Hon Speaker and hon members, in respect of dealing with corruption, we have the laws and institutions in place, and targets have been set. So, our attention is on ensuring the effectiveness of these measures and building public confidence. For example, our endeavour to root out corruption has necessitated that we pay great attention to eliminating weaknesses in our procurement system, which is often the source of most of the corruption we encounter.
In this regard, the National Treasury is busy with the refinement and optimisation of our procurement system. Additionally, the National Treasury recently published for public comment the Municipal Financial Misconduct Regulations, the aim of which is to introduce measures intended to combat corruption in the public and private sectors through advocacy, strengthening the legal and policy prescripts and frameworks and, most importantly, the implementation thereof.
Furthermore, it is well known that apart from the Special Investigating Unit, the government has established other agencies whose mandates, among other things, include combating serious commercial crimes and corruption. These include the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, the Hawks, the Asset Forfeiture Unit, the Multi-Agency Working Group and the Public Service Anti-Corruption Unit. In addition, several departments have established anticorruption hotlines to which suspected incidents of corruption are reported by members of the public.
However, the rooting out of corruption demands far more than just institutions and laws. Corruption happens when people who work inside and outside government manipulate the system for their own benefit. This happens despite the robustness of anticorruption institutions. In short, I am arguing that corruption undermines democracy and therefore all of us, especially we who are entrusted by the public to uphold the Constitution, must work in concert to strengthen institutions and programmes designed to free our society from the scourge of corruption.
We must raise the bar in terms of accountability and monitoring of how public funds are used. We must work together to ensure that each programme of the democratic state yields quality results, thus accelerating transformation, service delivery and the building of a nonracial, nonsexist and prosperous, democratic South Africa. I thank you for your attention.
Hon Speaker, we accept the Deputy President's personal commitment to root out corruption. However, has government not left it too late to turn this tide of unscrupulous looting of public resources? Minister Lindiwe Sisulu last week reported that 2 of 998 departmental officials convicted in 2009 and 2010 are behind bars. What happened to the other 996? Where do they find themselves? Have they been redeployed?
Unless there are consequences - and heads must roll - for politicians and public servants who steal money with impunity, and unless there is greater accountability by government at all levels, this country will soon be receiving the questionable status of the most corrupt country in Africa.
The Special Investigating Unit report reads like a thriller. Anybody in South Africa who wants to know what is happening in government circles amongst public servants should read this, and then they will understand why the opposition is so fiercely attacking government for its feeble approach to corrupt activities. Thank you.
Thank you very much, hon Kilian. It can never be too late or inopportune to do the right thing. So, we have to tackle corruption on a continuous basis. The day that we say it is too late, it is too big a problem, and that we throw in the towel, we will have lost the battle. It does not matter how many good citizens remain, but they have to remain in the forward trenches against corruption. We thank the opposition for the extent to which they are able to point us to specific cases of corruption. Thank you.
Mr Speaker, the high levels of corruption which continue to plague our Public Service not only undermine our service delivery for the poorest of our citizens, they also undermine public confidence, economic growth and job creation. At the heart of this problem is a lack of political will to tackle cronyism, to tackle corruption head- on, specifically when it relates to politicians themselves. In this House, on 22 May, the hon President of the Republic stated that politicians should not be disadvantaged from doing business with the state. He also implied that since it was not illegal, the ethics of the matter should not be relevant.
Will the Deputy President please use his response either to confirm or to repudiate the statement? Does he or does he not agree with the hon President? If so, how does he justify that agreement, given his own response to this House earlier this year that politicians should not benefit from public contracts? Thank you.
Hon Speaker, I think there is no contradiction between my position and that of the President. The President's argument on that day was against the apparent exclusion of anybody who is remotely known to a member in public office being excluded from pursuing any opportunity, regardless of whether they were involved in such fields or not prior to the relative assuming public office.
So, we must always try to draw a distinction between the constitutional right of South African citizens to engage in meaningful economic activity, correctly so, and the manifestation of conflict of interest. Corrupt conduct occurs when those of us who have knowledge because of the positions we hold use such knowledge for our personal advantage. There would then be a conflict of interest, and that the President does not countenance. So, the way I understood the point he was making, he was speaking to a different point and not saying that there is nothing wrong. Where there is conflict of interest, there is conflict of interest, and it should not be allowed to happen. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, I thank the hon Deputy President for his reply. It is estimated that South Africa, as a nation, has lost a staggering R385 billion since 1994 due to corruption at every level in government. In spite of proclamations issued by the President mandating the Special Investigating Unit to investigate concerns across government departments, shocking figures point to the fact that corruption in the country is still increasing. As part of the solution, the Presidency should consider what opposition parties are offering as a solution. For example, the ACDP believes that if a person is found guilty of corruption, guilty of stealing and looting, that person must pay back four times what they had stolen so that those thieves would be taught that crime did not pay.
Mr Deputy President, I want to know whether the penalties that government and the courts are imposing on people found guilty of corruption are harsh enough, because if they are harsh enough, what causes corruption to continue to increase? If they are not working, why are we not trying something else? Thank you.
Hon Meshoe, my understanding is that over and above penalties imposed by the courts in cases of pilfering, corruption or embezzlement of public resources, the Asset Forfeiture Unit has the mandate and authority to pursue such individuals and strip them of all ill-begotten wealth. The instrument is in place. Greed is what makes people want to cut corners to try and amass wealth through nefarious methods. That is why we have to strengthen the arm of the law to ensure that they are brought to book timeously and, of course, that the message that crime does not pay is communicated in very concrete terms. I am not sure if government would have the authority perhaps to influence the courts to impose heavier sentences. I think the courts are capable of meting out commensurate penalties for crimes that have been committed. Thank you.
Speaker and hon Deputy President, no-one committed to our young democracy and the development of our country can disagree with your answer to the question. In the light of your comprehensive answer, apart from those agencies that are reactively investigating allegations of corruption and making sure that those that make themselves guilty of corruption are brought to book, how is government involved in proactive measures through lessons learnt, best practices and preventative measures that can be rolled out to all departments in all spheres of government, in order to prevent corruption from happening? Are we also doing enough to discourage business from doing business through corrupt means?
Hon Van Wyk, indeed government has to continuously tighten up its methods, particularly with regard to the tendering system, to ensure that all potential loopholes are closed so that the system cannot be manipulated. Where such acts of corruption have taken place, in a proactive fashion we also have to ensure that not just the public employee or public office or office bearer or official is made to account, but also the other benefactor ought to be equally made to account. That is how these acts of corruption can be discouraged in the fullness of time. However, all departments, as I indicated, do take proactive measures. They have hotlines established to ensure that members of the public and other members of staff can indicate where they detect wrongdoing and corrupt activities. Thank you.
Considerations underpinning government's decision to make loan to IMF's crisis fund
10. Ms J Tshabalala (ANC) asked the Deputy President: (a) What were the considerations that underpinned the Government's decision to loan US$ 2 billion to the International Monetary Fund's crisis fund (details furnished) and (b) how is this intended to (i) influence world economic policy, (ii) transform the governance of international financial institutions and (iii) enhance peer leadership among developing nations?