Hon Speaker, the Zuma family has effected various renovations to the family residences over a period. In the recent past, and more particularly in the early part of 2008, the family commissioned certain improvements to the residences for its own account. Nobody's permission was necessary in this regard insofar as it related to the upgrading of a private residence. This right extends to all citizens of the Republic. I was, accordingly, aware of these renovations as they related to my family residence, which was self-funded. It remains a private family matter.
Actually, I was informed that improvements needed to be made at the family residence to enhance the security of the head of state. The nature and form of improvements were decided upon by the relevant officials through their departments. As already indicated, such information would not include details on the specifics about what would be done by whom and at what cost. I thank you, hon Speaker.
Hon Speaker, it sounds to me like the President is tap-dancing around this issue. He says he knew about the renovations that were self-funded. He says he knew there was security upgrading taking place. Ultimately, however, it sounds to me like he is saying he did not know about the extent of the upgrades that were taking place at his private home. [Interjections.]
I have here a letter which shows that he must have known. It is a letter addressed to him by the former Minister of Public Works, the hon Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde, setting out the details of the project, also that money was being spent on nonsecurity items. How is it that the hon President did not know about or act upon a letter addressed to him by one of his own Cabinet Ministers?
For the sake of clarity and for the record, did the hon President receive this letter from the Department of Public Works? In addition, when he received it, why did he not immediately intervene, to prevent this outrageous expenditure of R206 million on a project at his private home in Nkandla? I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, firstly, I never received any letter. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] That is a very clear, straight answer. [Interjections.] No letter was ever received, let alone the fact that when Ministers write to me, they sign as Ministers. It is not everybody in the department who signs. It is a very funny letter ... [Interjections.] ... that has the signatures - as I saw it from a distance - of so many people. [Applause.] [Interjections.] Directors-general and Deputy Ministers do not write to me from the departments, it is the Minister who does so. [Interjections.]
Order! Order!
Now, I am telling you that when Ministers write to me, they do not send letters that are signed by the Deputy Minister or the director-general, or whoever it may be. [Interjections.] I never received this one. That is the answer. [Interjections.]
Order!
Regarding whatever elements relating to security that were decided on by departments, I take it that this matter has a report which Parliament is trying to figure out on how to handle it. I am sure that those details will appear in it, where one could check whether the items were security-related or not. I do not think I should pre- empt your discussion by discussing the details of the report that is before Parliament. If there was no report before Parliament, it would be a different matter. [Interjections.] So, the matter must be discussed properly by your structures in this Parliament.
I am also informed that the Public Protector is also either conducting an investigation, or about to conduct it. If the matter is being dealt with through investigations, I do not think we could have all the issues, which have been discussed in the report itself, discussed during question times because the report has been interrogated. It must address those specific issues. So, I do not think - besides saying I never received the letter - I should discuss the details. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! That is clearly unacceptable. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Order!
Hon Speaker, Mr President, the last time you answered a similar question, let me remind you that you said:
Hon Speaker, hon members, let me make one thing quite clear from the outset. I have noted all sorts of public comments to the effect that the government built my home in Nkandla. My residence in Nkandla has been paid for by the Zuma family.
[Interjections.] Are you saying, hon President, that the tuck shop, the soccer field, the lift, the clinic ...
The gym!
... at the end of the day will not be part of the Zuma estate, and therefore has not been financed by the taxpayers' money? Are you saying, hon President, that all these things have got to do with security - including the lift and the tuck shop? [Interjections.]
Thank you, hon Speaker. I think it would be very prudent for the hon member to wait for the discussion of the report ... [Interjections.] ... which has the details ... [Interjections.]
Order!
... of the things you are talking about, and you will know who paid for what. [Interjections.]
You know already!
I said I build my houses. Nobody built my houses. In addition, I said then - and I do not know why you are not quoting it - that government determined that it needed to pay for security features. [Interjections.]
Tuck shop!
Soccer field!
Gyms!
I said so. I built ... no, there is no government that has built my house! With regard to my houses, government recommended specific security features on them. [Interjections.] That is why they have built ... [Interjections.]
Since you have mentioned the issue of a tuck shop, it has been there all the time - all the time ... [Interjections.] ... at the centre of my homestead. My wife, MaKhumalo, has used ... has lived on the income generated by this tuck shop, even when I was away. It has been there all the time.
HON MEMBERS: Yes! [Applause.]
There is no tuck shop that was built as part of the things that are being built now. What was explained to me by security was that this tuck shop was at the centre of the homestead, and people were coming deep into the homestead, to buy. The explanation was that it posed a security risk because nobody would know what is being brought into the centre of the homestead. [Interjections.] In terms of security considerations, the department considered it to be a security threat. It had to be removed from the centre of the homestead to the gate, so that those security considerations could be dealt with. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Now, as a family, we had no intention to move the tuck shop, and we had no money to pay for that. Therefore, the people who thought that this was a security risk needed to exercise their security considerations, and that is what they did. [Interjections.] I am merely responding to this particular issue you are quoting, because it has been quoted all over. No government has built a tuck shop. Government removed an old tuck shop from the centre of the homestead to the gate for security reasons. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mhlonishwa Somlomo, mhlonishwa Mongameli, okokuqala angithokoze nje ngale mpendulo osusinekeze yona. Cha kubili nje engicela ukukwazi. Ingabe umhlonishwa uMongameli uke wawubona yini lo mbiko okukhulunywa ngawo? Okwesibili, umhlonishwa uMongameli angavuma yini ukuthi uma lo mbiko usufikile kulabo okufanele ufike kubona ugcine usufikile nalapha eNdlini ngoba kungenjalo sizowuzwa ngenzwabethi kuhle kokuzalwa kukaJesu. [Uhleko.]
UMONGAMELI WEZWE: Somlomo, lungu elihloniphekile lePhalamende, uyazi ukuthi nami angilona ilungu laleNdlu. Nami ngizwa benzwabethi ukuthi ukhon alo mbiko osuxoxwa la ukuthi uzoxoxwa ngelinye ikomidi Angazi ukuthi uquketheni ngoba phela wenziwe yilungu laleNdlu ...[Ubuwelewele] muphi lo? Yingakho nje ngithi into engaba wubuhlakani wukungajahi. Singaphangi umdaka linganile, silindele umbiko. Uzofika. Yilapho-ke siyokwazi ukuwuxoxa khona seneliseke, sithole amaqiniso namaphutha uma ekhona.
Ngiyabona-ke kodwa ukuthi abantu bayathanda ukuyikhuluma le ndaba. Anjalo- ke amanga, ayathandeka. [Uhleko.][Ihlombe.] Uma lo mbiko usufikile lapho uyofika khona kufanele uxoxwe ngendlela yomthetho wePhalamende eyoba yisivumelwano samaLungu ePhalamende, yilapho-ke niyothola amaqiniso ashoyo ukuthi ngempela ngempela kwenzekeni. Dedelani abaphenyayo baphenye bawulethe umbiko, nivumelane ukuthi nizowuxoxa kanjani, niwuxoxe bese niyathola enikufunayo. Inkinga nifuna ukwenza izinqumo nje. Kudala ninginqumela; kade nginizwa nasemaphapheni nikhuluma, ninginqumela ngapha nangapha. Hhayi bo! Lindani umbiko, mhlonishwa, uyeza! Usukhona uwuphethe uNgqongqoshe. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr V B NDLOVU: Hon Speaker and hon President, first I want to thank you for your response. I have two questions for you. First, have you seen the report in question, hon President? Second, would you please ensure that the report is sent to the House after it has been received by the relevant parties? This is to ensure that we also see it, otherwise we might only just hear about it like the birth of Jesus Christ. [Laughter.]
Speaker and the hon Member of Parliament, you know very well that I am not a member of this House. It is also hearsay to me that the report in question exists. It is being discussed here now but I was told that it was going to be discussed by another committee. I have no idea with regard to its content since it was compiled by a member of this House ... [Interjections.] It would be wise for us not to rush things. We should rather wait for the report, it is coming. It is only then that we would be able to discuss it adequately, get to the truth of the matter and find faults, if there are any.
It seems like everyone is so eager to discuss the matter; gossip is always so interesting. [Laughter.] [Applause.] When the report is finally released it will be discussed following proper parliamentary procedures agreed to by Members of Parliament. It is only then that the truth will be revealed. Let all the investigations be conducted and after the report is released, then you will discuss how to handle it and you will finally uncover the truth for yourselves. The problem is you just want to make conclusions about it for me. In fact you have been doing it for quite some time now, even in newspaper reports you always decide for me, telling me what to do. No way! You must wait for the report, hon member, it is coming! The Minister is in possession of it. Thank you.]
Mr Speaker, given that in a democratic state it is unacceptable to spend public money on a President's private home ... [Interjections.] ... that more than R210 million of public money was spent for upgradings at the private home of President Zuma, including 31 new buildings, and given that the Minister of Public Works admitted that, most likely, irregularities occurred and tenders were inflated during the upgradings, will the President ensure that the Department of Public Works is refunded for the irregular expenditure of public funds at his private home before the end of the next financial year on 31 March 2014?
Hon Speaker, I am sure it is the duty of hon Members of Parliament to ask questions, even if the answers have been given, otherwise it would be said in their parties that they are not active, that they are not asking questions. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] I have just answered the question that the hon member is asking!
Firstly, I have said no house of the President was ever built by government. I said so at the beginning. I have repeated it.
Secondly, I have said that the report which will clarify all of this is coming. Why should I answer the question about whether the money will be paid back, as if she has now made the finding already, and therefore we have got to be refunding things? I am saying you will discover no house of the President was built with taxpayers' money.
Security departments said they needed to put security features in my houses that I built. Security features and houses are not one and the same thing, hon member. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
There are not 31 houses or homes built at my homestead. Wait for the report! Please. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Then you can have your time to talk and ask your questions. [Interjections.] I have answered this. Is there a soccer field in my yard? There is no soccer field in my yard. There is nothing of that nature. Wait for the report to explain the soccer field, as well. [Interjections.] There are people ... yes, not in my house, not in my homestead ... [Interjections.] Not in my homestead.
Order! Order!
Not in my homestead! [Interjections.] Wait for the report. That will help you a great deal, so that you can ask more intelligent questions. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Thank you, hon Speaker.
Order! [Interjections.]
More tap-dancing and ...
Order!
Preventative and innovative measures to address the brutalisation of ordinary people by agencies of state
3. Mr M G P Lekota (Cope) asked the President of the Republic: Whether the Government has instituted (a) preventative and (b) innovative measures to address the brutalisation of ordinary people through the disproportionate use of force by agencies of the State (details furnished); if not, why not; if so, what (i) measures, (ii) are the time frames for implementation and (iii) are the further relevant details? NO473E
Hon Speaker, today, on the eve of Human Rights Day on which the brutal apartheid police killed 69 people, we state unequivocally that we are opposed to police who act outside the Constitution and the rule of law. Decisive action is being taken against police officials who violate the rights of the people. While we all condemn such actions, we also acknowledge that not all police officers engage in such behaviour. The vast majority work within the law in performing their difficult tasks of protecting the Republic and the public.
There are a number of steps that have been taken by the Minister of Police to address the issue of SA Police Service, SAPS, members who are involved in such activities. In 2010 the Minister of Police introduced two new pieces of legislation, namely, the Civilian Secretariat for Police Act, Act 2 of 2011 and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act, Act 1 of 2011. Both have now been enacted and strengthen civilian oversight of the police.
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate has now replaced the Independent Complaints Directorate to investigate police officers who are involved in human rights abuses. Under this new legislation the police are required to immediately report to the new directorate any cases of abuse of powers by police officers. This new directorate can also initiate such investigations. They do not have to wait for the police. Such independent investigations are in line with international best practice in this regard.
The Minister of Police has also introduced a new public order policing policy which was presented to Parliament in 2011. This policy clearly states how the police should respond in dealing with citizens in the context of public order policing. At the end of 2012 the Minister of Police instructed the Civilian Secretariat for Police to look closely at the issues of minimum force in the police service and a full policy on this aspect of policing is at the final stages of completion. Operationally, the Minister of Police is ensuring that disciplinary processes and procedures are effective in dealing with both criminality and corruption within the service.
Training is also critical. From 1994 the human rights ethos of police training received specific attention so that we could transform the SAPS into a democratic era police force.
Let me take this opportunity to commend the majority of the 200 000 strong police force for performing their difficult tasks diligently, leading to a reduction in serious crimes, and also for acting within the law. They deserve the support of the whole nation.
I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, hon President, in the light of the recent cases that you have been furnished with, with regard to brutalisation of the ordinary citizens, this House and the country need to be informed about the international training that the department utilises when it comes to crowd control.
Secondly, what orders do they utilise while going to a street demonstration or controlling crowds? Are specialist commanders deployed in each and every situation that beckons for crowd control?
The last one which relates to that is the question of untrained commanders that are deployed to take charge of trained policemen. Isn't it compromising them if we actually give a civilian the responsibility over the trained police? Thank you.
Speaker, I'm not certain about the last part, whether they are police officers who are not trained who are holding positions and are in charge of others. Oh! The commissioner, is that what you are referring to?
The commissioner does not deal with operations. She has a range of well- trained policemen and policewomen under the commission; those who know exactly what to do. She doesn't command people for operations. Her job is not to be an operational person in the police force. You will agree, and I know what has happened in the recent past, and we have all condemned it. But I don't think we can also say that it is a daily occurrence - it's not. There are cases that have happened and we can count them. There are too many crowds that have come that were well controlled by the South African police. Whether demonstrations or strikes, they have been controlling them. There are few incidents that we can count. I don't think that that suggests that there is terrible crowd control. I think that statement cannot be accurate. We can focus on the specific incidents and deal with them.
If you talk about a number of police there is one case that we cannot discuss because it is under the commission - the Marikana commission. Well- trained police were there. The question we are trying to find out is what happened. That's what the commission is going to tell us and I'm sure that the police who are there will give their side of the story, as is always the case. It's not because generally the police force doesn't have the capacity and the skills to control crowd. They control them almost on a continuous basis. However, it does not mean that we should not deepen the training. We should, and I think that is agreed so that even those isolated incidents which are bad should not happen. I think we agreed to that one.
But I just think if we put the situation as if generally police here are untrained and they don't know how to control crowds, I don't think that will be telling the truth. There are huge crowds in South Africa, very vibrant ones which the police are continuously controlling. We all condemned this. Actions, as I have said, are being taken against those who do wrong things and undermine the human rights of the citizens of this country instead of protecting them. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Hon Speaker, once again we currently have a nation that has a brutal militarised police force, as the President has referred to over and over again, which treats civilians as criminals who perhaps should be beaten, raped, murdered and robbed whilst what we need and what we agreed in 1994 and as agreed in the National Development Plan is a demilitarised professional SA Police Service which is able to apprehend violent criminals.
The DA asked the President 16 days ago to institute a judicial commission of inquiry into pervasive police brutality amongst other things; to investigate the root causes of the problem, the actions of senior leaders within and outside the service which may or may not have encouraged this culture of brutality with impunity, and what can be done to cut out this culture of brutality that has become endemic in our SAPS. The question is: Will the President appoint such a commission as we have requested? If not, will he explain to this House why he doesn't take this seriously?
Hon Speaker, I've just answered the question that the incidents that we all condemn, in fact, are very few, that we know about them. We are not talking about the police force. Whether we call it a force or a service it's still a force and it's still a service. For now it does not require a commission to investigate that. I don't think it does. Somebody else might have a view that it does. There are very specific measures that the Minister and the department are taking to deal with these kinds of issues. As part of the police, those who violated the law, actions have been taken - they are in prison and they are being charged. I don't think the situation, as I see it, warrants a commission of inquiry. I don't think so. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Speaker,
Ngithokoze, Mhlonishwa Mongameli. [Thank you, hon President.]
Now I'm taken aback by the comments that the President has made by saying that it's a force. No, it's a service. Adults must be adults, please.
Mr President, first of all, may I ask this question. In your view, is there a difference between police force and police service? Secondly, regarding the training which police officers undergo, to what extent do they incorporate the observation of human rights, because the police service or force, as the President would lead us to believe, has become a law unto itself. I say this obviously understanding that not all police officers are bad, but perceptions in life are everything and we've got a primary responsibility to clean up the image of the police service or force so that we can, at least, begin to inspire confidence in communities that police take to heart the fundamental issues of human rights. Thank you.
Hon Speaker, those measures that the hon member is talking about have been taken by the government. The police respect human rights of the citizens of this country. They do, and there is training that is given to them. I've said that there are isolated incidents. It is just like in a country where you have citizens and among them there are criminals. It doesn't mean that the entire citizenry is criminal. We cannot draw that kind of a conclusion. There will be those who will be rotten and that need to be dealt with. But we can't say that everybody in South Africa is a criminal because there is crime. We have measures to deal with that.
If you had all the time to theorise about it we could talk about the other question you are asking of whether it's a force or it's a service. The police are organised in a particular way different from an ordinary organisation or political organisation. It's not the same. That's what brings certain elements of the words to describe what this is. I don't think we can say they are not a force. But we can discuss the semantics about whether it's a service or force. This force provides a service to the country. That's what it does. [Applause.] It provides a service, it's a police force. We can debate it and we can come to an agreement if you want to. You have to convince me, and not just ask a question to say why I shouldn't call it a force. Why, is it not providing a service? Why should it be a service? Yes, it was, and it did not mean that the police were like a political party where ordinary people come together. These are police who must fall under a specific discipline, who must have different responsibilities at different levels, and who act in a particular way, precisely to give a good service to the country. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Hon members, may I remind you that a supplementary question must relate to or arise from the original question. If not related, it's no longer a supplementary question. Let's stick to the Rules, please.
Hon Speaker, hon President, there are many more SAPS members that serve South Africa and its citizens with honour and dignity, going beyond the call of duty embodied in the motto of the SA Police Service, that reads: Protect and serve.
Mr President, human rights form the basis of our Constitution and therefore should also guide the SAPS in their execution of their duties. One of the problems that don't need a commission in it as we all know that it's there is the fact that many people who join the SA Police Service do so because they see it as a job and not as a career.
Will government consider taking the necessary steps so that we can attract people who want to make a career out of the SA Police Service and not merely a job?
Hon Speaker, thanks for the question. I imagine that part of what we need to do is to deal with that question - the recruitment question. Given the evidence that there are some who do things that are not expected to be done by the police indicates that we should strengthen our recruitment and training and perhaps make it not easy for anyone to come simply by saying: "I don't have a job; let me go there." It should not be someone who does not understand what service the police ought to deliver. I think that is a point to be taken into account. I'm sure that the department is listening to that. At the level of recruitment we need to do something more to make it a kind of recruitment that brings in quality and people who are really understanding their task as the police. I think that point will be taken to heart. Thank you. [Applause.]
Government engagement of business, labour and social partners to achieve National Development Plan interventions and job creation targets
4. Mr S J Njikelana (ANC) asked the President of the Republic:
With reference to his cautionary statement in the State of the Nation Address that no single force can achieve the objectives that have been set for the country by the interventions outlined in the National Development Plan and the targets that have been set for job creation, how will the Government engage business, labour and other social partners? NO476E
Hon members, we are proud to have developed the National Development Plan, the NDP, a development roadmap that has been embraced by all sectors in our country. It is designed to assist us to achieve the vision set out in the country's Constitution and in many of the country's historic documents such as the African Claims and the Freedom Charter. The National Development Plan document seeks to unite all South Africans around a common programme of achieving prosperity and equality. It promotes active citizenry to strengthen development, democracy and accountability. Also, it seeks to bring about faster economic growth, higher investment and greater labour absorption.
The National Development Plan states that by 2030, the economy should be close to full employment, people should have the necessary skills, ownership of the means of production should be more diverse, and the economy should be able to grow rapidly.
The National Planning Commission estimates that the country can create 11 million jobs by 2030 through, amongst others, building partnerships between the public sector, business and labour. In pursuit of this goal, we will continue to work with the social partners, the National Economic Development and Labour Council, Nedlac, business, labour and the community sector to promote such collaboration.
In February, we met the business sector and they expressed their wish to present for discussion, by parties, at least five obstacles to investments and doing business in South Africa. We have agreed that Ministers will lead sectoral engagements with business to identify the obstacles in each sector and propose solutions. These consultations will culminate in a meeting with the business working group in May. We will also be engaging labour, youth, the community sector and other sectors as part of promoting sustainable development. I thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Somlomo, ngiyabonga Nxamalala, kuyakhuthaza ukuthi lolu Hlelo lweNtuthuko lukaZwelonke selungumqulu osukhona esizokwazi ukuwusebenzisela ukuphucula izwe lethu. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr S J NJIKELANA: Speaker, thank you, Nxamalala [Clan name]. It is encouraging that the National Development Plan has been developed and we can now utilise it to advance the development of our country.]
What is further encouraging, Mr President, is the fact that serious attempts, once again, are being made to build social cohesion with the business community in particular, such that there would be economic prosperity for our country in future.
My follow up question, Mr President, is: In keeping with the regional trust of the National Development Plan, are there any strategic plans that the President may briefly share with us with regard to advancing the regional integration at Southern African Development Community, SADC, level in a manner that will benefit our country? I thank you.
Hon Speaker, SADC has plans which are designed to deepen the regional integration which in turn will be taken further to deal with not just regional integration in terms of SADC, but in terms of the continent. And they have been there all the time. There are five economic regions of the continent. As you would be aware, three of these regions are, in fact, integrating precisely for that kind of reason. So, there are those kinds of issues that have been ongoing.
As a country we have in essence been - by embracing this plan or coming up with this plan - saying to ourselves that we need to grow our own economy, particularly if we take South Africa as having a bigger economy in the region and on the continent. We need to have our economy growing bigger. We can grow bigger and more quickly if we have a plan that we all work on to strengthen and advance as a country.
The National Development Plan states that by 2030 we should, for example, have been able to eliminate a lot of challenges that we have today and have a stronger consolidated economy within the country. It means, whether we play a role in SADC or on the continent, we are better placed on a different kind of a level. So, that is where it features in terms of fitting in and dovetailing the plans that are either regional in terms of one region or regions of the continent. Certainly, the plan itself helps South Africa's economy to move even faster and in a more advanced fashion as a much stronger and co-ordinated kind of economy within itself. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr President, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your undivided attention to the National Development Plan. I think by now most, if not all, opposition political parties are in full agreement with and support of the National Development Plan. Mr President, as you have said, we need all stakeholders on board to make this a success, but with Ministers in your Cabinet like Deputy Minister Jeremy Cronin, Minister Blade Nzimande, Minister Thulas Nxesi and specifically Minister Patel, taking into consideration the view of Cosatu on the National Development Plan. Can you assure this House, Mr President, that there is no ideological block, or ideological differences, in your Cabinet to making this National Development Plan a success? I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, there is no ideological blockage in our Cabinet. This plan has been discussed and agreed upon by the Cabinet. There is absolutely none; we are one as the Cabinet in support of this plan. Thank you very much, hon Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I must say that I see a bigger smile on hon Trevor Manuel's face than the others that were mentioned. [Laughter.] Mr President, the Convention for a Democratic SA, Codesa, in the nineties brought us the political miracle that made this part of Africa famous, but we now need an economic miracle. The effective implementation of the National Development Plan will help us in the next ten years. The return of domestic sentiment, a positive one, will also assist, but we need to eradicate uncertainties about policies. Mr President, don't you think that we need an initiative that will take us beyond Nedlac to engage labour, government and business into an economic Codesa, so that we can have an agreement about policy issues for the next ten years?
Hon Speaker, people will have ideas about what needs to be done, particularly when it comes to the economy, and some might even feel that maybe we need another Codesa. I haven't thought about another Codesa really, because I think the economic policies that we have at the moment are very clear, and therefore certain. I don't think there are uncertainties about the economic policies. We are talking about the National Development Plan, which is not a common thing in many countries. To have the entire society agreeing to the plan - even in countries where they have got national commissions - is not necessarily subscribed to by everybody.
In South Africa, we have agreed and shown the capacity to appreciate where we are heading to as a country. This is the plan that has been produced by South Africans together; it has just been introduced and everybody thinks that it is moving in the right direction. It is certainly going to be discussed in Nedlac, where different kinds of people represent different interests. I'm sure that they will be agreeing on a number of issues.
I'm not sure if we need Codesa in the economy. There are more meetings about the economy in this country than there are in any other sector. I don't know why we should have Codesa, unless somebody convinces me differently about what we are doing. One of the things that we should take into account is the uncertainty about whether the economists in the world are agreeing on every assumption. They've got different assumptions. They probably are agreeing on a general direction.
And if we were to come to Codesa, would we come out of it differently? By the time we came out of Codesa, would the DA agree with the policies of the ANC - which are so correct - or would the Freedom Front agree? Would the economists who are not in political parties and not influenced by political policies, agree in totality? I think we have had a lot of those kinds of discussion, and they will continue. We need, for example, government to meet with business, labour and social communities, and discuss this matter. There are issues which we at times agree on, and issues that we may not agree on to the last degree. But I think what is important is that the economy of the country must move forward.
The National Development Plan plays a bigger role in making us agree on our direction and on what we need to tackle. We might not be agreeing on the methods, and those are the issues that we keep on discussing all the time. I'm not certain if we need Codesa for now. I think all role-players are interacting sufficiently in terms of the available policies, which we are implementing. Thank you very much, hon Speaker.
Hon President, arising from your response, the ACDP is on record for commending you and Minister Manuel for the National Development Plan, the NDP, which commendably proposes uniting South Africans around the common vision. As you have indicated, it proposes a social compact which includes government, business, labour and other social partners. What is of concern, however, hon President, is that the National Union of Metalworkers of SA, Numsa, has again today expressed very strong opposition to the NDP. Whilst the trade union is fully entitled to its opinion, how will government try to bring Numsa and other trade unions on board, or alternatively ensure that trade unions such as Numsa do not prevent or delay the implementation of this much needed plan? Thank you, hon President.
Hon Speaker, the trade union movement has the right to have views about things and I don't think that should surprise anyone, because they specifically represent a particular class - the working class - with very specific interests. It should not be a surprise if they've got views about it. Of course, you can't tell them what to say or not to say. It is their absolute democratic right to raise their views, and if they were not raising them, there would be something wrong. Precisely because of that, the ruling party said that it was going to engage the trade union movement to deal with these matters as we normally do together with them.
The fact of the matter is that the National Development Plan has been accepted overwhelmingly by the whole country, including the working people. I'm sure that even trade unions have different views and it does not mean that because they belong to the same trade union movement, therefore they have to think the same. The thinking of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Cosatu, the National Council of Trade Unions, Nactu, etc, for example, is not exactly the same. It does not mean that because if you are workers, then you have to think the same. It is discussions that bring people closer. I'm sure that we will have an opportunity to engage the union that has views about the National Development Plan and we will find one another. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Advisibility of maintaining Public Enterprises and necessity of Public Works, State Security and Women, Children and People with Disabilities departments
5. Dr M G Oriani-Ambrosini (IFP) asked the President of the Republic:+
(1) What progress has been made in the Presidential Review of the persistent necessity or advisability of maintaining the Department of Public Enterprises;
(2) whether he has or will cause studies to be conducted on the necessity of the Departments of Public Works, State Security and Women, Children and People with Disabilities; if not, what measures he contemplates in order to reduce the size of government? NO558E
Hon Speaker, the design of state and government institutions is guided by our desire to build a nonracial, non- sexist, democratic and prosperous society. To accomplish this task, we will have to deracialise the society, fight inequality, unemployment and poverty, as well as create economic opportunities for all South Africans, regardless of race, gender or geographical location. We have committed ourselves to building a developmental state, which must have the capability to execute its task.
As we forge ahead, we adjust the institutions that are there to meet the new challenges and better respond to the priorities of the time.
A developmental state can only be built when the state would be prepared to use its resources to participate in the economy and provide a possibility for our people to enjoy the wealth of our nation alongside private initiatives and investments.
The Department of Public Enterprises manages state-owned enterprises on behalf of the state as a shareholder. Government has also conducted a review of these state assets in order to manage them better. The recommendations are being processed within government.
The state is also the owner of the largest portfolio of property in the country.
The Department of Public Works has the responsibility to manage these assets and to support government departments so that they are able to focus on their core responsibilities. Government has to provide security for its citizens and guard the sovereignty of our state. We have the Constitution and the laws, which set parameters of how these should be done. There is no nation in the world that does not perform such duties. There is nowhere such a task could be performed without the Department of State Security being one of the key players.
The legacy of apartheid included the extreme oppression and marginalisation of women. That is why a nonsexist society is a critical part of what we are seeking to achieve. Government also has to pay special attention to the development and protection of children. Our interactions with persons with disabilities have indicated, each time, that we must improve our services to them. For example, at the imbizo on disability in Mpumalanga on 4 December last year, and in our interactions with the organisation Disabled People SA, persons with disabilities have convinced us that we must do more.
It remains our collective effort to ensure that we work towards having an effective system of governance that will deliver good services to all our people. I thank you.
Through you Mr Speaker, Mr President your platitudes are not quite responsive to my question. My question is not about establishing the functions - we have all these reports of those functions; it is about locating them in a manner and in a place where they can be carried out more efficiently and more effectively.
We have a problem, we have run out of money, and either we get more money from taxes or we need to cut down on spending. We don't want to cut down on spending where it matters - in education, health and welfare. We need to cut on spending where it does not matter. Mr President, do you think that there is no reason for that?
It doesn't take three years of presidential review to have some, and not all, state-owned enterprises in a special department while all the others are where they belong. That's the legacy of apartheid, to have them in a special department rather than in a line function where they belong. Eskom should be with the Department of Energy, Transnet with the Department of Transport, and so on and so forth. It's a waste of departments, don't you realise, Mr President?
Don't you realise that the issue of women, children and people with disabilities is not about questioning the function but making it effective? Give a mandate to each and every department to carry out that function rather than having a ghetto department, which has no executive authority, cannot execute any law, doesn't do anything for the women, children and people with disabilities, and only grandstands by flying around the world, spending money that we need. And the same applies to state security. [Time expired.] We don't need a Cabinet Minister ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, your time has expired! Order, hon members!
Hon Speaker, well, I answered the question as it was asked. The question is here. Unless the hon member was asking the question in the sense of paving the way for him to suggest to us how we should structure government because he does have views. By the way, that's part of democracy. The IFP does contest elections, and I'm sure that if it had won elections, it would have structured the government as he thinks. We have structured it the way we think, and I think we are doing vey well - absolutely very well. [Applause.]
It's fine, suggestions are welcome, but well, they are sort of woolly like; they don't appreciate the exact thing that we are trying to achieve. I think we have done very well, through this department, to deliver on a mandate given by the people of this country. Absolutely!
The further fact is that you deal with the questions as you think. It's necessary to have the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities. I think that shows the political view about the position of women and vulnerable people. If you think that you don't need a department for them, it would be because you don't take it very seriously. We take it very serious. That is why we have established the department. [Interjections.] [Applause.] As I say, meet with these people, you will realise ... [Interjections.]
Order!
... in fact that we are not doing enough to deal with the issue of disabled people, etc. I'm just saying that, of course, a question has been asked and we've answered it. And you do have views; I hear your views and, of course, at the moment I don't think they are helping us in structuring government better.
Mr President, following your response to this question, my question is in relation to the Review Committee. It has also been reported that the interim report has already been tabled. Now, what I want to know, Mr President, is whether you are able to brief this House in terms of the details of the interim report, particularly around the issue of the business model going forward with respect to the state-owned enterprises, the SOEs? It is because, from this side of the House, we continue to be worried about the issue of the SOEs benefiting South Africans but, at this point, sometimes benefiting only the connected South Africans. So we want to know what has already been suggested around the business model, moving forward, in terms of benefiting the country and South Africa as a whole without necessarily looking at political affiliation.
Hon Speaker, we have undertaken that exercise. As the hon member has said, we have a report and recommendations which, as I said in my response, are being processed. I think the hon member is keen that Parliament should be briefed on those. I don't think there is any difficulty in doing so, particularly once this process I'm talking about has been undertaken.
You'll then see what it is that we were considering because we've got to consider the terms of reference, and then what the report has achieved - what we are then doing in terms of the recommendations. That will then help us discuss the issues we are considering. We are not considering the model that is benefiting certain connected people - that is not how we are handling it. We are handling these on the basis of them being assets of the country; and that's what they are doing right away.
But, of course, you could go into detail when you give the briefing about the report. It has nothing to do with the connected people. It has everything to do with how South Africa should move forward concerning the assets of the country. Thank you.
Mr President, it is clear from your response that government places massive importance on state-owned companies and public enterprises. Today, reports have been released indicating that from today onwards, the country will start experiencing rolling blackouts due to Eskom's need to load shed. Eskom has said that the reserve margins now sit at only 500 megawatts - about 1%; the international norm is 15%. This situation will simply worsen the closer to winter we get. Medupi, our only hope, is so far from being finished, it's scary. Mr President, what will you and your government do to ensure that South Africa's lights stay on? And what will you as President do to ensure that this state-owned company is not allowed to fling our country into economic disaster?
I think Eskom said there are challenges that they are dealing with, also that they wanted some increase, and that there has been a debate in the country. I thought they were saying this country will continue to have electricity, as I understood them. I might have understood them differently. They didn't say we are about to be plunged into a dark country. I think they were saying, given all the challenges, they are working hard to ensure that the country remains with this energy going forward.
What is important is the fact that we are working on these huge power stations precisely because we realised the challenges of economic growth in the country, which were not there before. You'll recall that before 1994, electricity was in abundance and very cheap in the country because it was serving a very small portion of the country. Now that we are developing the economy, we are taking electricity to areas that were never there before. So it is not because of anything else but the legacy of where we come from.
For the first time, every citizen in this country is supposed to have electricity and we are extending it to most remote areas. That is what has been a challenge. It has not been inefficiency; inefficiency was there before. It is again not because the inefficiency was just by sheer accident; it was because the economy, including electricity, was racially structured. Now this one is nonracial.
The amount is therefore not enough because it had never been paid attention to. We are paying attention to it, and that's why we are doing everything in our power to ensure that whilst we are trying to deal with the legacy of apartheid, South Africans will never run short of electricity. We are doing everything we can. I think that's what Eskom was saying today; that's how I understood them. I didn't understand them to be saying we are now running to darkness. No, I didn't understand them to be saying so. Thank you very much.
Speaker, the lack of integrity in the content of the question to the President is reflected in the fact that Dr Ambrosini has ad nauseam been given detailed responses to these questions, both by the respective Ministers during question time and during their Budget Vote debates during recent years, as well as by the majority party. The question is a reflection of a narrow neoliberal view originating from the Reagan and Thatcher era of the reduction of the state, and the handing over of assets to the private sector. [Interjections.]
Order, order!
And this has spectacularly failed. As is the case in most countries, the state must play a central and strategic role in terms of social transformation by directly investing in underdeveloped areas and directing private sector investment.
Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member responding on behalf of the President? [Interjections.]
Please take your seat; that is not a point of order. [Interjections.] Take your seat, sir. Proceed, hon member. Order, hon members!
This place is a developmental state at the centre of our economic agenda, which must take different forms, including state-owned enterprises. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] Would the President agree with this approach; and why?
Well, if I understood the speaker, he is actually raising issues about how great a lack of understanding there is regarding what we are doing, which leads to questions that, when they are asked, the owners tend to disown when they are answered, and where they themselves may not be very, very clear about what they were asking. He was just making a very important point. I agree with the point. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
Necessity of affirmative action and BEE against background of President's promise to help white people
6. Adv A de W Alberts (VF Plus) asked the President of the Republic:
In light of his visit to white squatter camps in Pretoria in 2009 and his promise to help them, why are measures such as (a) affirmative action and (b) Black Economic Empowerment that impoverishes white people still necessary when statistics indicate that more black people own property than white people do and that an equal number of black and white people own shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange?