National Assembly - 10 September 2009



The House met at 14:05.

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


                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr N J J VAN R KOORNHOF: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House debates the poaching war in the Kruger National Park and other reserves in South Africa.

Mr A C STEYN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of the DA, that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House – 1) debates the government’s inability to efficiently address the enormous shortage of decent housing in South Africa; and

2) calls on government to come up with possible solutions.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of the IFP, that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House –

 1) notes that the  29-year-old  Turkish  vessel  Seli  1  ran  aground
    shortly after midnight on Tuesday morning, 8 September 2009,  along
    the shoreline of Bloubergstrand in the Western Cape;

 2) further notes that the ship poses a significant environmental  risk
    due to the fact that it has 600 tons of oil  and  an  estimated  60
    tons of fuel onboard and expresses our grave concern about the risk
    it poses to  the  welfare  of  the  African  penguins  that  remain
    vulnerable to the pollution  of  their  habitat  by  petrochemicals
    which has previously nearly driven the species to extinction;

… as the ANC will shortly be driven into extinction … 3) exhorts the authorities to make it their primary priority to remove the fuel urgently and safely from the ship so as to avoid a fuel spill; and

 4) expresses its gratitude to the rescue  workers  who  were  able  to
    safely evacuate all crew members of the Seli  1  and  applauds  all
    maritime  safety  officials  and  salvors  who  are   now   working
    tirelessly to avoid an environmental disaster.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: is it parliamentary for an hon member, who is extinct, to refer to a vibrant party, such as the ANC, as being due for extinction? [Laughter.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on another point of order: if I may, is it correct for an hon member to stand up in the House and show more concern for his own property than the property of the people of South Africa in general?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sure you all want to stay here the whole day today.

Ms J C KLOPPERS-LOURENS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of the DA, that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move: That the House debates the improvement of accountability and productivity of individual schools by maximising parental choice and increasing school autonomy.

Mr M R BALOYI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of the ANC, that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House debates the impact of migration and urbanisation on our policies and their implementation.

Mr I M OLLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of the DA, that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House –

 1) debates the feasibility of the role of Setas in the temporary
    layoff programme owing to their abysmal track record thus far; and

 2) considers alternative solutions to the high volume of retrenchments
    that have already occurred thus far in South Africa.

Mr M A NHANHA: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, firstly, for the record, mention that yesterday Cope circulated our motion as per the Rules of this House. [Interjections.] That includes the ANC and the DA. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you moving a motion?

Mr M A NHANHA: No, no. I’m just mentioning this for the record.

Mr C T FROLICK: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: we had discussions with the relevant Whip of Cope about the matter, and the issue has been clarified. I can’t see why the hon member needs to refer to something that has been dealt with.

The fact of the matter is that the motion without notice did not reach my office.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You’re dealing with notices of motion, not yesterday’s issue.

Mr M A NHANHA: Hon Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of Cope, that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House –

  1) notes that -

     (a)      the Bisho Massacre took place on 7 September 17 years ago
         on which occasion 27 people were gunned down by the then
         Ciskei Defence Force; and

     (b)      the victims of this massacre were fighting a noble and
         just cause for the liberation of our people;

  2) further notes that this commemorative date was ignored by the
     government and that these victims and their families have therefore
     been relegated to the past as forgotten heroes; and

  3) assures the families of the victims of its recognition of their
     contribution to the liberation struggle.

Mr Z S MAKHUBELE: Hon Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice, on behalf of the ANC, that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House –

 1) notes with appreciation the sense of urgency and the importance
    which the ANC’s Polokwane conference attached to identifying and
    positioning education as one of the priorities for the next five

 2) acknowledges the many challenges and weaknesses in our system of

 3) believes that such issues need to be tabled before this House for
 4) recognises that this radical renewal of our schooling and education
    system is in line with the overarching vision that informs the ANC’s
    education policy of people’s education for people’s power;

 5) further recognises that this radical renewal is aimed at heeding the
    call made in the Freedom Charter where it says that education shall
    be free, compulsory, universal and equal for all children; and

 6) debates the issue of realising quality education for all in South
    Africa and the current challenges encountered in this vital area of
    our transformation programme.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: there is a convention amongst the Whips and generally a Rule of the House, that notices of motion are brief and to the point, and request the House to debate a particular issue.

We’ve had two motions this afternoon that were very long and totally misplaced, and I urge the House, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make sure that we abide by the Rules of the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I refer this issue to the Chief Whips to sort out, because such things are difficult to sort out from the Table? Stopping hon members from making input is something that I or any other chairperson would not be happy to do. So, if the Chief Whips could take care of that.


                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr C T FROLICK: Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move without notice:

That the House –

(1) notes that veld fires swept the Eastern Cape leaving behind a trail of destruction;

(2) further notes that the runaway fires were fanned by strong winds which made them difficult and dangerous to extinguish;

(3) recalls that eleven people have died due to these disasters;

(4) notes that the two areas most affected are Lusikisiki and Libode, where 82 homes and 8 farms were evacuated;

(5) calls upon the relevant authorities and the people of our country to help the victims of these fires; and

(6) extends its condolences to the families who lost their loved ones.

Agreed to.


                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House –

(1) welcomes Prime Minister Frederik Reinfelt of Sweden, and representative of the European Union, to South Africa;

(2) further welcomes his Minister for International Development Co- operation, Gunilla Carlsson, and Minister of Trade, Ewa Björling;

(3) hopes that their visit will further strengthen and deepen Sweden and South Africa’s already strong relationship; and

(4) urges all participants taking part in the EU-South Africa Summit starting here in Cape Town on Friday to find innovative and improved ways of co-operation to our mutual benefit.

Agreed to.


                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the following motion as it appears in his name on the Order Paper:

That the House, notwithstanding the resolution it adopted on 20 August 2009, resolves to extend the deadline by which the Ad Hoc Committee to Nominate a Person as Public Protector has to report, to 18 September 2009.

Agreed to.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon members, on Wednesday, 2 September 2009, hon Deputy Minister Surty rose on a point of order regarding a statement made by the hon Louw, during that day’s sitting. The statement concerned what Mr Louw described as unacceptable behaviour by a member of this House, hon L Yengeni, who is also the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Labour. Deputy Minister Surty contended that the statement by the hon Louw was an attack on the integrity of a member of this House and that such an attack had, in terms of the Rules, to be brought by way of a substantive motion and not through a member’s statement.

I undertook to study the Hansard and rule on the matter. Having studied the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows: In his statement the hon Louw stated, inter alia, that the behaviour by the hon Yengeni created an atmosphere of intimidation, and she did nothing to stop these unwarranted personal attacks.

I wish to state at the outset that members enjoy freedom of speech in the House, and members should be allowed to exercise that freedom as much as possible. As regards the duty of members towards their fellow members, members should appreciate that their freedom of speech must of necessity be subject to the principle that they may not impute improper or unworthy motives to others.

All members are hon members, and every hon member should, therefore, act towards other members with the same decorum and respect which he or she expects from them. It is a well-established convention in this House that accusations of improper conduct by fellow members may not be made in the course of a debate or even in member’s statements.

A member who wishes to bring to the attention of the House allegations of any improper conduct on the part of another member should do so by way of a substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge. Except upon such a substantive motion, members should not be allowed to impute improper motives to other members, cast personal reflections on their integrity as members or verbally abuse them in any other way.

This is a mechanism agreed to by this House, and members are not only expected to be aware of it, but to utilise it where appropriate. While I found the statement by the hon Louw was in the main permissible, to accuse another member of intimidation is, however, a serious accusation which the Chair cannot allow. I would, therefore, ask the hon Louw to withdraw the remarks.

Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman, may I address you, sir? I am not going to conflict your ruling, sir. I simply want to say …

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): No, no. Mr Ellis, please take your seat. Is Mr Louw in the House?

Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Louw is in the House, sir, yes. Mr Chairman …

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon Louw, can you respond to the ruling please.

Mr A LOUW: Thank you, Chairperson. I withdraw.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Thank you.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): With regard to the statement made by hon E Nyekemba, I still stand by my ruling not to allow him to continue with it. In my view, the statement was related to a matter in respect of which I reserved a ruling. I would like to urge members that where there is unhappiness with issues that arise in committees, every attempt should be made to exhaust other avenues before the matter is brought to the House.

Finally, it is a longstanding tradition of the Speakership everywhere in the world that the Chair is impartial, and I, therefore, wish to appeal for respect, not only for the Chair, but for all other hon members of this House. Parliament sets the tone for the rest of society and must, therefore, show honour, respect and co-operation, if we want these attributes reflected in society. I thank you. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr M L FRANSMAN (ANC): Hon Chairperson, the ANC, which is the principal architect of a constitutional democracy, has seen fit to uphold and defend Afrikaans as one of the 11 constitutional languages. We must equally, however, protect and defend the advancement of other indigenous languages, for example, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Tshivenda, Sesotho, etc. This very same Constitution places transformation as the bedrock for making South Africa a country that belongs to all its people and hence providing equal access to opportunities for all.

It is in this context that the recent utterances by the DA, in the shallow education document they released, expose the DA’s contempt for the Constitution and their hankering to protect exclusivity in the name of academic freedom. The DA in their statement said that linguistic exclusivity was justified, and thus demonstrated their shallow commitment to transformation.

The ANC’s policy on education and training is well documented and has been developed through decades of struggle, drawing deep from the fountain of the Freedom Charter that the doors of learning and culture shall be open to all. This dynamic process, therefore, has continued under our democracy throughout the 15 years in government, and will continue for as long as any area of our society and any institution remain untransformed. Therefore, as the ANC we do not believe that there must be exclusivity when it comes to any particular language, especially at universities. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Dr A LOTRIET (DA): Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA notes with shock and dismay the statement by an ANC councillor of the Mangaung Local Municipality, who said that God does not listen to you if you pray in Afrikaans. Even though the councillor had to later, after serious objection by the DA, withdraw the statement, it is still worrying and unacceptable that statements such as this could even be uttered by a public representative.

Clearly public representatives in all spheres of government should be aware of the fact that cultural, religious and linguistic rights of all communities in South Africa are promoted and protected by the Constitution and the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. One of the stated objectives of this commission is to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among and within cultural, religious and linguistic communities on the basis of equality, nondiscrimination and free association.

Furthermore, what adds insult to injury is that this statement was made at the beginning of Heritage Month, where we focus on the celebration of and respect for the diversity of our cultural heritage. How can we be seen to be serious about nation-building and social cohesion when such utter disrespect is shown by public representatives?

We appreciate the fact that there were ANC councillors who apologised and expressed their commitment to nonracialism, freedom of religion and the protection of all languages, however, this kind of irresponsible utterance should be condemned in the strongest possible way, and by all levels and structures. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Rev H M DANDALA (Cope): Madam Deputy Speaker, Cope believes that it is imperative that this House takes note of the comments made by Mr Mathatha Tsedu in his lecture at the University of the Free State last night, that modern-day leaders lack the inclination to serve the people, especially the poor, preferring rather to enrich themselves.

There have been calls from many others as well, who consistently raised the concern that leadership today in our country is less about the people and more about self-enrichment, in both the public and private sectors.

While we may wish to believe that these calls are mere perceptions, we must heed the adage that perceptions are facts. To ignore these calls by our people would be to invite them to disregard the moral authority that legitimises and sustains leadership, without which any society is doomed to a reign of chaos and instability. We therefore call on this House to bear this in mind as we formulate strategies, policies and plans for advancing the welfare of our people and exercise oversight for the implementation of these.

For Parliament to uphold and constantly proclaim these virtues, striving to be the definition of integrity, will be to send a clear message to our people about the country we seek to become, thus reigniting the sense of belonging, for all South Africans. Thank you. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr J B SIBANYONI (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, the ANC supports the decisions taken at the meeting of the Deputy Ministers of Home Affairs, Justice and Constitutional Development, Social Development, and Basic Education, held in Tshwane on 31 August 2009.

The Deputy Ministers agreed to the following: Firstly, they agreed to spearhead the adoption of an interdepartmental protocol on the protection of children against child pornography. This protocol brings together various stakeholders to focus on the advocacy and law enforcement of issues related to this scourge. It also defines each department’s role in that regard.

Secondly, they agreed to request the SA Law Reform Commission to investigate the possibility of an outright ban on pornography in the mass media.

The ANC believes that the interdepartmental protocol will go a long way towards ensuring that our government has a co-ordinated approach and response to the protection of our children who are, daily, the targets of paedophiles. Thank you. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Ms C N Z ZIKALALA (IFP): Madam Deputy Speaker, fires have caused widespread destruction in parts of the Free State and the Eastern Cape.

In the Eastern Cape, at least 12 people have died and many more were left destitute as fires caused great destruction and devastation. It was reported that 61 households in five villages had been destroyed by these fires.

In the Free State, fire destroyed part of the Basotho Cultural Village rest camp in the Golden Gate National Park.

The IFP would like to convey its heartfelt condolences to the families of those who died in these fires. We urge people to be more vigilant and avoid careless and hazardous actions which can cause the spread of these destructive fires. Thank you.


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mnr P J GROENEWALD (VF Plus): Mevrou Adjunkspeaker, die VF Plus respekteer die reg, en neem kennis van die ooreenkoms tussen die Minister van Verdediging en Militêre Veterane en die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag Unie. Daar word egter ’n beroep op die Minister gedoen om alles moontlik te doen om te verseker dat die lede wat gestaak het, ontslaan word uit die Suid- Afrikaanse Nasionale Weermag, SANW. Die stakende lede is ’n bewys van uiterste swak dissipline in die SANW en moet ernstig ondersoek word.

Die VF Plus het reeds in 2004 gewaarsku dat die skietvoorval, destyds in Burundi, waar ’n Suid-Afrikaanse soldaat sy mede-soldaat doodgeskiet het, getuig van swak dissipline in die Weermag. Ons het toe ook gesê dat die swak dissipline nie net onder laer range bestaan nie, maar het ook bewys dat senior offisiere ewe laks is om behoorlike dissipline toe te pas.

As ’n senior offisier hom wangedra en homself aan wangedrag blootstel, sodat ons dit later in die nuus lees, sê ons dat die voorbeeld wat hulle aan hul ondergeskiktes stel uiters swak is. Daar kan dan met reg gevra word hoe senior offisiere dissipline kan toepas as hulle self ongedissiplineerd is?

Ongedissiplineerdheid kan nie in die SANW geduld word nie, want dit stel ander soldate se lewens in gevaar. Die ongedissiplineerde gedrag van sommige soldate besmet ook die goeie naam van ander gedissiplineerde en goed opgeleide soldate. Die vrot appels moet verwyder word.

Ons versoek die agb Minister om daadwerklik ondersoek in te stel na die stand van dissipline in die SANW en om korrektiewe stappe te doen. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)

[Mr P J GROENEWALD (FF Plus): Madam Deputy Speaker, the FF Plus respects the law and takes note of the agreement between the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and the SA National Defence Union, SANDU.

However, we appeal to the Minister to do everything possible to ensure that those members who went on strike are dismissed from the SA National Defence Force, SANDF. The striking members are proof of extremely poor discipline within the SANDF, which should be seriously investigated.

The FF Plus already warned back in 2004 that the shooting incident in Burundi, where a South African soldier shot and killed his fellow soldier, attested to a poor state of discipline in the Defence Force. We then also said that poor discipline was not only evident among the lower ranks, but also showed that senior officers were just as slack in enforcing proper discipline.

If a senior officer misbehaves and subjects himself to misbehaviour, we say that the example shown to his subordinates is extremely poor. One can then correctly question how senior officers can enforce discipline if they themselves are undisciplined. Ill-discipline cannot be tolerated in the SANDF, because it endangers the lives of other soldiers. Undisciplined behaviour by some soldiers also taints the good name of other disciplined and well-trained soldiers. The rotten apples must be removed.

We request the hon Minister to actively investigate the state of discipline in the SANDF and to take remedial action. Thank you.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Ms N D NGCENGWANE (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, as a mass-based organisation that is rooted among the people, and which reaches into every sector of society and every corner of the land, the ANC has the capacity to get the whole of society working together to make change happen faster.

On 4 August 2009 - as part of the ongoing interaction with the people - President Zuma paid a surprise visit to the Siyathemba settlement in the Eastern Cape to get a first-hand understanding of the living conditions in that community. During the visit, the President listened to the concerns raised by the residents. The concerns related to inadequate, or lack of, service delivery.

A team of Ministers, led by the Minister in the Presidency responsible for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, met with the municipality and the residents of the area in an effort to deal with the issues and to work out mechanisms to bring services to the area.

The ANC is committed to working with our people to improve their quality of life and to accelerate the delivery of services to millions of our people and achieve a better life for all. Thank you. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr G R MORGAN (DA): Madam Deputy Speaker, marine and coastal management failed to finalise a subsistence fishing policy by the end of June. Therefore, there are once again going to be permits issued to small-scale fishers under the interim relief dispensation as required by the Equality Court ruling.

The process of allocation this year has been random and unfair. Many traditional fishers who benefited from the allocation in the last few years have been left out. When deciding which individuals should get access to permits under the interim relief dispensation, fairness and transparency must prevail. Allocations should go to people who have personally been traditional fishers and who did not benefit from the medium- and long-term fishing rights allocations. Hence, the interim relief allocations must go to deserving fishers.

While many, if not most, of the fishers who benefit are deserving, there are others who obtain interim relief merely because they are politically well connected or because they make the most noise. Take for example Hawston. There is outrage in this fishing community from many people who have a long history of fishing and who have received interim relief previously but have now been passed over for people who have no history as fishers or have very tenuous links to the fishing sector. This interim relief was intended to alleviate hardships for traditional fishers and not to make it more difficult for them.

The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs must urgently review the policy that dictated who was awarded these permits and Marine and Coastal Management, MCM, must come before Parliament to explain the exact criteria used to determine why certain applicants for these permits were successful and why others were not. At the moment the system is indefensible, and the fishers of Hawston have every reason to be angry. I thank you.


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr M A MANGENA (Azapo): Deputy Speaker, 12 September 2009 marks the 32nd anniversary of the murder of Steve Biko in detention. His death marked one of the lowest and most tragic points in our history, illustrating what human beings should never do to one another. More importantly, Biko was a model patriot who used his enormous talents, both physical and intellectual, to serve his country and his people. By the age of 31, when he died, he had written groundbreaking essays to advance the struggle and had delivered equally important speeches which were later collected in the book called I Write What I Like.

He and his equally young comrades in the South African Students’ Organisation, SASO, and the Black People’s Convention, BPC, ran highly successful community development projects ranging from health clinics to adult literacy, the support of released and banned political prisoners and income generating initiatives. Among other things, this was to prove to the downtrodden that they are not helpless, but that they have the power in their own hands to change their circumstances. That’s the spirit we need today in generous doses. I thank you. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mev M N PHALISO (ANC): Adjunkspeaker, Suid-Afrika beskik oor meer as 3 000km kuslyn. Beide die Indiese en Atlantiese oseane, is ryk aan mariene hulpbronne. Hierdie natuurlike hulpbronne, veral mariene bronne, het enorme potensiaal om by te dra tot die bekamping van armoede en werkskepping vir kusgemeenskappe.

Inteendeel, die huidige beleidsraamwerk bevorder nie hierdie doelwitte nie, maar dra eerder daartoe by dat gemeenskappe teen ons mooi kus, verder verarm. Die Vryheidshandsves van Kliptown het reeds die fondasie gelê dat die mense sal deelhê aan die land se rykdom.

Ons verlang dus dat die huidige beleidsraamwerk en bestaande wetgewing hersien moet word om arm gemeenskappe langs ons kus te bemagtig en by te dra tot werkskepping en die verligting van armoede.

Die ANC het die kapasiteit om dit te bewerkstellig. Baie dankie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)

[Mrs M N PHALISO (ANC): Deputy Speaker, South Africa has more than 3 000km of shoreline. The Indian and Atlantic Oceans are both rich in marine resources. These natural resources, especially marine resources, have enormous potential to contribute to the combating of poverty and the creation of employment for coastal communities.

The current policy framework, on the contrary, does not promote these aims but rather contributes to the communities on our beautiful coast becoming further impoverished. The Freedom Charter of Kliptown has already laid the foundation that the people shall share in the country’s riches.

So we require a review of the current policy framework and existing legislation in order to empower the poor communities on our coast and contribute to job creation and the alleviation of poverty.

The ANC has the capacity to accomplish this. Thank you very much. [Applause.]]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Ms D VAN DER WALT (DA): Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA is appalled by the recent decision taken by various municipalities in Limpopo to send officials on a sports trip to Mozambique.

Despite the fact that the Thabazimbi Municipality is listed as one of the municipalities in the country with the largest debt at R1,07 billion this council allowed 64 municipal employees to take part in a sporting activity on 1 to 13 September 2009 in Maputo, at an estimated cost of R253 000 to the taxpayers’ account.

This wasteful expenditure has not only occurred in the midst of an economic recession, but it effectively means that, for that period, these municipal employees will be absent and no proper service will be rendered to the people of Thabazimbi. This shows how the ruling party pays lip service to the principle of putting the needs of ordinary citizens first.

To put this in context, it has taken an average of R50 000 to build one Reconstruction and Development Project, RDP, house. The money used for these municipal employees could be used to build RDP houses for five families. Alternatively, at R300 for one person per household it could be used to train 843 households in basic food garden skills and get each of them seeds to start their own food gardens.

It is time for the ANC to see the reality and take immediate steps to stop this type of wasteful expenditure. [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr M E GEORGE (Cope): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Congress of the People congratulates the Minister of Police and his department on staging the recent ceremony to commemorate the untimely and tragic deaths of the men and women in the police force who had fallen in the line of duty.

It grieves us to see how often this happens, and the number of families who have had their lives cruelly shattered. It is intolerable that brave men and women who strive to uphold the law and guarantee the safety and security of all of us should be made to pay the ultimate price for no reason. For our police to be continuously targeted in such a callous manner by vicious criminals is absolutely and totally unacceptable. Therefore, as much as it is appropriate and necessary to pay homage to these fallen heroes and heroines and to remember them with fondness, we need to do more, much more.

Cope proposes that a commemorative ceremony be held annually and that the occasion be declared a national day. It is imperative that all parties, across all divides, and all South Africans rally behind our police to demonstrate unity and solidarity in respect of the mortal danger that they face every day in the line of duty.

We owe it to the memory of those who have fallen; we owe it to their spouses and children; and we owe it to their colleagues. Let us stand with our police on this issue and let us be resolved to stop the criminals. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

                         VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

                        (Member’s Statement)

Ms N GINA (ANC): The African National Congress views the escalation of acts of violence in our schools as a serious offence on the moral fibre of our society.

The ANC is concerned about the crippling acts of unjustifiable antagonistic violent behaviour in schools. It further feels that this undesirable tendency is a manifestation of the breakdown in moral, social and cultural values. It cannot be a simple exercise of learning and teaching when it involves violence and loss of human lives. These values and morals cannot be legislated, they must exist in the hearts and minds of our people.

It is for this reason that we must invoke and rally the family to occupy its historical status as a principle structure where character-building is important to the young and where we instil the age-old African philosophical concept of ubuntu, ensuring that our children grow up to become responsible citizens in society.

We need to win back the hearts and minds of our children and empower them with values, attitudes and behaviours that are consistent with our moral, cultural, social and constitutional values. Our schools are, therefore, of paramount importance in restructuring society and reinstilling values. This process needs the support of families, churches, communities and all stakeholders involved in the creation of a value-based society.

The ANC condemns in the strongest terms the heartless killing of an acting principal on the school premises of Sithembiso Matiso Secondary School and also extends its condolences to the family. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]


                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr E J LUCAS (IFP): Deputy Speaker, the IFP is outraged by Eskom’s announcement yesterday that consumers should expect high electricity tariff increases over the next three years, to finance Eskom’s infrastructure expansion programme and that the increase would come on top of the massive 31,3% hike that has already been agreed to.

Furthermore, we are extremely concerned about the effect that the high tariff increases will have on poor South Africans. Many poor disadvantaged South Africans only recently received access to electricity and these mooted increases will once again render electricity unaffordable and inaccessible to the poorest of the poor.

The IFP believes that a lack of foresight and planning from the responsible role-players has led to Eskom’s inability to meet South Africa’s demand for electricity, but we are adamant that ordinary South Africans should not have to pay for the parastatal’s gross mismanagement, financial and operating difficulties.

The IFP would prefer any increase to be in line with inflation, as anything higher than this, in the current economic climate, will only contribute to the vulnerability of many South Africans. The IFP calls on government urgently to put plans in place to limit the tariff increases to the poor and to increase the quantum of free basic electricity provided.

Lastly, the IFP calls on government to open up the channels for independent electricity suppliers to become part of the national electricity grid. I thank you. [Applause.]

                    SEX PEST TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS

                        (Member’s Statement)

Mr M H HOOSEN (ID): Deputy Speaker, the ID remains concerned that despite assurances to comply with the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act, the Ministry of Education has still not applied for clearance certificates for the more than 380 000 teachers from the register of sex offenders.

In response to a recent question that I submitted to the hon Minister, she confirmed that her department has not applied for clearance certificates from the Registrar of Sex Offenders because of a delay by the registrar in capturing the information. This delay has now gone on for far too long. Once again, good policies are failing because of the slow pace of implementation.

What is of more serious concern is that our children remain exposed to and are at risk from a minority of sex pest teachers in schools because the department has failed to screen and root out serial sex offenders who are employed as teachers.

The ID calls on the Ministries of Education and Justice to urgently address the completion of the sexual offences register so that we may prevent sex predators from slipping through the cracks and masquerading as teachers in our schools. I thank you.


                        (Minister’s Response)

The MINISTER OF SPORT AND RECREATION: Deputy Speaker, I rise to reject and castigate all those who come with the notion that God prefers some languages and that others do not make sense to Him. [Applause.] This is not only bad theology, it is also a childish populism which must be rejected from wherever it comes. Thank you very much. [Applause.]





                        (Minister’s Response)

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I hope Mr Ellis will be happy today that I am standing up. The hon Minister of Defence asked me to respond on her behalf, if any statements were made with respect to the incidents that occurred two weeks ago, and indicate that she does share the sentiment of those hon members who regard the incident as unacceptable conduct by those who are sworn to defend our country and uphold its interests.

Therefore, we will support the sentiment as expressed by the hon Groenewald that that conduct was unacceptable, that we cannot have leaders of the Defence Force leading soldiers into mutiny and not disciplined conduct. Therefore, the Minister will certainly act to ensure that we build a SA National Defence Force that our country and our people can have faith in, and which we know will uphold the best interests of South Africa, and respect its leader, our commander in chief, President Zuma, and the people of our country.

With respect to the action of the Deputy Ministers, I thought they would stand up and make a brief comment on their determination, and ours, to ensure that we do protect the children of South Africa from paedophiles and all these who sexually abuse children. And we, as parliamentarians, need to speak up very strongly about the presence of pornography in South Africa in various visible spaces which threaten to harm our children. And, therefore, we exhort the Deputy Ministers to continue with the good efforts they’ve began in order to enhance our protection of children against pornography in this country.

Finally, on the matter of language, let me say that our universities do use more than one language and we do have universities that are committed to looking at addressing how we can develop additional languages in South Africa as languages of science and teaching in higher education in South Africa. All universities have a duty to carry out such exploration, because they are there to enhance intellectual discourse as well as the development of all the languages of South Africa.

Therefore, we do welcome the hon Fransman’s call that there shouldn’t be exclusivity in universities’ utilisation of languages. I am pleased that, unlike some other parties, our universities are edging more and more towards multilingualism rather than single-medium university teaching. This is a welcome development in South Africa and we must support all our higher education institutions that are committed to expanding the use of all the languages of South Africa in higher education.

In conclusion, on the lecture that was referred to by the hon leader of Cope - the lecture by Mr Mathatha Tsedu - I think we have in this House expressed our concern about the prevailing greed that we see in our society. And it is something that doesn’t occur only among public figures, but also because when we speak of public figures often we are referring to state institutions or Parliament. In the private sector we have unbridled greed, which we all need to start speaking about more and more and more.

When we speak about inequality in our country, of salaries and wages, and you look at the gap between a chief executive officer and an ordinary worker in a corporate entity, it is actually horrendous that we allow that kind of inequality in our country. So, I would say to the public commentators and public representatives, let us look at all forms of greed and inequality in our country and speak out on every individual who has the possibility of improving the conditions of the poor in our society. [Applause.]

                         VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

                    SEX PEST TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS

                        (Minister’s Response)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BASIC EDUCATION: Deputy Speaker, I was going to respond more fully on the issue of pornography but, since the Minister of Science and Technology has already eloquently done so, I will not, but will rather encourage the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs to perhaps make a statement in this House.

With regard to the issues of safety and violence in our schools, we share the concern, and indeed, we wish to convey our heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims at the Sithembiso Matiso and Gymnasium schools. The Minister of Basic Education, as well as the Deputy Minister of Basic Education and the Deputy Minister of Police, have visited the schools and the families to convey their condolences.

What emerges very clearly – and, in fact, the statement points this out – is that it is not sufficient to have fences around schools and other such measures, when attitudes and values are not focused on. This explains why the Department of Education has, over the decade, consistently argued for values and attitudes to be a central component of our education and knowledge system.

It is important that we recognise that Life Skills and Life Orientation are fundamentals in our schools. At the same time, we should recognise that communities have a responsibility to serve on the governing structures of schools in the establishment of safety committees. Schools are indeed a microcosm of society. So, we share the sentiments of the hon member.

With regard to the completion of the register, we wish to indicate that this process has been started by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. Significant progress has been made, but all the data cannot be captured because the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has not completed its task, as a result of their responsibility to ensure that all the information and data that are inserted in the system are indeed verified.

However, significant progress has been made and we can give you the assurance that, once all the data is posted, the Department of Basic Education will be able to supply the relevant information. I thank you. [Applause.]


                       (First Reading debate)


                       (Second Reading debate)

Mr T A MUFAMADI: Deputy Speaker, hon members, Ministers present here, particularly the Minister of Finance, on an occasion like this it is always important to remind ourselves of what the Constitution says about our history and where we intend to go.

First, let me say that our Constitution acknowledges that our democracy is a product of a negotiated settlement profoundly expressed in the countless acts of confrontations, negotiations and compromises between the proponents and the opponents of the status quo.

It also says that our struggle is profoundly expressed in the interactions between the workers and the employees in the union movement; between activists who organise consumer boycotts and business leaders.

Finally, it is a product of negotiations between the imprisoned and exiled leaders of the liberation movement and the apartheid government itself. It was out of this wealth of experience that a better South Africa could be created.

As legislators, we are reminded that, at all times, we are enjoined by this Constitution, which has become the bedrock of our democracy and, on an ongoing basis, we have to review current and past legislations in order to improve and better the quality of life of ordinary people.

We are, therefore, expected at all times to act in the interest of ordinary people, in particular the poor. We have to act in such a way that we reduce the sharp divide between the poor and the rich and eradicate the societal polarisation of our country, caused by socioeconomic inequalities.

I am pleased to present the much-anticipated recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to the proposed changes contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill of 2009, tabled by the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan, on 1 September this year.

The objective of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, 2009, is to give expression and meaning to the tax measures and other aspects of the fiscal framework meant to provide and consolidate a strong base for our economy to remain resilient in the current global financial crisis. The Bill is, therefore, in line with the objectives of streamlining fragmented taxation laws inherited from the pre-1994 period.

The Bill seeks to enhance and protect the competitive urge of the South African economy in a global and economic environment. It seeks to reduce leakages within the systems where tax avoidance and tax evasion has become a practice. It seeks to maximise revenue collection locally and internationally from companies and individuals, trading or doing business within our shores and beyond. It seeks to fast-track economic integration and stimulates growth.

In processing this Bill, the committee asked itself the following questions and posed the following challenges: How will these proposed amendments improve or benefit ordinary citizens of our country? What is the impact of the current global financial downturn and its impact on job creation or job losses? What will this Bill do to alleviate the plight of families of retrenched workers? What are the implications and impact of revenue deficit or under collections, as already announced in this House by the Minister of Finance? What are the overall implications of all these challenges to the priorities of government in the next five years? Lastly, we had to consider the sustainability of small and micro enterprises.

The interests of stakeholders were very positive and impressive, which showed the centrality of tax laws to the fiscus and the role of business, labour and civil society in our economy. The committee received extensive written and oral submissions from various sections of our society, ranging from organised business, multinationals, financial sectors or institutions, and representatives of corporate South Africa in the form of KPMG, Webber Wentzel, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche, Independent Producers Organisation and Business Unity South Africa, Busa. It is also our considered view that the voice of ordinary citizens and small businesses in particular still needs to be heard loudly by Parliament through its committees and relevant forums. Therefore, it is important that, as we say we are an activist parliament, we should devise means and mechanisms to make matters of this nature and other related issues more interesting to the whole of society.

After careful considerations, the committee is of the view that the overall thrust of the proposed amendments does complement the stimulus package that government has put forward in response to the current challenges, as espoused by the national framework response agreement.

We must also commend the pre-emptive and proactive steps by the former Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, who, earlier this year in February, presented a Budget in which he made personal income tax adjustments that have resulted in an amount of R13,5 billion as a tax relief to individuals. Although at the time of reading this Budget signs of possible economic recession were there, none of us could have predicted the seriousness of and the impact this recession would have on all economies, irrespective of their size, in the whole world.

We are confident that this tax relief has and will continue to play a significant role complementing the much needed spending power or disposable income of individuals and households to sustain the demand-side of our economy, particularly in the local manufacturing sector.

Most importantly, the new tax treatment of lump sum withdrawals of retirement savings must not serve as a perverse incentive for workers to withdraw their much needed retirement savings today when those savings will be needed in the future. This is both a challenge and an opportunity to us.

In conclusion, it is our view that the present amendments as proposed should be supported and we recommend that this House supports the proposed Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, 2009, as a step that will take the country in the right direction.

Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just correct something? The member was making an introduction, hon Ellis. And I know why I allowed two minutes. I am going to take it from other members, because initially he had fifteen minutes. After preparing his speech, it was then cut to eight minutes. But I am going to take those two minutes from other people. I am just trying to discourage you from saying the member must take as long as he wants.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to show you that for once I’m perfectly innocent. I never said a word. [Laughter.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Somebody who always talks, would always be accused. It’s the person sitting next to you, sorry. [Laughter.]

Dr D T GEORGE: Deputy Speaker, in his keynote address to the Economic Society Conference on Monday, Prof Dominick Salvatore said that politicians are not grounded in theory. They do things that look good and, therefore, do not properly understand the consequences of the choices they make.

In amending the tax laws, it is useful to bear his comments in mind. The purpose of taxation is to collect money to enable governments to deliver services. Parliament has already considered the expenditure side of the Budget. We now need to consider the income side.

Given the depth of the current recession, the tax shortfall is likely to exceed R60 billion. To resolve this, income can be increased or expenditure can be decreased. In his introduction last week, the Minister committed government to existing spending commitments. This means borrowing to fund a primary deficit.

Government needs to ensure that short-term expenditure doesn’t become long- term liability. As debt obligations increase relative to Gross Domestic Product, GDP, revenue available for service delivery is crowded out. Government needs to spend the people’s money wisely.

The DA supports the view that government spending provides an important fiscal stimulus at this point in the economic cycle. There is excess in current budget expenditure, and government must ensure that its spending is appropriate and that austerity measures are in place.

Spending on infrastructure is appropriate, because it will facilitate economic growth after the recession. It will also provide employment that otherwise would not exist. Spending on the social security net is appropriate, because it provides at least some relief to those who are most vulnerable. Spending on effective government department programmes is appropriate, because people expect service delivery. Wasting the people’s money and spending it on luxury vehicles is not wise, nor is it appropriate.

The DA’s wasteful expenditure monitor currently stands at R120 million. This is a reflection of known government disregard for the people’s money and it will no doubt continue to climb. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bills amend 14 Acts and cover a number of issues crucial to the operation of our economy.

Several provisions are very complex and require technical expertise to fully comprehend the implications. For this reason, the DA agrees with the Minister that only one set of major taxation amendment Bills should be tabled each year. This will also relieve pressure on participants in the industry who have raised concerns that our tax regime is too complicated and has led to noncompliance through ignorance, rather than the intention to commit tax evasion.

The adjustment to personal income tax thresholds will provide some relief to the 5,2 million individual taxpayers who still contribute more to the revenue pool than corporate taxpayers. Although there has been no recent progress on the long-awaited retirement reform process, taxation applicable to preretirement withdrawals has been simplified and the R300 000 tax-free withdrawal permitted on retrenchment will provide some relief from economic hardship.

A further window period to permit the transfer of a permanent residence from a company or a trust provides the opportunity for homeowners to extract themselves from a transfer tax evasion scheme that has became difficult and expensive to maintain.

Donations to the Financial Services Board Consumer Education Foundation are now tax deductible, and hopefully will encourage donations so that the Financial Services Board, FSB, can make long-awaited progress on its mandate to provide consumer education - the best form of consumer protection from financial predators.

There is a need for fiscal decentralisation so that other spheres of government can properly execute their mandates. Special features relating to the sharing of the general fuel levy revenue do not achieve this objective and should be reviewed. The DA does not support tax increases when our economy is in recession.

During the public participation process, stakeholders raised their concern over provisional tax estimates. This was resolved through the introduction of a two-tier system. Concern was also raised that the “pay now, argue later” provision could be abused to the detriment of taxpayers. Sars is committed to a process that it will follow when it implements this provision, particularly to avoid making the environment more difficult for corporate taxpayers to deliver the R165 billion that they currently contribute to fund government activity.

The film industry’s concerns regarding incentives to it were not resolved. From these submissions, it appears that existing incentives are not effective and that our economy could benefit from additional measures to develop this viable industry. National Treasury has committed to continuing its conversation with the film and related industries, and we look forward to progress in this regard and the outstanding list on deductions applicable to people with disabilities.

In its deliberations, the committee remained aware of the tax amendment’s impact on economic behaviour. The committee encouraged stakeholders and National Treasury to hold detailed technical discussions so that the most optimum outcome could be achieved. The current noisy debate on labour brokers requires a similar sober analysis of potential consequences. Fundamental change without sufficient thought that would put jobs at risk during the deepest recession in living memory is the failure that Prof Salvatore was talking about. National Health Insurance, NHI, and a single Public Service are similar examples.

In conclusion, the DA supports the Bills although the results would be a deficit. It is possible for government to generate more income by facilitating an increase in economic activities, and this is where it should focus its attention. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N J J VAN R KOORNHOF: Madam Deputy Speaker, tax is not the most popular topic. Income tax has made more liars out of people than golf has. Winston Churchill remarked that there is no such thing as a good tax. And Mark Twain wrote in 1902, “what is the difference between the taxidermist and the tax collector? The taxidermist only takes your skin.” In a recession tax collecting is difficult, and if you lose the loyalty of the taxpayer there is a problem.

In politics or taxation it is all about perceptions. The Americans say perception is the truth. So, hon Minister, it is your duty as captain of the tax collecting team to make sure that all your taxpayers remain loyal and happy. You can only do that in a recession if they are convinced there is value for their taxes. A very simple thing like glamorous motorcars is not good for the morale of this country’s tax base.

Hon Minister, you have set the example, but it was your duty to make sure that your colleagues followed your example. There should have been new guidelines fit for a recession. This whole car debacle is unnecessary and not good for South Africa. Some of these amendments are extremely technical, and I would like to thank the Sars team for their efforts. It was a pleasure to see them in action.

Now, for the first time these amendments contain two incentives in support of the environment. The sale of carbon credits will be exempt from income tax. It is no secret that world opinion on global warming is divided. There is also a huge debate on the effectiveness of carbon credits to reduce greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to explain to the House how the carbon credits work. What is true, is that the lack of regulations has made the marketing of these credits problematic. There are many questions. How much is the real impact if in South Africa the carbon credit acquisition is based primarily on goodwill or with a view to gaining an advantage in the market?

There is no incentive to purchase credits such as the Eskom Power Conservation Programme, PCP, options for example. With these new amendments, we hope to see a higher level of domestic investments. In many instances, companies and government are unaware that they can issue carbon credits or fail to submit qualifying projects.

As far as I know, there is no natural carbon credit issuing body. That creates uncertainty in the market, and what we need is an open exchange for the trading of these credits, like the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, JSE. Cope will support this legislation. [Applause.]

Mr M G ORIANI-AMBROSINI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspect the only thing that we all have in common in this House is that we all pay taxes. The other thing that we have in common is that we bear the responsibility for implementing the principle of no taxation without representation. We operate in a difficult environment in which there are more benefit recipients than taxpayers. So, opposing a tax Bill is politically challenging, if not impossible.

This Bill has many flaws but a great deal has been done to improve those flaws during the committee process. One must acknowledge and thank the Treasury for the flexibility shown, not in accommodating political inputs, but the inputs from public participation. In that respect, a couple of things need to be noted.

I feel a personal disappointment in respect of the film industry. I say it is personal, because an assurance was given to me and to the hon George, in front of the chairman of the committee, that a provision that the film industry deems absolutely essential to its survival would be kept in the Bill. The film industry appeared before us and supported the provision, and they gave us a passionate presentation of what they defined as bias from Sars against the film industry.

For some reason and without explanation that provision which was benefiting the film industry was left out. When we inquired we were told it was an oversight and it would be brought back into the Bill. When it was not in the Bill, we were told that Treasury was still talking to the film industry. When we inquired further, we found out that that was not the truth. So it seems that the omission was very retaliatory, and that is not how the state should operate.

As regards missed opportunities, we feel that in this environment of recession, perhaps we should have looked at the fuel levy. We made that point in the committee meeting. It is a regressive tax and it is becoming increasingly regressive. This would have been the opportunity to scrap it. So, with these reservations the IFP supports the Bill. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]

Mr S N SWART: Deputy Speaker, Minister, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bills contain annual tax proposals as announced in the 2009 Budget Review. This legislation must be considered against the backdrop of the global economic slowdown and its impact on the fiscus. This will result in a far greater Budget deficit than earlier estimated, which in turn will result in increased public sector borrowing. The tax proposals cover a number of issues and some are very relevant to us as MPs as well. For example, under travel allowances, the deemed kilometre method is to be repealed. So all taxpayers, including MPs, must now keep a logbook of business travel if they wish to travel and claim from their travel allowances. This is very important to note.

As the ACDP we also welcome the two incentives in support of the environment, namely tax exemption for the sale of certified emission reductions, and the notional deduction for energy efficiency savings. These are very positive. Minister, I am sure that all individual taxpayers, including us as MPs, are also grateful for the adjustment to personal tax thresholds, which resulted in tax relief for individuals estimated at R13,5 billion.

However, a number of concerns which the ACDP would like to briefly highlight were raised. One of them relates to the “pay now, argue later” principle. Whilst provisions exist for the taxpayer to request that payment be deferred, the view was expressed that this principle results in an unjustifiable denial of the right to be heard or the audi alteram partem rule.

Whilst the ACDP appreciates that the amendments seek to clarify and provide fairness in terms of existing case law and international experience, we as Parliament may need to monitor this aspect and determine how many deferments are granted, as well as the number of cases where taxpayers are successful.

In view of the global meltdown and sharply reduced revenues due to the domestic recession, the ACDP will support these amendments, which will enable the fiscus to honour its spending commitments announced in February this year. We can be grateful for the sound manner in which our fiscal framework has been managed over the years. It has given us the space for fiscal expansion, particularly in infrastructure spending, in these recessionary times.

Deputy Speaker, the time keeps on changing and I’m not sure. I was supposed to have three minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no, you don’t.

Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Time expired.]

Mr R B BHOOLA: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is imperative that Parliament ensures that the proposed Bills strike a balance between the interests of the fiscus, a good system of taxation and, importantly, takes into consideration the current economic downturn challenges. However, the MF is glad that in cases where the Treasury accepted the proposal from stakeholders such recommendations were accommodated.

Tax legislation should be based on careful economic analysis and transparent legislative procedures. Our taxes on individuals, goods and services should be competitive with other nations. They should also take into consideration the current economic realities. The MF is glad that the proposed Bills further provide some relief to various taxpayers, although to different degrees. The MF will support the Bills.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: We haven’t seen the hon Bhoola for a while and it’s good to see him. May I presume that he hasn’t been successful in finding another job? [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, I thought you were going to congratulate hon Bhoola on the fact that even though he has one minute, he prepares very well, he didn’t go over by even half a minute more than that. Thank you, hon Bhoola.

Mr R B BHOOLA: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the hon Ellis is traumatised after not getting the leadership job in KwaZulu-Natal. [Laughter.]

Ms Z S DUBAZANA: Madam Deputy Speaker, executives present, the finance family led by Minister Gordhan, hon members, as was mentioned earlier on by the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, the ANC, indeed, inherited a fragmented tax system in 1994. However, the ANC realised the need to engage with opposition parties so as to redress the inequalities of the past.

This exercise was neither an easy nor an appreciated one. However, the ANC emphasised the need to amend the taxation laws for the benefit of men and women of all races, especially those at the middle-income level and the poorest of the poor.

The document of the ANC’s political programme called the Freedom Charter states that “the state shall recognise the right and duty of all to work, and to draw full unemployment benefits”. It is therefore necessary that the ANC executes diligently this key deliverable.

Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to inform the House how the ANC has achieved the above-mentioned deliverable: According to the present income tax tables, an individual who is receiving a car allowance is expected to adhere to the deemed business kilometre system. The good news is that as of 2010, individuals receiving a car allowance will be required to keep a log book only. That’s how good and simple it is.

Another achievement coming through these amendments is that when a member of a retirement savings fund withdraws a lump sum from the fund before the due time, that withdrawal works against the member. Much as the ANC is aware that this table was designed to discourage retirement withdrawals, it becomes an unfair rule when a member makes a withdrawal to cover shortfalls during periods of unemployment. The ANC, therefore, expects the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill to take cognisance of the changes brought about by the economic downturn, where people are retrenched daily, especially in the private sector.

With regard to a situation where a member of a retirement savings fund becomes unemployed and wishes to withdraw money from the fund due to unforeseen financial constraints, the ANC proposes that the member must be able to do so and keep the receipts as proof that the withdrawal was utilised properly and for a good reason. However, it is the duty of the ANC to ensure the efficient and effective social security of all South African citizens.

We all know that it is common practice that when people are in love they usually get married in community of property, forgetting that there are other members of the family, like the children. As a result, when one of the partners dies they find themselves faced with problems. This is due to a lack of awareness of the taxation laws that hinder the benefits due to the remaining partner.

It is the function of the government to ensure that the communities understand these laws in order to avoid stresses and strains experienced by bereaved partners. The National Treasury needs to design a comprehensive outreach awareness programme on matters like minor beneficiary funds, postretirement medical aid, retirement lump sum withdrawal, housing transfer, and estate duty. This is critical to the ANC while it lives and leads. I thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, may I firstly thank the chairperson of the standing committee, Mr Mufamadi, for his leadership during this very long and complex process, and indeed all the members from all the parties in the Standing Committee on Finance.

When the budget proposals were tabled in February 2009, there was some anticipation that there would be a downturn, but certainly not that we would end up in a recession. Nonetheless, the budget proposals were prescient; they are timely, and are still relevant to the current environment. It is a remarkable anticipation of some of the challenges that we have to deal with.

Mr Mufamadi made reference to historical context, which is not unimportant and often forgotten in our environment. The context is that South Africa, because of its history, has a narrow tax base. Part of what we have been able to do over the last 15 years is to broaden that tax base. But that journey has yet to be completed.

There are many people who are not taxpayers at the moment and would like to be and many more who need to declare all of their income in order that it can be taxable. That is the challenge that both law makers on the one hand and administrators within Sars on the other have as their brief.

Equally, as a society, we must congratulate ourselves. We have come a long way from where we were even 10 years ago in terms of tax compliance and the culture of compliance in South African. The revenue figures, notwithstanding the recession, in a sense reflect this improved compliance in our society, but there is again much more work to be done.

I want to complement the committee and the chairperson’s comments about the various representations that they have had, but also to voice reservations. As the chairperson has pointed out, the committee is often subjected to interest groups pleading their cases as opposed to the general public so. One of the things that we and Parliament need to give attention to, is how not to just listen to special interest groups, but how to broaden the representation from society and make sure that we hear all of the interest groups that are before us.

Hon George has certainly pointed out that tax collecting in this particular environment is difficult. We would like to assure him that government understands this crisis, and the consequences of the revenue shortfall, and is committed to sustaining the current levels of spending. We have to do a lot on our side as government in order to make sure that we get the balance right between spending on the one hand and revenue on the other.

I want to assure him that the debate about luxury vehicles and so on is a poor substitute for an understanding that certainly all my colleagues in Cabinet have. We know that we are living in difficult times, that we have to lead by example and that we will quietly, and perhaps sometimes not so quietly, demonstrate over time that this commitment goes beyond just which car we choose, but in our fundamental review of how we spend money in South Africa, what kind of programmes are supported and which ones will be stopped, and in due course, ladies and gentlemen, we will certainly bring that to you.

As all the parties in Parliament, I hope we can work to ensure that we reorientate our thinking in this very difficult time, and that Parliament will hold all departments accountable for not just the car story, but in a broader sense for how we prioritise, delay certain things and how we cut out certain things in our programmes. I can assure the House that this has been a subject of conversation in Cabinet for quite a while now and we will be able to share the results of the work that we are doing shortly with Parliament as a whole.

We have a very profound commitment to ensuring that we spend wisely and frugally, but more importantly, that we get value for money. You will see that a lot of our attention, both in our public comments and elsewhere, is focused in that direction.

Hon Dr George is also correct in his reference to the Financial Services Board, FSB, and consumer education, but the one regrettable thing that one has to note is that consumer education should be the responsibility of those companies that make money from the consumers. Here we are, as government, nonetheless, contributing, in the form of a tax break, if you like, to encourage consumer education.

If we are to get knowledgeable taxpayers and citizens, then it is important that commercial enterprises not only invest in their own growth as a business, but also in educating citizens about what the rights, responsibilities and expectations from those companies should be.

I think we must note that the provisional tax system has been, if you like, “played” for a long time in that businesses tend to delay payments to Sars, which certainly, in the current climate, is something that is unacceptable. The “pay now, argue later” story, Dr George, has been around for some time. I think it is important again to note that this is a provision that is barely used by the South African Revenue Service. In fact, in terms of the criteria that are set out in the Bill, it needs to be used more. It is only used and should only be used in an environment where the taxpayers themselves have been at fault and show a repeated tendency not to comply with their commitments to the fiscus.

On the issue of carbon credits, Dr Koornhoof, you made a very valid point. I think this is only the beginning of South Africa’s commitment to environmentally friendly policies and to balance the way in which we approach the environment on the one hand and development on the other. As we go on, we will look at other fiscal measures that are available to us to ensure that we get the right behavioural change, which will support our commitment to ensuring a better environmental context, both for ourselves and for people generally.

Dr Oriani-Ambrosini, as usual, I am afraid in as far as the film industry is concerned, we have a slight difference of fact. So we can meet afterwards. You can pay for coffee and I will give you the explanation. [Laughter.] But if you look at page 30 of the response document from the National Treasury and Sars, it was made very clear that the current dispensation from the Department of Trade and Industry, DTI, which gives grants to filmmaking companies remains in place - I think you must be careful not to mislead people; and, secondly, that the additional incentives that have been sought, need to be thought about very carefully.

Ladies and gentlemen and hon members, it is very important that we recognise that, in the recessionary climate that we find ourselves in, we are not in a position to throw away money through greater incentives. We have to control the manner in which tax expenditure actually occurs more carefully. Dr Oriani-Ambrosini, a similar argument would apply to the fuel levy as well.

Mr Swart, I have addressed the question of the “pay now, argue later” principle and I am sure that among certain interest groups, that will always be a subject of contention.

Hon Dlamini-Dubazana made a very valid point in terms of outreach programmes. If you look at the tome of legislation, it is an extremely complex piece of legislation and one that is not easily understood. It is not complex because the SA Revenue Service and the National Treasury made it complex; it is complex because we have to respond by way of legislation to very complex phenomena that are taking place around us.

The point that has been made by the hon member in terms of outreach programmes is an extremely important one for both Parliament and ourselves to actually respond to. With the limited resources that we have, we will see how we can commit ourselves to this. May I thank all the parties and members for their support for these Bills. Keep on paying your taxes. The tax deadline is coming up. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Taxation Laws Amendment Bill read a first time. Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill read a second time.


                       (Second Reading debate)

There was no debate.

Bill read a second time.


                      (Subject for Discussion)

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, Olivier Bernier wrote in Words of Fire, Deeds of Blood that:

The French Revolution, in less than four years changed the world. From the moment Louis XVI walked up the stairs of the guillotine, no other European Monarch felt safe again. France gave itself a constitution and a legislature. The liberties the French claimed for themselves – of religion, of the press, of assembly, of thought; the right to be taxed only if their representatives had first consented; equality before the law; and the end of privileges - all these startling innovations soon appeared to be the normal requirements without which no state could claim legitimacy.

Centuries on, the long and tortuous struggle waged by black people in South Africa against colonial exploitation and the legendary oppressive apartheid rule, culminated in the victorious constitutional and parliamentary democracy inclusive of all the people of South Africa.

South Africans, like the French, won for themselves substantive rights and freedoms without which the apartheid state failed to claim legitimacy. Ideally, the vision of the newly founded democratic legislature from the year 1994 was to build an effective peoples’ Parliament responsive to the needs of all the people driven by the idea of realising a better quality of life for all the people of South Africa.

A decade and a half later, in the year 2009, the call by President Jacob Zuma, and subsequently by the Speaker of the National Assembly, hon M Sisulu, for the emergence of the activist parliament and state, demanded of this fourth Parliament a new paradigm and an active review of the manner in which the legislatures respond to the needs of the people, in particular those of the majority of South Africans who continue to toil under the yoke of grinding poverty, systematic, social and economic deprivation, racism, intolerance and underdevelopment.

The new paradigm should mean that the sovereignty of Parliament and the state, the actions of the executive, should reflect the activities and liberties of all citizens. The hon Ben Turok asserted recently elsewhere that the programmes of the executive should be driven by the people themselves in order to attain optimum social and economic development. I must say that this is a long-standing maxim of development theorists and practitioners.

We believe this state of affairs would be partly experienced where the executive did not view the legislature as the adversary, where it did not feel it had to defend the fallibility inherent in the state before Parliament. Recently, the hon T M Masutha also affirmed, rightly so, that the executive should be regarded as an integral part of the parliamentary oversight mechanism.

Activism on the part of the legislature and the executive will require loyal adherence to the principles of egalitarianism, and will seek to promote participatory planning and project implementation to remove inequitable socioeconomic conditions. The manner in which we have pursued service delivery so far has been lacking in this egalitarian respect, and thus has threatened to turn the current process of service delivery into a tool for perpetual dependency, underdevelopment and permanent civil unrest. Fortunately, the Green Papers on National Strategic Planning and on Improving Government Performance by the Ministers in the Presidency envisioned the incorporation of the dreams of South Africans about the future they want to have. The short and long-term strategic plans, the goals and objectives will be interwoven in the social, economic, political, moral, religious and cultural aspirations of the citizens.

Rousseau maintained that:

The state could serve as an instrument of freedom only when all its subjects were at the same time sovereign, for then alone would the people be truly said to rule themselves.

For 15 years in this Assembly, we have deliberated, and legislated with a firm belief fired by political party manifestos and elections, that there is a contract between Parliament and the people; and between the state and the citizens. Factually, we have acknowledged, in part only, the obligation placed on Parliament and the state by this contract. We have unwittingly neglected the fact that there should be quality of partnership in the contract; it should include the people as co-decision makers, co-planners, co-implementers, co-monitors and co-evaluators of the laws and projects that are meant to change their lives for the better. Unless the legislatures and the executive adopt participatory planning as a necessary process in the government’s development agenda, the country will find it difficult to shake off the rampage arising from the civil protests that have gone beyond the realm of peaceful expressions of discontent, and have become appallingly violent and destructive.

The success of the developmental state, which the government is now pursuing with such vigour, will depend largely on the kind of activism that places greater emphasis on the component of human development and reserves direct state intervention for public safety, redressing the imbalances of the past, welfare programmes and protective security.

Equally, distributive economic justice will require from the legislatures and the executive the kind of activism that will promote strong participatory economic development, where the economic potentials of the majority are unlocked and economic self-management is enhanced. Perhaps, what we are trying to say here to Parliament and the executive is that we should refrain from perceiving the poor and marginalised majority of our people as passive, helpless recipients of social services, but rather as potential owners, controllers and managers of South Africa’s economic resources and wealth.

Finally, how else could we translate into reality what Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said in Davos early this year when responding to the global economic slump; that it was an opportunity for the nations of the world to think of a new world economic order and rectify the negative implications of uneven international economic interdependence; while President Jacob Zuma said of the slump that it presented good opportunities for South Africa to really look at its own … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms M N Oliphant): Mhlonishwa isikhathi sakho siphelile. [Hon member, your time has expired.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Mama uSekela Somlomo, angidle umzuzu ongale ekugcineni. Ngabe kwemukelekile? [Madam Deputy Speaker, can I use this last minute. Is my request granted?]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms M N Oliphant): Kulungile, ungaqhubeka. [It is alright, you can go on.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): … while President Jacob Zuma said of the slump that it presented good opportunities for South Africa to really look at its own economic development. Precisely what does an activist parliament and state mean to us in this House and the rest of the country? I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr M GUNGUBELE: Deputy Speaker, Judge Dumbechana, a retired Zimbabwean Chief Justice, said:

When dry legalism cannot administer justice, an activist judge must remake the law.

If we put this in a parliamentary context, this judge was calling for a parliament that should be the pulse of the nation - deservedly so.

It seems to me that activism can only be defined through its operation and some of its manifestations. From my experience, I have understood it to comprise, amongst other things, continuity of one’s cause throughout one’s life. This is a cause that finds expression in one’s family life, in day to day life and in the broader society. It should be lived in one’s faith community, sporting community, farming community, etc.

Activism manifests in a highly interactive life; in a life that is collective with the society; and in a life that is representative of societal life. It manifests in passion for the cause from conviction. It manifests in relevant leadership and appropriate decisions, which resonate with people’s day to day lives. In this life, there is also a commitment not to compromise the cause in question and also readiness to make any sacrifice for that cause.

Activism was key to the success of our liberation, because its cadreship bore all the aforementioned characteristics. It was a major revelation to the forebears of the ANC Youth League in 1944 through worker leaders, amongst others Ntate Dan Tloome. Their cause was noble and strongly intellectual, yet at times lacking in some elements of activism, for example, the interactive and broader societal awareness of life. It is in this instance that veterans like Dan Tloome were able to demonstrate to young academically developed people the underlying factors that ensure effective community leadership.

Again, the challenges and efforts of our struggle in 1969 were responded to and answered through the phenomenon of activism. It was during this 1969 conference that a conclusion was reached that, without being led and leading those who are affected by our cause, our goal remained a pipe dream. It was the appreciation of activism that led to the birth of the four pillars of our struggle.

It was during this conference that the representative authority of our movement assumed dominance over militarism. The birth of the United Democratic Front, UDF, and the broader Mass Democratic Movement, MDM, represented the further exploitation of the benefits of this phenomenon. It was the phenomenon of activism that secured our movements/moral authority as the principal leader of change in South Africa.

The National Democratic Revolution and its strategy and tactics document emanated from the experience of what determines the legitimacy of a noble struggle or pursuit, and hence its focus on the basic causes of national grievance. The strategy and tactics document was a product of the historic fact that a self-sustaining struggle or pursuit of any noble cause must resonate with the day to day lives of people, and hence its focus on the national struggle and its elements, amongst others gender oppression and racial oppression. These are the issues which affected our people then and heretofore.

What must be the key features of an activist Parliament? It should be the knowledge of its responsibility and the consistent activities thereof. Clearly, the knowledge of our responsibility as Parliament must be understood as parliamentary original and not interincidental upon the activities of the executive. It must be understood as a mandate given to parliamentarians originally from this institution, based on the Constitution. It must also manifest in the relevant capacity for effective implementation of its mandate. It must also manifest in the ability to enjoy national moral authority across all sectors, over and above constitutional entitlement.

It must find resonance with the day to day lives of our people, in particular the poor, marginalised, rural and working class people. It must enjoy both national and international trust as the key guardian instrument in the sustenance of the South African democratic conviction as pronounced in our founding laws. It should be the bastion of innovation, robust debate, battle of ideas and home of growth.

What should be done? I thought it was important to note that one of the biggest challenges in South Africa today with regard to our oversight is the lack of a common language between Parliament and the executive. It is the lack of planning models that inform appropriate questions during these oversights. Indeed, unless this issue is ratified, we will continue to raise questions that are incidental upon the nature of the presentation of an executive. I think the intervention by the President through the Ministry of Monitoring and Evaluation seeks to address this. This is because there is a fallacy in promising to do oversight of an institution whose model of planning does not inform questions.

One of the biggest challenges is the role of constituency offices. For Parliament to relate properly and represent people, these offices should be used: as reporting institutions on what is happening in Parliament; as centres for discussions on what is happening in Parliament and what society experiences day to day; and as a collection point for the grievances of our people and their views. They must also constitute centres where mutual empowerment between Parliament and the people prevails. Our people must find representation through the entire conduct of our Parliament in the manner we interact with these people. When we come to the judiciary, one of the biggest challenges lies in what Judge Dumbechana said. For Parliament, as being the lawmakers, the biggest challenge lies in continuing to satisfy ourselves that we are removing dry legalism in our judicial system to ensure that it is a system that is organic and run by activist judges and magistrates. It is in this context that Dumbechana’s quotation becomes important to me again when he says:

When dry legalism cannot administer justice, an activist judge must remake the law.

I think he was calling for an activist Parliament. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, I think it’s fit and proper that Parliament has the opportunity to debate this important issue. I want to thank the hon Skosana for having put it on the agenda for Parliament. He spoke very eruditely on the subject as well.

But an activist parliament surely must mean different things to different parties. We wonder what the President may have had in mind when he spoke about it earlies this year. We wonder what the ANC has in mind in this regard now.

We are, of cause, aware that the Speaker is involved in the strategic planning process for Parliament at the present time. This will develop goals and outputs for the fourth Parliament, and I understand that this will be part of the process of bringing Parliament closer to the people, including oversight and nation-building.

If it is to be successful, it has to be practical and not just words. I have to say that the ANC’s record, to date, in terms of creating an activist-type Parliament - an opportunity for the people to interact with Parliament, and for Parliament, in turn, to interact with them - has been, at best, a farce.

One has to look immediately at the Taking Parliament to the People programme that was launched in October 2004, which promised that MPs would return to the ground level, listen to the people and help them resolve their problems. Noble in thought, but, quite frankly, dishonest in practice, because nearly five years later, and with millions of rands having been spent, we realise that it has been little more than a lovely and glossy exercise with no real attempt on the part of Parliament to resolve any of the real concerns of the people.

Far more would have been achieved, had the money spent on Taking Parliament to the People been spent on resolving the concerns of the people. It wasn’t always necessary, in the first place, to take Parliament to the people to find out what people’s concerns were. They are obvious – lack of service delivery, shortage of jobs, no water, poor roads, no housing, crime, and the list goes on.

In fact, we are faced with serious service delivery protests across the country today, because Parliament and the state have failed to provide the people with basic services, despite many promises - many, many promises indeed. But what was really happening was that, while Parliament was being taken to the people, the people, in turn, were being taken for a ride.

The whole concept evolved into lavish parties, costing millions of rands, where MPs spoke more than they listened. Community members were told to be quiet so that MPs could talk about what they planned to do. Their plans stayed plans; they never became actions. An independent observer commented that the current Taking Parliament to the People events are nothing more than extended ANC rallies where criticism is shouted down, and only the voice of the ANC is heard.

Madam Chair, while we welcome the concept of an activist parliament as pronounced by the President and elaborated on recently by the Speaker, we, as a political party, wait with bated breath to discover what the ruling party has in store for us and for the people of this land.

Will it be something new, different, workable, something that is genuinely for the people, or will it be more of the same glitzy, glamorous, expensive and useless exercises? Ideally, an activist parliament should be one where the people of South Africa can hold the executive accountable for their actions, and where the executive ensures that the government upholds its constitutional obligations by providing basic services, alleviating poverty and creating an environment in which people have jobs, homes and security. An activist parliament should listen to the people, genuinely listen, note their concerns and take the relevant steps to resolve the problems within a reasonable time.

I would like this Parliament to know that the DA does speak with experience in this matter. We have attended Taking Parliament to the People campaigns; we have seen, firsthand, what a farce they are. But far more importantly, I want to say that we have started our own initiative called “Parliament for the People”, where the parliamentary leader, DA MPs, MPLs and DA Councillors visit areas across South Africa to give people back their constitutional rights by having their voices heard in Parliament.

In contrast with the ANC government’s Taking Parliament to the People campaign, the DA’s campaign does not cost the taxpayer tens of millions of rands. It is not a road show where MPs simply make speeches on the successes of the party in order to win more votes. It does not victimise or try to silence citizens who voice their dissatisfaction with service delivery. It does not visit an area once, and once only, and then never return to see if actual improvements have been made to the lives of people living in the area.

The DA’s “Parliament for the People” campaign is centred on the people and places we visit and not on Parliament as an institution. We actively work to resolve the problems we learn about, and take the people seriously. You’ve heard about it. Believe me, sir, you will hear infinitely more about it in the future; believe me, infinitely more.

We should be cautious, Madam Chair, that a new activist parliament initiative does not become a waste of taxpayers’ money – money which could have been used to address problems of which we are already aware. We should not continue to cultivate and nurture a programme of Parliament which has not had any successes thus far. We must adopt a new approach and avoid the impression that is being created, that Parliament goes to the people under the pretext of listening to their problems, making empty promises, giving free meals and then disappearing until the next election. [Interjections.]

We must develop a system in which we must listen, learn and act on behalf of the people of this country. Unless we do this, we will have failed again to develop an activist parliament and an activist state, despite the best intentions of the President, the Speaker, the MPs, and the people of this country as well. Thank you very much. [Applause.] Mr L S NGONYAMA: Madam Chairperson, an activist and inclusive state and Parliament is what Cope offers to South Africa as the second big advance on our path to democratisation and transformation of our country. Progressivism is linked directly to activism. This is what Cope advocates as its ideological direction.

Any government that concentrates too much attention on itself and about itself will naturally not be able to concentrate on the people it is supposed to serve. That much is clear. We in Cope would want a government and Parliament we constitute to send people out into the field, not concentrate them in their silos in Pretoria and Cape Town.

The Westminster style of centralised bureaucracy has to be adapted to our needs and our circumstances. In our country, integrated teams of officials, drawn from a cluster of Ministries, should go out into the field to convert policy into immediate programmes and projects.

Our people should not be subjected to bureaucracy; rather bureaucracy should be subjected to our people for their common good. The bureaucracy that has been the cause of every delay should now be cascaded into a bureaucracy of small integrated field units. This fieldworker-type bureaucracy must make delivery happen by facilitating all processes, removing all obstacles and resolving all legalities on their own.

Members of Parliament should frequently visit communities and listen to the people. We are very clear about the need for South Africa to become an activist state. For us, an activist state is not a protectionist state. In our understanding, political and economic activism require active endeavours by the state to go the extra mile.

An activist state creates optimal synergy. Therefore, an activist state is one where activists, such as you and I once were, remain committed activists in spite of coming into government, assuming high office and serving as Members of Parliament.

Today, very sadly, activists are found outside of government. Many of yesterday’s activists have become today’s careerists in government. The resulting dichotomy of us and them is not good for our country. In our manifesto, we undertook to develop a new agenda of hope. We wanted to see acceleration in delivery. We also wanted to see the people of our country acting as a cohesive nation.

In our manifesto, we also undertook to ensure that all employees of the state would be professional in their conduct. As such, they will be protected from intimidation and victimisation by the executive. Our vision is of an activist state where leaders will pull together with the “span” [team] and be humble and down to earth, where the will of the people prevails, society coheres, and people power can achieve the things that will, otherwise, remain out of reach. People power is available in our country. Millions of patriots want to serve our country. They do not want to be passive receivers of programmes. They need proper channels to volunteer their services. We would provide them with such channels.

In the activist state, we envisage that each village will become a fully viable village. We see the village doctor, government planners and traditional leaders interacting with one another, to create modern green developments. The planners will be resident planners, thus the villages will make a country.

The role of traditional leaders in our rural areas also has to be given serious consideration. A centralised parliament has to be seen as being at the apex of numerous local parliaments and izimbizo and not an entity in itself. We must harness indigenous consultative and planning processes with the right to determine local solutions.

In the activist state that we envisage, no local institutions abrogate another and no institution arrogates to itself sole authority. The state can never know it all and must never presume to do so. It is common cause that the gulf between those who govern and those who are governed is widening.

Municipalities are not in touch with the people and their affairs as local government is in grave disorder. There is rapidly declining service delivery. To add to the problem, the number of civil servants involved in serious conflicts of interest is escalating. Patronage is endemic. A government that governs strictly by mandate governs evenly, democratically, constitutionally and accountably. Such a government builds national consensus. It fosters a common national identity through common symbols and a shared heritage.

In the activist state we envisage, government will be the government of the people, by the people, and for the people in advancement of all the people. Nobody but nobody will be marginalised in spite of their diversity. The government we seek to establish would be a government of fieldworkers demanding nothing of anybody and offering every service to everybody as a duty on their part.

Let the activist state arise. Let the chains of poverty be broken. Let us go into the future as a united people sharing a common destiny, safeguarded collectively by all of us. For all our children, let our common identity prevail and let a universal activism make our activist state a model for Africa and for the world. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): House Chairperson, hon members, I just want to quote from Abraham Lincoln when he said, “… government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. The people’s government means an agreement between the people and their government which they would have voted overwhelmingly into power, in which the people give their liberty, faith, confidence, aspirations and their hopes in exchange for the government protecting and delivering the remainder.

The theoretical and ideological base for a people’s Parliament is informed by that historic document the Freedom Charter, which was adopted at the people’s congress in Kliptown in 1955. Furthermore, it was expressed at the Morogoro Consultative Conference of the glorious movement of our people, the ANC, in 1969.

During the Morogoro Conference held in Tanzania from 25 April to 1 May under the theme Intensify the Revolution, the National Executive Committee’s political report said:

The Parliament of South Africa will be wholly transformed into an Assembly of the People. Every man and woman in our country shall have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate for all offices and bodies which make laws.

This has been achieved in South Africa today. Here we are, united in our diversity - people of different colours, men and women, being people’s representatives.

The report went on to say:

The present administration will be smashed and broken up. In its place will be created an administration in which people irrespective of race, colour, creed or sex can take part.

Forty years after the Morogoro Conference, the people’s representatives of different races and colours are sitting on the benches and participating in committees of Parliament, representing our people and also serving to build and reconstruct our nation and our country.

The Morogoro Conference report went on to say:

The bodies of minority rule shall be abolished, and in their place will be established democratic organs of self-government in all the provinces, districts and towns of the country.

Today we pride ourselves on this vision of the ANC which has ushered in true democracy and transformed all organs of state to respond to the needs of our people and those of the developmental state. I raise this and refer to this historic document to remind the House that our struggle for transformation has a vision and is informed by a quest to build a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous society.

When we were introducing and debating Parliament’s vision in the third democratic Parliament on just one concept called the people’s parliament … I want to respond to the hon Mike Ellis on this. I thought I was not going to respond, but having heard him engaging with and ridiculing the notion of an activist parliament, I felt I needed to remind this House of something.

When we debated a people’s parliament, the DA fundamentally opposed the notion of a people’s parliament to the extent that they wanted to vote against it in the Joint Rules Committee. To date, since that time, we have never heard any DA member saying in their speeches “a people’s parliament” or “an assembly of the people”, as it was pronounced by our forefathers at the Morogoro Conference. Neither do we see in any of their literature or doctrine any usage of a “people’s parliament” or an “activist parliament”. Hon Ellis, instead of waiting to criticise, you ought to contribute ideas towards this novel idea – if you are still in the House, hon Ellis.

To be an activist parliament, a people’s parliament, involves bringing about changes, transforming Parliament and turning it into a tool that can be used to transform the state and society. By an activist parliament is meant a power to persuade. Theoretical persuasion is considered to be a communication process designed to influence another person’s attitudes, values or behaviour. Most theoretical perspectives agree that there are at least two essential elements in persuasion – intentionality and success.

Persuasion is both structural and people-centred, involving the entire party political spectrum. It is power to be persuaded for change and success in changing people’s attitudes. Persuasion is one of the oldest and most studied phenomena in the field of speech communication. An activist is an active individual or a group of people who work for change.

The ANC adopted in its National General Council a slogan or theme pronouncing itself an agent for change. Activism also involves some sort of marginalised status within a particular society. It is aimed at an ideology to change the public’s prevailing conception on certain things.

For our Parliament to be an activist parliament and a people’s parliament, requires a shift in thinking, doing and understanding. Power relations is a world phenomenon that the executive is dominant over parliaments. In many instance this is deliberately done by those in the executive branch of government by denying resources and capacity to the legislative arm. It is usually in their interest to have a weaker parliament. Such characteristics continue to display themselves in the South African context. The ANC, as a ruling party, must go against the flow.

A number of instruments and tools were adopted by the third Parliament in pursuance of the people’s parliament to ensure that we do not become a rubber stamp parliament such as the model we have adopted on oversight, which is still to be translated into a mechanism in the Rules. Powers to enforce compliance need to be adopted. Where there is failure in the power to sanction, we need to change that. The power and function to reject or amend the Budget without affecting programmes geared towards a better life for our people as in the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act should be encouraged.

A delegation that attended the conference of the SADC Organisation of Public Accounts Committees in Zambia came back with the following report. They were told by the Ugandan delegation that the Public Accounts Committee in Uganda has the powers inserted in their rules where they have partnered with the police. Should there be an accounting officer who deliberately misleads or lies to the committee, the official will be arrested immediately until they tell the truth in parliament. So, we could look at such models in Africa and elsewhere in the world, which can then give more powers and ensure that indeed this becomes an activist parliament.

However, the power relations should not be adversarial. They should be understood within the context that we all have distinct mandates. We are differently deployed to discharge these particular mandates without fear or favour, not because we are opponents – those in the executive branch and in the legislative arm – but because we are all enjoined to execute our mandates of overseeing and scrutinising the executive as an implementing agency. In the context of our mandates, we will put difficult questions; express what we see happening or not happening in our communities, what the people feel in as far as the impact of the legislation passed is concerned and whether service delivery is indeed happening. When these things happen, the executive should not think we are attacking them as individuals. However, we should, as Members of Parliament, avoid sensationalism and populism.

The Rules of Parliament is another area we ought to look at. Since the development process that led to the current Rules in 1994, most of the amendments were technical and ad hoc. We need to fundamentally overhaul our Rules, informed by the current objectivity of the society we are building and by the current social and political factors in our country within the context of the African philosophy and way of living and also within the global environment. This will assist us in realising an activist parliament, otherwise the Rules, as they currently are, are confining.

The programming of Parliament also ought to be revisited and reviewed. Fifteen years after democracy, our current programming, which has succeeded in repealing the majority of the apartheid laws which dominated the programme of Parliament in the past 15 years, was helpful and is indeed still helpful. However, the increase in oversight activities, require Parliament to spend more time in communities and in our society, assessing the impact of our laws on the creation of a better life. So, we need more time to release committees and Members of Parliament to spend more time within communities. For example, we could have a situation where for six months we have plenary sessions where we could ask questions, debate issues and so forth, and have another three months set aside for committee work on oversight and then the last three months of the year to do constituency work, when we revisit the programming.

The budget of Parliament is also constraining. The Speaker in the Budget Vote of Parliament said, “We may not achieve the implementation of our mandates as Parliament unless Parliament’s budget is reconsidered differently.” Currently, the base of Parliament is a mere R1,3 billion, which is just one fifth of the budget allocated to the rest of society. In comparison to other departments, this is nothing.

If we are to fulfil our mandates, we really need to revisit this. We need resources, capacity, etc. The tools to fulfil our mandates as Parliament on oversight are limited and must be expanded. This can only happen if we can really revisit the budget. Otherwise, we will continue riding our bicycles while chasing “Beemers” and “Benzes”. As one executive member said when I was complaining about this, “You can hold on to the bonnet at the back as the car is driving whilst riding your own bicycle. In that way, you will catch them.”

Leadership and management is another area that we need to focus on as an institution. We need to review quite a number of policies that were crafted between 1994 and 1996. Most of them are constraining. They frustrate innovative ideas that come from hon members and also disengage a robust Parliament that we want to see.

We are unfortunately also losing quite a number of skills because Parliament is not paying well and people are also being poached by various sectors in society. So, we need to look at both the physical and environmental constraints that are unfortunately limiting in as far as Parliament is concerned.

In conclusion, when people see us as parliamentarians, they must see … [Interjections.]

Mr R A P TROLLIP: Chairperson, on a point of order: May I ask the hon member a question?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Order! Hon member, will you take a question?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): May I just finish my speech. If there is still time, I will take his question. Thank you.

When people see us, they must see a realisation of their aspirations and hopes as hon members. When Parliament speaks, it must have an impact on them and touch their souls. We dare not fail our people. We have achieved much in the last 15 years. We can and will achieve if we become an activist Parliament – …

… “ba rata goba ba sa rate”. [Whether they like it or not.]

Morwa wa Mokaba - yo a šetšego a re šiile - o kile a bolela a re:

Palamente ke ye nngwe ya makala a mmušo ao a lwelago tokologo. E swanetše go tšwela pele.

[The late Mokaba once said:

Parliament remains another organ of state that fights for freedom. It should continue.]

Parliament should remain another site or terrain of the struggle for it is where the battle of ideas is engaged and won.

I fully agree with the hon M B Skosana when he says that we should regard and see people as core planners, core monitors and core participants in an activist movement that includes Parliament, society and the executive. I wish this could be the same vision that is shared and embraced by all parties in this House for an activist and a people’s parliament and state.

I still have one and a half minute left, Chairperson. I can take the question.

Mr R A P TROLLIP: Thank you, hon member. I will ask you one next time you speak, and you will give me a minute.

Hon member, is the bonnet of a motorcar at the front or at the back?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): At the back of the car. They say you just hold on to the back of the car and then the bicycle will move. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, an activist parliament, in the view of the ACDP, would lead by its actions, and not just by its words, as hon Bapela did during question time this week when he modelled these actions by insisting that a member of the executive actually didn’t run casually over a question, and that he would come back to the House with the relevant answer. I would say that was well done.

It would ensure that it is not in an ivory tower, and that citizens are aware of its authority and limitations; know who their MPs are and how they can assist them. It would, primarily, hear what people have to say, but also persistently raise awareness among all, including the most rural and poor, campaigning on citizenship expectations and encouraging people to hold leaders accountable, through relevant and people-friendly parliamentary processes. Julius Nyerere said that widespread corruption in high places breeds poverty, and we’ve seen this in our country and elsewhere. Thus, accountability is the hub around which the activist is activated.

An activist parliament would incline its ear to the voice of the people to discern and evaluate the heartbeat of the nation, and not serve just the privileged. It would return to the grass-roots ideology that the people shall govern, and would provide the disenfranchised and marginalised with a voice. It would advance policy that resonates with the deeply held convictions of the vast majority of citizens, and not dash the values and aspirations of many, by imposing a narrow agenda on them.

An activist parliament, not only has external implications, but should also affect us right here in the House; for instance, the German parliament buildings source 100% renewable energy. An activist parliament will use our abundant sunshine and wind. It’s a pity the hot air created by MPs, at times, doesn’t count. Such a move would boost renewable energy, research and application, bringing down the costs of alternative energy, and could take solar telephones, traffic lights, street lights and electricity, without miles of wires, to rural people and those outside the grid. Thank you.

Mr R B BHOOLA: Madam Chairperson, activism is a thing of the past and should remain outside Parliament. Parliament is a very sacred place where everybody must remain apolitical. True leaders are those who add value to society and, therefore, it is absolutely imperative to close the gap between public representatives and their constituencies.

President Jacob Zuma stated that, regardless of our differences as political parties, we have a common goal, which is to make South Africa a great country. Activism died and was buried when we got our freedom in

  1. Now, it’s no longer about words, but about deeds. I received very good news that, in the recent by-elections in KwaZulu-Natal, the MF had a 70% turnaround success - a stunning victory against the DA. This means, hon Mike Ellis, that we mean business in 2011.

As public representatives, we must be efficient, effective, proactive and responsive …

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Order, hon Member. Is this a point of order?

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chairperson, on a point of order: What the hon member is saying here has got nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, and I think, consequently, he should be ruled out of order and told to concentrate on the topic.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Please continue, hon member.

Mr R B BHOOLA: The MF strongly believes in raising the levels of service delivery, because it is better to have a heart without words, than to have words without a heart.

Mr M H STEELE: Madam Chairperson, hon members, in deference to the many preachers of different faiths present in this House, I shall borrow a little from their style and begin as I will end. If we wish to have a truly activist parliament, then we need first to have an activist people.

Not, of course, that we can actually argue against having an activist parliament. That would be a bit like saying that what we want is a parliament that’s dead on its feet with apathy. We want a parliament that is active, engaged and busy.

It’s safer to assume that all the members of this House want an institution that is wholly committed to representing the interests of the people with vigour and integrity. This means that we want to focus on those factors that limit the effectiveness of our oversight function, for example, the woeful lack of capacity of many of the committees. We need more staff and more resources to make our committees work more effectively.

Being an activist parliament means much more than having a huge staff of researchers or a lavish overseas tour budget. Rather, it means having the will and independence to go seeking issues, and being prepared, where necessary, to confront the executive authorities of our country. Some recent examples will show how far we have to go. Does our defence committee, for example, seek to investigate the claims that we are selling arms to countries with shocking records of human rights abuse; or does it act to shield the Ministers from the questions of committee members?

We have a long way to go before we have a defence committee that can act, as their counterparts in the House of Commons did recently, when their chairperson criticised the United Kingdom’s Minister of Defence for the standard of equipment being supplied to their frontline troops. That is what it means to be independent from the executive, and that is what it means to exercise real oversight.

Our labour committee that recognised the need to examine the plight of millions of South Africans, for whom casual labour is the best employment they can find, is another example. Instead of seeking to understand the difficult choices such workers have to make, the committee heard a torrent of self-righteous bluster akin to human trafficking. This was a further example of ideological posturing at the expense of real activism.

The institution of Parliament can only go so far when it comes to improving the standards of public accountability. For us in this House to realise our ambition of truly engaging the poor, we need to be accessible to the broad masses of our population. Engaging the people still seems to mean the mass meetings we know as izimbizo, or the road shows like Taking Parliament to the People. These events can so easily become mere window dressing, if there is no engagement with, or better still, listening to and acting on the complaints of the people.

Why, for example, did we have to wait until 2009 for a presidential instruction to principals, to make it clear that teachers are expected to be present in their classrooms every day, actually teaching? We have had a South African Schools’ Act since 1996, which set up school governing bodies with powers to monitor what is happening in our schools. We need to empower parents and our communities to use the powers given to them in the legislation.

If we have a truly activist population, we will see citizens demanding proper service. We shouldn’t have to wait for the tyres to start burning and the bullets to fly before we, in this House, realise that there is a problem.

For this level of engagement to become a reality, we need education which goes beyond mere literacy teaching. We need people who can read, understand and interrogate documents such as Mr Manuel’s Green Paper on Planning. I, for example, was taught more about literacy teaching by a former member of this House, Willie Hofmeyr, than any lecturer I ever had, and I know that if we want an empowered citizenry, we have to teach a literacy which empowers people to ask questions and engage meaningfully with what they are told by the so-called experts. Then, and only then, can we talk about having become an activist parliament which is able to provide all citizens, rich or poor, urban or rural, with the standard of government that they expect and deserve. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms M P MENTOR: Sihlalo, babu Skosana… [Chairperson, hon Skosana …]

… thank you very much for raising this debate.

Hon Ellis, firstly, I must teach you the difference between Taking Parliament to the People and the People’s Assembly. What happened in 2004 was the People’s Assembly. You totally missed it, because, in fact, you were not there. I was there, hon Hlengiwe Mgabadeli was there, but you were not there; that’s why you mixed up the concepts. [Interjections.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Order, please!

Ms M P MENTOR: We went there and we followed up on the issues and we went back there. You wouldn’t have gone back yourself, because you were not there in the first place. Hon Mgabadeli went into a household with myself the morning of the assembly and the next morning. We went into a household where we uncovered lucrative illegal transactions and dealings with trucks. We followed up on this and exposed it, and we successfully had people prosecuted. Some of them were people who claimed to work for the National Prosecuting Authority and some of them were policemen.

We went there and we looked for women’s projects and projects in the community. Hon Mgabadeli bought a headboard to the value of R7 000 to support the community, which came back many months after we were there to support the communities economically. [Interjections.] We bought ostrich products there, so you don’t know what you are talking about when you say that we never went back. In fact, you were totally wrong when you were referring to Taking Parliament to the People, because it was the People’s Assembly.

Hon Bhoola, if you don’t believe in activism you are at the wrong place and you should pack up your bags and go, because then you landed here by accident. [Laughter.]

Hon Smuts Ngonyama, you say that for economic activism we must go the extra mile. I want to ask you, did you travel an extra mile when you were MEC for economic affairs in the Eastern Cape? I recall that you failed dismally to the point where we redeployed you to Head Office in Luthuli House as our spokesperson to save you the shame of nonperformance. [Applause.] The Eastern Cape is still struggling in the quagmire that you left behind as MEC for economic affairs. [Applause.]

Hon Steele, if I have time I’ll come back to you. Yesterday in the US Senate President Barack Obama had this to say when he was answering to the rich, strong lobbies that are against the review of national health insurance in the US. He said to them, referring to the Senate, “We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it.” I want to say in my own words, we did not come here to fear transforming this Parliament into one of activists. We came here to do exactly that and face that challenge. [Applause.]

I would like to pay tribute to President Zuma. The previous time I spoke here I criticised ourselves right from the President and the Deputy President down about being true to the oath we took. I said that this Parliament was failing to ask the President, the Deputy President and all of us whether we lived according to the oath we took.

When President Zuma took the risk of welcoming Caster Semenya, he fulfilled part of the oath he took which says that “I promise to promote and secure the rights of all South Africans”, without even wondering whether the International Association of Athletics Federations would say aye or nay to the gender tests because they had suspected that Semenya was not completely female. The President did what he promised in his oath by welcoming her and promoting her rights and accepting her as a heroine of our country, so I really want to say that sometimes we must not just offer criticism. When people begin to respond in the manner which we called for we must say thank you.

The Preamble to the Constitution talks about the freely elected representatives, who are us, and it says that, amongst the things we must do, we must improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each and every person. I want to submit that we have said that all South Africans would have basic services such as water, electricity, housing, education, health, but we have not yet actually developed a minimum standard to secure that – a minimum common standard by means of which we will gauge and judge everybody. We shall judge a municipality and we shall judge ourselves as MPs, we shall judge provincial governments and we shall judge the national government.

I propose that the first step in activism to fulfil this preamble that you must live up to as freely elected public representative is that we must generate a minimum standard which says, for example, that every community of South Africa will have a functional school with this ratio of teachers to learners, with this kind of resources, within this radius, and a functional, nonracial high school, not one where learners kill themselves - I think his name was Duduzile Ngqulo and may his soul rest in peace and may his family find consolation – where teachers are not harassing learners to a point where learners kill themselves; where there are laboratories that are functioning; where there are libraries that are functioning; where teachers are teaching and arriving on time and leaving on time. [Interjections.]

Within that radius there should be a clinic with prescribed minimum standards of nurse to population ratio, of nurse to doctor ratio, of nurse to dentist ratio. Within a prescribed radius there should also be a day clinic and we should also determine a radius within which there should be tertiary health care with minimum standards. When we go on oversight visits we shall say to the municipality, “you don’t have this school prescribed in this standard within this radius. You don’t have this FET college prescribed in this standard with this equipment, with this ratio of educators and learners, and with this kind of budget.”

I think sometimes we are criticising local government without really giving direction as government. They don’t have a common standard. There is no minimum standard for water quality that this Parliament is prescribing and enforcing. When they appear before us we don’t say, “But the quality of water in Bolobedu or in Mafikeng has deteriorated from this standard, which is the minimum, to this standard.” With that minimum standard we’d be able to gauge from one term of Parliament to the other whether the quality of life of South Africans is improving or deteriorating. [Interjections.] The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M N Oliphant): Order, hon members!

Ms M P MENTOR: Lastly, hon Chairperson, in agreement with hon Bapela, I think we must give ourselves teeth as this Parliament. We don’t bite. I was listening to hon Godi of Scopa this morning lamenting – and he can only do that, lament! – that a Director-General for Human Settlements appeared before this committee, misled Parliament and said that the defects in the N2 Gateway Housing Project had been corrected, and when they went there as the committee they realised that those defects had not been corrected, but Parliament and its committee can only lament. It cannot hand over people for prosecution for appearing before themselves and lying, as is happening in other parts of the country.

I think if we can give ourselves those kinds of teeth, even the executive and everybody who appears before us will know that if they don’t tell us the real truth we shall have teeth to bite, and that will be one step towards activism. I thank you. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana) Madam Chair, hon members, I would like to thank all the members who took part in the debate. The intention was to try and marshal a common understanding and common ground from where we can all try to make these pronouncements a reality.

I must say that this was indeed a good debate from: Firstly, the hon Gungubele, who emphasised the relevance of leadership, which I think resonates with the daily interests of people of all classes, and its legitimacy, which is derived from its sovereignty.

Secondly, to the hon Ellis, who still wanted to know the meaning of the pronouncement from the Presidency. However, I do think he supports taking Parliament closer to the people and I think he also supports the fact that the sovereignty of whatever programme we work on will have to be derived from the people.

Thirdly, to the hon Smuts Ngonyama, who emphasised the integration of the deployed teams and then decried the state bureaucracy when he said that the legitimacy of bureaucracy ought to be derived from the powers or the will of the people.

Fourthly, to the hon K O Bapela, who reminded us of the agreement between the people and government. Again, those government programmes would also have to have their legitimacy derived from the sovereignty of people. He also said something about breaking the present administration. I thought he was going to talk about the withering-away of the state, but he didn’t. He spoke about a shift in thinking and about the oversight model. I think the oversight model is going to be an important mechanism in this fourth Parliament, because it addresses a crucial engine of Parliament, which is the committees and the chairpersons.

Hon Dudley emphasised the voice of the people; that Parliament ought to be the voice of the people and the heartbeat of the nation, which means that the people shall govern. Again, the legitimacy from government is derived from the sovereignty of the people.

Fifthly, to hon Bhoola, who said that activism is out of Parliament and that it is dead, but he said that there must be effective service delivery – now I’m wondering who is going to do that, if it is not the active Members of Parliament?

Sixthly, to hon Steele, who said that activist people are the ones who will make an activist parliament. So we will start from the people and move to Parliament, then Parliament will be busy. He also emphasised the empowerment of committees and a relook at izimbizo and road shows.

Lastly, hon Mentor explained to some of our members what the People’s Assembly and Taking Parliament to the People are. She also made an important point about transformation; that it is only a transformed parliament that could do whatever we want to do. Whether we give it teeth or not, it has to be transformed.

These are simply the remarks I wanted to make and, again, I would like to thank the hon members for taking part. I think it was a good debate. Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The House adjourned at 16:51. ____



National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

  1. Introduction of Bills
 (1)    The Minister for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

      a) Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill [B
         12 – 2009] (National Assembly – proposed sec 75) [Explanatory
         summary of Bill and prior notice of its introduction published
         in Government Gazette No 32425 of 20 July 2009.]

         Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on
         Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs 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 Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three
         parliamentary working days.


National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

  1. The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs
 a) Government Notice No 789 published in Government Gazette No 32449
    dated 31 July 2009: Publication of the Policy for the Transfer of
    Commercial Fishing Rights  in terms of the Marine Living Resources
    Act, 1998 (Act No 18 of 1998).
  1. The Minister of Finance
(a)     Agreement between the Republic of South Africa and the Federal
    Republic of Germany for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with
    respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, tabled in terms of
    Section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

 b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Double Taxation Agreement between the
    Republic of South Africa and the Federal Republic of Germany for
    the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income
    and on Capital.

(c)     Agreement between the Republic of South Africa and the United
    Mexican States for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the
    Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income,
    tabled in terms of Section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

(d)     Explanatory Memorandum to the Double Taxation Agreement between
    the Republic of South Africa and the United Mexican States for the
    Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion
    with respect to Taxes on Income.
  1. The Minister of Higher Education and Training
 a) Report and Financial Statements of the Council on Higher Education
    (CHE) for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
    the Financial Statements and Performance Information  for 2008-
  1. The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
(a)     Report and Financial Statements of the Armaments Corporation of
    South Africa Limited (ARMSCOR) for 2008-2009, including the Report
    of the Auditor-General on the Group Financial Statements and
    Performance Information  for 2008-2009 [RP 56-2009].
  1. The Minister of Arts and Culture
(a)     Report and Financial Statements of the Blind SA for 2008-2009,
    including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial
    Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009.

(b)     Report and Financial Statements of the National English
    Literary Museum for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-
    General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information
    for 2008-2009.

(c)     Report and Financial Statements of the Natal Museum for 2008-
    2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
    Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP 179-2009].

(d)     Report and Financial Statements of the Msunduzi/ Voortrekker
    Museum for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General
    on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-
    2009 [PR 137-2009].

(e)     Report and Financial Statements of the National Arts Council
    for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
    Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP

(f)     Report and Financial Statements of the Freedom Park Trust for
    2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
    Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009.

(g)     Report and Financial Statements of the Market Theatre
    Foundation for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-
    General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for
    2008-2009 [RP 43-2009].

(h)     Report and Financial Statements of the Luthuli Museum for 2008-
    2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
    Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP 160-2009].

(i)     Report and Financial Statements of the ARTSCAPE for 2008-2009,
    including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
    Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP 188-2009].

(j)     Report and Financial Statements of the Afrikaans Language
    Museum and Monument for 2008-2009, including the Report of the
    Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance
    Information for 2008-2009 [RP 61-2009].

(k)     Report and Financial Statements of the Iziko Museums of Cape
    Town for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
    the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009
    [RP 155-2009].

(l)     Report and Financial Statements of the National Film and Video
    Foundation for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-
    General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for
    2008-2009 [RP 150-2009].

(m) Report and Financial Statements of the Northern Flagship Institution for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor- General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP 42-2009].

(n) Report and Financial Statements of the William Humphreys Art Gallery for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008- 2009.

(o) Report and Financial Statements of the Performing Arts Centre of the Free State for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor- General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP 218-2009].

(p) Report and Financial Statements of the Pan South African Language Board for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor- General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009.

(q) Report and Financial Statements of the War Museum of the Boer Republics for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008- 2009.

(r) Report and Financial Statements of the Nelson Mandela Museum for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP 129-2009].

(s) Report and Financial Statements of the Kwazulu-Natal Performing Arts Company (Trading as the Playhouse Company) for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009.

(t) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Library for the Blind for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008- 2009.

(u) Report and Financial Statements of Business and Arts South Africa for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009 [RP138-2009].

(v) Report and Financial Statements of the National Museum – Bloemfontein for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Auditor- General on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009.

  1. The Minister of Science and Technology

a) Report and Financial Statements of the Academy of Science of South Africa for 2008-2009, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements and Performance Information for 2008-2009.


National Assembly

CREDA INSERT REPORT - T090910e-insert1 – PAGES 778-799