Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether any private legal practitioners have been used on his behalf in a certain case (details furnished); if so, (a) why, (b) which legal practitioners were used and (c) what is the total cost in respect of each case;
(2) what are the reasons why he did not employ the services of the State Attorney in this case?
Reply:
(1) Yes, a private legal practitioner was used, in the defence of the President.
(a) The litigation involved a continuation of a criminal matter, and a private attorney was required in view of the fact that the State Attorney could not represent the President as it (the State Attorney) was representing the National Prosecuting Authority.
(b) Hulley and Associates
(c) The total cost paid R2 337 569.53.
(2) The reason for not employing the State Attorney is that a conflict of interest would have arisen if the State Attorney represented both the National Prosecuting Authority and the President.
Mr D J Maynier (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) Whether he obtained legal advice on the constitutionality of the Protection of State Information Bill, if so, in each case (a) what is the name of the person from whom legal advice was obtained, (b) when was the legal opinion (i) requested and (ii) provided and (c) what was the (i) total cost and (ii) breakdown of the costs of obtaining the legal opinion;
(2) whether, in each specified case, he will make the legal opinion public; if not, why not; if so, when?
Reply:
The President relied on legal advice he received from within the Presidency in the course of a consultative process.
Ms A M Dreyer (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether he has signed a proclamation mandating the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to investigate alleged irregularities occurring during security upgrades at his private home at Nkandla; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will he sign the proclamation; if so, when was it signed?
Reply:
The matter is under considerations in light of other government processes which have not been finalised on the same matter.
The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
Since 1 July 2012, (a) when has he had contact with Ambassador Vusi Bruce Koloane, (b) what was the reason for the contact on each occasion and (c) how did contact take place on each occasion?
Reply:
Mr Bruce Koloane served as the Chief of State Protocol, based in the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. In the normal course of his duties, he did interact with the Head of State when the need arose.
Ms A M Dreyer (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether the Office of the Presidency is responsible for paying the (a) municipal rates and taxes, (b) water, (c) electricity, (d) catering and (e) cleaning accounts in respect of his private residence, and/or part thereof, at Nkandla; if so, in each case, what total amount has been paid in the (i) 2008/09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010/11, (iv) 2011/12 and (v) 2012/13 financial years?
Reply:
No, the President does not receive any benefits in respect of any aspects mentioned above.
Mr J JMcGluwa (ID) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether he was on a flight with Ambassador Bruce Koloane on 22 April 2013; if not, on which date did he instruct the Ambassador to pronounce on the Gupta family wedding arrangements; if so, (a) what was the nature and extent of their conversation and (b) did it include the Gupta family wedding arrangements?
Reply:
No, Mr Bruce Koloane was not on the flight with me on the said date. I have never instructed Mr Koloane to pronounce on the wedding arrangements referred to in the question.
Mr M G P Lekota (Cope) to ask the President of the Republic:
Whether the Government had been implementing any specific policy measures with stated performance indicators since May 2009 to actively achieve a year-on-year decrease in the income inequality which is prevalent in the country in order to (a) progressively increase social mobility, (b) enhance individual autonomy and improve social cohesion, (c) ensure service delivery, (d) stimulate demand for goods and services through the involvement of a larger part of the population and (e) progressively reduce the Gini coefficient factor so that it reflects a year-on-year decline in inequality; if so, what has been the outcome in each case; if not, why is the reduction of income inequality not being pursued as an apex priority?
Reply:
Inequality remains a significant challenge for government despite South Africa growing at an average growth rate of 3.2% since 1994.
The recognition that growth in itself is necessary but not sufficient has necessitated for a more inclusive growth paradigm as expressed in the New Growth Path and the National Development Plan.
Government has introduced a number of measures to reduce inequality and create a more inclusive growth environment. Faster and inclusive growth is critical to reduce poverty and inequality in the long term.
Some of the measures that we have put in place, for example, include the expansion of social security programmes to poor and low income households. These programmes have had a significant impact in reducing poverty and meeting a number of basic needs, and in particular, food needs. The provision of social grants, which improved the Gini coefficient by an estimated 0.03, has contributed strongly to a decline in the number of households that say children go hungry at least sometimes, from 27% in 1996 to 13% in 2009 and 11% in 2012.
In addition, we have introduced a range of measures that aim to improve employment creation, which has seen an increase of 750 000 in employment from the end of 2010 to the second quarter of 2013. These have gone hand in hand with an increase in the share of remuneration in total value added from 50,3% in 2010 to 51,1% in 2012.
On the other hand the rollout of public employment programmes such as the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and the Community Work Programme (CWP) continues to create work opportunities for unemployed working aged adults as well as increased community and social cohesion, as in the case for the CWP programmes.
Access to basic services such as water, electricity, sanitation and refuse removal, despite some service delivery challenges, has played an important role in reducing poverty and inequality.
The redistributive nature of social grants, creating employment and work opportunities as well as increasing access to basic services and has been successful and has contributed towards reducing poverty and inequality.
In effect, government’s use of taxes has ensured improvements in the lives of many people including low wage workers who do not pay income tax.
These programmes have resulted in:
1. The top 10% of households reduce their share of income from 54.4% to 50.6% in 2010/11. At the same time the share in household income of the poorest 40% of households reduced from 6.1% in 2009 to 5.6% in 2010/11 against a target of 6.5% in 2014
2. The Gini Coefficient estimated at 0,697 in 2009 reduced to 0,65 in terms of the Income and Expenditure Survey 2010/11 against a target of 0,59 for 2014.
These statistics indicate that government programmes aimed at fighting poverty, unemployment and inequality have indeed made a marked difference in the lives of our people.
To take these achievements forward, the implementation of the New Growth Path and the National Development Plan are central to our programmes to reduce inequality and promote prosperity.
Mr A Watson (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
(1) With reference to the reply of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to question 2059 on 3 September 2013, when will he enact the regulation in accordance with the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act, Act 27 of 2006, to bring the legislation into operation;
(2) why has it taken over five years to finalise the regulations for this Act and bring it into operation?
Reply:
(1) It is anticipated that the Regulations to the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act (Act 27 of 2006) will be promulgated in good time to allow for the said Act to come into operation at the start of the 2014/15 financial year.
(2) The reason for the delay in the promulgation of the Regulations to the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act (Act 27 of 2006) is because of the necessary amendments that had to be carried out on the National Conventional Arms Control Act (Act 41 of 2002) which Act forms the primary basis for the establishment and mandate of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC).
For this reason, it was critical for the National Conventional Arms Control Act to be amended in order to, inter alia, expand the scope of the NCACC mandate to cover the administration of the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act
This process of amendment resulted in the National Conventional Arms Control Amendment Act (Act 73 of 2008) which only came into operation in April 2012 after the promulgation of its Regulations. The coming into operation of this Amendment Act sets the relevant scene for the planned enactment of the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Act as indicated earlier.
The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the President of the Republic:
Why was the Deputy President removed as chairperson of the National Nuclear Energy Executive Coordinating Committee?
Reply:
The composition of the National Nuclear Energy Executive Coordinating Committee (NNEECC) was changed by a Cabinet decision in April 2013 following a recommendation by the Committee.
The revised Committee is chaired by the President and comprises the following Ministries: Energy, Public Enterprises, Finance, State Security, Defence, Home Affairs and International Relations.
Enquiries:
Mac Maharaj
Cell: 079 879 3203
E-mail: macmaharaj@icloud.com
