Hon Speaker, hon members, the Presidential Infrastructure Champion Initiative, falling within the ambit of the African Union, AU, in terms of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, Nepad, is aimed at achieving regional integration and improving trade amongst African states.
Trade on the continent is constrained by a number of factors. These include the inadequacy of infrastructure such as road, rail and communication networks, differences in trade regimes, restrictive customs procedures, as well as inadequate skills and finance.
The Presidential Infrastructure Champion Initiative committee comprises eight heads of state and governments under South Africa's leadership. It cuts across various industry sectors, such as transport, energy, technology, water and sanitation, as well as agriculture.
South Africa champions the North-South Corridor road and rail projects. This corridor stretches from Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, across the Republic of Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique to South Africa.
We have conducted an assessment of the roads and the railways to get a sense of what needs to be fixed, in order to allow the free flow of goods, people and services. We are making progress. For example, we have freed the movement of trucks in Kazungula in Zambia. The border post was redesigned, which improved, among other things, the processing of documents and other administrative bottlenecks.
We have also identified Beitbridge as another area that has huge constraints. The traffic jams slow down the movement of people and trucks between Zimbabwe and South Africa, which increases the costs of moving goods.
The three regional economic communities - the Southern African Development Community, SADC; the East African Community; and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, Comesa - are key partners in improving road and rail infrastructure, as well as issues pertaining to border posts and ports in their respective regions and countries. We have identified them as key partners in this programme.
Amongst the challenges is to further improve and strengthen co-ordination amongst the member states. Other issues we are looking at include funding methods for the projects and getting more private-sector investments into the projects.
We are committed to making this succeed, given the importance of infrastructure for Africa's growth and development. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
I thank the hon President. I am told that there is no follow- up question from the ANC. We then move straight on to what I have on my screen, and I invite the hon T D Harris, to be followed by the hon B H Holomisa, to ask supplementary questions.
Mr Speaker, at the Nepad heads of state committee meeting this year, the President claimed that traditional models of financing and delivering infrastructure in Africa must give way to new models and different ways of financing infrastructure, with a particular focus on public-private partnerships, PPPs. But in this year's Budget we read that in South Africa in 2010 only 6,2% of public-sector spending on infrastructure happened through PPPs.
It is clear we are preaching the benefits of such partnerships at Nepad, but not using them at home. So, the DA was pleased to hear that Minister Pravin Gordhan announce in the Budget that private-sector capacity can be mobilised through construction and operating concessions in freight and ports. But then Public Enterprises Minister Gigaba poured ice on this proposal when he said that the debate on port concessioning has not been settled.
We were pleased when the Transport Minister invited the private sector to finance and build roads and dams. But then we had Mr Brian Molefe, the Chief Executive Officer of Transnet, rule out the concessioning in the private management of ports, saying there is no role for the private sector in the main channels of rail infrastructure.
Hon President, your Ministers and bureaucrats are totally deurmekaar [confused]. Please tell us what this government's official line on private- sector involvement in the infrastructure programme is. Are you with Minister Gordhan and Ndebele or with Minister Gigaba and Mr Molefe? [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Speaker. Well, I don't know what the hon member is trying to drive at because we are dealing with the infrastructure that is being dealt with by the continent. That is the question we are answering: what is happening in the work that is being done between and among the African states and governments. That is the infrastructure we are talking about.
He dwells on the South African issues, not really on the issue we are talking about. [Interjections.] Otherwise, we might have to answer any question, anyhow, that is not necessarily related to the question at hand. I am just saying that I don't know what he is driving at. He is very keen to deal with the situation in South Africa, which in his view is - what was the Afrikaans word - "deurmekaar" [confusing]. [Laughter.]
I am not sure whether deurmekaar [confusion] isn't from the person doing the questioning, rather than the people he is trying to refer to. Thank you very much, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Speaker, I don't want to contribute to "deurmekaar" [confusion] here, President. I withdraw. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon President, I hope I will not be "deurmekaar-ing" [causing confusion] also. [Laughter.] Sir, it is reported that Brussels demands that Zimbabwe submit a comprehensive document stating full reasons why all sanctions against Zimbabwe should be lifted. In the light of the interests of the African agenda and, in particular, the critical need for regional economic integration and development, is South Africa contemplating encouraging and assisting Zimbabwe to fulfil or comply with the Brussels requirement?
Thank you, hon Speaker. I think there is a process in terms of which SADC, which includes South Africa, is pursuing matters in Zimbabwe. We have been dealing with the matter for a long period now. South Africa is a facilitator. Whilst this has been happening, from the beginning Europe and other countries have continued to make demands. I am not sure whether there is anything new in what they are saying. They have been saying that Zimbabwe must meet certain conditions and, of course, they applied sanctions to Zimbabwe. There has been a long debate on what those sanctions are doing to inhibit the very process that Zimbabwe is supposed to undertake. So, if they make the demands, I doubt that there is anything new that they are coming up with.
We are dealing with the matter in Zimbabwe. There will be a SADC summit very soon. Perhaps that matter will feature in terms of which we deal with the progress we have made in Zimbabwe. I am not certain who must determine the pace there, whether it should be the demands that come from outside the continent, which are informed by very specific interests. SADC is informed by very specific interests in so far as how we have been handling the Zimbabwean issue.
So, really, without considering what the demands are, our view and our wish is that we should solve the Zimbabwean problem. The quicker we do it, the better. That is our view and we are working hard to do so. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Outcome of Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission Conference
8. Mr S N Swart (ACDP) asked the President of the Republic:
(1) What was the outcome of the first Presidential Infrastructure Co- ordinating Commission conference, held on 13 April 2012, to discuss the infrastructure development plan that he announced during his 2012 state of the nation address;
(2) when does he (a) intend to convene the Presidential Infrastructure Summit to discuss the implementation of the infrastructure plan with potential investors and social partners and (b) envisage that initial projects forming part of the plan will be launched, in view of escalating construction and financing costs? NO1446E
Thank you, hon Speaker. The Provincial and Local Government Conference of the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission was held on 13 April 2012 and was hosted by the Deputy President as the Deputy Chair of the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission, PICC.
The conference was convened to share information on the infrastructure plan, to provide an overview of the strategic infrastructure projects which were announced in the state of the nation address, and to mobilise support and commitment from key role-players. It was attended by Ministers, premiers, mayors and officials.
The conference was a resounding success and achieved its objectives. The delegates welcomed and supported the infrastructure plan as a necessary and timely intervention. The conference resulted in a greater understanding of the infrastructure plan by delegates and a commitment by all spheres of government and public enterprises to work together to ensure the successful implementation thereof.
All participants committed themselves to playing their respective roles to implement the infrastructure plan urgently. Three intergovernmental forums have subsequently been convened to launch specific infrastructure projects. To date, we have launched three projects: the Northern Mineral Belt, the Saldanha-Northern Cape Development Corridor, and the Integrated Urban Space and Public Transport Programme, directed at the major cities in the country. So far they are being implemented in Cape Town, Johannesburg and eThekwini.
Work is going well towards launching the remaining projects. The PICC secretariat has held discussions with private-sector investors as well as public agencies to partner with government in this important initiative. The Presidential Infrastructure Investor Conference is scheduled to take place before the end of the year. I thank you, hon Speaker.
Thank you, Speaker. Hon President, the ACDP welcomes the information provided on the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission Conference, and we support the shift in government spending from consumption spending to the productive side of the economy as a means to achieve increased economic growth and job creation.
Hon President, you mentioned the role of public enterprises. We note, however, that the costs of Eskom and Transnet's expansion plans have already escalated dramatically, increasing pressure on consumers and the debts of those public enterprises. For example, Medupi and Kusile have increased from R70 billion and R80 billion to R125 billion and R140 billion respectively. Is this not "deurmekaar"? [confusing.] [Laughter.] And how would the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission deal with such cost overruns to ensure that they are not passed on to the taxpayers or consumers?
Secondly, hon President, you indicated that you will be having the summit with potential investors before the end of the year. What impact do you think the SA National Roads Agency Limited, Sanral, Gauteng's e-tolling saga will have on such investors, given Sanral's precarious financial position? What lessons can government learn from this "deurmekaarspul" [confusion] which can be taken forward by the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission? Thank you very much.
Thank you, hon Speaker. This word "deurmekaar" [confusion] sounds very nice and I'm not sure whether the people who are pronouncing it are not "deurmekaar" [confused]. [Laughter.] I think that we are dealing with infrastructure. I don't know whether the hon member wants to criticise us when we build infrastructure for energy. What is his problem? If we have to build the power station, we have to pay. Isn't that so?
We are adding infrastructure to equip this country for the purpose of economic growth. So, what is the problem? Regarding the issue that he is putting forward, as the opposition always do - because I'm sure he wanted to find a way to talk about e-tolling - that is part of the infrastructure of Gauteng, which was discussed and considered for a long time. You might have views about it, and that is a different matter - then express your views about it. I think to try to take it away and bring it to me has an element of ``deurmekaar'' [confusing] questioning. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr Speaker, the President announced an ambitious infrastructure programme at the beginning of this year in his state of the nation address. While investment in infrastructure is key to economic growth, it requires a partnership between the public and the private sector in order to be successful. But there remain concerns, given the mixed message, which my hon colleague mentioned earlier, from members of the President's Cabinet that the infrastructure programme will not provide for an adequate partnership between the public and private spheres. Will the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission provide for the involvement of the private sector as investors and partners in this programme?
Furthermore, given concerns about corruption in large-scale tenders of this nature, will the President include the provision that no company linked to a so-called investment arm of the political party, such as the ANC's Chancellor House or the South African Communist Party and the Congress of SA Trade Union's investment arms, will be granted tenders by the government under this programme? Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]
Thank you, hon Speaker. Well, just now - not, perhaps, a long time ago - I said in my responses that we are going to have an investors' conference before the end of this year. That means we have plans to include the private sector. We have been dealing with the structures of government. We had a conference at which we wanted to align the thinking of all three spheres of government, which we have done. So there is clarity in so far as government is concerned. We are now going to have the investor conference to talk directly with the private sector. But that does not mean that we are not talking to the private sector. We have been talking to them ever since we announced the programme. So the question of us dealing with the private sector is uppermost, because government alone cannot deal with the infrastructure.
We need the investment and, certainly, the investors are very clear about this; some of them that we are talking to have already committed themselves very seriously to participating. That is no longer the issue.
With regard to companies that are linked to whatever, I'm not sure about when people do business - I still have to see the law that says a company of this and of that nature is not allowed to participate in economic activities. I'm not sure that if such companies participate, it can be called corruption, unless we don't understand the definition of corruption, because corruption is when people do the wrong things to give the benefits to others - wrongly. If we have an established company that follows all the necessary procedures, rules and laws and through its own presentation it wins the tender, if it's a tender, is that corruption? That's a new definition of corruption. Maybe we read different English dictionaries. There is an American dictionary; there is an English one.
I am saying this because, once you have a company ... I don't think there are citizens in this country that, because they were members of the DA or whatever, cannot have businesses. I don't think there is anything in the Constitution which says such a thing.
If you aspire to be a businessperson, you establish your company, you follow the rules, why should you be punished because you happen to think in a particular way politically? I think that is not constitutional. We are not according rights to the citizens of this country. We are discriminating against others simply because they are politicians. I don't understand. [Interjections.] Absolutely, I don't understand. Unless you are saying that we should have the privilege of the opposition to come in, then you can justify the point. Because I am saying that as long as ... [Interjections.] Yes. You are not giving DA members ... maybe, I don't know. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! Order!
What defines the businessperson and what a businessperson does is, firstly, the person saying I want to be a businessperson. He or she is allowed to do so. Establish a company and read the rules of what happens if you do business and make a presentation. If your presentation is successful, why should we say, "No, because you are a politician, sorry, we don't allow you"? [Interjections.] I'm saying there is no law that says so.
There is no constitutional provision that says you must disadvantage other citizens simply because they happen to have certain political views. That's the wrong question. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon President, you are on record as saying that you wanted to turn South Africa into a massive construction site for the sake of jobs. There is nothing wrong with that, if you respect the environment while doing that. My question to you this afternoon is: Could you confirm that you shall always seek to have a balanced approach, while building this needed infrastructure in South Africa, towards the environment so that we do not downgrade our environment so much that we don't create jobs in that sector?
Thank you, hon Speaker. Certainly, there will be a balance. There is no doubt about that. There is always a balance. Studies are carried out first, if there is to be major infrastructure development. No doubt we will do that. Absolutely. So, I don't think that is an issue.
I don't want to enter into a debate because there are different views that people talk about out there with regard to poverty. Should we fight poverty above other things, or should we do whatever? I think there are many things to be balanced. We need infrastructure to develop the economy, to grow our economy and we need, of course, to balance infrastructure with the environment.
I was involved in this debate some time ago. I remember when I was a member of the executive council, in KwaZulu-Natal. The wetlands are a sensitive area, and there is mining that takes place there. There was a long debate. I remember arguing with a person from Germany, who was not even a South African, who was saying, "Green. Don't touch." And people were saying that that very area was one of the most poverty-stricken areas in the country. What about people dying where there are possibilities?
There are many things that need to be balanced - including the environment - but I think what is more important is fighting the poverty of the citizens. Therefore, we have to balance all of that. If we are to take a decision about whether we undertake this project, it should not just be a one-sided thing. Therefore, the balance comes in. So, I agree, we will always do the balancing.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon President, I can remember that time because I was also an MEC, and the two words that were used in KwaZulu-Natal when it came to dune mining were ``sustainable development''.
But, having said that, Mr President, you did say to the hon Swart that if we are to provide energy, somebody will have to pay. And I would think that when the PICC looks at what they have to do and looks at financing models, one of the models that they will look at is the user-pays principle. Now what we need to be assured of, as citizens of this country - you and I, and the millions out there - is that there is value for money when these projects commence, because from commencement to the end, there has to be value for money. This is because if the user has to pay for a particular product - for example, we will use the e-tolling system - if it costs R5 a unit, let's not employ somebody and give them another R5 to collect the original R5, making the cost to the consumer R10. So, what we need to know is that you, Mr President, will ensure that there is absolute transparency from the start of a project to the end so that it is cost-effective for the citizens of this country. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Speaker. We will certainly ensure that we check that; that there is indeed value for money. I don't think we will fail to do so. That's what needs to be done anyway. We will certainly do that so that we all properly benefit. I agree with you and there will be transparency. Thank you very much.
Details relating to reinstatement of [person] and its considerations
9. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) asked the President of the Republic:
1) Whether he had been informed of all the considerations resulting in the decision to reinstate a certain person (name furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,
2) whether he has found that the (a) considerations were rational and (b) said person meets all the requirements for performing the duties of the post; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
3) whether he will make a statement on the matter? NO1321E
Hon Speaker, the day-to-day operations of line-function departments are the responsibility of those departments. The appointments, suspensions, reinstatements, transfers and all staff movements are the responsibility of those departments and not the President. Such a question, including whether the decision was rational or not, should therefore be directed to the affected department.
There are government prescripts and procedures that are in place to deal with performance issues within departments. The President does not manage the performance of officials in government departments. The Minister of Police has announced that there will be a task team to investigate some aspects of this matter, while the Inspector-General of Intelligence is also probing aspects that are within her mandate. I would like to assure this House and the public that everything is being done to address this matter.
We wish to add that the law enforcement agencies are operating as they should, protecting the public whose safety and security remains the top priority of government. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, the reinstatement of Richard Mdluli as the crime intelligence head, his subsequent so-called shifting to another department in the SAPS and now, more recently, the reports that he has been given seven days to justify to the National Police Commissioner why he should not be suspended all over again, points to a serious crisis in our criminal justice system.
Richard Mdluli has been accused of a chilling series of criminal acts, including murder, fraud, corruption and nepotism. How is it that the Office of the President did not intervene to prevent his reinstatement in the first place? Did the President believe that Mr Mdluli is a fit and proper person to serve in the higher ranks of the SAPS?
If I heard the President correctly, he is saying, "It is not my fault; it is not my responsibility." But he is the President. What we want to know in this Parliament today is: Is he going to take steps to ensure that Mr Mdluli is resuspended, pending the completion of all the investigations and, if he did not have a role in the reinstatement of Mr Mdluli, is he going to institute a commission of inquiry to establish how the entire saga unfolded? Because, Mr Speaker, there is a legitimate concern that state resources are being used to advance an internal party-political agenda to neutralise the President's opponents, including the hon Tokyo Sexwale, who sits in the ANC's own front benches. This Parliament and the South African people need an assurance that state resources are state resources, not party-political resources. Will the President intervene? [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Well, hon Speaker, all that the hon member has asked I answered in the first instance. [Interjections.] If the President left his task of supervising the government and went to the department to deal with deputy directors-general and directors, I think that would be a mad situation. [Interjections.] It would be really "deurmekaar" [confusing]. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] What happens is: if we are dealing with an officer that is part of an element of the police - because is an exaggeration to say there is confusion in the Police Service ... [Interjections.] We are dealing with one element, which is an element of intelligence of the police. It is not the entire Police Service. But the way you present it, it is as if the entire Police Service is in difficulty. Not true. [Interjections.]
Now, once that happens, you have, in the first instance, the commissioner, who directs the officers below him. He reports to the Minister, who is a political supervisor of the department. The Minister reports to the President. You are now calling for the President to jump past the Minister, jump past the commissioner and go to deal with operational matters. That cannot be right. [Interjections.] You do not run governments in that way. You probably don't have experience of running a government. [Interjections.] [Applause.] That's why you think that is how it can be done. That can't be right.
The President must wait for those people to whom he has assigned that job to come back to him. If the President thinks there is something wrong, what the President can do is to say, "Minister, what is happening?" [Interjections.] And the President has done so.
Order, hon members!
And the President has done so, and is not going to call a press conference for that. He has done so. You speak as if no action has been taken. I think this is just part of the niceties of asking the question. I have said here: there is a team to investigate the allegations by the Minister. Secondly - this is not just one process - the Inspector-General is actually investigating matters related to intelligence. [Interjections.]
Why is he still there?
No, I am saying, you speak as if nothing has happened. If a person made a mistake or there were allegations and that person were sacked on the same day, you would say, "Why didn't you follow the proper processes?" This is because in terms of the way we run the country - which is a constitutional country - one has to follow proper processes, no matter who the person is, no matter what the accusations and allegations are. [Interjections.] There are two processes with regard to Mdluli that are done legitimately and at the right levels. Only when those are concluded will a report be presented to the President - then the President acts. That is what is going to happen. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Order! Order! Hon members, I want to bring to the attention of the House that the matter of subquestion 2 of Question 9, to be specific, is currently pending in the Pretoria High Court for a decision following an application for an interdict brought against the Minister of Police. Members are therefore cautioned not to infringe the sub judice rule by putting supplementary questions not arising from the reply of the President, or dealing with the matter before the court.
Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you, Mr President. Following your response to the main question, I want to understand the following: When it comes to the very same Mr Mdluli, or Commissioner Mdluli, the process of appointment was actually a flawed process. Have you ever taken care to find out where he came from, who he is and whether he is actually fit to do this particular job? [Interjections.]
I want to know why he was so special that even the normal procedures of his appointment were violated? There was a panel of Ministers that appointed him that actually sidelined the National Commissioner, which is irregular in terms of appointments. Are you willing to say that this particular aspect - if you do not have information - should be part of the investigation as well?
Speaker, how people are appointed or interviewed is the business of the departments. I am sure you would have had time to ask the Minister of Police. [Interjections.] You are trying to say I should know. There are so many directors-general and deputy directors- general that I don't think I could know how each and every one of them was appointed. Do you expect me to know all those details? [Interjections.]
That is very funny. The interviews are conducted by Ministers; leaders of the departments. I am sure if you are sitting here you want me to say yes, there was something wrong. There must be something wrong in the manner in which you are posing the questions. Ask questions that the President can answer, not questions that need Ministers to answer. Thank you very much, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, through you to the President, following the conclusion of the myriad investigations linked to the Richard Mdluli saga, should any member of this House, for example, perhaps the Minister of Police - who chose not to resuspend the man, or any relative of any member of this House - be found to have benefited from the SAPS's secret service slush fund or contravened any law in being linked to this murky matter, could we then ask if you, sir, are going to do anything at all about the matter?
Hon Speaker, I always have difficulties when questions are asked about something that has not happened. This is because you have to say, "Here are the facts that have emerged from the investigation; what then are you doing?" That is a fair question. To sit here and you yourself are talking about a murky situation ... You don't know what is going to come out. Now you want me to be what I always say is the usual thing, which is to be a sangoma, and say, "If this happens, we will do this." Why can't we wait for the investigations which is ongoing? Why the rush to prejudge what will happen? I think that it is not good to say, "If this happens, will you do X, Y, Z?" Why don't you wait? When the facts are here, then it would be fair to say that here are the facts. You would not be talking about a murky situation. You would be talking about the facts before us that will need a decision. I think that would be fair. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Ngiyabonga Somlomo, iNingizimu Afrika inoMthethosisekelo kanye nemithetho. Umthetho wamaPhoyisa uyasho ukuthi: umuntu otholwe yinkantolo enecala kodwa isigwebo sakhe salengiswa, uyacela kuKhomishane kaZwelonke bese uKhomishane kaZwelonke ethi uyombuyisela esikhundleni. Sikhuluma ngomuntu otholwe enecala wanikezwa isigwebo esilengisiwe. Usho njalo umthetho.
Lapha-ke sikhuluma ngendaba engekafiki nokufika lapho kodwa enomthelela cishe ongangabi muhle emaphoyiseni; sikhuluma ngendaba yokungawugqizi qakala umthetho, uMthethosisekelo, sihambise phambili imibono yomphakathi odabeni okungakafiki ezingeni lokuthi sisho njalo. Umbuzo wami-ke Mongameli uthi; singenza kanjani ukuthi lento ingabi nomthelela omubi kakhulu emaphoyiseni asebenzayo njengoba elindeleke ukuba athobele uMthethosisekelo nemithetho yaseNingizimu Afrika asebenza ngaphansi kwayo futhi okufanele nakuwo usebenze. Ngiyabonga.
UMONGAMELI WERIPHABHLIKHI YASENINGIZIMU AFRIKA: Somlomo nelungu elihloniphekile, angazi ukuthi mina ngiyimina nje nginganisiza kanjani kulokho. Abantu abaphikisayo bahlale njalo nje befuna okuthile, ngesinye isikhathi bakhuluma beziphikisa. Ngeke bayeke ukulokhu bebuza imibuzo noma bewazi ukuthi umbuzo awusho lutho; bazowubuza ngoba phela bayiqembu eliphikisayo. Njengalena nje, sithatha into yasemaphoyiseni, ekubeni emaphoyiseni kunezinyathelo ezithathwayo ngento eyenzeka khona.
Benza sengathi abakwazi lokho, bakubuze ngisho usuphendulile, umsebenzi wabo-ke, ngeke ngabaphikisa, okwami wukuphendula nje uma sebebuzile. [Uhleko.] Ngeke ngibatshele ukuthi abacabange kanje; lutho abatshelwa uma bephikisana nomuntu, uma ungabatshela ngabe usungene enkingeni [Uhleko.] Kungathiwa manje uvala iqembu eliphiksayo umlomo. Abadedelwe babuze, sizobacacisela nje kahle. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Mrs L S CHIKUNGA: Thank you, Speaker. South Africa has a Constitution and laws that govern it. The South African Police Service Act says: When a member of the police force has been found guilty by a court of law but is given a suspended sentence, he or she has a right to ask the National Commissioner to be reinstated. That is what happened with him - he was found guilty but he was given a suspended sentence. That is what the law says.
This matter is still under investigation but it is speculated that it might have a negative effect on the police; we are talking about disregarding the law and the Constitution about an issue that has not even come to that point. We are only concerned with prioritising public opinion and we are getting ahead of ourselves. My question to you, Mr President, is: How can we prevent this issue from having a negative effect on the police as they themselves have an obligation to comply with the Constitution and the laws of the country as they execute their duties? Thank you.
Speaker and hon member, I do not know how to help you regarding that issue. Opposition parties always want to oppose and sometimes they even contradict themselves. They never stop asking questions even when they do not make any sense; they only ask because they belong to the opposition party. In this example, for instance, we are discussing an issue pertaining to the police, whereas they have guidelines and take the necessary steps to deal with what happens in their department.
They pretend not to know anything about that; they even ask questions that have been responded to - anyway, it is their duty as the opposition. I will not object to them asking, as my duty is to respond to all the questions they ask. [Laughter.] I cannot tell them how to think; I am not supposed to tell them anything when they are debating; if you told them what to do you would be in trouble. [Laughter.] You would be accused of silencing the opposition party. Let them ask and we will explain everything to them clearly. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Meeting of target to fill funded posts
10. Ms M T Kubayi (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:
1) Whether the target to fill all funded posts within six months, as announced in his state of the nation address, has been met; if not, (a) why not and (b) which departments have failed to meet the deadline;
2) whether he intends taking any action against the departments who have failed to meet the deadline; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what action?