The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry will introduce the Reports.
Chairperson, the DA has requested a declaration. Are you aware of that?
Well, we are still waiting for the chairperson to formally present the reports then we will come to that issue later.
Chairperson, I realise that we have only five minutes for these very important treaties. As you know, the one before us is on the ratification of the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Southern African Customs Union, Sacu, and the Common Market of the South, Mercosur.
I shall read the committee report on that, which simply indicates that, indeed, having considered this request from Parliament on this agreement, we recommend that the House approves the said agreement in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution.
However, we would like the House to take into account the following challenges: the lack of engagement between the respective parliamentary committees of Sacu and Mercosur countries to promote the agreement; and the capacity constraints of our custom's authority to monitor our borders effectively, with respect to compliance as regards the imported goods and the rules of origin considerations and to ensure that measures are put in place to address this. If I may, with your consent and approval, hon Chairperson, I shall immediately go through our Report on the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Zimbabwe for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, dated 14 April 2010.
Very briefly, we did consider this request and after lengthy deliberations over a couple of days in which we also went to Nedlac and consulted more broadly, the committee, in fact, recommends that the House approve the said agreement, in terms of section 22 (3) 12 of the Constitution.
However, I also wish to make one or two statements in this regard, because in the first place, this investment treaty has been ongoing since 2002. It was mandated by the South Africa-Zimbabwe Joint Permanent Commission for Co- operation at that time.
The important thing, however, is that while this moved on, as it were - the agreement in June 2004 again went to Trade and Industry -it was during the third session in 2009 that they recommenced in earnest, and it was then that there was a request entitled "The scope of the Agreement" by Zimbabwe to have a certain amendment with respect to article 11.
This amendment concerns investments related to Zimbabwe's Land Reform Programme. I mention this because it is the only article which some members of the committee felt that they could not support. They used this article 11 and said that, in view of the inclusion of that article, they couldn't support the whole agreement.
In short, it is a holistic approach to the agreement, which in fact is broadly supported by business and industry in South Africa. They have sent a chain of people to the Minister's office and to the Department of Trade and Industry, begging for this agreement to be signed, so that South Africa too can not only support Zimbabwe in its change to greater democracy and increased economic development, but also benefit as a neighbour in this regard.
Nevertheless, it was the DA that did not support article 11. Obviously, they are going to be making a declaration just now in this particular regard; but the conclusion of the negotiations reflects a compromise that provides enhanced protection for South African investors in Zimbabwe and vice versa. It also ensures that the global political agreement, which has established an inclusive government in Zimbabwe, is protected. In other words, it is a step forward, democratically and economically; and therefore, the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, broadly speaking, supported this and recommends that the House do likewise. Thank you. [Applause.]
There was no debate. Preferential Trade Agreement, PTA, between the Southern African Customs Union, Sacu, and the Common Market of the South, Mercusor, approved.
Declaration of vote:
Chairperson, expectations of both current and prospective South African investors in Zimbabwe were high prior to the signing of the agreement, especially as the future Zimbabwean economy would clearly be reliant on South African investment support.
On the surface, the agreement creates the illusion that our government will promote and protect South African interests. However, it is my view that the agreement offers little support to investments, should they be expropriated.
The ruling of the SADC tribunal in favour of South African investors and its registration by the South African courts was evidently ignored. Expropriation, particularly of South African-owned farms, continued to be the norm in Zimbabwe despite this.
The indigenisation policy promoted by the Mugabe regime caused further confusion. The implications of article 11 of this agreement and the protection provision afforded to South African investors should have been much more thoroughly interrogated. The deputy director-general informed the portfolio committee that if the government was not prepared to give way on the article 11 content, Zimbabwe would most likely not agree to this treaty.
We call on the Minister to explain why government pandered to the demands of the Mugabe government in conceding to the article 11 content and signed an essentially toothless agreement; and in so doing, placed the interests of our investors at risk.
In the portfolio committee, concerns were expressed that Parliament is not consulted before treaties are negotiated. This would ensure that the interests of South Africans are better promoted and protected.
If this agreement is passed in its current form, South African investments will not be properly protected from random expropriation. If this is allowed to happen, our government would have failed in its most fundamental responsibility to protect the interests of our citizens.
Today, in Windhoek at the SADC Tribunal, there is again another application by those investors to force Zimbabwe to comply with these agreements. And for that reason, it is most difficult to support a treaty that is already showing signatories who cannot abide by it. [Applause.]
Are there any other parties that wish to make declarations of vote? None.
Question put.
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments approved (Democratic Alliance dissenting).