Mr Speaker, if I may ask for your indulgence. My response to this question is a bit long. If you'll allow me, I'll race through it.
How long is long, Deputy President? Continue, hon Deputy President.
Hon members should remember that there are indeed measures already in place that both regulate what Cabinet members can do and require them to disclose their assets and business interests: Firstly, Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers who are members of the National Assembly are required to disclose particulars of their financial interests, assets and gifts in terms of the Rules of Parliament. This also applies to Members of Parliament and their spouses or permanent companions and dependent children. I must add that the Ministers and Deputy Minister who are not members of Parliament have made a voluntary disclosure to Parliament in this regard.
Secondly, the executive ethics code requires all Cabinet members, in addition, to disclose their liabilities. This code also stipulates that a Minister must declare any financial or business interests that he or she may have in a matter that is before Cabinet, or in relation to which the Minister is required to take a decision as a Member of Cabinet. Where the Minister holds a business interest in a company that may give rise to a conflict of interest in the execution of his or her duty as a Member of Cabinet, he or she must either dispose of the interest or place the administration of the interest under the control of an independent person or agency. The same code stipulates that Ministers may not receive remuneration for any work or service other than for the performance of their functions as members of Cabinet.
With regard to monitoring compliance with these provisions, details of Ministers' assets are available on the parliamentary website along with those of all other Members of Parliament. Violations of the parliamentary code are dealt with by Parliament and have been dealt with effectively in the past. Complaints against violations of the executive ethics code can also be dealt with by the Public Protector.
Let me also remind hon members that the SA Revenue Service conducts investigations into people who appear to be living beyond their means. These investigations start on the basis of information obtained from various sources, including the Sars anticorruption and fraud hotline, income tax returns submitted by a taxpayer to Sars and reports of suspicious activity from members of the public. A lifestyle questionnaire is one method of obtaining information from a taxpayer and, together with other information sources, assists Sars in matching the lifestyle trends, income streams and asset base of a taxpayer to what has been declared in an income tax return. The accumulated wealth has to be explained by the taxpayer for tax purposes. Any unexplained wealth is taxed. The compliance and risk unit within Sars conducts the risk analysis of taxpayer information. If there is a mismatch between what the taxpayer has declared and what Sars has found, the case is referred to an audit.
If it is confirmed that the taxpayer has evaded tax, penalties are levied, interest is charged and additional tax of up to 200% of the evaded tax is charged. Depending on the circumstances, the case may then be handed to the criminal investigation division of Sars, which then engages the SA Police Service and a specialised tax unit for criminal prosecution within the National Prosecuting Authority. More than 10 000 such audits have been conducted by Sars over the past two years.
The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2003 also provides for an investigation into a person who appears to own property disproportionate to their income. This is in addition to strict Financial Intelligence Centre Act, Fica, requirements, which compel individuals to disclose sources of income when they make big financial transactions. In light of the above, Cabinet has not considered lifestyle audits, as it is clear that all these measures are already in place.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Corruption that the President referred to in his state of the nation address is considering ways in which to improve scrutiny and transparency in the awarding of state tenders. The committee is supported by multidisciplinary task teams on issues of government procurement. One team focuses on compliance in respect of tenders, while the other team focuses on systems improvement in respect of government supply chain management. The task teams comprise officials from the Department of National Treasury, the SA Police Service, Public Service and Administration, South African Revenue Service, the Auditor-General, the Financial Intelligence Centre and the Special Investigating Unit. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, thank you to the Deputy President. It is interesting to note what he has quoted; what we have in place in terms of a regulatory framework. However, the Auditor-General recently reported on an increase in instances of insider trading involving senior officials trading with government departments and other public entities. On this side of the House, we believe, as Cope, that political leaders should lead by example and should stop this trend.
Does the Deputy President agree that the apparent irregular awarding of tenders in Limpopo to Mr Julius Malema of the ANC, as well as the shares that the governing party holds in the company that will supply boilers to the new Eskom power stations, is setting the wrong trend, and does he not believe it could border on promoting corrupt activities? Thank you. [Applause.] [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, hon member, my belief is that we have in place all measures necessary to stamp out crooked ways of adjudicating over tenders and so on. However, as we know, human beings are difficult animals. There are rules, very simple rules, and life would be easy if we all followed them. You find traffic lights on street corners, yet many fatal accidents happen simply because we do not observe them. So, I will not get into the matter of Mr Julius Malema and tenders and so on, because I suppose it is a matter that is being attended to elsewhere. I'm not familiar with those facts.
It is a moot question whether or not Chancellor House and the stake it holds in the company contracted to construct power stations could lead to, or borders on, sending a negative or wrong message to the public. The reason is simple: As I understand it, once a corporate company is incorporated, it is free to pursue any opportunity. If there is a conflict of interest, then we must say so, and I will be the first one to say there is a conflict of interest here and this matter stinks to high heaven. That is, if there is. I've heard arguments to the effect that even the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, Nersa, determined tariffs ... [Time expired.]
Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon Deputy President for clarifying the position relating to members of Cabinet and Parliament. However, the issue of other politicians must be addressed, because positions are being abused. We are seeing evidence of that in the tender process and there is also growing support from various organisations, including Cosatu and nongovernmental organisations, for the DA's call for lifestyle audits to be conducted on politicians who are not Members of Parliament or Cabinet who are awarded state tenders.
Can the Deputy President please confirm whether or not these politicians will be identified and whether or not they will be subjected to the appropriate lifestyle audits and tender scrutiny processes to ensure that they are not receiving preferential treatment and/or evading the tax they are legally obligated to pay? Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, my sincerest apologies, because of the murmurings I missed the first part of the question.
Start with the second part you heard, hon Deputy President. [Laughter.]
Well, the second part I heard was when he was saying, "Will these politicians be identified?" I don't know which politicians. That's my difficulty, otherwise I would have responded to the question.
Briefly, hon member.
Mr Speaker, I'm closer to the microphone now. There are politicians who have been awarded state tenders and we know the process is being abused. So, the question is quite simply whether these politicians who have been awarded state tenders, who might not be Members of Parliament or Cabinet, are being or will be investigated. Will they go through this lifestyle audit process, because they are evading the tax they're supposed to be paying and taking advantage of the positions they have?
Hon member, the difficulty with this question is that I have indicated what laws are in place and what structures are properly authorised to investigate anybody. Sars, for instance, has a hotline where a whistle-blower can indicate suspicious activities which would then be investigated immediately by the units authorised to follow up on those matters.
So, if the hon member is of the view that these measures are inadequate, and that the House would like to come up with legislation to target politicians specifically, outside of what already exists, then that's a matter that this House can take forward, I suppose. For now, the whole tender system, in my view, is not foolproof. It's not a system that cannot be undermined, unless there's rotation in the application structures or in the tender boards themselves, or something like that. I don't know. My sense is the system is not foolproof. I've just shared with this august House the basis of the demonstrations in Orange Farm, because there was a company that should have failed being awarded a second tender. That in itself is inexplicable. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, Deputy President, the reported overwhelming evidence of corruption in the processing and awarding of state tenders - this whole tendering process - demands closer scrutiny and transparency. To make this tendering process foolproof, as the Deputy President has suggested, the ACDP believes it should be depoliticised in order to benefit all our people and not just a few privileged and well-connected members of the ruling party.
We want to know why millions of rands are being paid to companies that won state tenders without any checking of the quality of their work. Does this mean that those people who award tenders are inefficient themselves, or are they just doing their comrades a favour by paying for shoddy work?
We believe all tender applications should be closely scrutinised by an independent, apolitical and objective panel of experts, one that does not just comprise members of the ruling party. Politicians and civil servants or their relatives should not be on the panel that processes the applications. This, we believe, will restore the credibility of the tendering process. If the Deputy President agrees with what I've just suggested, when is the earliest that we can expect a response from him? Thank you.
Hon Speaker, hon members, indeed, I agree that there's a need to bring about better efficiency in the manner in which tenders are adjudicated. That part I agree with unreservedly and I think that it's absolutely necessary. However, I think it is being a bit too liberal with the truth to suggest that tender boards consist of members of the ruling party. [Applause.]
Because this is a serious matter, I think we should resist the temptation to do that, so that we can deal with the problem. After all, once a tender is awarded to people with no capacity to deliver, it is the people who suffer in the end. We must seriously find ways of resolving this problem.
I had a discussion with the President on Monday about the need to have a way of independently monitoring tenders after they have been awarded. If, for instance, it's the installation of a sewage system, government must have an adjudication process in which the Ministry of Human Settlements and local government, for example, can appoint persons who go out there on a monthly basis and check whether the work is being done according to specifications. This will mean we don't become aware of the problem only when all the money has been spent, yet the quality of the product borders on the criminal. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, colleagues, the IFP is very worried about perceptions of corruption in this country, and I think it's fair to say that perhaps, although Cabinet per se is not the problem, the issue here is perception. We think Cabinet needs to send a strong signal to the country that it's serious about addressing the issue. In that light, a lifestyle audit would be appropriate. The broader issue is clearly one of state tenders being a major problem, throughout the country, frankly.
At local level, corruption is rife. At provincial level, it's also rife. I must say I'm a little surprised by the Deputy President's comments on Chancellor House and Eskom. In our view, it is morally wrong for the ruling party to rake in R5 billion or so in profits from an Eskom price increase for the rebuild programme. It sets the wrong example and should not happen.
My question to the Deputy President, then, is this, and I say this without impugning the integrity of anyone in this House: What is government going to do to combat perceptions by more and more people - ordinary people outside this House - that South Africa increasingly resembles a cleptocracy run by crooks? Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, hon members, perceptions are a reality and there's only one way to correct them; that's by taking steps to ensure that the basis of such perceptions is corrected. Cabinet must lead by example and I've said that the inter-ministerial committee that will focus on anticorruption measures has been established.
I've also tried to explain, at length, how Sars conducts lifestyle audits, because it's a term that is in vogue now. However, if the mechanisms to conduct such lifestyle audits are not in place, we can create other difficulties, and public representatives are already subjected to all those measures.
Where we are aware, or if a member of the public is aware of an individual or group of individuals with ill-gotten wealth, the measures are there, the agencies are there, there's even an Asset Forfeiture Unit that can seize or impound such ill-gotten wealth.
The point I'm making is that the measures are in place. What is required is the resolve to implement them and to act in a concerted manner that would send the right message. If anyone, and it shouldn't matter whether that person comes from this or that party, is found to have stepped on the wrong side of procedures, the law must take its course. They should be brought to book, and I don't see why we should not follow that route to deal with such problems. Thank you. [Applause.]
Position regarding the composition, mandate, focus and action plan of the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee
4. Ms S C N Sithole (ANC) asked the Deputy President:
What (a) is the (i) composition, (ii) mandate and (iii) focus of the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee that was announced by Cabinet in November 2009, (b) action plan has been identified by the committee and (c) will be its relationship with law-enforcement agencies? NO383E
Mr Speaker, unfortunately this question also deals with the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee, but I'll answer it.
The Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee is co-ordinated by the Minister in the Presidency responsible for performance monitoring and evaluation, and comprises the Ministers of Home Affairs, Justice and Constitutional Development, Public Service and Administration, State Security, Police, Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Finance, and Social Development.
The mandate of this committee is to ensure co-ordinated anticorruption efforts; promote policy coherence and alignment on cross-cutting anticorruption programmes of government; develop and enhance technical measures to curb corruption in both the public and private sectors; review procurement practices; address weaknesses in the criminal justice system to ensure that efficient prosecution takes place; and ensure political co- ordination of anticorruption efforts in the international arena.
The focus of the Anti-Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee is to ensure a co-ordinated and efficient fight against corruption. The committee is finalising an action plan. Broadly, the action plan will deal with role clarification between departments, co-ordinating efforts and ensuring that structural and policy alignment take place for heightened impact on both the public and private sectors.
As I have already said, the Ministers of State Security, Justice and Constitutional Development, and Police are part of the committee. This will ensure that the law-enforcement agencies play an active and integral part in the co-ordinated fight against corruption. I thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy President, often corruption is detected by government itself. This leads to the suspension of alleged corrupt officials ...
Hon member, maybe there is too much noise in the House. We can't hear you. Could you raise your voice, please?
Certainly. Often corruption is detected by government itself. This leads to the suspension of alleged corrupt officials with full pay. These cases take years to finalise, while the suspended officials earn their full salary.
Also, one finds that officials resign just before disciplinary processes commence. What means is the interministerial committee considering to address this problem? [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon member for the points she raised. We have the recent example of the former CEO of the SA Social Security Agency, who attempted to resign instead of facing the music. The Minister has declined the resignation in order to ensure that ... [Applause.] ... the said person indeed answers to that case. That is an example of how such resignations could be handled in a manner that does not undermine accountability.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since July last year, numerous task teams have been established to probe service delivery at the SABC and Sentech. There was also the Caster Semenya support task team. None produced results. However, there are numerous laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Public Service dealing with corruption, and Ministers already have executive powers to appoint and dismiss directors-general. By simply exercising these powers they will send a clear message that corruption is not tolerated. For example, nine months after taking office in the Western Cape, the DA is already implementing anticorruption measures. It is clear that the root problem related to corruption is the nonimplementation of existing laws.
Now, Mr Deputy President, when - in what year - will you stop planning more meetings of yet another interministerial committee and simply begin to apply the law? [Applause.]
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Hon member, I couldn't agree with you more. I think we should apply the law. That is the point I have been trying to convey throughout. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Deputy President, what if some members of the interministerial committee, or one of their relatives, are involved? What will happen? That is the first question.
The second question is: Will the Minister recuse himself or herself if he or she is involved?
Thank you, hon member. Yes, I believe that if a Minister or any of the Ministers is conflicted, they should really recuse themselves from participating in an investigation and/or the handling of any matter. Yes, I agree with you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deputy President, the Anti- Corruption Inter-Ministerial Committee is not new. There have been previous interministerial committees similar to this one. What is not clear is what has been done in terms of the continuation of the work on fighting corruption.
Secondly, what would you say, Deputy President, if South Africans, given what I have just indicated, say that nothing has been reported in terms of what action has been taken; what has been done. The action plan and the anticorruption strategy exist as a plan for government to implement, but what has been happening before now? And what would you say if South Africans say that this is another PR exercise by this committee, given that even the Scorpions, which South Africans believed dealt with corruption without fear or favour, have been dissolved? [Time expired.] [Interjections.]
Thank you, hon member. If, indeed, as the saying goes, practice is more powerful than precept, the only way to address perceptions is through practice. I believe the time will come and the day will come when we'll assess the work of this committee on the basis of what it has done. If we are still here, you'll have the opportunity to say, "But this is what you said, and look at what this committee has done." So, all I am saying is that we have to take it all in good faith. And if it doesn't work, we will have the opportunity to say so. Thank you.