Speaker 1: Well, let's stay with charges, but at a much earlier
Speaker 1: stage of the process. The Democratic Alliance today laying criminal
Speaker 1: charges against the Higher Education Minister Norborslet and Carbine. This
Speaker 1: in regard to a number of things lying to Parliament
Speaker 1: and also questions of a dodgy appointment of boards to
Speaker 1: various sector education training authorities. Lindsay Dandlinger, another of our
Speaker 1: EWN team, has the latest on this story. Lindsay, do
Speaker 1: you have a sense of what the DA is trying
Speaker 1: to achieve with this, because you could argue that politically
Speaker 1: this makes it even more difficult for President saw Ramapousa
Speaker 1: to move against Minister and Carbine. If she's squarely in
Speaker 1: the DA sites, his instinct may actually be to keep
Speaker 1: her for longer than he than he perhaps intended.
Speaker 2: Well, John, I think as much as the DA might
Speaker 2: want to deny it and to make this purely a
Speaker 2: point about the right thing about holding people accountable in
Speaker 2: terms of the law, I think we cannot discount that
Speaker 2: there is political theater at plague here. This is a
Speaker 2: retaliatory move for firing Andrew Whitfield as the Deputy Minister
Speaker 2: of Trade. The DA has said as much over the weekend.
Speaker 2: That all transgressions cannot be viewed as equal, and that
Speaker 2: it is unacceptable that nothing is being done about the
Speaker 2: Higher Education Minister, who, incidentally this hour is in the
Speaker 2: National Council of Provinces and facing the heat again from
Speaker 2: Damps over the theater matter as she delivers her budget
Speaker 2: vote in the National Council of Provinces today and interestingly
Speaker 2: has steered clear of mentioning anything related to those boards
Speaker 2: as she delivered that by the address. But the DA
Speaker 2: saying that although they've already laid a complaint with parliam Ethicxtimotee,
Speaker 2: they've also laid a complaint with the Public Protector. This
Speaker 2: is the third leg of their approach, which is to
Speaker 2: hold in Cabane accountable in terms of the law, and
Speaker 2: that in their view there is already enough evidence to
Speaker 2: suggest that she's contrademned the Powers, Privileges and Immunities Act
Speaker 2: of Parliament. And you will recall John that many years
Speaker 2: ago now. But this is incredentally the same law and
Speaker 2: the same provision that was used to charge and ultimately
Speaker 2: sentenced former anc MP Tony and Genny. And so the
Speaker 2: DA says, if it could be used against him, there
Speaker 2: is President that the Booklyn Cabane is guilty of, although
Speaker 2: not the exact same circumstances, by a similar offense, and
Speaker 2: that is misleading Parliament, which that acts ye to be
Speaker 2: a charge of fraud essentially.
Speaker 1: Lindsay, let's look a little bit ahead and then steer
Speaker 1: me straight if I'm off the road. But my understanding
Speaker 1: is the DA is talking about not voting in favor
Speaker 1: of the Minister of Higher Education's budget. I mean, it
Speaker 1: isn't really the minister's budget, it's the department's budget. What
Speaker 1: I want to ask of you because you followed the
Speaker 1: kind of voting patterns around the budget very very carefully
Speaker 1: in all its iterations. If they were to take that step,
Speaker 1: would that again be symbolic or could it lead to
Speaker 1: the budget actually not being passed.
Speaker 2: No, it would rather be symbolic, John, because the matter
Speaker 2: which they are complaining about, not to discount that it
Speaker 2: is an oversight matter. It is a matter of concern.
Speaker 2: It cannot have the effect of withholding money for a department.
Speaker 2: So even though the DA is currently arguing in the
Speaker 2: National Accouncil of Provinces as we speak that this particular
Speaker 2: minister cannot be trusted with these billions and billions of
Speaker 2: rand they reckon. She's reckless with it. She cannot be
Speaker 2: trusted not to commit further corruption. It handles this money
Speaker 2: withholding the vote for that particular department won't have an
Speaker 2: effect on the entire Appropriation Bill, which is the final
Speaker 2: leg of the budget. It's the ball that contains all
Speaker 2: the various allocations to all the departments. And so very
Speaker 2: much like we've seen in the past, where we know
Speaker 2: that the DA when they were in opposition they regularly
Speaker 2: voted against the budget both of various departments. Is really
Speaker 2: something that will be recorded for record purposes, but the
Speaker 2: two don't match.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: There is no way in which the money can be
Speaker 2: withheld from that particular department because a political party doesn't
Speaker 2: like a way in which she's acted, or they don't
Speaker 2: approve of the minister. These things will come under discussion
Speaker 2: before it gets to the House in the next four weeks,
Speaker 2: so it will be under discussion in the Appropriations Committee.
Speaker 2: It is in that committee where the political parties can
Speaker 2: register their unhappiness with a particular issue, whether that be
Speaker 2: a monetary issue, in which case they do then have
Speaker 2: the right to make amendments, perhaps to change money here
Speaker 2: or there, but they cannot do that on the basis
Speaker 2: of the fact that they don't approve of the incumbent
Speaker 2: in that post. So it will largely be symbolic and
Speaker 2: I don't think, I don't believe that it will have
Speaker 2: the effect of collapsing the budget. And incidentally, the DA
Speaker 2: has said they will vote for the Appropriation Bill in
Speaker 2: its entirety, but it's really a symbolic measure to indicate
Speaker 2: their displeasure with the minister and this particular issue.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Lindsay Dentlinger, EDW and Reporter are always
Speaker 1: keeping us up to date and on track with what's
Speaker 1: happening down in Parliament. It's twenty nine minutes to foll