WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2000
                                ____

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

The House met at 15:03.

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

INTERPELLATIONS, QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes the attempts of the DP to make political capital out of proposals to reform questions and interpellations;

(2) recalls that at a previous meeting of the Chief Whip’s Forum, the DP had agreed to a trial period for a new system of parliamentary questions whereby interpellations would be suspended and an expanded system of questions with the best elements of interpellations introduced into the procedure;

(3) believes that the DP has acted in bad faith by seeking publicity while the proposals are under discussion; and (4) calls upon the DP to -

   (a)  cease casting aspersions on the efficiency of other parties when
       it itself is plagued by internal conflict; and


   (b)  join the ANC and other parties in working towards the
       transformation of Parliament to better serve the nation.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes with concern that an invitation has been extended to a group of scientists with controversial views on the reality of Aids, to sit on a new expert panel on Aids to investigate the science of Aids;

(2) further notes that by entertaining persons with such controversial views, the Government is sending out conflicting and confusing messages, detracting from the sterling work being done in the field of education about HIV/Aids and encouraging the widespread denial of the danger of HIV/Aids; and

(3) calls upon the Minister of Health and her special adviser Ian Roberts immediately to retract the invitation.

[Interjections.] Dr R RABINOWITZ: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House, in view of the untapped value of indigenous plants, the empirical yet unproven value of traditional medicines and the potential for South Africa to contribute towards the biotechnology boom, calls on the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology to put in place legislation that will protect the intellectual property of South African plants and people and regulate independent research into indigenous plants, herbs and medicines, as well as human genes, so that we can promote the best possible use of our country’s vast and unique flora.

Dr B G MBULAWA-HANS: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the tension within the DP continues to occupy the interest of the media, with the latest report referring to the Gauteng South region objecting to proposed amendments to the party constitution;

(2) recalls that the issue of rigged membership lists has not been resolved;

(3) believes that this tension is an indication of discontent within the DP with the style of the Leader of the Opposition and the ideological shift of the DP away from liberal, humanistic values towards right- wing conservatism; and

(4) calls on the DP to cease its petty internal squabbling and instead to rise to the challenge of being a constructive opposition in a transforming society.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Dr S J GOUS: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis - (1) kennis neem daarvan dat ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse dokter wat in die buiteland praktiseer, prof Christopher Knott-Craig, werk oor ‘n baanbrekerstegniek in hartchirurgie gepubliseer het;

(2) erken dat dit weer eens ‘n bewys is van die dokters van wêreldgehalte wat Suid-Afrika oplewer;

(3) prof Christopher Knott-Craig gelukwens met sy besondere prestasie; en

(4) onderneem om alles in sy vermoë te doen om Suid-Afrikaanse akademici, veral dokters, vir die land te behou en die sogenaamde ``brain drain’’ met alles tot sy beskikking te beveg. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that a South African doctor practising abroad, Prof Christopher Knott-Craig, has published papers on a pioneering technique in heart surgery;

(2) acknowledges that once again this is proof of the world-class doctors produced in South Africa;

(3) congratulates Prof Christopher Knott-Craig on his exceptional achievement; and

(4) undertakes to do everything in its power to retain South African academics, especially doctors, for the country and to fight the so- called brain drain with everything at its disposal.]

Ms A VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) accepts its responsibility to lead by example and demonstrate Government’s serious commitment to prevent the proliferation of small arms in South Africa and the Southern African region;

(2) calls on the Minister of Safety and Security to provide the House with a report on the progress made with the audit of arms and ammunition of Government departments and state organs ordered by his predecessor in 1998;

(3) requests the Minister to commit himself to the finalisation of this audit and to making available the necessary resources for the completion of the audit; and

(4) ensures that the final audit report is tabled, as a matter of urgency, in the House.

Mr S M RASMENI: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the good news about South Africa’s economic recovery, with strong growth particularly in the manufacturing, finance, real estate and business service sectors; (2) recognises that the growth rate of 1,2% for last year exceeded the forecast of the Department of Finance;

(3) congratulates Government and the Minister of Finance on their sound management of the South African economy; and

(4) looks forward, with confidence, to increased national prosperity under the sound economic management of the ANC Government.

[Applause.]

Dr C P MULDER: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek met die volgende sitting van die Huis namens die VF sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) sy dank en waardering uitspreek teenoor die SA Lugmag vir hul onvermoeide ywer en hulp aan vloedgeteisterdes in Suid-Afrika, asook in buurstate soos Mosambiek;

(2) die hoop uitspreek dat die internasionale gemeenskap in ‘n baie groter mate regstreeks betrokke sal raak om hierdie tragiese natuurramp die hoof te bied deur die nodige hulp en ondersteuning te verleen aan almal wat daardeur geraak word; en

(3) ‘n beroep op die Regering doen om so gou moontlik met die herstel van die infrastruktuur te begin in die gebiede wat geraak is. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the FF:

That the House -

(1) expresses its thanks and appreciation to the SA Air Force for their tireless zeal and assistance to flood victims in South Africa, as well as in neighbouring states like Mozambique;

(2) expresses the hope that the international community will to a far greater extent become directly involved in combating the effects of this tragic natural disaster by giving the necessary assistance and support to everyone affected by it; and

(3) appeals to the Government to start repairing the infrastructure in the affected areas as soon as possible.]

Mrs P DE LILLE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the PAC wishes to congratulate the shareholders of Nail, the flagship black economic empowerment company, for the confidence they have shown in approving the unbundling measures proposed by the board of directors;

(2) congratulates the board on paying proper respect to fundamental economic and financial rules;

(3) notes that their actions bode well for black empowerment companies on the Stock Exchange; and (4) calls -

   (a)  for the self-appointed pope of black economic empowerment, Mr
       Jonty Sandler, to stop making pronouncements on behalf of black
       economic empowerment companies, since those people are
       intelligent and responsible enough to make their own
       pronouncements; and


   (b)  on other companies of a similar nature to take a leaf from the
       Nail book when conducting their affairs by taking heed of the
       wishes of the shareholders.

Mrs G M BORMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes the widespread destruction caused by the flooding in South Africa and in the Southern African region;

(2) expresses its sincere sympathy with the victims of the recent flooding in South Africa and Mozambique;

(3) further expresses its gratitude to all the people, in particular the aid agencies and helicopter crews, who have given assistance to victims of the flooding here and in neighbouring countries;

(4) reiterates its call on the Government to establish a disaster relief force, under the auspices of the SANDF, to deal with the effects of natural disasters; and

(5) further calls on the Government to appeal to SADC to establish a natural disaster reaction force and relief fund in the region, as South Africa cannot be expected to shoulder the moral and financial burden for disasters of regional magnitude.

[Applause.]

Chief M W HLENGWA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move:

That the House -

(1) believes that the courts of our land should be safe and secure places where justice is dispensed without fear or favour;

(2) recognises that measures have long been implemented to ensure that those coming to trial are searched to ensure that neither weapons nor dangerous arms are smuggled into court;

(3) expresses its alarm, annoyance and concern at the fact that a prisoner on trial recently shot his way out of court, showing once again a slackness in security or collusion on the part of criminals and security personnel; and

(4) calls on the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and the Minister of Safety and Security to investigate this deplorable occurrence and lamentable lack of security and further to keep this issue on their agenda continuously so that the message finally trickles down to the appropriate officers. Ms N E HANGANA: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the Western Cape government again failed to address the most serious concerns of the poorest of the poor people of the province when it tabled its budget for this year;

(2) further notes that the provincial budget failed to match its policy objectives with implementation strategies;

(3) also notes that the province’s Finance MEC, Leon Markovitz, admitted to having no clue as to how to deal with the questions of poverty relief, women, street children, the disabled, SMMEs and even the fight against HIV/Aids; and

(4) calls on the New NP and Mr Van Schalkwyk to form a provincial government with the ANC and appoint a Finance MEC committed to closing the divide between rich and poor.

[Applause.]

Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem van versoeke deur groepe boere in Zimbabwe aan president Thabo Mbeki om tussenbeide te tree in die onwettige, onregmatige besetting van landbougrond in Zimbabwe deur voormalige guerrillavegters wat met president Mugabe se regerende Zanu-party verbind word;

(2) president Mbeki versoek om die negatiewe uitwerking van sodanige optrede op potensiële beleggers in Suider-Afrika onder die aandag van leiers in die SAOG-lande, en spesifiek president Mugabe, te bring; en

(3) erken dat Zimbabwe se reeds wankelende ekonomie asook dié van Suider- Afrika nie hierdie tipe optrede kan bekostig nie en van mening is dat dit onverwyld gestuit moet word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes requests from groups of farmers in Zimbabwe to President Thabo Mbeki to intervene in the illegal, unlawful occupation of agricultural land in Zimbabwe by former guerrilla fighters who have been linked to President Mugabe’s governing Zanu party;

(2) requests President Mbeki to bring the negative effect of such actions on potential investors in Southern Africa to the attention of leaders of the SADC countries, and President Mugabe in particular; and

(3) acknowledges that Zimbabwe’s already shaky economy, as well as that of Southern Africa, cannot afford this type of action and is of the opinion that it must be stopped immediately.] Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) welcomes the advent of water boards to facilitate stakeholder involvement in water and related matters;

(2) expresses disappointment that transformation is lacking in the representation on many boards;

(3) calls upon the Government to do whatever is required so that representation on such statutory boards reflects the demographic composition of South African society, whilst not ignoring the professionalism and technical skills required for such boards; and

(4) further calls upon Government to pursue this matter with the utmost urgency.

Dr J BENJAMIN: Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the leader of the New NP, the hon Van Schalkwyk, recently called for the protection of minority rights in schools;

(2) further notes that the New NP is seemingly incapable of moving out of the political wilderness of 1948, when education was based on white, Afrikaans and so-called Christian principles, denying the existence of a rich diversity of other groups, languages and religions;

(3) recognises that the hon Van Schalkwyk is prone to paying lip-service to the existence of a rich diversity of different cultures in South Africa; and

(4) reminds the New NP and its leader that our Constitution protects the rights of all South Africans with regard to language, culture and religion.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr V C GORE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  no person, and in particular disabled persons, may be unfairly
          discriminated against in terms of the Promotion of Equality
          and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act;


   (b)  one of the mechanisms to ensure that disabled people become
          active and equal members of society is through education;


   (c)  one aspect of this is the concept of mainstreaming disabled
          students;


   (d)  the Department of Education has identified 500 primary schools
          for this purpose; and


   (e)  one of the major obstacles to mainstreaming is the lack of
          resources;

(2) cautions the Department of Education that, in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, it needs to hasten its programme of making schools accessible for all disabled learners at primary, secondary and tertiary level; and

(3) calls on the Government, in particular the Department of Education, to outline its policy for the implementation of this programme.

                          NATIONAL LOTTERY

                             (Statement)

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Madam Speaker, hon members, I am grateful for this chance afforded me to make this short statement on the national lottery. It is my hope that all members know by now that the first Lotto ticket sales will commence tomorrow, 2 March, and that the first draw of the national lottery is on Saturday, 11 March.

I thought it appropriate that I should make a statement on this in Parliament, as this is an initiative of Government that has national significance. It is also important to distinguish the national lottery, which is a national asset that is overseen by the National Lottery Board, and the licensed operator, which is Uthingo.

The national lottery is a revenue-generating mechanism developed to finance specific social needs. Benefiting from the experience of other nations, we have introduced a national lottery in a well-managed process. I would like to thank the National Lottery Board for their work, and I have no doubt that they are now anxiously and vigilantly watching each minute that passes towards the next milestone in this complex process.

The resources that we hope will be mobilised by the national lottery are considerable. Over the seven-year licence term, it is projected that national lottery sales will raise some R50 billion and that the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund will receive something in the region of R13 billion. The public will receive something in the region of R24 billion in prizes and there can be over 500 000 winners in any one week. The other benefits of the lottery will include R1,9 billion in VAT, and R500 million from other taxes, such as company tax, duties, etc. I think, very importantly, it is estimated that some R800 million will be earned by new SMMEs. Three hundred and twenty-seven new jobs will be created in Uthingo itself and over 50 000 other new jobs in the lottery industry as a whole. The representivity of the persons employed and the commitment to SMMEs is impressive. Suppliers stand to gain over R8 billion in goods and services, and over 80% of this will accrue to South African businesses. Retailers stand to gain R2,2 billion in commissions and the annual average income could be R35 000 per retailer.

In terms of the social responsibility and economic empowerment, we will establish a central SMME supplier database, and encourage shareholders and other suppliers to use the suppliers in that database. We will reserve up to 200 training scholarships for unskilled and unemployed South Africans from previously disadvantaged backgrounds. We will teach SMME owners and managers hands-on entrepreneurial skills, and provide 18 SMMEs with exclusive lottery subcontractors access to funding, mentoring and all the necessary training and assistance to ensure their sustainability. These are the commitments that Uthingo has been developing and which will be monitored by the National Lottery Board.

The national lottery has to be established and run in an exemplary manner. The National Lottery Board is charged with this oversight. The board was given the responsibility of advising me on the issuing of a licence to conduct the national lottery. Three bids were received in response to the request for proposals which was issued in 1998. For a period of five months the board was engaged in the evaluation of these bids. Oral presentations, which included terminal demonstrations, were conducted.

As hon members are aware, the lottery is a money-making scheme. In order to secure the evaluation process, the NIA and the SA Security Services were contracted to provide around-the-clock surveillance and protection of the bid documents and members of the board. These agencies were also contracted to perform probity checks on applicants, the consultants used and the board members themselves. The board was assisted in the evaluation process by Mr Kingsley Jones of the UK National Lottery Commission and a firm of independent auditors, Grant Kessel and Feinstein, were appointed to review the entire evaluation process.

The board reached its decision on the preferred bidder on 20 June 1999 and I was advised accordingly in terms of the Act. I announced the preferred bidder, Uthingo Management (Pty) Ltd on 9 July 1999. The negotiations for the licence began. The team that was involved in this process included members of the board, who were assisted by Adv Werner Krull of Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group and Dr Jeremy Nurse of the Chief State Law Adviser’s office. I signed the licence on 26 August 1999 and this was officially handed over to Uthingo on 9 September 1999.

The Lotteries Act, Act 57 of 1997, sets out the objectives of our national lottery, as well as the distribution of the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund which will be administered by the National Lottery Board, and provides the areas for which the proceeds must be directed. These are for the RDP, charities, sport and recreation, arts, culture and national heritage and other miscellaneous purposes. In a few weeks I shall, in consultation with the Ministers responsible, appoint distribution agencies to distribute these funds fairly and equitably, taking into consideration the general development and the financial and social interests of the country.

I think it is appropriate that I comment on recent media reports involving Mr Max Maisela, who is the representative of the Post Office on the board of Uthingo Management (Pty) Ltd, which is the operator of the lottery. It is necessary to clarify that in terms of the request for proposals, bidders were required to make provision for a 20% stakeholding for the Government in the National Lottery. The 20% was split between the Post Office holding 15% and the National Empowerment Fund holding 5%. The Post Office was not part of the bidding process and, as a result, no conflict of interest could have arisen in that process. In regard to Mr Maisela’s subsequent appointment to the board of Uthingo as a representative of the Post Office, I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Communications, when I have fully assessed the actual position. No substantive conflict of interest will be allowed.

I am very confident that the highest standards of security and propriety are being striven for and that the board will be very vigilant in this. This is particularly the case in the oversight of the draw and other operational aspects. May I wish the Speaker and, in fact, all of the House good luck. Of course, I respect the fact that some members will not participate as a matter of principle. For the rest of the members, the more they buy the more we pay out to good causes. It is good that the vagaries of chance will benefit society in a positive way. Thank you once again for this opportunity to address the House. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon Minister, was I incorrect in my assumption that you would be handing out free samples when we gave you this opportunity? The MINISTER: Madam Speaker, you were absolutely correct. What you have is what you are going to win. [Laughter.]

Mr N S BRUCE: Madam Speaker, the introduction of a state lottery represents a far more fundamental change in Government’s attitude towards enlightened legislation than the tax reform of last week’s Budget. [Interjections.]

Those who traditionally have opposed a lottery are the puritans and the Marxists, who have much in common in their desire to take all the fun out of life and replace it with self-righteous gloom. [Laughter.] I guess that not many years ago the hon Ministers ranged in front of us this afternoon would more likely have made common cause with Albert Hertzog on this matter than with Helen Suzman. This lottery should be an enlightened turning of avarice to a good cause. Whether it goes far enough in benefiting charities remains to be seen. My party will watch this very closely.

There is another aspect of this lottery over which we are dismayed. It is the monopoly it gives Government through the National Lottery Board and its licensee, not only to run a state lottery, but also to decide to whom the charitable proceeds are to be dispersed. Monopolies deprive ordinary people of choice and, in this instance, many worthy charitable organisations will be deprived of an important means of funding. Instead of boosting initiative among charities to fund themselves, it places them in a position of having to go cap in hand to Government or its agent for funding. Even if the quantum available to charity is larger under the state lottery, Government or its agent should never be in a position to determine how charitable assets are distributed.

Remember what Lord Acton said: ``All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’’ Charities, by using their own funding initiatives, should compete for charitable funds. This lottery and the law that supports it opens the door to cronyism, preferment and corruption.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon Mr Bruce, would you please take your seat for a moment? Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Yes, Madam Speaker. On a point of order: I would like to know how long two minutes is. The SPEAKER: Order! It is 60 seconds plus another 60 to follow. [Laughter.] Please continue. [Interjections.] Hon member, you have ten seconds left which were taken up by Ms Sisulu.

Mr N S BRUCE: Madam Speaker, we assume that the lottery authority will be scrupulous in applying the equity laws to the fortunate winners of this lottery. We assume that the winners will also mirror the racial mix of this country and that at least half of the winners will be women, especially from the rural areas. If not, my party will make sure that this … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr H J BEKKER: Madam Speaker, the IFP supports the establishment of a national lottery. We trust and we hope that this lottery will contribute substantially to the welfare projects and upliftment programmes that are envisaged.

We, however, wish to point out that a lottery still remains a game of chance and that it can only pay out massive amounts of winnings from moneys received from people who have lost, substantially, even more. Our less privileged communities, particularly, should be cautious that they do not lose even the meagre amount of money in their possession.

It may interest members that, already in 1989 and again in 1991, I proposed in this Parliament that a state lottery should be considered. At that stage, as a member of the previous governing party, it caused a sensation and ruffled quite a number of feathers. I refer, in this regard to Hansard of 13 May 1991, cols 84 to 85. Members should note that this was not the first time, and we wish now that the lottery is here that we can have the full support of all members. [Time expired.]

Mnr F BEUKMAN: Mevrou die Speaker, die Nuwe NP is van mening dat die voorgestelde nasionale lotery op ‘n behoorlike sakegrondslag bestuur moet word aangesien die inkomste bykans R1 miljard gaan wees.

Dit is van kardinale belang dat die sowat 5 500 afsetpunte vir die verkoop van kaartjies behoorlik sal funksioneer. Verslae wat daarop dui dat die afsetpunte aan die vooraand van die implementering van die stelsel nog nie gefinaliseer is nie, is ‘n jammerte. Ons vertrou dat die beheerliggaam dit sal regstel. Die Nuwe NP steun die benadering dat diegene uit voorheen benadeelde gemeenskappe deur die bedryf van die afsetpunte ekonomies bemagtig sal word.

Die Nuwe NP is verder van mening dat die kriteria vir die toekenning van 30% van die inkomste aan welsynsorganisasies twee duidelike elemente moet bevat. Eerstens, die platteland moet voorkeur kry by die toedeling van fondse aan welsynsorganisasies en, tweedens, gestremdes, weeshuise en oues van dae moet voorkeur kry by die toewys van geld. Dié wat die kwesbaarste in die gemeenskap is, moet deur die inkomstestroom van die lotery bevoordeel word. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr F BEUKMAN: Madam Speaker, the New NP is of the opinion that the proposed national lottery must be managed on a sound business basis as the income is going to amount to nearly R1 billion.

It is of cardinal importance that the approximately 5 500 marketing points for the sale of tickets function properly. Reports which indicate that the marketing points have not yet been finalised on the eve of the implementation of the system, are unfortunate. We trust that the controlling body will rectify this. The New NP supports the approach that those from previously disadvantaged communities will be economically empowered through the operation of the marketing points.

The New NP is furthermore of the opinion that the criteria for the allocation of 30% of the income to welfare organisations must contain two clear elements. Firstly, rural areas must receive priority with regard to the allocation of funds to welfare organisations and, secondly, the handicapped, orphanages and the aged must receive priority with regard to the allocation of money. The most vulnerable in society must benefit from the influx of revenue from the lottery.]

Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Speaker and hon members of the House, the UDM wishes to associate itself with the statement of the hon the Minister. The UDM further supports the concept of a state lottery and the advantages that it can bring in improving the lives of South Africans.

As the Minister stated, the biggest beneficiaries of the state lottery will be the poorest of the poor. With great anticipation and excitement, potential beneficiaries are bracing themselves to reap the benefits. Simultaneously, unscrupulous fraudsters are already plying their illegal trade. Sinister attempts to tarnish the image of the national lottery must be countered with the strongest possible action from the relevant law enforcement agencies of the state.

Prophets of doom, corruption and criminals must not be allowed to undermine the genuine objectives of this venture. The people are hoping and dreaming. Let us not fail them and leave them in despair.

Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, colleagues, as hon members know, the ACDP is opposed to a national lottery as we believe gambling is destructive and cannot contribute to building this nation.

Members know, and I know, that there is no such thing as a free lunch, so why are we deceiving the youth of this nation? Dreams of a free ride or a big win only encourage people to be slothful and neglect their responsibilities, such as housing, feeding and clothing their families. It is, after all, God who said that it is by the sweat of our brow that we shall eat. If we defy Almighty God in this way, we will not - definitely not - be a nation at work.

Warnings against uncontrolled appetite, lust and covetousness permeate both the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible. Hon members and I both know people who have been reduced to begging for food for their children after having spent their entire salary on Lotto. The Government intends using this money for so-called good causes, but what will Government do for specific casualties of this evil? Will Government offer shelters?

The Minister says that there will be 500 000 winners per week, but we do not have a figure for how many losers there will be. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Genl C L VILJOEN: Mevrou die Speaker, die doel heilig nie altyd die middele nie. Die doel hiermee is goed. Ons het altyd geld nodig vir die armes en om opheffingswerk te doen, maar dobbel - en dit is wat ‘n lotery is - is ‘n verslawende praktyk.

Mense raak só vasgevang daarin dat hulle kos uit hul gesin se mond sal neem om te kan dobbel. Dobbel moedig ook nie eerlike, harde werk aan om daardeur geld te verdien om klein en medium-grootte ondernemings aan die gang te kry nie. Derdens, dobbel moedig ook nie ‘n spaarsin by ons mense aan nie. Entrepreneurs genereer dus nie hul eie kapitaal om klein en medium-grootte ondernemings te skep nie.

Die VF is van mening dat die besluit van die Regering in hierdie verband nadelig is in ‘n land soos Suid-Afrika waar morele en godsdienswaardes heropgebou en ‘n werksetiek ontwikkel moet word. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Gen C L VILJOEN: Madam Speaker, the end does not always justify the means. The intention with this is good. We always need money for the poor and to do upliftment work, but gambling - and this is what a lottery is - is an addictive practice.

People become so caught up in it that they will take the food out of the mouths of their family to enable them to gamble. Gambling also does not encourage honest, hard work in order to earn money to start up small and medium-size businesses. Thirdly, gambling also does not encourage thriftiness among our people. Entrepreneurs therefore do not generate their own capital to create small and medium-size businesses.

The FF is of the opinion that the Government’s decision in this regard is disadvantageous to a country such as South Africa where moral and religious values should be rebuilt and a work ethic should be developed. [Applause.]]

Dr R H DAVIES: Madam Speaker, the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry had an opportunity last month to be briefed by and engage with the chairperson and CEO of the National Lottery Board. Most of us, I believe, were generally satisfied that the process of awarding the licence to conduct the national lottery, as well as the design of the technical and security aspects of the lottery, are of the highest standard.

What Mr Bruce in his input appears not to recognise is that the experience of many countries is that national lotteries are a more effective and more efficient means of raising money from the public for worthy causes than small fundraising efforts by individual organisations, which are not, in fact, prohibited by the Lotteries Act.

The Lotteries Act provides for a process of determining a fixed percentage of the revenue raised that must be distributed to various charitable, developmental, sports and cultural activities. We were informed by the board that 50% of the funds raised will be allocated to prizes and that not less than 30% will go to the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund. The Minister said that it is estimated that some R13 billion will be raised over the next seven years for the trust fund.

Organisations and communities that are involved in developmental and charitable activities will therefore have the scope for their operations significantly enlarged and not contracted as a result of the introduction of the lottery. It is also important that retailers and particularly SMMEs will have the opportunity to have their incomes boosted by some R35 000 per annum.

In response to the ACDP, I think it needs to be said that we discovered in the committee that the board had in fact conducted a social impact study. The tickets will cost only R2,50 and they were set at a price which is considered not likely to have a serious impact on family incomes, particularly of the poor.

We are aware of the intention to introduce and fast-track a Lotteries Amendment Bill. The Lotteries Act precludes various categories of people from participating in the process. The board and the department are of the view that the section in the Act which provides for this is in fact extremely wide and could be interpreted as excluding all Telkom employees and others directly or indirectly involved in the provision of services to Uthingo. The committee, I can say, will do all it can to facilitate the expeditious consideration of that Bill if and when it is tabled and referred to us. In the meantime it is my pleasure to wish the lottery well. [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, Ministers, hon members, South Africa is still developing. Our basic needs are greater than the available resources. One of the resources that is most lacking is money, and therefore the initiation of the national lottery must be used in its fullest capacity to target the most vulnerable communities. The modus operandi of the national lottery must be closely monitored by the Government to avoid exploitation and to make sure that the profits are used to uplift society socially and economically. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mevrou die Speaker, die AEB erken die soewereiniteit van die drie-enige God oor die hele terrein van die samelewing en nie net binne die mure van die kerk nie. Ons onderneem om ons maatskaplike bestel in gehoorsaamheid aan Sy Woord in te rig. Die AEB se ideaal vir Suid-Afrika is nie dié van ‘n sekulêre staat nie. Die praktyk van dobbelary en lotery deurstaan nie die toets van die Woord nie.

Sake wat in die gedrang kom, is onder andere ‘n gesonde werketiek, die groeiende afhanklikheid van geluk en kans en die grootskaalse verarming aan die verlieskant van die spel. Die argument dat geld vir ‘n goeie doel hierdeur gegenereer word, geld ook nie. Die beginsel van ``die doel heilig die middele’’ kan nie opgaan nie, anders kan ons net sowel ‘n bordeel oopmaak en die wins aan die armes gee. Die AEB is in die geheel gekant teen die instelling van ‘n lottery. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, the AEB acknowledges the sovereignty of the Triune God over the entire spectrum of society, and not only within the walls of the church. We undertake to order our social system in obedience to His Word. The ideal of the AEB for South Africa is not that of a secular state. The practice of gambling and lotteries does not withstand the test of the Word.

Issues that are implicated are, inter alia, a sound work ethic, the growing dependence on luck and chance and the large-scale impoverishment on the losing side of the game. The argument that money will be generated for a good cause, is not valid either. The principle of ``the end justifies the means’’ cannot be accepted, because then we might just as well open a brothel and give the profits to the poor. The AEB is totally opposed to the establishment of a lottery.]

In this regard I can tell this House that I am consistent. While I was a minister in Thabazimbi, a member of the congregation asked me what I would do if he won a million at Sun City and gave R100 000 as a tithe to the Church. My answer was: ``No, that is the devil’s money. Put it in the bank and give me a cheque!’’ [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

           HRC SUBPOENAS REGARDING ALLEGED RACISM IN MEDIA

                      (Subject for Discussion)

Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, the fact that the HRC withdrew the subpoenas issued - although not unconditionally - and the concession that editors will no longer be cross-examined or required to defend specific articles which appeared in their newspapers, is a recognition of fault by the HRC. This was a positive development and was achieved only through public pressure and debate.

Unfortunately, the price we had to pay was a dent in the credibility of the HRC - a vital element in our constitutional framework - and damage to our hard-earned international credibility. There are three dimensions to the controversy that we had to observe over the past few weeks.

Firstly, the issue of subpoenas; secondly, the way in which the issue of racism was approached; and thirdly, the fact that editors had to justify content. Concerning the subpoenas, when the HRC was launched in 1996, its chairman, Dr Barney Pityana, said the following, and I quote:

The Commission has frightening and overwhelming powers at its disposal.

We have seen the operation of those frightening powers over the last few weeks. The HRC’s approach converted what should have been a collective exercise against racism into a divisive and confrontational debate about press freedom. The first black woman editor of a major newspaper in the country, Lakela Kaunda, who is also the chairperson of the SA National Editors’ Forum, said that by invoking these powers, the HRC was guilty of -

… a flagrant violation of South Africa’s newly-won democratic right of a free press. We did not expect anything so draconian.

Former commissioner, Rhoda Kadalie, has described the subpoenas as a gross violation of freedom of expression and an attempt to prescribe to the press what they should be thinking and writing.

A dissenting and surprising voice in support of the subpoenas was that of the Public Protector, Adv Baqwa. It is highly inappropriate for him to rush into such public disputes and take sides before he is asked to investigate an issue. If, for some reason, the Public Protector is in future requested to investigate any element of this process, he would now have compromised himself. The merit of his argument is also without any basis. He said in a very aggressive statement that the only aim of the subpoenas was to ensure that the right people attended the HRC hearings.

It is clear that the Public Protector did not familiarise himself with the content of the subpoenas. Some of them refer to prima facie violations, and they list the specific allegations in ordinary language on the basis of the facts as the HRC sees them. One is guilty of human rights violations unless one can prove one’s innocence. This is a far cry from simply an instruction to attend a hearing or discussion, as the Public Protector argued. All this after a very specific warning by the researcher who compiled the report on which the allegations were based. In the preface of the report the researcher said, and I quote:

Drawing legal conclusions would be well beyond the scope of the research brief and my own professional competence. The analysis is clearly highly selective.

The second dimension is racism. Our country has a history of racism, and we still have racism. I believe, however, that racism is no longer a mainstream phenomenon in the white or black communities, but largely a fringe phenomenon. The huge responsibility of dealing with this issue rests on the shoulders of the leaders of this country. It is very easy and clearly tempting to some to abuse this issue, and not solve it.

Some would rather exploit underlying feelings of race to score political points. But when the issue of racism is raised, some people start to shudder and try their utmost to avoid a debate. I say, let us have this debate. A proper, open and thorough debate will achieve two results. Firstly, it will unmask racist tendencies from black and white, or from whichever quarter they may come. Secondly, it will expose the high priests of political and emotional manipulation who hide their own racism with intellectual sleight of hand, and who rely on intellectual blackmail and intimidation as the tools of their trade.

I believe that there are still elements of white racism left in our country. But I also believe that there is a new form of racism rearing its ugly head, and that is an extremist form of black consciousness, which is undermining the cornerstone of nonracialism on which our democracy is built.

In the 1930s, 1940s and the 1950s, we observed the phenomenon of some Afrikaner ideologues who whipped up white Afrikaner emotions by exploiting the underlying feelings of nationalism and alienation, instead of channelling the energy in a positive way. When I look at the way in which the race card is sometimes so unashamedly played nowadays, I cannot help remembering those Afrikaner ideologues with their quavering voices and wagging fingers, who even misused the Bible as supporting evidence for an extreme narrow nationalism. I also remember all those Afrikaners who kept silent against their own better judgment because they were afraid of being labelled as disloyal to the cause.

Mamphela Ramphele made a striking observation in this regard. She recently warned that our young democracy was threatened by a culture of silence. She noted:

Blacks too often avoid criticising their Government for fear of being accused of disloyalty, while whites fear the unanswerable charge of racism.

I call on those in the ANC who are committed to eradicating all forms of racism, and who are committed to nonracialism as the cornerstone of our democracy, to stand up and be counted. It is at moments like these that it requires guts and conviction to stand up and be counted.

The third dimension is the threat to press freedom manifested in the demand that editors be required to justify content and to defend specific articles. The letter to the Human Rights Commission by, inter alia, Cyril Ramaphosa of Times Media Limited and other leaders of the media, made this point in a very convincing way. Lakela Kaunda echoed this when she said:

The problem is that if you have to justify content to Barney Pityana, tomorrow you have to justify it to the newspaper owner. It sets a precedent. And that is where the threat to editorial independence comes in.

There is clearly something wrong at the Human Rights Commission. There have been resignations - from Helen Suzman, Rhoda Kadalie, Max Coleman, Anne Routier, Chris de Jager, and only last week, Sheena Duncan. The reasons given by these people when they resigned are disturbing. Instead of the Human Rights Commission being a unifying force, and commanding respect in the fight against racism, its own actions risk becoming a polarising force, and it is even referred to by people like Rhoda Kadalie as the new thought police.

There are still men and women of integrity left in the Human Rights Commission, and we would like to call on them to rescue the HRC from its own irresponsible inclinations. Being accused of human rights violations is serious. In such circumstances, the least one can expect is a complaint of a specific incident so that it can be investigated and a clear, specific conclusion can be drawn. A broadbrush approach does not meet this requirement.

It is therefore understandable that fears were expressed that the Human Rights Commission’s approach was emulating a new form of McCarthyism. While McCarthy was looking for a communist behind every bush, and created communists out of noncommunists, the HRC’s approach was to look for a racist behind every bush, and to create racists out of nonracists.

In conclusion, independence of the watchdog bodies does not mean that they are above criticism. It does not mean that they are a law unto themselves and that they can, in pursuit of their objectives, undermine the very freedoms that they are responsible for protecting. The Human Rights Commission’s climb-down yesterday is a victory for public opinion and for open public debate. The HRC’s real test still lies ahead.

Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: In his speech, Mr Van Schalkwyk made a statement that there are still men and women with integrity left in the HRC. Is he implying that there are certain members of the HRC who are without integrity? If that is the case, I think it is unparliamentary and in contravention of Rule 66, and he should withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, it is a general statement. I do not think it is an attack on any individual member. [Interjections.]

Dr Z P JORDAN: Madam Speaker, I have, on other occasions, remarked about the wonders of our democratic Parliament, and the cross fertilisation that takes place in this debating Chamber. I am very pleased to hear the remarks of the hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk, and am also very pleased to note that the NP is now a defender of press freedom. [Interjections.]

However, on 17 August 1982, I had a very narrow escape from death as a consequence of a bomb addressed to Dr Ruth First which exploded, killing her and injuring Dr Aquino de Braganza, Dr Bridgette O’Laughlin and me. That bomb was sent to Dr Ruth First by one Craig Williamson, a notorious officer of the then NP government’s security services.

One year earlier, assassins in the hire of the same NP government had murdered Joe Gqabi in the driveway of his residence in Zimbabwe. Both Ruth First and Joe Gqabi were journalists by profession. They had both worked for the same group of newspapers, which ended up being called New Age, based in Johannesburg. Both of them had been very mercilessly persecuted for a number of years for their work as journalists and were in the forefront of the battle for freedom and for freedom of the media specifically, in our country.

That persecution culminated in imprisonment. At the time of his murder, Joe Gqabi had just recently been released from a 12-year prison term on Robben Island. Ruth First herself had been held for a total of 114 days without trial in 1963 to 1964. That is how the NP treated democratic journalists and those who stood up to their brutal, oppressive regime.

To add insult to the injury inflicted on Ruth First’s family by Craig Williamson and his murderous cronies, one of our Johannesburg newspapers had the temerity to publish the scandalous slander that that murder had actually been orchestrated and plotted by her late husband, Joe Slovo. That is the sort of reprehensible track record that the South African press still has to live down. This past Sunday, another newspaper reported that in their treatment of African immigrants of this country, our newspapers tend to treat them as if they are criminals, refer to them as a problem, refer to them as a source of friction, refer to them as a source of crime, and this, specifically, only about African immigrants. I would like to know what the House calls that. This is not said about Bulgarian immigrants, it is not said about Chinese immigrants, it is not said about Russian immigrants, it is not said about immigrants from other parts of the world, but from Africa. What does the House call that?

An HON MEMBER: Read all the papers.

Dr Z P JORDAN: The issue is not freedom of the press. The issue is the terms of our Constitution and the powers and obligations of the Human Rights Commission … [Interjections.] … and those obligations and powers are set out in Chapter 9 of the Constitution. And if my memory serves me well, all the hecklers to my left here voted for those clauses in the Constitution. That Constitution states that, amongst other things, and I quote:

No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions.

I am, consequently, one of those people who were rather disturbed that the House even entertained this debate today. But in deference to the procedures and Rules of the House, we are going to continue this debate.

Our Constitution imposes a number of obligations on the HRC and the elimination of racism is at the heart of the tasks of the Human Rights Commission, because racism has been the scourge that has denied the majority of South Africans their human rights. I would make so bold as to say that the Human Rights Commission would have been remiss in its constitutional obligations had it not striven to eliminate racism from our society.

An HON MEMBER: That is not the point!

Dr Z P JORDAN: No institution, nobody, no organisation, no publication, can claim exemption from this. Everyone knows that the HRC, like the Office of the Auditor-General, the Public Protector, the Commission on Gender Equality and the IEC, are not creatures of the Government. All these bodies have repeatedly demonstrated their independence from the Government by summoning even Ministers to appear before them. Any attempt to construe the actions of the Human Rights Commission as somehow mischievous, somehow a threat to press freedom, is rather laughable.

What the hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk is trying to create is a hierarchy of rights and obligations. I am not aware that our Constitution recognises such a hierarchy, and he seems to suggest that, in that hierarchy of rights and obligations, the right to freedom of expression should be elevated, amongst others. I do not think that is tenable.

There are, of course, democratic jurisdictions in the world that recognise such a hierarchy. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, explicitly outlaws the advocacy of national socialism and by so doing, in fact, de-emphasises the right to freedom of expression because it considers the elimination of Nazism as a higher priority than the freedom of expression in its society. [Applause.]

Our society and our Constitution is not like that. Our Constitution says all the rights are the same, and the Human Rights Commission has the obligation to protect and to propagate all those rights. Indeed, if the actions of the Human Rights Commission pose a clear and direct threat to freedom of expression, I would suggest that those who think so take the matter to the Constitutional Court where their claims can be tested - and it is, indeed, their right to do so.

I want us to debate the matter, but I want to plead - please, let us be spared the hyperbole and the humbug that our media had recourse to in the past few weeks, and also spare us the mischievous innuendos about the Human Rights Commission and its members. [Applause.]

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, I have been watching the fulminations of the New NP over the racism inquiry with some wry amusement over the past few weeks because they really started it all. [Interjections.] And no, I do not mean they started it in 1948, although Heaven knows they did, nor do I mean in 1982 or any other examples. I mean in 1997 when they asked the Human Rights Commission to censor all political speech. Yes, they did.

No sooner had we driven that hard section 16 compromise on hate speech in the final Constitution - largely the hon the Minister of Education, who is not here, and I - than the New NP threw itself upon the HRC complaining that certain gory statements by the hon Peter Mokaba and others, including the hon Ronnie Kasrils, about Mr F W de Klerk were hate speech and also infringed upon his dignity and that of all persons who had served in his Cabinet. Apart from deciding the complaints, the New NP wanted the HRC - the same one, believe it or not - to lay down guidelines for the utterances of public figures.

I respectfully endeavoured then, as I have again been trying to do over the past few weeks through correspondence with the HRC, to dissuade that august body from intervening in free speech issues and the public discourse which is foundational to democracy. How will the HRC avoid playing censor? That was my question to them in 1997 and it is the question now.

Quite obviously, Mr De Klerk should have sued for defamation in the courts. That is how one deals with dignity in the context of the press; it is an old common law device. In fact, I thought the HRC was infringing on Mr Mokaba’s free speech rights in 1997. Does this House know what they did? They subpoenaed him for a copy of the relevant speech! Yes, they did so under the same section 9 of their Act. The HRC dealt with my complaint on this particular point really quite rudely in their judgment, called a ``report’’.

Do hon members think that the HRC should be able to subpoena them to produce copies of their speeches? No, nooit [never]! If not, how can it be acceptable for them to demand papers and explanations from editors? It is not acceptable. It is an infringement of their rights! [Interjections.]

Mr Mokaba is, of course, the chief proponent of the classic illustration of section 16(2) hate speech. I am not joining argument with you here, but his old chant is the classic illustration. Kill the farmer, kill the Boer!'' is precisely theadvocacy of hatred’’ which ``constitutes incitement to cause harm’’, which our Constitution discourages. [Interjections.]

Now, this not what Mr Mokaba said in the NP case, and in the event - this is where it gets too interesting - the HRC delivered a report ruling against the complaint and citing many of the classic foreign and the fresh South African free speech judgments. As for guidelines, the HRC, very sensibly, declined to issue them, favouring instead, open and robust debate'' and not wishing to performan invidious invasion of free speech and political rights’’. What does the hon Pallo Jordan say now?

In fact, approving statements from their ruling, such as the following, are entirely incompatible with the current inquiry into the media. I quote paragraph 24, a judgment everyone knows:

In Mandela v Falati, the court found that there is consensus about the primacy of freedom of speech, which is the freedom upon which all other freedoms depend and without which they could no longer endure.

So, why is the HRC inquiring into the media? Regrettably, the chairperson declared the media guilty of racism before the inquiry started. This is a fact, and therein, presumably, must lie an answer, an ominous one.

These excursions into a kind of parallel jurisprudence conducted in a legislative vacuum should have been nipped in the bud in 1997. That is what I asked them to do. I asked them not to entertain the complaint. But the HRC today is still, as it was then, bent on balancing rights, which is a judicial function. I want to tell Pallo that they are still debating the ranking of rights. Does he know how? By using the limitations clause. That is how they rank rights.

However, rights can be limited only by law of general application, and that is by everyone here - us - and only the courts or duly constituted tribunals can adjudicate. If we really want them to hear complaints we should provide for the creation of proper tribunals under the Human Rights Commission Act. [Interjections.]

There is no guarantee that free speech will be given primacy over dignity in a complaint brought by the Black Lawyers Association. The Nats’ complaint should not have been heard and this one should not have been heard. Media freedom is explicitly protected in our Constitution and that is quite unusual. [Interjections.] Why? Because we have a long and dreadful history of the suppression of that freedom. That is why it is protected.

We have passed no law here in this House limiting publication of discriminatory drafted by the HRC, and then we ensured that their prohibition were qualified so that public interest discussion would be excepted and safeguarded.

Race and politics will always intersect in this country. One cannot stifle comment or reportage on the way we are and on what we say. One cannot do that without interfering at source with the debate that must determine our democratic choices. We cannot interfere and the Human Rights Commission ought not to interfere. We are greatly relieved that an agreement is being reached between the editors and the commission. We congratulate them all.

Much can unravel, much can go wrong. All of us who slaved through the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill know what it takes and how trying it can be. However, we wish them luck. We do not think that this should have happened at all, but we hope it works out well. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Rev K M ZONDI: Madam Speaker, hon members, the media coverage of the Human Rights Commission’s inquiry has, in recent days, become entirely self- obsessive. The grievance of the media over the issue of subpoenas has dominated the headlines, whilst the grievances of those affected by racism have gone unheard. [Applause.] In the past week, my party expressed its concern about the method that the HRC had chosen to adopt in its important inquiry into racism in the South African media. We expressed the view that it would have been better for the HRC to have issued invitations to the media, rather than subpoenas.

However, it is time that we refocus this debate. It is time that we acknowledge that the central issue is not the procedures adopted by the HRC, but that it is the scourge of racism which still afflicts our country. [Applause.] I should make clear the point that, whatever the IFP’s procedural concerns were, we in the IFP are in full support of the HRC probe into racism in the media. [Applause.] We offer this support, because we who have just escaped from the affliction of apartheid which infiltrated almost every institution in South Africa are under no illusions about the legacy of racism that still pervades our society and which must be tackled.

We cannot and do not pretend that there are any short cuts or easy roads to rid our society of racism. In honesty, we must state that, before we can get to the truly nonracial society that we desire, certain sections of society will have to swallow an uncomfortable and unpalatable medicine.

Mr G B D McINTOSH: [Inaudible.]

Rev K M ZONDI: That medicine will also have to be swallowed by the press if South Africa is ever to recover from the pain.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairman, I have a point of order. I object to Mr McIntosh saying that the speaker is a tribalist. I think, in fact, that that is evidence of this racism that we are talking about. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: May I ask that he withdraw that word? It has connotations of racism. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!

Mr G B D McINTOSH: Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs should listen to the interjections. What I said, and unfortunately you were changing seats, and maybe you were not able to listen … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order, hon member!

Mr G B D McINTOSH: Mr Chairman, who is in charge of the House? These members or yourself? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order, hon members! Can you please reply to the point of order, Mr McIntosh?

Mr G B D McINTOSH: Mr Chairman, what I pointed out to the hon member Zondi was that there is tribalism to be attended to in South Africa, as well as racism. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I was not in the Chair when you said those words. Can I inform the hon member, the Minister of Home Affairs, that we will check the Hansard and that we will rule at a later stage. [Interjections.] Order! Order! Continue, hon member.

Rev K M ZONDI: Thank you, Chairperson. I was saying that it is an undeniable truth that even now, reporting, in both the electronic and print media, continues to be couched in terms which demonstrate racial prejudice. It is equally undeniable that the people who were at the receiving end, and even now continue to be at the receiving end of such reporting, are black communities and organisations operating in and serving those communities. Those South Africans continue to be insulted by the attitudes that certain elements of the media have towards their communities.

Look at the way African royalty, for example, continues to be reported by the press in a dismissive and derisory manner. Quite often references in the media to, for example, the Zulu king and the kings of Lesotho and Swaziland, leave one with an impression that in the minds of some journalists African kings and queens are not quite proper royalty. When referring to, for example, European royalty, journalists dutifully use all titles, honours and etiquette which are applicable, while they often appear oblivious of this practice when referring to our own royalty.

The numerous indignities that institutions derived from African culture continue to suffer in the hands of racially prejudiced elements of the media, are a matter of fact which must be investigated. We also know that there is ample evidence that many journalists working in the media have found life very hard. When they attempted to counter racist attitudes to ensure that the media organisations they work for became more reflective of society, they met with immense difficulties. That is not an acceptable situation.

While we understand and accept the need for vigilance over press freedom, the media must equally understand the need for vigilance over their own reporting - the need to guard against insulting and inaccurate coverage which damages race relations in this country. Since this country has changed and is continuing to change, the mass media must change with it too. They must join the process of transformation and adjust the way they go about their business. And it is not just over racism that the media need to take a long hard look at themselves. They must equally reconsider the bias that they have allowed to enter and pervade coverage in this country.

My party has been on the receiving end of such bias and deliberate distortions for year after year. We are not asking the media’s coverage on the IFP to be laudatory. All that we are simply proposing is that they should strive for accuracy and balance in their reporting, and make some attempts at reflecting this. [Applause.]

Mr J P CRONIN: Chairperson, back in mid 1976 - and without the benefit of a subpoena - I was grabbed by a dozen security policemen and handed over to the tender mercies of Warrant Officer Spyker van Wyk and his torture chamber round the corner here in Cape Town.

Some months later I was charged - along with two others - in the Cape Supreme Court with the writing, production and/or distribution of 17 ANC and SACP newsletters. For these 17 acts of journalism - that is not how the court described them, but that is what they were - the state prosecutor called for the death penalty.

The DP’s predecessor - I think it was called the PFP at that time - demanded tough measures against me and my co-accused journalists. [Interjections.] I was lucky! The judge sentenced me to seven years for journalism.

The first letter that I received in Pretoria Maximum Security Prison was not from my wife or from my family. It was from that liberal institution the University of Cape Town, informing me that I had been dismissed from my job as a lecturer, because I had brought the name of the university into disrepute. [Interjections.]

I recall all of this now, not because I am sorry for myself. I am not. In fact, as I say, I am one of the lucky ones. A few years before my arrest, Ahmed Timol, who had been doing exactly the same kind of journalistic work, was murdered in police custody. Before Timol and over the years, progressive newspapers and journals had been systematically persecuted and banned - The Guardian, New Age, Spark and many more. Printing presses were seized and generations of outstanding journalists - Edwin Mofutsanyana, Ruth First, Govan Mbeki and many others - were banned, listed, detained, forced into exile and imprisoned.

An HON MEMBER: And we do not want it to happen again!

Mr J P CRONIN: Absolutely, we do not want it to happen again. What the HRC has done - and we can have a debate about the merits and the wisdom of the particular approach that it has pursued - is perfectly in line with the Constitution, perfectly in line with its legal rights. It has issued subpoenas, not for people to appear before Spyker van Wyk, not to come to a criminal hearing, but simply to come to a process of discussing the question of persisting racism in the media. That is absolutely important. [Applause.]

There has been huge amounts of hyperbole and humbug, as the hon Jordan has just said. I do not want to be cynical now. The more voices that begin to speak up for press freedom the better. It is good. But, of course, it is hard not to be a little curious about some of our more zealous, new-found enthusiasts for press freedom. [Applause.]

For our part in the ANC and the broader liberation movement, we are extremely proud of the role that we have played in the struggle for the freedom of expression and for the freedom of the press in our country. We are proud of the new Constitution that enshrines freedom of expression, and we, as the ANC, are not about to throw all of that away now. [Interjections.] Good, I am pleased to hear that I am not alone. I was alone a long time ago and the hon member’s party was not very supportive. But, of course, rights come with responsibilities. The exercise of one right cannot undermine other important rights.

Racism in the media, and everywhere else, needs to be exposed and rooted out. In the ANC, we promise to be relentless in the pursuit of this strategic objective. The rights enshrined in our Constitution have to be fostered and defended in the context of the actual South Africa in which we live. Debates about freedom of expression abstracted from the realities of mass poverty, gross inequality and unemployment can easily, perhaps unwittingly, become the ritualised sparring of elite groups staking out turf and testing one another to see who will blink first.

I want to disagree with the hon Van Schalkwyk when he says that racism in our society is just a marginal reality. I agree that often overt racism might well be confined to Eugéne Terre’Blanche and so forth. But when one disconnects the issues of racism from the historical legacy of apartheid, from poverty, from unemployment and from huge inequality, and when one simply has these abstract debates, as we have had in the past week or two, abstracted from these realities, then they easily become another form of racism - a kind of colour-blind racism which, in fact, does not do service to the kind of society that we are trying to build.

Let me take one example. Last Friday the Mail & Guardian devoted, as we all know, substantial space to the debate around the HRC and the subpoenas. The front page is dominated by a cartoon, with the HRC chairperson presented as an inquisition- era torturer. Half of page six is devoted to the HRC. There is an excellent article by John Matshikiza on this issue. On the same page Krisjan Lemmer takes a pot shot or two at the same topic. Page 10 is entirely devoted to the matter - ``Pityana prejudged the media’’, etc. The cartoon on top of the op-ed page repeats the inquisition image. The whole of page 31 is devoted to the topic. Page 32, page 33 - ditto. [Interjections.] I am coming to the point.

On page 34 there is an interesting article by Farid Esack on how the Gender Commission handles gender prejudice and bias with the media. There is an article by David Beresford, a very weak one which tries to be humorous, and it is entitled: Barney subpoenas God. The title probably says more than it intended to about just who some in the media think that they are. [Laughter.] Two-thirds of page 35 is again devoted to a thoughtful article by Steven Friedman on the issue. Many of these articles are thoughtful and some are trying to make a constructive contribution to the debate. Others are less so, but that is not my point.

On Thursday evening, as this issue of Mail & Guardian went to press, large parts of our country and the Southern African region were being ravaged by the worst floods in 50 years. Scores of people had already drowned at that time. Tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, mostly rural, had lost all of their belongings. How did the Mail & Guardian reflect on this vast human tragedy? [Applause.] With a tiny paragraph that was about 2 cm long reflecting, amongst a list, other events that had happened that week.

Now, I am not suggesting that the Mail & Guardian should get another subpoena - maybe it should? - to explain what is inexplicable - this huge blindness which is another form of racism, if I can say so. It is to completely negate the victims of racial oppression. [Applause.]

As the ANC - and we are addressing ourselves to the HRC as well, to journalists and editors and to all the rest of us - as we debate the question of racism and the media, as we must, let us all do so with a sense of the history that is just behind us - let us not forget that history - and also the realities in front of us. [Time expired.]

Mr M E MABETA: Mr Chairperson, over the past 10 years, we have taken remarkable strides towards transforming our country from one under an inhumane system that debased our humanity and denied our dreams to a modern democratic state that has taken its rightful place as an esteemed member of the community of nations.

We now boast a fully legitimate and current democratic Constitution that commands us to maintain a nonsexist, nonracist and, generally, nondiscriminatory society. To safeguard our newfound freedom and status, the Constitution also has established a number of watchdog institutions to ensure that these rights and values are maintained and, where necessary, enforced.

It is essential for these institutions themselves not to act in any way that might derogate from their status as the conscience of the nation in their respective areas. They are too important in upholding the values that form the very essence of our Constitution to allow especially their moral authority to become tainted in any way. The Human Rights Commission is one of the most important of these institutions. It is therefore unfortunate that it has now acted in such a counterproductive manner in its approach to the discussion of the issue of racism in our country. [Interjections.]

The crux of this controversy is that the hearings for which the editors have been subpoenaed are a direct result of a report which has universally been discredited as faulty, subjective and misguided. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Mr M E MABETA: Mr Chairperson, the author of that report has conceded that drawing legal conclusions would be well beyond the scope of the research. This, in our view, has distracted us from the analysis of an important and a serious problem that confronts and threatens to undermine our democracy. It is not clear to us why, if the HRC considered that it was correct in its approach to this problem, it has decided to withdraw the subpoenas. Racism is engraved in the fabric of our society. It touches a raw nerve in the psyche of the nation. We must be careful not to overreact and lose perspective in dealing with situations in which we detect it. The HRC is an important watchdog of human rights. We must protect it from the danger of being drawn into the fray of racial antagonisms by reports of the nature that have inspired the suggested hearing.

If we argue that the process does not matter and that what is important is the subject of the hearings, we run the risk of getting muddled up in our unpacking of the problem of racism, which touches all of us - white and black - in many ways and in all aspects of our lives. [Time expired.]

Adv Z L MADASA: Mr Chairman, I support the Dr Pityana and the Human Rights Commission for the noble task they have undertaken of investigating allegations of racism in the media. The ACDP appreciates Dr Pityana’s honesty in acknowledging the procedural errors committed by the HRC concerning the issue of subpoenas. We believe that the media is not above the law. The cacophonic noise that is made when a powerful institution like the media is called upon to account is discomforting. We have gained a worrying impression that some sections of the media want to enjoy the same rights as everybody else, but without responsibility. These sections of the media have attempted, in recent newspaper reports, to trivialise racist complaints by falsely suggesting that any reference to black-white relationships could be labeled as racism and warrant investigation by the HRC.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The speed with which some sections of the media have run to the President of South Africa and to everyone else, including this Parliament, is probably sufficient evidence that there is no smoke without fire. We concur with President Mbeki when he told the Association of Newspapers in his letter that unless the HRC’s actions are ultra vires in terms of their mandate, there is nothing wrong with their enquiries. The hon the President said that the media must approach the ordinary courts like everybody else if they have a genuine complaint against the HRC.

Lastly, the ACDP would like to urge Dr Pityana not only to continue with his investigations, but also to look at the bias and prejudice of the media when it reports about speeches of political parties in Parliament and elsewhere, in the light of the equality laws. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr P W A MULDER: Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, order! Please continue, hon member.

Dr P W A MULDER: Mr Chairman, the question is: Exactly what are we debating?

This is not a debate, as far as I am concerned, about whether the Human Rights Commission may conduct an enquiry into racism, prisons, torture or whatever. This is a debate about the way in which the HRC used its powers, specifically its power to subpoena. What makes the issue more serious is the involvement of the media. [Interjections.]

Waarom is dit belangrik?

Demokrasie en menseregte het towerwoorde in die internasionale wêreld geword. Daarom is daar druk op baie lande, veral in Asië en Afrika, om menseregte te eerbiedig en nader aan ‘n demokrasie te beweeg.

Die internasionale wêreld beoordeel ‘n land op grond van sy benadering tot menseregte, demokrasie en vryheid van spraak. Die wêreld het ons buurman, Zimbabwe, wat op papier ‘n demokrasie is, reeds uitgevang vanweë sy houding jeens sy media en weens die feit dat sy media geen vryheid het nie. Omdat die uitsaaiowerheid - en die meeste van die koerante - in Zimbabwe deur die staat beheer word, hang daar vraagtekens oor Zimbabwe se mediavryheid en daarom sê ek die wêreld het hom uitgevang.

Suid-Afrika het nog nie daardie beeld in die wêreld nie, maar ons moet hiperversigtig wees om nie dié illusie na buite te skep nie. As die Menseregtekommissie alle media by voorbaat oor die loop van ‘n haelgeweer dagvaar, stuur hy dieselfde boodskap uit as wat Zimbabwe reeds gedoen het: ``Reg of weg’’.

As die kommissie die dagvaardings verder voer met spesifieke klagtes, kan agb lede maar net na die reaksie van die buiteland kyk. Agb lede kan gerus die artikel in die New York Times lees oor hoe hy die saak verstaan, interpreteer en watter gevolgtrekking hy uitstuur, ongeag die argumente wat agb lede hier gebruik.

Die verstandige wyse om hierdie probleem aan te pak sou wees om die media se samewerking te kry en hulle na forums uit te nooi. Ek is oortuig die meerderheid sou saamwerk. Indien daar egter probleme sou wees en sekere sektore van die media sou weier om saam te werk, sou ‘n mens jou troewe begin gebruik en na ander maniere kyk waarop dié probleem opgelos kan word.

Wat die saak vererger, is die Browde-verslag en die mediamonitorprojek waarop baie van die aannames gegrond is. As oud-professor in Kommunikasiekunde wil ek wil vir agb lede sê die werkwyse in hierdie verslae is onwetenskaplik en die verslae is swak. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Why is that important?

Democracy and human rights have become catchwords in the international community. That is why there is pressure on many countries, especially in Asia and Africa, to respect human rights and to move closer to a democracy.

The international community judges a country on its approach to human rights, democracy and freedom of speech. The world has already caught out our neighbour, Zimbabwe, which is a democracy on paper, because of its approach to its media and because its media have no freedom. Because the broadcasting authority - and most of the newspapers - in Zimbabwe are state controlled by the state, there are doubt about the freedom of its media in Zimbabwe and that is why I say that the world has caught it out.

South Africa does not yet have that image in the world, but we must be ultra careful not to create that illusion in the outside world. If the Human Rights Commission subpoenas all the media beforehand over the barrel of a shotgun, it is sending out the same message that Zimbabwe has already sent out: ``Do this, or get out’’.

If the commission is going to follow up the subpoenas with specific charges, hon members would do well to watch the reaction from abroad. Hon members are welcome to read the article in the New York Times on how it views and interprets this issue and what conclusion it has reached, regardless of the arguments that are advanced here by hon members. The sensible way of tackling this problem would be to get the co-operation of the media and to invite them to forums. I am convinced that the majority would co-operate. If there were, however, problems and certain sectors of the media were to refuse to co-operate, one could start playing one’s trump cards and examine other ways of solving this problem.

What is exacerbating the matter, is the Browde report and the media monitoring project on which many of the assumptions are based. As a former professor in Communications I want to tell hon members that the procedure used in these reports is unscientific and the reports are poor. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson, I think the issue here is not the issue of subpoenas, because they have been withdrawn. The subpoenas were not the issue in the first place. The issue that we have to debate is racism. [Interjections.]

The hon member Dene Smuts referred to the fact, or she implied in her statement, that the Human Rights Commission is trying to stifle freedom of expression. I do not think that they have the power to do that. They will never have that kind of power. I do however, think what the Human Rights Commission is trying to do is to try and make sure that if there is racism in the country, and people continue to practise it, it has to be debated and effectively stopped.

I think that is the issue that we are debating. I did not hear the hon member refer to those issues, but I heard her just talking about other issues. I do not know what the hon member’s intention is, because I think we are confronted here with an issue. The issue here is that we are in a society that has to transform. We come from a background where the country was at war with itself. There was conflict among the different groups in the country, solely because of the issue of racism. I think we have to take this debate very seriously.

Since the advent of democratic governance we have seen the media corps transfixed like a rabbit in the glare of bright lights. While developmental strides were taken by ordinary people in the various communities, the media failed to locate their niche in the unfolding democracy. Part of the problems standing in our way are the issues of racism, sexism, lack of command of the diversity of languages and racial and gender representivity at all levels, in the newsroom and in the management echelons.

Over the last five years we have have seen the dearth of investigative journalism, the ferreting, the unearthing and flagging of critical issues and telling the South African story as it unfolds. This has been notably absent. The media is lagging behind and has not caught up with the transformation that is breezing through the country. While in the past the roles were sharply defined, the enemy is almost blurred and often rears the double-headed monster in the form of racism and sexism.

That we have all come this far with this albatross weighing us down is testimony to the magnanimity of our people. Being spectators rather than to play a participatory role might be a comfort zone for some. Raymond Louw in The Citizen of 25 February said: The Ombudsman has never had a complaint about racism in the media.'' He further adds:Until the commission raised the issue, racism was not regarded as the major problem in the media.’’ [Interjections.]

The recent flurry of action around the Human Rights Commission’s subpoenas has confirmed to all that racism is alive and well in the media, and that it needs serious critical analysis and debate. Seeking concessions and determining the agenda of the proceedings is not only bizarre, but it raises the question: What is the fourth estate hiding?

The newspapers of yesteryear, which were supposedly at the forefront of fighting for democracy, are now asking for concessions and closing certain aspects of their operations to public scrutiny, while on the other hand proclaiming their abhorrence of things that are racial or racist. Is racism not one of the malaises threatening our fledgling democracy? I think it is.

Most structures and other organs of civil society understood their roles and responsibilities in the unfolding democracy. But sadly, the same cannot be said about the media. We believe that racism has played a part on two levels - the lack of restructuring in the newsroom to accommodate gender, language proficiency and representivity; and, on the other level, the content of reporting.

What stories go into print and who gets prominence is more often than not explained away under the guise of objective reporting. The gatekeepers of our news have denied the populace of women’s issues written from a woman’s perspective. We have seen developmental stories, more often than not, being sidelined, simply because good news does not sell copies in the street. We have seen newspapers keeling over and dying because they are either too black or not white enough for the advertising moguls.

Gabrielle le Roux, in the December issue of Rhodes Journalism Review, confirms that there is a link between what is not regarded as newsworthy and what is not regarded as political. She further adds that crimes against women, particularly domestic violence, were not, until recently, recognised as being political. Rather, they were generally cast as belonging to the private domain.

At the seminar for women journalists organised by the Freedom Forum, which is a US-linked NGO, women journalists told sad stories of male colleagues ignoring them or poking fun at stories on violence against women. This was to ensure that similar stories do not see the light of day. Until women are in total control in the media, we will always have such boorish and unacceptable behaviour like the one we already have here. [Interjections.] A support group of women who attended the seminar that has been mentioned and whose aim was to rally women around and support representation of women’s issues in the media and other related aspects, really came up with issues that were very shocking.

The other critical role facing the media is that of advocacy, informing and getting people to act on the information, and entrenching democratic governance. This has most unfortunately been missed in our copy. The people’s right to know has often been ignored. Where any form of reportage was attempted, it was filled with value judgment and skewed towards perpetuating racial or gender stereotypes. The issue of rape, for example, and the sensitivities around the crime, have up until now been treated with an overload of value judgement.

While the electronic media, specifically radio, has seen women taking the lead and telling their stories, Moutse, a radio station managed and run by women, is a case in point. More still needs to be done, otherwise we run the risk of quietly being erased from the annals of history. Gabrielle le Roux, quoting Naomi Wolfe, adds that news is the first draft of history. So the logic follows that … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, the UCDP is opposed to the manner in which the Human Rights Commission sought to engage editors and to the confusion and accusation of a witch-hunt coming mainly from some editors. The media owners, rightfully so, are entitled to be consulted on broader terms of reference, so as to ensure that the process unfolds in the most dignified manner, and that at the end of the inquiry real problems are identified and appropriate steps taken.

The question which ordinary South Africans are asking is: What would have been the most appropriate mechanism to request the 30 editors and journalists to appear before the inquiry? The UCDP welcomes the withdrawal of the subpoenas in favour of a conciliatory approach in addressing the issues of racism in the media.

There is no doubt that the media wields considerable power and influence in shaping public opinion about a range of issues, including racism, in our society. It is an open secret that in the past, the media was used effectively during the apartheid era to reinforce, amongst other things, stereotypical depictions and attitudes against the discriminated.

Of course, it would still be unjustified to blame the media alone for racism. It is also a dangerous presumption to paint a picture that racism in the media is symmetrically planned, or to deny its existence in any form. It is hoped that the commission and the editors will be able to find each other on the issues of process by engaging each other constructively during the initial phase of inquiry. [Time expired.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairman, racism is a cancer in our modern world. It originates from superstitious concepts of unfounded racial supremacy. Racism is an erroneous theory in terms of which human abilities are determined by one’s colour, shape of nose and texture of hair. This world has already experienced, as a consequence of this erroneous and unscientific theory, the degrading inhumanity of Aryanism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide of a large section of humanity, such as the so-called Red Indians in the USA and Canada, the Aborigines in Australia, and the Khoisan people and others in this country.

That is why, from its inception, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania advocated the establishment of a nonracial society. The Human Rights Commission has done well to summon the South African media in an effort to eradicate the cancer of racism. [Interjections.] But this matter must be dealt with from a broader perspective. Ever since Africa and her people were underdeveloped through slavery and colonialism, the African view of the world has been relegated to the dustbin of history. The idolatry of Eurocentricity emerged and dominated every sphere of African life, and many Africans themselves accepted this fictitious superiority over them.

Regarding simple daily life in this country, there is very little on SABC TV that reflects that this country is in Africa. [Interjections.] The reflection is that of Europe.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Dr S E M PHEKO: The value of news in this country is determined by eurocentric interests.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member!

Dr S E M PHEKO: For example, the death of a European personality is always reported …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member! [Interjections.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: … about more in our media than the death of an African personality.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!

Dr S E M PHEKO: The death of the late Princess Diana received more attention … The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member!

Dr S E M PHEKO: … than the death of King Moshoeshoe II … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your time has expired.

Dr S E M PHEKO: … or that of King Dalindyebo. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! There is too much noise in the House.

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, Edmund Burke, the 19th century English political philosopher once said, ``all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’’. And, evil will triumph if the media is subjected to a new form of censorship, either by the Government or constitutionally controlled bodies such as the Human Rights Commission. However, evil will also triumph if the media is allowed to abuse the unalienable freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is very important for limiting the concentration of political power and for keeping those with political power in line.

The issue today is racism in the media. But, racism is prevalent in every sphere of society, of which the media is but one aspect. The South African society is currently subjected to new racism, and this is what is to be addressed. White-on-black or black-on-white racism remains racism and can never be tolerated. The Human Rights Commission, however, has done well to change the focus of the proposed hearings from racism in the media to a summit on racism in general. But, the media cannot escape responsibility. Freedom of the press is an extremely important and powerful tool and the abuse of this right cannot be tolerated. The media has a responsibility to society in general, and the fact is that this responsibility is not always met.

The FA suspects that the individual rights are sometimes negated or ignored when newspapers can be sold and facts are ignored in favour of unconfirmed sources to make headlines, which eventually sells more papers. The FA proposes that the media take responsibility upon themselves by accepting and applying a code of conduct for journalists and a code of practice for newspapers in terms of which they can operate. This is a standard practice all over the world and is a tool which sets ethical and professional standards for the media. [Time expired.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, ideally editors of the media are blessed with the duty to report the truth and not to twist the truth. It is a vicious crime to negatively groom the public’s way of thinking. The media must be used as an instrument to promote, protect, respect, develop, monitor and make reports on the observance of basic human rights.

If the media capitalises on issues such as hate speech and racism, then it is the Human Rights Commission’s duty to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated. In order to achieve the above, the Human Rights Commission must go beyond politics and apply the correct administrative procedure of law so that justice triumphs beyond reasonable doubt.

Serving a subpoena to editors or any other individual to appear before the the Human Rights Commission is a legal mechanism used to access fair information and facilitate proper investigations. The subpoena is a legal tool used to enforce accountability and responsibility to ensure that if any action conflicts with the basic human rights, that action must be rectified and repetition must be avoided. [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairman, the whole situation around the summons of the Human Rights Commission to the editors serves as a mirror of an abnormal society. But where does this abnormality lie? Is the South Africa of the year 2000 really the racist capital of the world, as is the case with crime, to the extent that measures had to be taken that damaged the image of our country and have left the HRC red in the face?

Let someone like Mr Andy Young, a well-known human rights activist, give members the answer. After a visit to South Africa, he said on the programme Larry King Live, ``I am surprised to have experienced how the people in South Africa are getting along with each other.’’

Waarom dan hierdie beheptheid met rassisme? Waarom hierdie optrede wat herinner aan ‘n middeleeuse inkwisisie? Is dit nie dalk omdat hierdie optrede geïnspireer word, nie deur ‘n verhoudingsagenda nie, maar deur ‘n politieke agenda? Laat ek ‘n paar punte noem.

Die kriminaliserende effek van die WVK op veral die blanke gemeenskap is besig om te vervaag; nou moet die sondebok lewend gehou word, en daarvoor kan die MRK gebruik word. ‘n Verdere punt is dat die ANC besef dat met hom gebeur wat wêreldwyd met regerende bevrydingsbewegings gebeur. In die geval van Suid-Afrika is die wins wat behaal word deur op apartheid te teer, ook as motivering vir omgekeerde rassediskriminasie, besig om op te raak. Die Regering wil iets daarvan lewend hou deur rassisme op te blaas om sodoende die momentum van ‘n bevrydingsbeweging te behou.

Rassisme het alles te doen met verhoudings. Het die geagte lede van die MRK dan die mees basiese van die dinamiek van menseverhoudings vergeet? Met dwang en gedwonge sosiale manipulasie verbeter ‘n mens nié verhoudings nie. Inteendeel, met die optrede van die kommissie het gesonde rasseverhoudings in Suid-Afrika eerder myle agteruit geboer. Laastens kan ek nie verstaan hoe mense 50 jaar teen iets baklei en dit dan as voorbeeld kan voorhou nie. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Why then this obsession with racism? Why this behaviour which reminds us of the inquisition in the Middle Ages? Could it be because this behaviour is not inspired by a relations agenda, but by a political agenda? Let me mention a few points.

The criminalising effect of the TRC on the white community in particular is fading; now the scapegoat has to be kept alive and to that end the HRC can be utilised. A further point is that the ANC realises that it is experiencing what ruling freedom movements worldwide have experienced. In South Africa’s case the advantages to be gained from harping on apartheid, also as a motivation for reverse racial discrimination, are coming to an end. The Government wants to keep this alive by placing exaggerated emphasis on racism in order to retain the momentum of a liberation movement.

Racism has everything to do with relationships. Have the hon members of the HRC forgotten the most basic aspects of the dynamism of human relations? One does not improve those relations by resorting to force and enforced social manipulation. On the contrary, the commission’s actions have rather caused sound race relations in South Africa to deteriorate markedly. Lastly, I cannot understand how people can fight against something for 50 years and then hold it up as an example. [Time expired.]]

Mr M A MANGENA: Chair, hon members, our society is still riddled with racism and racist attitudes at both the overt and subliminal levels. The media does not operate in a vacuum. On the contrary, it is part and parcel of this society. It reflects the society but it also influences society in a very powerful way. It reinforces racial stereotypes and racist attitudes.

For example, Aids is a disease of black people in this country. If one wants a picture or an image of Aids, it is black. Whenever one runs a story, the image that one shows is black, whereas we know that Aids is a neutral disease; it is everybody’s disease.

At accident scenes or other violent localities, dying or dead blacks are often shown. Whites are seldom shown in these scenes. They are treated with greater sensitivity, dignity and delicacy, because on the whole the media in this country is owned, managed, controlled and run by white people. It follows that it will reflect their interests, their values, their perceptions, their opinions and their orientation. [Interjections.]

For example, reaction to the recent Budget, its soundness or otherwise, was mainly or predominantly white. The media hearings by the HRC are not only necessary, but they are essential to help sensitise and perhaps even sanitise our society of racism in all its forms.

All of us who would like to see a better society emerging in our country should support these hearings. The subpoenas are no longer an issue. They have been withdrawn. Let us get on with the job and let nobody hide behind the subpoenas any longer because until we attend to the fundamental question of media ownership, we will not be able to resolve this matter fundamentally. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr N N KEKANA: Mr Chair, the attack by the New NP leader on Chapter 9 institutions is not acceptable. The New NP and its cronies, the DP, undermine the spirit of our Constitution. To Madam Smuts I say: Let us not be academic and legalistic about racism in the media. Let us ask all editors one question: Are they aware of racism in their newsrooms? If so, can they be open and transparent about it and tell all? Can they print this in their editorials? Is there racism in their newsrooms?

Ms M SMUTS: And their content? [Interjections.]

Mr N N KEKANA: Racism is alive in many newsrooms. Racial attitudes are reflected in a lot of news coverage and current affairs programmes. As our society goes through a process of democratisation, the mass media cannot be left outside. Journalists and editors cannot be onlookers of change. They need to participate and contribute to the building of a long-lasting democratic culture in our country.

Editors and scribes must bring respectability to their profession through unbiased and quality reporting. Editorial tantrums and momentary responses might draw the loudest applause from the press galleries around the world, but will not build a democratic press in our country.

On 14 January, under the heading ``I thought attack was a joke’’, the Sowetan reported that a bus driver, Crain Nyembe and two unidentified females died when a white man attacked their bus in the Pretoria suburb of Constantine Park. The Citizen continued the reporting by quoting the hon Gen Constand Viljoen of the FF saying:   It is terror, but there must be a reason for this type of terror, the Government is going to have to address the cause of it.

Die Burger had the headlines ``Regse nie betrokke by skietery, sê kenners’’

• Rightwinger not involved in shooting, says expert. Prominence was subsequently given to reports on complaints lodged by some racists on whether the media should have stated the racial identity of the perpetrator and the victims. Very little was reported about the victims, the plight of their families and the human suffering caused by this killing. Are these unworthy victims? Are the shocks and stresses caused by this barbaric act not newsworthy?

Compare this reporting to the tragic and senseless Tempe killing of last year. The media covered the killings extensively, who the victims were and who their families were. Why the double standards? Is it because the lives of the victims of the racial attack in Pretoria are cheap? Is it because the lives of the Tempe victims are worthy?

There is certainly a difference in the coverage of victims of crime in the South African media. Race and gender appear to determine what is newsworthy in many newsrooms. We do not believe that the death of a farmer or a soldier or a township dweller or a rural woman is less shocking or stressful than any other death.

Many of our journalists and editors should take the current debate on racism seriously. Trivialising the attempt of the HRC to understand racism in the media is irresponsible and adventurous. The debate on media and democracy is always tense. If one adds racism, we have warfare on our hands. The stale and musty attitudes of the New NP and the DP on this important debate will not provide any guidance in this complex relationship between the press and democratic institutions.

Racism in the newsroom does exist and will continue to be reflected in media products, unless it is extracted in its embryonic form and nipped in the bud. Many newsrooms are commercial centres of the media owners. What matters to media owners are the AMPS, not transformation. This has led to a commercially driven newsroom that pays little attention to issues such as racism, the state and working conditions of journalists.

Many experienced journalists are being spawned into newsroom managers. Experienced journalists are removed from their stories and doing their beat, and this contributes to a poor coverage of news. Experienced correspondents must be paid more and must continue to report, instead of being promoted into oblivion. [Interjections.]

Are the owners of the newspapers giving enough support to the recently promoted editors and editorial staff in their newsrooms? I do not think so. There is not enough diversity in the newsrooms and the transformation of many media groups is low. Not enough is contributed towards the training of journalists and very little money is spent on supporting institutions that add value to existing journalists or universities that offer journalism as a course. The poor reporting that we experience because of old attitudes and junior reporters must be addressed if we are going to have a free and responsible press in our country.

Racism is unnatural. When children are born, they have no concept of race and racial supremacy. It is their mothers and fathers and other adults who spread this poisonous thought. We call on the media to help to eradicate racism and not perpetuate it. The ANC supports and will continue to promote a free and democratic press in the country.

Apartheid’s `own affairs’ doctrine lingers on. Our past history calls on all of us to be responsible and sober in our approach to this debate about the media in South Africa. We therefore call upon all editors please not to put conditions to the HRC. We plead with them to take racism seriously. They must go to the HRC and tell all. We want to know what is going on in their newsrooms. We want to know about those racial punch-ups that are happening in newsrooms on a daily basis.

Ms M SMUTS: [Inaudible.]

Mr N N KEKANA: Of course! There are squabbles that are taking place in newsrooms. [Interjections.] We want to know that, because the newsrooms must reflect what is in our society. [Interjections.] We still have racism in our society and the same goes for the newsrooms. [Interjections.] We have racists in this Parliament and the same goes for the newsrooms, so let us tell all. [Interjections.] Let us ensure that we expose racism and nip it in the bud. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mrs S M CAMERER: Chairperson, in the few minutes at my disposal at the end of this debate, I would like to deal, firstly, with the allegations raised by some commentators in the media and this House today that the response to the HRC’s subpoenas is a black-white thing, ie that black editors and newspaper owners were co-operative vis-à-vis the subpoenas whereas white editors and owners were not.

Now the ANC has clearly jumped on this bandwagon, as the previous speaker has demonstrated. In The Citizen of yesterday, one Nat Scrache of the ANC’s information department claimed … [Interjections.]

Dr Z P JORDAN: Serache!

Mrs S M CAMERER: Whatever! Thank you to the hon Dr Jordan. This gentleman claimed that the media community was divided along racial lines over the subpoenas and that while black editors, as he said, know the pain of racism and will welcome any move to address traces thereof'', white editors,who benefited from the previous regime’s racist policies do not understand the fuss about investigating allegations of racism’’. This is pure ANC disinformation, as I am sure the hon Dr Jordan knows very well.

Mike Robertson, the editor of the Sunday Times, who is black, said of the HRC-commissioned Media Monitoring Project’s report into racism in the media …

Adv J H DE LANGE: He’s a white in drag! Mrs S M CAMERER: … which led to the subpoenas:

The document is a staggeringly inept hodgepodge of confused thinking, pseudoscience, half-truths, distortions of facts and, in some cases, wholesale departures from reality.

The chairman of Times Media Ltd, which owns the Sunday Times, Cyril Ramaphosa, joined other newspaper barons in calling on the Human Rights Commission to withdraw the subpoenas. Jon Qwelane of Radio 702 has been scathing about them. The fact that black and white editors have stood together, with the co-operation and wide degree of consensus of the SA National Editors’ Forum, regardless of colour … [Interjections] … regardless of colour and in the interests of the freedom of the press, appears to have persuaded the Human Rights Commission to back down. Black editors like Moegsien Williams and Joe Thloloe were among the SA National Editors’ Forum members who yesterday fortunately persuaded the Human Rights Commission to change their proposed adversarial inquisition-like format of the inquiry into racism in the media to a consultative process, and we certainly welcome that.

The New NP fully supports the development of a human rights culture in our country. We also acknowledge that the most severe discrimination which took place in our country was based on race, gender and disability. And it is for this reason that these three prohibited grounds for unfair discrimination are lifted out from the others listed in our Constitution and given special attention in the recently passed Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.

We supported that legislation, which includes a provision requiring the Human Rights Commission to report to Parliament annually on the achievement of equality and the rooting out of unfair discrimination based on these prohibited grounds. Accordingly, we have no objection to the Human Rights Commission fulfilling its task and, in tackling unfair discrimination and the promotion of equality, to focus, firstly, on race and gender, whether by reacting to a complaint or otherwise. However, the way they have gone about it, slapping subpoenas on newspaper editors, ordering them to appear to answer charges of being implicated in racism or face imprisonment was ham-handed and ill considered - a hiccup on the way to achieving a human rights culture. [Time expired.] The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the leader of the New NP to ask for this debate, when millions of our people have been affected by floods and are in misery, and we are wasting our time on this? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That is not a point of order, hon Minister.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairman, on a point of order - and this is a serious point of order, not a frivolous one from a fatigued Minister: The hon De Lange referred to the editor of The Sunday Times as ``a white in drag’’. I would like to ask for your ruling. Is that not in fact a racist and, therefore, offensive and unparliamentary term, sir? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I did not hear Mr De Lange saying that. [Interjections.] Order! Mr De Lange did not participate in the debate. When did he say that?

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairperson, with all due respect, it is possible for you to ascertain that. We clearly heard him say that from here. [Interjections.] Adv J H DE LANGE: Mr Chairperson, I did not say what he is saying. I said he is a black in drag. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! What did you say, Mr De Lange? Could you repeat what you said?

Adv J H DE LANGE: Mr Chairperson, I said he is a black in drag, not a white in drag.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Is that what you said? Hon members, I cannot, unfortunately, rule on matters referring to people outside this Parliament. He is not referring to a person in this Parliament. I cannot rule on that.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Could we ask the next speaker on behalf of the ANC to indicate whether they are in agreement with the statement that Mr Robertson is a white in drag? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I do not think it is necessary to do that, hon member.

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Mr Chairperson, colleagues and comrades, I remember distinctly our euphoria on that day in May 1996 when the Constitutional Assembly adopted the new Constitution. As I look around me now, I see many faces on both sides of this House that celebrated that moment with me. And if I let my mind wander back a further two years to 1994, I remember the day that Parliament adopted the Human Rights Commission Bill.

We crafted the law that established the HRC and we ascribed to it the necessary powers to perform its functions as envisaged by the interim Constitution and defined in the final Constitution. It was us, acting for and on behalf of the people who had mandated us in the 1994 elections, that also ascribed to the HRC the power to subpoena witnesses while conducting investigations into human rights related matters. While drafting that legislation, did any of us ever consider exempting any individual, group of individuals or sector from this provision? I think not. We would have articulated those exceptions very clearly in the legislation.

It is also important to note from the minutes of the National Assembly on the day that the HRC Bill was introduced that all parties voted in favour of the Bill; that the New NP was satisfied that the provisions of the Bill fell within the ambit of the Constitution; and that the DP was satisfied that sufficient safeguards, standards and norms were built into the Act that makes it possible for the HRC to do its work. One wonders what the agendas are. Suddenly they are so shocked by their behaviour when they are actually affected by it.

When our constitutional drafters sat together to draft the interim and final Constitutions, they were conscious of the challenges that lay before us. We knew we had to create structures that would strengthen our fledgling constitutional democracy. As constitutional architects, we all agreed that we needed a human-rights watchdog with teeth. Why are the hon members to my left reacting with surprise when the HRC exercises the powers that have been conferred on it by this House? It would be a grave insult to the majority of the people … [Interjections.] Hon members should take their blinkers off.

It would be a grave insult to the majority of the people in this country to suggest that racism has been exorcised from our national psyche. In his state of the nation address to Parliament last month the President put the issue of racism high on the national agenda. In his address the President announced that the Human Rights Commission was to convene a national congress against racism later this year.

We are not the only ones seized with the spectre of racism and its impact on individual communities. Indeed racism in all its many invidious manifestations has become a matter of extreme concern within the international community as well. It is in this vein that the UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson approached South Africa to host an international conference on racism in 2001. We need to recognise that South Africa is ideally placed to endorse a consciousness-raising drive against the atrocities of racism. Is it not appropriate then that we examine the society in which we live and answer questions about the quality of our democracy, even if they are questions that make us squirm? Is this not the time to assess what we have achieved in the fight against racism and to take stock of our failures?

What is it that makes us flinch when we hear the word ``racism’’? It is the knowledge that no matter where we stand on the political spectrum, we as South Africans are defined by the dichotomies that racism has perpetuated and come to represent. Just listen to our vocabulary: Privilege and deprivation; advantage and disadvantage; power and powerlessness; enfranchisement and disenfranchisement; landowner and labour tenant; suburb and township; haves and have-nots. For years these disparities have described life on either side of the racial divide.

Is it the stark reality that makes us shy away from the debate surrounding racism? Is it the knowledge that if we come to terms with racism we must recognise that privilege invariably comes at the expense of others? Is it the sneaking suspicion that we will have to relinquish the comforts and benefits of privilege that deter us from looking racism squarely in the eye? Is it that we would rather ignore the past and get on with the new because the past is too difficult and too uncomfortable to explore? What will we do to eradicate this legacy? How will we become the society aspired to in the preamble of our Constitution? How will we become a nation united in its diversity?

We have first to acknowledge the existence of racism, because as we all know, it remains a daily reality. We have to acknowledge and understand the residual effect of racism on a society that has only recently emerged from years of institutionalised racial oppression. We have to acknowledge that the mere existence of a Constitution, even a progressive human rights based constitution like ours, does not suddenly and miraculously eradicate racism, neither does it automatically restore dignity to the untold millions of black South Africans that sagged under the grinding burden of apartheid.

We have to understand the dynamics around giving substantive real effect to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have to understand what it is about our society that perpetuates the very thing we are trying to fight and eliminate. We have to understand and promote those behaviours and actions that contribute to a society free from racism and bigotry. In achieving this understanding, no one, no individual person, no group, no institution should be excluded from scrutiny for its contribution to or perpetuation of racism in our society.

The antidote to the scourge of racism is exposure or, to put it in clinical terms, probing, diagnosis and treatment. We all have to engage in that debate about racism and we have to do so honestly and proactively. We have to talk about it, but talking is not enough. We must unpack and understand every aspect of racism, the numerous obstacles based on race, language, culture that must be removed before we can talk about achieving equality. The debate must bring us as a nation a new awareness and understanding of racism and how it affects our society, but, most of all, the debate must provide us with remedies and ways to combat racism.

This is certainly not the last debate which we will have on this very sensitive issue. Our whole history is dominated by agendas driven on the basis of race. Our quest for democracy remains informed by a bloody history in which skin colour was the sole measure of human dignity. We should continue to revisit the issue of racism for as long as it is necessary. We would be failing the citizens of this country if we chose to close our eyes and ears to the evil that still pervades our society.

Race-based discrimination and harassment are as prevalent as the many racial stereotypes that still abound in our everyday life. Without a deeper understanding of the economic, social, political and cultural factors that impact on our lives, our analysis of racism and racial discrimination would be incomplete. All this calls for committed social enquiry. In the process, we can expect that there will be disagreements about the proposed approaches, methods and methodologies used in the investigation. There will also be differences of opinion about the level of scrutiny that should be applied.

These are issues with which social commentators are struggling. Historians, sociologists, educators, legal scholars, philosophers and management gurus all continue to grapple with the process of understanding our behaviour within this particular social context. We will not arrive at any scientific conclusion, but we will be in a better position to come to terms with our past and the impact that it has had - and continues to have - on the present.

We are only in the early stages of understanding how we can emerge from the dark past of domination. In our voyage of discovery, we will come to understand that racism is not the only ghost that hovers on the horizon. We will see that racism thrives in an environment of patriarchy, classism and inequality, and that they feed off one another. We have yet to exorcise many ghosts on our path on the road to healing and recovery. As to the particular point of this debate, one has to ask the question why there has been such a knee-jerk reaction to putting the media under public scrutiny. As the fourth estate, they are influential and powerful stakeholders in the social compact. Where lies their accountability? Surely not only in the number of newspapers that are being sold or the number of listeners that they attract? We live in a robust society. Media representatives are keen participants in the cut and thrust of comment and critique. Why then is the media balking at being called to the centre of this debate? Or is it simply safer to render judgment from the sidelines? Surely they are central to this wide-ranging investigation which is putting all our institutions under the same rigorous scrutiny?

No single right in our Constitution eclipses any other. There is no Holy Grail that protects the media - a fact clearly supported by leading media personalities in this country. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute. It must coexist with other rights described in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution. It has to live in harmony alongside, and not dominate over any other right. Let us get the facts straight: there is no witch-hunt and no clampdown on the media. Nobody is limiting anybody’s freedom of expression.

The HRC is not the bully in a school yard. Indeed, I am quiet sure that hundreds of media workers in the country welcome this inquiry. The role of the Human Rights Commission is central to the process of addressing and internalising the issues surrounding racism. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, would the Deputy Minister take a question?

HON MEMBERS: No!

The DEPUTY MINISTER: No!

Ms M SMUTS: Does she speak for the Government or the HRC? I thought the Government did not control the HRC. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Take your blinkers off!

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! She is not going to take your question.

The DEPUTY MINISTER: I need to reiterate that the functions of the HRC are clearly stated in the Constitution. Of special importance to this afternoon’s debate is the constitutional imperative that the HRC must monitor and assess the observance of human rights in the Republic.

The HRC was also given the power to investigate and report on the observance of human rights, and to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated. National legislation went further and gave the HRC the necessary tools to excavate the social terrain, and they are now using those tools.

A range of persons and institutions, including a Minister in this Government, have been subpoenaed by the Human Rights Commission. They have responded to these subpoenas in the spirit of co-operation which underpins the entire process.

We operate under very clearly defined parameters when it comes to our Chapter 9 institutions, which include the Human Rights Commission. Neither as Government nor as Parliament are we allowed to interfere in the decisions of the Human Rights Commission. Where we can exercise our power of scrutiny is when the HRC, like every other public body, is called to account to Parliament. That is the time and the place for that critical discourse.

The Human Rights Commission, like any other Chapter 9 institution, is not a law unto itself. They must perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice. But at all times they must do so subject to the Constitution and the law. This is the measure by which they should be judged. We can disagree with the Human Rights Commission about their chosen methods, but we can only condemn a process if it exceeds its legal authority - which they clearly have not done.

The debate introduced by the Opposition here today smacks of hypocrisy. We should not be satisfied simply to look fine on the outside. Our African renaissance is not a fashion statement; it is a process of renewal that will only come about if we grapple with those issues that continue to divide us and keep us apart.

I would like to conclude with the wise words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

South Africa has most of the world’s serious problems writ small. How do First World and Third World co-existing cheek by jowl relate to one another? How does affluence relate to stark poverty? How do black and white get to cohere in one community? How do those who are economically developed interact with the undeveloped or the developing? When we solve our problems, the world is going to celebrate because we will have provided others with a paradigm. It is exciting. From having been the world’s pariah, we could end up being the model.

[Applause.]

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairperson, may I address you on a point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The point of order is granted.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Chairperson, further to the earlier points of order relating to the hon De Lange, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is now a serious dispute as to what was said or not said, we having clearly heard him say that Mr Robertson is a white in drag, and Mr De Lange saying something else.

I would like to appeal to you, Chairperson, to give the hon member an opportunity to refresh his memory, and to be honest with this House, failing which we will be obliged to request that the tapes be listened to in the presence of a presiding officer tomorrow morning to determine what the exact facts are.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Thank you, hon member. Could you give the Chair and the Table an opportunity to study the Hansard, and then we will reply to that point of order.

Adv J H DE LANGE: When you ask someone something, you sit down and be quiet and listen to what is said!

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Chairperson …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Is that agreed? We will study the Hansard and reply to that point. Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairperson, we need the tapes of Hansard because we are suggesting that it is important that this matter be resolved timeously. Could those tapes be available as early as tomorrow? That is our request. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Well, all I am saying is that we will look into all possible means and we will come back to you.

Debate concluded.

CONSIDERATION OF INTERIM REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON REPORT 13 OF PUBLIC PROTECTOR

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM ON TOURISM AMENDMENT BILL

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

Mr A C NEL: Chair, before we proceed, I understood the previous point of order to insinuate that Mr De Lange had deliberately misled this House, and I think that that should be withdrawn.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, we said that the Chair would look at that and resolve the matter.

                       TOURISM AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Mr Chairperson, the Bill before the House seeks to amend the Tourism Act, Act 72 of 1993. It is a rather short and simple Bill, but its implications are very, very far- reaching indeed. In some ways, what this Bill does is that it sets a precedent which has not been established in this House since 1994.

It seeks to do two things. The first is to reduce the size of the board of SA Tourism. The second thing it does is that it seeks to remove provincial representation from the board. Presently, the board has one representative appointed by each province, and if this Bill is passed by this House and the NCOP, it will mean that the board of SA Tourism will be appointed by national Government and not by national Government in concurrence with provinces. This is a very interesting thing.

It arose as a result of lengthy discussions that I have been conducting with my counterparts in the provinces about what we should do in order to become a global player in tourism. What is it that we need to change and how should we position ourselves? One of the things that we found was that right now we have a whole range of tourism promotion institutions. People in a number of the big cities in every province all go around the world promoting tourism in their country, telling people to visit Cape Town, to visit Durban, to visit the North West, etc, as a result of which we have a multiplicity of voices in what is already a very cluttered international market.

What we have decided to do is to move towards a situation in which we would be a single voice, in which we would have a single international marketing strategy, and that strategy would be driven by SA Tourism. In order to do that we need to understand that we are competing against, not other products in South Africa, but against some of the best and most cutting- edge marketing strategies to be found in the world. Therefore, if we are to succeed, we ourselves have to be cutting-edge. We have to have the best marketing strategies and we have to make maximum use of the worldwide web, because there are more tourism websites in the worldwide web than any other single topic to be found.

Therefore, we are transforming SA Tourism. SA Tourism, as an organisation, eventually will be a lean and mean institution that will have a single purpose, that is the generic international marketing of South Africa as a tourism destination. In order for us to do that, we need to have an appropriate board. We need a board which will be selected in a manner which will represent both the private sector and Government, so that we move SA Tourism out of being simply like any other parastatal which is viewed as being part of the Government sector or the public sector.

We need to move it in that arena or that space which is between the private and the public sectors, so that we even bring the private sector, the big hotel groups, into our single marketing strategy. I must say that we have wide-ranging consensus on that and all nine MECs, certainly in my consultation, supported this Bill, the private sector supports this Bill and we ask the House for its support so that we can position ourselves as truly global players in tourism - something we deserve and something which is achievable, not in the long term but in the short term. [Applause.]

Ms C M P RAMOTSAMAI: Mr Chairperson, this Bill proposes to amend the Tourism Act, Act 72 of 1993, in order to change the composition of the SA Tourism Board. It is proposed that the maximum members be reduced from 20 to 15 and the minimum number from 15 to nine. The reason for the reduction is that current structures do not allow for the appointment of appropriate members, strategically, to drive the organisation to achieve its objectives of marketing the potential of the country.

This Bill is actually going to assist us because it will consider other matters that we will be introducing as a committee. In future we will be coming up with the registration of tour guides. This Bill is actually giving the board the power to look specifically at marketing, which is very important for the SA Tourism Board.

The provisions requiring representation by business, community and labour sectors, and provinces are removed. It is proposed that alternative arrangements be made to liaise with provincial governments. The provinces actually support this proposal, including even the Western Cape. I am not sure whether the reason we are debating this Bill today is that the MEC for tourism in the Western Cape is a member of the DP, and I think perhaps this is something that the New NP and the DP should have discussed before pushing us to discuss this Bill today.

In view of the proposed reduced membership of the board, it is also proposed that section 8(2) of the Act be amended to reduce the number of members required to request an extraordinary meeting of the board from eight to five.

Tourism can promote the wellbeing of societies and of communities at local level, as well as expand employment and business opportunities by keeping abreast of scientific and technological progress which has the capacity to make significant contributions to the future development of tourism. At the second international tourism forum held in Indonesia in September 1996 South Africa joined tourism policy-makers in resolving this.

Tourism development is aimed at raising the wellbeing of local communities, promoting mutual understanding in order to achieve peace, conserving nature and the environment, and preserving traditions, as well as social, cultural and religious values.

We further commit ourselves to tourism development in tourist destination areas that are able to maintain a balance between the interests of local people and those of tourists by promoting tolerance between tourists and local communities, which is based on the principle of equality, so that mutual understanding and respect for differences are enhanced, and so that a safe and peaceful atmosphere prevails.

Whilst this happens, it is important to balance economic, social, cultural and religious values with environmental conservation, so that sustainable development is achieved. We thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, as it stands, in order to improve the lives of many South Africans. [Applause.] Ms J A SEMPLE: Chairperson, tourism has now been recognised as a major economic growth point for South Africa. Not only can it provide jobs, particularly for women, school-leavers and relatively unskilled people, but it can also contribute to the GNP and provide foreign exchange. However, this can only happen if big-spending foreign tourists come to South Africa.

Many other countries have realised the economic potential of tourism, and we face stiff competition in our efforts to attract visitors. It is the core function of Satour to market South Africa as a world-class tourist destination, and the Bill we will pass today mainly addresses the composition of the board.

In order for the best marketing expertise available to be housed on the board, the DP supports the reduction in the size of the board and the consequent cut in expenditure. While our party is extremely averse to centralisation, and some of our provinces might feel affronted at having their representation removed from the board, it must be pointed out that in order to choose the best soccer team, one has to select the most talented players. The same applies to marketing. The Minister has been given a free hand in selecting the members of the board. Obviously it is in his interest, and in the interest of promoting tourism in South Africa as a whole, to make the best use of the talent available, and we trust that he will do so.

An issue that particularly concerns me is informing people or asking them to make nominations via the medium of the Gazette. How many of my colleagues here actually read the Gazette on a regular basis, that is, apart from the hon Douglas Gibson and, I presume, the hon Johnnie de Lange and a few other learned friends? Do members here know any of their constituents who read the Gazette on a regular basis? Our democratic Parliament prides itself on being open and accessible to the people of South Africa. We, as parliamentarians, have to find ways to make announcements, calls for nominations, etc, in a more general way so that everyone knows about them.

There are only two national newspapers, one English and one Afrikaans. [Interjections.] Yes, really, does that member not think people on the ground deserve to know? The medium of radio would be a popular choice, but which stations would we choose? I appeal to my colleagues to come up with suggestions on how we could disseminate information on this Parliament to people on the ground in the most accessible manner.

One can have the best team of marketing experts in the world, but without money their ideas cannot be implemented. Glossy colour pictures and brochures, breathtaking videos and billboards with life-size zebras so realistic that someone even tried to take them home, never mind tourism offices manned by Satour officials around the world, are all very expensive.

Never was the old adage truer: To make money you have to spend money. We are pleased that the Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, recognised its need in last week’s Budget by allocating an increase of R100 million to international tourism marketing for the next financial year. However, we would also like to see the tax of R100 on international air travel tickets per departure ploughed back into the tourism industry.

The DP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M F CASSIM: Mr Chairman, we in the IFP also support the growth of tourism. We recognise that if jobs have to be created, then the route that we have to take is indeed going to be tourism. But the question arises: Why, for example, is Australia, which is far further from Europe than we are, so much more successful in attracting tourists than we in South Africa with a better climate, with a great deal more variety in our scenery and with so many aspects to sell?

Now, the other question that would be very important is that the President of our country has indicated that South Africa is really two South Africas. There is a white South Africa and there is a black South Africa. When we take tourism we find that the concentration of the tourism business is in a segment that denies a very large number of the people in this country the opportunity to market and sell that which is important in their areas. Perhaps we have not had the people on Satour, or those who are marketing our country, make a very comprehensive map of every single aspect and attribute that we could utilise to make tourism vital in our country. Too often the picture that they have presented is of a small part or a small segment of South Africa, rather than South Africa in all its multiplicity and in all its variety. We would like to know what happens after this board has been put into place. We have put many boards into place in the past six years, but how have these boards functioned? Who is going to audit and indicate to us that, having now taken the steps that this Parliament is taking, the results are beginning to show? Over what period of time will these results be analysed to indicate that finally, when South Africa and the Government put tourism on the top of their agenda or give it priority, we now have the mechanism to ensure that tourism is generating the kinds of jobs that we want to see generated and contributing to the economy in the way in which we want to see it contributing?

What segment of the GDP will this new system allow to become part of the economy? If it begins to succeed in the way in which the Minister envisages, then suddenly we will have growth, and growth in its wake will ensure that poverty, suffering, crying and all of the other attendant evils would also be swept away. So we in the IFP have great hopes that tourism is the route to go. We were once the great flavour of the world when we transformed in 1994. Some of that magic is lost and we hope, maybe, that some of that magic can be regained.

Mrs M E OLCKERS: Chairman, on behalf of the New NP we would like to support the draft Bill before us today.

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism needs to be congratulated on the streamlining of the Satour board and also on re-emphasising to them the brief that they have, which is marketing South Africa abroad. A provincial tourism marketing board would do the rest of the marketing in the provinces and in the country. Because provinces differ environmentally, in infrastructure and capability, in how and what they can offer the tourist, it is a positive step in acknowledging the fact that the provinces can do their own thing. With this Bill the central Government and the provinces will form a streamlined and focused strategy with regard to marketing our country internationally and nationally.

We want to agree with the DP, for once. [Interjections.] We, like them, would also prefer that the advertisements for nominations be put in more widely circulating newspapers, for example two national newspapers, and not just in the Gazette, because we agree that not enough people read or can even get hold of the Gazette. We may run into the problem of people saying that this process was not transparent enough, especially seeing that the Minister alone has the power to appoint the board. I think it leaves him open to too much criticism unnecessarily. However, we trust the Minister and we trust his sincerity. We trust that this board, because it is so important for the country, will have the best marketeers appointed to it, and that there will be no tokenism. We want to wish the new board success … [Time expired.]

Mr S N SWART: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, tourism is undoubtedly one of the world’s largest industries and is one of South Africa’s fastest growing industries. The ACDP accordingly supports this Bill, and welcomes the reduction of the number of board members and the exclusion of the specific representation of the business, community and labour sectors with the concomitant cost savings.

The marketing of South Africa as a tourist destination cannot be hamstrung by an unwieldy, ineffective and costly board. It is therefore imperative that the very best expertise available be employed to competitively market South Africa internationally as the preferred destination for the sustainable economic and social empowerment of all South Africans, and to make tourism the leading economic sector in South Africa, this being the stated vision of the board.

We are further pleased that the Bill seeks to promote a sound working relationship between the board and the provinces, particularly in the light of the fact that tourism is a concurrent competence. [Time expired.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Mr Chairperson and colleagues, the democratic dispensation in this country has called for change in society and, inevitably, amendments to legislation. Such amendments are being made to ensure that legislation ties in with the Constitution. South Africans are yearning for change. There are, however, some statutes that may not be thrown out of the window in their entirety. The country’s laws, like any institution, are dynamic and not static, and take into account the pace of development; hence amendments to such pieces of legislation.

The Bill under review will assist in making the SA Tourism Board manageable and more representative. The reduction in the number of board members will ensure that the upkeep of the board is cost-effective. The amendment of the Act will regulate the convening of extraordinary board meetings, and it will also make the board representative, as those with interests in the sector will participate, although it has been indicated that the question of circulation is restricted to the Gazette. However, efforts are being made to make sure that all people with interests do join hands.

A sound relationship will be maintained between the board and the provinces engaged in tourism, as minutes of the board meetings will be forwarded to the members of the executive councils responsible for tourism. There is no way that the national department, under whose ambit the SA Tourism Board falls, may engage in issues without the knowledge of the provinces. This will ensure that there is co-operative governance as envisaged by our Constitution.

On these grounds, the UCDP fully supports the Bill.

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, the PAC supports this Tourism Amendment Bill. We believe that the amendments will actually improve tourism in this country and make it more manageable and efficient.

Tourism has vast potential for the development of our country’s and needs careful handling and administration. Initiatives of promoting tourism nationally as well as provincially should address the acute national problem of unemployment. For this to happen, we should open the door wide so that all our people, irrespective of political persuasion, should have a sense of ownership and appreciation of the fact that tourism is a national asset that should be developed for the benefit of the entire nation.

As a nation, we need to change our orientation and attitudinal behaviour towards tourists. We need to be more friendly and helpful towards them. Criminals and unfriendly people can harm our national asset, tourism, and reduce the benefits we can derive from it.

In the past tourism was a luxury reserved for white South Africans and foreign tourists, who were mostly white. This perception was unfortunate and should be transformed immediately. [Time expired.]

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Chair, the FA and the UDM support the Bill. Could I say that tourism is the one product which can bring enormous benefits to South Africa and to all South Africans? The Bill, through the new Satour board, must not consider tourism an export product only. Some areas - for instance the Kruger National Park, which is a prime tourist attraction in South Africa - are totally out of reach for most South Africans. The prices are not attractive for South Africans and in some instances the exorbitance of the prices for admission and accommodation is clearly aimed at tourists from abroad.

The irony of the matter is that the Kruger National Park is now asking South Africans to contribute towards their flood relief fund. Most of the South Africans will not be able to experience the Kruger National Park in all its beauty and splendour once their contributions have repaired the damage.

Is it not time that the authorities of these prime tourist attractions considered a dual system, such as the one followed in Zimbabwe, where Zimbabweans are subjected to a more reasonable price when a Zimbabwean ID is shown, and a price payable in US dollars is charged to tourists? South Africans cannot be excluded from enjoying the benefits and beauty of their own country.

A second consideration, I think, that the Satour board can do is to market and promote the lesser known areas of our beautiful country. Attractions such as the Garden Route, Golden Gate, Pilgrim’s Rest and the Kruger National Park are overexposed with promotion, and lesser known areas such as the Karoo are excellent examples of what more South Africa has to offer.

A person who has not experienced the thrill of the Karoo in winter and all its facets has not yet experienced South Africa. To experience the view on the roof of the world by viewing the glamour and splendour of the bright stars, to explore the semidesert areas on the back of a bakkie and to taste the water as pure as nowhere in this world, is an encounter that will remain with a tourist as long as he or she lives.

The tourism potential in South Africa is enormous and we have to promote it, but it is under threat. The growth of tourism will, however, remain a mere pipe dream if the South African Government does not address crime. Already the Department of Home Affairs of the United Kingdom, through their own market research, has made public a finding over the weekend which rates South Africa as the most murderous country in the world. This is not something that will lure tourists, and we will actually have to address this together.

We support the Bill.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, tourism is one of the key sectors in the economy which has the potential to generate job-creation and contribute significantly to the GDP on a dynamic continuum.

The SA Tourism Board is charged with the parental duty to promote and manage tourism on the local, provincial and national level. Therefore the amendments made to the Tourism Act of 1993, readdress obstacles that affected further development in the tourism industry.

The reduction of the members on the tourism board and the decision to appoint the best talent from whatever walk of life to the board obligates the members to function with competence and efficiency and to utilise resources in the economy to enforce development in the tourism industry.

The MF supports the Tourism Amendment Bill. Ms G L MAHLANGU: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, the report we have just passed before we got into this debate was about broadening consultation. [Interjections.] I am looking for your law. I do not know why we are talking about a lot of consultation when we have actually deliberated upon that.

Our problem was that when one puts notices in a newspaper, which newspaper does one choose? Will one put it in Ilanga laseNatali; or will one put it in Wamba, Motswalle wa Bana; or will one put it in the Sunday Independent? That is why we decided that to make sure that there is broadened consultation we should have the report that we have just passed. So, all the concerns that have been raised this afternoon were actually dealt with at portfolio committee level.

Not only have the people of South Africa spoken, but they have confirmed that we are on course. Indeed, the dark clouds of despair are fading away in front of our eyes. President Mbeki, on the occasion of his inauguration, said:

Because we are one another’s keepers, we surely must be haunted by the humiliating suffering which continues to afflict millions of our people. Our nights cannot be but nights of nightmares while millions of our people live in conditions of degrading poverty. Sleep cannot come easily when children get permanently disabled, both physically and mentally, because of lack of food. No night can be restful when millions have no jobs, and some are forced to beg, rob, and murder to ensure that they and their own do not perish from hunger. Our minds will continue the restless inquiry to find out how it is possible for us to have a surfeit of productive wealth in one part of our common globe and intolerable poverty elsewhere in that common globe.

The Bill we are discussing this afternoon aims, amongst other things, to address the shortage of jobs and to put tourism at its rightful place as a lead sector of the South African economy.

In 1998, South Africa hosted over 5,7 million visitors. The projected growth rate for the subsequent year was 9,1%, matching the actual growth rate and pushing the number of tourists to approximately 6,3 million. It is expected that the year 2000 growth rate will be around 11%.

In order to meet this objective, a number of issues need to be addressed. Amongst these are the need for training our labour force servicing the industry, the product development within the industry, the profile of the industry, and most importantly, the marketing of South Africa as a choice tourism destination. Satour is charged with the responsibility of this function. To compete with the world’s other major tourism destinations, it is necessary for our country to be globally competitive.

We can only do this if we set up an organisation with the correct resources and direction. Government has demonstrated confidence in the potential of this industry by pledging an increased budget for marketing. In addition, the private sector has demonstrated its confidence by its contribution to the Business Trust. This contribution from the Business Trust has resulted in the substantial increase in the marketing seen in the recently launched international marketing campaign. Never before has South Africa’s tourism been profiled at this level internationally, and we thank the Minister for that.

To carry this momentum through and effectively use the resources being committed to the marketing of South Africa, it is now necessary to address the organisation that drives this effort. The net effect of the restructuring will be a saving in board costs and a focus on deliberations and decisions that support a winning country’s marketing approach. This confirms that we are indeed a nation at work for a better life for all.

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Mr Chairperson, if there was any doubt about this House’s commitment to growing tourism, then people should see how many members are still here at a quarter past seven on a Wednesday afternoon. It is Wednesday night, in fact. [Laughter.] We truly are a nation at work.

The hon Farouk Cassim raises a very interesting question. He says that we plan to do all these things, but asks how we will measure whether we are making any progress or not. When I got this portfolio, the first thing I wanted to know was how many tourists visit the country, what tourism’s contribution is to the GDP, and those sorts of things. This country really does not have that information. This morning when I bumped into Mark Orkin, the head of Statistics SA, we spoke about discussions which he is having at present with my director-general about how Statistics SA can begin to measure the contribution of tourism to the GDP, because right now we do not really know.

In 1998 my predecessor, Mr Pallo Jordan, contracted the World Travel and Tourism Council to do a study for us. The only real numbers we have are based on that study, which showed that, in 1998, tourism contributed about 6% to the GDP, and the tourism economy contributed between 8% and 9% of the GDP. So already those figures show quite an important contribution to the GDP. The average contribution of travel and tourism to the world GDP is around 11%. So, at a minimum, that is the kind of target that we should be aiming for. I want to tell the hon Cassim that Statistics SA is now in the process of setting up the system so that we can measure accurately the contribution of tourism, and we would therefore be able to report to Parliament what progress, or lack of progress, we are making.

I enjoyed the hon Van Niekerk’s lyrical poetry about the Karoo. It speaks to me. I spent many a memorable night in the Karoo myself, and I wish we could spend more time talking about those sorts of things. It is very important for me, and for all of us who are involved in trying to do something about tourism, that we get the kind of support that we need, particularly from the provinces, for this approach that we are taking now, because it gives us a sense of confidence that we should and can move ahead boldly, and that is what we would like to do.

I would like to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, the hon Mahlangu, and all the members who have worked very hard in order to bring us to this point, and to build the kind of consensus that we have. It is a committee which I am quite certain will keep me on my toes. I must say this, because I have not had the opportunity to say it before.

The hon the Minister of Home Affairs will be interested to know that we spent all of Monday with the committee, working very hard at the Kirstenbosch Gardens. The entire committee has accepted my invitation to walk up Table Mountain on Friday. We will be very hard at work on environmental matters, and we will be talking about tourism as we amble up the mountain. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Chairperson, is there any age limit to those who will be going up the mountain? [Laughter.]

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: No, Mr Chairperson, in fact there is no age limit at all, so the hon the Minister is invited, and may I invite all members in the House. If members are prepared to be a nation at work, and to do what it takes, they should join us on Friday on the mountain, and they too will be bitten by the bug. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 19:21. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

                     THURSDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2000

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 The following papers were tabled on 22 February 2000 and referred to
 the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. They are now referred for
 information to the relevant committees as mentioned below.


 (i)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
          Communications and the Select Committee on Labour and Public
          Enterprises:


          Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
          Vote 29 - Government Communications and Information System
          [RP 139-99].


(ii)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
          Labour and the Select Committee on Labour and Public
          Enterprises:


          Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
          Vote 22 - Labour for 1998-99 [RP 146-99]. TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Trade and Industry:

 (1)    Report and Financial Statements of Khula Enterprise Finance,
     Limited for 1997-98.

 (2)    Report and Financial Statements of Khula Enterprise Finance,
     Limited for 1998-99.

 (3)    Report of the Board on Tariffs and Trade on withdrawal of
     provisions under rebate item 311.24, 311.26 and 311.28.


 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry and the
 Select Committee on Economic Affairs.

1. The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:

 Report of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism for 1998-
 99 [RP 192-99].

 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and
 Tourism and the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs.

1. The Minister of Communications:

 Report and Financial Statements of Sentech for 1997-98.

 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Communications and the Select
 Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises.

1. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry:

 (1)    Government Notice No 2419 published in the Government Gazette No
     20584 dated 5 November 1999, Extension of time in terms of the
     National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of 1998).

 (2)    Government Notice No 2450 published in the Government Gazette No
     20603 dated 12 November 1999, Exemption in terms of section 24(6)
     of the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of 1998).

 (3)    Regulation No R.1352 published in the Government Gazette No
     20606 dated 12 November 1999, Regulation requiring that a water
     use be registered made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998
     (Act No 36 of 1998).


 (4)    Government Notice No 1353 published in the Government Gazette No
     20615 dated 12 November 1999, Establishment of a pricing strategy
     for water use charges in terms of section 56(1) of the National
     Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).

 (5)    Government Notice No 1358 published in the Government Gazette No
     20619 dated 19 November 1999, Release of part of Tweefontein State
     Forest which is no longer required for forestry made in terms of
     section 50(4) of the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of
     1998).

 (6)    Government Notice No 1359 published in the Government Gazette No
     20619 dated 19 November 1999, Release of parts of State Forests
     which are no longer required for forestry made in terms of section
     50(4) of the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of 1998).

 (7)    Government Notice No 1513 published in the Government Gazette No
     20733 dated 24 December 1999, Release of parts of Grabouw State
     Forests which are no longer required for forestry made in terms of
     section 50(4) of the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of
     1998).

 (8)    Government Notice No 1514 published in the Government Gazette No
     20733 dated 24 December 1999, Release of a part of Hangklip State
     Forests which is no longer required for forestry made in terms of
     section 50(4) of the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No 84 of
     1998).


 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry and
 the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs.

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 Resolutions of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for 1999 and
 replies thereto obtained by the Department of State Expenditure -
 First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Report, 1999.

 Referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Labour on the Elimination of Child Labour Convention, dated 22 February 2000, as follows:

   The Portfolio Committee on Labour, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the International Labour Conference Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, adopted by the conference at its eighty-seventh Session, Geneva, 17 June 1999, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.

 Report to be considered.

                      FRIDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2000

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

The Speaker and the Chairperson:  

1. The following changes have been made to the membership of Committees, viz:

 Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and
 Disabled Persons:

 Discharged: Goniwe, T M.

National Assembly:

The Speaker:

1. The following changes have been made to the membership of Committees, viz:

 Agriculture and Land Affairs:

 Appointed: Mtirara, N Z.
 Discharged: Abram, S.

 Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:

 Appointed: Van Wyk, A (Alt).
 Discharged: Ramodike, M N.

 Communications:

 Appointed: Abram, S; Mndende, N (Alt).
 Discharged: Mtirara, N Z.

 orrectional Services:  
 Discharged: Goniwe, T M.

 Environmental Affairs and Tourism:

 Appointed: Goniwe, T M (Alt); Mbadi, L M.
 Discharged: Frolick, C T.

 Finance:

 Appointed: Frolick, C T (Alt); Van der Merwe, S C (Alt).

 Health:

 Appointed: Mabeta, M E (Alt); Naidoo, S.
 Discharged: De Beer, S J; Mzimela, S E.

 Home Affairs:

 Appointed: Kalako, M U; Ngcingwana, N D (Alt).

 Housing:

 Appointed: Mtirara, N Z.


 Discharged: Ramodike, M N.
 Justice and Constitutional Development:

 Appointed: Mabeta, M E; Ramodike, M N (Alt).

 Labour:  
 Appointed: Holomisa, B H (Alt); Ramodike, M N.

 Minerals and Energy:

 Appointed: De Beer, S J (Alt); Ramodike, M N.

 Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions:

 Appointed: Abrahams, T.


 Discharged: Ramodike, M N.

 Provincial and Local Government:

 Appointed: Mzimela, S E (Alt).


 Discharged: Ramodike, M N.

 Public Accounts:

 Appointed: Naidoo, S (Alt).

 Public Enterprises:

 Appointed: Mndende, O N (Alt).


 Discharge: Ramodike, M N.

 Public Service and Administration:

 Appointed: Frolick, C T (Alt); Modisenyane, L J (Alt).


 Discharged: Holomisa, B H.

 Public Works:

 Appointed:   Moonsamy, K; Ramodike, M N (Alt).


 Discharged: Kalako, M U; Mtirara, N Z.

 Rules:


 Appointed: Chauke, H P; Goniwe, T M; Maine, M S; Makunyane, T L (Alt);
 Mngomezulu, G P; Modisenyane, L J; Nel, A C; Njobe, M A A; Thabethe, E.


 Discharged: Arendse, J E; Govender, P; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K;
 Ngwane, L B; Sonjica, B P; Van den Heever, R P Z; Zuma, J G.

 Safety and Security:

 Appointed: Naidoo, S (Alt).
 Discharged: Frolick, C T.

 Trade and Industry:

 Appointed: De Beer, S J (Alt); Frolick, C T.
 Discharged: Koornhof, G W.

 Water Affairs and Forestry:

 Appointed: Naidoo, S; Ntirara, N Z.

 Welfare and Population Development:

 Appointed: Mabeta, M E (Alt).
 Discharged: Mndende, O N.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Welfare and Population Development on Central Drug Authority, dated 25 February 2000, as follows:

   The Portfolio Committee on Welfare and Population Development, having considered the request of the House to make recommendations for the appointment of additional members to the Central Drug Authority, referred to it, recommends that the Minister for Welfare and Population Development, in terms of section 2(3)(b) of the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Dependency Act, 1992 (Act No. 20 of 1992), be advised to appoint the following persons:

       Bayever, D N; Da Rocha-Silva, L; Fredericks, T J; Hoekstra, M
       C; Jardine, G F; Malaka, D W; Mathe, S V; Moleko, A S;
       Moodliar, D C; Mynhardt, D C; Parry, C D H; Rataemane, S.
   

 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Ad hoc Committee on Report 13 of Public Protector, dated 25 February 2000, as follows:

 1.     The Ad hoc Committee on Report 13 of Public Protector was
     established in terms of Rule 214 of the National Assembly, by
     decision of the Speaker, on 19 January 2000, which decision was
     ratified by the National Assembly on 21 January 2000. The
     Committee was established to consider Report 13 and to report to
     the National Assembly. The Committee was formally constituted on
     20 January.

 2.     The Committee, mindful of the fact that its terms of reference
     is to consider the report as a whole, proposes to deal with the
     report, its findings and recommendations in a comprehensive and
     holistic manner.
 3.     The Committee notes that the report deals with matters and makes
     recommendations which go beyond the terms of reference derived
     from the Resolution dated 21 August 1997, adopted by the National
     Assembly, requesting the Public Protector to investigate and
     report on the alleged irregularities with respect to the affairs
     and financial statements of the SFF Association, including, having
     due regard to the Report of the Minister of Minerals and Energy
     and to the applicable law, whether the reports of the Auditor-
     General to Parliament thereon were correct and proper. This adds
     to the complexity of the Committee's task.

 4.     In pursuance of its approach, the Committee will consider, when
     necessary, calling evidence on the findings and matters contained
     in the report and on the extent to which the recommendations
     contained in the Report have been implemented.

 5.     The Committee may further consider referring matters arising
     from the report to structures best suited to deal with them.
 6.     Mindful of the need to deal with these matters as expeditiously
     as possible, but also mindful of the scope, range and complexity
     of the matters dealt with in the Public Protector's report, the
     Committee is of the opinion that it will require a period of at
     least three calendar months, from the date of adoption of this
     Report, to complete its work, provided that the Committee may need
     to approach the House with a view to extending this period, if
     necessary.


 Report to be considered.

                      MONDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2000

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 28 February 2000 in terms
     of Joint Rule 160(4), classified the following Bill as a section
     76 Bill:
     (i)     Division of Revenue Bill [B 8 - 2000] (National Assembly -
          sec 76(1)) - (Portfolio Committee on Finance - National
          Assembly).


 (2)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 28 February 2000 in terms
     of Joint Rule 160(6), classified the following Bill as a money
     Bill:


     (i)     Appropriation Bill [B 7 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec
          77) - (Portfolio Committee on Finance - National Assembly).

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 The following changes have been made to the membership of the Rules
 Committee and its Subcommittees, viz:

 Rules Committee
 Appointed: Bakker, D M; Gaum A; Greyling C H F.
 Discharged: Schutte D P A.

 Subcommittee on Internal Arrangements
 Appointed: Kota, Z A; Maine M S; Mngomezulu G P; Ntuli, M B (Alt).
 Discharged: Goosen, A D; Moss, M I.

 Subcommittee on International Relations
 Appointed: Geldenhuys, B L; Goniwe, T M; Greyling C H F (Alt).
 Discharged: Bakker, D M; Martins, B A D.

 Subcommittee on National Assembly Budget
 Appointed: Thabethe, E; Van der Merwe, S C (Alt).
 Discharged: Moonsamy, K; Oliphant, G G; Smith, V.

 Subcommittee on Parliamentary Oversight and Accountability
 Appointed: Blaas A (Alt); Rabie, P J.
 Discharged: Schutte D P A.

 Subcommittee on Powers and Privileges of Parliament
 Appointed: Bakker, D M; Gaum A (Alt); Goniwe, T M (Alt).
 Discharged: Masutha, M T; Schutte, D P A.

 Subcommittee on Review of Assembly Rules
 Appointed: Bakker, D M; Gaum, A (Alt); Nel, A C (Alt).
 Discharged: Mokaba, P R.

 Subcommittee on Support for Assembly Members
 Appointed: Chauke, P H; Njobe M A A (Alt); Sosibo J E (Alt).
 Discharged: Gigaba, K M N; Mbulawa, B G.

                      TUESDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2000

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 Correspondence has been received from the President regarding
 communication between his Office and the World Association of
 Newspapers concerning the South African Human Rights Commission's
 hearing on racism in the media.

 The correspondence has been made available to Members.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly:

Papers:

1. The Speaker:

 (1)    The President of the Republic submitted the following letter,
     dated 24 February 2000, to the Speaker of the National Assembly,
     informing Parliament, in terms of section 201(2) of the
     Constitution, 1996, of the employment of the South African
     National Defence Force in terms of section 201(2)(c) of the
     Constitution, 1996.


     REPORT IN TERMS OF SECTION 201(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
     REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996 (ACT 108 OF 1996) ON THE EMPLOYMENT
     OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE FOR SERVICES RELATED
     TO FLOODS IN THE GAZA, MAPUTO AND SOFALA PROVINCES.


     1. This serves to inform the National Assembly that I authorised
          the employment of the South African National Defence Force
          (SANDF) personnel and equipment in the Republic of Mozambique,
          in the Gaza, Maputo and Sofala Provinces. This employment
          commenced on 12 February 2000 and ends on 25 February 2000.


          This employment was authorised in accordance with the
          provisions of section 82(4)(b)(ii) read with section
          2227(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South
          Africa, 1993 (Act No 200 of 1993), [which sections continue to
          be in force in terms of Item 24(1) of Schedule 6 to the
          Constitution of the Republic of South, 1996 (Act No 108 of
          1996)], read further with section 3(2)(a)(v) of the Defence
          Act, 1957 (Act No 44 of 1957).


     2. A request was received by the Department of Foreign Affairs
          from the Government of the Republic of Mozambique to render
          humanitarian assistance in the location and relocation of
          people trapped by the flooding, and to assist in distributing
          and delivering emergency supplies to the affected areas. In
          line with our international obligations to render such
          assistance, the deployment was authorised.

     3. The deployment consisted of 55 personnel, 3 X Oryx helicopters,
          2 X BK117 helicopters and 2 X Cessna 208 light aircraft. The
          personnel and equipment were deployed to Beira and Maputo for
          the duration of the effort. Other support aircraft which were
          used for the deployment of equipment and support personnel to
          the two locations were 2 X C130 transport aircraft.

     4. Financial implications


          4.1 Personnel allowances for a 10 day deployment for 55
              members amounts to R297 091-00.

          4.2 The total cost of 2 X BK117 helicopters, 3 X Oryx
              helicopters and 2 X Cessna 208 aircraft for 30 flying
              hours over 10 days and the C130 aircraft amounts to R2
              535 459-00. The Government of the Republic of Mozambique
              has undertaken to pay for the costs of the fuel.


     5. The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for such
          costs.

     6. I will also communicate this report to the Members of the
          National Council of Provinces, and wish to request that you
          bring the contents of this report to the notice of the
          National Assembly.

     Regards

     T M Mbeki


 (2)    Draft declaration for the Conference of Presiding Officers of
     National Parliaments at UN Headquarters from 30 August to 1
     September 2000, prepared by the Conference Preparatory Committee
     at its meeting in Geneva on 31 January and 1 February 2000


     The parliamentary vision for international cooperation at the dawn
     of the third millennium


     (1)     We, Speakers and Presiding Officers of Parliaments, are
          meeting at the United Nations in New York on the eve of the
          Millennium Assembly to pledge our commitment to international
          cooperation, with a stronger United Nations at its core. We
          resolve to ensure that our parliaments contribute more
          substantively to this cooperation by making the voice of the
          peoples heard, thereby introducing a more manifestly
          democratic dimension into international decision-making and
          cooperation. To help impart fresh momentum to the United
          Nations, parliaments must be more closely associated with its
          work so as to give real meaning to the opening words of the
          United Nations Charter: "We, the peoples of the United
          Nations".

     Main challenges at the dawn of the third millennium

     (2)     As we enter the new millennium, we must pursue together
          the ideals enshrined in the Charter and work to address the
          main challenges facing the world community: the achievement of
          international peace and security, democracy, respect for human
          rights, sustainable development and the ensuing social
          progress.

     (3)     We reaffirm the principles of the Universal Declaration on
          Democracy adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and pledge
          to work towards the establishment of a culture of democracy.
          An elected parliament that represents all components of
          society and has the requisite powers and means to express the
          will of the people by adopting legislation and by continuously
          overseeing the action of the government is indispensable for
          guaranteeing the people's rights and liberties and securing
          civil peace and harmonious development.

     (4)     Democracy is founded on the rule of law and on respect for
          human rights, which are themselves based on the precept that
          nothing must infringe upon human dignity. We reaffirm the need
          to ensure the equal rights and opportunities of men and women,
          thus promoting a genuine partnership between them in all
          spheres. We also reaffirm the need to promote a climate of
          tolerance and to safeguard diversity, pluralism and the right
          to be different, which implies protecting the rights of
          persons belonging to minorities.

     (5)     The principle according to which no one is above the law
          and all are equal before it must also hold true for relations
          between sovereign states, which are equal in terms of rights
          and whose peoples have the right to self-determination and to
          choose their political system freely and democratically.


     (6)     We reaffirm our determination to see to it that our states
          honour their commitments under the United Nations Charter.
          States must ensure that their conduct conforms to
          international law, especially human rights and international
          humanitarian law. Respect for the instruments of international
          humanitarian law is essential and we will continue to work for
          the establishment of an International Criminal Court that is
          non-discriminatory and universal.
     (7)     We reiterate our commitment to general and complete
          disarmament under effective international control, in
          particular nuclear disarmament and the elimination of weapons
          of mass destruction, including chemical and biological
          weapons, and of "smart" weapons and anti-personnel mines. We
          remain equally committed to cooperation in the fight against
          terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime.

     (8)     Peace based on solid and sincere foundations requires a
          more just world, as we firmly believe that all future action
          must seek to ensure sustainable economic and social
          development that is people-centred. We must work to create
          national and international conditions conducive to social
          development, social integration, the eradication of poverty
          and the reduction of unemployment.

     (9)     Preserving and making the best use of the environment are
          essential prerequisites for sustainable development.
          Accordingly, we must not meet our own needs at the expense of
          future generations. In conformity with the conclusions of the
          Earth Summit, the world must pay particular attention to
          water, energy and transport issues, to ways of integrating
          environmental costs and benefits into business, and to the
          impact of the state of the environment on the overall economy.

     (10) Globalisation is creating a new situation. Increased trade,
          new technology, growing foreign investment and expanding
          information-sharing are fuelling economic growth and human
          progress. However, these developments have benefited the
          developed nations more than developing countries and the
          latter are experiencing serious problems in implementing
          international trade agreements. There is a need to ensure that
          the opportunities and benefits of globalisation are shared
          more widely and that the right to development is respected.
          Here, the World Trade Organization must seek to ensure both
          free and fair trade producing long-term sustainable benefits.
     (11) In the poorest countries of the world, debt is a major
          constraint and a very real impediment to development. We urge
          the international community to seize the momentum generated by
          the transition to a new millennium to reduce substantially the
          debt of these countries and to cancel the public debt of the
          heavily indebted poor countries. These measures should be
          carried out in such a way as to avoid shifting the burden to
          other developing countries. Debtor countries must, for their
          part, introduce transparent mechanisms of control in order to
          ensure that the benefits of debt relief result in the socio-
          economic development of their peoples. We also call for
          greater efforts to reverse the decline in official development
          assistance.

     The United Nations in the twenty-first century

     (12) We reaffirm our adherence to the purposes and principles set
          out in the UN Charter and in the international instruments
          adopted since the founding of the world body. We are convinced
          that the UN is needed more than ever before and must remain
          the cornerstone of strong and effective global cooperation. We
          rededicate ourselves to strengthening the world organisation
          and urge members to provide it with the necessary human and
          financial resources.

     (13) There is a need to continue and complete the United Nations
          reform process. The reforms must be based on strict adherence
          to the principles of democracy and respect for the sovereign
          equality of all UN member States. We commit ourselves to work
          towards that end. We must also work to ensure that the United
          Nations is the primary forum for the debate on development
          assistance.

     The evolution of international relations

     (14) There has been a momentous evolution in international
          relations, which are no longer limited to traditional
          diplomacy. The development of multilateral cooperation, whose
          field of action continues to grow, has added new features to
          international relations. International cooperation henceforth
          requires different working methods and the participation of
          new actors. In particular, action to honour the commitments
          assumed in international and regional forums, which are now
          more important than ever, demands the involvement of
          parliaments, and many issues addressed by parliaments at the
          national level have an international dimension.

     (15) These new approaches are all the more necessary in the light
          of the far-reaching global changes that have occurred in
          recent years. We are witnessing a technological revolution of
          unprecedented dimensions. Extraordinary progress in
          communications makes it possible today to follow events
          instantaneously around the globe. Today's world is
          increasingly described as a global village to signify a
          smaller world and one that is dramatically more interdependent
          than ever before. Economic activities of all sorts, at home
          and abroad, by national and transnational companies,
          investment, trade and cross-border flows of capital tie the
          world's nations closer together, as does the growing
          realisation that the world's resources are finite.

     (16) The increasing complexity and globalisation of developments
          in the political, economic, social, environmental and cultural
          fields require parliaments and their members, more than ever
          before, to play their role in enabling citizens and society as
          a whole to understand and cope with the interconnections
          between globalisation and their daily lives and to translate
          their concerns into national and international policy.
          Otherwise, international cooperation and decision-making might
          eventually be seen as posing a threat to national or local
          interests and even democracy.

     (17) Globalisation and the pre-eminence of economic factors in the
          development of nations make it imperative to strengthen
          political processes and the link between citizens and their
          representatives. Under these circumstances, it is also crucial
          to reinforce the role of parliament and its members as
          intermediaries between a complex international decision-making
          process and citizens.


     The parliamentary dimension of international cooperation


     (18) We call upon all parliaments and their world organisation -
          the Inter-Parliamentary Union - to provide a parliamentary
          dimension to international cooperation. Parliament is made up
          of men and women elected by the people to represent them and
          express their aspirations. It is the organ of State that
          allows society in all its diversity to participate in the
          political process. Parliaments embody the sovereignty of the
          people and can, in all legitimacy, contribute to expressing
          the will of the State internationally.

     (19) To provide the parliamentary dimension, parliaments and their
          members must assume increased responsibility in international
          relations, play a more active role at the national, regional
          and global levels, and generally reinforce parliamentary
          diplomacy.

     (20) The parliamentary dimension must be provided by parliaments
          themselves first of all at the national level in four distinct
          but interconnected ways:


          (i) Influencing their respective countries' policy on matters
                 dealt with in the United Nations and other
                 international negotiating forums;
          (ii)     Keeping themselves informed of the progress and
                 outcome of these negotiations;
          (iii)    Deciding on ratification, where the Constitution so
                 foresees, of texts and treaties signed by governments;
                 and
          (iv)     Contributing actively to the subsequent
                 implementation process.


     (21) To achieve this objective, we undertake to review within our
          respective parliaments how best to make use of current
          parliamentary procedures so that parliament, with an active
          input by all parties and members, can make an appropriate
          contribution to governmental negotiations at the international
          level. Information-gathering should be reinforced to enable
          parliament to keep abreast of developments on international
          issues. Parliaments should also play a more proactive role in
          processes relating to the ratification of and compliance with
          international agreements. Throughout, parliament has a
          particular responsibility to engage the public in a continuous
          dialogue and facilitate its input into the decision-making
          process.

     (22) At the regional level, parliaments should make the best
          possible use of regional inter-parliamentary organisations and
          through them seek to influence the corresponding
          intergovernmental bodies. Parliaments should examine closely
          the work of such organisations in order to increase their
          efficiency and avoid duplication. They should also exchange
          experiences with a view to improving and simplifying national
          legislation.

     (23) At the international level, concurrently with the
          reinforcement of the political input of national parliaments
          into the process of inter-State cooperation, the Inter-
          Parliamentary Union should be consolidated as a world
          organisation for inter-parliamentary cooperation and for
          relaying the vision and will of its members to
          intergovernmental organisations.

     (24) Thus, we hereby solemnly confirm our support for the Inter-
          Parliamentary Union and our determination to participate in
          its work with renewed vigour, thus giving the IPU the means to
          discharge to the full the mission entrusted to it. In this
          process we also call upon the IPU to undertake such statutory
          and structural reforms as may be required to strengthen the
          organisation and its institutional links with parliaments.
     (25) By implementing this declaration, we propose to contribute
          substantively to international cooperation and to make the
          voice of the peoples heard within the United Nations, thereby
          pursuing the lofty ideals enshrined in the Charter and meeting
          the challenges facing the world community in terms of
          achieving peace, democracy, sustainable development and social
          progress.

     (26) We decide to convey this document to our parliaments, as
          appropriate, and to urge them to do everything possible to
          ensure that it is followed up in a practical and effective
          manner. We also request our governments to bring this
          declaration to the attention of the United Nations General
          Assembly for debate. Finally, we call upon the United Nations
          and the Inter-Parliamentary Union to seek ways of
          strengthening their institutional links and practical
          cooperation.

1. The Minister of Finance:

 The Treasury Memorandum on changes in the form of the Estimate of
 Expenditure for 2000-2001.

 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance and the Standing
 Committee on Public Accounts, and


 (a)    the committee must confer in terms of Rule 303(3)(a), and

 (b)    the Portfolio Committee on Finance to report.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 9 February 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the
 General Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of the National
 Government for the financial year 1997-98 [RP 96-99], reports as
 follows:


 A.     On 1 December 1999, the Committee heard evidence from the
     outgoing Auditor-General, Mr H E Kluever, as well as from the
     recently appointed Acting Director-General of State Expenditure,
     Ms M Ramos, on a number of aspects relating to financial
     management in the public sector.


     1. The Committee noted Mr Kluever's concerns regarding the
          following:


          (1) Inadequate cash-flow, invoice and debtor management at a
              large number of departments.

          (2) Lack of appropriate measurable objectives and performance
              indicators in most departments, resulting in inadequate
              evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of service
              and product delivery.

          (3) Inadequate use of management information systems and/or
              unavailability of proper management information.

          (4) The limited effectiveness of internal control systems, in
              particular internal audit functions, at most departments.

          (5) The poor standard of financial statements of several
              departments, at provincial and local level.

          (6) The daunting challenge facing individual departments, and
              the Departments of Finance and of State Expenditure as
              project managers, with regard to the implementation of
              the Public Finance Management Act on 1 April 2000.


     2. However, the Committee also noted Ms Ramos's evidence that -


          (1) a number of recent changes have created the foundations
              for long-term financial management budgeting and fiscal
              management planning;

          (2) budget process reforms have been significant, and that
              improvements in intergovernmental budgeting have been
              effected;

          (3) attempts are continuing to match policy priorities with
              expenditure priorities;

          (4) interventions in terms of section 100 of the Constitution
              have resulted in improved financial management in the
              provinces concerned;

          (5) fiscal discipline has improved, and that it forms the
              cornerstone of the strategy of the Finance Ministry; and

          (6) revenue and debt management have also improved.


 B.     Previous recommendations of Public Accounts Committee


     1. Having heard evidence from both witnesses, the Committee set
          out to determine to what extent recommendations contained in
          the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts,
          dated 3 March 1999, needed to be followed up. In that Third
          Report, that Committee recommended, inter alia, that -


          (1) target dates for the completion of each stage with
              measurable outputs and outcomes in respect of each of the
              programmes initiated by the Departments of State
              Expenditure and of Finance to improve financial
              management be provided to the Committee;

          (2) thereafter, the Departments of State Expenditure and of
              Finance report to the Committee on a quarterly basis on
              the progress made with the successful implementation of
              the various programmes;

          (3) legislation relating to local government financial
              management be revised urgently with a view to improving
              deficient control and accountability measures;
          (4) the Cabinet initiate an awareness programme at all levels
              of government that would ensure financial management
              becoming a priority in all public sector bodies, and that
              sufficient capacity will be developed in these bodies to
              carry out their functions;

          (5) an oversight committee be established, at the highest
              level of the Department of State Expenditure, to monitor
              and promote the efficient operation of all audit
              committees in national and provincial government
              departments;

          (6) the maintenance of financial control systems be made a key
              performance indicator of all line-function managers in
              the public sector; and

          (7) a Public Finance Management Act implementation plan, which
              includes the drafting of the norms and standards required
              by the Constitution, be sufficiently comprehensive and
              structured to ensure success.


     2. Observations


          (1) The Committee noted that quarterly reports required by it
              regarding progress made with the various programmes
              referred to in paragraph B.1.(1) above have not been
              provided, nor information on target dates and other
              detail in respect of each of the initiatives.

          (2) The Committee noted that no legislation relating to local
              government financial management has been tabled in
              Parliament since the adoption of the Third Report.

          (3) The Committee noted that a monitoring function for
              internal audit within the wider public sector had been
              established at the Office of the Accountant-General. It
              is accepted that the Committee would be informed of the
              findings of this monitoring unit.

          (4) The Committee noted that the Director-General of the
              Department of Public Service and Administration had
              issued a directive to all accounting officers at national
              and provincial government level on 16 August 1999,
              requiring "all heads of department [to] ensure that the
              maintenance of financial control systems, where
              applicable, is included as a key performance area in job
              descriptions, performance management systems ... and
              performance agreements ..." in respect of senior
              management and staff responsible for the administration
              or management of financial resources. The Committee has
              not been informed of any other Cabinet initiatives, as
              envisaged by the recommendation in paragraph B.1.(4)
              above.

          (5) The Committee noted with concern that the Department of
              State Expenditure had not yet provided the implementation
              plan required in paragraph B.1.(7) above, especially
              since the implementation of the Public Finance Management
              Act is to take place with effect from 1 April 2000.
              However, the Committee was provided with a plan on 20
              January 2000, which outlined the Department's
              prioritisation of the Act's provisions and the various
              stages of implementation. The Acting Director-General of
              State Expenditure undertook to follow this up with a
              detailed implementation plan, reportedly addressing
              immediate as well as medium- and long-term implementation
              plans, including various training and capacity-building
              initiatives.


     3. Closing remarks


          The Committee welcomes the assurance by the Acting Director-
          General of State Expenditure that in future the Treasury will
          be playing a more proactive role in assisting departments with
          regard to financial management problems, and that it will be
          ensuring that there is compliance with the norms and standards
          set by the Public Finance Management Act. The Committee is
          also looking forward to a closer working relationship between
          itself and the Treasury.

          Given the changes that public sector management will be faced
          with in the context of not only the impact of the Public
          Finance Management Act, but also the impact of the new Public
          Service Management Framework that came into operation on 1
          July 1999, the Committee has resolved to closely monitor
          progress made and the impact of the implementation on
          financial management in all spheres of the public sector.


 The Committee recommends accordingly.

 Report to be considered.

1. Second Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 10 February 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report
 of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of Vote 32 - South African
 Revenue Service for the period 1 April 1997 to 30 September 1997 [RP203-
 98], referred to it, reports as follows:


     Unauthorised expenditure: Listed - R6 423 288

     1. Non-compliance with virement - R6 357 710


          During the audit it was determined that certain payments in
          Program 2 - Collections, had been misallocated in the
          financial system. When these errors were corrected, it became
          clear that the budget for a subdivision in the program was
          exceeded by R6 357 710. This over-expenditure is regarded as
          unauthorised, as the Accounting Officer did not grant prior
          virement approval for savings in other subdivisions to be
          utilised.

          The failure by the Accounting Officer to take remedial action
          can be attributed to incorrect management information due to
          the misallocations.
          The Committee wishes to express its serious concern about the
          poor quality of the management information on which the
          Accounting Officer based his decision, as well as the lack of
          proper internal control procedures to detect errors.

          As the contravention was of a technical nature and the budget
          for the total programme was not exceeded, the Committee
          recommends that the transgression be validated by Parliament.


     2. Live Video Conference - R65 578


          The former Deputy Minister of Finance instructed the
          Department, on 31 July 1997, to arrange a live video
          conference for 5 August 1997. The purpose of the conference
          was to inform staff in the Department of the implications of
          the pending administrative autonomy and the impact thereof on
          their careers in the Department. Draft legislation relating to
          the autonomy of the Department was to be discussed in
          Parliament during the afternoon of 5 August 1997.

          The Department did not invite tenders according to the normal
          procurement procedures due to the limited time available,
          although telephonic quotations were requested from seven
          companies. According to the Department, the company appointed
          was the only organisation that could host the live video
          conference at five different venues throughout the country.

          The Department did contact the Office of the State Tender
          Board prior to the appointment, but reportedly was not
          prepared to forward a submission for consideration.

          The Committee is dismayed at the disregard for tender
          regulations. The Tender Board has structures in place to
          consider properly motivated cases, to an unlimited amount, at
          short notice.

          The fact that senior members of the Executive in the
          Department knowingly and deliberately bypassed proper channels
          is unacceptable and sets a bad example to junior officials.
          The fact that the Department has thereby elected to place the
          onus on Parliament to validate this transaction is further
          cause for grave concern.

          As the services were rendered and the State suffered no loss,
          the Committee nevertheless recommends that the amount be
          authorised by Parliament.


 The Committee recommends accordingly.

 Report to be considered.

1. Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 10 February 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report
 of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 24 - Public
 Enterprises for the year ended 31 March 1998 [RP 195-98], referred to
 it, reports as follows:


     Unauthorised expenditure: R350 000

     A consultant had been engaged since 1994 to advise Aventura
     Limited on its restructuring. Although the Minister for Public
     Enterprises was informed about the tender process for the
     appointment of these advisers, no written agreement between the
     consultant and the Ministry for Public Enterprises had been
     entered into.


     According to an affirmation by the former Minister for Public
     Enterprises, the agreement with the said advisor was purely on a
     verbal basis, and the amount of R350 000 had been agreed upon as
     the final payment to the consultant for services rendered, after
     which the verbal agreement was terminated.

     The Committee wishes to express its dissatisfaction at the
     Department's and the Minister's disregard for State Tender Board
     directives. It is unacceptable that rules and regulations are
     contravened. Due to the gravity of the transgression, the
     Committee is unable to recommend authorisation of this amount,
     unless the Department or the former Minister provides, within one
     month, compelling reasons as to why it should be authorised.


 The Committee recommends accordingly.

 Report to be considered.

1. Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 10 February 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report
 of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 16 - Home
 Affairs and the Financial Statements of the Government Printing Works
 for the year ended 31 March 1998 [RP 187-98], referred to it, reports
 as follows:


     Unauthorised expenditure: R1 600 000

     Unauthorised expenditure of R1,6 million was incurred for three
     months, from January to March 1998, before the relevant contract,
     for providing accommodation to illegal immigrants, was renewed.
     The Office of the State Tender Board only granted approval for the
     extension of the contract for the period 1 April 1998 to 30 June
     1998, and expenditure incurred for the three months mentioned
     remained unauthorised, even after appeal by the Department.

     The Committee took note of the various efforts by the Department
     to obtain timely approval, but wishes to express its
     dissatisfaction at the Department's disregard for State Tender
     Board directives. It is unacceptable that rules and regulations
     are contravened, even in cases where the projects achieve a
     desirable objective.

     The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer take the
     necessary steps to limit the occurrence of transactions where
     approval is required and to prevent the incidence of unauthorised
     expenditure.

     Notwithstanding the above, the Committee recommends that the
     amount of R1 600 000 be authorised by Parliament, as no
     misappropriations have been revealed.


 The Committee recommends accordingly.

 Report to be considered.

                       WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2000

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 Reports of the Auditor-General on the -

 (1)    Financial Statements of Vote 25 - Public Enterprises for 1998-99
     [RP 149-99];

 (2)    Financial Statements of Vote 10 - Correctional Services for 1998-
     99 [RP 133-99];

 (3)    Financial Statements of Vote 2 - Deputy President and the
     National Youth Commission for 1998-99 [RP 127-99];

 (4)    Financial Statements of Vote 27 - Public Service Commission for
     1998-99 [RP 151-99];

 (5)    Financial Statements of Vote 7 - Central Statistical Service for
     1998-99 [RP 157-99];

 (6)    Financial Statements of Vote 8 - Communications for 1998-99 [RP
     131-99];

 (7)    Financial Statements of Vote 13 - Environmental Affairs and
     Tourism for 1998-99 [RP 136-99];

 (8)    Financial Statements of Vote 18 - Housing for 1998-99 [RP 142-
     99];

 (9)    Financial Statements of Vote 20 - Independent Complaints
     Directorate for 1998-99 [RP 144-99];

 (10)Financial Statements of Vote 32 - Sport and Recreation for 1998-99
     [RP 155-99].
 To be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

 (1)    Reports of the South African Law Commission on the -


     (a)     Recognition of Class Actions and Public Interest Actions
          in South African Law, Project 88 [RP 181-99];

     (b)     Euthanasia and Artificial Preservation of Life, Project 86
          [RP 186-99].


 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional
 Development and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional
 Affairs.


 (2)    Report of the South African Law Commission on the Interception
     and Monitoring Prohibition Act, 1992 (Act No 127 of 1992), Project
     105 [RP 203-99].


 Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional
 Development, the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security and the
 Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs.