Chairperson, I was wondering if I was going to have to stand on that little box, but I will continue. The ACDP believes that it is an admirable aspiration to be united in advancing socioeconomic freedom. But we need first to fully understand what we mean by this. Is it the progressive realisation of socioeconomic rights, as contained in the Bill of Rights, which we fully support? Is it addressing poverty, unemployment and inequality in society? Again, we fully support that. However, what it cannot be is a free ticket for unscrupulous officials, businessmen and deployed cadres to make as much money as possible from corrupt and fraudulent state tenders. Regrettably, many people seem to hold this view.
As we prepare to commemorate Human Rights Day, it is instructive to consider second-generation rights, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. The Grootboom case, of which we are all aware, dealt with housing, and highlighted the context within which socioeconomic rights need to be interpreted. It stated:
Millions of people are living in deplorable conditions and in great poverty. There is a high level of unemployment, inadequate social security, and many do not have access to clean water or to adequate health services.
As we are aware, the state is obliged to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these socioeconomic rights. In the light of our history, this is extraordinarily difficult, as there are severe budgetary constraints, with many pressing demands on the public purse. Nonetheless, it is an obligation imposed on the state by the Constitution.
The question can then justifiably be asked whether, 17 years after the adoption of the Constitution, the state has made sufficient progress to fulfil these second-generation socioeconomic rights. Whilst a lot of progress has been made, we believe from our side that it is not a sufficient amount of progress, given the high levels of fraud and corruption in government that are not sufficiently addressed. Many speakers have referred to this. One must just think that if those funds had been made available for service delivery - one speaks of R30 billion per year - this would have resulted in a speedier realisation of these rights in terms of our Constitution.
Additionally, if one has regard for the high levels of crime and violence, particularly against women and children, it can justifiably be argued that the state is even failing to fulfil first-generation rights - those to life and human dignity, and to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources. Clearly, far more needs to be done in this regard.
The Bill of Rights also has horizontal application and it binds the private sector. If members of the Twelve Apostles Church in Christ cannot rely on a private bus company to bring them safely home from a prayer meeting, then, again, these constitutional rights are meaningless. They provide cold comfort to those who are mourning the loss of their loved ones. Let us be mindful of this as we prepare to celebrate Human Rights Day. I thank you. [Applause.]