Cape Town’s privileged position as the home of Parliament is slipping away, writes Marion Edmunds
Management consultants KPMG have dashed Cape Town’s chances of keeping Parliament with a finding that the cost of moving the country’s administration to Cape Town would be a staggering R23,5-billion.
The African National Congress’s pro-Gauteng lobby will use this figure to argue the cheaper alternative – that Parliament move to Pretoria, at an estimated cost of only R237-million.
The ANC dismissed the possibility of keeping the status quo – Parliament in Cape Town and government in Pretoria – when President Nelson Mandela last week made it clear he believed South Africa should have one capital.
The cost of moving Parliament will be used to bolster pro-Pretoria arguments already set out in a special internal ANC report to its national executive committee (NEC) in July. This report indicates that the ANC’s leadership is set on Pretoria and will not investigate the cost of locating Parliament in Bloemfontein or Midrand.
It also says that a decision about moving Parliament should be taken as soon as possible, and implemented quickly, to prevent the issue being taken up by opposition political parties as a campaign issue for the next elections.
This urgency, felt in the ANC’s highest ranks, is demonstrated by a suggestion that normal tendering procedures for the creation of a new Parliamentary complex be short-circuited.
“The project need not be delayed by drawn- out tender procedure as there is a possibility of using a framework of a rapid delivery system for the procurement of essential infrastructure …” reads the internal ANC report.
Removing Parliament from Cape Town could be particularly bruising for a vulnerable ANC in the Western Cape, particularly as the National Party has presented itself as the champion of the Cape’s coloured people.
A sub-committee established by the ANC’s NEC to investigate the issue has put the cost of running Parliament in Cape Town, away from the administrative centre in Pretoria, at R47-million this year. Relocating to Pretoria would cost R237- million and take 29 months, as opposed to the 11 years KPMG suggests would be needed to move the administration down to Cape Town.
While plans were drawn up by the public works department as far back as 1994 to convert a number of historic buildings adjacent to Church Square into a parliamentary complex, Pretoria has also indicated it has vacant land upon which government can build a new complex.
According to another recent KPMG study – on the financial impact of moving Parliament from the Western Cape – it is found that Cape Town would lose 8 715 jobs. The study says that the effect on the Western Cape’s economy would be marginal, at 1%.
Parliament was estimated to have generated R860,7-million for the province this year.
Meanwhile, KPMG has broken down the costs of moving the administration to the Cape as follows: construction and land costs are put at R5,9-billion, the physical transfer of furniture and equipment, staff and their families at R3,2-billion, severance packages and rehiring of personnel in Cape Town at R236-million and the added social infrastructure needed in Cape Town to cope with the flood of public servants would cost R309-million.
The few Western Cape ANC members who have seen these figures are sceptical about their accuracy. Media reports on the ANC NEC’s preference for Pretoria have added fuel to internal party debate on the issue, which was raging on and off in the ANC even before 1994.
While technically Parliament itself, with all parties, will take the decision on whether or not to move, the ANC as majority party will carry the vote. The NEC committee investigating the issue is headed by Minister of Public Works Jeff Radebe, and is backed strongly by Minister of Transport Mac Maharaj and Constitutional and Provincial Affairs Minister Valli Moosa. The NEC is to take a decision next month, to be ratified by the ANC conference in December.
The Western Cape ANC is mobilising to keep Parliament and is disgruntled that the pro- Gauteng lobby is not prepared to share the information on which it bases its arguments.
Ironically the research at the centre of the ANC row has been paid for by taxpayers, and government is accused of leaking documents to the ANC irregularly. Moosa, whose department commissioned at least two of these studies, fobbed off this accusation at midweek.
“Somebody must have given the ANC the documents,” he said. “Is this really a story?”
However, opposition parties are outraged. National Party Western Cape MEC Gerald Morkel is taking the matter to Public Protector Selby Baqwa.
“We think it is very bad if government information is used to favour a faction in a political party.What if the Minister of Home Affairs Mangosuthu Buthelezi commissioned a study on immigrants and presented it to an Inkatha Freedom Party congress before it was tabled in Parliament?” he said. “The ANC would be angry. There is a matter of principle here.”
Democratic Party leader Tony Leon criticised the ANC for blurring the lines between party and state: “This is outrageous. This is a sign of an advanced one-party syndrome. We are demanding explanations. We think this should be a parliamentary matter, discussed by a parliamentary committee.”
A strategy team of Western Cape ANC MPs was due to meet this Friday to draw up a position paper to keep Parliament where it is. “This is not about finances,” said MPBen Turok. “This is a political decision.”