Chairperson, I think looking at the levels of attendance and participation in this room, quite clearly, it's an area of interest for those of us who chose to remain in this House.
The Pension Funds Amendment Bill of 2007, which is being debated in this House today, addresses the urgent technical and regulatory issues in the Pensions Funds Act of 1956.
The House will recall that in 2001, the Pensions Fund Second Amendment Act was passed. That Act primarily dealt with two important issues, namely that of the apportionment of a surplus in a pension fund and minimum benefits for pensioners and members on withdrawal. The second amendment took a number of years to be finalised given the emotive issues concerned with the use of pension fund surpluses over the past few decades.
This House would also remember that the Act was vigorously debated at Nedlac and it was recognised that, in many instances, former members of pension funds were important contributors to the building up of pension fund surpluses over time. As a matter of equity in any distribution of surpluses the former members would have to be considered if that process begins. An equitable apportionment of surplus therefore involves all stakeholders in the fund: former members, current members and employers.
This process naturally involves large sums of money, which in some cases could require an employer to repay surpluses utilised improperly by the fund. The vast majority of pension funds have complied with the spirit and intention of the 2001 Pensions Act in apportioning the fund surpluses. But not unexpectedly, given the sums involved, some legal challenges have been brought forth since 2001, as quick legal minds and those seeking to avoid liability scoured the Act for any form of legal loopholes.
Chairperson, in many ways these challenges seek to subvert the spirit of the original legislation passed by this very House. By interpreting the law in the narrowest sense possible we would not do this House justice if we did not seek to reinforce and to entrench the provisions and the spirit of the 2001 legislation with regards to surplus apportionment, thereby protecting the most vulnerable in our society.
The Bill before this House therefore attempts to close the legal loopholes by clarifying certain provisions related to surplus utilisation, particularly if it was done in the past by employers and other provisions relating to surpluses generally. The proposed changes contained in the Bill follow the same principle rectified by this very House in 2001: namely, that surpluses apportionment is not a so-called ``witch-hunt'' against employers but rather it ensures fairness in surplus apportionment processes. It is about ensuring that a proper balance of interest is struck between all stakeholders involved.
I should add that although the Bill primarily involves a clarification of a variety of the provisions relating to surpluses, it also addresses a number of other important issues, including bringing bargaining council funds within the ambit of the Act, thereby affording their members the protection and oversight offered by the Registrar of Pension Funds and recourse to the pension funds adjudicator; codifying the duties of pension funds administrators which follows debates and investigation in so-called secret profits retained by administrators; changing the provision governing the pension funds adjudicator which seeks to clarify the jurisdiction and operations of that office; ensuring a more equitable treatment of a non- member spouse in the case of divorce. This will see an end to the inequitable treatment of divorcees, whereby little or no growth is attached to the portion of the pension monies allocated to them by the order of the court.
The Bill also incorporates relationships recognised under the recently promulgated Civil Union Act and makes allowances for other court orders such as maintenance orders. These changes, hon members, therefore provide further protection to dependants and other beneficiaries.
Importantly, the Bill also significantly increases the power of the Registrar of the Pension Funds, including the power to impose administrative penalties. This House is well aware of several instances of abuse in the pension funds and insurance sector, which have been exposed in the past few years. Such abuses are often due to lax governance, inadequate disclosures, conflicts of interest and poor trusteeship. In the face of such difficulties, not only do these problems need to be addressed, but the regulator requires sufficient powers to intervene where necessary to protect the interest of members.
The provision of this Bill will bring supervisory powers of the Registrar in line with international standards and also with best practices. In conclusion, this Bill is indeed an important step in the continuing effort to protect the monies members faithfully contributes towards their retirement over their working lives. It will ensure that the original intention of this House in 2001 is adhered to and that all stakeholders, including former members, will be treated fairly in the apportionment of pension fund surpluses. We also owe it to members to build not only a sound governance and legal framework but also to provide those who police participants in the industry - in this case the Registrar of Pension Funds - sufficient powers whereby they can efficiently execute their responsibilities and duties.
These are indeed urgent improvements to the regulatory architecture that can be instituted now for the benefit all while we simultaneously set about a broad social security and retirement fund reform process.
Before closing, once again I would like to thank particularly the Portfolio Committee on Finance under the chairpersonship and the steady hand of the hon Nhlanhla Nene. Thank you, hon Chairperson. [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon members, allow me to give you a historical background to this Bill. In 2001 organised labour and business could not come to an agreement on the ownership and distribution of the surplus funds that arose as a result of members of pension fund migrating from a definite benefit fund to a definite contribution fund.
Business was of the view that the whole surplus belongs exclusively to business. Their argument rested on two assumptions. The first assumption was that business carried all the risk as final guarantor of the definite benefit scheme. The second part of the argument rested on the view that business had honoured their obligations to members as they migrated from a definite benefit funds to a definite contributions fund and therefore whatever remained in the fund belonged to business.
On the other hand, organised labour also wanted the surplus exclusively for workers or members. Their argument rested on the premises that workers did not receive their fair share when they migrated from a definite benefit fund to a definite contribution fund. The matter was finally brought before Parliament in 2001.
Parliament took a more balanced approach on this matter after listening to a comprehensive submission from organised labour, the National Treasury and the Financial Services Board. I must also mention that organised business did not make any submission on this matter.
Parliament came to the conclusion that the surplus funds belonged to the pension fund and that a legal framework should be put in place to distribute money to various stakeholders as defined in the Pension Fund Amendment Act of 2001.
Parliament considered that indeed workers did not get their fair share as they migrated from the DB fund to the DC fund.
Parliament went further to agree that the employer also has a right to the surplus after we considered good actuarial advice from the Financial Service Board. Parliament's intention in 2001 when passing this legislation was that the origin of the surplus funds should be investigated from 1 January 1980. This period was chosen after being informed by various stakeholders that this was the period when most funds were converted from definite benefit fund to definite contribution funds.
It also came to the attention of the Portfolio Committee on Finance that the surplus funds could have been used improperly by employers in the process. The Pension Funds Amendment Act of 2001 indicates four categories of improper use of surpluses by the employers: firstly, the giving of additional benefits to executives in excess to what was given to other members; secondly, the allocation of additional pension benefits to a selected groups of members to the total exclusion of other members; thirdly, employers contributing less than what was recommended by an actuary and even in certain instance, ceasing to make a contribution to the fund thus eroding the surplus; lastly, the cost of recognising prior personal services to selected members.
This Bill aims to clarify uncertainties regarding the true intention of Parliament around the investigation of the improper use of the surplus by the employer, among other issues. It came to the attention of the Portfolio Committee on Finance that there is confusion amongst certain stakeholders on the true intention of Parliament when you passed the legislation in 2001.
Clearly, we need to confirm the decision Parliament took in 2001 that the investigation on improper use of surpluses should go back to 1 January 1980. We have to say clearly that the intention of Parliament's legislation then was that it should be retrospective.
Business Unite South Africa made a submission before this committee challenging the constitutionality of backdating proper use to 1989 on the grounds that it is retrospective. After considering various legal opinions presented before the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the constitutionality of the matter of improper use of surpluses, the committee took a view that the decision of Parliament in 2001 was a correct decision. The view of the committee on the provisions of this Bill on this matter is rational and fair.
The Portfolio Committee on Finance was also of the view that Parliament in the past passed legislation aimed at redressing the past inequities. This Bill aims to redress the inequities of the past as I have already outlined.
Allow me to turn to a very important matter of divorce orders. The current Pension Act does not allow for the immediate payment of a pension benefit to a nonmember spouse upon dissolution of a marriage. Nonmember spouse benefits remain locked in the member's funds until retirement. The problem is that the spouse benefit does not grow in value while the member's fund grows in value. This puts the spouse in a disadvantaged position.
To remedy this untenable situation the Bill provides for the clean break principle: The nonmember's spouse shall have the option to elect an immediate payment of his or her portion of the pension benefit. The spouse would then pay tax on the payment received or alternatively the spouse can elect to transfer the payment to an approved fund.
A pension fund named in there must effect the deduction upon receipt of the divorce order.
Let me also turn to the issue of powers of the Registrar of Pension Funds. The recent episodes of financial misconducts warrant that this House give this matter urgent attention. Under the current Law, the Registrar of Pension Funds cannot remove trustees without first applying to the courts in terms of section 26 of the Pension Funds Act.
The problem in such a position is that court processes take a long time while member's interests are placed at risk. According to this Bill, the registrar may remove a member who is not fit and proper to hold office. The registrar has to notify the trustee and give the trustee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
In terms of this Bill, the Registrar of Pension Funds is empowered to intervene in the management of pension funds. The registrar may direct that the rules of pension funds, including rules relating to the appointment, remuneration and removal of board members after considering the interest of the members of the funds.
The registrar can direct that the rules be amended if the registrar is of the opinion that the fund is not in a sound position or does not comply with the provisions of this Act; secondly, in case the board has failed to act where the fund is in an unsound financial position; thirdly, when the fund is not managed in accordance with this act or the rules of the fund.
Currently, there are certain pension or profitable funds established in terms of the Labour Relations Act or collective bargain agreement. These funds are not compelled by the current legislation to register with a Financial Services Board and most of these funds are registered voluntarily with the Financial Services Board.
The committee is concerned that some of these funds do enjoy the protection afforded by the Pension Funds Act. This Bill stipulates that all provident funds established under the Labour Relations Act must be governed by the Pension Funds Act. The portfolio committee is convinced that the financial board has the capacity and expertise to regulate collective bargain funds.
The current office of the Registrar of Labour Relations will not have the capacity to inspect these funds and enforce the rules of the funds. The Bill also instructs the administrator of a pension fund to endeavour to avoid conflict between the interest of the administrator and the duties of the administrator to the fund.
The administrator is required to disclose that conflict of interest to the trustee and explain fully how such conflict of interest is going to be managed. The administrator is required to manage the fund in a responsible manner. Lastly, the registrar is given the power to suspend or withdraw the approval granted to the administrator. The ANC supports this Bill.
Chairman, a large portion of South African citizens has the same objective in life and that is to contribute to a secure pension fund that will provide for their needs when they go on pension. They are honest, law-abiding citizens who work hard in often very difficult circumstances for the day they can sit back and enjoy life as a senior citizen, knowing they have secured monetary provisions to cater for their everyday needs.
It is therefore not strange that it is expected of government to provide a framework to organise the pension fund industry to ensure that the savings and livelihood of members of pension funds are secured.
Voorsitter, bestaande wetgewing moet van tyd tot tyd aangepas word om aan die hedendaagse uitdagings en omstandighede te voldoen en om te verseker dat lede van pensioenfondse seker kan wees van hul regmatige voordele wat hulle toekom.
Daar is ongelukkig voorbeelde waar afgetredenes krepeer van die ellende en armoede, ongeag die verwagtings wat hulle gekoester het vir 'n sorgelose oudag. Baie van hulle is nou die staat se verantwoordelikheid. Dit is ons plig as Parlement om te verseker dat hul beste belange deurentyd vooropgestel word.
Die primre doel van die wetsontwerp is juis om verdere ondersteuning en stukrag te gee aan die optimale en volhoubare beskerming van die belange van huidige en oudlede van pensioenfondse. Die voorgestelde veranderinge is baie dringend, hoewel grootliks tegnies en administratief van aard. Dit spreek nie net die bestaande voorsienings in die wet beter aan nie, maar bring dit ook in ooreenstemming met bepalings en toepassings in ander verwante wette. Dit bring duidelikheid oor die voorsienings en verklarings van surplusfondse in die bestaande wetgewing.
Uit die interaksies van die komitee met verskeie relevante bedryfsrolspelers en geaffekteerdes is dit duidelik dat die voorgestelde veranderings apart gesien moet word van die beloofde hervormingsproses van pensioenfondse en die sogenaamde "social security" stelsel. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Chairperson, existing legislation has to be amended from time to time to measure up to present-day challenges and circumstances and to ensure that members of pension funds can be assured of the rightful benefits that are their due.
There are unfortunately examples where retired persons find themselves destitute, in spite of the hopes they cherished for a carefree old age. Many of them are now the state's responsibility. It is our duty as Parliament to ensure that their best interests are constantly placed first.
The primary purpose of this Bill is precisely to give further support and momentum to the optimal and sustainable protection of the interests of existing and past members of pension funds. The proposed amendments are very urgent, though primarily of a technical and administrative nature. Not only does it address the existing provisions in the Act more appropriately, but it also fits in with the provisions and applications of other related Acts. It sheds light on the provisions and declaration of surplus funds in existing legislation.
From the interaction of the committee with several other relevant role- players in the industry and those affected by it, it is clear that the proposed amendments should be viewed separately from the promise of a pension fund reform process and the so-called "social security" system.]
The objective of this amendment Bill is to protect the pension interest of existing and past members. For instance, it clarifies the apportionment of the surplus utilised improperly in terms of section 15(b) of the Act. The amendments will provide clarity to boards of trustees responsible for apportioning surplus funds and to close loopholes that allow for creative interpretations that was not the intention with the Pension Funds Second Amendment Act.
It brings the regulations of retirement funds established through bargaining council arrangements under the regulatory auspices of the Registrar of Pension Funds. It addressed the required powers of the registrar to increase regulatory effectiveness. It addresses the specific duties of pension fund administrators and clarifies the jurisdiction of the pension fund adjudicator. It also brings clarity on how to deal with divorce orders and maintenance claims in respect of pension fund benefits and it aligns the Act to accommodate the changes in regulatory policy and practical considerations.
Van die grootste uitdagings vir die komitee was vir seker die evaluering en beoordeling van die uiteenlopende insette deur verskillende bedryfsrolspelers. Kontroversieel was vir seker die bepalings dat kapitaal van pensioenfondslede oorgeplaas kan word van tradisionele of onderskryfde pensioen- en annuteitsfondse na die sogenaamde nie-onderskryfde fondse. In so 'n geval sal fondse waarvan reeds vooraf volle kommissie verhaal is, oorgeplaas word na fondse waarop daar deurlopende koste verhaal sal word op grond van die verdienste van die fonds of soos met die lede van die fonds ooreengekom is.
Die terugwerkende beginsel van verdeling van pensioenfondsreserwes, soos vervat in hierdie wetsontwerp, kan lei tot duur en uitgerekte hofsake wat selfs tot in die Konstitusionele Hof beveg kan word. Hoewel die aanwending van die fondsreserwes nie in die verlede noodwendig teen die rels van die betrokke fonds of die bepalings van die finansile diensteraad was nie, kan die terugwerkende beginsel by die aanvaarding van die wet impliseer dat sekere aanwendings in die verlede nou as onvanpas en onrelmatig verklaar word. Dit kan die gevolg inhou dat sekere multinasionale organisasies nou baie onbegrote en onbeplande miljoene rande tot die betrokke pensioenfondse moet bydra, wat 'n negatiewe impak op die prestasies van die organisasies en moontlike beleggings kan beteken.
Ons moet egter onthou dat dit reserwes is wat verdien is op die bydraes van die spesifieke lede, maar aan wie dit nie noodwendig toegedeel is nie en dus nie die voordeel gekry het nie. Behalwe dat die wetsontwerp handel oor die finansile voorspoed van pensioenfondslede moet ons ook nie die morele relevansie hiervan uit die oog verloor nie.
Pensioenfondstrusts en - trustees steun hierdie wetsontwerp en was sulke voorleggings ook in die komitee gemaak. Hoewel die DA sensitief is vir veral die korttermyn ekonomiese impak op veral multinasionale organisasies, het ons geen twyfel dat die inhoud en die bepaling van hierdie wetsontwerp geregverdig is nie en dat dit sal lei tot die verbetering van die lewenskwaliteit van baie pensioenfondslede. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Some of the greatest challenges for the committee were certainly to evaluate and review the diverse inputs from various role players in the industry. The provisions that were certainly controversial were those which stipulate that pension fund members' capital can be transferred from traditional or underwritten pension and annuity funds to the so-called non- underwritten funds. In this instance funds on which the full commission has already been recovered beforehand will be transferred to funds from which continuous costs will be recovered on the basis of the earnings of the fund or as agreed upon with the members of the fund.
The retrospective principal of apportioning pension fund reserves, as contained in this Bill, could lead to costly and drawn-out lawsuits that could even be contested right up to the Constitutional Court. In the past, even though the appropriation of fund reserves did not necessarily contravene the rules of the relevant fund or the regulations of the Financial Services Board, the retrospective principle could, with the passing of the Act, imply that certain appropriations of the past could now be declared inappropriate and irregular. This could result in certain multinational organisations now having to contribute millions of unbudgeted and unplanned for rands to the relevant pension funds, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the organisations and possible investments.
However, we must remember that these reserves have been earned from the contributions of specific members to whom it was not necessarily apportioned and therefore they could not benefit from it. Except for the fact that the Bill deals with the financial wellfare of members of pension funds, we must also not lose sight of its moral relevance.
Pension fund trusts and trustees are supporting this Bill and such submissions were also made to the committee. Although the DA is particularly sensitive to the short-term economic impact on multinational organisations in particular, we have no doubt that the contents and the provisions of this Bill are justifiable and that it will lead to the improvement of the quality of life of many members of pension funds.]
I want to express my appreciation again to National Treasury and the Portfolio Committee on Finance for the thorough and decisive way that this Bill and the various submissions were interrogated and the transparent manner in which we could interact with the specialists from Treasury. The DA supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the retirement industry in South Africa is a very large one with hundreds of billions of rand invested in it. Most formerly employed people use these funds and their products to save for their postemployment retirement.
In this matter, these citizens provide privately for their retirement and should therefore as a rule not become a financial burden to the state. However, the regulation of the industry has not always been as tight as it could have been and, as Treasury puts it, some very creative legal interpretations have been used to circumvent the spirit and letter of the law.
Key challenges for government in the regulation of the retirement fund industry include lowering costs, improved governance, improved performance by trustees, the correct application of the surplus legislation, improving the supervisory powers of the financial services board and encouraging the culture of compliance. The Bill aims to address these challenges and the IFP, therefore, supports it.
In general terms, retrospective application of legislation can be construed as being against the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the certainty of the legal environment that it creates. The IFP, however, accepts that the Minister and Treasury have used retrospection in this case to increase the protection afforded by the law to former members, particularly as it is alleged that cases of abuse took place well before the cut-off date as proposed and it will continue to do so in the future.
The IFP also supports the amendments of bringing the pension funds adjudicators in line with the Prescription Act and that the Minister may appoint one or more deputy adjudicators and that an acting adjudicator could improve operational efficiency in that office. I've got a lot to say. I have a long speech here, but I can see that the hon members are really tired, at this stage, being put to the limit and I think that I would like to set an example by tabling the rest of my speech for inclusion. Before I do that, I just hope that the same dedication that the committee and the Ministry have shown in terms of this, will also apply when looking at Members of Parliament's own pension funds. Let them just see if they can't do something about that, because it is truly miserable and we need to have a look at it. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I will follow the previous speaker's example and limit my comments to one minute.
South Africans are not a nation of savers. The national savings ratio has steadily declined to a level previously seen in 1949. Most citizens in the formal sector contribute towards their retirement, often over their whole lifetime. This then serves as the most significant source of savings for these individuals.
The retirement fund industry has been under the spotlight in recent years due to various concerns. The purpose of this Bill is to enhance the protection of pension interests of members, which the ACDP welcomes and supports. We do, however, note that the Bar council raised concerns regarding the registrar's ability to impose penalties of up to R5 million per day. They argued that it would take away people's right to a fair trial.
Treasury, however, argued that administrative penalties were a well- respected tool internationally. We also trust that the retrospective application of certain provisions, though extraordinary and justifiable, will be upheld by a court should they be challenged. We, as indicated earlier, will support this Bill, as it seeks to protect the interests of members of pension funds. I thank you.
Chairperson, the PAC supports the Pension Funds Amendment Bill. As can be observed, the Pension Funds Act is a very old law. Much has happened since 1956; this Act is over 50 years old.
The Act is being amended to clarify certain expressions and provisions in line with the practical application and elite outdated provisions. Some of the expressions that are defined are "administrator", "beneficiary", "spouse", "employer's surplus account", etc. The object of this Bill is to protect the pension interests of members and indeed to align the Act to accommodate the changes in regulatory policy and practical considerations.
The Pension Funds Amendment Bill has no constitutional implications and the PAC supports this Bill. It is in the interest of pensioners who have served this country well and now rely on this kind of financial source for their living as senior citizens. Thank you.
Chairperson, the MF notes the importance that pensions plays in the lives of many contributing South Africans and their dependence on these funds once they have retired. Even though the Taxation Law Amendment Bill has made way to repeal taxes on retirement funds, it is a legislator's duty to ensure that the necessary legal instruments have been put in place to secure these savings of contributions to the fund.
In view of the Bill, the MF finds the provisions made to clarify the role played in management of the fund as suitable. The MF, however, uses this platform to reiterate its call for a better liveable pension for all retirees. We would consider R1 800 pension to be far more suitable to fulfil the needs and basic necessities of our pensioners.
Free basic health care and a special pension rate for a number of government services and amenities such as food should be considered. The MF supports the Pension Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Siyabulela Mhlalingaphambili; le ntetho ndiza kuyenza namhlanje ndiyenzela ooVukayibambe ababesakubizwa ngokuba ziiYoung Lions, ulutsha lwangeeminyaka yoo-80, nelabona ukuba maluzale ezitalatweni, olwe- ANC kunye neminye imibutho eyayivalwe imilomo ngoko, lusenzela ukuba abone urhulumente wamaBhulu ukuba akenzi nto. Abantu beli loMzantsi Afrika abathi bahlangana eKliptown bayicacisa mhlophe eyokuba uKhongolozi unenkathalo kubantu beli lizwe ngokuthi umbutho wabantu uthabathe izigqibo zokuba abantu baya kulawula, kwaye akukho rhulumente uya kuzingomba isifuba athi umele abantu ngaphandle korhulumente onyulwe sisininzi sabantu.
Lo mbutho unguhobolozela okanye uGalelebhayini awuzange ube nedyudyu, kwaye wazibonakalisa ngokuthi uwushicilele ube sisihlomelo soMgaqo-siseko woMzantsi Afrika uMqulu waMalungelo. Le Ndlu ihloniphekileyo yoWisomthetho yathabatha isigqibo kwisikhokelo sayo esithi njengoko kwanyulwa abameli babantu benyulwa ngabantu boMzantsi Afrika isikhokelo sethu sale Ndlu sithi, kumele ukuba sisebenzise ilizwi labantu ekufezekiseni izifungo zoMgaqo-siseko esazithatha kule Ndlu kunye nasekuphunyezweni kwemithetho nokuba ngamagqabi kumasebe karhulumente.
Kweminye yemisebenzi emininzi kukho nejongene neSebe lezeziMali eluxanduva lokwenza inguqu ngakumbi kwezezimali nakubuncwane beli lizwe jikelele. Masiye apho kufele khona ithole ke. ISebe lezeziMali lithe thaca kule Ndlu iziphakamiso zenguqu kuMthetho wezoMhlalaphantsi njengoko kungazi kuba lula ukwenza njalo. Okokugqibela phambi koku kwakungonyaka wama-2001. Kungoko sisithi lo mngeni awunakuthatyathwa njengowethutyana ngoba iinguqu zenziwa ngokuhamba kwethuba nangokutshintsha kwamaxesha. Iimeko ziyanyanzelisa ukuba kwenziwe iinguqu. iPalamente ngoko inethuba lokwenza ezo nguqu zokuthi siphumeze lo Mthetho uYilwayo.
Lo Mthetho ukhusela amalungelo kunye nabo bonke abantu abaza kuzuza kwipenshoni njengokuba ililungelo labo. Onke amalungu anelungelo lokufumana inxalenye yemali kunye nenzala yayo ethe yangena ngethuba imali igcinwe koovimba okanye kushishinwe ngayo ukusuka kwiminyaka yoo-1980. Siyavuma ukuba onke amalungu kuyimfuneko ukuba afane ngokufanayo lawo asasebenzayo kunye nalawo adla umhlalaphantsi singalibali abalingani kunye nabantwana. Umbutho wesizwe uyakhathala ngoba ujongene neemeko abakuzo abahlolo kunye nabahlolokazi abangakhuselekanga ngokusemthethweni. Injongo yethu yeyokubakhusela ukuze bangabi ngamaxhoba ezi meko.
Siyazi ke ukuba xa injalo inguqu ayibikho mnandi kwaphela kwabanye. Ezi nguqu siziphakamisayo thina malungu ombutho wesizwe siyazamkela, kwaye siyazixhasa. Kutheni sisitsho nje? Kungokuba iimali zabantu esizibeke koovimba zezabo kwaye kufuneka bezifumene kunye nenzala yazo. Ngethuba iKomiti yezeziMali ibihlalutya le ntetho bonke oosomashishini bebengenangxaki namakhwiniba kwezinye iinguqu eziphakanyisiweyo. Inye inguqu abangavumelani nayo - njengokuba ebesitsho ugxa wam - yeyokuba ibuyiselwe ngasemva imali.
Bafunge, bamunca iintupha, bathi unotshe, ayinakwenzeka leyo. Bagrogrise bathi baza kuya kwiinkundla eziphakamileyo zeli lizwe, bade baye nakwiNkundla yomMgaqo-siseko. Sithi ke thina asothuswa yiloo nto. Thina senza oko sifanelwe kukukwenza; sikhusela amalungelo abantu, kwaye sikwakhusela nawabo amalungelo, ngoko sithi mabahambe. Huntshu yiyani apho kwezo nkundla! Izigqibo zenkundla siza kuzamkela, kodwa ze niyazi ukuba yekabani le mali niza kuya ngayo kwezo nkundla. Iza kunqanda bani inkundla ukuba angayifumani imali yakhe umnikazi?
IKomiti iyalamkela igalelo elenziwe yimibutho yabasebenzi xa besijula ngengxoxo kulo mba. Kodwa ke siyacela ukuba xa uyekile emsebenzini uba likheswa ungabikho phantsi kwemibutho yabasebenzi nguwe nomqondisi-zincwadi kuphela ukuze kuphicothwe umba wepenshoni yakho. Ngumngeni kurhulumente nakubo bonke ababandakanyekayo ukuba bajonge abo bantu baza kuba bengamaxhoba xa sele beyekile ukuba ngabasenzi. Umhlekazi apha emva kwam, uthe mandigqagqanise, ndixele umgqakhwe usaba ilifa. [Kwahlekwa.]
Abantu kufuneka bajonge kakuhle, bazikise ukucinga kunganjani na ukuba bangalongeza inani labasebenzi kweli bhunga okanye kule bhodi ukuze bakhusele amalungelo abantu. Siyazi ke ngokwasemthethweni, amalungu ayalingana, iba ziziqingatha ezilinganayo kodwa besisithi ukuba kunokongezwa kungangcono. Siyabulela ke njengekomiti, kwaye sisamkela thina malungu ombutho wesizwe. Masibulele nakugxa wam we-DA, uMarais, yena mntu uhlala ehleli nathi xa sijula ngengxoxo. Sithi le ntsebenziswana anayo angayilahli. Siyacamagushela. Camagu! [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Mr S E ASIYA: Thank you Chairperson. I dedicate my speech to the brave young lions, the youth of the 1980s, the youth who felt the need to take to the streets. That is the ANC Youth League of that time, working together with the other organisations which were banned at the time. The youth made sure that the apartheid regime realised that it was fighting a losing battle. When people of South Africa met in Kliptown that clearly indicated that the ANC cared about the people of this country. The people decided it was they who should govern, and that there would be no government that would claim to be representing people without them.
This august organisation was not intimidated. It showed that by publishing the Bill of Rights as an addition to the South African Constitution. The National Assembly took a decision in its guide that, as the people's representatives were elected by the people of South Africa, it is necessary to use the people's voice to fulfil the obligations of the Constitution that we took in this House as well as the passing of the legislation, even if these are good working people from the government departments.
One of the tasks the Department of Finance is faced with, is the responsibility to make amendments especially with regard to finances and to the wealth of this country in general. Let us get straight to the point. The Department of Finance displayed in this House motions of amendments to the Pension legislation, as it is not going to be easy to do that. The last time this was done was in 2001. Therefore, it is for this reason that we say, this challenge cannot be taken as a short term challenge, because amendments are made with the opportunity that comes and as time changes. Circumstances are making amendments obligatory. Therefore, Parliament has an opportunity to make those amendments for the Bill to be approved.
This Bill protects the rights and all people are to benefit from their pension as it is their right. All members have a right to get the money with the interest it gained during the time it was put into investments or when it was used in some enterprise, starting from the 1980s. We agreed that all members should benefit equally: those that are still working and those on pension, not forgetting their partners and children. The ANC cares because it deals with conditions that affect the widows and widowers. They are not protected according to the law. Our aim is to protect them in order not to become victims of these conditions.
We know for the fact that, if an amendment is like that it is not liked by some people. We welcome the amendments that we raised as members of the ANC and we support them. Why do we say that? It is because the money invested belongs to them and they should get it together with the interest. The time the Finance Committee was analysing this speech, all businessmen did not have a problem with some of the amendments that were raised. There is only one amendment that they do not agree with, as my partner has already indicated - that the money should be reversed.
They swore that that would never occur. They threatened to go to the High Court of this country, including even the Constitutional Court. Therefore, we say that we do not feel threatened. We only do what we are supposed to do and protect people's rights and even theirs as well. Therefore we say let them go, well done, go to those courts! We will welcome the court's decisions but you should know where this money that you use for transport comes from. Whose money will the court stop from being given to its owner? The committee welcomes the role played by the workers' organisations, when we debated this issue. Therefore, we request that when you leave your job, you should not not become an outcast. It is between you and your financial advisor to discuss your pensions. This is a challenge to the government and all those who are involved, to look at those people who will be victims when they retire. My brother behind me here said I must be short and to the point. [Laughter.]
People must be very careful and think deep. How would it be if they could bring more numbers of workers in this province on board, in order to protect people's rights? However, we know according to the law that members are equal, half are equal but we were saying it would be better if they can bring more. Therefore, we express our sincere gratitude as a committee and also welcome that as members of the ANC. Let me thank my colleague, hon Marais from the DA, who is always with us when we debate. We say he must keep up this co-operation. Well done! [Applause.]]
Order! I think we must commend the member. He spoke for three minutes and 23 seconds shorter than he was supposed to, so I think he was considering you. [Applause.] I did not intimidate him. [Laughter.]
Mr Chairman, do you think there's a chance that the Deputy Minister could speak for three minutes and 23 seconds shorter than he is due to speak?
I'll surprise you.
Chairperson, the hon member here has quite clearly summarised the discussion in the debate. He said: We had to do what we are expected to do. And we did it. I would like to thank the members of this House who participated in this debate as well as the portfolio committee. I also want to say, hon Chairperson, that that is about it from us. It has been a long day. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
Debate on seventh Order - deepening youth participation through service stood over.