I now turn to the point of order raised by the hon Minister of Higher Education and Training, the hon Nzimande. The hon Minister asked me to rule on remarks made by the hon Lekota to the effect that the President has violated his oath of office.
In his speech, the hon Lekota said more than once that the hon President, or his Office, has violated the oath of office. The hon Lekota said:
With regard to the owners of the Goodman Gallery, their rights were violated. The Office of the President did not defend, again violating the oath of office.
Later on, the hon Lekota said: And yet, we did not hear a word from the President, saying to our nation, saying to those who follow him and who work under him, "It is wrong for you to undermine the judiciary of our nation." This is a violation of the oath of office.
Hon members, as regards the duty of members towards their fellow members, members should appreciate that their freedom of speech must, of necessity, be subject to the principle that they may not impute improper or unworthy motives or conduct on the part of other members, or cast personal reflections on their integrity, or verbally abuse them in any other way. This approach is in keeping with the practice in many other parliaments.
If such accusations made directly or by inference were to be generally allowed in debate in this House, they would not only seriously undermine members in the performance of their duties, but would also undermine the image and effectiveness of this Parliament itself. This is not to say that if a member has good reason to believe that another member may have acted improperly, such matter should not be brought to the attention of the House. However, there are proper ways of doing that.
In such circumstances, it is sound practice to require that a member does this by way of a separate, clearly formulated and properly motivated substantive motion, which requires a distinct decision of the House. At this point, I must indicate that when the President of the Republic takes his seat in this Chamber, the Rules of the National Assembly also apply to him.
Hon members, as we all know, when the President takes Office, he takes the oath of the office, in which he commits, amongst other things, to obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution. As members will be aware, one of the grounds for removal of the President, in terms of section 89 of the Constitution, is a serious violation of the Constitution or the law.
Therefore, to accuse the President of the violation of the oath of office is a serious charge, indeed ... [Interjections.] ... which, if proven correct, could have serious consequences. The remarks that the President has violated the oath of office are, without a doubt, a reflection on the integrity and competence of the President. Except upon a properly motivated, substantive motion, as indicated above, such an allegation cannot be allowed in this House.
Hon Lekota, your remarks that the President has violated his oath of office are out of order, and I now ask you to please withdraw them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened to you very carefully, and in terms of section 89 of this Constitution, I do think I did not violate ... [Interjections.] The rights given here under section 89 are that we are entitled and, in fact, we are obliged under the Constitution to scrutinise the performance of the President, and we must bring his failures to the attention of the nation. I continue to hold firmly that the points that you made and others which I made as to why the President, I contend, broke his oath of office, remain valid, in our view. I am therefore unable to withdraw what I said before this House. [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota, from the Chair, I am asking you to withdraw, because I am saying if you wanted to bring those issues to this House, you could only bring them through a substantive motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect, this was not the occasion of a motion ... [Interjections.]
No, hon Lekota ...
... it was the occasion of a debate. No, I am sorry, I am unable ...
Alright.
Hon ...
My conscience does not allow me to withdraw. [Interjections.]
Hon ...
Then, if you are unable, you know what to do, hon speaker.
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
You leave the House.
Hon Speaker ...
Hon Deputy Speaker ... [Interjections.]
If you are unable to withdraw, you leave the House. [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker ... [Interjections.]
No, no, no.
Yes, Speaker ... [Interjections.]
No other hands! No other hands at the moment. I am dealing with the hon ... [Interjections.]
Hon ...
Is that a point of order ...
Yes, hon Deputy Speaker!
... to what I am saying?
Indeed! [Interjections.] Deputy Speaker, I want to address you on your ruling, and in terms of the Rules, I am entitled to do so.
No!
Yes!
No! [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker ... [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, you have made ...
No! Hon members ...
Yes.
... who are standing, can you please take your seats. [Interjections.]
Hon ... [Interjections.]
Hon members who are standing, can you please take your seats. [Interjections.] I have considered the ruling. I have considered the ruling. I am giving that ruling now. Whether you like it or not is another matter. I am giving that ruling now, and the ruling is saying the hon Lekota must withdraw, and if he is not able to withdraw, to please leave the House.
HON MEMBERS: Yes! [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker ... [Interjections.] ... may I ask you a question?
What language do you not understand? I am dealing with the hon Lekota now. Hon Lekota - all other questions will happen after he has acted - please leave the House. [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker ... [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota ...
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, please! [Interjections.]
No point of order here. Please sit! [Interjections.]
You are duty-bound to entertain a point of order. [Interjections.] You do not have the latitude not to take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota, please leave the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order! [Interjections.]
I am rising on a point of order ...
Hon Lekota, please leave the House. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order ... [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota, leave the House. [Interjections.] So, it is clear: there are many hon Lekotas. [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
No, no, no. [Interjections.] Allow those who are leaving the House to leave the House and we will see if we are going to continue with the debate.
She must take a point of order! [Interjections.]
I am waiting for the House to settle down first and then I will call you. [Interjections.] Can you close those doors? No, no, no, the hon member who stood up first from the FF Plus.
Thank you, hon Deputy Speaker. Hon Deputy Speaker, I need some clarity in this sense: Something happened in the House, and because of that, you were asked to make a ruling. Now you come back and you make a ruling. Is it not in order for you to be addressed on the ruling you are about to make, because there may be other arguments, for you to listen to as well, before you make the ruling. [Interjections.] Those arguments may be relevant before you ask a member to leave the House because of a ruling.
Or are you saying to us that we must just accept that you will make a ruling; it is not to be discussed; there is nothing to be said about that, and we just have to accept that? [Interjections.] That party says yes. I am of the opinion that we should be entitled, in terms of Rule 72, to address you on your rulings. That is our right in terms of the Rules of Parliament!
No. Thank you very much. Were you going to ask the same thing, hon Kilian?
Correct, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to make sure that we understand exactly on what Rule you have based your ruling, because we are all guided by the Rules of Parliament, and obviously, the Constitution. [Interjections.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of the ANC to confirm that you made the correct ruling, that you were not obliged by any Rule to open your ruling to discussion, and that you have correctly ordered the hon Mr Lekota, who is unruly, who does not understand the Rules of Parliament, to go out of this House, and we support you.
Hon Deputy ...
No, no, no.
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
Can I please ...
On a point of order ...
... please can I close this subject? What is your point of order?
My point of order is: The hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party has cast aspersions on the integrity of the hon Lekota. [Interjections.] He accused him of bad conduct, which is not correct. [Interjections.]
Hon ...
Hon Chief Whip, can you sit down? Can we ... [Interjections] Hon Van der Merwe, do you want to speak on this item?
Yes.
You are the last one to speak on this item.
Thank you for making me the last to speak. [Laughter.] Madam Deputy Speaker, we wish to place on record that we agree that you were wrong, but we will not walk out. [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I await clarity regarding on exactly which Rule in the Rule Book your ruling was based, because it is my understanding that we do have a right to respond to your ruling, and the DA objects to this because ...
No!
... it flies in the face of freedom of expression.
Thank you very much. Hon De Lange?
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do suggest that all the members go and read the law of procedures. The law of procedures is very clear. You make an input at the time when the objection is made. When the chairperson in any meeting makes a ruling - you can go and look at any rule of procedure; it says that ruling is final. You do not comment on it. If you want to comment on it, you bring a substantive motion in the House to change the ruling. That is the law of procedure, and it is absolute nonsense that once a ruling has been given, that you can then comment on it. That is not the idea. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? That may be the case, and we can argue about that. These things are important. We are going into a subcommittee process where we are going to look at the Rules of Parliament. Then that procedure should be respected, where parties should be allowed - when the occasion happens - to debate the issue before the Speaker retires to make a ruling. That is not happening in this Parliament.
No.
We are not allowed to debate it because the Chair then rules that you will make a ruling at a later stage, and you do not allow debate when the issue happens.
No.
So, we need to address this.
No. Thank you very much.
It creates a problem.
Thank you very much, hon member. Hon members, you would not ask the presiding officer to make a ruling on a matter if, after making that ruling, that ruling is going to be challenged and be the subject of debate. Now, as was said earlier, and as I said, there is a precedent here.
As was said earlier - I think it was the hon Mluleki George - if a presiding officer makes a ruling, the responsibility that you have as members if you are not satisfied with that ruling, is to revisit that later. You cannot challenge a presiding officer at the time when the ruling is made and make it a subject of discussion. That ruling is final, as it is. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker ...
There is no discussion on this. I have closed this chapter. [Interjections.]
Can we put it on record ... [Interjections.]
No. I have closed this chapter. [Interjections.] You can bring a motion. I have closed this chapter. [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, then we would just like to place on record that we will certainly ...
No! No record!
... take it on review. [Interjections.] Thank you.
No! No record! [Interjections.]
Order! Can we continue with the agenda of today?
Vote No 3 - Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs - put. Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Congress of the People and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Vote No 4 - Home Affairs - put and agreed to.
Vote No 5 - International Relations and Co-operation - put.
Declaration of vote:
Deputy Speaker, in light of the report which is at the United Nations at present, also arising from the Minister's Budget Vote, and further arising from the support from the president of the IFP for the Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma candidacy to the African Union Commission as chairperson, we would lead as follows: that the head of state, the executive of the state, Parliament, including heads of religion in our country, all speak in one voice in denouncing xenophobia or Afrophobia and also appeal to His Excellency the President to dedicate an existing deputy Ministry, not a new one at all, to focus on this particular issue and liaise with Parliament, which has been working on the issue of xenophobia. Thank you.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 6 - Performance Monitoring and Evaluation - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 7 - Public Works - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 8 - Women, Children and People with Disabilities - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 9 - Government Communication and Information System - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 10 - National Treasury - put.
Chairperson, please record the objection of the DA.
Chairperson, can you please record the IFP's objection?
To Vote No 10: National Treasury?
Yes, National Treasury.
The IFP's objection will be recorded. There is another member of the IFP on the floor. Yes, hon member?
Chairperson, I rise because there are two Votes No 10 - one deals with Intelligence and the other with National Treasury itself. I don't know which one you have put, because I have a list here which describes the two of them. According to my records, there were going to be objections to National Treasury, but we were going to support the Vote on National Treasury, so I just need some clarity on that, Chair.
Order, hon members. We will put Vote No 10: National Treasury first. Thereafter, we will put Intelligence. So, this one deals with National Treasury. To the IFP, just to make absolutely certain that the IFP has objected to Vote No 10: National Treasury, not Intelligence?
Chair ...
We actually want to object ...
Can the IFP decide who is going to speak on the matter? [Laughter.]
Can I address you, Chair, on the statement I made earlier?
Yes.
Chair, during the debate, my president made a very important remark about the bugging of his cellphone by the "spooks", the intelligence people. On the basis of that serious transgression by Intelligence, we are registering our objection. Thank you.
Hon members, order! We are dealing with Vote No 10: National Treasury. I said thereafter I will put the Intelligence Vote separately. Hon Van der Merwe?
Chairperson, we agree with National Treasury.
So, the Vote is therefore agreed to. I now put ...
Sorry, Chair. Has the objection of the DA been recorded for National Treasury?
The objection has been recorded, because I noted you before the IFP took the floor.
Thank you.
I now put the Vote on Intelligence. I now recognise the IFP.
Chairperson, will you kindly record the objection of the IFP.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Vote No 11 - Public Enterprises - put.
Chairperson, thank you very much. I want to take you back to Vote 10. In the Appropriation Bill there is only one vote; Vote 10. There is no separate vote for Intelligence. So, if we could avoid the confusion, there is only one vote.
Hon members, we will sort it out with the Table staff. We will continue with the rest of the votes and then we will return to it, hon Minister. Thank you.
House Chairman, I did request an opportunity for declarations. You have not announced to the House how you will choose to deal with them.
Which Budget Vote are you referring to, hon member?
Well, with both, in terms of Vote 10 and 11 respectively, the IFP had requested an opportunity to make a declaration.
We will come back to Vote 10, hon member. If you have a declaration for Vote 11, I have asked the question. Do you still wish to make a declaration, hon member? May I ask the political parties that want to make declarations to indicate so, otherwise we move on.
There have been changes to the schedule that has been given to us. Hon Van der Merwe, will you take your seat please! Can I kindly ask the parties who are still in the House to confirm the accurateness or not of their intentions in terms of the declarations that they want to make. Yes, hon member?
Hon Chairperson, thank you very much. While they are considering your proposal, may I address you on a point of order? If I may, I just want to point out to you that now that all of the hot air has been expelled from this House, perhaps you might consider that we do not need the air conditioning anymore. It is rather cold!
On that point, Deputy Minister, I have received your note, and they are attending to the matter. We will take that into consideration.
Let us return to Vote 11, Public Enterprises, where the IFP has indicated that they do have a declaration.
Hon Kalyan, is it on this one?
No! Before you do that House Chairperson, may I address you on a point of order? Several members have left the House in a protest against the Ruling by the Deputy Speaker. I would like to have clarity as to whether we do have quorum in the House to take a decision on the Votes and Schedules. Thank you.
From the last count that we took when the members left the Chamber, we do indeed have a quorum in the House. We will ask the Table staff and service officers to continuously check the numbers that are there. As long as we have a quorum, we will continue. [Interjections.]
We have instructed the Table staff to do a manual counting. In case we do have a problem where it drops below the quorum, we will ring the bells for five minutes, so that the members who are on the premises and who want to participate in the proceedings of the House can return to the House.
Sir, may I address you on that: we do have an electronic system. Why would we do a manual count, hon House Chairperson?
Hon member, the situation is that we just had a manual count that was done. Once we make a determination that the numbers indeed are dropping below the required 200 members, we will do exactly that. We will ring the bells and have the presence of members recorded so that we can ensure the quorum. However, where I am sitting and based also on the previous vote that has taken place, we do indeed have a quorum in the House.
Declaration of vote:
Thank you, Mr Chairman. We are objecting to this Budget Vote for a number of reasons, both structural and contingent. We do not believe that this department should exist. Each of the state-owned enterprises should be referred to each of the relevant line functions. There is a duplication of services and excessive bureaucracy, which renders the management of these public enterprises unwieldy.
There have been discussions for many years regarding bringing about exactly this, and very little progress has been achieved in executing it. The residual functions at the administrative level could very well go with the Department of Public Service and Administration.
On the basis of the specifics, we stand by the proposition that SA Airways has become a major hindrance to the development of our tourism industry, which is an essential industry, and it ought to be privatised.
The taxpayers are sick and tired of continuing to subsidise Denel, an arms manufacturer that continues to produce at a constant loss. We are very dissatisfied by the Eskom monopoly that we're all paying for, and we feel that the opportunity has been lost and should be regained to break up Eskom into two competing companies according to what is the best international practice.
We are also equally dissatisfied with the Transnet monopoly, which also ought to be broken up, again in line with international practice, to have competing port authorities dealing in a competitive environment and providing services at competitive prices internationally, addressing what is one of the major hindrances in our economic development, which is the very high port and harbour costs. Across the spectrum we are dissatisfied with each and every one of these state-owned enterprises. There is no jewel amongst them. It is a never-ending story of failures and lack of achievements, and on that basis we cannot see our way clear to supporting this Budget Vote. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Hon members, in terms of Rule 26, the Deputy Chief Whip of the Opposition has brought to our attention that she is challenging that there is indeed a quorum in the House. So, in terms of the Rule, we will ring the bells for five minutes and thereafter we will record the number of members present. That will give us a clear indication whether we can proceed with the business or not. The bells will be rung for five minutes!
But, Chairperson, are we not a quorum at the moment?
In terms of the Rules, the hon Deputy Chief Whip of the Opposition is questioning that, and that is why we want to make a clear determination before we continue.
Thank you, Chair.
The bells were rung for five minutes.
Order, hon members! Please take your seats. We request all hon members to record their presence in the House by pressing the "yes" button. In terms of the Rules, since we are taking decisions on Budget Votes, we need 201 members to be present in the House. In terms of the number of members who have recorded their presence, we have 226 members present. [Applause.] And we will thus proceed.
May I request hon members to ensure that a quorum for the duration of this session is maintained for us to complete the business of the House.
Before we proceed, I want to return to the point of order raised by the hon Minister of Finance in terms of Vote No 10. The hon Minister is indeed correct that there is one Vote No 10, and the Table staff apologise for the error in that regard. In order to do the process correctly and properly, we will return to Vote No 10 so that we can complete voting on that Vote and I will put the Vote once again. Vote No 10 - National Treasury (including Intelligence) - put.
Declaration of vote:
As I have said, the IFP regards the bugging of our president's telephones as a very serious matter indeed. There is a lot of talk of reconciliation between the ANC and the IFP. The question is, how can there be any reconciliation if, secretly, the ruling party goes on bugging our leader's telephones? During the debate, our leader, in fact, asked the question whether or not he was a threat to the state, which he regarded himself as not being. But, we can still ask the question whether or not government still regards him as a threat, during this debate. Thank you.
Is it really correct that in this House such a serious allegation be made against the majority party without any substantive evidence?
Chairperson, this was made during the debate and the Presidency did not respond to that statement made by my president. All I am doing now is repeating that very statement. That the Minister of Intelligence did not respond to the statement made during the debate either. So, it is not something I am just sucking out of my thumb. Thank you.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Vote No 12 - Public Service and Administration - put.
House Chair, may I just say, with regard to the declarations, that since the members have left the Chamber, we will now not be making any declarations. As and when I need to record the objections, I will do that. Will you please record the objection of the DA on Vote No 12? Thank you.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting). Vote No 13 - Statistics South Africa - put and agreed to.
Vote No 14 - Arts and Culture - put.
Please record the objection of the DA.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 15 - Basic Education - put.
Declarations of vote:
Chairperson, the IFP has always championed the cause of education. When some organisations misguidedly call for liberation now and education later, the IFP calls for liberation through education. When in government, in KwaZulu-Natal, the IFP used the education budget wisely and effectively. The challenge we are facing today is the handling of the budget by both the Department of Basic Education and the provincial departments. Eighty percent of the provincial budgets go towards personnel, yet we are burdened with weak administration in these provinces, the Eastern Cape being the example here.
As I speak, the Director-General of the Department of Basic Education has rushed to the Eastern Cape to put out fires there because, in spite of the intervention, the department remains at its weakest. There will be a point where the intervention will itself become invalid; where we will need to dissolve the department itself and reconstruct it because, as I have said, 80% of the budget goes to personnel, yet those people are failing in their duties. We recommend that these people who are failing our education system there should all be fired. Thank you.
Hon Chairperson, we, the ANC, support this Budget Vote. We see the budget as progressive and responsive to the challenges in the basic education sector. Our view is that the R16,4 billion budget is not diagnostic, but it intensifies interventions and also consolidates interventions that took place in the previous financial year.
The budget prioritises interventions, inter alia, on the planning and delivery oversight unit, which will effectively unblock all bottlenecks in the education system. The further R5,8 billion for the education infrastructure conditional grant, school infrastructure backlogs and the indirect grant of R2,3 billion will be used to eradicate improper structures in the Eastern Cape. The R4,9 billion will be used to intensify the antipoverty strategy through the National School Nutrition Programme, to effectively reduce the drop-out rate and increase retention of learners in schools. A further R811 million will be used to expand the distribution of workbooks to Grade 9, and R21,7 million for further systemic evaluation of the education sector. Education, as we all know, is a basic human right and any party not approving this Vote is blocking progress rather than assisting. We, the ANC, support this Vote. Thank you. [Applause.]
We are reluctantly supporting this Budget.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 16 - Health - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 17 - Higher Education and Training - put.
Declarations of vote:
Chairperson, through the sector education and training authorities, Setas, the department has been given the opportunity to develop the skills the South African economy so desperately needs. The Department of Labour, under which the Setas fell before they were taken over by the Department of Higher Education, squandered millions and millions of rands through corruption and maladministration. Today, these Setas remain an unmitigated disaster. The IFP, therefore, calls for their dismantling. The department must look for a better model for the development of the skills we so desperately need, because we just cannot continue pouring money down the drain. Thank you.
Chair, on behalf of the ANC, I would like to express our support for Vote No 17. I think Ntate Mpontshane, who is a member of our committee and active in our deliberations from time to time, is aware that we have the National Skills Development Strategy III, which has turned around the Seta situation. As a committee, we have said to the department that there is a need for clear targets for training in respect of technicians, artisans and scarce skills in our country.
The nine billion that is in the system is geared towards attaining the goals for single co-ordinated issues of corruption that he is raising, as we never had any single allegations that hon Mpontshane advanced to the Minister or the committee, because if there were such allegations, they would have been raised properly and investigated. I think Mpontshane should be very honest and say that, in our committee, such matters had not been raised.
Chairperson, on a point of order: My chairperson alleges that I have not been honest. Is that parliamentary?
Hon member, did you refer to the integrity in terms of honesty of the hon member?
Chairperson, I must apologise for saying "dishonesty". What I am saying is that in deliberations, no allegations were raised by the IFP with regard to corruption ...
Hon member, will you withdraw your remark of dishonesty, please?
I did so, Chair.
Will you withdraw it formally, please?
Withdrawn.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Vote No 18 - Labour - put.
Declaration of vote:
Chairperson, the problem with Labour is that there are laws that prevent overseas investors from investing in South Africa. This is becoming a very big problem; for that reason, we are raising our objection. Thank you. Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Vote No 19 - Social Development - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 20 - Sport and Recreation - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 21 - Correctional Services - put.
Declarations of vote:
Chairperson, we are concerned about the rehabilitation programmes in our prisons. It is estimated that about 50% of criminals return to prison and we feel that more money should be spent on rehabilitation programmes to ensure that crime is properly fought.
Chairperson, the ANC is satisfied that the department has committed that the budget allocation going forward will focus more on rehabilitation, care and reintegration, which are the core business of Correctional Services. I think that will then address the concerns of the IFP. The ANC is also encouraged by virtue of the fact that inmates must work, study or do both whilst incarcerated. This ensures the triple objective of reskilling correctional facilities' self-sustainability and preparation for reintegration into society.
We are the first to acknowledge that more still needs to be done. Opposing the budget is nothing more than grandstanding and walking out is plain childish. The more mature thing to do is to intensify oversight and accountability by the portfolio committee and thereby contribute constructively towards creating a safer South Africa. The ANC fully supports the 2012-13 budget for the Department of Correctional Services. Thank you.
Vote agreed to (Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
Vote No 22 - Defence and Military Veterans - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 23 - Independent Police Investigative Directorate - put and agreed to.
Vote No 24 - Justice and Constitutional Development - put.
Declarations of vote:
Chairman, while we do not oppose the budget, we wish to take this opportunity to record our great concern on the fact that justice, the core aspect of this department, still remains something unaffordable to the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa. Even though we see progress being made very slowly, and even though a Bill before us regulating the legal profession is a step in the right direction, it is nonetheless a small step.
Once again, we hope that in the next budgetary term urgent attention will be given to reforming the judicial processes and systems. If we do not make justice affordable, not only to people, but also to businesses and foreign investors, we are undermining our policies across the board. Thank you.
Chairperson, if only for the record, we rise to explain why we support Vote No 24. We do so because of several bold initiatives and developments we have witnessed in the recent past. The signing of the proclamation putting into place the Office of the Chief Justice is an important step in the broadening of judicial independence. The creation of the Office of the Chief Justice is recognition of the constitutional imperative that the judicial authority is vested in the courts and that organs of state, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. The ANC also welcomes the Minister's zero-tolerance approach to qualified audits in his department, as well as the fact that this approach is shared by the top management of his department. We also welcome the proposed expansion of the jurisdiction of the Judge President to include magistrates' courts within their respective division. Moreover, the widening of the justice footprint by the building of High Courts in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces is an important, albeit long overdue, development.
Finally, the ANC welcomes the fact that Legal Aid South Africa has recorded a 100% success rate in cases before the Supreme Court of Appeal in February and March of this year. For these and many other reasons, the ANC supports this Vote. Thank you.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 25 - Police - put.
Declarations of vote:
Chairperson, we are all embarrassed by what is happening at the highest level of the police department and we sympathise with the Minister, who is trying his best to solve those problems. My president has indicated in Mr Zuma's debate that when a new person is appointed as commissioner, it should be a competent police person. We are very concerned about the image of the South African Police, as I am sure the Minister is. The IFP has always been able to assist the Ministry of Police. We also feel that more money should be made available for inspection services where not enough investigations are being carried out, in respect of criminal trials.
So, when you appoint a new commissioner, Mr Minister, please appoint a good police person. Thank you.
Chairperson, I rise to support this Vote on behalf of the ANC. There are challenges at the top management of police, but we are dealing with them, and the hon member has already raised that point. We, as Parliament, also have the responsibility to ensure that those challenges do not affect the work of the ordinary police officer at grass-roots level. The appointment of the National Commissioner is a prerogative of the President and we should leave it in his hands. We believe that the R62,5 billion budget that the police are receiving this year is more than enough for them to do an adequate job that we can all be proud of and that can take this country forward in the fight against crime. Thank you.
Chairperson, I would like to be guided whether it was wrong for me to ask His Excellency President Zuma not to appoint a cadre of the ANC, especially after the flops of Mr Selebi and Cele. We are not questioning the prerogative of the President, precisely because it is the prerogative of the President, which is why I put it to the President that he should not appoint a cadre of the ANC because of these two failures.
Hon Buthelezi, we do not have a question and answer session during the discussion on the decision of the Schedule. However, you have a right to your opinion and I am sure that the relevant Minister will respond at the appropriate time if that question is put again.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Chairperson, may I establish a procedural point: Can the hon Kalyan assure us that she has the full mandate of her party?
That is a not a procedural point, hon member, please take your seat.
Vote No 26 - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 27 - Communications - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 28 - Economic Development - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 29 - Energy - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 30 - Environmental Affairs - put and agreed to.
Vote No 31 - Human Settlements - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 32 - Mineral Resources - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 33 - Rural Development and Land Reform - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 34 - Science and Technology - put and agreed to.
Vote No 35 - Tourism - put and agreed to.
Vote No 36 - Trade and Industry - put.
Declarations of vote:
Chairman, while we do not object to the budget, we feel nonetheless that we need to express our utmost concern about how our industrial policy is progressively being shaped under the leadership of this department. There are two components in this department, and we do not object to that being the case. However, one is becoming subservient to the other, and that is a matter of great concern.
The first component is that of promoting economic growth, trade and industrialisation; the second component is that of attaching social programmes and concerns of extended welfare programmes for industrialists to all that which promotes economic growth. By necessity, these two components are in tension, and possibly in conflict. We are now faced with a situation where the component from which the salvation of South African economic terms comes, is that of promoting economic growth, which is becoming completely subservient to the social component. The burden may become such that the state can no longer carry it.
We are very concerned that this pattern is identical to the pattern followed by Greece, Spain and Italy. We have often called on the Minister to have the courage in a time of harshness and difficulties such as this one to prioritise economic growth. We must have the courage of embracing austerity over the conflicting and concurring reasons which are attached to various programmes aimed at developing the economy and the industrial basis. The industrial basis is unfortunately shrinking, even though the inflation figures have been doctored to hide that very fact. Thank you.
Mr Chairman, I have never heard such nonsense in this House. Let me say this to the hon Oriani-Ambrosini. This is not Italy; it is South Africa. We have every intention of reindustrialising South Africa. [Interjections.]
Chairperson on a point of order: I do not think it is parliamentary for hon Fubbs to imply that a member is not a South African citizen, and say to him that this is not Italy. I ask you to rule on that, Chair.
Hon members, I request you to treat each other with the necessary respect and to refer to each other likewise. All members here are Members of the South African Parliament. However, the reference of the hon member to nonsense is not unparliamentary, and I will ask hon Fubbs to continue. Hon Buthelezi?
Chairperson, on a point of order: that was a xenophobic remark. The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick) Thank you, hon member. I have pronounced on the matter and I ask that the decorum of the House be respected.
The MINISTER OF WOMEN, CHILDREN AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: On a point of order: the hon member is debating the issue of the economies of Italy and Greece, that was raised by the same hon member. There is no xenophobia in that statement. [Interjections.]
Hon member, please take your seat. I have dealt with the matter and we will continue. Hon Fubbs.
Chair, I think we are all aware of the economic crisis in the Eurozone, which has been referred to as the PIIGS - Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain - crisis, not by me but by the economists. I am referring to Italy, which also dragged itself up after the Second World War and became a powerful economy in Europe. If there is anything wrong with that, I would like to know.
We are saying, as in South Africa, we wish to promote our small and medium industries in the same manner that Italy has done. [Laughter.] Secondly, we will not bow down to once again - simply being the hewers of wood and drawers of water - we want to be like those who manage, produce and create, as we can. Some of our most creative industrialists in the world over many ages came from Africa, as in Carthage, and I am sure the hon Oriani- Ambrosini is well aware of that historical event. [Applause.] The ANC supports this Budget Vote.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 37 - Transport - put.
Vote agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Vote No 38 - Water Affairs - put and agreed to.
Schedules put and agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting).