ACDP Parliamentary newsletter - 11 November 2003

Parliament is once again in session, with the highlights today being President Thabo Mbeki's speech and Kent Durr's reply in the National Council of Provinces Chamber and the debates on various Bills including the Gambling Bill, Social Welfare and Traditional Leadership.

******************************************************
In this issue:

1. Gambling exploits and undermines South Africans
2. Second voter registration drive welcome
3. Empower rather than create dependence
4. Traditional Leadership Bill does not provide legitimate powers and authority
5. GM foods risky for Africa - plea to the President

******************************************************
1. Gambling exploits and undermines South Africans

National Gambling Bill Speech by African Christian Democratic Party MP Cheryllyn Dudley

11 November 2003

The horse has bolted and now we want to close the stable door!

As Minister Skweyiya's budget for social development tragically evaporates in the aftermath of gambling policies and legislation in South Africa, we have the ANC, DA, NNP and others in this house to thank. Their irresponsible behaviour in voting for the National Gambling Bill in 1996, can be likened to knowingly lighting a devastating fire, and fanning it with subsequent legislation. Now we see these same people trying to manage the fire and shamelessly looking for credit for doing so.

The African Christian Democratic Party does not support legislation that condones and promotes gambling and strongly objected to the National Gambling Act in 1996, which was supported by the ANC, DA and NNP.

Exploitation of the poor is unacceptable under any name, and the lottery and casino's are no exception. Gambling is unprofitable for all but a few and cannot be defended in terms of benefiting the economy. The revenue raising ability for provinces and black empowerment, were used, as carrots to con the public but the reality is, poverty has increased, organisations working to alleviate suffering receive little or no assistance, the promised tax take is extremely poor, social costs are astronomical and regulatory costs exorbitant. The direct cost of administration of the Industry being over R200 million pa.

Limited payout machines are another disgrace, being conveniently placed where alcohol is consumed, ensuring a target market with alcohol induced, reduced responsibility.

The Gambling Industry exploits peoples' weaknesses and undermines efforts toward moral regeneration. This new culture promotes greed, and instant gratification and undermines, the need to study, family life, delayed consumption and frugality. Gambling is a direct attack on the family and fosters prostitution, money laundering, gangsterism, drugs and liquor.all industries, which negatively impact on the spread of HIV/Aids and on law and order.

The detrimental social and economic effects of gambling were well documented and pointed out by the ACDP in 1996, and on many occasions since then. Surely this sort of irresponsible behaviour should not be condoned. Will the ANC, DA and NNP pay for their folly or will this too, be only at the expense of the poor and tax paying South Africans?

The repealing of the 96 Gambling Act is long overdue but this bill does not go far enough, and will not remove the blight of gambling and its devastating effects on our nation.

One cannot help wonder what gambling industry insiders will be paying into Political Party election coffers! The ACDP is voting against this smokescreen referred to as a Bill.

******************************************************

2. Second voter registration drive welcome, says ACDP

10 November 2003

The African Christian Democratic Party has welcomed a second possible voter registration drive by the Independent Electoral Commission to allow potential voters a second chance to register on 24 and 25 January 2004.

The IEC's consideration of holding a second voter registration drive after the low turnout at the weekend is good news for those who did not get the opportunity to register this weekend, the ACDP said in a statement.

We have had queries from many people who could not register this weekend or who were unaware that registration was taking place, despite wide advertisement by the IEC and political parties. After contacting the IEC with these queries I was told that there will possibly be second registration campaign running for the weekend of 24 and 25 January next year.

Voters who did not register this weekend or will not be able to register in January are also reminded that they can register throughout the week any time before the election next year at their local Municipal Electoral Office in their voting district.

According to IEC statistics, only about 300 000 of the 9.5 million unregistered voters used the opportunity to register at voting stations around the country on Saturday and Sunday.

The ACDP was disappointed at the low registration turnout, and hope that voters will use their opportunity to take part in the democratic process. One of the responsibilities we have as citizens is to vote whenever elections take place, as it is our chance to choose who should make decision about the taxes we pay, what is right or wrong for the country and to appoint a government we trust to govern South Africa.


******************************************************
3. Empower rather than create dependence

South Africa Social Security Agency Bill and Social Assistance Bill speech by African Christian Democratic Party MP Rhoda Southgate

11 November 2003

South Africa faces insurmountable challenges in the fight to alleviate poverty.

The constitution provides everyone, adults and children the right to have access to social security and social assistance. However, the number of people becoming dependant on the State is growing at an alarming rate. Section 28 (1) (b) of the Constitution implies that parents have the primary responsibility to provide economic and social rights for their children and the State must only intervene when parents are unable to provide for them.

Whilst the intention of the two bills are noble, government must ensure that in reality it reaches the poorest of the poor in the most effective, efficient and economical way.

The South African Social Security Agency bill provides an institution designed to improve and enhance delivery of service to its more than six million beneficiaries.

The lack of fiscal management and political leadership by Provinces does not warrant the shift by centalising this competency, but it does reveal the present governments idealogy by slowly eroding the powers of Provinces. .

Insecurity and uncertainty amongst current personnel could result in losing a few of its experienced and qualified employees prior to the transition phase and this could impact negatively on the delivery of service. The challenge remains whether this Agency would have the human capacity and skill to administer and manage the transition phase without prejudicing existing and new beneficiaries.

The Social Assistance bill attempts to produce a comprehensive social package, with particular attention to children, disability, health and retirement. The bill provides for the administration of social assistance, payment of social grants, setting norms and standards and establishing an inspectorate for social assistance.

Given the fact that the department loses approximately two billion rand a year, the swift establishment of the inspectorate must be seen as a vital component to prevent fraud, corruption, financial mismanagement and criminal activity within the social grant system.

The amount of R34 billion rand disbursed at a rate of R2,9 billion a month with a proposed increment of 8% in the medium term is unsustainable. Government must ensure that it creates an enabling environment that would stimulate the economy for sustainable job creation and by so doing decrease dependency and incorporate the workforce back into the economic stream.

The effectiveness of the social programme and economy will not be measured by the amount of beneficiaries depended on a welfare state that is depleting its resources but rather to the increased number of people empowered and skilled to independence, self reliance and economic freedom.

Furthermore government must guard against allowing social services becoming a tool to build itself a powerbase at the expense of the poor.


******************************************************
4. Traditional Leadership Bill does not provide legitimate powers and authority

Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill

Speech by African Christian Democratic Party MP Mighty (Zwelethu) Madasa

11 November 2003

In his speech at the annual opening of the National House of Traditional leaders, early this year, President Thabo Mbeki said: "Obviously, we cannot celebrate our tenth anniversary of liberation in a situation in which we have not met on constitutional obligation to resolve all matters that attach to the issue of the traditional system of government"

Perhaps, the aim of this bill is to meet some of those obligations. However, ten years hence 'Uhuru' for traditional systems is still a prickly issue. The new political dispensation does not know how to deal with traditional system of governance.

We must not fool ourselves to think that traditional system will have an easy acceptance in the type of open democratic system, South Africa has chosen to pursue, Traditional customs, laws and practices are under threat. This bill with all its good intentions is simply evading the real challenges that confront traditional leadership in this country.

This bill is couched in terminology that is of a general nature, without providing any specifications about proper authority and powers to traditional leadership in terms of governance at local and national level.

The bill is clear that it only provides a governance framework, with the hope of further consultation. It reminds me of the Tricameral parliament of the past, where the Houses of Representatives and Delegates were mainly smokescreen political organs parading as legitimate Houses of government. As we all know powers at that time resided in the powerful machinery of the old National Party, while the other houses had simply to look after group interests.

If traditional communities, or more likely, the traditional leadership, are hoping for more powers in an equal and open democracy where the constitution dictates the parameters of equality and freedoms, then their hopes are anachronistic. This bill in no way will help their cause.

Section 3 of the bill gives powers to the Premier to recognise traditional communities. Further, women and communities within a traditional system will have an equitable say alongside that of traditional leaders or kings. In section 7 we read about the withdrawal of recognition of traditional communities. It is very interesting to note, that on some kind technical interpretation, a Premier may decide whether a community can be seen as a traditional community or not. So does it mean, then, that if a traditional council fails to operate efficiently that it would place at risk the recognition of a traditional community? Surely a community is more than the sum total of a traditional community.

Furthermore, most of the functions of the Houses of traditional leaders are advisory, or consultative. Parliament makes legislation about traditional communities, these communities, through the houses of traditional leaders confer on bills forwarded by parliament.

We in the ACDP understand the complexity of traditional system and hope that infrastructures can be put in place that will provide such communities with the respect and dignity they deserve. This bill aims to address their issues, but we feel it does not go far enough to provide a clear framework that accurately spells out the legitimate powers and authority of traditional leadership and governance in terms of other national legislative frameworks that impact on traditional communities. We therefore abstain.

******************************************************

5. GM foods risky for Africa

Speech by African Christian Democratic Party MP Mr Kent Durr

Upper House of Parliament

11 November 2003

In politics, people do make mistakes. Often these can be corrected. It is vital however that we do not make mistakes on issues which are irreversible and of intergenerational magnitude.

Mr President, I wish thus to request you sincerely to consider my recent appeal to government to introduce a moratorium on the further application and use of GMO's (genetically manufactured organisms) in South Africa, until more credible research is done.

Mr President, Africa is facing a new form of colonialism and food dependence, I call it food colonialism.

The large US multi-nationals involved have recently been stopped or sidelined in Europe, Africa and Australasia, and over 37 countries world-wide have already enacted laws to restrict imports or to regulate consumption by required labeling of food containing GM ingredients. Inter alia the British Medical Association and many others warn of the possible long-term danger to health of consuming these "Frankenstein foods". Other important scientific authorities warn of threats to biodiversity and to the environment.

But here in South Africa we are simply failing to act in spite of the overwhelming evidence that is building up world-wide.

By not acting we threaten our biodiversity (one of Africa's great gifts to the world); we endanger the long term health of our people (already reeling under health assaults); we rob our consumers of their freedom of choice as to what they eat because we have no labeling or consumer legislation in place on GM food; we compromise the independence of particularly our small farmers that traditionally keep seed over for planting the following season: all in spite of overwhelming evidence that shout "caution" to us.

Mr President, the world-wide insurance industry, one of the most sophisticated in the world, will not give insurance cover on the possible effects of GMO's on public health or the environment. They compare the risks to thalidomide or asbestosis. Those risk analysts know their business. They won't take chances with their money. The question is: are we going to take a chance on our people that insurance companies won't take? Mr President, can we risk the health of our people, our environment and to our agricultural economy and exports, or our food sovereignty?

The major trend in the world is to organic and natural foods: Africa has huge potential to respond to this need and to rising demand for organic food. It is the upside of underdevelopment. Do we really want to go in the opposite direction to world trends? Do we want to close down this potential?

Please consider my appeal, Mr President. In future at least your government will not be able to say they were not warned.

Please support my call for a moratorium.

******************************************

Additional Supporting Statement to Speech for President's Debate 11 November 2003

The biotechnology industry is facing a shrinking global market. Over 37 countries world- wide have enacted laws to restrict imports of genetically engineered (GE) food and products and/or require labelling of foods containing GE ingredients. Widespread consumer concern and Monsanto's failure to obtain regulatory approval for its GE wheat precipitated its recent exit from the European cereal market. Africa and Asia are the new frontiers for expansion by foreign agrochemical, seed and biotechnology corporations. The potential for these corporations to profit from hunger in Africa through so called technology transfer, capital investment in GE agricultural research and biosafety capacity building is enormous.

1. GE crops have failed dismally to deliver the promised benefits and are instead, posing escalating problems on the farm. The consistent finding from independent research and on-farm surveys since 1999 is that GE crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits of significantly increasing yields or reducing herbicide and pesticide use. GE crops have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic contamination. Massive failures in Bt cotton of up to 100% were reported in India. Meanwhile worldwide resistance to GE has reached a climax in 2002 when Zambia refused GE maize in food aid despite the threat of famine.

2. While there has been a lot of biotechnology research for producing genetically engineered commercial products, there has been very little real biosafety (or biotech risk oriented) research. There are many unanswered questions and uncertainties related to GE: What are the implications of the random insertions of the transgene into a genome? When does horizontal gene transfer and recombination occur? What are the consequences of transgene flow on biodiversity and food security? One of the main reasons why there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs is that there is no database on which to base decisions. When one looks at the scientific literature on the health effects of GM, for example, not only is poor research described, but very little research is described (about 10 peer reviewed papers only). Yet the little research done shows that there is cause for concern.

3. South Africa's regulatory framework does nothing to appease these concerns since it is fatally flawed because it is based on an anti-precautionary approach designed to expedite product approval at the expense of safety considerations. The principle of 'substantial equivalence' , on which its so called risk assessment is based (in reality nothing but a paper audit), is deliberately intended to be vague and ill-defined, thereby giving biotech companies complete licence in claiming transgenic products 'substantially equivalent' to non-transgenic products, and hence 'safe'.

4. However, we do have the Precautionary Principle to guide us, and history shows that there is a long time lag between when the first evidence of scientific concerns surface, to actual strict regulation to address this. In dealing with living organisms and parts of organisms that can recombine, mutate and reproduce we cannot let the history of chemical and nuclear technologies repeat themselves. At the end of the day we have to choose what kind of agriculture, science and technology we want, as we really don't have the luxury of coexistence. I say we choose GM free.

Apart from public health issues people have a right to choose what they eat.

We need a moratorium on GMO's and we need it urgently.