Mr Speaker, the DA supports black economic empowerment. Accordingly, we supported the BBBEE amending Bill in this House until Minister Robert Davies introduced regulations that are so restrictive that BBBEE will not be broad-based. For example, the regulations decrease targets for ownership by broad-based schemes such as woman's groups and co- operatives as well as new entrants from 10% to 3% to 2%, and a black new entrant have now jumped from R20 million to R50 million. Those individuals who are already very wealthy are recycled into the system of cronyism, tender and licensing manipulation that we have today.
Minister Davies just announced the regulations. The portfolio committee had no opportunity for further input. The regulatory impact assessment is an amateurish affair that resembles a first-year economics essay. The regulations largely ignored submissions from broad-based civil community and the business world. What is the word we should use to describe a situation where government talks, but does not practise broad-based empowerment - breaching the promise? Is it an unholy alliance between radical African nationalists, opportunists and timid communists - a contradiction? I myself prefer hypocrisy. We as the DA will continue to support black economic empowerment, but reject this government's approach to it. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, we believe that there should not be black economic empowerment in South Africa, but South African economic empowerment. If you talk about an inclusive economy, you cannot talk about race anymore. We know that poverty is growing among all races in South Africa. As for the codes, there is nothing wrong with the codes as such, but the problem is that the Act itself carries the seed of self- destruction. It is true that in the Act the codes were promulgated and created, and therefore no one can complain about the codes if they did not complain about the Act itself. Therefore, the DA must wake up and stand up against the Act itself because the codes are a product of that very same Act. [Interjections.] You are speaking with a forked tongue at the end of the day.
As for the ANC, I am saying to you, race-based economic designs will not solve our problems in the future. You are basically planning for a future where there will be more racial polarisation at the end of the day. Thank you very much.
Hon Speaker, from what one is hearing here, the ANC is concerned, because it would appear as if the opposition actually wants to throw out the Constitution of our country now. You want to throw out the equality clause. That is what the equality clause is saying and that is what the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill is giving effect to. [Interjections.] In fact, what it is doing is actually putting down the legislation in support of the Constitution that demands that there be legislation that spells this out very clearly. May I read just one aspect of the equality clause in section 9 here in our Constitution? It says:
(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.
The reason why you are all in the papers these days, in an internecine party battle in the DA, is because your own party members disagree with you. They do, and you know it. [Applause.]
Secondly, you are shifting members all over the committees because you are trying to drumbeat what amounts to a British conservative policy in our Parliament. In addition, you have the nerve to bring back this Bill after saying you agreed with it in one party, and what do you say now? What do you say here? You say that you want to omit Parliament and let us specify each little House. How many Houses has Parliament got? Two! Of course, the British conservatives continue to think that there is one House, and you are taking your cue from them.
The ANC continues to support the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Bill, and as for these technical amendments, they are superfluous. If the Auditor-General was here, he would say they were fruitless. Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, I am making a declaration and I am not quite sure whether it is under Rule 81 or whether it is now under a debate. Nonetheless, I would like to say that, on the basis that we cannot really debate a Bill afresh if it has come from the NCOP, what was interesting to me was the NCOP's insertion of clause 2 about effective economic participation. I think the NCOP was wise to do that, because the object is to create effective economic participation.
We have pointed out that this Bill poses a very serious threat to reracialise South Africa. There is no way that the definitions which have come through in this Bill are not going to end up doing that. The tragedy is that we are going to go back to court and I believe this Parliament should not have to be running to court all the time. We should make laws which are in line with the Constitution. That is why I think the NCOP was very good to add effective economic participation, which is not a racial concept. Thank you.
Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus and Independent Democrats dissenting).
Bill accordingly passed.