Hon Speaker, let me state that this administration will not condone or tolerate any conduct by public officials that breaks the law or regulations that govern the Public Service. We view the report of the Auditor-General on public servants that do business with government without following proper procedures in a very serious light. I have instructed the Ministers in whose departments such officials are employed to investigate the alleged misconduct. I have made it clear that where wrongdoing is found to have been committed, they must take the necessary corrective steps, including taking disciplinary measures against the officials concerned.
I have also asked the Minister for the Public Service and Administration, hon Richard Baloyi, to expedite the development of the conflict of interest framework and to send it to Cabinet in the next few weeks. The conflict of interest framework is meant to plug existing holes in Public Service regulations. Among other things, this should ensure that some of the problems raised by the Auditor-General can be prevented in future. The new framework will not, on its own, solve the problems. Most of the wrongdoing occurs when public officials do not comply with existing regulations.
I have requested Ministers to ensure that public officials comply with the relevant regulations and laws. We will not tolerate or condone the abuse of public trust and public resources by any public official. Our administration will co-operate with any institution of state that is legitimately enforcing the laws and regulations of the country. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr President, I want to thank you for your response which, in a sense, is in line with your declared intention to fight corruption in this country. We would like to encourage you. I would like, though, to know further, in relation to the disciplinary measures that you have requested the various relevant people to take, how far the President would go? For instance, would you, Mr President, support harsher measures for noncompliance, such as criminal procedures, for instance, demand that the people pay back the embezzled funds and maybe even periodic bans on those public servants who have been found guilty of these practices?
There have also been suggestions from the SA Communist Party that conflict of interest in itself is wrong. I really am very interested to hear how the President will respond to this. This is because I think we would want to agree with you that this is important, but I would like to hear what you would say to this. Finally, would you, Mr President, permit anyone working in your office to have business dealings? Thank you, sir.
Firstly, I have just outlined this matter in my answer and in what I have already done in my communication with the Ministers. We do things according to the law and the rules. What is required, for example, is that whoever is employed in government - this does not separate or exclude other offices - should declare their interest. If they have done so, they have then complied with the requirements of the law.
Have you ever heard that whilst a citizen had complied with the law, the President went further to say that because the citizen had now told him about their business deals, he was then sacking them? I am sure this country would be up in arms. In other words, the President himself would not be complying with the law. So, I don't think I can say that if there is somebody who has declared their interest while working in my office, this should therefore serve as a reason for them not to get employment, etc. We have to keep it within the rules.
With regard to whether we support that harsher measures be taken if a person is found not to have complied, I can say yes, absolutely. This will depend on the degree of the infringement or on what was or wasn't done by that person. We cannot pre-empt whatever judgment would be given, because it would be according to specific cases, for the cases are going to differ.
Procedures must be followed according to rules and the law. Once a harsher decision has been made, it is absolutely to be supported. I publicly said that we do not want to be tolerant to people who are doing wrong things. Whatever decision is taken will be supported. What will not be supported is the lack of a serious decision on wrongdoers. That will not be accepted because that would be condoning wrongdoing. So, we are saying if you do wrong things, you will receive punishment for it, in whatever way, as prescribed by the law and the rules. [Applause.]
Mr President, in response to an earlier question, you did say the challenge is to get the basics right. The basics with regard to officials doing business with government is for them, senior managers in particular, to disclose their financial interests. Unfortunately, the report of the Public Service Commission suggests that not all senior managers have declared their financial interests. I am glad, Mr President, that you have indicated that Ministers have been directed to ensure that their directors-general monitor the simple task of making sure that all senior managers disclose their financial interests.
Further to that, hon President, when the Auditor-General's report was discussed at the Select Committee on Public Accounts, Scopa, we found that Ministers were notorious for their absence or conspicuous by their absence, except for the hon Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries who was present at one of the briefings. None of the other Ministers have attended Scopa briefings and hearings. I would like to know, Mr President, if you would direct the hon Ministers that whenever there is a briefing by the Office of the Auditor-General or hearings that are conducted with regard to any department, they have to, as a matter of course, attend those meetings and hearings so that they can have a hands-on approach. Thank you, Mr President. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Generally, Ministers are encouraged to attend. But I don't know, in terms of their diaries and what they do, how the communication is between them and the committee. Certainly, it would be much appreciated if they were generally there in the meetings so that they could participate and be able to engage the kind of queries that come when that happens. It should either be them or their deputies. I think that is in order insofar as I am concerned. Of course, people who are always there are directors-general, who are basically the accounting officers. I think we should encourage that, if possible, they should be there at all times. I don't think there is any problem with that.
The Western Cape provincial government is implementing measures to better regulate the conduct of public servants and to prevent corruption. Some of these measures are stopping the practice of transferring public servants who face disciplinary action to other departments to avoid such action, forbidding public servants from receiving gifts from outside parties for performing their official duties and amending legislation to prevent public servants from also serving as councillors. The question to the President is: What amendments to the Public Service handbook for public servants, at national level, will the President consider to enhance clean administration?
We are interacting at the intergovernmental level. If there are very good practices that are emerging in the Western Cape, we will certainly hear and talk about those in the process of interaction. If they are indeed good, I don't think there will be any problem in adopting such measures simply because one is saying this is what the Western Cape is doing. It is not as if there has been a directive that all provinces must change things. It is the manner in which the provincial government in the Western Cape is doing things. If it is a good practice, we will look at it. I am sure our colleague will also raise the matter. We are always together in the joint meetings. I am sure we will certainly engage on that and see how it goes.
Hon President, arising from your response, whistle-blowers are key in exposing fraud and corruption in the Public Service. However, we read time and again of whistle-blowers who are victimised by fellow workers or employees and even killed in certain circumstances. These whistle- blowers, in certain circumstances, are obliged by the law to report corrupt activities and are then victimised. In view of this, would you not agree that we need to strengthen the provisions that protect whistle-blowers or at the very least ensure that the present legislation is properly implemented to protect such whistle-blowers? I thank you.
Certainly we need to strengthen the weaknesses that are there in the law, if there are any, and ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. So, I am sure that if the hon member has very good suggestions, he can make those suggestions so that they can be considered. We cannot say that we cannot strengthen the provisions that protect whistle-blowers. We do not want those kinds of action by wrongdoers. Otherwise we will discourage people who wish to report matters from coming forward. If there are any suggestions you can make that will strengthen the law, they will be considered. I don't think there is any problem.
Character of, and South Africa's role in, new economic international order
4. Ms J L Fubbs (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:
(a) What are the principles, pillars and character of a new economic international order that is the framework of South Africa's response to the international economic crisis and (b) what will South Africa's role be in such a new order? NO961E
Hon Speaker, it is premature to speak of a new economic international order. The current global crisis has exposed the deficiencies and imbalances of the prevailing economic dispensation and international corporate governance. It should urge us to pursue with greater urgency a stable, sustainable and more equitable global economic order.
We have noted before in this House that although it is not of our making, the crisis is having a profound effect on our economy and people. As a country, we have responded to this crisis with urgency and energy. There are two main elements to our response. The first is to undertake a series of measures within the framework agreed upon with our social partners to mitigate the effects of this.
Through this framework agreement, we have managed to mobilise all sectors of the economy. These measures include a training layoff scheme as an alternative to retrenchment, which ensures that we develop the skills of our workforce while maintaining the capacity of business to respond when the economy recovers. It also includes provision by our development finance institutions working with the banking sector for financial support to qualifying companies in distress.
The second element of our response is to actively engage in international forums to promote global solutions. While this crisis is likely to reverse some of the gains made by developing countries in recent years, it does provide an unprecedented opportunity for greater co-operation between the developed and developing world in finding solutions. This includes the building of requisite infrastructure and systems for intra-Africa trade and South Africa's trade. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr President, we welcome the emphasis in your response on the retention of jobs through the training schemes, as well as the emphasis on international forums getting together and reaching a collective response in this matter. Even more welcome is the pointing out to us of the opportunity to develop regional infrastructure in Africa and so encourage investments, identify resources and encourage investment in that way.
My question, hon President, as I am sure you appreciate as well because it comes out here implicitly, is that the greatest victim in this economic crisis has been jobs. Indeed the current trading environment and challenges we are faced with have had a very big negative impact on this for all countries. What would be very useful perhaps is to hear from you, Mr President, how you would encourage our business parties within South Africa or within our social compact, if you like, as well as encourage our investors and indeed the other partners and members in the World Trade Organisation, WTO, to actually come to the party in a collective response? Thank you.
Hon Speaker, we have certainly been encouraging business, that is why we have the framework agreement which has been discussed and agreed on - and I think we are in agreement on this. I think South Africa has been acknowledged as having taken leadership on how to respond to the crisis, and this is being discussed by the global community. Therefore, we are certainly engaging with them on our experiences.
It has been reported that South Africa is actually number one of a few other countries that have been able to do so in terms of absorbing the impact, which speaks very highly of our economic policies and the manner in which we have been handling ourselves. Everybody is learning from this because this example was not even made by us. It was made by a global institution that actually said that South Africa is number one. Besides our engagement with them, they are also learning from the reports that are coming from South Africa that it has in fact fared very well. Even though we are affected, we have been able to absorb the impact quite reasonably compared to other countries.
Speaker, on 15 September 2009, it will be a year since Lehman Brothers collapsed and over two years since the international financial crisis began. The ANC government is only now working on implementing a response. This delay has already resulted in massive job losses.
During the debate on South Africa's response to the economic crisis last week, the DA pointed out the need to focus on liquidity, which news reports indicate that Minister Patel is now doing. Mr President, why did government not respond sooner to this crisis? Thank you.
Hon Speaker, I don't know whether the hon member has been following developments on this matter. In early 2008, economies were saying that this was not going to affect the world that much and that it was going to be contained within the United States. There have been different views of the economies, as you said - it deepened. Other than South Africa, I don't think there could have been any other country where economies would have said anything to anybody and started responding then. What would we be responding to when economies and those who are able to focus on this matter were not able to say how much damage this crisis would cause?
Then, at the end of 2008-09, everybody began to accept that this is a problem that is deepening. I think it was during the time when the hon Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe was the President of this country that the country then responded. I cannot say it was too late; I cannot say we could be accused of having responded too late. This crisis emanated from the developed world. Therefore, even their own response to it would not be like that of the developing countries.
We have responded timeously in as far as we are concerned, very clearly and decisively. That is why I have been saying in the response that even other countries have learnt from what South Africa is doing and are appreciating what South Africa has done. I don't think the question that suggests that we took a long time before responding is actually justified. I think you should be joining your country in saying, "well done"! [Applause.]
Mr President, a new economic order is being formed. It is clear to all of us that in this process there are going to be winners and losers. The response provided by government thus far has been one of preserving the status quo waiting for the recession to go by, and it is based on a three month perspective. The question is, where is the leadership? We heard about the government's response for the first time last week in a debate of about 40 minutes. We are now engaging in this debate for a few minutes in an reply to a parliamentary question. There is a need to consider the long-term implications of this recession.
We heard that there is a process of redrafting the trade policy and industrial policy from Minister Patel the other day. How is Parliament going to be involved, and why doesn't the country receive stronger leadership from the commander in chief, the President himself, announcing how we are going to go long-term because this is not going to last three months. At least we should make contingency arrangements in the eventuality that it does not only last three months. Thank you.
Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon member said there is a new economic order. Did I hear him correctly? [Interjections.] Is there a new economic order? [Interjections.] Oh! Is that so? We haven't seen it.
I don't know. If the hon speaker only heard about this last week, it is unfortunate. We made an announcement many, many weeks ago about the response. It was not just its formulation, but also its announcement because it was formulated before the elections. That's when it was formulated, and it was announced. Many, many weeks ago we announced its implementation, and as a matter of fact, we had mobilised funds as social partners to deal with it. If the hon member did not hear that, it is unfortunate. Therefore, the question as to where the leadership is would not be arising, for the leadership has been there. Sorry that you didn't follow what happened then. The leadership has been there. [Applause.]
Mr President, in the statement made by the hon Minister last week on the recovery plan, he mentioned in part that there is going to be retraining of workers. He mentioned the Setas, and, as we know, the Setas have failed dismally in terms of responding to our people's needs. [Applause.] Indeed, we all know this problem with the Setas. How then do we rely on the Setas in actually helping in the recovery of the economy of this country when we all know that they have failed? What plans and other programmes do we have that will really be doing what you, the President, and the Minister have told the nation about? All we want is to keep jobs and possibly create even more jobs for South Africans. Thank you. [Applause.]
Setas are not the only element that is going to be working on this. They are part of many mechanisms that are going to be put in place. Of course Setas have been there. I don't think it is correct to say that they have been a dismal failure. I think there has been a contribution made by Setas. There may be criticism of some aspects. But to say there has been a dismal failure does not present a correct picture. In so far as this very specific programme is concerned, they will also play a part. We did not think that we only needed to create other mechanisms and not deal with the Setas that are there already. It can then be detailed as to what needs to be done. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Government's intentions regarding constitutional amendments to improve authority of traditional leaders
5. Mr P F Smith (IFP) asked the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether the Government intends introducing constitutional amendments to Chapters 7 and 12 of the Constitution to improve the authority of traditional leaders enabling them to play a meaningful role in the administration and deployment of services in the areas under their administration; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the further relevant details;
(2) whether he will make a statement on the matter? NO964E
Hon Speaker, government remains committed to strengthening the institution of traditional leadership and appreciates the role it plays in our society. The reconfiguration of the former Department of Provincial and Local Government into the current Department of Co- operative Governance and Traditional Affairs signifies the importance that this administration places on the role and place of traditional leaders in the lives of our people, especially in rural areas.
Our administration regards traditional leaders as partners in the implementation of the programmes of government. The success of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform depends, to a large extent, on the partnership that government fosters with traditional leaders.
A number of departments have put in place legislation that clearly defines the role of traditional leaders in the areas of justice, in the establishment of traditional courts and the administration of tribal land. This is a demonstration of government's willingness to put into effect the power and recognition of traditional authorities and leadership.
We have also sought to demonstrate our commitment in a variety of ways. For example, we have passed numerous pieces of legislation and implemented a variety of programmes to ensure that the institution does not only lives and thrives, but that it also makes an important contribution to the development of our society.
Changes that are suggested should not necessarily follow the route of amendments to the Constitution. We should rather explore other ways of effecting the role and powers of traditional leaders in the system of local government and communicating these to all stakeholders.
There are currently amendments to two principal laws on traditional leadership before Parliament. These are the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Bill and the National House of Traditional Leaders Bill. The amendments are based on lessons learnt during the implementation, which indicated a need for further emphasis.
We will do our best to ensure that the institution of traditional leadership is accorded the respect, dignity and role that it justifiably deserves. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank Mr President for his response, but I must say that I'm very disappointed in it. The issue has such a long history. I'd like to remind the House that this issue has been on our agenda since the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, Codesa, and culminated in negotiations between traditional leaders and the executive just before the 2000 local government elections. In terms of these negotiations, agreements were reached with the executive, but they have not been implemented yet.
To remind you, for example, your predecessor, President Mbeki, agreed that should the powers and functions of traditional leaders be diminished as a result of the municipal system being implemented, then the Constitution would be amended. And he repeated that statement in the NCOP.
There were negotiations with Minister Mufamadi, which failed. I remind the President that in his capacity as Deputy President in the past, he served on a Cabinet committee that had actually concluded an agreement with traditional leaders to the effect that the Constitution would be amended.
The problem we have is that nothing has happened since then. I hear the President's response in terms of today's reply, and all those things are commendable. We agree with all of them, they are great. But the questions that I'm asking are: Is government going to stick to the agreement that it has reached already? Is it prepared to accept that there was an agreement reached that needs to be implemented? All the other things are peripheral for now; the real issue is that an agreement was reached. When is it going to be implemented?
I would also like to ask the President whether he is prepared to reconsider his position on this matter. Thank you.
Hon Speaker, well, I'm sure if there are agreements that were reached, they must be implemented. However, hon Smith, I'd just like to correct you on one aspect of the issue where you correctly say that I participated in the Cabinet committee. The subcommittee had recommended an amendment to the Constitution, but the government did not agree with it. So, that was not an agreement, because we had recommended an amendment to the Constitution. And I led that grouping, which included traditional leaders. However, that recommendation was not accepted. So, there was no agreement in that regard. I just wanted to correct you on that point.
Regarding any other agreement that may have been reached, I see no reason why it should not be implemented. I think we should commit ourselves that where there have been agreements, they should be implemented.
I take it that the Bills before Parliament, together with what I'm saying we are trying to do, will partly meet the necessary requirements and address the concerns that are there.
I think we should move forward with the agreements that have been reached. If there are specific agreements that have not been implemented, I think we need to be reminded about those so that we can look at them. [Applause.]
Hon President, the DA's viewpoint with regard to this matter is that the Constitution and its principles must be upheld. Furthermore, the democratically elected public office-bearers, in this case the councillors, must be respected and allowed to do their duty in the rural areas where traditional leaders operate.
We have a problem that sometimes some of these councillors abandon their duties, leaving them to be performed by traditional leaders. Traditional leaders are not democratically elected to do municipal work at ward level.
So, Mr President, we just want to ask you: Will the government ensure that councillors are still held accountable to fulfil their constitutional role at the municipal level?
Hon Speaker, I'm sure the councillors have not been asked not to do their work. As far as I know, they continue to do their work. The question, as the hon member indicated earlier, has been: How do you co-ordinate the work that is done by traditional leaders and their structures?
The argument has been that you cannot have the councillors working as if you do not have traditional leaders and their authorities, who are also recognised by the Constitution. The debate has been about how we get councillors and traditional leaders to work together. I think that's what we should be looking at. You should not come here and say: "Look, I'm elected. So, whoever you are, I'm not worried about you; I'm doing what I'm doing", and therefore not recognise other people and their authority even if they are recognised by the Constitution despite the fact that they are not elected.
Really, the debate should be about how you get councillors and traditional leaders to work together. Nobody disputes the fact that traditional leaders and their system do exist, are recognised and operate in a particular manner. Equally, there are councillors who are elected representatives. How do you get these two to work together? I don't think traditional leaders, for example, should operate in their areas as if there are no councillors that are legitimately elected. I also do not think that councillors should operate in such a way that they don't care whether there are traditional authorities around. I think that this House should be helping in creating harmony in this system so that councillors are able to exercise their democratic rights and we are in a position to allow traditional leaders to do their work.
How do we describe this system? That is the reason why the hon Smith said that there are agreements. His statement in this regard went to the core of the following questions: How will councillors and traditional leaders complement each other? Are they able to work in such a way that the people they are meant to assist are assisted rather than experiencing tensions and fights? I think that is what we are trying to deal with here.
There have been difficulties in some areas, and in others no difficulties at all. Areas differ in the way councillors and traditional leaders work together. I've crisscrossed the country and have come across numerous areas where there are no problems. However, there are areas where there are problems. It may be related to the question: What have we learnt after 15 years of working together and co-ordination?
So, this is a matter that we need to look at from an angle that appreciates the fact that we have councillors and traditional leaders existing in the manner that they do. Thank you. [Applause.]
Nokwindla, ndiyabulela kuNxamalala ngempendulo yakhe ecacisa ukuzibophelela kukarhulumente wakho ekuhlonipheni ubukhosi. Loo nto iza kunceda kakhulu kuba, sele i-ANC ide igqibe kwelokuba kufuneka kuphuhliswe amaphandle nje, kungenxa yokuba kule minyaka ili-15 igqithileyo abantu basemaphandleni khange basiwe so ngokufanelekileyo. Ukuze nayiphi na inkqubo iphumelele, kufuneka urhulumente okhoyo asebenzisane neenkosi. Siyayibulela ke loo nto.
Umbuzo nje omfutshane endinawo ngothi: Njengokuba ooMongameli abebengaphambi kwakho bebexelele ilizwe ukuba kukho isebe eliza kusekwa ukuze lijongane nemicimbi yobukhosi, ngaba lo wakho urhulumente uyazibophelela kuloo nto?
Okokugqibela, phambi kokuba ndihlale phantsi, iinkosi zithe zakuva ukuba ndiza kukhe ndithethe nawe ngolu hlobo, Nxamalala, zathi ze ndikhe ndikuxelele ukuba ziyakukhumbula. [Kwahlekwa.]
UMONGAMELI WERIPHABLIKI: Somlomo, ndiyabulela ukufumana lo mbuliso ovela ezinkosini zam, ngomlomo kaNkosi Holomisa. Ze azixelele ukuba nam ndiyazithanda. [Kwahlekwa.]
Ndiyacinga ukuba ngokubhekiselele koko bekutshiwo ngooMongameli bangaphambili, ukuba kuya kubakho isebe elinjalo, xa ndinaba kwimpendulo yam, ndikungqinile oko. Nangoku, isebe eli libizwa ngokuba liSebe loRhulumente ngoBambiswano neMicimbi yezeMveli. Belikade lingabizwa ngolo hlobo ngaphambili. Loo nto ithetha ukuba siyangcambaza ukulandela esa sithembiso esenziwa ngooMongameli bangaphambili.
Njengokuba besisebenzisana kakuhle lonke eli xesha, makhe sijonge ukuba izinto zihamba njani na. Ndiyaqonda ukuba iza kulunga le nto; soze ingalungi singabantu nje. Ndiyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Chief S P HOLOMISA: Nokwindla, I thank Nxamalala for his reply which explains the government's commitment to respect and honour the traditional leaders. That would be a great help, and the reason why the ANC has decided that there is a need for rural development is because rural communities have been neglected for the past 15 years. In order for any programme to succeed, the ruling party must work together with traditional leaders. We are grateful for that.
The only short question I have is as follows: the former presidents declared to the country that there would be a ministry dedicated to the affairs of traditional leadership, is your government committing itself to that declaration?
Lastly, before I sit down, when the traditional leaders heard that I would be speaking to you in this manner, Nxamalala, they asked me to tell you that they miss you. [Laughter.]
Speaker, I am grateful for this greeting from my traditional leaders, through Nkosi Holomisa. He must tell them that I also love them. [Laughter.]
With regard to what was said by the former presidents, that there would be such a ministry, I think when I was elaborating on my reply, I conceded to that. That ministry is currently known as the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs. In the past it was known by another name. That means we are slowly fulfilling the promise made by the former presidents.
Since we have been efficiently working together all this time, let us wait and see how things progress. I know this will work out, and I am very certain that it will. I thank you. [Applause.]]
Hon Speaker, His Excellency the President, His Excellency the Deputy President, hon Ministers, hon members, my comment is just about a moral issue; I'm not going to quiz the President. In fact, the President, whilst Deputy President of this country, was requested by the President and all of us in the Cabinet - when I was in the Cabinet - to head this committee that Mr Smith referred to and to see to it that there was not obliteration of the powers and functions of traditional leaders as a result of the implementation of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act and other related legislation.
Our former President, President Mbeki, promised that if there was any such obliteration, he would amend the Constitution. On 30 November 2000, this committee, which was headed by His Excellency the Deputy President of this country who is now our President, and which included Ministers and some legal experts, addressed this question of preventing the obliteration of the powers and functions of traditional leaders. They came to the conclusion that in order to prevent that from happening, there needed to be amendments to Chapters 7 and 12.
Now, His Excellency our President has replied that this was merely a recommendation. In fact, just a day before the local government elections, some of the traditional leaders threatened that they would discourage their subjects from voting the following day.
The recommendation that was made by the committee that was headed by none other than the current President, who was then the Deputy President of the country, was conveyed to us as traditional leaders. To say that that was not an agreement but a recommendation that was rejected is something else. I was in the Cabinet too. I don't remember any meeting of the Cabinet where a recommendation was rejected by the same Cabinet that had made the recommendation. So, I say this is a moral issue. I'm not quizzing you, Your Excellency, but I feel that as a member of this House and also as a traditional leader - and also as an elder ... [Laughter.] ... I would not want my country to be governed by deception. Thank you.
Hon Speaker, my recollection is that the committee made a recommendation very formally, and it was not accepted - that's my recollection. Otherwise, if it was accepted, it would have been implemented. And I'm sure there are other Ministers who were there at the time who could also attest to what I'm saying.
I remember very well because I headed that commitee and I was one of those who gave a report on this matter. I think long thereafter, quite a number of people complained about the fact that that recommendation was not accepted. That is my recollection, and we can go to the records. In fact, I couldn't understand why the traditional leaders complained about the fact that government did not accept our recommendation. There are quite a few Ministers who were there, who could attest to that.
Nantsi impandla ka ... [Here is the bald head of...]
No, not today, hon President.
I'm just saying, ngelinye ilanga, [on another day]. The point I'm making is that on record, the recommendation of that subcommittee was not accepted. That I remember very well. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Signing into law of Competition Amendment Bill
6. Mrs P de Lille (ID) asked the President of the Republic:
(1) When does he intend signing the Competition Amendment Bill [B31D - 2008] into law;
(2) what has prevented him from signing the Bill into law;
(3) whether these obstacles will soon be resolved; if not, why not; if so, when? NO820E
The amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament in 2008. The Presidency has received submissions from interested and affected parties citing the perceived unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Bill. I am still considering the submissions and will make a decision soon thereafter. We are aware of the importance of the matter and will move with the necessary speed to finalise it. I thank you, hon Speaker.
Thank you for your response, Mr President. I am sure that the submissions you have received from interested and affected parties do not include the poor. The same people were here before Parliament in public hearings and made the same points and they didn't want to listen to us.
I am also glad that you said that there are perceived constitutional differences. The fact of the matter is, Mr President, that there are two legal opinions - one for and one against. It is best to leave the adjudication of these matters to the courts - deciding which opinion is correct. We only want you to sign that legislation now.
The hon Minister of Economic Development made a statement a week ago in this Parliament in which he said that the Competition Commission has been helped and measures have been stepped up to deal with the people in the food chain, and all the collusion taking place there.
Once you sign that Act, Mr President, it will become a criminal offence for company directors to continue fleecing the poor. That is what we are asking for. I think you will agree with me - this is my question - that, if you don't sign the Act now, and the Competition Commission proceeds with their investigations to prosecute, these company directors will get off scot-free because you can't apply the law retrospectively. That is why I feel that this is important because fines are not a proper deterrent to these directors. Therefore, it is vitally important that we need to get this Act as soon as possible in order to safeguard the poor against these unscrupulous, greedy companies that are fleecing the poor. Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, I really appreciate the question and understand it all too well. But as a government, we are faced with some realities. We said that we want to maintain a position of being a responsive government. I don't think we could discriminate against other citizens if they have concerns regarding the status they occupy. I think it is important that if people have concerns, you should respond to those concerns and deal with the matter.
I just said that we are going to try and move as quickly as possible to ensure that we consider and respond to those who have issues. But we can't just stand in one place forever, particularly regarding the legal opinion of whether this is constitutional or not. It is very strong to say it is constitutional. But I think it would be unfair for the President not to consider what citizens say if they are unhappy with it, respond to that and then proceed. This is what we are trying to do at this point in time.
We made the point that we cannot waste time on this matter. To some it is about running a business, but to others it is about poverty that they are faced with. We take that into account.
Speaker, meneer die President, ek gaan in Afrikaans vra, as u u gehoorstuk wil insit.
Wag so bietjie. [Gelag.] Goed, jy kan maar voortgaan.
Baie dankie, meneer die President, soos u bewus is, ly gewone verbruikers baie swaar onder die huidige ekonomiese toestande. Vertroue is op 'n laagtepunt en soveel moontlik koste word na hulle afgewentel sodat winste geoptimaliseer kan word en belasting aan die staat betaal kan word.
Die huidige vertraging in die tekening van die wysigingswetsontwerp veroorsaak dat ekonomiese ontwikkeling en groei nie gestimuleer kan word nie. Voorbeelde van waar verbruikers daagliks swaarkry, is byvoorbeeld die prysvasstelling van brood, die ho en relatief onmededingende selfoontariewe, die 100% korrelasie by al die banke en die vasstelling van byvoorbeeld prima koerse sodra die Reserwebank die tekokoers aangepas het.(Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr S J F MARAIS: Speaker, Mr President, I will be posing the question in Afrikaans, if you would like to use your listening device.
Wait a minute. [Laughter.] Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you very much, Mr President, as you are aware, the average consumer is suffering a great deal under the current economic conditions. Confidence is low and as large a proportion of costs as possible are being passed on to consumers in order to be able to optimise profits and pay tax to the state.
The current delay in the signing of the amending Bill is preventing economic development and growth from being stimulated. Some examples of consumers suffering on a daily basis are the fixing of bread prices, the high and relatively uncompetitive cell phone tariffs, the 100% correlation of banking cost and the determining of the prime rate as soon as the Reserve Bank adjusts the repo rate.]
Mr President, delays in the signing of this Bill have exacerbated the agony and perceptions amongst consumers that government has a hidden agenda or hidden interest in certain implicated sectors. Sir, are you prepared to institute investigations into implicated businesses and sectors? Failing that, are you then admitting that there are some sectors and/or organisations that are either too sensitive or too strategic for you to do so? What is your message to the suffering consumers who are crying out for decisive action? I thank you.
Speaker, I think I have just answered the hon member De Lille on the matter. There are citizens in this country who have raised issues about the Bill. If we were doing things in that way - that once we are convinced we don't care what other people are saying and we just proceed - there would be chaos in the country and unfairness to other citizens. I think it is important for every citizen who believes, whether as a result of their greediness or whatever, that what we are doing as government is not in line with the Constitution. You need to satisfy that.
It is not that we are unsympathetic to the poor, but just that we have to do things in a constitutional manner and according to the law. If we were to work on our gut feeling, I am sure we would have fixed many things. But those things would certainly have been found to be unconstitutional. Let us allow the constitutional process to take its course.
As I have said, we are making considerations and moving quicker so that we can reach the point of signing the law. If we didn't do that and they took us to court, you would be the first to say: "What type of a government is this? When people say something is unconstitutional, they just move ahead without realising that they can be sued". It is important to satisfy everyone. But more than anything else, we need to satisfy ourselves that there are no new issues raised from the issues already raised, and then proceed. We will move quickly to sign the law. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr President, you are seized with an issue of constitutionality and you need to apply your mind to a constitutional issue. Somehow this debate is an unfortunate occurrence as you apply your mind, not a policy issue, but a legal issue. One respects the limitations of the exercise you are involved in.
Nonetheless, we need to express a general concern throughout the discussions that have been held as parliamentarians - at least in the Trade and Industry committee. It has emerged how strongly South Africa as a country is ruled and governed by monopolies, and this curtails an agreement in restriction on trade. This is a small step in the right direction. One would hope that private enforcement would follow, because without private enforcement it is very difficult to bring about the liberalisation of the market.
The question beyond the issue you are considering is whether you will provide your personal leadership to ensure that the present system will become more effective. We were flabbergasted to learn that the Competition Commission is still withholding a report on the anticompetitive activities of the banking system for fear of stepping on the banks' toes. The banking system is one that exercises enormous power and influence ... [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon member wants me to engage in theoretical economic issues. At the moment, we are responding to a very specific issue. He is extending this debate beyond that in so far as what my views are and the type of leadership I will give on these economic issues. I think that would be going beyond the requirements of the question at hand. We could debate those issues at a different time. I don't think I would really want to respond to an issue raised outside of the question asked. [Applause.]
Hon President, it is heartening to hear your commitment to the Constitution in this regard. We really hope that you will take the same approach when it comes to the appointment of the Chief Justice.
Secondly, we know that you are very familiar with our legal system. The Constitutional Court is there for those who feel that the law has treated them unfairly. There are two opinions on this matter. Our question is: Why the delay? The longer the delay, the more opportunity there is for company directors to cover their tracks. So, can you give us a categorical assurance that the delay in the promulgation of this Act is not in any way as a result of further representations from the private sector or any organisations with vested interests and/or donors who may have possibly funded the ruling party at any time, particularly in this election year?
Hon Speaker, I have always adhered to the Constitution. I have never deviated, even under extreme provocation. [Applause.] I can categorically state that there is no hidden agenda. The truth of the matter is that I am considering the submissions. In the submissions that I am considering, I have no consideration for which company is which. I look at the submissions, as made, and look for one thing only - whether they have a point on the unconstitutionality of the Bill and nothing else. I just look at that issue. So, be certain that I do apply my mind according to what the Constitution says. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.