Hon Minister, my figures indicate that R7 million would be spent on paying advisors to the President in the 2010- 11 financial year. However, I have it on very good authority from you that it is R11 million. Seeing that the President's supplementary advice comes with a price tag of R11 million, which is R8 million more than we paid in the previous year, and the President's transgression of the executive ethics code is handled, in part, by his own private attorney, Mr Michael Hulley, at the cost of the state, instead of one of the legal advisors currently employed by the state to supply supplementary legal advice to the President, why did the Presidency deem it necessary to get additional legal support when he has all the existing advice, a cost of at R11 million to the state?
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY - PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION IN THE PRESIDENCY: I thought the question was to the Presidency and not the President. That is why my figures will differ from yours. You might be referring to advice to the President while I encompassed everybody who works in the Presidency. I think that is the difference.
With regard to the question of why do we need further legal advice whereas we have legal advisors; you would know that, normally, you source out a particular legal advice if the services you have are not adequate. I think you know that one cannot always have adequate legal advice. [Interjections.] For example, when you seek legal a opinion, you don't necessarily depend on what you have, but you have to seek a legal opinion from elsewhere as well. Therefore, I don't see anything strange in seeking additional legal advice with regard to matters you are dealing with, even if you have the services. [Interjections.]
Plans to enforce departmental compliance with legislation on employment of persons with disabilities
78. Mrs J M Maluleke (ANC) asked the Minister of Women, Children and People with Disabilities:
Whether she has any plans to compel departments to comply with legislation regarding the employment of persons with disabilities; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?