UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 1

WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2008PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

---The House met at 14:05.The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

Start of Day

SANCA AWARENESS WEEK(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: First of all, before I move the motion with out notice, I would really like to compliment you on your stunning outfit, it really is quite excellent.

Madam Speaker, I hereby move without notice:That the House –[TAKE IN FROM MINUTES]Agreed to.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

PROCEDURE TO AMEND MONEY BILLS(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice: That the House –[TAKE IN FROM MINUTES]Agreed to.MEMBERS` STATEMENTS

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 2

MEMBERS’STATEMENTS

STABBING OF MR M SKWATSHA(Member’s Statement)

Mr O E MONARENG (ANC): Madam Speaker, following the stabbing of the Western Cape provincial secretary, Comrade Mcebisi Skwatsha by a certain Ndikho Tyawana while addressing an ANC meeting in Worcester, a provincial disciplinary committee was convinced to consider the matter. The accused and his colleague have been found to have violated the Constitution of the African National Congress and as a result they have been expelled from the organisation with immediate effect. When an individual join the African National Congress he or she makes the following declaration: “I, Oupa Monareng, s solemnly declare that I will abide by the aims and objectives of the African National Congress as set out in the Constitution, the Freedom Charter and other duly adopted policy positions, that I am joining the organisation voluntarily and without motives of material advantage or personal gain, that I agree to respect the Constitution and the structures and to work as a loyal member of the organisation, that I will place my energies and skills at the disposal of the organisation and carry out tasks given to me, that I will work towards making the ANC an even more effective instrument of liberation in the hands of the people, and that I will defend the unity and integrity of the organisation and its principles, and combat any tendency towards disruption and factionalism.” The African National Party found Mr Tyawana and his colleague to have violated the constitution…

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madame Speaker, I am not quite sure what this has to do with Parliament as opposed to internal ANC matter?

Mr O E MONARENG: We, the ANC and not the DA, welcome the decisions made by the disciplinary hearing. I thank you.The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr O E MONARENG

CORRUPTION IN SOUTH AFRICA(Member’s Statement)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: A recent survey shows that 90% of South Africans feel that corruption as become a way of life in the country and a further 85% believe that a lot of corruption takes place in senior levels of government. It is not surprising that South Africans think that corruption is endemic given the number of senior ANC involved in corruption cases such as the travel gate, oil gate and arms deal. The fact that the leader of the governing party is still facing criminal charges for corruption reflects the shrinking moral fibre of the government in the ANC. Access to state positions is abused by many in the ruling party for personal enrichment at the expenses of the interest of the poor. The government is too lenient in curbing corruption in states institutions; instead of punishing and convicting corrupt government official. All too often these individuals are moved form one government department to another. The government needs to refine its moral compass and take the lead to rooting out corruption from society. For its part the DA remains committed to a vision …

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 3

Prof B TUROK: Madame Speaker are these matters not before the courts and therefore sub judice? Is it correct that these matters should be raised here under the protection of the Rules of the House?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: For its part the DA remains committed to a vision of a society in which there is zero tolerance to corruption as its record in the City of Cape Town and other municipalities throughout South Africa reflects.

Ms C N Z ZIKALALA

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

THE VULNERABILITY OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN RURAL AREAS(Member’s Statement)

Ms C N Z ZIKALALA (IFP): Madam Speaker, a report by the Presidential Working Group on Women has highlighted huge shortfalls in the provision of water and sanitation and the failure to end violence against women and children in our poorest provinces.  Despite all the achievements, and immense contributions of women in our country, the women in rural and poor areas, together with children, remain the most vulnerable members of our society.  The fact that women are so well-represented here in Parliament and in government should mean that gender issues become more prominent and take on an increased importance, and that more resources are allocated to the plight of the many women and children who are suffering in the rural and poor areas.

This, however, is unfortunately not the case as the suffering and vulnerability of women and children continues. We are failing these vulnerable groups. [Interjections.] Thula wena! [You shut up!] [Laughter.] There is no doubting the strength of South African women and I believe that we, here in Parliament, can, and must, take the lead with this important issue and put a stop to the suffering of our many sisters and children who have no voice. All women in positions of power and authority must use the resources at their disposal to mainstream gender issues so that they receive the attention that they deserve. We owe this to the many women and children of South Africa who are trapped in suffering and misery and who still get abused everyday. Awuthule wena! [You must shut up!]

MnuM D GUMEDE:

Ms C N Z ZIKALALA (IFP):

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 4

ANC PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE IN KWAZULU-NATAL(Member’s Statement)

 IsiZulu MnuM D GUMEDE (ANC): Kusukela ngomhla zingama-20 kuya mhla zingama-22 kuJuni 2008 umbutho wenkululeko we-ANC ubukade ubambe ingqungquthela yesifundazwe saKwaZulu-Natali eMgungundlovu. Injongo enkulu ye-ANC ukwakha iNingizimu Afrika engenabandlululo ngokwebala, ngokobulili nangokobuzwe. Silwela ukwakha iNingizimu Afrika ebumbene nesebenza ngokulandela imigomo yentando yeningi lapho zonke izakhamuzi ziyophila impilo enhle nenokuthula.

Ingqungquthela yesifundazwe saKwaZulu-Natali iwuqhubele phambili umzabalazo wethu ngokuthi iyalele amagatsha kanye nawo onke amalungu ukuthi sisebenze singakhathali, ukuze siqiniseke ukuthi zonke izinqumo zengqungqthela eyayisePolokwane ziyafezeka. Ingqungquthela ibuye yazibophelela ukuqhuba umzabalazo wokulwa nobuphofu kanye nokweseleka kwezidingo zokuphila njengamanzi, izindlu, imisebenzi, izimfundo kanye nezempilo. Siyayihalalisela i-ANC ngokuba nengqungquthela eyimpumelelo enkulu. Halala kwi-ANC KwaZulu-Natali! Halala!

Mrs C DUDLEY:

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 5

Mnu M D GUMEDE:

NEED FOR A TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT IN ZIMBABWE(Member’s Statement)

Mrs C DUDLEY (ACDP): Madam Speaker, the Movement for Democratic Change’s decision to pull out of the 27 June elections in Zimbabwe speaks of a people and a party committed to a democratic outcome against all odds! They said:

Elections are our game. We do not want to take to the streets or to pick up weapons to make our point; we are democrats.

When the MDC won the 29 March elections, 73% of the population voted against Mugabe. For SADC states to have stood by seemingly helpless was quite unbelievable.

The hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Susan van der Merwe, promised in this House that the South African government would watch closely for signs of violence and abuse but would respond if necessary. Hon Minister, do you know how many deaths, abductions and other horrors like chopping off of hands and feet, may have been averted if the South African government had taken its head out of the sand.

Calls for the Security Council to meet urgently to discuss Zimbabwe and the UN Secretary General being more vocal and on the situation; the new consensus emerging within SADC as Angola, Swaziland and the ANC if not government, become new critics, and today’s SADC meeting on Zimbabwe are promising and we hope will bring some action.

The intensified nationwide campaign of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe have totally put paid to any possibility of a free of fair election at this time.

The obvious need now is for the formation of a transitional government that will include all parties to take the country through a period of stabilization and recovery before holding new elections. This can, however, hold no place for Mugabe who has shown himself to be the cruel enemy of his people and has disqualified himself in every possible way.

Mrs P DE LILLE:

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 6

Mrs C DUDLEY:

THE CONTINUATION OF PROSECUTION OF ARMS DEAL (Member’s Statement)

Mrs P DE LILLE (ID): Madam Speaker, just because the German prosecution authorities have stopped their investigation into German citizens and companies involved in the arms deal, does not mean the case is over, or that anybody in South Africa is off the hook.

The only reason that they have decided to stop the investigation is because they have been frustrated by the lack of co-operation by the South African authorities.

The responsibility for investigating and prosecuting South Africans involved in the arms deal rests with the National Prosecuting Authority and the NPA's reluctance to cooperate with the Germans is an indictment on this government.

The NPA has subpoenaed me twice over the past nine years and I have handed over all the documents relating to the German investigation. But, because of political interference, the NPA has failed hopelessly to investigate and prosecute the crooks in our midst. But because, and I have said this before and I will say it again; corruption steals from the poor.

The ID will continue to fight for the truth in the arms deal and for an end to corruption in our country. It is only useful idiots that want to stop this investigation.Mr I S MFUNDISI

Mrs P DE LILLE

PROBLEMS AFFECTING SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION(Member’s Statement)

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 7

Mr I S MFUNDISI(UCDP): Madam Speaker, education in the country is beset with many problems, such as a poor or no culture of teaching and learning; a lack of discipline among teachers and pupils alike; shortage of teachers and lack of facilities in some instances. This may perhaps be traced back to the failure by government post-1994 to seek a philosophy for education, as did countries such as Botswana with their education for Kakgisano and Tanzania with Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa or education for self-reliance.

After accepting 20 or so education departments, all that the new government did was to impose a new curriculum which was not well-researched and has come to be a bone of contention in the schooling system, because it was not internalised by the practitioners and the communities.

That almost all MECs for education in the provinces lament the poor training of teachers; the class sizes in most schools exceed the policy norms and teachers nowadays leave teaching in their droves is cause for concern.

The Department of Education will have to double their efforts to make teaching attractive and a career of choice. While efforts are being made to make education accessible through the no-fees schools, the problem is that schools go for months without amenities because of the bureaucracy that goes along with the release of funds.

Another problem in this case could be that those who run the schools are not certain how to requisition for the funds. Interventions aimed at assisting schools in poor communities seem to bear no fruit as the schools do not own their terms to improve their performances. The UCDP calls on the department to assist the provincial departments much more than they are doing so far.Ms A M DREYER

Mr I S MFUNDISI

MINISTER OF LABOUR’S REMARKS HAVE RACIAL UNDERTONES(Member’s Statement)

Ms A M DREYER (DA): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour recently made rather bizarre statements about the recent High Court ruling that, for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act, Chinese people are regarded as black.

If the Minister does not accept the ruling, he can appeal against it. Alternatively, he should respect the judgement and keep quiet about it. One would hope that as South Africans, we have put the race classification behind us. That Act was already scrapped in 1991, that is 17 years ago, but now it seems race classification is back with a vengeance; however, this time without any legal basis.

While the Minister is obsessed with dividing people into various race boxes, millions of South Africans are fighting for survival, confronted with real problems such as unemployment, poverty, crime and Aids. The Minister would serve South Africa’s people better if he welcomed the fact that many South African Chinese people have brought with them skills, entrepreneurship and a work ethic, and have created thousands of jobs.Mr G J SELAU

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 8

Ms A M DREYER

MORITI PROJECT LAUNCHED AT MADIBENG(Member’s statement)

Mr G J SELAU (ANC): Madam Speaker, the ANC takes this opportunity to congratulate the Madibeng local municipality in the area of Brits, in the North West province of South Africa, for adopting a project called Moriti project in the office of the executive mayor. In terms of this project, they identify orphans and child-headed households within their jurisdiction and assist them by way education, food and shelter, through fundraising and requesting donations from supportive and sympathetic communities and individuals around the municipal areas and beyond.

This is informed by our history of ubuntu, in terms of which, for instance, if a child had no parents, the nearest relative would take responsibility to take care of that child as part of the family; where a family was without a child, the nearest relative would avail a child to be part of the family; and where there was no food in one family, the next family would provide.

The ANC’s national democratic revolution struggle aimed at building a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic, prosperous and caring nation is derived from the values mentioned in this statement, among other things.

The ANC calls on municipalities, government departments, traditional leaders and their communities, all formations and institutions of society to take this example and play an active role in changing the lives of South Africans for the better, irrespective of where they are.

The social development grants alone cannot be enough. The people shall share in the country’s wealth. Thank you.Mr A M MPONTSHANE

Mr G J SELAU

PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF THE IFP(Member’s statement)

IsiZulu Mnu A M MPONTSHANE (IFP): Somlomo, iNkatha yenkululeko izobamba ingqungquthela ysifundazwe ezoqala mhla zingama-27 kuya mhla zingama-29 kule nyanga kaJuni eNyuvesi yaKwaZulu-Natali eMgungundlovu. Le ngqungqithela ibaluleke kakhulu ngoba ilungiselela futhi yendlalela ukhetho oluzayo. Ngakho-ke sifisela zonke izithunywa ezizobe zihambele le ngqungqthela impumelelo. Siyabonga. [Ihlombe.] Ms R J MASHIGO

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 9

Mr A M MPONTSHANE

XENOPHOBIC ATTACKS IN MOHLALETSI, GROBLERSDAL(Member’s statement)

Sepedi:Mr R J MASHIGO(ANC): Thank you, Sepikara, batho ba go tšwa dinageng tše dingwe tša Afrika ka porofenseng ya Limpopo, Groblersdal, bao ba ilego ba hlaselwa ka lebaka la dikhuduego tša go sepelelana le lehloyo la batšwantle ba boletše ka molomo o tee gore bjalo ba ka bitša Afrika-Borwa legae gape. Seemo kua Mohlaletsi se kaonafetše morago ga gore mokete wo o ikgethilego wo o bego o swere ka la 8 June ka nepo ya go bušetša batšwasehlabelo bao setšhabeng. Yo mongwe wa batšwasehlabelo e lego Mna Freeman Nyanisi o rile: Tšohle di boetše sekeng. Ga go sa na ditšhošetšo. Ebile maphodisa a re etela ka dinako tšohle go dira bonnete bja gore re bolokegile.

Moketeng wo wa la 8 June, Molekgotlaphethiši wa Thuto e lego Ngaka Motswaledi, Kgošikgolo ya Bapedi ya motšwaoswere e lego Sekhukhune le Mna Masemola ba ile ba gatelela ntlha ye bohlokwa ya gore mengwageng ye e fetilego, balwela tokologo ba rena ba ile ba fiwa madulo ke dinaga tša ka ntle. Babangwe ba balwela tokologo ye, e be e le Mna Lawrence Phokanoka le Mna Flag Boshielo bao ba tswaletšwego profenseng ya Limpopo ka moka ga bona.

Bjalo ka ANC, re rata go leboga maitapišo a batho ka moka ba Mohlaletsi ka go dira bonnete bja gore khutšo le tšhireletšo di ba gona setšabeng. Thobela. Mr J SCHWARTZ

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 10

Mr R J MASHIGO

BICYCLES AS SOLUTION TO TRANSPORT PROBLEM(Member’s statement)

Mr J SCHWARTZ (DA): Madam Speaker, there is well-known song called, “There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing”, sung by Katie Melua. She obviously has a very great fan in the Department of Transport who convinced the department to put money on the budget to buy a million bicycles which could be dished out to children in rural areas which cannot get access to public transport.

This is a very noble idea but if there had been proper planning before the time, he would have found out that there are bicycle manufacturers in South Africa in the first instance, and secondly, that there is no manufacturing at all that can supply the million budgeted for immediately.

The result of all this is that the remaining R31 million will be unspent on a capital budget for which the Minister of Finance had to make income provision. The lack of planning by way of properly thought through business plans crops up in all departments and it is particularly true with regard to the provisions made for the appointment of staff.

We call on government to commit to proper planning when compiling the annual budgets so as to ensure that budget provisions are made only where necessary and with emphasis on poverty alleviation. Provisions made for funds that are unlikely to be spent place an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. Thank you. Ms M M NTULI

Mr J SCHWARTZ

TRAINING OF ENERGY SAVERS(Member’s statement)

Ms M M NTULI (ANC): Thank you Madam Speaker, the Indalo Yethu Environmental Scholarship Fund has ensured that 50 students will have an opportunity to study environmental science at higher education institutions next year.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 11

The programme is part of the South African Environmental Campaign which was launched in 2006 by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The department in partnership with Umsobomvu Youth Fund and Old Mutual Foundation will also contribute to the training of 10 000 young people to be trained as energy savers. The campaign is meant to stimulate conversation about energy efficiency and environmental issues.

This will contribute to efforts to raise public awareness about energy saving. Energy safety reduces both greenhouse gases and the need to build new power plans. The African National Congress commends the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Umsobomvu Youth Fund and Old Mutual Foundation on their efforts to improve awareness about energy and environmental issues. Thank you, Madam Speaker.Mr B L MASHILE

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 12

Ms M M NTULI

COMPUTER SKILLS FOR CHIEFS IN GREATER LETABA MUNICIPALITY(Member’s statement)

Sepedi:Mr B L MASHILE (ANC): Magoši ka moka ao a welago ka fase ga Mmasepala wa Letaba kua porofenseng ya Limpopo a filwe thuto ya go sepedišana le tšhomišo ya dikhomphuta. Ramotse wa Mmasepala wa Letaba, Mna Joshua Matlou, o re: “Re ile ra tšea sephetho sa gore re akaretše baetapele ba setšo mo lenaneong la rena la thuto la go šomiša dikhomphutha ka ge e le bona ba etilego ditirelo tša mmušo pele mo dinageng-magae.”

Maloko a setšhaba le bašomedi ba mmasepala bao ba ka lekanago makgolo a mabedi le bona ba tšeere karolo mo lenaneong leo la go rulagantšhwa ke mmasepala. Re le mokgatlo wa ANC, re tshepha gore bjalo ka naga, gore re tle re kgone go fihlelela dikenywa tša tokologo, re swanetše go ema ka maoto re rute setšhaba gomme re tsošološe setšo sa go hlankela setšhaba. Go kaonafatša thuto le bokgoni mo setšhabeng ke seo re se hlokago go fihlelela ditoro tša rena tša go phethagatša bophelo bjo bokaone go batho bohle ba Afrika –Borwa. Mošate. [Legoswi.]MINISTERIAL RESPONSES

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 13

Mr B L MASHILE

COURT RULING ABOUT SOUTH AFRICA’S CHINESE (Minister’s response)

The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Madam Speaker, the ANC has never been a racist organisation. [Interjections.] The ANC is very proud of its history; very proud of its struggles and battles against racism. The ANC is also very confident of the future, the future of a country that will be free of racism, a country and a society that will be nonracist, nonsexist and democratic.

The hon member, together with the one who is barking, remember that the court document says the following - if you have read it:

Having read the counsel of the applicants, and by agreement between the parties, it is hereby ordered as follows:

It is declared that the South African Chinese people fall within the ambit of the definition of black people in section 1 of the Employment Equity Act, 55 of 1998.

There has been much comment and, with respect, also distortion of facts and legal issues surrounding the application made by the Chinese Association of South Africa against this Ministry. The true facts are as follows:

The Chinese Association of South Africa sought an order in the main declaring South African Chinese people as falling within the ambit of the definition of black people. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for anyone to amend the Employment Equity Act. In essence, that is what I was communicating to journalists: Please read the court documents. It is very simple; there are only two or three sentences in it. Even a Sub A child can read it.

If you are racist, don’t rub it off on me. I have never been a racist and I will never be a racist. It came by three boats, the Drommedaris, Reijger and others, to South Africa. [Laughter.] They found me here, and I was not a racist. That is why I joined the ANC. [Applause.]The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 14

The MINISTER OF LABOUR

INCLUSION OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS IN THE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES COMMENDED(Minister’s response)

The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon Mashile for bringing to our attention the inclusion of traditional leaders in the skills development programmes around the ICT sector. This is an important move. Many have accused this ANC government of not attending to those that are in rural areas, especially in particularly in the traditional sectors.

We thank the Greater Letaba Municipality for including the traditional leaders in their development programme. They sit as traditional leaders on our Intergovernmental Relations Forum because they have their representatives there. We recognise the need for them to understand the importance of ICTs in our national development, a development that is not meant only for urban areas but also for rural areas, particularly also for our traditional areas. We have also set up e-co-operatives that are established in all provinces to assist municipalities and their citizens.

We as a government and as the ANC party have said ICTs must in fact be expanded to include all of our people. If it did not happen in the first few years it is certainly beginning to happen and these municipalities are showing us that this is possible to make ITCs part of our socio-economic development. We thank them for having taken this direction and also thank Members of Parliament for bringing this to our attention.

Setswana:Re a leboga. Re re le kamoso. [Legofi.]

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS

REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASSES(Minister’s response)

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the member’s statement on environmental issues. We appreciate the sentiments expressed. The initiative, along with our partners in the NGO sector and the private sector is to take environmental education to a new level.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 15

I would also like to respond to the second part of the statement, namely to the reduction of greenhouse gasses and the building of new power plants - three issues. The first issue is that recently we made public the result of the long-term mitigation scenario sturdy which is the first effort by our government to agree on a framework to deal with this issue in future.

The second issue deals with the last power plant that we gave a green light to on environmental grounds. There was a specific requirement for that power plant to be carbon-capture storage ready and that is something that we will look very seriously in future to ensure that we align ourselves with the international best practice.

The third issue is that I am quite aware that there is a parliamentary delegation on its way to Kobe meeting in Japan to precede the G8+5 meetings. We would like to wish them luck and in the same vein say that we have taken note that both the American and Japanese governments have said that they want to put pressure on us - South Africa and the other four developing countries - to agree on the target of cutting emission 50% by 2050. Our message to them is quite straightforwardly: we will never agree to the developed world passing on their responsibilities to developing countries and expecting from us to start subsidising their ambitions and their lifestyles. We will only agree to that if the developed countries agree to clear mid-term targets. And on that issue we are not going to compromise. Thank you, Madam Speaker.The MINISTER OF EDUCATIONThe MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

EMPOWERMENT OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS WELCOMING BACK OF FOREIGN NATIONALS

PROBLEMS IN EDUCATION(Minister’s responses)

Setswana:The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Modulasetulo, o itse fa ke le motho yo o tlotlang bagolo, jaanong fa rre wa lekoko la UCDP a bua jaaka a buile ke iphitlhela ke idima, ke sa itse gore ke tla motlotla jang. O a itse gore dilo tse a di buileng motho a ka se re ke nnete. E sale ke bua ke kopa gore re se dire dilo tsa thuto dilo tsa polotiki ka gore ga gona motho yo o ka itumelang fa bana ba sa rutiwe.

O itse sentle gore re ntse re dira dilo di le dintsi. E ka sere fa re ema fa re bua gore bana ba tsene sekolo ba sa duele madi go bo go twe ga se selo se se siameng. Re a se dira. Mo dikolong di feta 5 000 bana ba tsena sekolo ba sa duele madi. Go a direga.

Dikolo di le dintsi di bone madi a a fetang a ba kileng ba a bona fa ba re bana ba tlise R25,00 kgotsa R30,00 kwa sekolong. A re dumeleng gore se ke selo se sentle, re tla netefatsa gore se dire botoka ka gonne re a itse gore go ntse go na le mathata. A re eleng tlhoko gore fa re bua re se bue jaaka e kete ga re batle dilo tseo di direga.

Sabobedi, ga se nnete gore dilo tse re di dirang ga di thuse; di a thusa. Re tsentse dibuka mo diphaposing, re aga dilaeborari, re aga dikolo. Le mo o nnang teng o a di bona dikolo di teng. Fa re bua ka barutabana, bana ba rutiwa ke barutabana ba bantsi go feta ba ba neng ba le teng ka 1993 fa o le kwa Bophuthatswana. O a itse le wena gore re ba okeditse, ba bantsi jaanong. Diphaposi ga di sa tlhole di na le bana ba ba ntsi jaaka maloba. A re amogeleng dilo tse, re bue nnete ka tsona. Go ne go sena dibasari; bana ba ne ba sa tsene mo diyunibesiting; re ne re sena dibasari tsa diFET; dilo tseo tsotlhe di tlile ka rona. Di amogele rra ka gonne re di baa mo diatleng tsa gago. [Legofi.]

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 16

English :Secondly, I really would like to congratulate all those Members of Parliament who made reference to work that is being done in the various municipalities, with respect to delivery of social services. In particular, I must express my great appreciation in the work done in the Letaba Municipality to provide Information Communication and Technology training to traditional leaders and municipal workers.

As the House would know, it is our view that traditional leaders can indeed play a very important role in advancing development in their communities and in our country as whole. Therefore, ensuring that they have the skills to advance the work of development that we anticipate they would do, is a welcome development indeed.

I also would say that I’m very grateful that the hon member made reference to the open welcome of foreign nationals back into their communities in the Limpopo Province. I think this is a very positive development. But it comes along with a need for us to acknowledge that in the majority of communities in our country there was no attack and violence against foreign nationals. It was a minority of people that behaved in this way. The majority of South Africans have opened up their arms, have been kind and have given wholeheartedly. It is these South Africans who reflect the true spirit of our democracy, and we believe we must thank them for their commitment to making South Africa belong to all who live in it. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION

THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY CAMPAIGN(Minister’s response)

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: I just want to respond to the statement made on energy efficiency. I want to join the hon member in commending all of those people who are contributing to making sure that this campaign is a success, but also to say that the list is not exhaustive. We have seen provincial

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 17

governments launching their own energy efficiency campaigns. Gauteng led in this regard with Western Cape following and I think that a number of other provinces even if that has not been brought to my attention are doing something.

Also, the African National Congress has led by example. Its pamphlets have already been distributed in some institutions. My own appeal would be that, in order for this campaign to be successful, we all in this House must lead by example; from our houses into our constituencies. It’s only when we work together that this campaign will be a success. I thank you.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C VAN DER MERWE)

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 18

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY

ZIMBABWE’S PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ELECTION OF 27 JUNE 2008(Minister’s response)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Ms S C VAN DER MERWE): I would like to respond to the hon Dudley, the hon member from the ACDP. I think we should really not be disingenuous about this matter. The South African government, as the hon member and this House know, has condemned in no uncertain terms the violence committed in Zimbabwe. The South African government has also supported earlier this week the United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement which begins with the condemnation of violence in that country.

What we have always done, and continue to do, is to work with our SADC neighbours, the African Union and the United Nations to find a solution to the current state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Even as we meet here today, our people are engaged in Zimbabwe as observers in the SADC Observer Mission. There also members of the opposition in that team which is in our embassy in Harare. Through the SADC-mandated Facilitation Team they will work to bring that country to a peaceful resolution to their problems.

Once again, our interest is in a solution to the problem; not to further exacerbate a tense and volatile situation. We join the SADC region and the broader international community in urging Zimbabwean parties to co-operate fully with all efforts aimed at finding a peaceful way forward, including the possibility of a transitional arrangement. We will continue to do this until a solution is found. I thank you. The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE SECOND READING DEBATE ON THE CHILD JUSTICE BILL

(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 19

That Rule 253(1), which provides inter alia that the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate today on the Child Justice Bill[B49B-2002].

Agreed to.

ZIMBABWE PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ELECTION ON 27 JUNE 2008(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That the House, noting that Zimbabwe is holding a Presidential run-off election on 27 June 2008 and in pursuance of the request from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, resolves that—

(1) a twenty-member multiparty delegation of the South African Parliament observe these elections;

(2) the delegation forms part of the SADC observer mission;

(3) the delegation observes the campaign in the run-up to the elections, the casting of votes and subsequently the counting of the votes; and

(4) the delegation presents the mission’s report to Parliament on its return.

Agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON CHILD JUSTICE BILL

Order disposed of without debate.Motion agreed to.Report accordingly noted.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 20

The CHIEF WHIP OF MAJORITY PARTY

CHILD JUSTICE BILL(Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon members, it is with great pleasure that I introduce the second reading debate on the Child Justice Bill, particularly during this month of June. This month our country celebrates and commemorates the role played by the youth in liberating our country.

We are celebrating this month by creating a Criminal Justice System that gives children who find themselves in conflict with the law an opportunity to be treated in a manner that takes into account their vulnerability and socioeconomic problems created by the racial divide of the past and also to promote the spirit of ubuntu.

We are aware that this Bill has its origins not only within the context of international obligations but also through ANC policy that has always put children at the forefront in the reconstruction and development of our country.

Thus section 28 of the Constitution regards every person under the age of 18 as a child and among others gives every child the right not to be detained except as a measure of last resort. What is important is that our Constitution advances progressive childcare and child development.

We also have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We ratified this convention in 1995. The convention requires state parties to promote establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children as well as children in conflict with the law.

State parties are also required to establish a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe penal law. Following the ratification of the convention, my predecessor the late Dullah Omar in 1997 approached the Law Reform Commission to investigate an appropriate child justice system. The investigation was consultative and involved discussions with all role-players, and I mean all members of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster, even in the broader sense of including social workers, academics, the judiciary both the high and the lower courts; that is the judges and magistrates.

As indicated in the long title, the preamble and the clause setting out objects of the proposed legislation, the Bill aims to create the Criminal Justice System for children in accordance with the values underpinning our Constitution. I am not going to go into the details of the Bill. I am though going to refer to aspects of the Bill in order to highlight important innovative policy areas that are in this Bill.

The Bill amends the common law relating to the minimum age of criminal capacity; it sets the minimum age of criminal capacity at 10 years with the possibility of review in the next few years.

The Bill further provides for a mechanism to deal with children who lack criminal capacity. The approval of this Bill by the National Assembly today will indeed be a historic event. The Bill is divided into various chapters, each dealing with the relevant stage of the criminal process. I must mention at the outset that although the Bill creates the new system for children, the system is not completely removed from the existing Criminal Justice System. In other words, it coheres very well with the current broad Criminal Justice System.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 21

The Bill still reverts to the provision of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 to deal with certain matters such as bail. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Bill contain provisions regarding to the methods of securing the attendance of children at proceedings and the release or detention and placement of children.

I also would like to refer to an area which I think is of importance and also that indicates the innovative approach that our Parliament has taken. The preliminary enquiry for these young offenders is one of the innovations created by the proposed legislation. The preliminary enquiry although regarded as the child’s first appearance in court, is an informal pre-trial procedure which is inquisitorial in nature. One of the main objectives of the preliminary enquiry is to establish whether the matter can be diverted. Diversion is a big part of this legislation and what I like most is that there is quality assurance because diversion programmes must be accredited and service providers, because government can’t do it alone, must be properly registered. I think that is a great innovation. I must also point out that the Bill includes a wide range of sentencing options such as nonresidential or community-based sentences; sentences involving restorative justice concepts such restitution and compensation to the victim, correctional supervision and finally sentences involving residential element that is detention in a child and youth care centre referred to in the Children’s Act of 2005.

There is also an attempt in bringing what exists together. I think what is also worth mentioning as an important strength of this Bill is the promotion of co-operative governance. This Bill requires various departments to work together to address services for children processed through the Criminal Justice System in a co-ordinated and holistic manner.

The Bill requires the alignment of policies, practices and intersectoral planning of the agencies of the Criminal Justice department. Also of importance is that the offences are actually placed in schedules. There are five schedules and they are determined in accordance with the seriousness of the offences. Once more I am hoping that my colleagues will elaborate especially those who worked very hard in Parliament expanding on the policy informing the legislation. I must, at this stage, urge us all without reservation, and I am told that this is a possibility that we all in this House support this Bill.

At this point I want to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, Comrade Yunis Carrim, for his excellent work, long hours in discussions with all parties represented in that portfolio committee.

I also want to thank my Deputy Minister. From the very onset of this legislation many years back and until the last discussions between the executive and the portfolio committee – I won’t tell you when that was - you have sterlingly contributed to the substance that is the essence of this Bill.

I must thank the subdirectorate in the court services, vulnerable groups, and many people do not know that South Africa can boast of having some of the finest drafters of legislation. And I want to thank, in my department, the very hard-working officials who worked tirelessly to produce the drafts that we, in Justice, present to this House. I do know that you have been complemented, even by the chairperson of the portfolio committee in private – ooh, I am divulging secrets here – but you have done very well and thank you very much. [Time expired.]Mr Y I CARRIM

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 22

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr Y I CARRIM: Madam Speaker, comrades, friends, the quality of a democracy and the prospects of its future are, in no small measure, reflected in a way it treats its children. And what better a test of this than the child justice system it opts for? So this Bill tells more about us as a country and people and about where we come from and where we are going to than we might acknowledge. Which is why it is so important to get this Bill right and which is why, too, if it is important to pass Bills that are pragmatic, practicable and doable, it is also important not to abandon identity, principle, values and goals. If this Bill is about many balances, it is fundamentally a balance between the real and the ideal, between capacity and fulfilment, between now and then. In short, the Bill is both pragmatic and aspirational within the framework of an overall implementation strategy.

It is, in fact, a highly civilised Bill. Which is why, though issues of crime persistently divide this House, all the major parties, I understand, are supporting this Bill. How easy it would have been, with elections looming, to over politicise the issues of the Bill, but nobody succumbed, quite simply because all of us recognise the value of children in our society.

I’ll deal with the committee’s overall approach to the Bill and draw from our report published in today’s Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports. Other members will deal with specific aspects of the Bill. The approach of the committee in processing the Bill this year was similar to that of the 2002 committee, which revolved around two principal considerations; firstly, the need to balance the constitutional rights of the child and the rights of the victims of crime and the community to safety and security - there are glitches here in my typing - secondly, the need to ensure that the state has the capacity to effectively implement the new child justice system.

We are excruciatingly aware of the high levels of crime in our country and the capacity of children, no less, to commit crime. We are aware too of the public perception that the state is failing to curb crime. It’s precisely, indeed, because of these concerns that the Bill took the form it has. Of course, it’s important to be tough on crime, including crime by children, but this has to be part of a process of preventing and reducing crime over time, and ensuring that children don’t constantly re-offend, becoming part of an endless cycle of crime. What future has the country otherwise? Clearly, there need to be short, medium and long-term programmes, measures and targets as part of an overall sustainable long-term strategy to reduce crime by children as part of a broader approach to reduce crime generally.

There are, of course, many complex objective and subjective reasons for crime committed by children. A significant part of crime has fundamental material and structural roots, and unless we adequately address these systemic issues and develop a child justice system that is effectively based on both preventing and combating crime, we will not be able to reduce crime levels significantly. This is not to be reductionist, in other words, understanding crime simply as an outcome of the social structure, nor is it, indeed, to ignore the subjective choices children make to commit crime for which they must be held accountable. It is about finding a balance between the objective and subjective dimensions of crime committed by children.

We should not be romantic about children in our country or ignore the extent to which children, especially older children, subjectively choose to commit crime and must be held accountable, nor should we downplay the state’s responsibility to ensure the safety and security of both the potential victims of crime and society. But we have to avoid an exceptionalism that borders on suggesting that South African children, basically African children, are inherently worse than other children universally and are incapable of being rescued from a

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 23

predilection to committing crime; which borders, in effect, on neo-racist theories. It is in striking a path between these two extremes that the portfolio committee’s approach was directed.

The committee processed this Bill in a somewhat different context this year from 2002. Of course, public anxieties and frustrations about the levels of crime and the perceptions of the state’s failure have heightened. These are very understandable feelings and views and the committee is entirely empathetic. But we cannot shape legislation on a new sustainable model of child justice with both immediate and long-term goals surely on the basis of public emotions, as legitimate as these are, and as accountable as Parliament is to the public. The committee was careful to avoid being populist and short-term, whilst recognising the need to act in the here and now to reduce crime.

But there have been other changes too since 1992 including: Firstly, the significant advances in restorative justice since 2002 in South Africa. And what is restorative justice if not quintessentially African? And who should be better at it than us? Secondly, government departments and other states structures and NGOs have developed greater capacity to implement the Bill, and are already doing so. Its key aspects are being implemented, as the Minister and Deputy Minister know, on assessments and diversion. In a sense, the Bill is lagging behind current practice and serves little more than to provide a legislative framework for ad hoc practices that have emerged.

Thirdly, indeed there are about 18 000 children being diverted already. Fourthly, there are now more probation offices and more secure care facilities. Fifthly, there are progressive changes to other legislation that impacted on the way we processed ours, especially the Children’s Act.

While the state has obvious obligations towards children, it cannot substitute for the role of parents, who have the primary responsibility. This principle is expressed in the concept of parental rights and responsibilities in the Children’s Act. Clearly, unless we can re-establish functional families, we cannot solve all the problems of crime committed by children.

The committee is acutely aware of the capacity and other constraints of the state to implement the Bill. Various provisions in the Bill deal precisely with this. The Bill’s Preamble, indeed, acknowledges:

There are capacity, resource and other constraints on the state, which may require pragmatic and incremental strategy to implement the new criminal justice system for children.

We engaged rigorously with the departments and other state structures on their capacity to implement the Bill. Indeed, we spent about 20 hours; 12 hours in closed workshops and eight hours in the committee. We also put formal questions in writing and got a 43-page reply in writing from the department.

We undertook study visits, indeed, without pre-warning to the One-Stop Child Justice Centres and diversion service providers in Mangaung and Port Elizabeth. May I, by the way, welcome magistrates Schoeman and Goosen who are in the gallery today. Minister, you will be interested to know that I heard today that the Mangaung One-Stop Child Justice Centre has been identified by the United Nations, if I’m right, as a role model for such one-stop centres throughout the world, and I think we should congratulate them for that. [Applause.]

Overall, we feel that while co-ordination among departments responsible for implementation has improved recently, there is still some way to go, but we are utterly clear that the departments and other state structures certainly have the potential to implement the Bill. Of course, it will be challenging, but what else can we expect? Our point is that the Bill is only going to be implemented on 1 April 2010 and it gives the department plenty of time to prepare.

Obviously, there are aspects of the Bill that only the state structure should implement, but there are other aspects that the NGOs could assist with, and are keen to do so. It is important, however, not to conflate the roles of the state and the NGOs. Clearly, there is a need for greater co-operation between them, and the committee effected various amendments in the Bill to ensure this, and we shall seek to monitor it.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 24

I want to, before I conclude, acknowledge, and the Minister has done so, the extremely valuable contribution of the department’s team of Advocate Shireen Said, Mr Laurence Basset, Ms Thandazile Skhozana, Ms Corlia Kok and Mr Hennie Potgieter. Mr Basset, Minister, the key drafter, as you noticed, in particular, worked incredibly hard and with considerable patience and is the quiet hero of this Bill, I must insist. [Applause.] Ms Christine Silkstone, of the Parliament Research Unit – a quiet person too - Minister you don’t know her, also brought her formidable intellectual strengths and passion to bear on this Bill.

May I mention that last week when we were sitting in the committee at about 11 o’clock one night, her two-and-half-year old boy rang and said: “Comrade Carrim, it is from the toddlerlist league of the ANC.” He asked: “Is this not a Bill about child justice?” I said yes. And he said: “If this is a Bill about child justice why do you have my mom sitting in committee meetings at 11 o’clock at night?”

Moreover, you will be interested to know that he said, when his mother reads to him at night, she’s now reading to him things like victim-offender-mediation. She is talking to him about family group conferencing. And when she sings in the kitchen while cooking with her partner she actually sings about things like that, so he wanted to know whether this is not victimising him as a child. The President, Deputy Minister and heads, I must tell you, historical materialism doesn’t always provide the answers for you. So, there we are! [Laughter.]

We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr Ann Skelton, I gather is in the gallery, Dr Jacqui Gallinetti and Ms Dhaksha Kassan from the Child Justice Alliance for their technical support and their unremitting passion for and commitment to children. You’ll have to accept that on clause 2163, subsection 133 (g) (iv), subsection 6, I still don’t agree with you about the comma, but you are free to go to the NCOP to present it to them. [Laughter.]

I also want to thank researcher Tumisang Bojabotshena, he was great as was Mr Neil Bell. Last night at 22h30, he was sitting with me as I went through the draft of the ATC document, so Mr Neil Bell is outstanding.

We are grateful to our committee secretaries, I hope they are here, Vhonani Ramaano and Lolly Phumelele Sibisi - I should have mentioned Lolly first, she will get upset - and Vatiswa and the Department of Social Development. I want to thank in particular, Conny Nxumalo and others.

In our committee, Bills are co-chaired and Mr John Jeffery, as a co-chair brought his considerable political and technical skills, not to mention his work ethic, to bear on the Bill. Some of his more innovative ideas, Minister, you’ll understand, I suspect come from his partner, Professor P J Schwikkard and possibly his 16-year old son, David. We are very pleased that JJ derives his genes from his son because we benefited from them.

I must also thank Mr Steve Swart - he’s been superb. In fact, it was very hard, Comrade Deputy President and the ANC to believe that that man is not our comrade, because of the way in which he acted in the meeting - I hope his party leader is not listening - as if he was an ANC comrade. Although, I must tell him that it’s a bit late for floor-crossing. It is about to end; mercifully.

But I must also thank Mr Len Joubert, wherever he is, because he was extremely patient, understanding and kind. Lastly, to the DA, in particular, I want to say, what strikes us at the end of the day is that we can have a national interest though we have some differences on this Bill, eventually we all say, children matter, our future matters. [Applause.]

Finally, while the committee regrets the delay in finalising the Bill, we’d like to think it served ultimately to produce a better Bill. Certainly, the Bill is the outcome of considerable negotiations among a range of stakeholders and there is now substantial consensus on its content between Parliament, the executive, the NGOs, academic and other experts. The challenge now, I must stress, is for all of us to work together to implement the Bill effectively. The committee feels we owe this to the children of our country and we certainly need to do this to consolidate and advance our democracy. I reserve my nine seconds, thank you. [Applause.] Mr L K JOUBERT

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 25

Mr Y I CARRIM

Mr L K JOUBERT: Madam Speaker, this Bill has been in Parliament for six years and its passing is long overdue but, as stated in the portfolio committee report, the delay served to produce, ultimately we think, a better Bill.

However, notwithstanding its long tenure in Parliament, it is still not a perfect Bill. However, the DA will support this Bill nevertheless, because we believe in the principle that children need to be treated as children in our justice system and children are not to be seen in prisons. An imperfect Bill protecting our children is 100% better than no Bill at all.

The interesting fact of this Bill is how all the political parties concerned, and that is the ruling party, the DA and the ACDP, worked together, I dare to say in a spirit of ubuntu, with a common interest and that is to improve the lot of our children. After all, they are the future; tomorrow belongs to them, but we have the power to determine their tomorrow to a great extent. To me it showed again that if you have a common interest, the ruling party and the opposition, can work together in the interest of our country and our people.

Before I address the Bill as such, I would like to make certain acknowledgements. I first also want to express my appreciation to Mr Lawrence Bassett and his team of law drafters. Lawrence, I confirm what I wrote to you on Sunday: We owe you. Having said that, I want to give you a piece of advice. When I did my articles, I once had to do a will for a client. I took the draft to my principal and he asked me why I included certain clauses in the will. My reply was that the client wanted it like that. Then he taught me an important lesson. He said: Remember you are a lawyer, not a scribe. And I address this to all our legal draftsmen: Always remember you are lawyers, not scribes and you don’t have to be diplomats either.

I also wish to express a special word of thanks to our two chairpersons. This Bill, as you heard, was chaired by both the hon Carrim and the hon J H Jeffery. The opposition was at a great disadvantage during the final stages of this Bill as I had a medical condition and my senior counsel, Dr Delport, was also on sick leave for most of the time. Nevertheless, they – these two chairpersons - did everything in their power to keep me on board and I want to note my appreciation for their professional approach in this regard.

Those who know me will have realised that all these nice words were to lay the table for something else. That something else concerns the preamble to this Bill. Before coming to the point, I want to express my appreciation for the efforts to accommodate my concerns in this regard, which is contained in the committee’s report. Without wishing to create the impression that I am ungrateful for these concessions, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to explain the sensitivity we have in this regard.

This Bill, as Mr Carrim said, will only come into effect in 2010. That is 20 years after apartheid was abolished, which means that no person born during the apartheid era will be affected by this Bill. However, the preamble refers to the position before 1994 and although I am keenly aware of the wrongs of the past, it belongs to the past. As a South African whose family tree goes back more than three hundred years in this country, I obviously also have scars. The oldest scar is that of my forefathers who came to this country as religious refugees and had to abandon everything they had and flee for their lives, while still leaving pots on the stove. Later they again lost everything during the Anglo Boer War. We paid a further price because my family did not support the National Party.

I have reconciled all this because I believe that if you keep looking at the past you have your back to the future.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 26

Why then refer to the past in a Bill that concerns our children? When will today and tomorrow become more important than yesterday?

More importantly, if we really want to make this wonderful country work, we must only take from the past that that will make the future better for all. Let us leave the history out of legislation and leave it to the historians. Let us lawmakers learn from the past but rather concern ourselves with the future. I thank you.

Mrs S A SEATON

Mr L K JOUBERT

Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, today's debate on the Child Justice Bill represents a milestone in the development of the South African criminal justice system as it, for the first time, provides specific legislation for procedures to deal with children that have come into conflict with the law.

The underlying principles to the Bill are found in section 28 of the Constitution which states, inter alia, that “a child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child’’ and, more specifically, that children should only be detained as a measure of last resort and then apart from prisoners older than 18.

The Child Justice Bill provides the legislative framework for special protection of children who have come into conflict with the law. The Bill also gives effect to the requirement that South Africa's accession to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, must be taken up in our domestic law.Madame Speaker, the Bill has been in the making – I disagree with Mr Joubert, it is actually been in the making for some ten years, with the first steps taken as far back as May 1997. Although it has taken a long time, the IFP shared the view of a leading criminologist who said: it is better to have a Bill, than no Bill at all.

The main objective of the Bill is to provide alternatives to the incarceration of the children who committed less serious criminal offences. The Bill sets the age of 10 as the minimum age for prosecution, while retaining the common law presumption of incapacity for children under the age of 14.

Some of the alternative sentences envisaged by the Bill include: community-based sentences, including rehabilitative diversion; restorative justice sentences; correctional supervision; residential requirement sentences; and residential facility sentences.

I would like to concentrate on two of these alternatives - diversion and restorative justice. According to the Child Justice Alliance, diversion is the practice of referring a child away from formal court procedures at any stage in the criminal justice process. It is not a soft option, but seeks to change the child's pattern of behaviour so that he or she understands the impact of their crime on the community.Restorative justice is not a new concept in South Africa, and can be described as uniquely African as it encapsulates some of the principles of ubuntu. These include actions such as an apology, restitution and

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 27

reparation. Overall, the main objective of restorative justice is to allow the offender to rejoin the community and to prevent them from re-offending.

The IFP supports the Child Justice Bill. It provides legal certainty for dealing with children that have come into conflict with the law, and provides them with a second chance in life, while at the same time enabling them to take responsibility for their actions without having been incarcerated and exposed to hardened criminals which sometimes can lead to a life of crime and not rehabilitation. As Mr Carrim, the hon Carrim, said, the importance of the child is the most important thing. We all believe that our children are important – to ourselves, to South Africa and this is a step in the right direction. I thank you.Mr I E JENNER

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 28

Mrs S A SEATON

Afrikaans Mnr I E JENNER: Agbare Speaker, die OD bring vandag hulde aan die menigte kinderslagoffers wat moes sterf aan die hand van gruwelike moorde, verkragtings en ontvoerings, en dit ten aanskoue van familie, vriende en kennisse. Sommiges se dood is steeds onbeantwoord en dit het ’n ewige letsel op baie gemeenskappe gelaat.

Die langverwagte wetsontwerp oor kindergeregtigheid bring vandag troos in die harte van die menigtes wat deur hierdie gruweldade en misdadige vergrype teenoor kinders geraak is.

Hierdie deeglike wetgewing het egter ’n baie groot uitdaging, naamlik die effektiewe inwerkingstelling daarvan. Die uiters gebalanseerde wetgewing vereis ook kollektiewe verantwoordelikheid om sukses te bewerkstellig.

In my eie ervaring as ’n korrektiewe beampte en projekbestuurder by ’n jeugsentrum het ek gesien hoe baie jeugoortreders misbruik word in plekke van aanhouding, maar ook hoe hulle ontaard in die gehardste misdadigers wat in die meeste gevalle onverskillig en vreesloos opereer.

Die feit dat die konsep van “restorative justice” as ’n fundamentele aspek van die herstel, deurlopend in die wetsontwerp manifesteer, bring nuwe hoop en verdiep ons swaarverdiende demokrasie. “Restorative justice” poog om die oortreder en sy onmiddellike familie, die slagoffer en sy onmiddellike familie asook die gemeenskap medeverantwoordelik en verantwoordbaar te maak vir die herstel, versoening en hertoelating ná vonnisoplegging.

Vir die eerste keer is daar ’n meganisme wat verhoed dat kinder- en jeugoortreders blootgestel word aan ’n omgewing belaai met kriminaliteit en die wreedheid wat daarmee gepaard gaan.

Die wetsontwerp bring ook ’n einde aan die praktyk om jeugdiges te misbruik by misdaadpleging in die wete dat hulle ’n ligter straf sal ontvang. Die geskiedenis word vandag herskryf omdat hierdie wetgewing in Jeugmaand goedgekeur word, want dit bevestig dat ’n gesonde jeug ’n gesonde samelewing tot gevolg kan hê.

Die OD steun die wetgewing en bedank alle rolspelers, ministeries, departemente, die portefeuljekomitee, nie-regeringsorganisasies asook die openbare samelewing wat ’n bydrae gelewer het tot die samestelling van die wetgewing.

Suid-Afrika kan dus die droom van wyle Ingrid Jonker laat voortleef, “Die kind wat net in die son wou speel ... die kind is nie dood nie”. Ek dank u.

Mr J B SIBANYONI

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 29

Mr I E JENNER

Mr J B SIBANYONI: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon Members of Parliament, I would like to start off by joining the committees’ chairperson in welcoming the Magistrate of Bloemfontein in Mangaung, Mr Schoeman, as well as the Magistrate of Port Elizabeth, Mr Goosen. [Applause.]

When our committee was initially debating this Bill or talking about it, there were some doubts as to whether there is capacity on the ground to implement it, if passed. However, after visiting these two one-stop justice centres, our committee has confidence that in fact, there is hope. We also want to congratulate Mangaung on winning a prize.

The debate takes place not only during the Youth Month, but also on Youth Parliament day, an event during which the youth of this country gathers here at Parliament to debate issues affecting them.

We are debating a piece of legislation that brings major changes in the criminal judicial system concerning children in conflict with the law. It is a piece of legislation that embraces the values of ubuntu, which is similar to, but a little bit wider than humanity.

IsiNdebeleKunesitjho sesikhethu esithi ‘umuntu mumuntu ngabantu’. Lesi sitjho sisithola eentjhabeni ezinengi zange-Africa. Abanye bathi ‘motho ke motho ka batho’. Abanye ubezwe besithi ‘umntu ngumntu ngabantu’. UmThethomlingwa lo uletha indlela yokuba abantwana abatjhayisana nomthetho bangasegiswa ngendlela ekusegiswa ngayo abantu abadala namkha iinlelesi zakadeni – sithoma ngokubotjhwa komntwana.

UmThethomlingwa lo uthi akukafanele bonyana umntwana nakabotjhwako athuthwe ngesikhwelo sinye nabantu abadala ngambana bazamtlhorisa ngeendlela ezinengi, njengokuthi umntwana lo angenziwa umalokazana. Nangaphandle kwalokho, bazamfundisa ubulelesi obuphala namkha obudlula lobu abotjhelwe bona. Alo-ke umThethomlingwa lo uthi abantwana kufanele bavikeleke bangavezwa ezintweni ezingabona ukuyaphambili. English: Some people might think that treating child offenders more humanely than adult offenders is an indication of being soft on crime; but that is not so.

IsiNdebeleKunesinye godu isitjho esithi ‘umntwana wami muntwana wakho nomntwana wakho muntwana wami’.

English: In the traditional African way of life parents and the community at large co-operate in bringing up children, which includes their discipline, hence the saying: “Your child is my child; My child is your child.” As a member of the community, you are expected to reprimand any child you come across doing something wrong. In the past, it included reasonable chastisement.

The Bill, as it stands, has elements of restorative justice. For instance, if a child is arrested for assaulting another child, the offender’s parents and the victims’ will be invited to take part in discussions aimed at resolving the matter, if it could be resolved. Thus the views of the victims would be considered in diversion and sentencing. The offending child may be persuaded to apologise or make good the wrong he or she has done.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 30

When a person has done something wrong and some action needs to be taken against that person, in isiZulu it is said: Uqondiswa izigwegwe [correcting the wrong]; it is not punishment or discipline the way we understand it, but rather to correct that person. We are going back to our roots in terms of this Bill.

The Stellenbosch ANC national conference declared that the ANC should be a champion for the rights of children, especially the girl-child. The conference further committed to strengthening the criminal justice system to protect children and prevent abuse.

The Child Justice Bill strikes a balance between protecting children in conflict with the law and protecting the victims of crime committed by children. The Bill also balances the interest of the child with the interest of justice.

The Bill has provisions to deal with child-offender in such a way that the child-offender accepts that he or she has done wrong. This will prevent any possibility of reoffending. The ANC supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.] Mr S N SWART

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 31

Mr J B SIBANYONI

Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, I firstly want to thank the Justice Portfolio Committee Chairperson and the Whip for the extra time and also for your kind words. My thanks also go to all the officials involved led by Lawrence Basset and the nongovernmental organisations who helped us, led by Dr Ann Skelton and others, who assisted us with the drafting process.

Back in the year 2000, I was proud enough to represent our country in addressing an ancillary meeting of the United Nations Crime Conference in Vienna on the notion of restorative justice and the Child Justice Bill. It is thus quite emotional to address and participate in this debate today. The Bill at that stage was undoubtedly pioneering worldwide in criminal justice reform. Regrettably, it has taken a number of years to finalise it and, in a certain sense, practice has bypassed us with the restorative justice principle being applied in practice and some 18 000 children already being diverted annually. Members will recall that I have raised the issue of the outstanding Child Justice Bill in numerous debates, Budget Votes and regret the delay. However, I do believe that we now have a much improved Bill.

It is also quite emotional as we are all aware of the appalling conditions in our prisons. Hon Deputy Minister, you will remember when we went to Port Elizabeth and we visited the juvenile section, that there was that youngster who was about 14 years of age and he said to us, “Die kinders was stout met my gewees.” [The children were naughty with me.], obviously indicating that he had been sexually abused or raped in that prison. And we need to state this categorically, that, as far as possible and bearing in mind the safety of communities in society, children should not be kept in prisons where they will in all likelihood be abused and sodomised into a lifetime of crime in what has been referred to as the universities of crime.

The restorative justice and diversion approach for children in conflict with the law seeks to avoid this whilst ensuring that community safety is not compromised. This is an important aspect and the Bill recognises the present reality of high crime rates and adopts a proactive approach to crime prevention by placing increased emphasis on the effective rehabilitation and integration of children. This is to be achieved by encouraging child offenders to accept responsibility for the crime committed and to make amends for the harm caused, and this is the essence of the Restorative Justice approach. Diversion, we believe, will minimise the potential for re-offending and break the cycle of crime. It balances the interests of children on one hand and those of society with due regard to the rights of victims.

With the high crime rate, what may seem to be a desire for retribution is often actually a concern for public safety. We believe that, at the very least, this Child Justice Bill will potentially deliver at least as much public safety as the present system. Therein lies the appeal to us as lawmakers grappling with the demands of society for safer streets. The Bill provides special treatment for children in conflict with the law in a system that is designed to break the cycle of crime. It will thus contribute to safer communities and encourage children to become law-abiding and productive adults. The diversion programmes presently offered by the National Institute of Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders and other NGOs have a remarkable success rate with a very low rate of re-offending. Whilst the high crime rate does understandably result in a cry for retribution, the point about a retributive system is that you deal with a state and, at the end of the day, the victim is left angry and bitter, maybe with some feelings of vengeance satisfied whilst the child offender goes off to prison to learn new tricks.

Restorative justice is a victim-directed approach to crime convention and the Bill seeks to include victims in crime diversion processes by means of restitution, consultation on diversion programmes, victim-impact

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 32

statements as well as in victim-offender mediation. So the appeal of this model is the acceptance of blame by the offender and the recognition of the need to address the harm caused.

Unfortunately, this has not been the traditional approach where, in our criminal justice system, the offender seeks to evade accountability and the legal system has, to a large degree, degenerated into a contest between the state and defence lawyers to establish guilt or to obtain acquittal. Retributive justice is a form of criminal justice based on the response to crime primarily by punishing offenders, yet virtually, as I indicated, ignores the victims and communities hurt by crime.

Now, a well-known Judge from New Zealand who has pioneered restorative justice holds the view that restorative justice offers to the world the healing power of repentance and forgiveness, of justice with mercy, of God’s love for all people. These are ideals, he says, in which all people can share. If there is to be true accountability in the community, it is time we breathe the spirit of justice.

We as the ACDP have no delusions about the magnitude of the task facing us in the light of the high crime rate but submit that restorative justice will play a fundamental role in providing opportunities for active personal participation by the victim, the offender and their communities in responding to crime. We wish to make it very clear that adults who think that they can use children to commit offences, hoping that such children will be diverted, will be prosecuted under section 9 of this Bill read with the provisions of the Children’s Act.

In conclusion, it would be apposite to conclude by referring to the prophet Micah who asked, “What is it that God desired of His people?” He said, “He has showed you, oh man, what is good. What does the law require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” And we as the ACDP respectfully submit that restorative justice satisfies this injunction. The key to success for this Bill is that the public feels safe from child offenders. The victim is involved and possibly compensated and the child offender has a change of heart, leading to a new life. The ACDP will support this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms S RAJBALLY

Mr S N SWART

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 33

Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the most highlighted concerns since the turn to democracy in 1996 has been the protection of women and children. Our democracy brought to the fore a number of serious abuses and the reality of the children of South Africa and it was bleak.

The national Constitution and the Bill of Rights introduced rights that will certainly shape up human living, dignity and equality. However, it is the Child Justice Bill that we have long awaited to deal and address the needs of our children. The courts of South Africa have always upheld that, in all matters pertaining to children, that it is the best interests of the child that is the court’s primary concern and interest. It insists that all shall persuade the court’s decision. The Child Justice Bill serves to bring so much more stability and fill so many loopholes regarding the wellbeing of the child.

In the overpopulated province of KwaZulu-Natal, poverty is one of the greatest challenges and many households are child-headed, meaning they are being deprived of education and there are many unfortunate reports of children in rural areas being made to labour under harsh conditions.

The awareness of child’s rights needs to be taken to the end of the earth, and our communities need to be educated on how to rear and develop the children of our country without infringing on the rights and the dignity of the child. We need to intensify the responsibility of parents towards their children. Neglect and abuse is too common and the rights of children are exploited.

The MF hopes that the Child Justice Bill will not only create a greater awareness of the rights of children but also instil a greater sense of responsibility on the parents, guardians and communities towards the children of South Africa. Let us all protect all our children, even if they are not ours. As we can remember, hon Sibanyoni just said, your child is my child; my child is your child.

Isizulu:Ingane yakho ingane yami, ingane yami ingane yakho. Masikukhumbule lokhu. Siyabonga.

English:The MF supports the Child Justice Bill. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. It has got nothing to do with the previous speaker; it has to do with a certain hon member, Martin Stephens of the DA, who finds himself remarkably comfortable on the ANC benches.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member. Please take your seat.

Mr M J ELLIS: I was rather hoping, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would tell him to come back to the DA where he belongs.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn’t take him there in the first place!

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy, this is a very serious point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: From where you are seated, you have a problem, but don’t make your problem my problem.

Mr M J ELLIS: Look how comfortable he looks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is your problem, Sir. Will you please sit down? I am asking you for the last time and very seriously so. Sit down or take an afternoon off.

Ms C B JOHNSON

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 34

Ms S RAJBALLY

Ms C B JOHNSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Ellis, it is very comfortable in the ANC benches.

The Justice committee has processed many important pieces of legislation during this third term and this third democratic Parliament, but I would argue that this Bill before the House today is, possibly, one of the most important and difficult pieces of legislation that we have had to deal with. It raised many issues and we’ve really had to grapple and take some really tough decisions.

The aim of the Bill is to prevent children who are in conflict with the law from growing up and becoming adults in conflict with the law. It brings about many important changes in the way children in conflict with the law are to be treated. We need to remember that when we deal with these children, they are after all still children. Before they are sentenced by a competent court, they are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we need to put measures in place when we deal with children.

The Bill contains new and innovative developments, the first being assessment. The assessment process is where a probation officer assesses each and every child for the purpose of establishing whether the child is in need of care and protection; will estimate the age of the child if the age is uncertain, and will make recommendations as to whether the child should be released or be detained in custody while awaiting trial, and also to establish the possibility of diversion. Diversion is something that the hon Jeffrey will deal with more fully. All children who will have to attend a preliminary inquiry will be assessed.

The second new development is the preliminary inquiry, which is an informal pre-trial procedure. It aims to look at the child holistically, at his or her personal circumstances, at the offence that they were alleged to have committed, and to place all of this before a court. Usually, these preliminary inquiries are attended by the child, the child’s parents, prosecutor and the probation officer to get a sense of the specific circumstances surrounding that child.

The third important change we’ve made is that we’ve raised the minimum age of criminal capacity from the age of seven to the age of ten. This means that a child who commits an offence under the age of ten will not have criminal capacity and, therefore, can never be prosecuted for that offence. There was a lot of debate in the committee about this issue. People felt very strongly about it; some argued for ten years and others for the age of 12. The tough question that we had to face was at what age is children able to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and act accordingly.

Many of the submissions suggested the age of 12, but the committee felt that we should first increase it to the age of ten. We then inserted a clause to say that the Minister of Justice must, within five years, review the age criminal capacity with a view to whether or not it should be raised to 12 years or remain at ten years.

When police, therefore, have reason to believe that a child under the age of ten has committed a crime, they may not arrest that child but have to take the child and immediately hand the child over to the parent or an appropriate adult or, if the parent cannot be found or if indeed it is the parent who is neglecting or abusing the child, then hand the child over to a child and youth care centre because the child may very well be in need of care.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 35

With regards to children between ten and 14 years, they are presumed to lack criminal capacity until the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child could appreciate the difference between right and wrong and could act in accordance therewith.

Finally, the Bill puts important measures in place to deal with the release or detention of children awaiting trial. Time does not permit me to go to into detail but, as a general principle, where a decision is made that the child must be detained awaiting trial, then preference must be given to the least restrictive option in the circumstances. In other words, one would rather place a child in a suitable youth and child care centre before placing a child in prison or police cell.

Where a child is held in detention, the child must be kept separate from adults and must be treated in a way that takes account of the child’s age and special needs, and adequate food, water, blankets, bedding must be provided and when there has been injury or illness or trauma, then immediate health care must be provided to the child.

The hon Bloem has raised with this House, not once but many times, the issue of children awaiting trial who are in custody where either the parents cannot be found or are simply too poor to pay the bail money. Hon Bloem, we’ve taken care of that for you in the Bill. We’ve looked at the matter. [Applause.]

To conclude, with regards to the detention, a lot depends on the secure care centres that we have in the country at the moment. These centres are crucial to the long-term success of Bill. At the ANC’s 52nd national conference, the resolutions state that, with regard to children in conflict with the law, the secure care centres must be capacitated and the establishment of additional such centres must be accelerated. The committee was, therefore, pleased to note that the Department of Social Development has already established 30 of these centres across the country, and has budgeted and planned for a further 20.

There is a saying that we worry so much about what a child will become tomorrow that we forget that he is someone today. I do believe that this Bill acknowledges that if we act in the best interests of our children today, then hopefully they will become responsible and law-abiding adults tomorrow.

I want to give my sincere gratitude to everybody who took part in the processing of this Bill. It is, really, a very good Bill. I am pleased and privileged to support this Bill on behalf of the ANC. Thank you. [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 36

Ms C B JOHNSON

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Child Justice Bill is a very important piece of legislation for our nation. The children of our country are our future. They are the foundation for our continued existence as a nation. They are an indispensable national resource. The success of this nation will depend on how we care for our children in terms of their health, and their education to make them knowledgeable and skilled citizens who can make a rich contribution to the national development of our country and advancement.

In these days, we see much juvenile delinquency caused by drugs and other influences. It is important to come up with a Child Justice Bill such as this one. Many children have certainly found themselves in conflict with the law and consequently in jails. Many jails that one visits these days are full of young people. I have personally visited many such jails. In one jail, I was struck by the music of choirs. When these youngsters sing hymns, you can’t believe you are in jail. You would think that you are in a church engaged in a very deeply spiritual revival.

This Bill, among other things, provides for the minimum age of criminal capacity of children. It deals with children who lack criminal capacity outside the criminal justice system. It has special provision for securing attendance in courts and the release from detention and the placement of children. Due to the lack of such law, many children have not been properly placed, and they have sometimes been mixed with hardened criminals. This is despite the fact that the Constitution is based on democratic values, social and economic justice, equality and fundamental human rights to improve the quality of life of all its people, and to free the potential of every person for all possible things.

The Bill is supported by the PAC. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN

Dr S E M PHEKO

Mr L M GREEN: Deputy Speaker, hon Minister and members, it is of benefit to our society that children of crime have laws that afford them the opportunity to embark on a process towards full restoration.

The Child Justice Bill spells out the just procedures best suited for a child criminal. The Bill aims to distinguish between child and adult criminals and achieve the right balance of treatment so that the child is not treated more severely than its adult counterpart.

A key object of the Bill is to break the cycle of crime amongst our youth. The FD endorses the provision that the de facto minimum age for a child to presume to lack criminal capacity is established under the age of ten. The procedures are provided for and the obligation is placed upon the state to prove criminal capacity of the child over the age of ten but less than 14 years old.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 37

Society has an obligation to, as far as possible, protect the child’s growth. Although being exposed to a bad world, they must not be unduly influenced or forced to engage in criminal practices. We live in an imperfect world, but children need not be grouped with those who have the capacity to account for their actions. As such, the provisions spelling out procedures around diversion create just treatment to the child offender. Ours is still a traditional society that needs education about the impact of diversion on social institutes. Society will need to be educated that children can mend their ways given the right frames of reference and resources.

The legislation, to be effective, must operate within a caring society, and unless we have reached that stage, restorative justice of the child is likely to be challenged. However, the FD believes that the legislation sets the right principles and standards to call society to help in the rehabilitation of the child. Therefore, FD wholeheartedly supports this Bill. I thank you.

Mr J H JEFFERY

Mr L M GREEN

Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, it goes without saying that we have a problem of crime in South Africa, but who are these criminals and where do they come from? Are they members of an alien race, either from a distant land or even a distant planet, that have come to live among us, but are completely dissimilar from us, having an entirely different origin, background, likes and dislikes? No, they are from among us, from among our communities. We know many of them, or at least their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, cousins, etc. Where did they come from? They probably started as petty criminals when they were much younger, as pick-pockets, housebreakers, bag snatchers and then graduated to more serious crimes such as armed robbery, car hi-jacking and murder.

One of the issues that we need to address is that most of the serious criminals committing crimes today were probably child offenders once and that many of the child offenders sitting in our jails will end up being serious criminals. What do we do with the child offenders? Do we simply lock them up and throw away the key so they can’t come back and victimise anyone ever again?

The facts are that South Africa has one of the largest prison populations in the world; the sixth largest in fact. According to the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, we have 348 prisoners for every 100 000 people. This is one of the highest in the world. Researchers say that South Africa relies on prison as a penalty far more uniformly than other democracies, but a further problem with stays in prison, according to researchers, is that they increase rather than decrease the chances of a person returning once released. This even applies to short stays. The figures are that approximately 60% to 70% of prisoners commit offences again. So the fact that we throw our criminals into prison doesn’t seem to have an impact on crime. What the Child Justice Bill is endeavouring to do is to focus on the rehabilitation of the child offender, turning them into responsible adults who will not reoffend, as opposed to simply locking them up and throwing away the key.

Diversion, as other members have mentioned, is therefore an essential element of the Bill. Diversion is basically saying to a child: If you admit that you did it, and that you were wrong, instead of being prosecuted and appearing in court and having all the evidence heard at the trial, you can go on a programme aimed at rehabilitating you. And if you complete this programme you won’t be prosecuted and you won’t have a criminal record. You will be given a second chance.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 38

Some of the objectives of diversion are, and these are in clause 51 of the Bill: To encourage the child to be accountable for the harm caused; to promote the reintegration of the child into his or her family or community; providing those affected by the harm an opportunity to express their views on its impact on them; encouraging the rendering to the victim of some symbolic benefit or the delivery of some object as compensation; promoting the dignity and well-being of the child and the development of his or her self-worth and ability to contribute to society.

Diversion has been around for some time. Research shows that the percentage of reoffending of children who have completed these diversion programmes is low. According to the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders, Nicro, who run most of the diversion programmes, of the 60 791 children accommodated in diversion programmes from April 2004 to December 2007, only 7% of children had records of previously being diverted for other criminal charges.

What this Bill is doing is providing a legislative framework for diversion and as it is new, it is something that we will need to review after it has been implemented for a while. One of the big debates in our deliberations on the Bill was whether all offenders, even the serious cases, should be considered for diversion. At the moment any case can be considered for diversion in terms of guidelines set by National Director of Public Prosecutions. After considerable deliberations we felt that this should continue. We however felt that serious cases should not be diverted, but there may be circumstances where you are unlikely to succeed as a trial and where diverting the accused may be something that is appropriate. We however set more stringent criteria. In the serious cases, only the Provincial Director of Public Prosecutions can indicate that a case can be considered for diversion and only for exceptional cases and only after consulting the police investigating officer to hear their views and then also there is provision for listening to the views of the victim.

This doesn’t mean that all cases should be diverted. It is an option that can be considered. In the more minor cases, the decision on diversion would be taken by the prosecutor and in the more serious ones by the preliminary enquiry after considering a number of factors. When it comes to sentencing, in other words where the child is found guilty and needs to be punished, the Bill does not follow the approach of “lock them up and throw away the key”. The object of sentencing, and these are in clause 69 of the Bill, are to encourage the child to understand the implications of and be accountable for the harm caused; to promote an individualised response, which strikes a balance between the circumstances of the child, the nature of the offence and the interests of society; to promote the reintegration of the child into the family and community; and to use imprisonment as a measure of last resort and only for the shortest appropriate period of time.

Before deciding on the punishment a court can consider a victim impact statement, which is a statement by the victim which indicates the consequences of the crime on them. This gives the court and the child offender an opportunity to hear from the victim themselves. For the more serious offences a pre sentencing report must be submitted, and this is a report on the child and the types of sentences that would be appropriate for him or her and it is done by a probation officer.

The Bill then outlines a range of possible sentences. They can community-based sentences, which are sentence that involve a child to remain in the community, but to undergo a programme in that community. There are restorative justice sentences, involving participation of the victim. And then, for the more serious cases, there are sentences of compulsory residence in a child and youth care centre or a reform school, or ultimately there is still imprisonment in prison.

The Bill does not encourage fines as a punishment, because invariably it will be the parents who pay and not the child. Instead it may look at symbolic restitution where the child, instead of a fine, provides a service or benefit or payment of compensation. We have specifically banned children under 14 years of age from being sentenced to imprisonment, because we did not feel that prison is an appropriate place for a child under 14 to be. Someone once put it, “what chance does an under 14 year old have if they are sentenced to prison?” The answer is probably: no chance. And they will be a danger to society for the rest of their lives, which, if they had to live to 70, would be another 57 years. This doesn’t mean that children under 14 walk free. They can serve a sentence in a child or youth care facility, as I already mentioned, and we have provided that if the case is very

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 39

serious they can be sentenced to serve time in prison when they are a bit older, but a court will have to look at how they performed in the child and youth care centre and we will revisit the sentence of imprisonment if necessary.

We have limited it to children under 14 at the time of sentencing, not the time of commission of the offence, because our intention is clearly that prison is not a place that a child under 14 is equipped or able to handle. In the case where the trial of under-14-year-old is being delayed so that the child is now over 14 and would have been under 14 at the time of sentencing if it had gone faster, I am sure the presiding officer will take into account that the child could not have been sentenced to jail had the trial been completed earlier.

We are saying no under-14-year-olds in jail, we are not saying over 14 year olds automatically go to jail. This in an area that, I am sure, there was a lot of discussion over and it is an area that there can be further debate on. Children over the age of 14 can be sentenced to imprisonment, but the Bill limits it to very serious cases.

There are then two addition points I want to make in closing. The Bill is quite detailed. Some would feel too detailed as far as the steps that officials - and that is police officers, prosecutors, magistrates and judges - must take. This is because, while you have a number of officials in our justice system who are committed to the interest of justice, while at the same time considering the child as a human being, there are unfortunately a few others who simply just don’t seem able to think. These are the people who order a child to be held in prison for stealing a loaf of bread on the one hand, and on the other hand releasing a dangerous criminal on bail when there is a strong case against them. For these officials, unfortunately, we’ve had to spell things out.

The other point I want to make is an appeal to us here and to society at large that, because the dangerous criminals in our society, those who rob and kill and rape, are not aliens from a distant land or planet but are from among us. They are some mother’s son or daughter, as the case may be, and they were once children, whether in trouble with the law or just generally troubled.

Two hon members have made reference to a saying “Um ta nako u m ta nami: um ta nami um tanako.” Your child is my child; my child is your child. [Applause.] Let’s take this saying to heart. Let us mentor our youth, let us give them guidance, let us be there for them when they make mistakes, as all humans do and children should be able to make more mistakes. Let us show them the right path.

The hon chair of the committee, the hon Y I Carrim, has thanked all the officials for their hard work on this Bill - I don’t really have time to repeat it – and the representatives of the nongovernmental organisations who also participated. I think what he left out was himself and I’d like to thank him. [Applause.] That is the hon Mr Y I Carrim, for his commitment to the task at hand, his energy, his inclusivity and his innovation. I think he is a prime example of parliamentary best practice when it comes to chairing committees. I thank you. [Applause.]

C/W: The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 40

MR J H JEFFERY

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson of the portfolio committee, I would want you to consider taking me to lunch because I’m the one who influenced the hon member that has just spoken. I actually wrote that part for him. [Laughter.] Mine is a simple task now. At the time I was introducing the Bill, I was extending my thanks also to the previous chairperson of our portfolio committee, the hon Fatima Chohan-Kota, because she also contributed to the discussions around the Bill at the time that she was chairing. But I also want to say thank you to the Child Justice Alliance.

I must salute some of the members in particular of the NGO community, whom I recall working with in the early 1990s and we were discussing the very concept of the Child Justice Bill. I here would like to just single out Dr Ann Skelton. By the way, I got intermittent briefings about the robust discussions that were happening at the portfolio committee. I think mine is simply to say: Keep up the good work. This is just the beginning. Once the Bill is passed into law, we should make sure that it is implemented not only implementable. I do think that the challenge does remain. On our part, as the executive, we commit ourselves to putting this as a priority of the JCPS cluster because, indeed, government is mindful of the importance of child care and development. In fact, I would venture to say that this Bill completes the policy circle - the circle of a comprehensive policy on child care and development. We thus commit to making sure all of us, Parliament, the executive and the NGOs in partnership for the good of the child that we make this a reality. To those committees that have to be set up within government, we have to consider how that can be effectively done not tomorrow but today. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.Bill read a second time.Mr J P CRONIN

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

STUDY TOUR TO LONDON AND MANCHESTEROVERSIGHT VISIT TO TSHWANE

(Consideration of Report of Portfolio Committee on Transport)

Mr J P CRONIN: Deputy Speaker, the focus of the oversight work of the Portfolio Committee on Transport over the last year and a half has very much been on public transport preparations for the year 2010. I think members will be well aware that Cabinet has set up the key legacy that we want to derive from hosting the 2010 event and that is a decent legacy of public transport. I think we all recognise that public transport in South Africa is not good and not effective and so that’s the key objective.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 41

Now, if we are to get this legacy right - in other words - if we are to derive a public transport legacy from hosting 2010, then the planning at the city level, in terms of the whole cities, needs to be completed already. The funding flow needs to be moving very effectively, and indeed we need to see the beginnings of significant implementation. It should also be noted that the President of the country in two states of the nation addresses in the recent years, has mentioned bus transit systems as key elements of this public transport legacy that we want to see in South Africa.

The Minister of Finance has also indicated the commitment of the Treasury to seeing effective integrated multinodal systems in our major cities, and so it is in this context that the portfolio committee has been conducting oversight visits to all of the host cities. We visited all of them last year, except for Tshwane and we visited Tshwane in February this year. We met with Tshwane transport officials over a full day’s period and listened to their plans. They are talking about Metrorail improvements, the upgrade of stations, the introduction of some new stations and also they are planning - we hope they are still planning - a bus rapid transit system. However, they raised a number of concerns with us. The SA Rail Commuter Corporation is planning a big Moloto rail extension from Tshwane, Pretoria, to Moloto but they’ve not consulted the city effectively, and so whether the planning to end up in Tshwane is not very suitable for the special planning and public transport planning that Tshwane is looking at.

We also had impression that there wasn’t a very clear vision, frankly, coming from Tshwane officials around their preparations for 2010 transport. This might have been the result of the fact that there are two MMCs, Members of the Mayoral Committee, involved in public transports. One is involved with roads and infrastructure and the other with public transport and the reports we got didn’t quite add up into a clear integrated perspective. There are also serious problems with regards to the bulk of the funding that they want for their 2010 public transport planning. The bulk of the funding is only earmarked for 2010-11, which is clearly too late to put in place the transport in time for 2010.

There are also problems with the province with the Gautrain planning often not connecting effectively with Pretoria plan. Now, having listened to this and other cities which we visited as well, the other host cities, the committee asked itself: “What’s going wrong?” Because we are quite concerned, to be honest, about what is going wrong, by way of preparation for public transport for 2010 and, especially for the legacy that we want to put in place beyond 2010. It was in that context that we motivated with Parliament to allow us to have a look at some international best practice, and we ask to go to the United Kingdom and in particular we selected London and Manchester.

We selected London because right at the moment, as we speak, they are planning for the 2012 Olympic Games and we wanted to interact with their transport officials and related institutions to see what they are doing, by way of preparation for 2012. We also selected Manchester because Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Now, in going to these two cities, we were well aware that there are many differences, obviously, and one couldn’t just transpose experiences from the United Kingdom to South Africa. First of all, both Commonwealth Games and Olympics Games are essentially one city type event as opposed to the nine city event reality that 2010 would be.

Also, if you are talking about Manchester or London, you are talking about cities with very effective public transport already in place, which is not the case in our situation. However, that could be exaggerated as we learned when we were there, because both our counterparts in Manchester and in London underlined to us what a devastating impact the massive privatisation and deregulation of a public transport what had caused, that was pushed through by Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 1980s, and there was a great deal of disruption and undermining of the coherence of public transport systems both in Manchester, London and elsewhere in the UK. However, there’s been a significant turnaround in both of these cities and particularly in London. The turnaround has been powered by the fact that in both the cities there are very strong effective city-level transport authorities. In a case of London, it’s called “Transport for London”, which was established by Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor. It’s a powerful entity which is dedicated to city-wide public transport integration. It employs

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 42

something like 17 000 employees and the turnaround that they’ve seen in the last civil years has been based on a bus system - getting their bus system to work very well and also having a congestion charging system. As they roll out good public transport, they also make it more and more costly for you to bring a car into the centre of the city. You can’t do that, unless you also obviously supply decent public transport for someone like myself who lived once in the late 1980s briefly in London in exile.

London has changed from a public transport perspective. It’s a much more user-friendly place. There are many more pedestrian malls and ways that are much easier to walk around in London. You also see lots of people riding on bikes in the centre of London something that was impossible, or near impossible a few years ago. Their buses carry 1,8 billion passengers per year. It’s an incredible achievement, and very important. They said to us that the success of their planning and preparations for the 2012 Olympic Games, from a transport perspective, has had a lot to do with the fact that they got their funding upfront and very fast.

Once London had secured the bid for the Olympic Games, the National Treasury transferred basically the money upfront and very quickly to them. That’s one of the problems we are suffering from now in South Africa that cities are planning nicely, very often and sometimes not so effectively for their public transport rollout for 2010 but the money doesn’t flow in. The Treasury agrees that it looks good but is then not convinced that the business plan in effective and so on. The problem is then that the deadlines get pushed back and, frankly, we are running out of time if are going to get a decent public transport legacy before 2010.

In Manchester, it is a similar story. They have a very effective transport authority. Manchester actually does not have metro municipal council, it just has 10 different districts but they realised that you’ve got to integrate your public transport and, therefore, they have established a Greater Manchester Public Transport Authority, and an executive which employs 550 people which is just dedicated to planning, funding, rolling out and regulating the public transport in Greater Manchester.

So, in conclusion, these two reports which we are tabling before the House this afternoon are trying to reflect on: Firstly, our experience in Tshwane and our concerns about Tshwane; secondly, some of the best practices that we think can learn from elsewhere; and the imperative of getting this right as quickly as possible. We are, quite frankly, concerned across political parties - I should say - in the committee that we are losing time. We’ve no doubt that we will provide transport for visitors coming in 2010. We will more or less get that right, you know. We will fly by the seat of our pants perhaps but we will get that right. Unless we move now much more effectively, which means decentralising appropriately to the city level so that we can align planning, special planning and transport planning much more effectively. Unless we do that, we are not going to succeed in the important objective that Cabinet is set for us, namely, to derive from the hosting of 2010 and not just a lovely event, but a decent legacy of public transport for all South Africans after 2010. The time has shortened. The portfolio committee really wants to underline that fact. Thank you. [Applause.] THE ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY (Mrs L MALONEY): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion that the reports be noted.

Motion agreed to.Reports accordingly noted.PROF S M MAYATULA

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 43

Mr J P CRONIN

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION ON AN OVERSIGHT VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF FREE STATE

Prof S M MAYATULA: Madam Deputy Speaker, on 17 March 2008, following the infamous racist video taken by four students of the Reitz Hostel at the University of the Free State, the Portfolio Committee on Education visited the university and had open and frank discussions with the management, the labour unions and student organisations. The report is contained on the ATC dated 19 June 2008.

The management informed the committee that the racist video was actually made in September 2007 but only surfaced on 26 February 2008.

We are going to share just a summary of events as reflected by Anton Fisher from the university. He said: This was triggered by the council’s decision to integrate residences of University of Free State. And an implementation task team was made up. Unfortunately for this integration there was resistance.

And to our surprise, according to Anton Fisher, the main opponents of this were the Freedom Front Plus. Not only were they opposed to this integration, they even tried to take the university to court, saying there was not enough consultation.

According to Anton Fischer, there were protest marches addressed by the Freedom Front Plus leadership, nationally and provincially, against this integration. IsiXhosa :Ixhala ke kukuba ingaba iFreedom Front ibiyintoni ingxaki yayo. Kumaxesha amaninzi ...

English:...in this House we profess to be nonracist but many a time this is just as good as you are going to keep a distance from me if you are not like me. Let me choose a practical example. I am not going to mention names, but one member who was in my committee who happened to be white – let me use that term. I asked him: Since we are buddies working together, what would you say if my son were to propose marriage to your daughter? He said: ``I don’t want to lie. I would never ever allow that to happen’’.

This is the reality that we need to accept. There are some people who would accept nonracialism as long as it does not affect them directly. Let us pronounce and shout but keep our distance.

Therefore, when you have those different hostels, this one being for whites and this one being for blacks and you put them together, chances are that they are going to get to know each other. Once they get to know each other, they are going to do what old apartheid regime didn’t want: to have these different people getting married and being one part, one culture, one human element.

Sometimes I become proud of being a member of the ANC because in the ANC we don’t talk about some of these things. We leave them out.

IsiXhosa :KwiANC ufumana amakomanisi, abahedeni, sitshata wonke umntu kwaye senza yonke into.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 44

English Why? Because we declare ourselves human beings made in the image of God, irrespective where you come from. [Applause.]

IsiXhosa :Xa sihleli neemanyano zabasebenzi zithi enye yeengxaki zazo kukuba iiklasi zaseFree State ziqhutywa ngohlobo lweparallel mode of instruction, zesesiBhulu nesiNgesi. Loo nto yenza ukuba bonke abathetha isiBhulu bayekungena kwiklasi yesiBhulu, abanye bonke baye kungena kule klasi yesiNgesi, batsho ke bahlukane. Bathi into abayicingayo ke bona kukuba endaweni yokuba ilekhtshara ifundise abantu abohlukileyo into enye kutheni bengadityaniswa nje.

English A lecturer must speak the language he understands but must be interpreted so that everybody is able to understand him or her. That forces people to be together.

IsiXhosa :Ngethamsanqa kwiKomiti yeMicimbi yeSebe ebesinayo izolo iNqununu yeYunivesiti yaseMntla Ntshona uthe yile nto kanye bona bayenzayo ngoku.

English:And this is what we are proposing in our recommendation.

IsiXhosa:Enye yeenxalabo yeemanyano zabasebenzi kunye nabafundi kukuba iKansile yeyunivesiti imhlophe. Xa sisithi kutheni iKansile imhlophe nje, bathi abantu unobuhlanga kutheni ujonga ibala. Baphinde bathi akuboni na ukuba ngabantu aba. Libala ngombala. Njengokuba sizakuthi masingathethi ngebala nje, ngoku liyangena ibala xa kufuneka behleli bodwa eReitz. Kodwa behleli kwiKansile masingababoni ukuba bahleli bodwa, abakwazi ukucingela ukuba abanye abantu bathini ngale nto bayithethayo. Sithi ke iyunivesiti mayizame ukuyijonga naleyo into. Kanti neyunivesiti masiyithethe into yokuba emveni kokuba kwenzeke le nto ...

English:Let me share what they did. They got this information on 26 February 2008. On 27 February 2008, the very following day two students were barred from the campus.

IsiXhosa:Besikade sisabela ukuba kutheni aba bafundi bebabini nje. Le nto yenzeke ngo2007, aba babini abafundi khange babuye ababini babuya, ngaba babini ke abaye bagxothwa ngomhla wama27 kweyoMdumba.

Inqununu yayokuthetha naba bantu, khawufane ucinge. Ngoomama bane notata, bamnyama thsu; ndiyeke ndisebenzise loo mbala. Ngabafundi bamhlophe baya kwibala lemidlalo. Aba bafundi bamhlophe bathi kwaba bantu badala balingana nabazali babo mababaleke bakhuphisane. Babaleke abantu abadala besenza le nto kuthiwa mabayenze kuba aba bantu kubo bakhulu. Ndiye ndabuza komnye umfundi ukuba, ukuba ibingumzali wakhe lo wenziwe le nto ebeyakuthini. Wathi lo mfundi ebengekhe ayithande.

Kukho umahluko omkhulu phakathi kwabafundi abamhlophe nabamnyama kula yunivesiti. Kuthi umfundi omnyama akuthetha le nto omhlophe athethe leya. Bathe bakuthi abamnyama mayivalwe iReitz bathi abamhlophe mayingavalwa. Bathe abamhlophe, kuquka kubo inkokheli yombutho wabafundi beFreedom Front, kutheni siyenza nzima nje le nto. Ngabafundi nje abane abenze le nto ngoku nithi makuvalwe yonke le ndawo yokuhlala; masingayivali akukho nto yenzekileyo.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 45

Sithi sakuthi abantu abamnyama mabancediswe kwizinto ebebengazifumani izolo kuthiwe sinobuhlanga. Bade bathi abanye abantu aba bantwana bezelwe ngo1994 nje, kutheni usithi mababonelelwe. Ndithi buyela kuthi kwiAfrican National Congress, sithi ngoku abantu abangoomama mababe kumyinge ka50%.

English:Why are we saying that? Is it because these women were not with us in 1994? In reality they were with us.

IsiXhosa:Kodwa ibisithi madoda abathatha zonke ezi zikhundla.

English:It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with catching up. We are saying you are human beings too; you can think; you can lead. Let us accommodate you; let us not pretend as if we are on the same starting mark; you are far behind.

IsiXhosa:Yizani sibaleke kunye. Nokuba umntwana umhlophe, xa sisithi khawuvumele umntwana... Ayinanto yakwenza neminyaka. Inento yokwenza neenkcukacha zamanani namhlanje. Nokuba ungajonga kwicandelo leeAccountants, bonke aba bantu balawula eli lizwe bamhlophe. Ayenzekanga ngempazamo ke loo nto koko yenziwe kukuba abantu bethu bebebotshelelwe bengakwazi ukuyenza le nto. Abanakuyenza emva kweminyaka emithathu. Abanye mabakhe balinde side sifike ngoba khange siqale kunye.

English:It cannot be fair, and there is nothing racist about it. It is levelling the playing field. [Applause.]

IsiXhosa:Siyacela ke ukuba le ngxelo mayamnkelwe ngoba sifuna ukuba ezi zinto zisicebisayo apha ...

English:. . . to be implemented. Thank you. [Applause.]

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY (Mr O E MONARENG): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party that this report be noted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The motion is that the report be noted. Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask why we are not going to adopt it rather than just note it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the decision of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party is that it be noted. I am sure there are reasons for that.

Mr M J ELLIS: We will be quite happy to adopt it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But then there is no motion for adoption.

Mr M J ELLIS: Can I propose a motion for adoption?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you can’t, unfortunately. It’s the prerogative of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party and he says the report should be noted.

Mr M J ELLIS: That doesn’t look like it is the Chief Whip of the Majority Party. [Laughter.]

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 46

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly noted. Mr G G OLIPHANT

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 47

PROF S M MAYATULA

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON OVERSIGHT VISIT TO INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS LEAD (HEALTH) PROGRAMME AT THE

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr G G OLIPHANT: Deputy Speaker, Deputy President and colleagues, we are talking about report that was published on the ATC, Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, on 18 June 2008, on our visit to IKS, Indigenous Knowledge Systems - a lead project that is based here in the Western Cape.

IsiXhosa: Abanye bathi ezi zinto zezamagqirha, ngoko ke kuza kufuneka nivume xa ndinivumisa ndikule ndawo ndikuyo.

English:The Indigenous Knowledge Systems is an area of scientific competitive advantage located at the Medical Research Council and funded by the Department of Science and Technology, DST, through the National Indigenous Knowledge Systems office called NIKSO, National Indigenous Knowledge systems Office.

Our visit to this project, which is located in Parow Valley in the Western Cape, was essentially to enhance our understanding of this programme and to measure its output against national priorities. Our assessment is that the IKS is still marginalised, sidelined and not adequately funded in order to realise its full potential.

On the other hand, indigenous knowledge holders and communities from which such knowledge is derived do not benefit. For instance, Hoodia - some of you know it very well - is a very popular medicinal plant used within the international health system across the world. The generators of this knowledge and communities from where this plant is harvested remain poor and outside the formal economy.

We have 24 000 plant species in South Africa, as stated in the report. A total of 4 000 are used to manufacture medicines and 20 000 tons of medicinal plants are exported each year. We still have to investigate this matter to establish who are the beneficiaries of these economic activities and what are the fault lines relating to the nonincorporation of indigenous communities into this knowledge economy. Key to our mandate is the improvement of the quality of life for all our people, not only some.

The portfolio committee also visited a laboratory in Delft, also in the Western Cape, where we were shown how plants are processed and converted into tablets or capsules. They showed us a very interesting and impressive demonstration of excellence, only about 10 minutes’ drive from Parliament.

What was even more remarkable was the packaging and labelling of these capsules on-site - some of them you see in the chemist across the road. The knowledge that our people possess on plants and herbs and their respective medicinal properties, represent enormous wealth that has not yet been exploited to its maximum potential.

One of their flagship projects at the laboratory was the patenting of the malaria strain. We hope that they succeed in their venture. The Department of Science and Technology has a programme called Farmer-to-Pharmarcy, which means from the farmer to the pharmacist. This is what this project is trying to achieve.

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 48

People with money have over the years appropriated knowledge and registered intellectual property rights to themselves, to the total exclusion of the poor. This matter needs to be corrected. Funding from the Department of Science and Technology has not increased from what it was in previous years; it has remained the same. We have raised this matter with the department for its consideration and correction.

Other recommendations, which I am not going to repeat, are in the report and are being processed, and we need to follow up on some of these matters. When we return in the next session, we will be processing a piece of legislation called the intellectual property rights for publicly funded research. Basically, this is to avoid a situation where the state funds research and at an advanced stage their capitalist ventures buy some of the technology or appropriate some of the technology to themselves, patent it and from there start exporting it oversees and make money. Therefore, people who came with these technologies and with this knowledge do not benefit from them.

We need to correct this, and this law that we will be passing in the next term is precisely to try and address this situation. I thank you very much. [Applause.

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY (Mr O E MONARENG): Deputy Speaker, I move on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, that the report be noted.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask why the report has not been adopted. I would like to propose that there be an adoption. I am so sad.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that the report be noted.

Mr M J ELLIS: I would like to propose that the report be adopted. I am so sad.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are there any objections? Are you objecting, Mr Ellis? If not, take your seat. I promise you that you have worked hard to get a half-day and I am not going to give it to you. You are going to be here until adjournment. If you think I am going to ask you to leave, I won’t be doing that. [Laughter.]

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly noted.

Ms W S NEWHOUDT-DRUCHEN

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 49

Mr G G OLIPHANT

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND STATUS OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND DISABLED PERSONS

Mrs W S NEWHOUDT-DRUCHEN: Deputy Speaker, the functions of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and Disabled Persons are that the committee must monitor and evaluate progress with regard to the improvement in the quality of life and the status of children, youth and disabled persons in South Africa with special reference to government’s commitment in respect of any applicable international instruments and to duties and responsibilities in respect of any applicable legislation.

Prior to the workshop that we had as a JMC, I, as the chairperson, met with the facilitators to set up the objectives of this workshop, and the objectives were as follows: To review and evaluate the work done by the JMC since 2005, which included identifying its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its co-functions; identifying challenges to complete activities in the work plan; critically assessing the operational structures of the JMC and proposing alternative methods of working.

The objectives also try to help members to understand the functions of the JMC in relation to South Africa’s international obligations and a deeper understanding of the tools available to Members of Parliament. They work with various sectors that the JMC also work with, namely children, youth and disabled persons.

We wanted to draft a programme that could be achievable and include a range of activities that cater for all three sectors that we see to, and as well cover the five functions, namely legislation, oversight, public participation, co-operative governance and international participation.

At our strategic workshop the NA Table staff and the South African Human Rights Commission briefed us on the private member’s motion as well as international instruments. As JMC we are responsible for the oversight work for children, youth and disabled people, and we oversee the Offices on the Rights of the Child, the Office on the Status of Disabled Persons, the Umsobomvu Youth Fund as well as the National Youth Commission.

At our strategic workshop we broke up in to various small groups, and made presentations, held discussions and looked at plans and programmes and the activities that can be done in our plans for 2008. Out of our group discussions we had an activity plan where we had 18 priorities. Members can go through that in the report.

In conclusion, it has been agreed that the JMC should co-ordinate the work better. Members are responsible to mainstream the work of the JMC into other portfolio committees. That is very important to us. We also seriously need to look at the meeting times of the JMC which are held on a Friday and it is very difficult to have a quorum on a Friday. The existing support base for us as a committee was not good this year; we got a researcher only two months ago and now our committee is functioning properly.

Parliament needs to look at the functioning of the JMC, and as I have mentioned, we only got a researcher this term and she has helped a lot with our committee work. The JMC needs to continue to work with the three sectors, namely the youth, children and the disabled sector, and we need to have a better understanding of their work. This report was adopted by the committee and we need to improve the relationship with the three sectors that we are working with. We also ask that this House adopt our report. Thank you. [Applause.]

UNREVISED HANSARD

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

25 JUNE 2008

PAGE: 50

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY (Mr O E Monareng): Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the majority party I move that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

The House adjourned at 16:44.