Hon Speaker, the response to the question is that policy measures to shield South Africa from global economic instability have to a large extent already become embedded in the fabric of our economic policy-making. Stable and transparent microeconomic policies and robust institutions have made the South African economy more resilient to shocks and have promoted economic stability.
Firstly, inflation targeting has ensured that inflation remains low and stable, which benefits households in terms of purchasing power. Inflation, which averaged 14% in the decade prior to 1994, fell to an average of 5,5% between 2003 and 2013.
Secondly, prudent fiscal policy has helped steer the economy through one of the largest financial crises in 70 years and has created employment opportunities whilst creating space for increased spending on important social priorities and investment.
Thirdly, the flexible exchange rate serves as a shock absorber because it reduces external shocks, supporting exports growth and reducing the current account deficit. The rand is an important shock absorber for the economy, and is backed up by a credible monetary policy framework that limits the pass-through from a weaker rand to inflation in order to preserve the real value of the currency.
Microeconomic stability prepares the ground for growth, but growth is not guaranteed without the necessary microeconomic reforms that determine whether savings and investment decisions are optimal. Our economy relies on microeconomic reforms to reignite growth and to create jobs. A number of reforms and programmes have helped the economy to withstand turbulence in the global economy.
If I may touch on a few of them, if time permits, interventions that have supported our domestic growth include the economic competitiveness and support package in 2011 with the express intention of countering the effects of the global economic slowdown in local companies. This programme initially had an allocation of R25 billion. Over the next three years, we are looking at R15,2 billion.
We also have incentives to boost manufacturing which have yielded returns where government has adopted a multifaceted approach to broaden the participation in the economy and enhance competitiveness for domestic producers. We also have had a number of interventions in the labour market where the Expanded Public Works Programme, EPWP, have been running through all spheres of government to provide productive work. A spin-off of the EPWP is the Community Work Programme, the fastest growing component of expanded public works, as I have said, with a strong focus on generating local economic empowerment. This programme has provided guaranteed part- time employment to more than 175 000 people in 2012-13 alone.
We also have the National Infrastructure Plan, which has been rolled out for capacity expansion in order to address existing capacity constraints, which is a crucial pillar of our economic growth agenda. Capital investment by public enterprises has increased by more than 260% in real terms over the past 10 years. Local government's annual infrastructure expenditure has doubled in real terms since the late 1990's. All told, the public sector has invested in excess of R1 trillion in infrastructure since 2009-10. Medium-term capital expenditure by state-owned companies is projected to reach R381,8 billion investment by a number of ... [Time expired.]
Hon Speaker, let me first appreciate the elaborate, comprehensive and detailed response from the Deputy Minister. Can I also ask a follow-up question? In outlining the indicators that have strengthened and developed the economy to withstand the impact of global economic stability, you referred to a more determined focus on microeconomic reforms going forward. Can I therefore ask: What, then, will constitute these microeconomic reforms? I thank you.
Hon Speaker, unfortunately I couldn't even finish the elaborate answer. Another elaborate response is that microeconomic policy supports growth and investment but on its own, as I said in my response, cannot accelerate inclusive economic growth. Our National Development Plan contains a clear structural reform agenda and identifies a number of key microeconomic reforms that are required.
The need to reduce the cost of living for poor households and the cost of doing business is one of those key elements. Competition policy and our competition authorities have made significant progress in this area. This is reflected in the 2013-14 Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum, which ranked South Africa eighth in recent competition cases.
The first microeconomic reform is that Telkom was mandated to separate its electronic communications network and retail business. The second is the support for small, medium and micro enterprises and business start-ups to transform the economy, broaden the participation and create employment opportunities.
The third is a greener and more sustainable economy and a shift in the energy mix, away from the overreliance on coal. The fourth is the support for local production and employment and the development of industries through government and procurement processes. The fifth is the broadening and the strengthening of industrial development, and the list goes on. Those are but a few that I thought would be important to mention. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, I am sorry that the Finance Minister couldn't join us today, but to the Deputy Finance Minister, the bottom line is that other emerging market economies are growing twice as fast as we are in the same global economy. Could this be because every time the Finance Minister proposes reforms to the labour market, like he did in 2012, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Cosatu, runs to the President to ask him to stop? Is it because every time he proposes holding public servants and teachers to account the SA Democratic Teachers Union, Sadtu, and the SA Municipal Workers' Union, Samwu, block his efforts? Is it because every year he puts more money into infrastructure spending the state-owned entities underspend their infrastructure budgets by 20% to 40%? Could it be because the reform agenda of this government in the NDP is held hostage by vested interests within the tripartite alliance?
Are these the reasons that South Africa grew at 1,9% last year while other middle-income countries like Chile, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam all grew at between 4% and 5,5%? Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, I think the biggest problem we have is the negativity by hon Harris, because I have just gone through a number of initiatives - which are not the Minister of Finance's but government's initiatives - and policy reforms that have taken place since 1994 and during the past five years.
With regard to the issues that you raised and the comparison you made, I just referred to the competitive index that actually compares us with our peers. Every time you look at this glass you see a half-empty glass, you don't want to see a half-full glass. When we look at how we were impacted upon by the global financial crisis, the only thing you see is the labour flexibility that you always refer to that has not been addressed. When you look at the strides that we have made in that area, for you it is nothing, compared with our competitors. If you look at our stable microeconomic policies that have been implemented, none of them have been blocked by anyone because it is this government, and not the Minister of Finance, who has implemented those policies.
I said that we would not be able to achieve the target that you put with regard to all the issues that I have raised, particularly the microeconomic reforms, unless we are able to step that up. It is one of the things that the Minister said during the tabling of the budget. You talk numbers as if there is a switch that you can just turn on and get your 8% growth. Eight percent growth comes from a concerted effort that is derived from the efforts that the government is currently implementing, and we are likely to achieve that only if we are able to move in that direction.
With regard to the underspending by the state-owned companies, if you were to look at all their plans and the departments they report to, you will realise that there have been genuine reasons why most of the state-owned companies have actually not been able to spend their entire allocations.
If you are actually negative, you will not appreciate that, in a way, some of them have actually realised some savings, some of them have actually made better progress than was projected in their original plans. Therefore, I want to submit that we are making good progress. It is only those who are sitting in a bus facing backwards that will not see the progress that we are making. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, I am covered. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy Minister, we need trade to grow, to strengthen our stability and to deal with our current account deficit. Europe remains our second largest important trading partner, having been overtaken recently by Asia. Yes, we are making progress to add other partners, but we cannot replace the European market overnight. Germany is still one of our largest exporters, as well as the United Kingdom.
Europe is part of a power block in the world, but our relationship with Europe is not good. Are you not concerned that this strained relationship will eventually impact negatively on trade? Can you reassure us that the European market is important to South Africa?
Hon Deputy Speaker, I agree with the hon Koornhof that Europe is our second-largest trade partner, but I also want to indicate that the reason that our trade with the European Union has actually fallen is because of the problems that they have been encountering in their own economy. As we speak, their economy is currently growing at almost 1%, and that is why it is important for us to look north, as we do, and to look east, as we have done, to find other trade partners. I do not agree with Mr N J J Koornhof that our relations with Europe are so bad that our trade is suffering.
A few weeks ago, we were in the G20 meeting. Most of the European countries are looking forward to doing business on a more sustainable level with sub- Saharan Africa, looking at South Africa as their entry point. I want to assure you that we enjoy very good relations with Europe, contrary to the view that some people continue to hold. Once the environment has also been created for us to trade on the basis of benefiting everyone, where we as a country benefits whilst Europe also benefits, we will proceed in that line. [Applause.]
Number and percentage of cars travelling on Gauteng e-toll road system that are using e-tags
14. Mr I M OLLIS (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:
(a) How many individual cars travelling on the Gauteng e-toll road system, as measured by the gantries, are using e-tags and (b) what percentage of the total number of cars on the Gauteng freeways, constructed as part of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP), did this represent as at 1 February 2014? NO221E
Hon Deputy Speaker, let me just get my papers right. Yes, I've got them right. The response to the question is that the number of registered vehicles, as at 31 January 2014, per categories indicated, is as follows: local authorities 19 123, provincial government departments 23 283, national government departments 7 601, corporate customers 383 654, private vehicles 468.
There is a point of order. Is that a point of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the Minister is answering the wrong question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Question 14 is as follows:
How many individual cars travelling on the Gauteng e-toll road system, as measured by the gantries, are using e-tags and (b) what percentage of the total number of cars on the Gauteng freeways, constructed as part of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP), did this represent as at 1 February 2014?
The 1st of February 2014 comes immediately after the 31st of January. The total number of vehicles is 912 048. But I just want to indicate that not all the registered vehicles use the network daily. The use of the network by the registered vehicles varied from 23% up to 28,6% as at 1 February 2014. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In fact, that is exactly the problem, isn't it, Minister: that only 23% are actually using their e-tags on the roads. According to the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, there are 2,5 million unique drivers and cars operating on the Gauteng freeways. Yet, your answer indicates that only 900 000 have bought e-tags and only 23% of those are actually using them.
The public do not and will not support e-tolls when they know that this Nkandla-run government has wasted their fuel levy money on fire pools, helipads, fast jets for Minister Sisulu, shopping trips to New York, flashing cars in blue-light brigades and repeated bailouts for the SA Airways, SAA.
Sanral has misled the public by claiming that over 1,2 million e-tags have been sold. But we have now heard that there are only 900 000 in operation, and only 23% are actually on the roads. With so few drivers using e-tags, would the Minister not concede that the public are voting with their feet and saying "no", and will you not shut down the unpopular e-toll before everyone votes DA? [Time expired.] [Interjections.]
Yes, thank you, hon Connie September. I think it is important for the hon Ollis not to conflate issues here, because you yourself acknowledged in the committee that because you only pay after using the road, you actually pay six times more. And I just want to say that it is important that we don't come here and mislead the House.
The one thing that you must realise is that we are talking about 23% of those who use the roads daily. There are many people who don't use the roads daily. And I just want to indicate that, as the Department of Transport and as Sanral, we are very happy that through the implementation of this Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project we have been able to realise some of the big challenges that we have with the Electronic National Traffic Information System, eNaTIS, and we are busy cleaning it up.
I think it is important that we realise that what we are reporting here is the information that we have in our system, as per the question that you asked. We are not going to answer questions that you didn't ask in this House. So, I just want to say to you that the figure that you asked for was with regard to implementation from 30 December to 31 January. This is the information that we have.
As we speak, there are more details that we will be able to give you to indicate how this process has grown. Even if you go to many of the outlets, be they at Pick n Pay or the Sanral outlets in the malls, you will find that the number of people that are registering is increasing daily. Just from 3 December until today, more than 300 000 vehicles have been registered.
I want to say to you: Don't underestimate the intelligence of the people of South Africa. They know what they want. [Interjections.] They want world- class roads, and they got those roads in Gauteng. They want more of that. In fact, as we speak, only yesterday the Limpopo province gave Sanral an additional 1 600 kilometres. That is an acknowledgement of the capacity that Sanral has to build, operate, manage and maintain the roads of South Africa.
I just want to say to the hon Ollis that you cannot use e-tolls to tell the people of Gauteng that they must vote for the DA. Don't underestimate their intelligence. [Interjections.] They know the party that brought them liberation; they know the party that will improve their lives; they know the party that will be able to take them forward. And it is their intention to move South Africa forward. [Interjections.]
Hon Krumbock?
Sorry, point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, Rule 113 ...
I didn't hear that, sorry.
I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What is your point of order?
I rise on Rule 113(8). The response from Ministers to supplementary questions is limited to two minutes. On the past two occasions the Ministers have gone way over their allocated two minutes, and I ask that you ask the Table to please indicate to you when their two minutes have expired.
Minister, the facts show that this kind of e-toll road often fails, as it has done in Taipei, India, California, Australia, Portugal, Hong Kong, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester and elsewhere. The public in those countries and cities rejected the e-toll system owing to pricing, and, in most cases, the system went bankrupt or was voted out.
With the great number of international failures making the Gauteng e-toll system a huge risk - the huge costs involved and the great lack of public support in Gauteng - would the Minister not concede that this e-toll system was a bad choice to fund our roads, and shut it down, or should the public vote for the DA so that we can do you a favour and shut it down for you? [Laughter.] [Applause.]
I think that we should also bring to this House information about the tolling system on Chapman's Peak here in the Western Cape, because it is very important that people don't come here and mislead the House. I also want to say, hon member, it is important that when you bring up some ...
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
What is your point of order?
Is the hon Minister allowed to say people come here - referring to the DA - to mislead the House? [Interjections.]
Hon Speaker, can I address you?
Continue, hon Minister. I will look into that.
The information that the hon member referred to is part of the information that we are busy with in terms of our own research, to get an understanding of what is happening in many parts of the world. Also, for your information, many countries are actually coming to South Africa to learn how to do this particular model of urban tolling, especially in view of the fact that this is part of the process of South Africa's response to climate change and is encapsulated in our climate- change response strategy. I want to say that the DA has actually ...
... DA e tshwere ntlha e mo mogatleng. Lo nnetse go tlhodia Maaforikaborwa. Le lebetse gore batho ba ba tlhoka ditsela; ga ba fitlhelele ditirelo tsa puso tse di jaaka dikolo, le maokelo, bogolo thata bomme ba ba imileng ba ba tlhokafalelang mo ditseleng. Ke ka moo re reng, fa re bua mo Ntlong e, re gopole gore ... (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[... DA has the last part of this information. You are just making noise to the South Africans. You have forgotten that these people need roads. They don't have access to basic government services such as schools and hospitals, especially the pregnant women who die on the roads. That is why we say when we speak in this House, we must remember that ...]
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order ...
Hon Minister, there is a point of order. What is your point of order, hon member?
Deputy Speaker, we would love to know what the Minister is saying, but there is no interpretation. [Interjections.] So, if you could sort that out, please. Thank you.
Continue, hon Minister.
TONA YA DIPALANGWA: Gore ba bo ba sa itse dipuo tsa Maaforikaborwa, ga se bothata jwa me. Ke batla go bua jaana ke re, maabane, mokgatlho o wa DA o ile wa seka wa dumelela molao o o tshwanetseng go re thusa go tsweletsapele le go tlhabolola maemo a bomme.
Bomme ba Maaforikaborwa ba tlhokofalela mo ditseleng ba ya go belega ka ntlha ya go tlhoka ditsela. Jaanong, gompieno mokgatlho o o boa gape o batla go tla go dirisa kago ya ditsela mo Gauteng, e e tlisitsweng ke puso e ya ANC, gonne e batla gore maemo a Aforikaborwa a nne kwa setlhoeng. [Nako e fedile.] [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: It is not my problem if they don't know the South African languages. I want to say that yesterday this party, the DA, was against the law that is supposed to assist us to advance and improve the wellbeing of women.
South African women die on our roads while they are on the way to give birth because of a lack of roads. Now, even today this party comes back again and wants to use the construction of roads in Gauteng, which was done by the ANC because it wanted the state of South Africa to be highly developed. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Minister, I am glad that your house is in order and that your papers are in order, but, most certainly, Sanral's house is not in order. We know about the billing problems that exist. What is important, though, is trying to get certainty as to how people are supposed to be prosecuted. We know that the Act talks about civil action, and there is also criminal liability. What exactly will Sanral be using? Will they be arresting people, or will they be using the civil action procedure to try to get the money that is supposedly owed to them? Thank you.
TONA YA DIPALANGWA: Eo ke potso e ngwe e e leng gore e kwa ntlhleng. Jaaka Rre Alberts e le rramolao, o tshwanetse a be a itse gore tsela e e tla diriswang ke Sanral ga se go t?hot?hisa batho. O a itse gore kgotlhatshekelo le tsamaiso ya molao mo Aforikaborwa, di teng. Ka moo, ke tla kopa gore o botse potso e e maleba, rra. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows).
[The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: That is one question which is on top of the agenda. Mr Alberts is a lawyer, he should have knowledge of the ways that will be used by Sanral to prosecute people. He knows that the courts and rule of law in South Africa are there. Sir, I would request that you ask a relevant question. [Applause.]]
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, what are the advantages that the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project has brought to the Gauteng province and the broader economy? Thank you.
Sanral, supported by the University of Cape Town's Graduate School of Business, did a study on the economic impact of congestion and insufficient maintenance of the freeways. But one must also remember the work that was done by the SA Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which indicated that there are concerns about the impact of congestion and insufficient maintenance on business.
Based on conservative assumptions, the cost of congestion on what was called the Ben Schoeman Highway amounts to R15 million per hour. That excludes matters related to fuel and maintenance of vehicles, late freight deliveries, lost business opportunities and accident costs.
I just want to indicate that the benefits accruing to the people and economy of Gauteng can best be explained by the number of business opportunities that have been created, especially the development of the SMME sector, the job opportunities that have accrued to young people, in particular - more than 1 300 of them are employed to manage the system - and the efficiencies that the cost of doing business has been able to deliver, in particular in Gauteng.
I know that members of the opposition know exactly what benefits have accrued to the people of Gauteng. One must also remember that owing to the input from the public and the Inter-Ministerial Committee, IMC, that was driven by the Deputy President, we have been able to realise a reduction in the tariff, and the exemption of taxis and buses, in particular, public transport that is used by ordinary, poor people in Gauteng.
I want to thank you, hon chairperson of the portfolio committee, for raising this particular important point, because as we speak, the people of Gauteng are giving an indication that they have been able to reduce the amount of time they spend just waiting for the movement of vehicles on the roads in Gauteng.
Intentions regarding bringing of legal charges pursuant to findings contained in Gobodo forensic report
4. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) asked the Minister of Communications:
Whether, pursuant to the findings contained in the Gobodo forensic report, he intends to bring legal charges against the members of a certain Board (name furnished), a certain cellular phone service provider (name also furnished) and a certain communications company (name also furnished) to recover public money irregularly paid to it through unlawful decision-making processes; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO210E
Deputy Minister, the Gobodo report is a draft report, as we have explained in the public domain. We did, however, take the recommendations into account. We engaged with the chief executive officer of the Universal Service and Access Agency of SA, Usaasa, the chairperson of the board and the whole Usaasa board. We sought to secure an informal settlement of some of the issues, and that was unsuccessful.
So, we presented the full draft report to the board. They responded, basically rejecting the findings. Of course, they presented a point of view that several parties that were affected by the report were not actually consulted. We then took the Gobodo draft report, with the board's reply and gave them to the office of the Chief State Law Advisor. He perused it and suggested a process because he pointed out that he does not have the forensic capacity to pursue a further investigation.
We then took it further by engaging with the Usaasa board on 28 January 2014 and presented our view to them that we are going to have a further forensic investigation. They accepted that, and a process has begun. Certainly, once it has been finalised, and if there is a legal case for it, then legal action will be taken. We have no choice!
The board, in the first instance, will have to act and the Ministry will have to act appropriately. We will obviously deal with issues that affect board members. The board will deal with the management that is affected. That is what we can do within the law.
Of course, we would like this process to be completed expeditiously, but we also have to recognise people's legal rights. When we hurtle forward too fast, we find that we end up in court and the outcome takes much longer to secure. It is frustrating, but, of course, people have rights. We are, after all, parliamentarians and we have to abide by the law.
Thank you, hon Minister. Is there a supplementary question, hon Killian?
Yes, hon Deputy Speaker. I beg to differ from the Minister that this is a draft report, because I have in my hand an analysis conducted by the Chief Director of Legal Services of the Department of Communications, Adv Nkatha, who refers to this as a forensic report by Gobodo. He also goes into depth relating to what was found by the Gobodo forensic auditors. It must be stated that this is the story of a Mafia-like operation, which is utilising public funds to feather their own nests.
Mr Minister, we believe that you do not negotiate with Mafia-style people. You dismiss the board and you face the legal consequences. What is confined and stated in this summary report is hair-raising evidence of insider trading, public funds spent, 100% subsidy given to Cell-C, Mthinte Communications. We all remember the SABC finding on the ICT Indaba where Mthinte Communications benefited hugely - again, irregular payments. The appointment of the CEO is irregular. So, clearly you need to clean up the operation and let us start again. Thank you.
There is no difference between us and cleaning up. We, on the other hand, think it is sensible to abide by the law. As far as the lawyer's report is concerned, it does not actually constitute the full set of legal opinions in this regard. It was an initial report, and it was also, as I remember it - note that I said "as I remember it" - given to the Usaasa board. A million things happen in a day in this Communications department. If it was not given, it is going to be done this very afternoon. But, as far as I can remember, it was given to them and they rejected that report.
In fact, the point I want to stress is that we do not agree with the view that we should just fire the board, fire the CEO and face the legal consequences, because then you are caught up in a time-consuming and costly quagmire. Really, it would take much longer for us to resolve the matter. There is no difference between us. We must deal with this matter decisively and do it correctly. On that score there is no difference.
Where there is a difference is with regard to the meaning of the report that was produced by the advocate and how it actually helps us to resolve the issue. In short, there is no difference between us and what is to be the outcome in the sense that we need to move forward and let us clean it up if there is corruption, as claimed in the original report.
As for it not being a draft report, as I recall it actually does say "draft" on the first page, but we can check that. It occurs to me now that we did subsequently give the Usaasa board's reply to Gobodo. We felt that there were people who were being targeted for wrongdoing there but who have not been consulted, and it is certainly the case. There is a fundamental flaw with regard to the report. Those people will take us to court because they were not interviewed. As I remember it, again, a representative of Gobodo did confirm that they did not interview at least some of the people whom they said had done wrong.
Hon Minister, the catalyst in the sordid affair, Mothibi Rammusi, is a former employee of the Department of Communications. His crony in crime, Zami Nkosi, is the CEO of Usaasa and a former work colleague of Usaasa's chairperson, Phumla Radebe. Perhaps they honed their opportunistic skills at the knees of your deputy directors-general, DDGs. Two of your deputy directors-general are being investigated by the Public Service Commission. This was requested by Parliament's Ethics Committee, following its investigation into the hon Pule's corrupt ICT Indaba matter. This committee found them unreliable and untrustworthy in their attempt to prevent the committee from uncovering the truth.
In addition, the Public Protector's report on the ICT Indaba matter highlighted the rapacious way in which the DDGs stole the idea from the organiser who approached them for sponsorship. Now, you have been asked, via the Public Protector's report on the SABC, to discipline one of these DDGs for improperly influencing an executive appointment at the broadcaster. Perhaps your department is a school for stunt rolls.
Hon Minister, what measures have you put in place to ensure that no staff in your Ministry, department and entities have any current or planned business interests arising from the programmes of the department or its entities and that they all understand that they are not in government to get the inside track on lucrative business opportunities?
The Department of Public Service and Administration has provided guidelines in that regard. That is being processed and has been processed by the director-general. Furthermore, we have approached the forensic investigation team to look into several transgressions of officials within the department, not least the cases that you referred to. It is a painstakingly slow process. I suppose all of us would like to see it resolved expeditiously.
People who are guilty must face the charges - the consequences, as it were - and those who are wrongly accused must be acquitted of any allegations that might smear them, and so on. In short, we are doing what we can. You must show us what it is that we can do that we are not doing.
Let me also say that all of these transgressions occurred before 10 July 2013 when I was appointed. Yesterday afternoon, for example, we established that somebody who was appointed recently in a senior position seemingly, transgressed the public service regulations in his previous position and was sanctioned for it - in fact demoted. We also discovered that an official in the department was aware of that and there is documentation to prove that. We immediately informed them yesterday and this morning that we are proceeding with the relevant processes against them. So, only yesterday afternoon there was yet another case of a transgression, and we have acted speedily. I am not sure how much faster one can be.
We are very clear when we have to deal with corruption and we will also be very clear that sometimes it could be a case of people not being corrupt but being smeared for political or other reasons. There are feuds that occur within the department. The way people actually settle some of these scores is to wrongly accuse others. Yes, some of these people are legitimately facing disciplinary processes and so on, but others are victims of feuding within the department. So, we have to be careful about how we manage this.
Again, I must say that the one case that we have proceeded against has ended up in a court of law, and the person accused of corruption is now saying that he was a whistleblower and that he is being victimised. So, we are spending endless periods of time rebutting that, and it is costing the department a substantial amount of money. Next, you are going to ask us why we spent so much money on lawyers, when you are in fact also suggesting to us that the cost would escalate if we were to act recklessly on our side.
Hon Deputy Speaker, I welcome the explanation by the hon Minister and we do have confidence in your explanation, hon Minister. I suppose we only have one Minister of Communications in this executive, and that is you. We expect responses from you. Therefore, I would like to follow up by asking: Could the Minister further elaborate on the scope of anti-corruption activities that he is undertaking across the communications sector, also specify the entities and companies that may be covered by these investigations, and indicate which state agencies are assisting with these investigations? Thank you.
There is the Special Investigating Unit, SIU, proclamation on the SA Post Office. There is the SIU proclamation on Media Corner's contract that was secured by the department. There is also the SIU investigation into the SABC that we reported on to Parliament two weeks ago. We promised that we were going to act on that and we have done that.
We met with the SABC board last week and told them that they have to provide legal representatives. We will engage the attorneys concerned and the SIU. I have personally spoken to the SIU's head twice in the last two weeks. Yesterday, I received a report in that regard. I once again spoke to the chairperson of the board on Monday at the information, communication and technology conference, and we are acting upon those issues.
Then there is also the Public Protector's report. I indicated what we have done with regard to it many times already in the last few days. Within five minutes of receiving the report, which we received 24 hours later than we should have, we gave it to the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor. He came back to us in 72 hours, and the board met within 24 hours of the report having been given to them.
They met subsequently five days later, and four days later they met with us: the Minister and Deputy Minister, and the DG and the team from the Department of Communications. They promised that very shortly - by the end of this week or early next week - they will tell us what they are going to do about that Public Protector's report, the process thereof and which issues they think are legally tenable to pursue and the timelines for that.
Once they finished that report, we will respond and say where we agree or disagree. Can we also stress with regard to that: It is just wrong to think that I am a Minister, therefore there is no legislative basis for it or corporate governance rules or norms or provision for it. A Minister cannot actually take control of a board with regard to the transgressions of senior executives in any state-owned company. So, the call by the opposition party for the Minister to just go ahead and fire people, as some of them are doing at will, is entirely illegal.
Finally, I repeat, yesterday, we found out about something that the DG reported to us. She chaired the panel on the decision that was made with regard to the senior that was recently appointed as a manager, and we went ahead within 24 hours to act against the two personnel - the official, as I said, who knew about the case and did not inform the panel chaired by the DG and the person who, it seems, transgressed public service norms. Thank you.
Criteria applied in scoring and grading line-fishing permit applications
26. Mr M Johnson (ANC) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:
With regard to the protests within the fishing community in respect of line-fishing permit applications that were turned down by her department, what (a) are the criteria that her department apply to score and grade applications and (b) is the current status of the appeals process afforded to those whose current right-holder applications were turned down? NO236E
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon Deputy Speaker, the public listening campaign for the allocation process has started. A document entitled "General Reasons for the Decisions on the Allocation of Rights and Effort in the Traditional Linefish Fishery" is available on the website of the department and a copy has been sent to the hon member.
The appeals process has been extended to 30 April 2014, and a public awareness campaign will be held to inform people of the process. In the interim, extensions have been given to those who previously held rights but have not yet been given new allocations. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the elaborate answer that she has given. Firstly, could the Minister give feedback on the responses that have been given during the current public outreach programme that is being conducted in response to the permit applications? Secondly, what is the relationship between this process and the Marine Living Resources Amendment Bill? Thanks.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon Deputy Speaker, the listening campaign is part of the Marine Living Resources Amendment Act. It stipulates that after rights have been allocated by a panel from the department, the Marine Living Resources Amendment Act then places the responsibility on the Minister to have an appeal process to listen to any complaints which may arise from the public. I thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, taking note of the fact that you have extended the appeals' time in the fishing rights allocation process to 28 April and the fact that you have redeployed the delegated authority - Mr Desmond Stevens, and his sidekick, Mr Dennis Fredericks - as a result of their incompetence, these facts coupled with the pending court case and your assertion mean that you did not realise that the allocation process had such a destructive effect on established fishing communities like Kalk Bay, to name but one. Is it your intention to try and fix this unfixable situation through the appeals process or would you consider redoing this corrupted and irrational allocation process from scratch? If not, you will become known as a snollygoster.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon Deputy Speaker, I take exception to the name-calling by the hon member. The hon member also called me, after a portfolio committee meeting, a b**ch. So, I take exception to the name-calling, and that is the answer I have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The first assertion by the Minister is correct and I await your ruling on it. But, the second assertion by the Minister is misleading and I would like you to ask her to withdraw that. [Interjections.] The member did not call her the "b" word. [Interjections.]
Hon Van Dalen?
Deputy Speaker?
Do you want to withdraw the name-calling that you did just now?
Deputy Speaker, if you look in the dictionary ... [Interjections.]
No! No! No! [Interjections.]
I'm not calling anybody a name, I'm saying that the Minister...
No! No! No! Hon Van Dalen, what I just want to know is: Are you withdrawing that name-calling?
That last part, the snollygoster? I will withdraw.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Madam Deputy Speaker, as usual, the hon member Van Dalen is completely misleading the public and I have very few answers for him because there is no truth in what he asked.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my second point on the point of order was not addressed, and I would like the Minister to withdraw her assertion or allegation?
Hon member, I heard the Minister saying not here but at a portfolio committee meeting the hon member called her a bitch. As I'm sitting here, I have no way to verify that. So, I can't say she must withdraw. It's something we need to verify whether it's true or not true. You know that but I don't know that as I'm sitting here. So, I am unable to say to her that she must withdraw. It's an allegation that has to be verified and then at the next meeting you will tell her to withdraw if that is the case. Please!
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you still further on this point of order. [Interjections.] Rule 63 states that using offensive language is unparliamentary. So, while I accept that you need to look at the records and determine whether the member said it or not, the use of offensive language in Parliament is unparliamentary. So, I ask you to ask the Minister to withdraw that.
No! Please continue, hon Minister. Please!
Madam Deputy Speaker, are you going to give a ruling on Rule 63? [Interjections.]
No. Not now! Not now! I am not going to give it now! Please. I am not going to give the ruling now. [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, can somebody enlighten us as to what that snollygoster is?
Hon Minister, can you continue to answer the question.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Desmond Stevens has not been demoted, he has taken leave. He has been a director in the past. He has only been an acting director-general. If he goes back to his position of director it does not mean that he has been demoted. As far as I know, Mr Dennis Fredericks is on sick leave, and I have no idea what the hon member is talking about. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, can the Minister advise as to the measures or plans in place to increase the roll-out of farming equipment and other logistical assistance to rural communities in and around Mpumalanga. I thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon Deputy Speaker, the department has intervened in the Mpumalanga agriculture department by assisting them with planting additional land. The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, CASP, has supported Mpumalanga to provide infrastructure to smallholder farmers by assisting them with production inputs, training of farmers, recruitment, resourcing and upgrading the qualifications of extension officers.
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries have an extensive programme of land reform projects for the support of smallholder farmers. The upgrading of the Lowveld College and the establishment of the Marapyane College in conjunction with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform have contributed to the development of agriculture in the province. I thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, my apology, with all the interaction I thought we were still on the previous question. Thanks.
Hon Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: We never finished the other question. There are still people, including me, who want to ask questions on the other question, if there are still places to ask questions.
Which other question are you talking about?
It is Question 26. It was only the member who put the question and me who asked follow-up questions. Only two people asked follow- up questions, and now we are on Question 5.
No! No! No! Hon Van Dalen, we are on Question 26 that was asked by Mr Johnson.
Yes.
That's the question.
Yes.
The hon Cele took the supplementary question ... [Interjections.]
Yes.
You took the second supplementary question, the hon Zikalala took the third supplementary question, and now I asked the hon Dudley for the fourth supplementary question, which is the number of people who must ask supplementary questions.
But they are talking about the question after that one. [Interjections.]
Which one is that now?
Question 5.
No, you must be confusing something!
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, in connection with Question 26, you said that there appeared to be legitimate concerns either relating to poor administration of the applications or questionable judgments by delegated officials. How many cases have you discovered where these reasons were applicable and what steps is the department taking to make sure that this does not happen again or that it is being dealt with? Thanks.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon Deputy Speaker, the appeals process will give me those answers. Once I have the appeals process done by law firm Harris, Nupen, Molebatsi Attorneys, I will be able to answer your question.
Steps taken to rectify situation iro tractors and farming equipment left idle in Mpumalanga
5. Mr R N Cebekhulu (IFP) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:
1) What steps did her department take to rectify the situation of the tractors and farming equipment that were reportedly left idle in Mpumalanga whilst communities needed it to plough their lands;
(2) is the community currently fully utilising the specified equipment; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO212E
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon Deputy Speaker, the Department of Agriculture in Mpumalanga will plough more than 90 hectares of land during this season. The local communities received production inputs such as dry beans, cowpeas, fertiliser and vegetable seeds for winter production. We have repaired their tractors and they are currently operational. The department has invited local farmers with tractors and implements to participate. I thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Mechanisation Project is at national level, and each province received tractors and equipment. The issue of the tractors that were left to rust in the Vrede sports grounds was also a very contentious issue discussed by our portfolio committee. We never got a report-back on that, despite repeated requests from the now ousted hon ANC member Salamuddi Abram. Can the Minister give us an update on those rusted tractors and those that were dished out in Nkandla, or is that also a classified part of the President's security upgrade? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Once the full audit of the tractors has been conducted, the answer will be given. [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, thanks to the hon Minister for her response. Could the Minister outline the progress in Mpumalanga province on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme and how it has contributed to the economy of the province? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Mpumalanga province has been one of the provinces which have developed agriculture extensively. The wonderful thing about agriculture in this country is that it had been in decline since 1970, but the industry broke even with regard to job creation and job losses. We have been losing jobs since 1970, but by 2012 we started growing with regard to jobs in agriculture.
In your own constituency, the farmers are actually acknowledging and thanking us for this. Right now, Grain SA is in a conference, and they acknowledged the markets and thanked this government for the markets we have created. Mpumalanga is one of those provinces which have developed smallholder farmers into export farmers. It is now successfully exporting maize, grain and peas to the World Food Programme, a project which we are doing in conjunction with the World Food Programme in Lesotho. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, could the hon Minister just advise the House as to whether the tractors and farming implements that are lying idle are suitable for use in the areas that they have been allocated to and, if so, what analysis has been done in this regard? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Hon member, perhaps you do not understand the language I speak. I have just said that the audit is being compiled and once it is conducted, I will be able to answer your question. Thank you.
Is the hon Berend in the House?
Hon Deputy Speaker, I moved across and pressed the incorrect button. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I quickly address you on a concern with regard to responses by some of the executive members? Some of them are really doing their utmost in terms of replying to questions in a dignified manner, because this House must hold the executive to account. For several weeks we have seen the hon Minister Joemat-Pettersson talking down to members of this House, and she has just done that to one of my members again. [Interjections.] I do not think that is appropriate. All of us serve the public and the executive must be held accountable to this House and I think we should all respect that. Thank you. [Applause.]
I hear you, hon Kilian, and I am sure you will agree with me that the Chair regulates the proceedings of the House, but it is not possible to dictate to the Ministers how they should reply to their questions. I am sure your concern would be addressed if you could write to the Speaker. The Speaker will talk to the Deputy President. But if that is being raised here I would not be able to dictate to the Ministers how to respond to their questions. Order, hon members, order!
With regard to the point of order, hon Kilian, I will look at the rules and come back with my ruling on that particular issue.
Progress recorded in absorbing youth into Expanded Public Works Programme and Community Work Programme
27. Ms N D Ngcengwane (ANC) asked the Minister of Public Works:
In light of the 2013 state of the nation address (SONA) that included increased job opportunities that create and facilitate skills development through apprenticeships provided by state-owned utilities, (a) what progress has been recorded in absorbing youth into the (i) Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and (ii) Community Work Programme and (b) how has this resulted in permanent jobs thereafter?