Acting Speaker, I want to ask the hon McGluwa to read The Economist every week, because if he had read the one from the previous week, he would have seen that inequality is growing around the world. It is because of the nature of development around the world, and we can give him Economics 101 and teach him about the Kuznets curve and what causes that. The bad hand that he referred to came from the party that he is part of - though he pretends to be in the ID - and which was caught out before democracy. That is the bad hand that he referred to. So, look in the mirror, sir, and you will see the cause of the problem.
Regarding the issue raised by the hon Trollip, I think we all share a concern about the impact of the flooding, and clearly the issues in the Eastern Cape are matters that we must all be concerned about. Hopefully the report on the impact on infrastructure and life will soon be compiled and we can deal with this as a matter of urgency.
The hon Ngonyama ... [Interjections.]
Point of order.
There is no point of order, Chair.
Hon member, the Minister is busy responding to the statement that you made. I will give you an opportunity after he has completed that.
Thank you. I just want to ask: What about the National Party?
Will you take your seat, please? [Interjections.] Will you take your seat, please? Thank you. Continue, hon Minister.
Thank you. The hon Ngonyama sounds like a right-wing Republican on the ticker board on public debt. I am not quite sure of the point that he was trying to make, but it is quite misplaced in the context of South Africa. Hon Ross, I think you must first give Eskom an opportunity to explain the costs of the increases in primary energy, the requirements in respect of renewables, and what the IPP costs will be, before you go off the deep end. I say this because to suggest that they are careless in the pricing issues would not be in support of what transpired yesterday when they raised the existing contract in respect of BHP Billiton, as well as the requirement that the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, Nersa, should actually examine this issue. So, be fair - that's all we ask. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Minister. Yes, hon member. What was your point of order?
I was just rising to correct the hon Minister that the people who oppressed us were the National Party ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
Hon member, that is not a point of order; it's a point of debate. Are there any further ministerial responses? No. That concludes ministerial responses.
Consideration of request from public protector in terms of section 2(5) of public protector act no 23 of 1994 for national assembly to review and re- determine the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of deputy public protector and report of portfolio committee on justice and constitutional development
Chairperson, the Public Protector Act, Act 23 of 1994, provides that the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of the Deputy Public Protector shall, from time to time, be determined by the National Assembly. Earlier this year the Public Protector formally requested that the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of the Deputy Public Protector be reviewed, because the last time this had been done was when Adv Lawrence Mushwana was the Public Protector. At that time the Deputy Public Protector was allocated an increase based on the inflation rate.
After considering the Public Protector's request, a draft resolution of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development was referred to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to ascertain whether his department's budget could afford any proposed increase in remuneration or gratuity.
In his response to the portfolio committee's query, the hon Minister pointed out the following. Firstly, disparities in remuneration and conditions of service are not peculiar to the Office of the Public Protector, but have also been raised consistently by other Chapter 9 institutions.
Secondly, the parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee on Review of Chapter 9 and Associated Institutions, commonly referred to as the "Kader Asmal committee", recommended a greater uniformity in remuneration and conditions of service for Chapter 9 institutions.
Thirdly, a task team, which was established to investigate such disparities, recommended that the determination of the remuneration of all constitutional institutions should be done by one institution using a single methodology. This would also be in line with section 219(5) of our Constitution.
Fourthly, such a development would require amendments to the relevant statutes determining Chapter 9 institutions, as well as the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office-bearers Act, Act 92 of 1997.
Given all these facts, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development resolved that any proposed improvements in the remuneration of the Deputy Public Protector should be referred to the independent commission, once the appropriate legislative amendments have been effected, with which the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is currently seized.
Accordingly, we ask this hon House to approve this report, which will also endorse the improvements in remuneration provided by the former Public Protector, Adv Lawrence Mushwana. Thank you. There was no debate.
Chairperson, I move:
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to. Report accordingly adopted.
Consideration of request for approval by Parliament of Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation to the convention on biological diversity in terms of section 231(2) of THE Constitution
Mr Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen, I rise on behalf of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs on this occasion to recommend, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, that the House approve the Nagoya Protocol, which the committee has unanimously adopted.
Having considered the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity on 5 September 2012, the committee accepts that the many intergovernmental negotiations on the environment and sustainable development can make slow progress and in some instances lack ambition. This particular protocol has taken 18 years for the international community to agree to.
However, the Nagoya Protocol gives substance and effect to establishing a system for achieving one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, that is, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits that arise from genetic resources.
The protocol provides a strong basis for legal certainty and transparency for both provider and user countries of genetic resources and their associated knowledge.
We hope it comes into force in the next year or two. The process of adopting it has happened and some 90-odd countries have signed it, but only five have ratified it. So, it will still take a while before it comes into effect. However, we hope that at that stage it will create new incentives for countries to protect their natural capital, while enabling businesses to develop useful new products from biological resources in a sustainable way.
An interesting aspect of the Nagoya Protocol is that, whilst it is mainly concerned with benefit sharing between states, it includes two potential safeguards for protecting the rights of indigenous people and local communities.
The Nagoya Protocol firstly requires countries to support the development of community protocols. This means that communities decide whether to permit the use of their knowledge or genetic resources, and on what terms. An example of this is what has happened with the healers in Bushbuckridge in our own country, who used their protocol to conserve medicinal plants, gain access to plants in a protected area, and negotiate more effectively with a cosmetic company in regard to those genetic resources.
Community protocols, therefore, have an important role to play in implementing the protocol. According to a report drafted by the international institute for environment and development, and I quote, -
Where emphasis is placed on the process of developing community protocols - rather than just the product - these protocols are more likely to strengthen community values and institutions that conserve biodiversity and traditional knowledge ...
It also points out that countries and donors must ensure communities receive the support they need to develop their protocols.
Secondly, it requires countries to take measures to ensure that communities can control access to their traditional knowledge by giving their free, prior, informed consent. This means that communities decide whether to permit the use of their knowledge or genetic resources, and on what terms. We therefore recommend accordingly. Thank you. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
Question put: That the Nagoya Protocol on access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the Convention on Biological Diversity be approved.
Agreed to.
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation to the Convention on Biological Diversity approved.