Task Team on NSFAS should consider DA funding solution 

The DA will request to present our higher education student funding model to the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) on NSFAS business processes. And that our model be incorporate into their long overdue report on the entity.

The MTT was established in June 2020 to review, among other issues, NSFAS’ funding model.

In a recent meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, Minister Blade Nzimande mentioned the need to reevaluate and review the Heher Commission report into higher education. The Minister viewed this report as a potential alternative whereby its recommendations must be considered in order to ensure the sustainability of NSFAS. This means that a consideration regarding a loan/bursary scheme feature for NSFAS is needed to ensure its viability.

We welcome this new approach by the Minister as it is in line with the DA’s tiered system of loans/grants:

Annual household income Loan
R0 – R350 000 Full cost of study
R350 000 – R500 000 66% of the full cost of study
R500 000 – R650 000 33% of the full cost of study

 

Repayment of the loans in our scheme will only be required when the recipient obtains a job that pays them well enough to ensure that repayments are affordable. Differential repayment conditions will be introduced, some of which will take into account the number of dependents a particular recipient supports.

The funding scheme will emphasise quality. It will operate to maximise the number of high-quality graduates it supports. We believe output rather than input should gradually become the focus of student funding.

It is important that funding of NSFAS does not end up defunding higher education in the ANC’s quest to further pursue unstainable fee free higher education.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

DA welcomes SAHRC investigation into alleged human rights violations perpetrated against Afrikaans students by Stellenbosch University management

The DA welcomes today’s announcement by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) that it will investigate the DA’s complaint against the management of Stellenbosch University (SU), led by rector and vice-chancellor Wim de Villiers, following alleged human rights violations against Afrikaans-speaking students.

The SAHRC will investigate whether the university language policy’s prohibition on the use of Afrikaans – including in “private spaces, bedrooms, digital platforms like Whatsapp and even on park benches in front of students’s residences” – violated a number of Constitutional rights, “including the right to equality on the basis of language, race or any other prohibited ground.”

The DA filed the charges with the SAHRC last week. Our complaint was accompanied by affidavits submitted by various students, which indicated that the ban on Afrikaans extended to at least four different residences across both the Stellenbosch and Tygerberg campuses of SU.

Our complaint also asked the SAHRC to investigate the extent to which the university’s 2016 language policy – which abolished Afrikaans as an equal language alongside English – encouraged or otherwise incentivised the alleged human rights violations.

While the investigation is ongoing, we encourage members of the public to sign our petition (link here) to reject the first draft of the university’s revised language policy, which will weaken the position of mother-tongue education even further and therefore likely lead to further human rights violations against Afrikaans-speaking students. We will submit the petition and its thousands of signatures to SU as part of the public participation process before 12 April.

The DA also calls on Wim de Villiers and university chancellor, Edwin Cameron, to break their disturbing silence on these disgraceful violations of the right to mother-tongue education. Instead of waiting for the SAHRC investigation, the university management should publicly apologise for the prohibition on Afrikaans, and immediately restart the process to review the language policy with the explicit aim of guaranteeing equal status to Afrikaans and English.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

DA verwelkom die SAMRK-ondersoek na beweerde menseregteskendings wat deur die Universiteit Stellenbosch-bestuur teen Afrikaanse studente gepleeg word

Die DA verwelkom vandag se aankondiging deur die Suid-Afrikaanse Menseregtekommissie (SAMRK) dat hy die DA se klag teen die bestuur van die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US), onder leiding van rektor en visekanselier Wim de Villiers, sal ondersoek na beweerde menseregteskendings teen Afrikaanssprekende studente.

Die SAMRK sal ondersoek instel of die Universiteit se taalbeleid se verbod op die gebruik van Afrikaans – insluitend “privaat-ruimtes, slaapkamers, digitale platforms soos Whatsapp en selfs op parkbanke voor studente-koshuise” – ‘n aantal grondwetlike regte geskend het, “waaronder die reg op gelykheid op grond van taal, ras of enige ander verbode grond.”

Die DA het verlede week die klag by die SAMRK ingedien. Ons klag het gepaard gegaan met beëdigde verklarings deur verskillende studente, wat aangedui het dat die verbod op Afrikaans tot minstens vier verskillende koshuise in die US en die Stellenbosch-kampusse strek.

Ons klag het die SAMRK ook gevra om te ondersoek hoe die universiteit se taalbeleid van 2016 – wat Afrikaans as gelyke taal saam met Engels afgeskaf het – die beweerde menseregteskendings aangemoedig of andersins aangespoor het.

Terwyl die ondersoek aan die gang is, moedig ons lede van die publiek aan om ons petisie te onderteken (skakel hier) om die eerste konsep van die universiteit se hersiene taalbeleid te verwerp, wat die posisie van moedertaalonderrig verder sal verswak en dus waarskynlik tot verdere menseregteskendings teen Afrikaanssprekende studente sal lei. Ons sal die versoekskrif en sy duisende handtekeninge voor 12 April by die US indien.

Die DA doen ook ‘n beroep op Wim de Villiers en universiteitskanselier, Edwin Cameron, om hul ontstellende stilte te verbreek oor hierdie skandelike skendings van die reg op moedertaalonderrig. In plaas daarvan om op die SAMRK-ondersoek te wag, moet die universiteitsbestuur in die openbaar verskoning vra vir die verbod op Afrikaans, en die proses om die taalbeleid te hersien onmiddellik weer begin, met die eksplisiete doel om gelyke status aan Afrikaans en Engels te waarborg.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

Has South Africa been providing war weapons to Yemen?

The DA has written to the Minister of Public Enterprises, Pravin Gordhan, to ascertain the details of South Africa’s involvement in the Yemeni humanitarian crisis.

It was reported that South African arms companies, including Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), have profited by the selling off of weapons to factions central in the humanitarian war in Yemen, thereby aiding to gross human rights violations in the country.

According to a report by the non-profit, Open Secrets, South African arms companies exported mortars, mortal shells, artillery guns and shells, ammunition, armoured combat vehicles and software used in electronic warfare to the tune of R2.81 billion to Saudi Arabia and almost double that amount – R4.74 billion – in these weapons to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE are parties in the civil regional war that wages in Yemen since 2015.

The DA wants to know from Gordhan:

  • What agreement has been put in place with South African arms companies including RDM?
  • What is the value of these agreements to parties central to the conflict?
  • What has RDM profited from these deals?

If these deals are in place, RDM – and South Africa itself – may be guilty of contributing to the gross human rights violations in Yemen. Mr Gordhan needs to provide urgent clarity.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

Zondo Commission confirms receipt of DA’s questions to Ramaphosa on cadre deployment

Please find attached a soundbite by the DA Leader John Steenhuisen MP.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) has received confirmation of receipt from the Zondo Commission of a series of questions directed at President Cyril Ramaphosa pertaining to his role as the chairperson of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee. The questions were submitted on the 2nd of February 2021.

The DA has also submitted a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application to the ANC to obtain a full record of cadre deployment discussions, decisions, minutes of meetings, and other relevant information since President Ramaphosa became its cadre deployment committee chairperson in 2013.

We trust that in the interests of accountability and transparency in the wake of State Capture, Judge Zondo will ensure that these questions are put to President Ramaphosa when he testifies at the Zondo Commission between the 22nd and 29th of April 2021.

The full list of questions is as follows:

1. When did you become the chairperson of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee? When did you cease to be chairperson of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee? Did you serve on the committee prior to becoming its chairperson? Given your years as chairperson, would you say that you are well-acquainted with the workings of the committee?

2. Why does the ANC have a cadre deployment committee? What is the intention behind the party’s long-standing policy of cadre deployment?

3. Please explain the workings of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee. How does it go about identifying people it wishes to have appointed to powerful positions in the public sector? How does it come to know of vacancies in the public sector? What are the criteria it uses to select people? Is “loyalty” to the ANC one of the criteria?

4. Once the deployment committee has identified its preferred candidate, how is that preference communicated to officials in the state?

5. Are you aware of any instance where the ANC’s cadre deployment committee, or a member of the committee, informed a selection panel, executive authority or any other appointing authority in the state of their preferred choice for appointment to a position of influence in the public sector?

6. Do you believe that pressure being exerted by a political party on the state with the intention of influencing appointment decisions violates the principle of the separation between party and state?

7. Are you aware of any instance where a political party aside from the ANC has ever enjoyed the privilege of informing a selection process that they wanted one of their members appointed to a particular position in the public sector?

8. If not, would it then be reasonable to say that only the ANC enjoys the distinct privilege of advising the state on key appointments?

9. Would it also be accurate to say that as the former chairperson of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee, you believe that senior positions in the public service, the public administration, state-owned entities, municipalities and other government agencies should be staffed primarily by people who have proven themselves to be “loyal” to the ANC?

10. Once a person is selected as the preferred candidate by the ANC’s deployment committee, and that decision is communicated to officials in the state, does that person then enjoy an advantage over other applicants who were not selected by the committee, or who may not be member of the ANC?

11. Section 197 (3) of the Constitution stipulates that “No employee of the public service may be favoured or prejudiced only because that person supports a particular political party or cause.”

Given that cadre deployment is expressly designed to favour members of the ANC deemed “loyal” by the deployment committee while being prejudiced against applicants who are not members of the ANC when it comes to appointment decisions, do you agree that the ANC’s policy of cadre deployment violates section 197 (3) of the Constitution?

12. Section 9 (2) of the Constitution further stipulates that “The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”

Given that cadre deployment in practice disadvantages applicants who do not express a favourable “conscience” or “belief” towards the ANC – as measured through the deployment committee’s assessment of “loyalty” to the party – do you agree that the ANC’s policy of cadre deployment amounts to unfair discrimination and violates 9 (3) of the Bill of Rights?

13. Could you confirm under oath whether you have ever seen the memorandum entitled “Deployment Committee Procedures,” issued by the Secretary-General’s Office last year? Can you confirm the authenticity of this memorandum? (Attached)

14. Can you confirm whether the following procedures, outlined in the memorandum, accurately reflect the process currently being followed by the ANC’s cadre deployment committee: “The office of the Deputy Secretary General should be informed of all posts prior to them being advertised and be sent the advert once they have been published. This process is to allow for Comrades who meet the criteria on the database to be allowed to apply…No appointment should be taken to cabinet without passing through the deployment committee first.”

15. In particular, can you confirm that it is the policy of the ANC that “No appointment should be taken to cabinet without passing through the deployment committee first”?

16. Can you confirm whether the ANC continues to implement its policy of cadre deployment to this very day?

17. Between the time that you served as chairperson of the committee under President Zuma and the present day, would you say that there have been any substantive changes to how cadre deployment operates in the ANC? Or would you say that it broadly still operates in the same manner as when you were chairperson?

18. During her testimony delivered in November 2018, former minister Barbara Hogan described the ANC deployment committee as “a handful of people [that] just simply decide that this is their preferred candidate, on what basis, what transparency is there?” She went on to say that “the ANC saw it as their right to instruct a minister who should be appointed and not appointed. That is an abuse of power and that is usurping executive authority…It cannot be that closeness too or membership of the ANC should be the determining factors in the selection of candidates to senior positions.”

Do you agree with Hogan’s assessment of cadre deployment? If not, why not?

19. As the chairperson of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee during President Zuma’s tenure, do you agree that you were complicit in what Hogan calls “an abuse of power that is usurping executive authority?”

20. Do you accept responsibility for the appointments that were made while you were chairperson of the ANC’s cadre deployment committee?

21. Do you agree that the ANC’s policy of cadre deployment – which appears to value political “loyalty” to the ANC over demonstrated merit – was a key element that enabled corruption and state capture through the appointment of unsuitable individuals into positions of power?

22. Do you believe that, in the absence of the ANC policy of cadre deployment and with a stronger separation between party and state, it would have been more difficult for nefarious actors to gain control over the levers of power in the state?

23. Do you believe that the country’s current public administration legal framework provides inadequate safeguards against state capture? In what ways do you believe it may be inadequate?

24. Do you believe that the outlawing of cadre deployment and the bolstering of the separation between party and state would be an important element of preventing state capture and corruption in the future?

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

39 672 public service employees apply for the R350 Social Relief of Distress Grant

The DA calls on the Social Security Agency of South Africa (SASSA) and the Department of Social Development (DSD) to urgently solicit the assistance of the Department of Public Service and Administration in concluding the investigations into the 36 972 public service employees who applied for the Special Relief of Distress (SRD) grant of R350 per month, as well as the investigations into the 241 public service employees who received the SRD grant for the month of May 2020.

As of February 2021, an astonishing 39 672 public service employees had applied for the SRD grant. However, no disciplinary or legal action has been instituted against them as the SASSA-led investigations into their applications are still ongoing and have yet to be concluded. This was revealed by the Minister of Social Development, Lindiwe Zulu, in a written response to a parliamentary question posed by the Democratic Alliance (DA).

Minister Zulu further disclosed that no legal steps have been taken to recover the grants paid to the 241public service employees who received the SRD grant for the month of May 2020 as the investigations into these payments are also still ongoing. A total amount of R84 350 was paid to public service employees who applied for the SRD grant for the month of May 2020.

While the DA welcomes the fact that DSD has since put systems in place to prevent public service employees from fraudulently and/or unlawfully applying for and/or receiving an SRD grant, and that SASSA has implemented a system to ensure that public service employees do not receive the SRD grant by matching the ID numbers of approved and new applicants for the grant against various databases such as the PERSAL and PERSOL databases, we are concerned that the investigations into the 39 672 implicated public service employees have yet to be concluded.

Decisive disciplinary and legal action must be taken against these public service employees. The SRD grant is intended solely for the most vulnerable and distressed members of our society and should not be open to abuse by public service employees who are drawing a monthly salary from State coffers.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

DA calls for independent probe into dangerous SAA vaccine flight to Brussels

The DA calls for an investigation by an independent aviation commission into suspicions that the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) tried to sweep an alleged 90-ton miscalculation on the SAA flight that collected a batch of vaccines from Brussels under the carpet.

The “alpha floor event”,  which resulted in an “extraordinarily dangerous” event on take-off, reportedly happened on 24 February 2021 as the Brussels-bound flight departed Johannesburg. However, the event was only reported to SACAA on 17 March, three weeks after the fact. This while SACAA regulations stipulate that incidents must be reported within 24 – 72 hours after it happened, depending on the seriousness of the incident.

It is alleged that the specialist in charge at SAA deemed the event as minor and therefore did not report it. The event only came to light after an aircraft engineer picking up the data after an automated system had alerted the airplane and engine manufacturers, and then escalating it up the ranks.

An “alpha floor event” is significant event as Airbus’ own protective systems overrides the pilots to stop the plane from stalling.

It has also been alleged that the crew training was not done by a training institution familiar with SAA standard operating procedure and that this flight was initially grounded be SACAA due to the pilots lacking the required flight hours but was eventually allowed to leave South Africa with 13 exemptions. Why was SACAA pressured into allowing the flight to leave with an unprecedented number of exemptions?

Safety cannot be compromised. Fleets must be properly maintained, especially as a detailed notice from the SAA business rescue practitioners (BRPs) to affected parties outlined all outstanding matters to be finalized and completed by the end of March, including payments to both employees and creditors. There needs to be a clear understanding of exactly what is being paid out and what lies next on the agenda vis a vis the ‘new’ airline.

The DA has noted that the SACAA will investigate this incident. However, in light of the seeming undue influence over the Authority to authorise this flight, we are of the view that the investigation should be conducted independently. The DA has written to Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula in this regard.

The fact that SACAA seems to be trying to downplay or bury this incident could have serious implications for South Africa as a member of the international Aviation Association in terms of our international safety standard protocols. It is something the South African aviation industry simply cannot afford, and as such all those responsible for trying to conceal this event should be disciplined after a thorough independent investigation.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

DA launches campaign to Save Our Small Businesses

The DA has launched its ‘Save Our Small Businesses Campaign’ through a petition to request that the government support our Ease of Doing Business Private Member’s Bill.

We encourage small business owners and employees to sign the petition in a bid to urge President Cyril Ramaphosa to convince his cabinet to support this crucial Bill which has been tabled in Parliament. This pro-growth, pro-jobs and anti-poor opportunity is critical for the survival of small businesses.

Support the petition here. 

The Ease of Doing Business Private Members Bill will help the government to identify, measure the impact, and rectify regulatory burdens and government failures in the small business environment. It will open a plethora of opportunities for many entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs and increase the freedom to trade in South Africa.

It is an unfortunate fact that the Ramaphosa administration is currently as business-unfriendly as the Zuma administration was, if not more. Only two African economies rank in the top 50 in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business 2020 Report. South Africa ranks 84th out of 190 countries, falling from its 82nd position in the 2019 report. It would not come as a surprise if the South African economy falls even further down the rankings in the 2021 report.

Self-defeating regulations are still inhibiting the economic freedoms of South Africans. The state and its bureaucracy is supposed to protect the business community by leaving them alone to thrive. However, the government continuously adopts regulations that burden entrepreneurs and workers. Whether intentionally or through unintended negligence and ignorance, such regulatory measures restrict the ability of entrepreneurs to grow the economy.

Many business owners opt to go underground to avoid the red tape of onerous and growth-defeating overregulation. Many more have become despondent. In disastrously many cases, they give up, which swells to the ranks of the unemployed.

President Ramaphosa has asked the nation to work together to kick start the economy. The Ease of Doing Business Bill is the DA’s commitment to do this for the sake of all South Africans. What is now needed is the President following through on his many promises of pro-growth reform by allowing this bill to become an Act of Parliament so that the country can prosper.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

Urgent independent investigation needed at Pacofs

The DA will write to the Minister of Sports Arts and Culture, Nathi Mthethwa, to launch an urgent independent investigation into numerous allegations of malfeasance at the Performing Arts Centre of the Free State (Pacofs).

It’s no wonder that artists have staged a sit-in at Pacofs as little was done after a 2018 investigative report by forensic auditing firm, Morar Incorporated, revealed all manner of corruptive behaviour at the Centre. This, amongst other allegations, seemingly continues to this day.

Some of the revelations and allegations from the Morar report, and other sources, are:

  • The fact that in 2017 a portion of the artistic budget was used to employ an artistic director, even though the post did not exist at that time. The post was then filled without being advertised;
  • There are numerous allegations of whistleblowers being targeted when reporting corruption and then facing dismissal. Should the whistleblowers win their cases at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), it seems to be common practice to drag out the appeals at the Labour Court for as long as possible costing Pacofs R4 452 352 in 2019/2020 alone; and
  • The Business Development in the Annual performance report seems to indicate that Pacofs has moved away from its mandate to host productions – down from 54 productions in 2016/2017 to 12 in 2018/2019 – while almost 70% of the artistic budget is spent on salaries.

The Covid-19 pandemic has shown just how rotten some artistic institutions meant to foster and grow the arts and culture industry in South Africa can be.

That artists and those employed in the sector have had to endure this long before the pandemic came to our shores, and the fact that multitudes of cries for help and calls for discipline of the guilty have fallen on deaf ears is shocking but not surprising.

But the Minister must not ignore what’s happening in the sector any longer. Corruption must be rooted out and destroyed and the arts and culture industry protected. It’s time for the Minister to earn his exorbitant salary for a change.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status

Broken fisheries IT system putting fishing jobs at risk

The DA has written to the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Barbara Creecy, regarding disturbing reports we received about the collapse of the internal IT system at the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Stakeholders have reported that these issues have been ongoing for over two weeks, which has an serious impact on fishermen applying for fishing permits, especially given the pending snoek season. With the IT system being broken, applicants are unable to obtain relevant permits. Usually applicants would also need to produce proof of their electronic applications before they are allowed to fish, and the collapsed system prevents them from doing so.

This latest issue is sadly symptomatic of so many other prevailing problems relating to the poor management of fishing by the Department. These are basic administrative functions that any well-run government would be able to manage effectively. The Department’s lack of communication with stakeholders places many fishers at risk being arrested and/or having their boats impounded should they attempt to go out to sea. Government is yet again showing how little real concern it has for the rights and livelihoods of fishers.

This has also been shown by the long outstanding Fishing Rights Allocation Process and the ham-fisted bungling of the Western Cape small-scale rights process.

This matter requires urgent and swift intervention from the Minister and her Department. Livelihoods depend on it.

Local Government Elections are coming up in 2021! Visit check.da.org.za to check your voter registration status