of our people were shifted to reserves and battled the scourge of underdevelopment and poverty that characterised many of the areas where our people lived, poor communities, particularly black township residents, found themselves constructing informal settlements on toxic dumps.
In many instances, solid waste became part of the permanent features of many of these communities. Many rural dwellers found themselves without land for grazing or tilling as a result of soil erosion and deforestation. These things became the order of the day.
One of the main tasks of the ANC after the 1994 elections, as we embarked upon a sustainable and environmentally friendly growth and development path, was to ensure that the protection of a healthy and safe environment becomes one of our highest priorities, as it is a crucial resource that we have to preserve for the next generation. We then said that in order to do that we have to protect our natural environment and enact a new generation of environmental legislation, which will not only protect our natural resources but also preserve them for generations to come.
We committed ourselves to ensuring that the broad objective of our environmental policy and national legislation - based on the principle of sustainability and preservation of our natural resources - is in line with our commitment to participatory democracy, which, of course, includes public hearings. We said that the government must encourage the inclusion of all people and groups who are interested in or affected by environmental governance in order to ensure that participation is fair and effective.
We have also committed ourselves to establishing mechanisms and processes to ensure public participation in environmental governance, which will ensure the realisation of some of the things the Deputy Minister has alluded to. I will not waste your time, Deputy Chairperson and hon members, by repeating what the Deputy Minister has said. I think everyone was listening attentively except a member, of course, whom I might have disturbed in his or her sleep when I raised my voice!
Mr Douglas also referred to the constitutional clause which …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Hon Windvoël, can I just call you to order, please. There are some members who are conversing very loudly; you are disturbing the speaker. You may continue. That’s Rule 32, thank you.
Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Thank you very much, Deputy Chairperson. It might happen that it is those who have ulterior ambitions of becoming an alternative government. But if you have such ulterior ambitions, you must begin to behave very well. Start here in the House so that people out there may believe you.
I was just referring to what Mr Douglas quoted with regard to the Constitution. In terms of the Constitution, in Chapter 2 in the Bill of Rights it states:
Everyone has the right -
a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing;
and
b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and
future generations, through reasonable legislative and other
measures ...
such as this piece of legislation we are dealing with today.
As we stand on the threshold of our third democratic order, as the ANC we stand before our people with great pride that our nation is still on course with the commitment to strengthen our collective and individual responsibilities in managing, protecting and preserving our country’s environment.
It is in that light that the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill emulates and reasserts our movement’s commitment to closing any gaps in realigning our environmental responsibilities, policies, programmes, etc. It clearly articulates our commitment to continue to seek more ways and strategies to relentlessly deal with the past environmental injustices and to ensure that our country is set on a path of sustainable development and environmental management.
Also, it is in that vein that the Bill before us today seeks to amend the National Environmental Management Act of 1998. The Deputy Minister also alluded to some of the matters which these amendments are trying to deliver to the country at large. I will not repeat what the Deputy Minister has said.
To conclude, I must say that as the ANC we take pride in this Bill as it is in line with the following three principles that form the cornerstone of our policy to protect our natural resources.
Firstly, environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.
Secondly, development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
Thirdly, sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including, amongst other things, the following. Environmental management must be integrated. Environmental justice must be pursued so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons. It must ensure equitable access to environmental resources, benefits and services to meet basic human needs and to ensure that human wellbeing can be pursued and special measures taken to ensure access thereto by categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination in the past.
As we enter the threshold of our third democratic Parliament and gear ourselves for the centenary year of the ANC in 2012, I must say that as the ANC we take pride that the legislative framework that our movement has initiated in the last 14 years of democracy is building on our commitment to a better South Africa.
Deputy Chairperson, that is why the centenary of our movement must find us in a state where we are truly able to say with absolute certainty that since democracy dawned on South Africa we have, indeed, reached the threshold of prosperity for all in our advance to improve the lives of our people.
The people expect that we continue to work to implement the decisions that were made by the forbears of our movement when many of them took a solemn oath to better the lives of the people and lead them into a democratic, nonracial and nonsexist society.
We will, indeed, continue to increase the awareness of and concern for environmental issues and to assist our people to develop the knowledge, skills, values and commitments that we need for our country to achieve sustainable development and environmental management.
It is for those reasons that we as the ANC, together with all provinces that have sent their mandate, support this Bill as it will lead us to a better environmental situation in the country. Thank you.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Deputy Chair, I would like to thank the chairperson of the select committee, Rev Moatshe, the committee and all parties that saw the importance of this Bill coming out as something that can be implemented, and more so that it can be implemented with immediate effect. It will unblock all the problems and people will see how serious we are as the leaders of the country.
I really thank you for the hard work. Now we have to go out there and see to it that it is done, so that we do change the lives of the people. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
ABSTAIN: Limpopo.
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
GENERAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mr B J TOLO: Chaiperson, fourteen-and-a-half years into our democracy we can stand tall as a nation for we have recorded monumental achievements. Yes, we have reason to be proud for in such a short space of time we have managed to propel our country forward; yet we also know that a lot still needs to be done to further improve the quality of life of our people.
As I stand here today on the eve of the fourth national election we have no doubt that our people will give the ANC a further mandate to improve their conditions for they know no other party can do so. [Interjections.]
The education Bills before this House today complete a revolution in the education landscape of our country. After our government realised that there was no coherent strategic direction with regard to qualifications and that some interested groups, for their own selfish interests, were duping the SA Qualifications Authority, Saqa, into recognising qualifications and programmes which have no value for our economy, the Ministers of Education and Labour commissioned a review of the Saqa in 1995.
The National Qualifications Framework Bill before this House today is a product of that seven-year-long review process. It was indeed found that there were gaps in the implementation of the Saqa Act. They, therefore, deemed it fit to come up with the new policy which is embodied in this Bill. The objectives of this policy are to integrate all elements of the education and training system; to enable learners to progress to higher levels from any starting point; to enable learners to transfer credits from one part of the system to another; to allow for assessment and recognition of prior learning and skills acquired through experience; and to enable curricula to cut across traditional divisions of skills and knowledge.
The other shortcoming of the Saqa today is that it requires the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour to agree on various matters before anything can be done. Practice has proved that that is a recipe for disaster, because if there is no agreement there will be no movement. The new Bill gives each Minister a separate sphere of responsibility while it also requires them to co-operate and collaborate.
The Bill establishes three sectoral quality councils, that is Umalusi for the general and further education and training sector; and the Council on Higher Education for the higher education sector. Members will know that Umalusi and the Council on Higher Education are already in existence.
The third quality council still to be established will be for the trades and occupation sector. The first two quality councils are under the stewardship of the Minister of Education while the third is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. The two other Bills before this House, the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Amendment Bill and the Higher Education Amendment Bill, are consequential amendments to allow Umalusi and the Council on Higher Education to become quality councils for general and further education and for higher education respectively.
In conclusion, we want to take this opportunity to wish all matriculants well in their examinations. The class of 2008, among whom is my daughter, are trailblazers as they are the first matriculants of the new National Curriculum Statements. We commend these Bills to this House. I thank you.
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the National Qualifications Framework Bill be agreed to.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
ABSTAIN: Gauteng, Limpopo.
National Qualifications Framework Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Question put: That the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Amendment Bill be agreed to
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
ABSTAIN: Gauteng, Limpopo.
General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Amendment Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Question put: That the Higher Education Amendment Bill be agreed to.
Higher Education Amendment Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mr A L MOSEKI: Chairperson, Comrade Deputy Minister and hon colleagues, Comrade Mike says I must just table this speech, and I want to do that because we don’t have any objection to the Bill tabled before this House. But I just want to say that in recent years South Africa has emerged as an international player in the arms supply industry, with the revenue generated by the arms trade amounting to R50 billion in the year 2008.
Therefore, it is to be expected that South Africa must assume a responsible role in this regard. Considering the unspeakable harm that can result from certain weapons falling into the wrong hands, the establishment of a predictable arms control system is therefore imperative. South Africa should oblige in this regard in order to maintain credibility.
The current National Conventional Arms Control Act had been in operation since 2003 and has been under review since 2006. Practical and legal challenges have emerged since 2003, and new demands and developments in the industry have necessitated the establishment of ground rules for the continued effective functioning of the industry.
The possession of conventional arms needed to be regulated and it was necessary to adopt a position in respect of dual-use items which could be put to civilian or military use. An example of this is a computer which can be employed to navigate a battleship while still being used in conventional arms. An important objective of the new legislation is to criminalise the possession of military arms except by a legal government security agency.
The delegation from the Department of Defence that presented the National Conventional Arms Control Amendment Bill to the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs gave an extensive overview of the Bill, setting out its key objectives.
The amendments are intended to ensure that the South African arms control mechanism will become more effective, promote responsibility and accountability in South Africa’s arms transfer and assist in prohibiting mercenary activities.
The Department of Defence summarised the role of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee, NCACC, as follows: The NCACC, which is a government functionary, is instituted to regulate legitimate trade in arms. It performs its functions in collaboration with the SAPS Central Firearms Registry and the Department of Trade and Industry’s Non-Proliferation Council.
The NCACC operates within the context of a strong defence industry base and a sensitive arms industry. The department admits that the NCACC faces administrative and legal challenges, but remains confident that it will be able to deliver on all the objectives concerning its new functions as set out in the Bill. The transfer and regulation of arms must be seen in the context of the commitment to the international agenda for disarmament and non- proliferation, although the select committee was not entirely satisfied about the explanation of why the end-user certificates are required for the country.
In other words, what was raised by the committee is that whilst this piece of legislation is important, there was the question as to why the end-user should be required to provide the certificate. The department provided an adequate response to that and it is on that basis that we say this is an important piece of legislation on which the committee agrees.
There were other important questions that were raised by a number of members seeking clarity. Questions were raised on the Wassenaar Arrangement issue just to clarify what that thing means to us as a committee and what the significance of it is. This was clarified as one of the important requirements for international collaboration.
The committee, having listened to the department, agreed there is not much that we can look for in terms of clarity. We agreed that this Bill as presented before the committee provides the necessary tools to ensure that there is proper control of the arms that have to be dealt with as was explained to us, particularly aspects of arms that are invisible, such as the … [Interjections.]
But with regard to those aspects that were presented to us, the committee actually dealt with them and agreed that all those identified aspects were to be part of the dangerous arms category. The committee agreed that it should be regulated as contained in this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL INSTITUTE BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, hon Minister of Minerals and Energy in absentia, hon members, the management and storage of nuclear radioactive waste continues to be a global challenge, even in the context of continuous scientific innovation on waste storage. Hence, at Polokwane we all agreed, and I quote:
Our vision of the future includes a sustainable economy where all South Africans, including present and future generations, realise their right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing.
That was a quote from a resolution of the 52nd conference of the ANC in Polokwane in December 2007.
The use of nuclear technology by mankind for both medical and energy purposes brought about a very complex variable in the form of the management and storage of radioactive waste. Scientific development through research and development on radioactive waste management and storage has dominated discourse in the scientific community and raised the interest of various groups throughout the 20th century up to the present. Hence, it is imperative to ensure best practice and uphold sustainable development principles.
As advocates of sustainable development, we believe that the management of radioactive waste cannot be left to chance. It seeks a dedicated state entity to manage the disposal of all waste. To concretise this view, the National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute Bill is intended to ensure that a state-owned waste disposal entity is established. The establishment of this entity allows the generators of waste to focus on their core functions and issues of safety. For example, Eskom would no longer be responsible for the disposal of its generated radioactive waste.
In terms of this Bill, the primary task of the National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute is to manage radioactive waste disposal on a national basis on behalf of the Minister of Minerals and Energy. The institute will also be responsible for, amongst other things, the production of disposal solutions, the issuing of disposal certificates, managing disposal facilities and designing new facilities when needed. Furthermore, the Bill advocates an improvement in communication with the general public on waste management issues. As a state-owned entity, the financial affairs of the institute will be governed by the Public Finance Management Act. Financing would also derive from the Radioactive Waste Management Fund and loans.
The Bill also outlines responsibilities the generators of radioactive waste would have to meet in order to qualify for a waste disposal certificate. This piece of legislation puts in place strict measures for generators of radioactive waste. They will have to have waste management plans and strictly adhere to the certificate criteria. The entire Vaalputs disposal facility, including all staff, will be incorporated into the institute.
At the 51st conference in Stellenbosch the ANC resolved that decisions on nuclear energy must be based on a comprehensive and transparent environmental impact assessment. As advocates of sustainable development principles, our radioactive waste management policy is premised on transparency. We hold the view that all radioactive waste management activities shall be open and transparent and the public will also have access to the information on radioactive waste management, as long as it does not infringe on the security of radioactive waste material.
The creation of a state-owned institute is critical in ensuring compliance in terms of the safety and security of radioactive material. This entity is correctly positioned in the utilisation of natural resources, whilst promoting socioeconomic development.
I table this important piece of legislation in the House and urge all members to support it and remember that you are all advocates of sustainable development principles. Thank you.
Debate concluded.
Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mnu D D GAMEDE: Sihlalo, ngokuchitshiyelwa koMthetho ophathelene nezempilo nezokuphepha ezimayini kufanele sikhumbule ukuthi, ezindaweni eziningi zemisebenzi ezimayini sibhekene nezingozi eziningi. Izingozi ezifana nokuwa kwamatshe, ezempilo ezingezinhle, uthuli, imimoya emibi kanjalo nokukhubazeka nje ngokuphefumula kanye nomoya ongahlanzekile.
Abasebenzi basezimayini kulezi zinsuku babhekene nalobu bunzima, ngakho-ke bahlala njalo belimala, befa abanye kanjalo bekhubazeke. Ezikhathini ezedlule lapha eNingizimu Afrika, izimayini eziningi bezibhekane nalezi zingozi. Lezi zingozi ezingezinhle zenze kwaphoqa lo Mnyango nohulumeni ukuthi kushicilelwe lo Mthetho, ukwazi ukubhekana nalesi simo futhi uzame ukuvimba lesi simo.
Lo Mthethosivivinywa ophathelene nezimayini kwezempilo nezokuphepha wenza isiqiniseko sokuthi kube khona izimpilo eziphatheke kahle emigodini futhi nabasebenzi basemgodini baphephile. Ukulandela imithetho yonke yomhlaba, leli lizwe lethu iNingizimu Afrika eliyingxenye yawo, kubalulekile ukuthi lo Mthethosivivinywa oshicilelwe uhambisane nezinguquko nezinto ezenzeka emhlabeni jikelele.
Lokhu kuchitshiyelwa kwalo Mthetho sivivinywa kuqiniseka okwashiwo yinhlangano yethu yabantu, uKhongolose, ukuthi kufanele kube khona ukuphepha ezindaweni zokusebenza ukuze kusizwe imiphefumulo eminingi. Uma sibuka isigaba seshumi nanye kuMthethosisekelo waseNingizimu Afrika, sithi wonke umuntu unelungelo lokuphila.
Ziningi izinguquko ezihlongozwayo kulo Mthethosivinywa. Isigaba seshumi isona esenza ukuthi umqashi abenamabhuku okuqeqesha abasebenzi mayelana nezempilo kanye futhi nezokuphepha. Isigaba seshumi nanye okunesigatshana sesihlanu, sithi umqashi kufanele aphenye ngaso sonke isigameko esenzeka emayini uma kunengozi.
Isigaba seshumi nantathu sisho ukuthi akube khona odokotela abangochwepheshe ababizwa ngokuthi ama-occupational medical practitioner, abazosebenza futhi bahlole izimayini kanye futhi neziguli uma kwenzeke lezi zinkinga.
Isigaba samashumi amane nesikhombisa senza kusungulwe abazohlola ababizwa ngama-inspectors ngabahloli, abazobuka ukuthi zonke izinto zihamba kahle yini. Siyikomidi kanye noKhongolose futhi siyinhlangano yabantu sicela yonke le Ndlu siyikhuthaze ukuba ikwesekele ukuchitshiyelwa kwalo Mthethosivinywa. Ngiyabonga Sihlalo. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)
[Mr D D GAMEDE: Chairperson, in amending the Mine Health and Safety Act, we must remember that we are faced with many accidents happening in the mining sector. There are incidents such as falling rocks, poor health conditions, dust and polluted air, as well as casualties caused by respiratory infections and polluted air. Mineworkers these days are faced with these difficult situations and as a result they are always sustaining injuries or dying, and some of them become disabled. And this was the case even in the previous dispensation here in South Africa. These gruesome accidents have forced the department concerned and government to introduce this Bill in order to face this situation head-on and try to stop further casualties.
This Bill ensures good health and fair working conditions in mines, and safety for mineworkers. In order to conform to international standards, it is important that our country, South Africa, which is part of the world, complies with the changes and things that happen internationally.
The amendment of the Act is further testimony to what was said by the people’s movement, the ANC, namely that there must be safety in the workplace so that many lives can be saved. If we look at section 11 of the South African Constitution, it says that every person has the right to life.
There are many amendments that are proposed in this Bill. Section 10 compels the employer to keep records of all the training of the employees in health and safety issues. Section 11(5) states that the employer must investigate every action that takes place in the mining workplace when there is an accident.
Section 13 states that there must be occupational medical practitioners who will work and monitor the mines as well as victims when these problems occur.
Section 47 provides for the appointment of inspectors who will check if everything is still well. On behalf of the committee and the people’s movement, the ANC, we ask and encourage this House at large to support the adoption of this Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]]
Debate concluded. Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mr N S S MQUNGQUTHU: Chairperson and hon members, I think we have to correct the matter of my surname first. I think there is a campaign amongst officials here to write my surname according to their pronunciation. It is very clear that my surname is Mqungquthu. On the speakers’ list it appears as Mqunguthu. Can that please be corrected, Chairperson?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Your query is noted, and the matter will be corrected.
Mr N S S MQUNGQUTHU: Thank you very much. The Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs considered on 4 November 2008 the Consumer Protection Bill, Bill 19D of 2008, and the amendments incorporated by the National Assembly on 26 September 2008. The amendments relate to the following.
Firstly, in terms of the labelling of genetically modified organisms, the Bill was amended to include the labelling of products containing genetically modified ingredients in order to inform consumers and enable them to choose. The Bill also seeks to hold suppliers, manufacturers and retailers strictly liable for damage caused by their genetically modified products.
Secondly, regarding implied warranties, sections 54 and 56 of the Bill were amended to enable consumers to choose whether they want the goods to be repaired or get a refund, in line with the common understanding that a refund to a consumer should not be at the discretion of the supplier. This relates to goods that are not fit for the purpose for which they were bought or are of poor quality.
Thirdly, there is the matter of the appointment of deputy commissioners. The Bill is amended to enable the Minister to appoint deputy commissioners in order to capacitate the National Consumer Commission and provide for a structured decision-making authority to assist the commissioner.
The exclusion of the appointment of deputy commissioners was an oversight. As we are quite aware that this country has a shortage of commissioners, we therefore requested that the Minister at least appoints deputy commissioners. This would ensure that the process of addressing issues is fast-tracked, more especially on the part of consumers.
Fourthly, in terms of alignment with the National Credit Act of 2005, the Bill makes provisions for consequential amendment of the National Credit Act provisions empowering the National Consumer Tribunal to impose a fine. The extension of the powers of the tribunal to impose financial penalties is in line with the Consumer Protection Act.
Fifthly, with regard to the application of the Act, the Bill is amended to ensure that it does not regulate the trade union service and its members. Furthermore, the threshold for regulating business-to-business transactions is amended to ensure that the Bill only protects small and medium-sized businesses from unfair business practices. Therefore, the threshold is no longer based on the size of the transaction, but on the value of the turnover and the value of the assets.
In conclusion, I request this House to vote in favour of this Bill. I thank you.
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
ABSTAIN: KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Can I just ascertain one point? In terms of our records, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal have abstained. Is that correct or is it the result of a technical problem? [Interjections.] It is correct. Thank you very much.
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Chairperson, it could be that my screen was misleading me; it showed two abstentions, one province that didn’t vote and six that voted in favour of the Bill.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Mine is reliable.
Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: This technology is not helping us, Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): Only one province has voted manually, and that is Gauteng.
Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Ok, now that answers my question.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): It’s consistent; the hon member doesn’t have a card. Members will understand why not.
PROVISION OF LAND AND ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Chairperson and hon members, the Land Reform: Provision of Land and Assistance Act, Act 126 of 1993, was promulgated before the commencement of the interim Constitution, primarily to settle people on agricultural, peri-urban and urban land.
As a result of subsequent policy development, the Act no longer contains sufficient scope for effective and sustainable land redistribution in South Africa. The implementation of the 2006 Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy of the Department of Land Affairs revealed several interpretation problems, inconsistencies and omissions in the Land Reform Provision of Land and Assistance Act of 1993.
Currently sections 10 and 11 of the Act are not sufficient to give effective policy development. Furthermore, no provision has been made for the Minister to acquire all types of movable and immovable property or economic enterprises essential for sustainable land reform. The acquisition, maintenance, planning, development, improvement and disposal of property are also not adequately provided for in the Act.
Therefore, the objectives of this Bill are to give effect to the land and related reform obligations of the state in terms of section 25 of the Constitution; to promote, facilitate or support the maintenance, planning, sustainable use, development and improvement of property as contemplated in this Act; and to contribute to poverty alleviation and promote economic growth.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments would provide for the acquisition and the development of sustainable, fully equipped agricultural enterprises by government. The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs supports the Provision of Land and Assistance Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Debate concluded.
Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT BY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
- TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RSA AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Mr J M SIBIYA: Chairperson, Deputy Chair, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the last clause of the Freedom Charter states, “There shall be peace and friendship”.
South Africa, as a fully independent state, respects the rights and sovereignty of all nations, big or small. The country strives to maintain world peace and the settlement of international disputes by negotiation and diplomacy, not war. All of the above form the core of our foreign policy.
The Treaty of Friendship and Partnership between RSA and the Russian Federation is a living testimony and bedrock of our people’s desire to strengthen friendship, and promote mutual understanding, all-round co- operation and equitable relations between the two countries. It is another milestone in the two countries’ commitment to the declaration of principles of friendly relations and partnership, which they signed in April 1999.
Both countries believe in relationships or partnership based on the commonality of their vital national interests, ideals of freedom, democracy, equality and the universally recognised principles and norms of international law. Together they are going to work towards a more just and democratic multipolar world order and the benefits of globalisation and participation in world affairs.
Through the treaty the two countries are committed to the centrality of the United Nations in international affairs. For South Africa, the treaty is going to open up new avenues for ensuring and contributing to the training of personnel for peacekeeping operations and the exchanging of experience in the sphere of preventive and peacekeeping diplomacy. It also increases regional and international efforts to solve the problem of the uncontrolled spread and illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, especially in Africa.
Above all, the treaty commits the two counties to multilateral disarmament without which everything else on earth would not be easily solved. It also strengthens nonproliferation of instruments of weapons of mass destruction as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968; the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of 1993; and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction of 1972.
These weapons are extremely dangerous and deadly. Above all, some of these weapons are capable of destroying earth ten times over. I think this is very important to all of us. That is why all sober-minded individuals in the world are urging each one of us to do everything in our power to make sure that a third World War does not break out. If that war breaks out, we should make no mistake, it will definitely be a thermonuclear war and there would be no place to hide, not for anyone. Therefore, we cannot afford to relax unless these weapons are destroyed.
The Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs supports the report and invites this august House to do the same. I thank you. Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - LEGAL AID GUIDE
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, colleagues, comrades and friends and the hon Chief Whip, I am tabling before this House something very important and I will need the members’ undivided attention.
We are tabling a Legal Aid Guide that will assist us as members and public representatives to go and assist our people and find out who qualifies to get legal aid and who doesn’t. I suppose all members have it and will take it to their respective constituencies. It is important for members to take it with them because it is the 11th edition of this guide. The last time it was amended was before 1994.
This guide classifies people who qualify. Our concern as a committee was that the state uses money to defend people who have committed offences like abduction, arson, incest, murder, bestiality and even rape. As a committee we said that while everybody needs to be protected and to be given some legal aid, we think it is time that Parliament reviews this guide.
Concerning exclusions - that is, people who are excluded from getting legal aid - people who are fighting to claim their land because of the restitution of land rights are excluded. They can’t get help. Hon Sibiya, hon Themba and hon Gamede, could you please take note of this?
Asylumseekers who do not even pay tax in our country qualify to get legal aid. To us that is unfair to our own people. Nonetheless, there are things that are good that had to be improved or implemented.
Many of you, when doing your constituency work, hon Kgarebe, come across double bookings. You find that one legal representative is expected to represent five people who are at times appearing in different courts.
It is up to us, as legal representatives, to question this guide. Until and unless this guide is amended, the status quo will continue. We can’t allow that. Nonetheless, there are some good things that we accommodated.
On that note, let us support this guide for now, because we as the committee have instructed the department to come before Parliament with the amended version of this guide or bring legislation to deal with that within 12 months.
We don’t understand why it’s important that our student attorneys only represent people in criminal cases but not civil matters. Why? Some of us feel this is unfair to our people because in most cases those who go for civil cases are those loyal citizens of our country, those loyal voters who are going to vote for the ANC next year. There is no way they can be disadvantaged.
It is up to us as public representatives to take this guide home and assist our people because they need it. If they don’t have it, they won’t know their rights. They won’t know who qualifies for what, hon Priscilla Themba. On that note, I table this report before the House. Let us adopt it. Thank you.
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - SUSPENSION/REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF MAGISTRATE S P ZWELIBANZI, ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE AT NGQAMAKHWE
Mr D J P VAN DER MERWE: Chair, hon members, the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs met on 17 June 2008 to consider the report and recommendations of the Magistrates’ Commission regarding the suspension of Magistrate S P Zwelibanzi, pending approval by Parliament. The report recommends that Magistrate Zwelibanzi be removed from office.
Mr Zwelibanzi, 50 years of age, served as a magistrate for 11 years. He was convicted of misconduct on two previous occasions for infringements that included unauthorised absence from office, failure to enter results in the register of the criminal trial and failure to answer reviewing judges’ questions. He was cautioned on these matters. He was also convicted of driving while intoxicated, and he was suspended in this regard. Mr Zwelibanzi pleaded guilty to all of the above offences.
A disciplinary hearing was held, but Mr Zwelibanzi did not attend the scheduled hearing. The presiding officer was satisfied that all procedural requirements had been adhered to, and the hearing thus proceeded in his absence. [Interjections.] Mr V V Z WINDVOËL: Chairperson, on a point of order: The House needs clarification as to whether this is a suspension or a removal because it can’t be both.
Mr D J P VAN DER MERWE: We will come to that, sir.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr T S Setona): The hon member says he will give direction on this as he concludes.
Mr D J P VAN DER MERWE: Maybe I will suspend you, sir. Thanks. [Laughter.]
However, Mr Zwelibanzi later claimed that he was unable to attend the hearing as he had been in a psychiatric institution. The leader of evidence at the hearing informed the presiding officer that Mr Zwelibanzi was in hospital, but no further evidence was provided in this regard.
During deliberations, the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs considered whether Mr Zwelibanzi had been given enough opportunity to make representation prior to his dismissal, and whether the Magistrates’ Commission had given due consideration to his alcohol dependency and the possibility of rehabilitation.
As there was a shortage of black magistrates, it was felt that the state should assist Mr Zwelibanzi in any way possible, and that dismissal should be the last resort. The committee also considered the fact that Mr Zwelibanzi had been in a psychiatric institution at the time of the hearing, and it was of the opinion that further investigation was necessary. The committee then ruled that a letter be served on Mr Zwelibanzi to afford him an opportunity to make representations as to why he should not be dismissed.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development reported back to the committee on 6 October 2008 regarding the outcome of the investigation. A letter had been served on Mr Zwelibanzi through his ex-wife. However, Mr Zwelibanzi did not respond to the letter and his whereabouts were still unknown. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development confirmed that Mr Zwelibanzi was still receiving his full salary.
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs is satisfied that all attempts have been made to trace Mr Zwelibanzi and that his failure to make representations after the letter had been served on him left us no option but to conclude that it would be in the interests of justice to remove Mr Zwelibanzi from office. The committee thus endorses the decision of the Magistrates’ Commission that Mr Zwelibanzi be removed from office. Thank you, sir. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
The Council adjourned at 16:45. ____
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 11 November 2008:
a) Consumer Protection Bill [B 19D – 2008] (National Council of
Provinces – sec 76(2)).
b) National Conventional Arms Control Amendment Bill [B 45B –
2008] (National Assembly – sec 75).
c) Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 34 – 2008] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Council of Provinces
-
Report of the Select Committee on Public Services on the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 76), dated 4 November 2008:
The Select Committee on Public Services, having considered the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 76) referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Methodist Church of Southern Africa (Private) Act Repeal Bill [B 68 - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 4 November 2008:
The Select Committee on Education and Recreation having considered the subject of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa (Private) Act Repeal Bill [B 68 - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Act Repeal Bill [B 69 - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 4 November 2008:
The Select Committee on Education and Recreation, having considered the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Act Repeal Bill [B 69 – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75) referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (Private) Act Repeal Bill [B 71B - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 4 November 2008:
The Select Committee on Education and Recreation having considered the subject of The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (Private) Act Repeal Bill [B 71B - 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.