Speaker, our response to hon Ramatlakane is that there are 60 official residences for Ministers and Deputy Ministers in Pretoria, 70 in Cape Town and none in Durban. With respect, we would not want to hand out the addresses of the Ministers and Deputy Ministers for obvious security reasons. The state owns these residences. No Minister or Deputy Minister occupies more than two residences. This is according to the information we have. Thank you.
Chair, I would like to thank the hon Minister very much for his response. I think it is understandable that the address list of Ministers cannot be made available.
I want to ask the hon Minister about Durban. Is he saying that there is no house in Durban? Now, my information is that there is a Minister who has a house in Durban which is paid for by the state, which means it is a third house, in Durban. Specifically it is the Minister of State Security.
Could you explain, in terms of the Ministerial Handbook that you have referred to, how that can happen, or could you investigate it? We worry particularly about the nondisclosure of it, and whether there has been any disclosure, even for tax purposes.
Chairperson, I do not have this information. I will still have to investigate that. But, in terms of the records I have, I don't have any house in Durban listed. Thank you.
Chairperson, I would like to congratulate the hon Minister on his appointment. Minister, included in the houses which you have mentioned to us today in the House must be those houses that were allocated to the sacked Ministers, Mahlangu-Nkabinde and the honourable Shiceka. [Laughter.]
Since being fired from Cabinet, both have reverted to being ordinary members of this House. Can the Minister confirm that these former Ministers have been given three months to vacate their ministerial mansions? If this is not the case, can he explain what the situation is? If it is the case, can he explain why they have been given such a long period to vacate? Who will be paying for the accommodation, security and services? Lastly, can he give this House an unequivocal undertaking that no private accommodation will be provided for them at taxpayers' expense? Thank you.
Chairperson, I don't know where the period of three months comes from because my understanding is that the Cabinet reshuffle is not even a month old, or is just over a month old. My understanding is that, as per the Ministerial Handbook, given the circumstances of that particular incumbent or individual, they are allowed an extra month. They can still apply for another month, depending on the circumstances. I don't have any record of a rumour of three months. I don't know where that comes from. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson, would the hon Minister agree that, if in fact it is true, as reported yesterday in the media, that the former Ministers have been given three months, this would be at the Minister's discretion? Would the Minister agree with me that, given the former Ministers' behaviour and the circumstances under which they were dismissed from Cabinet, it would be seen by South African taxpayers as undue reward for bad behaviour if they were to continue to have to pay for upkeep and the accommodation of the former Ministers for a three-month period? Thank you.
Chairperson, I don't think we should engage in cheap politicking. I have answered this question. The issue for me is where the hon member got the three months from. If he is going to rely on the newspapers and not on fact, let me say that that is not a fact to me. I am the one to whom applications have to be made and I have not approved anything which talks about three months. I don't know where it comes from.
Chair, before I ask the question, I wish firstly to congratulate the hon Minister for taking a decision to withdraw all delegations from the regions, relating to the acquisition of property for offices and residential accommodation, in order to strengthen monitoring and accountability.
I want to know from the hon Minister whether the Department of Public Works has a policy governing the leasing and allocation of official residences for Ministers and Deputy Ministers. If yes, how does the department apply its policy when leasing and allocating official residences or accommodation? If not, does the department of the Minister foresee developing this policy in the future? Thank you.
Ja. Eish! [Laughter.] The allocation of the residences for Ministers and Deputy Ministers is something which is regulated by the Ministerial Handbook. In this regard, upon being sworn in as a Minister or Deputy Minister, the affected member of the executive submits a letter of application to the Minister of Public Works for the allocation of an official residence, either in Pretoria or in Cape Town. The Minister of Public Works will then allocate that residence accordingly.
In the event of there being no available residence, a member of the executive may lease alternative accommodation and claim from the department on a recoverable basis. Factors which have to be considered would include the proximity of the alternative accommodation to the legislature, to the Union Buildings or even to the headquarters, the issue of its security and risk sensitivity, and also its accessibility to the airport. That is what applies now. Therefore, the policy is there in the Ministerial Handbook. Thank you.
Particulars regarding (i) costs involved in departmental officials commuting on government business; and (ii) cost-effectiveness of locating Parliament and Executive in same province
274. Mr V G Smith (ANC) asked the Minister of Finance:
(1) What is the cost to the taxpayer to have officials of his department commute on a weekly basis for government business between Pretoria and Parliament in Cape Town during the parliamentary session;
(2) whether he has commissioned a study on whether it will be more economically beneficial to locate the national Parliament and the Executive arms of government in the same province; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NO4051E
Hon Chairperson, in respect of the first part of the question, the cost of all National Treasury officials' commuting for government business between Pretoria and Parliament in Cape Town is R5 223 732,30 for the period from 1 April to 31 October 2011, at an average cost of some R32 648 per week.
In response to the second part of the question, I have not commissioned a study. However, this matter has been explored by government on two different occasions over the past 15 years. It has, in fact, been a subject of debate and consideration on many occasions since the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, the decision to locate the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in these separate places was the result of a political compromise by a white government in 1910, as you indicated. This decision, in my view, has resulted in unnecessary costs in running government and Parliament in regard to accommodation, travel and productivity. Now, 17 years down the line, Minister, I think that the time has come for us to review this decision of the then Union government so that money that is used for these expenses can be redirected to where I think it is needed more.
So my question to you, Minister, is: In the light of the fact that you say that this thing has been debated for the past 15 years, hasn't the time come that we take an urgent and conscious decision to try to finalise this matter so that, once and for all, we know where we stand and, in my view, save unnecessary costs to the fiscus? Ngiyabonga [Thank you], Chair.
The hon Smith raises many valid questions, hon Chairperson. The fact of the matter is that we spend a lot of time here talking about residences, cars, and all sorts of things, and certainly the issues he raises, of efficiency, productivity and costs, are matters that somebody at some stage will have to consider. I'm a mere Minister of Finance. I dish out money that we have and don't dish out money that we don't have. Hon members are, I imagine, welcome to discuss what is clearly in the view of the hon Smith an urgent decision.
Chairperson, yesterday, the passage of the secrecy Bill knocked the local currency, as I mentioned in the House.
On a point of order, Madam Chair: Last week when the Bill was being debated, the Speaker ruled it out of order for it to be referred to as the secrecy Bill. I would like the opposition to respect the Speaker's decision ... [Interjections.] ... and for you to rule them out of order. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon member. Can you please continue with your question?
Thank you. When the passage of the secrecy Bill knocked the local currency yesterday, as I mentioned, ...
Chairperson, I would like the member to withdraw the ...
Hon Dreyer, we are talking about the ... Are you listening? [Interjections.]
Hon George, D George. [Interjections.]
What?
His name is D George.
It doesn't appear on the screen. I don't know ... Who is this A M Dreyer?
Chairperson, point of order!
There seems to be a mix-up with the names.
Will you please refrain from pressing buttons that don't belong to you! I keep on getting A M Dreyer on the screen. [Interjections.]
He did not press a wrong button!
Chairperson, on a point of order: There was no ruling on any such matter. [Interjections.] Secondly, we have freedom of expression in the House.
Ms Kilian, we are not discussing the secrecy Bill or what was ruled or not ruled. We are here to answer questions this afternoon. Will you please respect that? If Ms Dreyer doesn't have a question, we will go on to ...
No, no. Madam Chair, I would like to address you. There seems to be a problem with the computer systems of the hon Dreyer and hon Dion George. When he presses it, her name comes up. He was still posing a question; will you please allow him to do so?
Fine. Dr George, we will take your question. You have exactly one minute.
Thank you. After the secrecy Bill was passed yesterday, the local currency slid at the news. [Interjections.]
On a point of order, Madam Chair: The Speaker made a ruling. [Interjections.] The hon Maynier changed his decision and his input. If the opposition is to respect this House and the Speaker, they need to refrain from utilising the name "secrecy Bill". I thank you. [Interjections.]
On a point of order, Madam Chair: The member has now misled this House twice. No ruling was made. [Interjections.]
Actually, with all due respect, I didn't give you a chance to speak. I'm going ...
Chairperson, ...
No! I am going to go on to the next question. [Interjections.] No. We will look at the record to see whether a ruling was made or not. You are saying one thing, and the other side are saying something else. We will look at the Hansard and make a decision. [Interjections.]
I have just been advised that there was no ruling. [Applause.] Dr George may continue with his question. You now have 40 seconds left.
Madam Chair, on a point of order: The Speaker requested ...
Please! I do not want to get into a discussion.
... that they refrain from referring to the Bill as the secrecy Bill because there is no secrecy Bill before this House and there never has been a secrecy Bill before this House! [Interjections.]
Just carry on, please. [Interjections.]
When the Bill commonly known as the secrecy Bill was passed through this House yesterday ...
There is no secrecy Bill here!
... the currency slid and I mentioned it in the House.
Chairperson, the Bill has a name. It's not called the secrecy Bill. It's the Protection of State Information Bill - that's what the Bill is called. It's not the secrecy Bill. Can the members ... [Interjections.] Yes, if the members are informed, they will know.
Your point is taken, thank you.
Rule, Chairperson!
When the Bill known as the secrecy Bill from the old apartheid era was passed in this House yesterday, our currency slid and I mentioned it in the House. The Minister contradicted me, but Bloomberg has now indicated that the currency did slide yesterday, and here is the unsurprising headline: "Secrecy Bill vote knocks local currency". So the Minister needs to correct his statement from yesterday. Minister, you said that the treasury spends R5 million for the National Treasury's commute. Given the investor concern over the secrecy Bill, difficulty in managing the people's money in various departments and the economic growth-sapping results, will the Minister issue a directive from the National Treasury to government departments to curtail the cost of commutes for officials in the various departments? Thank you.
Chairperson, the Minister, the Minister's committee on the Budget, and indeed the Cabinet as whole have, since the onset of the recession, repeatedly said that all government employees and those who get paid by government in one way or another, which includes all of us sitting in this august Chamber, need to be extra careful about what they are spending their money on and how they are spending it. In particular, the hon George will be very familiar with my repeated reminders at the committee level and in this Chamber about the issues that he has raised. So I trust that he will use the time of this House to raise much more serious matters.
The Protection of State Information Bill was not directly related to what happened to the Rand. [Interjections.] I've got an analysis in front of me which says ... [Interjections.] No, either you want to hear an answer or you want to howl, hon members. So let's decide on that. [Interjections.] No, we'll discuss that later.
Here's more scientific evidence. Broadly, all emerging market currencies have been dropping in the last few days. Secondly, there is a serious decline in global risk appetite. Yesterday, we heard about the GDP figures from the United States, which were not as good as we had expected. Late yesterday, figures in regard to retail sales in the United States came up and they were less than what had actually been expected as well.
Today, there was a failed German bond auction. Now, if there is a failed German bond auction, it begins to tell us that the world, and investors in particular, are taking a very dim view of events in Europe and events generally in the Western World.
We can't attribute all of those massive developments in economies that dominate more than 50% of the world's economy to one Bill in this humble House. [Interjections.] That's all I have to say. [Applause.]
Chairperson, let me go back to the original question. Given that Public Works has just flattened two buildings next to Parliament and indicated to the public that they are expanding in Cape Town, money permitting, doesn't the hon Minister think it would be very unwise now to move Parliament to Pretoria at a huge cost?
As far as I'm aware, hon member and hon Chairperson, Public Works has made no bids for any extra money in respect of Parliament. Secondly, the building being flattened is due to somebody's decision and they will have to bear the consequences of our current fiscal environment. At the same time, the issues that hon Smith has raised are issues that all of us need to apply our minds to and make the right decisions for this country on.
Chairperson, I must first of all declare that I come from KwaZulu-Natal, so I don't have the provincial loyalties that my colleague, hon Koornhof, has.
Madam Chair, I believe that the Minister is the right person to look at this. I think it is good news that we are being sensible and tightening our belts - as the hon Koornhof thinks we should - and that no money is going to be spent. I mean, we can survive in this Parliament.
Furthermore, is the Minister is aware that at the time when the Union Buildings, which are beautifully depicted on the nice Christmas card we received from our President today, were built, Sir Herbert Baker not only suggested but actually made sketch plans for a parliament building on Meintjieskop next to the Union Buildings.
Not only that, but it would, I believe, also not be inappropriate to save money ...
Please ask your question, Mr McIntosh.
The next question is: Would the Minister consider using these buildings for the Pan-African Parliament if we went to Pretoria? [Interjections.]
Hon Chairperson, like the hon McIntosh, I come from Durban, so I don't have any attachments regarding this question. He makes interesting submissions for the House and the public to consider. Let's leave it at that.
Particulars regarding envisaged uniform reduction in cell-phone charges
319. Mr N Singh (IFP) asked the Minister of Communications:
Whether a uniform reduction in cell-phone charges from cellular providers is envisaged; if not, why not; if so, (a) when, (b) what is the expected percentage reduction and (c) when is it expected to come into effect? NO4303E
Hon House Chairperson, the department recognises the need to ensure that the majority of the South African population have access to affordable telecommunication services.
In this regard the department commissioned a benchmark study to investigate telecommunication costs in the country compared with those in some other countries, namely Brazil, Chile, India and Malaysia. The report identified interconnection as an area which required immediate attention.
As a result, the then Minister undertook to address the high cost of mobile termination rates, MTRs, and intervened by facilitating discussions between the operators and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, Icasa, which led to the agreement to gradually reduce the mobile termination rates over a period of three years.
In this regard Icasa published mobile call termination regulations on 29 October 2010. The regulations adopt a glide path which indicates that mobile voice call termination will between 2011 and 2013 decline from the current rate of 0,89c to 0,73c in March 2011, to 0,56c in March 2012, and to 0,40c in March 2013.
The department believes that these benefits will in the medium to long term be passed on to consumers through innovation in the provision of diversified telecommunication prices and services, thus encouraging services-based competition. Retail prices have declined through competitive pressures, particularly in the offering of the new, cheaper contract packages which provide smart phones and thus provide access to the Internet, supporting a core policy objective of the country.
In addition, mobile data prices have plummeted, with a two-gigabyte data bundle now costing R149 a month. On average, 500 megabytes in 2007 cost about R400 per month and now consumers can get two gigabytes at less than half of what they used to pay in 2007. Currently, consumers can get a two- gigabyte data bundle at an average cost of R149 per month. We anticipate that this trend will continue, leading to more affordable data prices to consumers.
Furthermore, the price charged by operators for a smart phone ... [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, I thank the Minister for the response. I am not going to take a bite at the megabyte or the gigabyte - they seem too large to take a bite at them!
I am glad that the department recognises the need for cellphone charges to go down. In 2010 the former Minister did come to this House and make pronouncements on interconnection rates, but I am talking about the ordinary user in the rural areas.
I believe, and I would like your comments on this, Madam Minister, that something is incumbent upon this government, given the fact that the fixed line that is provided by Telkom is not being used by many people, particularly in rural areas. In many rural areas, and I am sure hon members can confirm this, cables are being stolen and Telkom is refusing to replace the cables. Therefore Mrs Ramfol, Mrs Ngcobo and Mrs Van der Merwe who live on farms are forced to use cellphones.
Now, with this kind of phenomenon, the fact that Telkom is not prepared to invest more, and we agree on this, shouldn't we be putting more pressure on Icasa to put pressure on the cellphone operators to reduce cellphone charges, because they are way too high at this moment? Thank you.
Hon House Chair, I would like to start with the element that the hon Singh referred to, the fact that Telkom refuses to replace stolen cables. I think it is the responsibility of all of us to encourage people who know that there are people who are stealing cables to tell the police, so that we don't have situations like this one.
Secondly, we will encourage Telkom to replace those cables that are stolen. However, we all know that this costs a lot of money because people steal cables on a daily basis, and we need everybody in South Africa to help us to stop that. Lastly, we are engaging with Icasa to try to ensure that they facilitate discussions with the mobile service providers and communicate with them in such a way that the prices can come down. Thank you, hon Chair.
Chairperson, I thank the Minister for her reply. Minister, as you importantly point out, the reason for the whole exercise is that the ordinary consumer can benefit from the reduced fees. Can we ask, Minister, whether Icasa has done an impact study to see what the impact on the consumers has been since the implementation of this sliding scale? If Icasa hasn't done such an impact study yet, would you instruct them to do such a study so that we can ensure that what is happening is actually benefiting the consumer, and not merely the service providers organising new packages that seem to cost less?
Hon Chair, I agree with the hon member here. We met with Icasa a week ago and we discussed all burning issues within Icasa as a regulator. We will continue to encourage them to do what is right for the people of South Africa. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, there are a couple of words I have been hearing every day since I came to Parliament in 2009. The government is always engaged in discussions - I am not sure when and where, but we just hear about discussions going on. We need action now. That's the main thing. I am telling this House today that the Department of Communications, DOC, is dragging its feet on a lot of issues.
I urge the Minister to look at the cellphone rates, because the poor in the rural areas pay the same as the middle-class people in South Africa. Some of them are spending a high percentage of their social grants on cellphone cards. You can go and investigate - that is the truth, Madam Minister. So something must be done. The fact that people are communicating is very important and we can't take that away from them. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Hon Chair, firstly, hon Van Wyk asked a question, or requested me to respond to the question that I responded to earlier on. I said that we would like everybody to have access to fixed lines but, unfortunately, there is a lot of cable theft. Therefore, we call upon every Member of Parliament and also the community of South Africa to assist us by saying to people that they must desist from stealing cables.
Secondly, we are engaging with Icasa to make sure that they communicate with the mobile service providers to reduce the prices. Thank you very much, hon Chair. [Applause.]
Hon Minister, there are concerns among the public about whether or not steps have been taken, or can be taken, to ensure that a substantial reduction in MTRs actually benefits the consumers, for example, in ensuring that retail prices are not raised in time, and consumers are not charged for both incoming and outgoing calls, which would disadvantage prepaid and, therefore, mostly low-income customers. I did hear you say that you have suggested that there should be talks in this regard, but could you just clarify whether you have perhaps already done something that will ensure that we are on this path? Thank you.
Hon Chairperson, I would like to indicate that the Regulatory Impact Assessment Framework was adopted by Icasa in this financial year. The only thing that has not yet been done is the study on the cost of communication post the promulgation of the interconnection regulations. This has not yet been conducted. However, Icasa may conduct such a study in the next financial year, and we believe that with our continuous engagement we will then improve. Thank you very much, Chair. [Applause.]
Strategy regarding upgrading of gravel roads in rural areas
275. Ms N R Bhengu (ANC) asked the Minister of Transport:
Whether he intends introducing a strategy to upgrade the gravel roads in rural areas to tarred roads so that rural communities could also have the same standards of services enjoyed by communities in urban areas; if not, why not; if so, what strategy?