Chairperson, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill, which is a section 75 Bill that seeks to amend the Tobacco Control Act of 1993 to bring it in line with the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to which South Africa is a signatory. We want to salute the Minister in particular and government in general for having ensured that South Africa becomes part and parcel of that broad international convention, which is part of our drive to create a health hazard-free society. The Bill also intends to close loopholes that exist in the current legislation by making prosecution for the contraventions of the Act more effective. As we may realise, the current legislative framework has so many loopholes, which makes it very difficult for prosecuting authorities to prosecute those, particularly the industry that violates the provisions of the Act.
Hon Chairperson, my colleagues and the hon Minister have dealt extensively with the rationale, context and substance of the amending Bill, and in this regard my contribution will focus on the process by Parliament, the NCOP in particular, particularly as it relates to public participation and also attempts to demystify some misconceptions by some media commentators about the legislative process in our evolving bicameral system of parliament.
I am raising this because I know that there are people here who have an interest in the matter, and they are welcome. Every time we pass a Bill as this House and the Bill does not tally with their interests and their position, then we are not heroes but rubber stamps, either of the executive or of the NA. We do not have roles, and are nothing else but rubber stamps, but when we pass a Bill that addresses their concerns, we are their heroes.
Chairperson, this is not just a simple thing that as elected public representatives we may take for granted, because on the one hand it is ideological in the sense that it begins to foster a spirit that takes away the fundamental basis of all of us of being in this august House.
That fundamental basis is membership of political parties, and from membership of political parties that have brought us here then arises the question of party-political discipline, particularly when we deal with section 75 legislation where we vote as political parties. And I want to demystify a notion that says: Rubber stamps or no rubber stamps. In saying that, I think it will also be important for all of us both individually and collectively to be cautious of being created heroes by editorial boardrooms.
History has actually revealed how many people were created as heroes by editorial boardrooms, and then they jump high, but that heroism does not last in the minds and hearts of the masses of our people, because that heroism has a short lifespan. If in the view of the editorial boardroom you are no longer newsworthy they then begin to pick up on certain things that are negative and those that are going to destroy you. We have seen it happening with many people.
So I am cautioning members, particularly our colleagues, that we must not be tempted, because this issue basically says to us, "Look NCOP, to be liked and to be reported positively, especially when we deal with section 75(b) legislation, you must be critical even to your own self so that you are seen as being a rubber stamp". You must just oppose, hon member Tau, everything that comes from the NA according to the standards and terms of the big interests that are finding expression within the editorial boardrooms.
We must defy that logic, because we are not here because we were profiled in editorial boardrooms. We are here because our political parties had interest, confidence and trust that we will do what we are expected to do. We are here because the masses of our people have confidence and trust that we will do what we are supposed to do. On that note I think it is also important that we need to highlight certain provisions of the Constitution, particularly when it relates to the NCOP in relation to the legislative process.
If you look into the Constitution, quite clearly it does not speak the same language when it comes to the legislative powers of the NCOP. On section 76 processes, the Constitution consistently and throughout uses the words, "NCOP passes", and that is why there is mediation. If there is deadlock between the NCOP and the NA on a particular section 76 Bill, then there is mediation. Mediation as a parliamentary conflict resolution mechanism will finally come with an outcome, which will be accepted and the Bill will be handed to the President.
But Chairperson, in respect of the section 75 legislation, I think it is fundamentally important that we need to read what the Constitution intends to instruct us. It says that the NA will pass the laws, etc. It also says that the NCOP will consider and pass legislation from the NA. What is also more important is that it gives us two powers: It says the NCOP can pass any Bill from the NA with amendments or without. It also gives us the power to reject the Bill.
Now let me give you the flip side of this. If that Bill, whether it has been passed with amendments or has been rejected, goes back to the NA, that House is obliged by the Constitution to reconsider its position. Should the NA believe that they are right in their views as per the powers given to them, and are not convinced or persuaded by the views of the NCOP, they can pass that Bill, which will then be sent to the President for assent. I think that is finality on the matter. [Interjections.]
Hon Tolo is saying something. It is not I, Chair. [Laughter.] I am saying that we must be critical not to be overcritical about ourselves to a point where we forget how we should be dealing with these issues. So in this context the NCOP Select Committee on Social Services has agreed in broad terms with this Bill before us. But in doing that we have considered submissions that we received from various stakeholders. I must mention that submissions were by and large from the industry.
The industry is raising consistent issues, one of which is that South Africa as part of its drive to reduce tobacco-related harm, should actually begin to legalise alternative tobacco products, in particular the snooze - I think the hon Minister has alluded to this - and our view as the committee is that harm is harm, irrespective of its magnitude.
The position of South Africa in relation to this particular aspect is to reduce the harm. We are also convinced that when you look particularly at the statistics from the Western Cape on the expenditure in the public health hospitals in relation to tobacco-related diseases, you will actually become more convinced as to why as a country, as public representatives and as a society we should take the lead in ensuring that over and above the provisions of this legislation, we actually join the campaign to ensure that we raise awareness of our people to reduce smoking. And I will be one of those who should actually be given that particular counselling. [Applause.]
The chairperson has alluded to hon Tolo's quitting smoking, and I always pray every morning and wish that hon Tolo has quit for life now. Since I met him in Parliament he did quit before, but then it was only for two months and after that he was back again. [Applause.] So I am not sure, but I think it is an important thing that we may want to look at. [Interjections.]