DA proves that it is a party for all South Africans – even gays

The Democratic Alliance has one again proved that it is a party for ALL South Africans. Earlier this week I wrote about a gay couple, Donovan and Michael from Port Elizabeth, who went to their local Home Affairs office to enquire about being married, only to be told that Home Affairs did not “do” same-sex marriages.

I immediately took up this case with DA shadow minister of Home Affairs, Hon Annette Lovemore MP. She was quick to respond and followed up the matter with the Home Affairs Department and alerted the Director-General to the matter. Home Affairs provincial manager Sonto Lusu yesterday personally apologised to the couple after the PE office illegally turned down their request to be married. Lusu, not only apologised, but also offered to immediately ensure they get married at Home Affairs. Due to the stress of their ordeal, the couple has informed me that they have decided to marry privately – even though it will come at a cost – rather than take advantage of the free service Home Affairs is supposed to provide.

The facts of the matter are that the Constitutional Court instructed parliament to develop appropriate legislation around same-sex marriages. This was done, and the Civil Union Act of 2006 was passed. South Africa recognises the right of same-sex couples to be married! The couple was told unequivocally that Home Affairs could not help them as it did not “do” gay marriages. The DA feels that this is utterly unacceptable. Why does the Department of Home Affairs even entertain the appointment of marriage officers who are not prepared to conduct civil unions? The men in question, and other gay couples like them, are in love, and they wish to show their commitment to each other by entering into a civil union. They have a constitutional right to do so.

On a side note, as a DA politician I will continue to represent the rights of ALL South African, even if some people are offended by this. Public representatives need to uphold all aspects of our constitution, as a constitution is like a fragile house of cards – if we start to allow some aspects to collapse the whole thing will fall.

ANC supports DA position on civil servant trading with the province

The Premier of Eastern Cape has stated that the province will no longer allow public servants to trade with the government.  This is in line with proposed legislation tabled by the Democratic Alliance in the provincial legislature in November last year.

The DA over a long period of time has been promoting this policy shift in terms of our agenda of accountability.  Last year in November Bobby Stevenson MPL tabled private members’ legislation, the Eastern Cape Business Interests of Employees Procurement Bill to this effect in the Eastern Cape Legislature.

The ANC support for our position is a step forward to rooting out corruption in this province.  Let’s move speedily madam Premier and clean up this province.

The former Superintendent-General of Education, prof. Harry Nengwekhulu, stated last year that 90% of the senior management of the department was trading with the province.  There is no doubt that the fight for control of the Education Department is really about a fight to control the R6,2 billion in tenders for the eradication of mud schools.

It was also reported last year that 12 000 of the Health Department’s officials were trading with the department and R800 million was lost to corruption.

Stevenson's Private Members’ Bill provides that an entity that does business with the province must provide an affidavit disclosing any business interest that an employee or family member of the employee has in a business entity.  An employee may not have business interests in any entity conducting business with the province if that employee controls more than 5% of the interest of that entity.

The capital and goods and services expenditure for the province exceeds R13 billion. It is estimated that at least 20% of this is lost through overpricing, maladministration, and corruption and this amounts to more than the annual budgets of most departments.

In a province with massive poverty and infrastructural backlogs where people are hungry for jobs we cannot waste a single cent on corruption.  This legislation to ban civil servants doing business with the province needs to be passed as soon as possible.  The DA will continue to vigorously pursue this matter.

From Press Statement by Bobby Stevenson, MPL.

Zuma administration spends R200 million on mansions for new Ministers

In a reply to a parliamentary question posed by Erik Marais MP, the Public Works Minister has revealed that 34 new houses have been bought for use as “official residences” by the 6 new Ministries created by President Zuma in 2009. The total cost is R183 million – enough to deliver around 2,000 RDP houses. Official residences, when they are deemed necessary, should be reasonably costed and should serve some purpose. It is unclear why more houses were bought than is required by the six ministries.

The DA demands to know:
• Why 6 ministries require 34 new houses
• Why it was deemed necessary to spend an average of R5.4 million per house
• Whether Ministers have been paying market-related rentals for their secondary official residences in Cape Town as prescribed by the Ministerial Handbook
• Why Deputy Ministers should be entitled to their own residences in Pretoria and Cape Town
• Why Ministers have not made use of the ministerial estate at Groote Schuur in Cape Town instead of buying new houses

John Steenhuisen MP will be submitting follow-up parliamentary questions to the Minister of Public Works to get to the bottom of this. This wasteful expenditure cannot be right when millions of our people continue to live in poverty. The money spent on new ministerial mansions could be far better spent on the education of our children, the care of our sick and the delivery of housing to the poor.

Time to reject misogyny in political discourse

As we commemorate Women’s Month this August, there still remain some misunderstandings amongst many South Africans about just what the significance of this month and the day that accompanies it really are. One often hears people wishing all the women in their lives a “Happy Women’s Day”, as though it were similar to Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. Well-worn platitudes about women’s role in society are casually bandied about: “Behind every great man, there is an even greater woman”.

In amongst this confusion, the commemoration of the women of 1956, who marched on the Union Buildings to protest against the extension of pass laws to women, is lost. We forget to pay adequate tribute to the efforts and the courage of women such as Lilian Ngoyi, Helen Joseph and Albertina Sisulu, because of whom we are able to live in a society today in which women are free to access the opportunities which were so long denied them.

I myself am mindful during a month such as this, of the trail-blazing women parliamentarians who laid the foundations for young women like me to participate in representative politics in South Africa. Women such as Helen Suzman, whose vigorous opposition to apartheid as the lone liberal voice in Parliament for 13 years was one of the foundation stones of the party I represent today.

For the vast majority of women in this country today, challenges such as the scourge of sexual and family violence are their reality. Women still lack satisfactory access to the jobs and economic opportunity that flow from having equal access to education, skills development and training; they remain more at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS than men – particularly as a consequence of being denied rights over their own bodies in a deeply patriarchal society; and in rural South Africa, many women remain at a huge disadvantage compared to their urban counterparts as a consequence of customary systems and laws that deny them access to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
In my view, this is the real challenge that lies before women in leadership positions in South Africa today. Not only must we be at the forefront of the battle to ensure that more opportunities are made available to more women, but we should also be leading the campaign to see South African men fight as hard to defend and protect women’s rights as we do.

*Taken from Press Statement by DA National Spokesperson Lindiwe Mazibuko

Home Affairs officials need to respect constitution

I’ve often heard about home affairs officials with little respect for the people they are supposed to be SERVING. Once again their arrogance is getting them into trouble. Last month a gay couple in Port Elizabeth, Michael Cronje and Donovan Wynne, went to their local Home Affairs office to get married. Marriages for same-sex couples have been legal is South Africa for 5 years, and it is the responsibility of the Department of Home Affairs to see that these people may get married without hindrance, however the PE office seems not to have taken notice.

The PE Home Affairs office claims that they don’t have an official that is willing to perform same-sex marriages. The official behind the counter told them that “Home Affairs could not help them as it did not ‘do’ gay marriages”. On the couple’s insistence, the woman then called a superior who gave Cronje and Wynne the contact numbers of private marriage officers who would marry them for a fee. The Act allows for anyone - gay or straight - to be married at a Home Affairs office at no charge.
Home Affairs spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa was scathing in his condemnation and said the matter would definitely be investigated. “It is unconstitutional for a Home Affairs office to refuse to provide someone to preside over the solemnisation of a same-sex union. There is an obligation on them to make a plan.” I am following this up with the DA’s Home Affairs spokesperson to see that this matter is properly investigated and corrected.

Government officials need to realise that they are responsible to see that citizen’s constitutional rights are met, and if they are not willing to conduct their duties they should be relieved of their duties.

More at Daily Dispatch

BMWs are wrong for the job

This week we read that Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality spent R3,2 million on 10 BMW 320i motor cars. The system BCMM used to decide which vehicles would be best equipped for the job are confusing to me.  The municipality claimed that these cars are needed for their “high-performance”, however anyone who has ever driven a 320i (the base 3-series) will know that it is hardly a high-performance car. There are several other vehicles that are far better suited for the task as they are cheaper than the BMW 320i and have far better performance, for example, the Volkswagen Golf/Polo GTIs or the Ford Focus STI. It would appear that BCMM has chosen to go for brand snobbery, rather that picking the best and most cost effective vehicles.