Speaker, let me just correct the hon Davidson The Presidency purchased the vehicle. It's not my personal vehicle. It's a vehicle I use for official purposes. I made the selection of colour from a range of options, and that is the vehicle that we are talking about; that is the vehicle that I responded to on a question a fortnight ago.
That the vehicle is expensive in the context of what I said earlier, I can see that it is an error of judgment. Now, let me look at this issue further. I have evaluated - but let me also remind this House of what the hon Deputy President said last week. He said, in response to a question by the hon Leader of the Opposition:
These purchases were, in fact, planned and budgeted for. The purchases were not unethical in that they were not illegal or underhand. For these reasons, we do not intend to request the return of the vehicles. In any event, as the hon Leader of the Opposition is aware, a used car has far less resale value than a new car.
I have run the numbers, and the vehicle is now five months old. It has 6 700 kilometres on the clock. Vehicles depreciate very, very, very quickly and, in the current circumstance, probably would not find a buyer and so would be written down a lot more quickly. I have run the numbers and perhaps the hon George can assist - he's an actuary, I'm told - and you will see that continuing to argue that these vehicles should be returned does not actually make economic sense. Here is a decision. It was taken within the rules. I am saying that in my case it wasn't entirely well- advised, but the decision was taken, and it is one of those decisions that you live with.
The hon Buthelezi last week was exceedingly helpful to all of us in this House, when he said the point had been made, and he appealled to other opposition parties not to continue milking a cow that will not yield a drop more. The udder is empty. [Applause.] So, I think it is fundamentally important in the instance of this institution that we deal with the matter like that.
Finally, I'd like to say to the hon Davidson that if he and his party work exceedingly hard, they will move from that side of the House to this side of the House, and he might actually become the inheritor of this car. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Thank you very much to the hon Minister for his very candid response. I can assure you that we do appreciate it. Let me say that, in respect of the hon Minister, Prince Buthelezi, I know that we have milked this cow, and we milk this cow specifically to make the point that government has got to walk the talk.
We have, on a number of occasions, be it the President or be it the hon Minister of Finance yesterday, stressed how we have to look after every single rand and every single cent because one has to make it stretch. Quite frankly, when we have a scenario where R43 million is spent just on cars, we are not walking the talk.
Now, I understand exactly the position that the Minister was put in, but you know, sir, the Premier of the Western Cape was put in a similar position. She could have gone out, and her Ministers could have gone out, according to the rules that pertain to this, and bought luxury vehicles, but she stated right at the outset exactly what had to be done, and they are all using pool cars, old cars, with high mileage. That is the example that we expect every single Minister in this House to follow. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Speaker, again I'd like to draw the attention of the hon Davidson to the point that was raised a fortnight ago in response to the hon Krumbock's question, and that is that I walked into a place where there wasn't an establishment.
You needed to buy a vehicle; within the rules, the vehicle was purchased, and I think that you will find that across the board the same trend obtained, save and except where there were individuals whose vehicles were way beyond the mileage set out in the rule book. At that stage, if the kind of motor plan is gone, costs rise very, very quickly. Somebody has to look at the economics of this as well.
So, we'd all like to be more Catholic than the Pope, and we commend the hon Zille on having attained that status, but let's be real about this issue as well. Thank you.
Hon Minister, thank you for your frankness. Arising from your response, the new Minister of Finance stated that the Ministerial Handbook is to be reviewed as part of government's attempts to effect savings and, according to the preliminary report on this task team, the handbook was devised several years ago and certain aspects of it may no longer be suitable or relevant.
Are you, hon Minister, aware whether the review will be considering the issue of the cost of Ministers' motor vehicles, and would you support a review of that aspect; and, lastly, shouldn't Parliament be involved in the whole review process? Thank you very much, Minister.
In respect of the last point raised by the hon Swart, when I looked at the report of the Moseneke Commission last year, the question of tools of trade of Members of Parliament was raised, and he said the tools of trade are best dealt with at the institution. I think that when we deal with the issues in the handbook we should understand that in the main they are tools of trade.
If you revise the handbook, what you may well have is a situation that there are more people outside of the new rules that are set. I am saying forgive me father for I have sinned, whoever you may be, father. For now, I have sinned. I've made an error of judgment. Let's live with it.
You see, there are a number of issues in the background to this thing. When I first became a Minister, every time I needed to go somewhere, my protectors had to spend two days at the government garage, pleading for a car. We would get what the drivers didn't want.
We improved on the system, and then there was the 70% rule that seemed to provide for a BMW 5 Series that was adjusted when all of our salaries were adjusted last year by the Moseneke Commission, and this is an unintended consequence. It's important to understand that these issues have a background and a history, and I want to plead, as the hon Buthelezi did last week. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Speaker, I wanted to check with the Minister, as you are addressing the issue of economic challenges, are you also taking into consideration the protection and the safety of our Ministers? Thank you. [Applause.]
The handbook makes provision for all of these things. There are some issues about which I think we can actually really, really plumb the depths, and one of those is the kind of accommodation that we have, the kind where we sit on the bus when we travel between Johannesburg and Cape Town or Cape Town and Durban, and the hotels we stay in. We can plumb the depths of this thing. What we need, as parliamentarians, as colleagues, fundamentally is a rational approach. That's all I plead for, within the rules. Thank you.
Speaker, I think that we should really say it. It is refreshing to have a Minister respond with such candour and to just be frank, and I commend the Minister for that.
It is unfortunate that he has been singled out, because we know that this is a sin that is committed by many, rather than by an individual. I think what his candour demonstrates first of all, and I hope he would agree, is that it is time to relook at the handbook and all the perks in government generally. It is not about his car; it's about a general issue, about an ethos and the symbolic nature of these kinds of things, because they do send particular messages to our constituencies.
Secondly, in times like these that we face, with a general state of economic recession, that symbolism has an added significance. Thirdly, I would like to ask on a lighter note, and perhaps the Minister could advise me, is it true that because of this situation, the theme song of the ANC has been changed from Umshini Wami to Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz? [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Am I allowed to sing the song, Speaker? You know, this is, of course, a matter that is considered all over the place. I see certain retired Archbishops who praise heads of state in one place, who travel with four large aeroplanes all over the world, for being disciplined and so on, and then smack everybody else in South Africa.
So, we have double standards as far as this is concerned. I think what is important is that, at all times, we try and live within the rules. It obviously is better if somebody else tries to define the rules for us. We try and live within those rules, and we exercise judgment. That is ultimately what this is about. Executive responsibility is about the exercise of judgment, and that is what we need to be evaluated against. Thank you. [Applause.]