Chairperson, hon members and Ministers present here ...
Hon members ...
... sicela ukuthi noma ngabe siyahleka, sihlekele phansi, uma singakwazi ukuhleba kungcono sithule noma siphumele ngaphandle. [... my request to you is that even if you are laughing, keep it down, and if you cannot keep your voices down, you better keep quiet or leave the House.]
You may continue, hon member.
... the immense socioeconomic challenges facing the leadership of this country, irrespective of political affiliation or differences, demand of all of us that everything we say and everything we seek to do as a people must be guided and underpinned by our common desire to achieve our long-term strategic objectives. That is the creation of a prosperous, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa.
To achieve this national project, there is a need to forge a national consensus, translated into a national long-term plan, which will be clearly defined in terms of short-term interventions in the form of a developmental state. Secondly, our discussions must be guided by the work we have done in the last 15 years. We need to take stock of our successes and failures, and identify the areas that need serious attention, to improve the quality of life of the ordinary masses of our people. Therefore, the Green Paper should be seen as the beginning and not the end of a process that seeks to enhance or improve the work of government that is undergoing serious structural changes.
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the executive on taking this bold and courageous step, in particular the Minister in the Presidency responsible for the National Planning Commission, by engaging Parliament in the consultative processes that seek to generate public discussions on how government can best improve its work. Judging by the number of written submissions and public debates on this topic, there is no doubt that it is, indeed, a matter of national importance. It is an important proposal that will have a far-reaching, really positive impact on the successes of a developmental state.
I must mention and commend the high interest that the opposition parties have shown in the processing of this matter. Not only did they participate in the committees, but they also did so at the highest level of their leadership.
What is the Green Paper all about? The Green Paper is a platform to test ideas, to consult with the public, to broaden the debate and build consensus around a national vision. Through the ad hoc committee, Parliament, as a vehicle to realise the abovementioned objectives, has succeeded in discharging its mandate.
After going through this process, the committee also agreed that not all the issues raised in the Green Paper would be resolved overnight. Some of the issues should be treated as work in progress that the executive must, and will, continue to pay attention to. Equally, Parliament will also have to continue on an ongoing basis to perfect its oversight role in line with the challenges that are arising at the level of government.
Some of the concerns raised with the committee during the public hearings or through written submissions included the following: the leadership and location of the National Planning Commission; over-concentration of power at the centre and probably with one or so individuals, to the exclusion of the executive; inclusivity of the National Planning Commission in terms of appointing national commissioners, but also independent institutes that tend to take on a life of their own and become unaccountable; and the status of the National Planning Commission, as an advisory body or a statutory body.
The other concern that was raised was that there might be a tendency from the centre to undermine the constitutional provisions, in terms of other spheres of government, such as municipalities, in terms of planning, and concerns that strategic plans of other spheres will be undermined by the centre. Centralisation of planning equals state planning, to the exclusion of market objectivity, and it might inhibit creativity in the line departments and other spheres of government.
I must say that after processing more than 56 written submissions and eight oral submissions, there were more areas of agreement than disagreement, that South Africa needs a long-term plan to guide shorter term trade-offs. It needs to improve planning and co-ordination at the level of government, but interrelationships between policy planning, monitoring and evaluation are intertwined.
We need international experience in appointing the national planning commissioners, but not to the exclusion of local experience and local competence. There is a need for the National Planning Commission to be located within the Presidency, and the Minister responsible for the National Planning Commission should supervise the activities of this commission. The national plan is the domain of the executive committee, meaning Cabinet.
An area that needs further clarification is the status of the National Planning Commission: if it is considered as an advisory body, whether the process is going to culminate in a White Paper, and constitutional provisions to protect the autonomy or plans from other spheres.
In conclusion, it is our considered view that, as the ad hoc committee, we have discharged our mandate as expected by this House. We have provided the public with the platform for South Africans to engage with the consultative document, and their concerns and advice are of great value that has shaped the overall thrust of this document or report. We appreciate the consultation sought by government from Parliament to process this important debate.
As regards our recommendations, I will not go through all of them. They are there in the report, but I think it is important that, as Parliament, we should support that the Green Paper on National Strategic Planning should be allowed to proceed and that the National Planning Commission should be a body that should be supervised by the Minister in the Presidency responsible for the National Planning Commission. Lastly, the primacy of Cabinet should not be debatable. I, therefore, recommend that the House accepts and supports the report as tabled before this House. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon members, can we please go back to the Fifth Order? The question that was put was put as the report that should be adopted. However, the question was supposed to enquire whether there were any objections to the Bill being read a second time. Are there any objections? No objections. Agreed to. The secretary will read the Bill a second time.
Sorry, Chair, may I ask which Bill you are referring to?
The Fifth Order is on the Repeal of Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill.
Chairperson, the DA firmly supports the establishment of a national vision and long-term planning. However, consider the words of Alexis de Tocqueville when he described what kind of despotism democratic nations have to fear, and I quote:
Over these men stands an immense tutelary power, which assumes sole responsibility for securing their pleasure and watching over their fate. It is absolute, meticulous, regular, provident, and mild. It would resemble paternal authority if only its purpose were the same, namely, to prepare men for manhood. But on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them in childhood irrevocably. It likes citizens to rejoice, provided they think only of rejoicing. It works willingly for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their industry, regulates their successions, and divides their inheritances. Why not relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and the difficulty of living?
In the extract De Tocqueville describes the particular guise that despotism might take in future democratic states. His fear was that democracy would become a proxy for control and that the centralisation of power could produce a government the purpose of which was to manage, not merely the organs of state, but the private affairs of individuals.
De Tocqueville does not suggest this process is violent, but mild; and its realisation not sudden, but gradual. Little by little it robs each citizen of the use of his own faculties. The danger, then, lies in the fact that this threat is not immediately apparent. The primary challenge facing the citizens of any democratic state begins in recognising how it manifests itself contemporarily, and then in acting to counter its influence.
His warning is prescient and relevant still today. Central to this threat is the agenda of the ANC, its understanding of the role it plays in society and the manner in which its pursuit of power manifests itself in government thinking. Ideologically incapable of properly separating party and state and, through a policy of cadre deployment and a culture of nepotism, practically concerned with bending all key levers of power to its own will.
The ANC has overseen a decade-long destructive drive to centralise power. The result of this has been that those institutions designed both to deliver basic services, hon Stofile, and to act as a bulwark against an encroaching majority have seen their integrity systematically denuded. Against this background the ANC has proposed the establishment of a National Planning Commission.
The Green Paper, which sets out the vision that would underpin such an institution, has all the characteristics of the veiled intent that belies cadre deployment. It uses phrases like national interest and ideas such as a single national vision to detract from the way in which it would centralise control. It uses universal problems like poverty and HIV and Aids as the excuse to justify a series of possible interventions for it proposes no checks or balances.
Most disturbingly, and clearly underlying the entire Green Paper, is the assumption that the ANC would have been elected to power at every level. We know that that is not the case. Co-ordination and planning is not merely a matter of encouraging best democratic practice but of ensuring that ANC policy is adhered to and properly implemented.
Any proper and objective analysis of a National Planning Commission must interrogate the institution itself; in other words, the structure and powers of the mechanism as opposed to the intent of those individuals in charge of managing it. This distinction has not been properly made to date. In much the same fashion, one needs to draw a distinction between the National Planning Commission's ability to generate a co-ordinated plan and the power it may or may not have to implement that plan.
The Green Paper does not sufficiently address these latter two concerns. It talks in generics and uses imperatives such as poverty eradication to mask a less well-defined and possibly far more powerful set of political objectives, which are only ever hinted at. For example, the paper says things like:
The state has a leading role to play in reshaping the economy; our society needs more than coherent plans to shape our programmes, priorities and budgets; the commission needs to strengthen the relationship between state and society; the planning process will allow the state to identify the self-interest of various sectors and, where practicable, synthesise these into a common national interest; operational plans must take account of the broader national plan.
It says:
We need an agreed vision about the country's direction; an agency that can authoritatively and forcefully drive planning, monitoring and evaluation and institutional improvements; the commission will have the power to investigate under the supervision of the Minister for National Planning specific areas of policy the results of which would be presented to Parliament and prepared for decisions where appropriate; the Minister in the Presidency for National Planning will be politically accountable for delivering certain outputs; and that, in order to achieve that, he will have to be backed by a well-organised and technically capable institutional machinery infused with a high degree of authority and leverage.
There has also been a tendency to measure this proposal against the public record of the Minister responsible for its formulation. This is a mistake. I must tell this House that the Minister himself will be the first to admit that this proposal is a consequence of the ANC's policy. It was conceived with the ANC's approval and it was designed to oversee, first and foremost, the implementation of the ANC's programme of action.
The real test of this proposal, as it is with any institution, is the answer to the following question: Will the structural integrity of this institution prevent its abuse in the wrong hands of a particular individual, or in the hands of an organisation concerned with the centralisation and abuse of power at the expense of our democratic state? [Interjections.] If it was in your hands, hon member, it would be opposed more vigorously, but in the hands of Trevor Manuel, we are not too concerned, but if it is in your hands ...
... siya kuba nengxaki enkulu. [... we are going to have a big problem.]
Against this background, a political culture, which has created and continues to promote a policy of cadre deployment, deliberately blurring the line between party and state and a political programme, which is focused on centralising power, the proposal that a National Planning Commission be established cannot be supported. It is a proxy for control. In the hands of the ANC NEC, its ostensible purpose and power masks a more dangerous reality. It is a focal point for power, which, as part of the ANC's political agenda, stands in stark contrast to the federal nature of our constitutional democracy.
An important point that must be made is that the DA agrees that every government needs to plan. We welcome and fully support any government initiative in this regard; the purpose of which is to better co-ordinate and more effectively map the country's future. Identifying norms and standards and articulating strategic objectives are a critical component of effective governing, without which any administration will flounder. However, the Constitution provides certain conditions to which such planning must adhere. It clearly and expressly identifies the boundaries that define the influence of the national administration and any plan generated on its part must, in turn, adhere to those boundaries.
The proposal contained in the Green Paper fails to adequately satisfy these conditions. It fails properly to account for the ANC's policy of cadre deployment and does not attempt to describe how such an institution would not be protected from the ANC's inability to properly separate party and state, or its party political agenda.
Furthermore, there is the assumption that a single party governs all spheres of the South African state. This is not true. And while it is a constitutional imperative that all provinces "maintain essential national standards and meet established minimum standards" in rendering services, outside of that requirement, a province's plans and strategies for achieving those objectives cannot be dictated by the national administration.
Chapter 3 of the South African Constitution describes the nature of co- operative governance in South Africa in sections 41(1)(e), (f) and (g). That chapter states, among other things, that all spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere must -
(e) respect the constitutional status, institutions, powers and functions of government in the other spheres;
(f) not assume any power or function except those conferred on them in terms of the Constitution; (g) exercise their powers and perform their functions in a manner that does not encroach on the geographical, functional or institutional integrity of government in another sphere.
As this Green Paper stands, the DA is not satisfied that these provisions will be adhered to. As such, we propose the following recommendations: That the ANC's policy of cadre deployment be abandoned. It has done irreparable harm to our democracy and if its imposition is facilitated by a National Planning Commission, the damage it has caused will become far more acute; that the Planning Commission's mandate be limited simply to the production and co-ordination of policy and not to include any powers or authority to impose that plan on any organ of state or sphere of government; that the Planning Commission's plans and strategies adhere to the constitutional requirement that no one single course of action be imposed on every sphere of government; and that under no circumstances should the process of formulating a White Paper on the National Planning Commission be by-passed or expedited.
The White Paper will set out the precise powers and the particular nature of the commission and, if those vague suggestions in the Green Paper are any indication as to the nature of these powers, they are inappropriate and, possibly, unconstitutional. Their precise nature needs to be properly defined before any considered position on this proposal can be adopted. When we pass this legislation in this House today, we must consider what its impact would be in different hands and at different times.
In conclusion, it's worth turning one last time to De Tocqueville, who makes the following observation, and I quote:
There are many people nowadays who adjust quite easily to a compromise of this kind between administrative despotism and popular sovereignty and who believe they have done enough to guarantee the liberty of individuals when in fact they have surrendered that liberty to the national government.
And so the ANC government is facing two challenges - a pragmatic and an ideological problem. What this Green Paper fails to understand, is that the pragmatic problem, a huge skills deficit and a failure to deliver, is born out of the very ideological problem it now posits as a solution - centralisation and a drive to control every aspect of the South African democratic state.
If one is to properly address those practical challenges facing our country one must first reverse the ideological drive that underpins their creation. This Green Paper achieves the very opposite. It reinforces centralisation with little or no reference to any appropriate checks and balances. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, for weeks, the matter of the commission has been hanging in the air. Thankfully, we are here at last to talk about the Green Paper on National Strategic Planning.
The one thing almost all of us can agree on is the need for proper long- term and clear-sighted planning to effect cohesive and durable government programmes and a buy-in from all role-players.
Of plans, Robert Burns wrote:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley, An'lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!
Since we, as Cope, agree with that, we need to place a few issues on the table. First of all, we support the report of the ad hoc committee. Therefore, we need to make a clear differentiation between a long-term strategic plan and plans for integrated government. Long-term plans take a long-term view; they are discussed by the people as a whole, and are not fundamentally altered by mandates that governments obtain in elections. Mandates are meant to deliver the long-term plans in an effective and efficient manner. The distinction between the two must remain clear.
The fact that the National Planning Commission, NPC, and the Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration are located in the Presidency ought to signify to the nation that government is very serious about the three critical Ds - democracy, development and direction.
As Cope, we would have implemented an activist state so that people could start tasting the fruit of democracy rather that waiting for the developmental state to come about some time in the future.
People are losing confidence in the government. State enterprises are at sixes and sevens. Will these enterprises ever conform to any master plan? In our view, in these parastatals, self-interests will not allow the public interest to flourish.
It is common knowledge, as the Minister of Finance indicated yesterday, that corruption, like cancer, has spread throughout the government. Under these circumstances, will the NPC not just become another Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP, document where we have turf wars that will prevent the National Strategic Plan, NSP, from remaining intact?
I understand a few things about "iindlovu" [elephants.] and I, therefore, am asking if this will not just be a white elephant. Let's be very clear. Cope recognises that we need co-ordinated planning in South Africa so that we can have a clear vision of what we want to achieve as a nation. Our question is whether or not Ministries and government entities and agencies will sing from a common hymnbook. It is not with the theory that we are concerned, but the praxis.
For the government, this is indeed the last throw of the dice. The very credibility of the government hangs in the balance. It has to get this right.
When all the fundamentals are altering to such an extent and in such a manner, we have to be fundamentally certain that we have a plan that is credible, clear with a vision, relevant and practical. There are totally new imperatives in the new changed economic and natural landscape, and we must have a brilliant master plan.
The essence of this Green Paper is that we are pushing for what we can term OBG - that is an outcomes-based government. We hope that the obsession in government will not be with recordkeeping to the exclusion of implementation and delivery, because outcomes-based education, OBE, failed in schools, and OBG will fail in government if not properly executed.
I now come to the commissioners. The idea of using experts outside of government is a sterling idea until one considers what happened to Bobby Godsell.
Our concern in Cope as we look ahead is whether or not the national vision will cohere, given the manner in which contestations within the ruling party are currently taking place. Minister, let the challenges that you have in government be as complex as you can handle, but Cope is asking that the structure you are proposing as a solution be made lean and simple.
Cope is in favour of setting clear national goals, but, as with OBE, we do not want this government to become obsessive about administration and monitoring. Our support for the Green Paper is conditional on Parliament retaining its full mandate and power in respect of monitoring government. [Time expired.]
Chairperson and hon members, in processing the Green Paper, we, in the IFP, did not try and look for a snake behind every bush, but participated, being mindful of the fact that since 1994 our country's development has been contradictory and that there has been progress, stagnation and regression.
Whilst we should be proud of what we have collectively achieved over the past 15 years, poverty especially remains as critical as ever with the numbers of the poor increasing every year. Inequality is growing, and the income gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Obscene wealth lives alongside obscene poverty.
In the past 15 years, many promises have been made, many of which have just been empty promises. As the recent service delivery protests highlighted, many South Africans still lack access to basic services, sustainable jobs, quality education and healthcare and security.
Fifteen years since the dawn of democracy, South Africa stands at a crossroads. Ordinary citizens are demanding that the promise of a better life for all be fulfilled.
The IFP's vision of a prosperous society is one in which mass poverty is eradicated and in which our people are able to pursue a better life. The IFP believes that addressing our societal ills is not just a matter of changing policies, but how one deals with them. For too long, policies have remained mere pieces of paper. One thing has been said, and another done.
We, therefore, welcome government's frank admission in the Green Paper on National Strategic Planning that their lack of coherent long-term planning has limited their capacity to mobilise all of society in pursuit of its development objectives.
Furthermore, we welcome the admission that a weakness in the co-ordination of government has led to policy inconsistencies and, in several cases, to poor service delivery outcomes and also that government faces serious challenges in intergovernmental co-ordination.
We would like to reiterate our support for a co-ordinated service delivery plan, which must ensure that policies do not remain mere pieces of paper, but can be implemented on the ground.
The IFP, however, warns against the potential danger of using this National Planning Commission, NPC, to centralise too much power in the hands of government. We see the role of this new NPC merely as a co-ordinator between the three spheres of government in line with the Constitution of our country.
We have a few concerns, and I will just highlight one or two matters. One of them is: what role will Parliament play? In this respect, hon members, the IFP suggests that there should be a standing committee on the NPC to ensure that Parliament has checks and balances against political influence and to ensure that the voices of those we represent are taken into consideration.
We also want to emphasise that, as the National Planning Commission goes about its work and focuses on specific areas of research, such as the eradication of poverty, unemployment or meeting the Millennium Development Goals, MDG, etc, there must be maximum consultation with all stakeholders. All voices must be heard on the issues that this commission will be dealing with. Broad consensus from all sectors of our society is needed if the commission wants to reach its goal of building a truly nonracial, nonsexist, prosperous and democratic society.
The IFP supports the recommendations in the Green Paper and we would like to thank the chairperson and other hon members for the collegiality that exists in the ad hoc committee. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon House Chairperson, South Africa as a democratic state is founded on the provisions of the Freedom Charter, the national democratic revolution, the Constitution and the ANC manifesto. These provisions uphold the values of human rights, human dignity and human freedoms.
I want to reassure the hon Trollip and the hon Ngonyama that the ANC-led government will indeed improve the lives of the people through this Green Paper and this strategic national plan.
In the situation that we are in now, we find that South Africa is grounded on the national strategic objectives as entrenched in Chapter 2 of the Constitution - the Bill of Rights - to render this country nonracial, nonsexist, united and democratic in order to redress the atrocities of the past.
In the past 15 years significant progress has been made by the ANC-led government through the establishment of a stable economic platform that has enabled investment and the provision of basic quality services to our communities to improve their lives. However, through massive public participation processes, research has shown that, in order for South Africa to realise its strategic objectives and its vision, we need a coherent, co- ordinated, long-term plan that will provide clear and consistent policies, and for there to be sustainable monitoring and evaluation tools which will enhance quality implementation of our co-ordinated programmes that are envisaged to provide quality service delivery to communities.
In order to overcome this challenge, the Presidency, led by the Minister in the Presidency: National Planning Commission, tabled a Green Paper on National Strategic Planning in Parliament on 8 September 2009. The Green Paper calls for a vast public participation process in which different stakeholders will take part.
This led to the ad hoc committee processing 56 written submissions to ensure a democratic, open and consultative process. The ad hoc committee found that most submissions agreed on the need for the establishment of a national planning body, as captured in the report, known as the National Planning Commission, for the development of a strategic, national, coherent, long-term plan for South Africa. A national, strategic, long-term plan is critical, as it will clearly define the measurable objectives a country such as South Africa has set for itself. It assesses at a micro level where a country is in relation to its strategic objectives, and describes the policies, programme options and trade-offs required to achieve those measurable objectives in terms of the desired outcome for the country.
As the ad hoc committee, we therefore call on Parliament to support the Green Paper on National Strategic Planning as well as the National Planning Commission in order to promote intergovernmental work, interrelatedness, as opposed to working in silos by the different spheres of government, a co- ordinated approach to matters of national interest, sustainable monitoring and evaluation tools for quality service delivery to our communities. As we all know, working together we can do more. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chair, unlike the DA, the ID certainly supports the formation of the National Planning Commission. It was our sincere hope that this Planning Commission would be able to build consensus in our country around a national vision and the kind of plans that are needed to achieve it.
This is supposed to represent a new era in governance, one in which different views are engaged with in a constructive manner so as to produce outcomes that all of us can buy into. Unfortunately, though, even before we had processed the Green Paper, differences within the Cabinet emerged and this issue become a divisive rather than a unifying one.
The ID, therefore, urges the President to pronounce on the parameters of each of the new Ministries, which is something I tried to get the Minister to do to no avail.
It is hoped that the White Paper process will also clarify issues such as a greater role for Parliament in the planning process and an oversight mechanism that covers the appointment of commissioners.
The ID, however, supports the adoption of this report. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chair, as economist James Galbraith stated:
Planning, properly conceived, deals with the use of today's resources to meet tomorrow's needs. It specifically tackles issues markets cannot solve.
And:
In a properly designed system, planning and markets do not contradict one another.
There can be no doubt that challenges such as climate change, energy supply, food and water security, and structural inequalities such as systemic poverty, require longer-term planning. It will, of course, be necessary to involve independent experts and strategic thinkers in determining these long-term planning priorities and to draw up a national strategic plan.
For the ACDP, the fact that planning internationally has been used by dictators to impose a specific agenda only highlights the absolute necessity for Parliament to play a far greater role in oversight over the National Planning Commission, and a standing committee should be established for this purpose. Any tendency to centralise or abuse power would then be held in check.
The ACDP agrees that this process can only benefit by developing a White Paper first. We will support the report on this basis. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson and hon colleagues, I greet you all.
A review of the past 15 years and an analysis of the challenges for the next decade clearly indicate that unemployment, inequality, HIV/Aids and poverty stand out as the foremost challenges of our time. We cannot talk of a better future without decisively tackling these types of challenges. Secondly, transforming a state and building its capacity to act as a co- ordinated, cohesive and effective instrument of change is another important challenge.
The mobilisation of all sectors of society, including their resources, behind a shared vision is required. Such a vision should be a concrete expression of how the National Planning Commission intends to mobilise the different sectors of our society around a shared vision.
In order to effectively tackle these challenges, there is a need for both a transformed and a developmental state that works effectively with the different sectors of our society behind a clearly articulated shared vision. There is a need to establish a unifying agency for the overarching shared vision around which the state, civil society, communities and the private sector will work together to build a better future for all of us. This overarching shared vision will go some way towards answering the economic, social and political questions around the kind of society that we are seeking to build.
Some countries, such as Brazil, India, Malaysia and Tunisia, have already adopted a firm and unshakeable position to establish and implement long- term strategic planning in order to set a coherent vision backed by clear and measurable objectives.
The aim of the long-term planning was not to sacrifice the medium- and short-term needs of societies, but to ensure that there was a long-term horizon, of about 10 to 30 years, which caters for both medium- and short- term planning.
From international best practices it becomes clear that, for this long-term planning to succeed and ensure sustained growth and development, is largely dependent on the mobilisation of the public service and all other members of society at large.
Parliament is a constitutionally mandated forum for public participation on matters of national interest. The Green Paper, as a consultative and a discussion paper, was considered in a manner that accommodated public interest and allowed for national consultation. Parliament has also provided the platform for matters of national interests to be debated and considered. It has played its role as a representative of the people.
During the public participation process it became clear that there was general consensus on the need for the establishment of this unifying planning body, which will co-ordinate and advance the policy direction and priorities of government in the long term.
There is, therefore, an urgent need to act swiftly and expedite our actions so that, as a country, we are able to address the challenges of economic growth with equitably shared benefits; decent jobs and sustainable livelihoods; accessible quality education and skills development; reduction of poverty and inequality; rural development; improved health care for all; community safety; and social cohesion in a united nation, in a way that is structured from the short to the long term. Thank you.
House Chairperson, hon members of this House, what is crucial is that we are in the process of nation-building. As proposed in the Green Paper, there are implications in accepting walking on that path.
In the Green Paper it is proposed that since we are a nation, we need to agree on a national vision. We need to have a short-, medium- and long-term national plan. The major implication for that kind of a situation is that there is a need for a planning mechanism; a planning system according to J K Galbraith, as quoted in the document.
In this situation a national buy-in is critical. What are the determinants of a national buy-in? The importance of those determinants is informed by a system that is aware of the fact that, for any nation to succeed, it needs a policy that releases the capacity of its own people. What are the determinants to release that capacity? It is a short-, medium- and long- term predictability, especially in a globalised village, involving an open economy like ours, with limited substitutes against foreign imports. Another determinant is a minimum certainty that society must begin to plan its life in the long term, based on the assertion and existence of that certainty. Other determinants are consistency, which is a hallmark of integrity; coherence, which provides for dependability in the environment within which one operates; and continuity, because there are instances where the success of the project of various stakeholders lies in long-term continuity. Thus, a national planning mechanism must seek to host and affect the above elements.
It seems, in principle, that there is an agreement on all the issues I have just articulated. However, there are challenges that lie in the fear of centrality - at times an attempt to cast aspersions on the role of the state as stated in the Constitution. For instance, I have tried to find the basis of this fear, but I could not find it. Is it sometimes ignorance or negation of our Constitution, or is it ideology for ideology's sake? By the way, there is a difference between adhering to an ideology for change and being a fanatic for an ideology for ideology's sake.
If you read the Constitution, I would not have accused you as a fanatic of your ideology. If you read the following words - in the very same section - that say:
All spheres should and must secure the wellbeing of the people and they must preserve the peace, national unity and the indivisibility of the Republic.
I think if you are not that fanatic, this part is very important. The very same section you read deals with the people of the Republic, not the people of the Western Cape or Eastern Cape. Also, the very same section you have read speaks about areas of common interest throughout the country, as well as the need for effective co-operation.
What does the Green Paper say? There is a distinction between planning and policy-making. Planning, as articulated in the Green Paper, details an account of how to implement policy, thus translating policy into short-, medium- and long-term objectives. It ensures prioritising objectives and sequencing implementation.
Of course, the Green Paper does accept that this distinction is less clear. But it will be argued that the very act of developing a vision and setting long-term objectives, as articulated in the Green Paper, is part of the essence of policy-making. Implementing a strategic plan could be a tool to expose policy gaps.
In other words, a debate on who should plan or implement policy amongst a collective could unintentionally create a cumbersome relationship or interaction. It could border on superfluity. The simple dictionary view of policy states that it is a mere course of action, thus you can plan to develop or devise policy to implement a plan.
How does the Green Paper attempt to address this predicament? It argues that governance consists of a continuum of related activities which feed into one another. These activities are as follows: policy development; strategic and operational planning; resolution; resource allocation; implementation; and performance, monitoring and evaluation. Page 13 of the document states that, "all departments and spheres of government undertake elements of each of these activities".
What determines the depth of these undertakings are the functions and responsibilities as defined by the Constitution. And I repeat, hon Trollip, "as defined by the Constitution". Therefore, I would have been comfortable if you had done a critique of the inadequacy of our Constitution to deal with this phenomenon before speaking about the checks and balances ... [Interjections.]
In other words, one of the key things that we must actually take care of is that, in a country that comes from a divided history, positive leadership exploits every initiative as a means of interaction to continue, through trial and error, to find one another. You don't object to a policy upfront or before it is implemented and declare it a sin. In that context, we have no hesitation, as the ANC, in agreeing with the IFP on the fact that there is a need to begin to look at the extent to which Parliament corresponds with the new initiatives in the executive. This will ensure that we move together for mutual accountability, using a language that ensures we understand one another. In that context ...
... sithi uMzantsi Afrika mawucathule kuhle kunye. Ungaphazanyiswa nto, ube yimbumba yamanyama ngoba ngaphandle koko uyakungenelelwa zintshaba. Bakufika oogqoloma inkungu isemnyama. Khululeka Mzantsi Afrika, ziphathe uzakhe ngokutsha. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[...we say that South Africa must tread carefully as one. It must not be derailed by anything and it must be a united front, otherwise it will be easy for enemies to penetrate our borders. Enemies will catch us unawares. South Africa be free, administer and rebuild yourself. [Applause.]]
Chairperson, one of the finest decisions the President could have taken was to appoint the National Planning Commission. When India established its planning commission it was going through a very bad period.
The success of the National Planning Commission is dependent on the appointment of the people who are going to serve on it. We should not be too race-conscious. The country must get the best economic planning brains onto the National Planning Commission. If it is going to be political favours that determine appointment, this wonderful structure will fail. In my previous speech I referred to Prof Allahwala, a genius who performed an economic miracle.
Of course, it is very important that the function of this commission and what flows from it when accepted by the Cabinet and government must result in implementation.
If we are all united in working together to ensure that there is delivery and a reduction in unemployment and poverty, then we can say, 10 to 15 years later, that the National Planning Commission was worthwhile.
The MF supports the National Planning Commission.
Manana Mutshamaxitulu, hina va ANC hi vona Mpfapfarhuto wo Sungula lowu vitaniwaka Pulani ya Rixaka wu ri wona wu nga ta endla leswaku hi humelela ku ya emahlweni.
Afrika Dzonga ri le ku tsutsumeni hi rivilo lerikulu, rivilo ro fana na ra xitimela xa gezi. Ri kongomile ku antswisa vutomi bya vanhu va Afrika Dzonga. ANC yi vula leswaku yi fanele yi engetela rivilo leri Afrika Dzonga ri tsutsumaka hi rona ku lunghisa leswi swi faneleke ku lunghisiwa. A ku nga ha vi rivilo ra xitimela, ri ya va rivilo ra xihahampfhuka. Hi ndlela leyi, Pulani ya Rixaka yi engetela mafurha ya rivilo ra ku tsutsuma ka ANC hi ku lunghisa swilo leswi.
Yi lunghisa ku pfumaleka ka mitirho, swa rihanyu, swa dyondzo, nhluvukiso wa swa le makaya, ku lwisana na vugevenga na makwanga. Freedom Charter yi vurile leswaku, "Vanhu va ta fuma; ku ta va na rihanyu leri fikeleleka vanhu hinkwavo, hambi u ri xisiwana kumbe xifumi." Dr Aaron Motsoaledi u vurile leswaku hi ya eku akeni Ndzindzakhombo wa Rihanyu wa Rixaka lowu nga ta tiyisisa leswaku na munhu loyi a pfumalaka na tiki a kota ku nghena exibedhlele a tshunguriwa tanihi mhunhu wa nkoka. [Mavoko.]
Hikwalaho ndzi vulaka leswaku ku ta va na rihanyu ra vanhu hinkwavo. Swibedhlele, titliliniki, na tin'anga ta xintima va ta khomisana na Holobye wa Rihanyu ku tiyisisa leswaku hambi byi ri vuvabyi bya HIV/Aids ha byi hlula.
Loko ANC yi rhangele emahlweni a hi hluli hi nchumu. Yi endlile mihlolo hi ku rahela xihlawuhlawu etlhelo. Na yona HIV/Aids hi yi kombetela hi rintiho hi ku, "Siku rin'wana hi ta ku hlula."
Eka dyondzo, loko ANC yi vulavula hi dyondzo a yi swi vuli ntsena, yi vula hi ku tiva leswaku matiko hinkwawo ya misava lawa ya humelelaka hi swa ikhonomi na nhluvukiso wa vanhu ya endla sweswo hikwalaho ka ku veka dyondzo emahlweni. Tinhlayo, Thekinoloji na Sayense, Xitsonga na Xinghezi leswi Dr Vewoerd a nga hi tsona swona, hi swin'wana swa tidyondzo leti ti faneleke ku dyondziwa swinene hi vuenti.
Vana va kona naswona va dyondza. Vana va hina va fanele va etlela dyondzo, va lorha dyondzo no dya dyondzo. Vantshwa va fanele ku lemuka leswaku hi 1976 va hlurile ndzingo wa byalwa va wisa na mavhengele ya byalwa. Namuntlha ndza hlamala leswaku swi endla hi yini leswaku byalwa lebyo bava byo fana na ti 'gin' na burandi, hi ku va byi cheriwile swichukelana, vana va hina va nghena eka byona va pela. Leswi ndzi swi vula hi ku kombisa leswaku dyondzo i xilo lexikulu xo pfuna tiko.
Etindhawini ta le makaya hi tlhelo ra swa nhluvukiso wa le makaya na swa misava xikan'we na swa vurimi, Freedom Charter yi ri, "Tiko na misava swi ta nyikiwa na ku phemeriwa vanhu lava va yi tirhika." ANC yi ta hatlisisa ku averiwa ka misava. Vanhu va ta pfuniwa hi ku rimeriwa, ku nyikiwa titeretere, na ku nyikiwa mbewu leswaku va byala swibyariwa leswi faneleke.
Ha swi tiva leswaku vanhu va hina va vekiwile eka tindhawu leti kayivelaka mpfula. Mi nga ehleketi leswaku ANC a yi swi voni sweswo. Ha swi vona leswaku laha hi nga lahleriwa kona hina vanhu va ntima hi 1913, hi laha mpfula yi nga neki. Eka swona hi ri eka lava nga khoma tiko na misava va nga vi na makolo na makwanga. Tiko i ra hinkwavo lava tshamaka eka rona. Misava yaleyo a hi avelaneni yona, hi avelana tanihiloko hi ku vana va munhu va xekelana nhloko ya njiya.
Loko mi nga endli sweswo swi ta endla leswaku vanhu van'wana va ntima va ta twa ku vava no helela hi timbilu. Holobye wa Nhluvukiso wa le Makaya na Mpfuxeto wa Misava u ri, "Titeretere, mapuluhu na swikomu hi ta swi nyika vanhu loko va rima va hlanganile, ngopfungopfu loko va vumba mihlangano leswaku va ta kota ku vuyeriwa hi ku tirhisana swin'we".
Sweswi hi vulavula hi mitirho ... [Nkarhi wu herile.] (Translation of Xitsonga speech follows.)
[Mr X MABASA: Madam Chairperson, we, as the ANC, see the Green Paper which is referred to as the national strategy as the one that will ensure progress.
South Africa is moving at a very high speed like the speed of an electric train. It is heading for the betterment of the lives of the people of South Africa. The ANC says that it is supposed to accelerate the speed at which South Africa moves to fix what is supposed to be fixed. It will no longer be the speed of a train, but it is going to be the speed of an aeroplane. In this way, the National Planning Commission will accelerate the speed of the ANC in regard to fixing things.
It addresses issues ranging from a lack of jobs to issues of health, education and rural development as well as fighting crime and selfishness. The Freedom Charter says, "The people shall govern; there shall be accessible health for all, whether poor or rich". Dr Aaron Motsoaledi said that we are going to set up a National Health Insurance that will ensure that every person who does not even have a half cent can enter a hospital and be treated as a person with dignity. [Applause.]
That is the reason I am saying there will be better health for all. Hospitals, clinics, and traditional doctors will work together with the Minister of Health to ensure that we defeat even HIV/Aids diseases.
When the ANC is leading, nothing shall fail us. It has done wonders by pushing apartheid aside. We are also pointing a finger at HIV/Aids and saying, "One day we will defeat you."
With regard to education, when the ANC talks about education, it is not just talking; instead it is saying that on the basis that every country in the whole world which is making progress economically and in the development of people does so because of making education a priority. Mathematics, Technology and Science, Xitsonga and English, of which Verwoerd deprived us, are some of the subjects that have to be studied in great depth.
There are children and they are learning. Our children should sleep education, dream education and eat education. The youth should be made aware that in 1976 they defeated the temptation of alcohol and destroyed bottle stores. Today I am surprised as to what makes alcohol beverages such as gin and brandy much sought after by our children, and it is because they have added a little sugar. I am saying this to indicate that education is key to helping the nation.
When it comes to the development of the rural areas, land and agriculture, the Freedom Charter says, "The land shall be given to and shared among those who work it." The ANC will speed up the process of land restitution. The people will need assistance with the cultivation of the land, and should be provided with tractors and seeds so that they plants the right crops.
We know that our people have been placed in areas which have a shortage of rain. You must not think that the ANC does not see that. We know that where we were thrown as black people in 1913, is where it does not rain. Concerning this we say to those who have land that they must not be greedy and selfish. The land is for those who live on it. We must share the land; we must share the little we have as brothers.
If you do not do that, it will make some of the black people feel hurt and they will become impatient. The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform says, "Tractors, ploughs and hoes will be given to those who plough communally, particularly those who form organisations so that they benefit by working together".
Now we are talking about jobs ... [Time expired.]]
NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: House Chairperson, hon members, let me start by expressing appreciation to those who participated in the work of the ad hoc committee. We understand that it was akin to working in a "pressure-cooker", but we are very appreciative of the quality of the report prepared.
And, of course, we were there to witness the detail of the debate as it proceeded. In saying that, we clearly want to express our appreciation to the hon Mufamadi who chaired the committee, amongst other responsibilities he had in the context of Parliament. We also want to express our appreciation to all the parties that supported this.
Now it does appear that between all of that which happened in the committee and the report here, something happened. Something happened. I'm trying to understand, hon Trollip. "Ndisoyikiswa nguGodongwana." [I'm threatened by Godongwana.] Why have you created this straw man? That is what we have to deal with.
That brings us to the scope of this discussion: Why the straw man? What is the origin? You see, yesterday I sat in my seat and I listened to the hon Trollip. He was exceedingly erudite on the successes of the Constitutional Court in terms of its history and certainly under the tenure of former Chief Justice Pius Langa.
What he was articulating yesterday is that South Africa's Constitution and the rights of people are protected by the strength of the Constitutional Court. Today, he says "abandon hope". We don't have a Constitution. We don't have a Constitutional Court. We are as unprotected as the United States was in 1835 when De Tocqueville wrote that piece - in trying to understand what had happened between the French Revolution and the time that he wrote that piece.
If you treat history in that way, sir, you will be trying to create what the hon Narend Singh said - pretending that there is a snake that isn't actually there. [Applause.] That is part of the difficulty about the way in which the DA has constructed the debate to argue against the importance of planning.
Firstly, we must go back to the Constitution. The Green Paper starts with the Constitution. It starts with the preamble to the Constitution. Part of what the preamble to the Constitution entreats us to do is to deal with the ravages of the past. It requires of us to build a South Africa that is different from that which apartheid created. It asks of us, it compels us, the preamble creates a mandatory circumstance that requires of us to deal with the inequality and poverty that arose from apartheid. The question that we therefore have to answer in the context of planning is: How do you discharge that? That is the mandate. That mandate is in the preamble. Chapter 3 talks about co-operative governance and asks of us to recognise the distinctiveness, the interdependence and the interrelatedness of the spheres of government. That is a check and balance. But it doesn't in any way detract from the mandate given to those of us who make laws in this House, to advance a South Africa that is premised on the recognition of the wrongs of the past.
So, as we deal with those issues, I think we then need to look at how government needs to operate. Apart from the Constitutional Court, there's Parliament. One of the things I've said - I said it in the committee and I'll say it again - is that the way in which we can get planning to work is to take out narrow sectional interests. The way in which the National Planning Commission is constructed is a web of narrow sectional interests. Also, it is necessary to plan beyond the term of a single government.
By planning beyond the term of a single government, we are saying to opposition parties, "for heaven's sake, have some ambition". Have some ambition. You are not going to remain in opposition unless you think yourselves in opposition for life, and then we must wait until Jesus comes. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
But if you are going to change these issues, then it is important that you understand that the planning deals with the shadow of history. Now, you see, there is this wonderful quote from Galbraith. He says, "In the discourse inherited from the age of Reagan, syphilis, leprosy and planning more or less rank together: they are all no longer frightening, slightly ridiculous, curable afflictions from another time."
What Joseph Schumpeter thought drearily inevitable, what Friedrich von Hayek denounces as the greatest threat to freedom, a later generation has reduced to a sound bite. He says then that, after all, "the Soviet economy was planned" and it has collapsed. "Does anything more need to be said?" Instinctively, the epithet "central" is affixed to the word "planning" in order to discredit it.
No economic topic except price control is more easily pushed off the table. No declaration comes more easily than one that favours the market and opposes planning - that needs to change.
If there is anybody in this House who believes that right now the market will resolve the problems of inequality, of the absence of jobs, of the absence of adequate health care, of the absence of access to adequate public services, raise your hand because you are in the wrong place. But if you understand that you are here because you have taken an oath that ensures that we treasure the Constitution, then to suggest that the market will resolve these problems places you outside of the oath that you took right here before this podium. That is the issue we have to take forward. It's nothing else; it is that.
The issue is about understanding that we have to then deal with the shadow of history, and, in dealing with the shadow of history, we must understand that the state has to be an activist one. It has to be developmental. It has to do that especially right now in the world. In fact, the two walls are very important. On 9 November 1989 the Berlin Wall collapsed; on 15 October 2008 there was the almost collapse of Wall Street - the two walls.
But the collapse of Wall Street put to bed the notion of market fundamentalism. It brings us back to what the Constitution requires of us, and that is the discussion that we need in the context of planning.
This then brings us to the issue of the developmental state. This is what Buck Gee suggests. Let us see what the developmental state means in the era of the global spread of capitalism. It is a state that puts economic development as a top priority of government policy and is able to design effective instruments to promote such a goal.
The instruments would include the forging of new formal institutions - the National Planning Commission - the weaving of formal and informal networks of collaboration among the citizens and the officials, and the utilisation of new opportunities for trade and profitable production. Whether the state governs the market or exploits new opportunities thrown up by the market depends on particular historic conjunctures.
That is what we have to take account of. Our mandate is to improve the quality of life of all South Africans with a focus on the poorest. Our mandate is to deal with the shadow of history that has denied access to so many people in our country. Our mandate, therefore, must understand that poverty is passed on from one generation to the next. And, if we want to deal with it, then we have to do a lot better than what we have done in the past 15 years.
I commend the Green Paper to this House, and ask for your support. We will deal with the issues in the manner we committed ourselves to in the ad hoc committee: that we would take up all of the issues. We have the report. There are many formulations that are rather awkward in the document. We will deal with those issues. But we ask that this House supports us as we proceed. The object is to be measured in the lives of the poorest South Africans. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Chairperson, I move: That the Report be noted.
Motioned agreed to.
Report accordingly noted.