THURSDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2000
                                ____

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:02.

The 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.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr M J MAHLANGU: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 sunset tomorrow marks the start of the Jewish New Year, heralding in the year 5761 on the Hebrew calendar;

(2) recognises that this is one of the most solemn festivals in the Jewish religion; and

(3) wishes all of the Jewish community Shana Tova, a happy, prosperous and peaceful year and well over the fast.

[Applause.]

Mr D K MALULEKE: 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 and appreciates the Democratic Alliance’s ``Put the People First’’ campaign in which the Leader of the Official Opposition, Mr Tony Leon, travels through the country to meet with the people and to experience first-hand the concerns and predicaments of all the people of South Africa … [Interjections.] (2) notes that the ANC-SACP-Cosatu tripartite alliance partners are more concerned with their ideological mind games and jobs and positions for themselves than having concern for the needs of the people;

(3) expresses concern that the elected representatives of the tripartite alliance negated their election promises, namely a better life for all'' andjobs for all’’, and instead only delivered jobs for a select few and a better life for a privileged few …

[Interjections.]

(4) urges Mr Leon to continue with the ``Put the People First’’ campaign and thereby give fresh impetus to the idea of one South Africa for all its people.

[Interjections.]

Inkosi M W HLENGWA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House - (1) notes that -

   (a)  a very successful celebration of Heritage Day took place at
       KwaDukuza in the Kingdom of KwaZulu-Natal on 24 September 2000;

   (b)  His Majesty, the King of the Zulus, in his address to his
       nation, emphasised his dissatisfaction with the silence of the
       President of the Republic of South Africa and reiterated the
       fact that the position of His Majesty is exactly as it was when
       His Majesty articulated the gravity of this situation in the
       public meeting of the Amakhosi on 15 January 2000 at Mangosuthu
       Technikon Stadium;

   (c)  the great concern expressed by His Majesty the King that he was
       not consulted about the municipal demarcation process which
       infringed upon His Majesty's territorial integrity and the grave
       consequences thereof if this matter is not resolved; and

   (d)  His Majesty the King recommitted his nation to peaceful
       negotiations to settle the demarcation problems ... [Time expired.]

Mr J F VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 new tobacco regulations banning smoking in public places will come into operation tomorrow;

(2) believes that this impressive move is a clear indication that the ANC- led Government wants to ensure that we live in a healthy environment;

(3) welcomes the implementation of these new regulations by the Department of Health; and

(4) calls on the people to uphold these new regulations.

[Applause.] Mr D M BAKKER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move:

That the House -

(1) notes the stark reality of rising unemployment in South Africa and that -

   (a)  in the past year, 149 000 jobs were lost in the formal sector of
       the economy; and

   (b)  at this rate, another 408 people, more than all the members in
       this House, will today face the predicament of being without an
       income and will have to face the bleak prospect of finding
       another livelihood; and

(2) calls on -

   (a)  the ANC Government to address this problem with the gravity it
       deserves; and

   (b)  its Cosatu alliance partner to start behaving in a responsible
       manner, because South Africa simply cannot afford to have a
       labour union that has no regard for the unemployed people in
       South Africa.

Chief N Z MTIRARA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes that it is a matter of grave concern that the President has unilaterally postponed the long-awaited meeting with traditional leaders, thus exacerbating the confusion created by his Government when it proceeded to complete municipal demarcations without consulting the traditional leaders on boundaries affecting their areas of jurisdiction;

(2) registers its rejection of a tendency by the President to treat the traditional leaders with contempt, and sees this as a pattern that is intended to marginalise the traditional authorities;

(3) views with perturbation the delay by the Government in announcing the date of the elections, which appears to be a closely guarded secret to which only the ruling party is privy; and

(4) proposes that elections be shifted to a later date to avoid the disruption of the examinations because, if elections are held in November, teachers who usually officiate in the elections will be busy with examinations.

Ms D M MOROBI: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 special agents from the Kimberley Organised Crime Investigation Unit, the SANDF and the National Prosecuting Authority’s Kimberley office have smashed a massive arms smuggling ring operating at an SANDF ammunition depot;

(2) commends all those involved in the arrests for their hard work; and

(3) calls upon the SANDF to maintain strict control over its arms inventories in keeping with the proposed new Firearms Control Bill.

[Applause.]

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

That the House -

(1) notes that, in terms of the law, any person is compelled to make a statement to the police and to furnish the required information under oath;

(2) recognises that the Ministers of Safety and Security and for Justice and Constitutional Development have failed to provide the necessary information that they claim they have to arrest the Cape Town bombers;

(3) notes that it is nearly two weeks since they made such claims;

(4) calls on the attorney-general to subpoena both Ministers to provide the information;

(5) is of the opinion that, should they refuse, they must both be arrested for misleading the public; and

(6) otherwise requests the Ministers to confirm or deny whether they have furnished the information or not.

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die FA sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) die verdere beheermaatreëls wat ingestel is om die uitbraak van bek- en-klouseer in KwaZulu-Natal hok te slaan, steun;

(2) kennis neem dat die uitgebreide maatreëls en die slag van duisende diere groot ontwrigting en finansiële verliese vir die landbousektor inhou;

(3) van mening is dat die Regering die persone wat finansieel deur die maatreëls benadeel word vir hulle verliese sal moet vergoed; en

(4) die Departement van Landbou versoek om so spoedig moontlik die basis en omvang van vergoeding aan persone en instansies wat verliese gely het, aan te kondig. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the FA:

That the House -

(1) supports the further control measures implemented to contain the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in KwaZulu-Natal;

(2) notes that the extensive measures and the slaughter of thousands of animals entail major disruption and financial loss for the agricultural sector;

(3) is of the opinion that the Government will have to compensate those persons on whom these measures have had a financially detrimental effect for their losses; and

(4) requests the Department of Agriculture to announce as soon as possible the basis and extent of compensation to persons and institutions that have suffered losses.]

Mev P W CUPIDO: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die DP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem dat -

   (a)  die hulplyn vir bejaardes, genaamd HEAL, aan die einde van
       September 2000 gestaak word as gevolg van 'n tekort aan fondse;

   (b)  die Minister bevestig het dat die SA Nasionale Raad vir
       Bejaardes R460 000 aangevra het om die hulplyn oop te hou; en
   (c)  die Minister weier om 'n opdrag te gee dat die departement
       fondse beskikbaar stel;

(2) die Regering versoek om onmiddellik van die Lotto se opbrengs wat bedoel is vir welsyn beskikbaar te stel om hierdie noodsaaklike hulplyn oop te hou; en

 3) kennis neem dat, in die lig van die voortdurende mishandeling van
    bejaardes, die DP eis dat hierdie aangeleentheid as 'n saak van
    dringendheid gehanteer word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mrs P W Cupido: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the helpline for the elderly, called HEAL, will be discontinued
       at the end of September 2000 due to a lack of funds;

   (b)  the Minister has confirmed that the SA National Council of the
       Aged has requested R460 000 to keep the helpline open; and

   (c)  the Minister refuses to instruct the department to make funds
       available;

(2) requests the Government immediately to make available some of the proceeds of the Lotto, which are intended for welfare, in order to keep this essential helpline open; and

(3) notes that, in the light of the continued abuse of the elderly, the DP insists that this issue be dealt with as a matter of urgency.]

Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the world is witnessing the phenomenon of inflexibility in the
       supply of crude oil, leading to record high prices; and

   (b)  oil is a finite resource which will run out as a result of
       extensive exploitation; and

(2) moves that alternative sources of energy be investigated by our Government with particular emphasis on solar energy with which we as a country are abundantly blessed.

Mr S T BELOT: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 -

   (a)  an agreement for co-operation between Cape Town, St Petersburg
       and Moscow was signed yesterday; and

   (b)  the main focus of this agreement is in the field of health;

(2) believes that agreements and co-operation of this nature enhance people-to-people solidarity across the globe; and

(3) welcomes such co-operation and hopes that these cities will learn from one another in developing strategies to improve health standards of the people.

[Applause.]

Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  with grave concern the one-sided reports that are surfacing from
       some members of the Presidential Aids Advisory Panel, the latest
       being that Aids dissidents are questioning the evidence that
       Aids is even contagious or sexually transmitted; and

   (b)  that these one-sided reports will be countered by reports from
       others on the Presidential Aids Advisory Panel, and that the
       final report from this panel will undoubtedly end in a stalemate
       because of the perplexing composition of this panel; and

(2) expresses its concern that the Aids dissidents appear to have the ear of the President and the Minister of Health, which results in confusing and mixed signals being sent to the people of South Africa and which is counterproductive in our fight against Aids.

Prof L M MBADI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes with dismay the British government website warning potential tourists to South Africa of the high level of crime;

(2) takes special note of the claim on the website that South Africa has the highest number of recorded rapes in the world;

(3) recognises the huge damage that this type of negative publicity causes to our tourism industry;

(4) nonetheless, acknowledges that crime is a daily reality in South Africa that must be addressed by Government as a matter of extreme urgency; and

(5) urges Government, in the light of the job-creating potential of tourism, to do everything in its power to ensure the safety and security of all tourists visiting our country.

Mr H P CHAUKE: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 University of Stellenbosch is awarding an honorary doctorate to Dr Beyers Naudé;

(2) regards this as a tribute to the role played by Dr Naudé for the liberation of the oppressed people in South Africa; and

(3) congratulates Dr Naudé on this award from the University of Stellenbosch.

[Applause.]

Mr J T LOUW: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 -

   (a)  three men were crushed to death when the truck they were
       travelling in hit the top of the Woodstock bridge on the N1 in
       Cape Town on Wednesday evening; and
   (b)  this is not the first incident on that road;

(2) expresses its condolences to the families of the deceased; and

(3) calls on the local authorities and engineers to look at this problem.

[Applause.]

Ms R TALJAARD: 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 -

   (a)  the link between effective anticorruption strategies, investment
       and trade; and

   (b)  findings by the World Bank and the IMF that per capita income
       can be doubled by an effective legal system and an active
       anticorruption strategy; and

(2) calls on the Government to prioritise a more active anticorruption strategy by -

   (a)  giving serious attention to a DP Private Members' Legislative
       Proposal to amend the existing Corruption Act;

   (b)  signing the Convention on the Prevention of Corrupt Business
       Transactions; and

   (c)  giving credence to the Government's commitments made at the
       National Anticorruption Conference held in Cape Town in 1998 to
       overhaul the anticorruption legislative regime in South Africa.

Mr A G LYLE: Madam Speaker, I hereby 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 -

   (a)  the ferry Express Samina ran into a rocky islet off the holiday
       island of Paros and sank in gale force conditions late on
       Tuesday; and

   (b)  62 people lost their lives in Greece's worst maritime disaster;

(2) expresses its sincere condolences to the families of the deceased; and

(3) wishes those injured a speedy recovery.

[Applause.]

                     CONGRATULATIONS TO SPEAKER

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House - (1) notes that our Speaker, Dr Frene Ginwala, has been honoured in India with the Priyadarshni Academy Global 2000 Award for promoting human rights and democratic values;

(2) further notes that tonight she will receive the Woman of the Year award bestowed by the University of Pretoria;

(3) recognises the invaluable contribution that the Speaker has made to the building of democracy and the transformation of Parliament; and

(4) congratulates Dr Ginwala on being awarded these honours which bestow prestige on the House, on Parliament and on the South African nation.

[Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Are there any objections? [Laughter.]

Agreed to.

The SPEAKER: I express my sincere appreciation to the House and its members.

               RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONFERENCE ON RACISM

                      (Subject for Discussion)

Ms D P S JANA: Madam Speaker, His Excellency Deputy President Zuma and hon members, a very hearty word of congratulations to the Human Rights Commission, especially to Dr Barney Pityana, on successfully convening a National Conference on Racism at the request of our President Mbeki. Not unexpectedly, this conference aroused a storm of criticism against both President Mbeki and Dr Pityana.

It is said that President Mbeki has shifted the national focus from reconciliation to racism, that the enormous resources for the conference should rather have been directed to the poor, and that the debate on racism is fuelling conflict instead of promoting peace. To say the least, such criticisms are contemptible. Racism itself is anathema to transformation. Unity and reconciliation cannot even begin in an environment of racism.

In fact, racism is the cause of conflicts, wars, genocides and tensions throughout the world. The policy of racism has inflicted lasting inequalities, reducing masses of black people to abject poverty. Therefore, in order to address poverty seriously, racism has to be eliminated first. This racism is captured in the United Nations’ declaration of apartheid as a crime against humanity, and in the definition of racism in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as:

… any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Racism is not simply an act of prejudice, as some would like us to believe. Every so often we hear, We do not dislike blacks,''and even,Blacks are our best friends.’’ Racism does not only involve personal attitudes, beliefs and conscious intent. Racism is implanted in social mores, cultural practices, laws, customs and the way institutions operate. Racism can also materialise from seemingly neutral practices. There can be no doubt that in a historically uneven environment like ours, where there are gross inequities, arising from racial discrimination, any race-neutral policy will predictably have a discriminatory effect. Racism is, in fact, the principal axis for inequalities in all spheres of life in South African society.

Yet there are those that protest that they do not have a problem with race and, because they do not have a problem with race, race does not exist, and if it does exist, then constitutional guarantees, antiracist legislation and corrective action can easily eliminate it. Therefore racism is not a problem. Experiences such as those in North America, Brazil and Australia have proved otherwise, that despite these laws, racism continues to be a problem. There is racism in our schools, courts, workplaces, the Police Service, Defence Force, our homes, the media and everywhere in our society.

Racism is a problem, and it will continue to be a problem for as long as there is disproportionate distribution of resources between black and white; for as long as blacks are dependent on whites for employment, accommodation, business and consumer credit, recreation and general subsistence; for as long as life chances such as housing, education and medical care are determined by racial markers; and for as long as there is a causal connection between privilege and poverty.

This conference afforded us an opportunity to engage in dialogue, to express our experiences of racism, to analyse the nature of racism, to examine the reasons for it and share common perspectives on how to combat racism in order to build a nonracial, united and reconciled society and, in so doing, promote wellbeing for all South Africans and establish peace and stability in our country.

President Mbeki, in his address at the opening of the conference, referred to white fears and black expectations. His reference to white fears indeed stirred up a hornet’s nest. Does this fear translate into a fear of the unknown, a commonly-held opinion which inevitably leads to distrust and often hatred? Or does it stem from ignorance, which breeds irrational myths, weird notions and unfounded perceptions in respect of diversities?

Here I would like to relate a true account of a conversation between my daughter Tina, who was then six years old, and her cousin Narissa, who was four years old. Both were watching a dance competition on television. Tina asked Narissa which dancers she liked. Narissa replied that she only liked the white ones. Tina then said to Narissa:

You are a racist. How can you like only whites, because whites are racist. They are responsible for apartheid and have done all the horrible things to black people. They have even sent my father to jail.

Narissa then replied:

Well, Tina, I did not know that, but now that I do know, I like the black ones and I hate the white ones.

Tina quickly responded:

But Narissa, not all whites are bad. There are some good whites like Uncle George Bizos.

Narissa then announced:

Well, I do not know which ones are good and which ones are bad, so I would rather hate them all.

A much more profound fear is one that springs from the justification by the oppressor to dominate the oppressed - that blacks are inferior. A more tangible fear is the fear of recrimination, recrimination for fostering pain and suffering. But the real fear is the fear of losing power, privilege, prestige and wealth, and to forego advantages acquired as a result of racist policies. It is this fear that is germane to the obstinate denial that racism is a problem in our country.

The President also referred to black expectations. Primarily these expectations are of the total and immediate transformation of society and the restoration of human rights. As is the case in many countries, land here, too, is a central issue. Land is the most important productive source for employment, accommodation, and subsistence. Because black people remain landless, they continue to depend on whites. Redistribution of land must take place soon. This is the great expectation. This is the great black expectation.

This conference revealed that the question of racism in South Africa is indeed very complex. Based on its recommendations, it is necessary to engage in a nationwide debate; to involve leading scholars on the subject; to sustain critique in as many disciplines as possible; to undertake a forensic audit of the way racism impacts within every sector and unit of our society; and to introduce programmes to co-exist, which means learning to respect and accept diversity as equals.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, can you take your seat, please.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, may I raise a point of order?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Point of order granted.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, we are discussing a very important subject, the subject of racism in our society, and yet members from the other side are involved in conversations. They are not even listening to the debate. [Interjections.] Could you please call them to order, Comrade Chair. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Hon Sheila, I am calling for order. Pay attention to the Chair. Can I remind all hon members that, really, this is an important debate. Can we give it the attention that it deserves and listen to the debate from speaker to speaker. I would appreciate it if we could conduct ourselves in that manner. You may continue, hon member.

Ms D P S JANA: Co-existence programmes must be introduced at all levels of learning institutions, at all levels of government and, in fact, in all structures of society. Ultimately, democracy is about coexistence.

The findings must be discussed and debated in all relevant fora, including Parliament, so that they can influence policies. The Human Rights Commission must be adequately resourced and empowered to monitor the evaluation mechanisms so as to ensure the systematic elimination of racism stage by stage. The problem of racism must remain on the national agenda for as long as is necessary, and racism must stay on the international agenda, because it is a historically structured form of behaviour.

Racism can be traced to the engineering of imperialists and colonialists, which resulted in the devaluing of the non-European identity, beginning with slavery and the pillaging of our continent, and followed by military invasions and conquests.

We need to collaboratively prepare for the Third United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held in South Africa next year. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr W J SEREMANE: Chairperson, hon Deputy Speaker, hon members, despite the howling, indeed somebody rose on a point of order and said that this is a very serious topic. I would gladly agree with that person, and I am surprised that the benches are so empty on that side.

Let me reiterate that the fact that South Africa has gone through a devastating history of conquest, manifesting itself in colonialism, oppression and downright fascist and racist apartheid, cannot be ignored or denied by even the simplest of the citizens. Where the nefarious devastation of apartheid is not known, such ignorance serves to confirm the depth of social engineering or indoctrination that held sway over the minds of a section of this diverse South African population.

Racism is unfortunately currently on the agenda of apartheid political messiahs, just as ``swart gevaar’’ was during the heyday of preliberation politicians. Racism seems to be the nearest and easiest tool to use for the legendary age-old Gagool’s witch-hunt of King Solomon’s Mines.

What seems to be missing in the antiracism crusade is the obverse side of the evil coin of racism. I maintain that racism is the twin brother or twin sister of tribalism, or nicely put, ethnicity. Tribalism is the obverse side of racism. Racism takes root spontaneously and rapidly on the very false notions of tribe or ethnicity. Those who are negatively obsessed with racism are so because of the nurturing that they have had in ethnicity or, bluntly put, tribalism. It is superfluous to attempt to debate the meaning of tribalism and ethnicity.

Tribes, or ethnic entities, have the fallacious and myopic notion that they or theirs are superior in themselves. The tribes take unkindly to outsiders, whom they call boys or girls, or the unitiated or uncircumcised, criticising or questioning them. Critics are seen as witches to be burnt on some tribal or national bonfire. One should conform or be damned as the enemy of the people, or of liberation, and be ready for the pyre, if one criticises.

It is not strange that Africa - South Africa is no exception - finds it very easy to shout, ``Wolf, wolf! Racist, racist!’’ when things seem to be tough - that is socially, politically and especially economically. Blame failures on racism! Blame failures on reactionary, antirevolutionary forces! Blame witchcraft for all your ills and failures.

African presidents have a tendency to most often size up the situation and decide their line of action and vision extraordinary. Amongst these, the African leaders will conveniently proclaim national unity and denounce tribalism, which is correct, but they soon discover that manipulating tribal affiliations and invoking racist paranoia is essential to attaining more power and preserving that selfsame power. The appeal to the base sentiments of racism and tribalism is very attractive to leaders or a people with grandiose dreams veering closely to political mirages. The colonialists played their tune on the racist tribal harp and came up with the divide-and-rule strategy. This corrosive threat seemed to be sustained throughout the phases of South African bigotry, up to the present day of hunt-for-racists-and-blacks- reactionaries. It is, indeed, very true that the best authority one can ever hope to become is that of being an authority on one’s own experiences and sufferings.

Without being petty and personalising gigantic national issues, I have seen brutality in respect of apartheid racism and tribalism. To this day, in our own country, one still experiences bigots spewing racial hatred and tribalism from all sides of our demographic spectrum. Stereotyping is the benchmark of bigotry with the embattled white and black groups, both led by some self-appointed demagogue wishing to fulfil egocentric goals draped in dubious national or continental garb and rhetoric.

In the days of apartheid, whites were inclined to equate white'' with right’’ and ``might’’. Today, it seems, blacks believe that all blacks formerly oppressed are angels and could not be accused of racism, let alone tribalism. Of course, those notions are anything but true. [Interjections.] Racism is not a monopoly of any one section of our country, be it white or black, nor is tribalism the character of blacks only. [Interjections.]

I know what it means to be branded a kaffir or a Bantu. I also know what it means to be hounded at school, on the playgrounds, at worship and in the neighbourhood as Lekwerekwere, isilwani soMtswana and to be subjected to all the negative concomitant stereotypes and fallacious and derogatory epithets and treatments.

Ours is a deeply hurt and scarred society that yearns for a very deep healing process. The wound has to be treated, and that is good. The festering boils need to be opened and treated and, thus, healed. Yes, this is painful, but if it is meant to heal, it is acceptable. Adding salt to the wounds raked up for vindictive motives is no cure at all. Hitler and Idi Amin were obsessed, and I hope we are not going to be obsessed by our own version of racism à la McCarthyism. [Interjections.]

In short, apartheid, or racism in reserve, is counterproductive and retrogressive. No sane leadership should take the country in that direction. Bandwagon or no bandwagon, fruitpicker, journalist or not, our country must be directed away from the morbid and self-righteous, holier- than-thou and neo-ethnic racial cleansing. [Interjections.] We have hurt one another, granted, some more than others, but we need to overcome the hurt, the hate and the prejudice so unwisely inflicted upon ourselves. Acrimonious finger-pointing and self-righteous pontificating will not eradicate poverty, crime, Aids, the abuse of women and children, unemployment and other sociopolitical and economic ills, let alone this very scourge called tribalism which is eating us from within.

The Kempton Park, that is, the Codesa miracle needs to be sustained. Perhaps we need to innovate the politics of deep and profound forgiveness and reconciliation, based on human dignity, mutual respect, compassion, justice and the imperatives of our country’s Constitution. [Interjections.]

We need to follow in the footsteps of great people like Nelson Rolihlanhla Mandela on this idea. [Interjections.] We need to follow in the great footsteps of people like Helen Suzman and Mahatma Gandhi. If we do this, we shall have defeated racism and tribalism when we ourselves cease to view our environment through racist and tribalistic spectacles.

It would be no less than proper to close this humble contribution to the racism-tribalism debate in the words of one of our most noble daughters, Dr Mamphela Ramphele, as she rouses us to the truth and hard realities of our current stage of transition. She observes that there were a lot of academics and clergy who spoke fearlessly of the evils of apartheid, but we need also to speak fearlessly of the evils of tribalism … [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Mr Chairman, just over 200 years ago, a republic which is now the most powerful nation in the world was established. It was established on the basis that all men are created equal. That was the basis on which it was established. Two hundred years later, the people in that republic are still not satisfied that they have lived up to that fundamental proposition. They find that racism and its effects are still with them and they, of course, are speaking about these problems openly. They do not regard racism coyly, as a subject that is not to be discussed in polite society. They are analysing the problem all the time, and they are endeavouring to deal with it. Both candidates for the presidency of the United States discuss this problem all the time.

How could one imagine that we would come along and establish a new society on the basis of a society which, for decades and even centuries, was based on racism, and in which the consequences of racism are with us at all levels? On that foundation, on which was erected a host of racist institutions - parliaments, laws, and courts - we now come along to build a new society, having removed what we would call the superstructure. I am looking directly at a friend of mine who will understand what that is. [Laughter.] We are erecting it on an economic base which was based on racism and all its evils. We have merely removed the superstructure and the base still remains intact. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

What we are talking about here is not petty prejudices. That is not what we are discussing. I do not mind it if some shop assistant calls me boy''. It is irrelevant. I am more concerned with things such as residential segregation, the absence of health facilities and the skewed kind of education that we experience. Those are the problems that we are faced with, and they are recognised by serious thinkers from all sides in this country. [Interjections.] I saythey are recognised’’, but one of the peculiarities of South Africa is that there is actually very little serious study of the problem of racism.

If one goes into any of our libraries at the universities or into any of the bookshops, one will find that they are very different from the libraries and bookshops in other parts of the world, where there is a vast amount of literature on racism and its effects. Here, in our country, they banned such studies and the result is that very often people are not au fait with this problem and how it can be tackled. We need to have very serious studies on this problem and to really identify a programme of action that will enable us to achieve the objectives that are enshrined in our Constitution.

I am always arguing with my friends on all sides of the House, and some of my Afrikaner friends have said to me: ``Maar, Minister, julle is die Regering. Hoekom kla julle? Julle moet regeer.’’ [But Minister, you are the Government. Why are you complaining? You must govern.] Well, there is a point which we also have to take into account. In the United States the people who suffer the ravages of racism are a minority. They are not in power. In our country, it is a very different situation in that the people who suffered from racism are in power. Therefore, the challenge is not only for those who were in power, but it is for those who are in power now. That means all of us have to work out a programme of action to deal with racism in a very intelligent manner that will operate to the advantage of our country in the long term.

I have looked at the document from the conference on racism that has been circulated, and I was a bit surprised to find out that the Human Rights Commission is expected to draw up a programme to deal with racism. They are not in power. They are creatures of statute. They are appointed. They are not democratically elected. I do not think that people in that position can do more than monitor the progress, or otherwise, that is made with regard to racism. But surely they cannot be entrusted with the sovereign task of working out a proper programme for the elimination of racism in this country at all levels?

I believe that we must not be coy about this subject. We must not be shy to discuss it, after all, we used to have arguments and discussions with the proponents of apartheid. We used to argue with all of them. Dr Verwoerd and others used to come to my own home and have arguments with my father about apartheid. We used to argue with them openly. They would justify their point of view, and we would tell them that we were opposed to it.

Similarly, we must discuss racism openly, and we must be very careful about the possibility of sweeping things under the carpet, because if we do that we face the choice of either reform from above or revolution from below, a risk which many rulers in the world have faced. If we do not deal with this problem, we will get more and more discontent, our society will become more and more unstable and, in the end, nobody can benefit from a society that we are failing to create.

Therefore nonracialism is in the interests of all of us, everybody, white or black, capitalist or worker. We really need to tackle the problems of racism in a manner that will do credit to our country and also serve as an example to a world to which we preached for decades about the evils of apartheid and racism. We cannot now, suddenly, tell the world that all the things we said in all the international organisations and all the different states were really not as serious as we painted then, that they are something that can just disappear because we have established a democratic state.

We will have to take very practical, serious steps, and those steps will have to involve participation by all elements of our population, all sectors of our population, universities, businesspeople, the private sector, labour and Government. We should all be involved in this mammoth task which may take us two or three decades before we can say that we have achieved a tangible result.

I have a son whose speciality is studying the European Union and how it is succeeding. He estimates it will take us 40 years. I hope he is wrong. [Applause.]

Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Chairperson, racism exists. Many racist practices still continue and new racist practices have been added. The irony of our debate today is that those who once described and fought for South Africa as one nation, now label us as two divided parts. [Interjections.] Those who were once accused of dividing that one nation, now argue for one united nation. The question all of us should ask ourselves is whether this debate says more about real convictions or more about narrow self-interest. Those who understand the importance of building our country should take the advice of Alexander Herzen that ``the point is to open men’s eyes, not to tear them out’’.

The old South Africa was like a cancer patient with a deadly tumour - the tumour of racism. Visionaries in the form of Mandela and De Klerk stepped in and applied radical treatment. [Interjections.] We all believed that the cancer of racism was in remission and the patient well on the way to recovery. Over the last year, however, we have suddenly discovered that the tumour is back. Instead of being described, as we were during the first five years of our new democracy, as the rainbow nation, we are suddenly told that we are two nations, divided again on the basis of skin colour. This description, by emphasising our differences, only further divides us.

The starting point of the new South Africa was formulated in exemplary fashion by Mr Mandela in his inauguration speech as President, and I quote:

We enter into a covenant that we shall build a society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity

• a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.

We started off the new South Africa with the concept of one nation, built on newly discovered commonalities and on the basis of a shared patriotism. If we cannot succeed in building upon and extending that basic ideal, then black and white and coloured and Indian in our country will be reduced to simple co-existence on a shared piece of land with no real reconciliation and no rainbow nation.

Die onregverdighede van apartheid was gegrond op ‘n uiterste vorm van rassisme. Diegene wat dit probeer ontken, doen nie net dié wat onder apartheid gely het ‘n onreg aan nie, maar ook dié wat vandag steeds werk om die nalatenskap van apartheid te oorkom.

Om egter die verlede te blameer vir al die probleme van die Suid-Afrika van vandag, is ‘n oorvereenvoudiging en in baie gevalle ‘n ontduiking van verantwoordelikheid. Om die definisie van rassisme te beperk tot wit rassisme alleen, is om ‘n groot deel van die werklikheid te ignoreer. Die werklikheid is dat rassisme in alle gemeenskappe voorkom, ongeag taal of agtergrond. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The injustices of apartheid were based on an extreme form of racism. Those who try to deny this, are not only doing the people who suffered under apartheid an injustice, but also those who are still working today to overcome the legacy of apartheid.

However, to blame the past for all the problems of South Africa today is an oversimplification and, in many cases, amounts to evading responsibility. To limit the definition of racism to white racism only is to ignore a large part of the reality. The reality is that racism occurs in all communities, irrespective of language or background.]

The fundamental flaw in our present debate on racism is how it is being conducted and what the motivation behind it is. If the motivation is to find solutions to really build a new nation, based on new common experiences, then the present debate is counterproductive. If the motivation is a more partisan political one, then it is much easier to understand the context. Let us, for a moment, forget all the political considerations and let me share with hon members how I, as a member of a minority community, experience this debate. I would like to make some remarks with regard to the ANC, because it currently represents the majority of black South Africans. The ANC’s views on this issue are therefore, yes, party- political, but its views are more than that.

The ANC is a strong political party, numerically speaking. It controls the Government and almost, in its own words, all levers of power. But in that position of overwhelming political control, there seems to be an uncertainty and sometimes an inability to accept that it is now in the driver’s seat. Like any government taking over a country after a period of deep division, it is starting to experience difficulties in translating its ideals into concrete gains, because Government has limited resources.

Instead of attempting to convince all South Africans to take co-ownership of the challenges, the ANC is rather opting for the approach of identifying scapegoats. [Interjections.] The way I experience the ANC is that it is moving away from its commitment to nonracialism. The ANC of Albert Luthuli, of Z K Matthews and of Nelson Mandela was undoubtedly a party committed to nonracialism, and that had to be conceded even by its opponents.

Suddenly, though, those of us who are not members of the ANC have experienced a change in direction. We have sensed a change in the winds. Suddenly the concept of nonracialism has been replaced, not by a soft version of multiracialism, but by a stark, rigid concept of two nations on the basis of skin colour. Coupled with that are the frequent attempts to put white South Africans in the dock, in the sin-bin of history.

It does not help then to occasionally, as President Mbeki did here last week, say that not all Afrikaners and whites should be held accountable for the past. When the issue of historical guilt is switched on and off, depending on the political consideration of the moment, it becomes a divisive issue containing the seeds of resentment. One cannot one day tell people how bad they are, or how guilty they are, that they should be taxed only on the basis of their skin colour, and the next day give them a pat on the head and believe that this will provide a basis for trust and building a strong nation on common ideals and experiences. Those of us who are not in the ANC observe, in this debate, a battle for the soul of the ANC. Yes, it is an internal matter for the ANC, but that battle will determine the way that our country will eventually go. It will determine if we are able to really build a rainbow nation or whether we will be condemned to living in two separate nations perpetually. Many children and young people from the minority communities are asking themselves what future they have in this country if they will be constantly attacked simply on the basis of their birthright. The hon ANC member Mr Ramgobin recently wrote in the Cape Times:

The ANC will not hold the young in the white community responsible for the ills and racial bigotry of their parents.

The reality is, however, that this is exactly what is happening. Rhoda Kadalie, well known to many in the ANC-benches, former South African Human Rights Commissioner, recently made two observations that are more than just thought-provoking. She said:

The Government under Mbeki behaves as if it regrets its negotiated settlement with its former oppressors and he now seems to want to punish white South Africans for this compromise by harping constantly on the race issue.

She also observed the following:

Racism flourishes in contexts where it has been internalised to such an extent that the victim begins to miss it when it begins to disappear.

What is needed in South Africa is for us to address the issue of racism through a two-pronged approach. The first prong should be a normative, legislative one in which the representatives of the people prescribe the manner in which racism is to be avoided and addressed. South Africa has an excellent Bill of Rights. We have an overabundance of legislation and such prescriptions. By far the more important prong is the necessity for positive action and constructive nation-building emphasising that which binds us, not that which divides us.

Racism is not only the absence of tolerance. It is ignorance about our common humanity. But, apart from this prong being the most important, it is also the more difficult. It requires from political leaders an unequivocal commitment to nonracialism, because South Africans are very adept at sensing token commitment to nonracialism. The key to unlocking this door is, in reality and in practice, in the hands of President Mbeki. Our impression is that he has misplaced that key. There are many good men and women, in the words of former President Mandela, from all political persuasions and in all political parties who are ready to assist President Mbeki in unlocking that door. Chief Albert Luthuli’s writings hold, perhaps, the most pertinent advice in this regard for his ultimate successor:

The task is not finished. South Africa is not yet a home for all her sons and daughters. We could not achieve the new South Africa overnight, but we could begin to build it.]

[Applause.]

Mr J N MASHIMBYE: Mr Chairman and Deputy President, I would like to say to Deputy Minister Matthews - Oom Joe - that I can only concur with the things that he said.   There are two things that have never ceased to amaze me. The first is the dignity of the oppressed. The second is the irony of history in that the oppressed have an obligation imposed on them to be the ones who liberate the oppressor, to be the ones who make sure that those who oppressed us never cause the same suffering and that we ourselves, who were oppressed, make sure that the suffering, pain and humiliation that we went through is not repeated. These two things have never ceased to amaze me. But, because we are born of those who suffered, we will uphold that dignity of the oppressed.

At the end of World War II, South African soldiers who had fought side by side were rewarded and acknowledged on a racial basis when they came back victorious from fighting a common enemy. [Interjections.] These soldiers had faced bullets, shells and bombs, and those things know no colour. My grandfather, who is black, was rewarded for his participation in World War II with a bicycle, trench coat and a knobkerrie and, as far as I know, with no pension. [Interjections.] The coloured soldiers were similarly awarded with humiliating and unspeakable insults for their contributions. Regarding the white soldiers, some of them were rewarded with farms, with rifles and others even with automatic entry into universities. These are people who had survived the same bombs, bullets and shells which know no colour. This, clearly, was racism in action.

An HON MEMBER: That was before apartheid.

Mr J N MASHIMBYE: Somebody over there says that that was before apartheid. I know that. Does he not know that?

Our challenge today is to ensure that our armed forces are not defined by the example that was set at the end of World War II. Our armed forces are like a clenched fist. But, that clenched fist is at the end of an arm. If that arm is not healthy, there will never be a unified Defence Force. In the recent past the Defence ministerial commission of inquiry into the SANDF has, in its preliminary findings, reported, without mincing its words, that racism does exist in the Defence Force. I will make it possible, next week on Tuesday, for the committees of Parliament to discuss that report.

These preliminary outcomes of the Setai commission will be dealt with, but they have made certain observations that I must quickly refer to. They say, in that document, that racism in our armed forces manifests itself in many ways. It comes in the form of outright abusive language based on cultural origin; failure to empower people and active attempts to reduce their job responsibilities; harassment, such as instituting disciplinary actions against black members and going through with the process or leaving it in abeyance, thus leaving a member in limbo for an indefinite period; subjecting members to assaults and intimidating them to ensure that they do not report the cases to the police.

There are many other things that we can refer to. However, what we do know is that these are outcomes of an institutionalisation of racism. These are still evident in many spheres of our socioeconomic life. The evils of 1910, the evils of 1913 and the evils of 1948 will need a programmatic intervention by the state and all of us. There is no other way of undoing so many decades of racist madness without such an intervention which, obviously, cannot be done overnight.

There are many challenges imposed on us by our racist past. Failure to meet these challenges in the early days of our democracy would be totally disastrous. Today, the United States of America is still confronted with a problem more than a century old. Only today, in the United States of America, a heated debate is being waged on whether the current administration should apologise for slavery or not. It is going to be a difficult debate because it was not challenged as early as possible.

Over the past weekend, journalist Duncan Campbell made a number of observations on racism in some pockets of the Unites States of America. Duncan Campbell observed that there are groups and journals in the US, which still promote notions such as that blacks have smaller brains, and that many slaves were willing to be slaves. This is quoted from a recent publication of the Ashfield Journal, a Southern nationalist journal.

There is only one obligation that we have, and that obligation, I repeat, is an obligation on all of us, but I know that the amazing spirit of the oppressed will not fail to be vigilant in carrying out that obligation. Let me end by quoting the words of Mark Potok, quoted as well by Duncan Campbell, when he says:

White supremacists do not always come wearing Klan hoods, shaved heads or storm trooper outfits. Sometimes they boast business suits and PhDs.

Let us be vigilant, let us fight racism. [Applause.]

Mr B H HOLOMISA: Chairperson …

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: [Inaudible.] [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Mr B H HOLOMISA: Chairperson, this is tantamount to cultural intimidation on the part of the hon the Minister. I am not a kwedini little boy, I am the leader of a party. [Laughter.]

The racial, social and economic disparities that have been inherited as our historical legacy remain fundamentally unaltered after six years of a democratic dispensation in South Africa. It is understood that a social order that has been sustained by the exploitation of racial and cultural differences over centuries, in order to facilitate conquest, land dispossession and political hegemony of a minority caste, cannot be overturned in such a short period. The institutionalisation of racism by the apartheid regime blighted the psyche of generations of South Africans of all races and hues. It is going to take a great deal of effort by all South Africans to rid our society of the scourge.

The ushering in of a democratic dispensation, based on a model constitution designed to ensure the permanent demise of racism and all forms of discrimination and oppression, mandated the Government to formulate and adopt policies, and to enact measures that would empower visible transformation of the social and economic relations in a meaningful way that would rapidly erode the material barriers that divide the entire nation into haves and have-nots. It cannot be said the Government is succeeding in carrying out that mandate. Government must recognise that racism cannot simply be erased from people’s minds by impassioned sermons and appeals. It will diminish as a result of the alteration of the material conditions that were deliberately created to nurture it.

The economic measures adopted by the Government exacerbate unemployment and poverty of the vast majority of the marginalised who continue to be the victims of racism. Policies, which aggravate unemployment and condemn millions to destitute lives, cannot erase the feeling of racial inferiority and helplessness of these people, nor change the attitude of racial superiority of the racial minorities, who enjoy the social and economic ascendancy and to whom the disadvantaged must look for favours. South Africans must agree jointly on an economic policy that will address these social ills.

Prior to the 1994 democratic dispensation, the apartheid opposition had succeeded in welding people of all races into a unified force without regard to race or ethnicity. Nonracialism and nonethnicism became fundamental principles of our Constitution. Sadly, the spectre of racism and ethnicity is rearing its ugly head again in the work situation. Officials in both the public and private sector are creating racial and ethnic fiefdoms in departments under their control. So strong are these ethnic groupings that merit has ceased to be the criterion of selection for a job. It is a matter of grave concern that this is happening at leadership level at which the good example should have been set.

Njengokuba esazi ke uSekela-Mongameli, ngexesha ekwakusiliwa ngalo, kusilwelwa inkululeko, yayisaziwa into yokuba xa amaqabane okanye amalungu oMkhonto weSizwe ewile kwakungatshiwo ukuba awile. Kwakuye kuthiwe amajoni omukkhonto abethile. Kodwa ngoku, emva kokuba sikhululekile, ixhaphakile into yokuba umntu xa efika kwisakhiwo esithile abuze: ``Hey, mangaphi amaNdiya alapha, mangaphi amaXhosa alapha, mangaphi amaZulu alapha?’’ Isizalhu soko kukuba kaloku ngoku kuyatyiwa kuyaxatyanwa. Ke siyamcela usekela Mongamen akuba akhe uyiqwalasele nayo le meko yobuhlanga kuba ingalibulala eli lizwe. [Kwaqhwatywa] (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)

As the hon Deputy President knows, during the time of the liberation struggle, it was known that when Umkhonto weSizwe cadres had fallen, they were not said to have fallen but it was taken in the spirit that they had hit. However, now that we are liberated, it is common practice, when one enters a building, to hear questions like: ``How many Indians are here, Xhosa speaking people and Zulus?’’ The reason for this is that as people are now benefiting, quarrels are beginning to emerge. We would, therefore, like to plead with the hon Deputy President to address this issue of racism very seriously as it has the potential to destroy this country. [Applause.]] Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, hon Minister, I want to start my contribution to this debate by endorsing some principles that were affirmed by the National Conference on Racism which was held in Sandton. [Interjections.] Among other things, the conference affirmed that all who live here are citizens in equal measure, South Africans with equal responsibility to give content and expression to the founding principles of nationhood.

Most of us believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and are equal in value, dignity and worth from the moment of conception. Because all nations were created by the same God from one blood, there is no individual person with blood that is not red. We may look different on the outside, but our inner parts and colours are the same. This makes all people equally important, precious, and born with inherent value that is not dependent on their geographical location, economic status, or skin colour.

Oppression of one race group by another, oppression of one tribe by another, and oppression of weaker nations by stronger nations, is evil, unacceptable and ungodly, and has to be deplored by all peace-loving citizens of our country. The fallacy that one race group is superior to the others because of their skin colour, political and economic power, or even historical advantage, must be deplored and corrected. How this correcting is done, however, will determine whether we will be successful in our efforts or not.

For many years in our country, legislation was used to separate people according to their skin colour. Family members and loved ones were separated by apartheid laws and policies. The majority of our people were denied freedom of movement and fair economic activity, amongst other things. Such evil policies caused unnecessary suffering, anger, hatred, suspicion, and even death. Forced separation by law divided the nation.

Let me be quick to warn that as forced separation failed in the past, forced integration, in future, will also fail to produce national reconciliation and unity. Forced marriages do not last, as they do not have the bond of love and trust necessary to keep them together.

The fight against racism can be won with the re-education of those who were indoctrinated, and not with confrontation. What is needed urgently in this country is good antiracism education, especially at primary and secondary school level, highlighting the importance of the content and quality of one’s character. Our people must be reminded that it is both ungodly and illegal to discriminate against others on the basis of their skin colour.

We must build trust and relationships, which may take some time. With patience and determination, we can build one nation under God, where one’s skin colour is not elevated above one’s character and personality; where there will be acceptance of our outer differences as normal; and where all South Africans will work together for peace, prosperity, and unity in diversity. [Applause.]

Mr P A GERBER: Mr Chairperson, I listened to my friend Marthinus van Schalkwyk with expectations a while ago. But I now know why his party has contracted anorexia. In almost every speech of his he refers to whites, blacks, Indians and coloureds, and this has been bothering members of his own party, sitting there with him for many years. He must stop doing that. He is wasting his talents. We are trying to build a nation, and we want him to be part of that. I cannot believe that he has reversed so much in his political thinking. [Interjections.]

Ek haal graag die antwoord aan van president Mbeki op ‘n vraag wat verlede week in hierdie Huis aan hom gestel is:

Ek dink wanneer jy na die evolusie van ons geskiedenis kyk, sal jy die kwessie van die Afrikaner se aandeel in apartheid baie anders ontleed. Dit sal verkeerd wees om te sê ``Jy is ‘n Afrikaner, daarom is jy verantwoordelik vir apartheid en is jy vervloek.’’

As jy gaan kyk na die Vrouemonumentmuseum in Bloemfontein, sal jy sien daar is foto’s van swartmense wat gedurende die Anglo-Boereoorlog in oop treintrokke weggetrok is na swart konsentrasiekampe. Net langs dit is daar foto’s van wit vrouens en kinders wat in toe treintrokke weggetrok is na wit konsentrasiekampe. Daar is baie ander voorbeelde in ons land. So kom ons wees ‘n slag blatant eerlik en erken dat rassisme in Suid-Afrika nie in 1948 met die vorige NP-regering begin is nie. Afrikaners ken rassisme en was ook dekades lank slagoffers van wit-op-wit rassisme. Ons ken dit nou nog.

Ek wil graag kom by die Suid-Afrikaanse Millenniumverklaring oor Rassisme, en wel by item 17 van die program van aksie rakende grondhervorming wat voorgestel word. Daar is egter ‘n paar wanpersepsies met betrekking tot grond wat ongelukkig aan die lewe gehou word deur mense met verskuilde agendas. Die persepsie dat 87% van alle grond in Suid-Afrika in wit hande en 13% in swart hande sou wees, was byvoorbeeld jare gelede al verouderd. Die suggestie dat daar te min grond in Suid-Afrika is, is ook verkeerd.

Die persepsie dat grondeienaars, en veral boere, onwillig is om deel te neem aan grondhervormingsinisiatiewe is ‘n gevaarlike veralgemening. Dit lyk my daar is sommige mense in Suid-Afrika wat nie kan asemhaal nie tensy hulle iewers in die land op ‘n podium staan en boere beswadder. Natuurlik is daar sekere boere wat hulle skuldig maak aan sekere onwettige arbeidspraktyke, net soos daar vis-en-tjips-kafee-eienaars is wat hulle werkers laat swaarkry, of restaurante in Seepunt wat hulle werkers vieruur soggens huis toe stuur, maar wanneer dit ‘n boer is, is die duiwel los. Hierdie optrede blaas rassisme aan. Ons moenie boere kritiseer met ‘n mond vol kos nie.

Die Wet op die Uitbreiding van Sekerheid van Verblyfreg was lankal broodnodig in Suid-Afrika. Afrikaners het respek vir verblyfreg, want ons is al baie uitgesit, maar ek sien deesdae ‘n ongesonde situasie met betrekking tot plaaswerkershuise. Sommige boere breek arbeiderhuise af sodra hulle leegraak en sommige boere wil nie arbeiderhuise verbeter nie, want doen hulle dit, moet hulle soortgelyke geriewe aan die afgedankte werkers verskaf.

My probleem is, indien ‘n wet iemand so motiveer om huise op sy eie grond af te breek, dan dink ek daar kan dalk onbedoelde gevolge aan daardie wet verbonde wees. Indien dit die geval is, behoort ons daarna te kyk, net soos president Mbeki vroeër vanjaar gesê het dat daar onbedoelde gevolge met betrekking tot sekere arbeidswetgewing is en dat dit verander gaan word. Net so kan daar dalk ook sekere aspekte wees met betrekking tot hierdie wet. Ek weet nie, maar dit is hartseer om te sien hoe mense huise afbreek in ‘n land waar miljoene mense nog in sinkhokke bly. Die wedersydse verkeerde interpretasie van hierdie wet is ‘n groot oorsaak van rassisme.

Een van die grootste apartheidsinstrumente wat veroorsaak dat derduisende mense nog bywoners is, is die stelsel van beskikbaarheidsgeld vir byvoorbeeld water, krag, riool, vullisverwydering ensovoorts. As Coca-Cola van môre af vir ‘n mens ‘n rekening stuur van R10 ‘n maand omdat daar blikkies Coca-Cola op die winkelrakke beskikbaar is, sal jy dink dit is ‘n grap. Dit is egter dieselfde beginsel waarop beskikbaarheidsgeld gegrond is.

Baie van die derduisende armes kan nie die maandelikse beskikbaarheidsgeld bekostig nie. Baie leë erwe in die platteland is spotgoedkoop, maar die gemeenskap kan nie die beskikbaarheidsgeld bekostig nie. Nou die dag het ‘n stadsklerk vir my gesê daar is baie erwe te koop teen R500 in sy dorp, want hulle neem gereeld erwe terug by mense wat nie die R100 ‘n maand beskikbaarheidsgeld kan betaal nie. Vyf en twintig persent van die mense in die land leef op minder as R7 ‘n dag; hoe gaan hulle nog R100 ‘n maand beskikbaarheidsgeld betaal?

Hierdie stelsel het swartmense subtiel ontgrond en na informele gebiede gedwing. Ons het hopeloos te veel rompslomp as dit kom by grondbesit in dié land. Ons moet grondbesit in Suid-Afrika dringend liberaliseer, en dit behoort ‘n meervoudige proses te wees. Die een proses moet deur die staat gedryf word en die ander proses spontaan deur die publiek en grondeienaars. Spontane meganismes moet geskep word, en ek wil vir agb lede ‘n paar moontlike voorbeelde noem.

Die onderverdeling van grond behoort baie vergemaklik te word. Opmeetkoste kan ook drasties verlaag word indien die diskriminasie tussen landmeters en opmeters verminder word. Ons vind dieselfde situasie in die stads- en streekbeplannersberoep. Baie munisipaliteite sal die grond verniet vir ‘n mens gee, maar die opmeetkoste maak dat die grond te duur raak. Dan praat ek nie eens van die Eerstewêreldse bouregulasies nie.

Die proses van eiendomsregistrasie is ook heeltemal te duur en omslagtig. ‘n Mens kan ‘n Porsche teen R1 miljoen invoer, self al die papierwerk met jou hande gaan doen en daarna die voertuig self by die munisipaliteit op jou naam gaan registreer, maar as jy ‘n erfie in Loxton koop, moet jy dit deur ‘n prokureur laat registreer wat jou meer kos as wat die erfie werd is. [Tussenwerpsels.] Al hierdie dinge polariseer grondbesit.

Ons behoort te kyk of ons nie die termyn van 30 jaar in ons verjaringswetgewing kan verkort na 20 jaar nie. As mense 30 jaar lank nie grond gebruik nie, verdien hulle nie om dit te besit nie. Swartmense is onvertroud met die proses van eiendomsaankope. Ons behoort die proses meer verbruikersvriendelik te maak. Ons moet ons insolvensiewetgewing verander sodat mense se huise nie onder hulle opgeveil kan word om skuld te delg nie. Dit is in baie ander lande die geval. Banke sal vir ‘n mens binne vyf minute R50 000 vir ‘n voertuig leen, maar sal baie teëstribbel as jy hulle vra om vir jou R5 000 vir ‘n erfie te leen. Oorsese grondkopers behoort verplig te word om hulle eiendom hier te verbeter of ten minste net in stand en produktief te hou.

Al hierdie faktore belemmer grondhervorming en is ‘n luukse wat ons nie kan bekostig nie. Daar is vreeslik baie deskundiges in hierdie eiendomswêreld sonder grond op hulle naam, net soos daar landbou-adviseurs is wat op die sewende verdieping in ‘n vuil woonstel met twee potplante boer. So is daar duisende finansiële adviseurs wat nie een ‘n miljoenêr is nie. Ons moet pasop vir hulle.

Ek wil afsluit. Ons as Afrikaners behoort ‘n leidende rol te speel in grondhervorming in Suid-Afrika, want ons het al twee voete stewig in Afrika. Ons het nie ‘n tannie in Engeland of ‘n oom in Australië nie. Net soos Suid-Afrikaners South Africans'' is, is AfrikanersAfricans’’. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[I would like to quote the reply by President Mbeki to a question put to him in this House last week:

I think if one looked at the evolution of our history, then one would analyse the matter differently. To say, ``You are an Afrikaner, and therefore you are responsible for apartheid, so damn you’’, would be incorrect.

If one looks at the Women’s Monument Museum in Bloemfontein, one will see that there are photographs of black people who were trucked to black concentration camps in open train carriages during the Anglo Boer War. Next to these, there are photographs of white women and children who were trucked to white concentration camps in closed train carriages. There are many other examples in our country. So let us be blatantly honest for a change and admit that racism in South Africa did not begin in 1948 with the previous NP government. Afrikaners are familiar with racism and were also victims of white-on-white racism for decades. We are still familiar with it now. I would like to come to the South African Millennium Statement on Racism, and specifically to item 17 of the programme of action regarding land reform, which is being proposed. However, there are a few misconceptions with regard to land which are unfortunately being kept alive by people with hidden agendas. The perception that 87% of all land in South Africa is in white hands and 13% in black hands, for example, was antiquated years ago already. The suggestion that there is too little land in South Africa is also incorrect.

The perception that landowners, and farmers in particular, are unwilling to participate in land reform initiatives, is a dangerous generalisation. It seems to me that there are some people in South Africa who cannot breathe unless they are standing on a podium somewhere in the country and slandering farmers. Of course there are certain farmers who are guilty of certain illegal labour practices, just as there are fish-and-chips-café owners who allow their workers to suffer, or restaurants in Sea Point which send their workers home at four o’clock in the morning, but when it is a farmer, there is hell to pay. This behaviour incites racism. We must not criticise farmers with a mouth full of food. The Extension of Security of Tenure Act has been essential in South Africa for a long time. Afrikaners respect tenure, because we have been evicted many times, but these days I am seeing an unhealthy situation with regard to farmworkers’ homes. Some farmers demolish labourers’ houses as soon as they are empty, and some farmers do not want to improve labourers’ houses, because if they do so, they must supply similar facilities to the dismissed workers.

My problem is, if an Act motivates someone to demolish houses on his own land, I think there could perhaps be unintentional consequences associated with that Act. If that is the case, we should look at it, just as President Mbeki said earlier this year that there were certain unintentional consequences with regard to certain labour legislation and that it was to be changed. In the same way there could perhaps also be certain aspects with regard to this Act. I do not know, but it is sad to see people demolishing houses in a country where millions of people still live in tin shacks. The mutually incorrect interpretation of this Act is a big cause of racism.

One of the biggest apartheid instruments which results in thousands of people still being share-croppers, is the system of an availability fee, for example for water, power, sewerage, garbage removal, etc. Were Coca- Cola to send one an account of R10 a month from tomorrow onwards because there are tins of Coca-Cola available on the shelves, one would think it was a joke. However, this is the same principle on which an availability fee is based.

Many of the thousands of poor people cannot afford the monthly availability fee. Many empty plots in the rural areas are ridiculously cheap, but the community cannot afford the availability fee. Recently a councillor told me that there were many plots for sale for R500 in his town, because they regularly repossess plots from people who cannot pay the availability fee of R100 per month. Twenty-five per cent of the people in this country live on less than R7 a day; how are they still going to pay an availability fee of R100 per month?

This system subtly dispossessed black people and forced them to informal areas. We have hopelessly too much red tape when it comes to landownership in this country. We must urgently liberalise landownership in South Africa, and it should be a multiple process. One process should be driven by the state, and the other process spontaneously by the public and landowners. Spontaneous mechanisms must be created, and I want to mention a few possible examples to hon members.

The subdivision of land should be made far easier. Surveying costs can also be drastically reduced if the discrimination between land surveyors and surveyors is reduced. We find the same situation with regard to town and regional planners professions. Many municipalities will give one the land for free, but the surveying costs make the land too expensive. Then I am not even talking about the First World building regulations.

The process of property registration is also far too expensive and cumbersome. One can import a Porsche for R1 million, do all the paperwork oneself by hand and then go and register the vehicle in one’s name with the municipality, but if one buys a small plot in Loxton, one has to have it registered by an attorney, which costs you more than the plot is worth. [Interjections.] All these things polarise landownership.

We should look at whether we cannot decrease the term of 30 years in our statute of limitations to 20 years. If people do not use land for 30 years, they do not deserve to own it. Black people are unfamiliar with the process of property purchasing. We should make the process more consumer-friendly. We must change our insolvency legislation so that people’s houses cannot be auctioned from under them to recover debt. This is the case in many other countries. Banks will lend one R50 000 for a vehicle in five minutes, but will argue a great deal if one asks them to lend one R5 000 for a small plot of ground. Foreign buyers should be obliged to improve their property here or at least to maintain it and keep it productive.

All these factors are hampering land reform and are a luxury we cannot afford. There are a great many experts in this property world without any land to their name, just as there are agricultural advisers who farm with two pot plants in an untidy flat. In the same way there are thousands of financial advisers not one of whom on the seventh floor is a millionaire. We must be aware of of them.

I want to conclude. We as Afrikaners should play a leading role in land reform in South Africa, because we have both feet firmly in Africa. We do not have an aunt in England or an uncle in Australia. Just as Suid- Afrikaners'' are South Africans,Afrikaners’’ are Africans.]

Enkosi kakhulu. [Thank you very much.]

Ke a leboha. [Mahofi.] [I thank you. [Applause.]]

Dr C P MULDER: Mevrou die Speaker, ek wil met die agb lid mnr Gerber saamstem dat Afrikaners ‘n groot rol moet speel in grondherverdeling. As ek na die register van ledebelange kyk, moet ek sê mnr Gerber kan waarskynlik op sy eie ‘n reuseverskil maak daar met sy eie belange as hy dit sou begin verdeel.

Ek wil ook vir mnr Gerber sê hy moet ‘n bietjie in sy geskiedenis gaan kyk oor die trokke na die konsentrasiekampe in die Anglo-Boereoorlog. My eie ouma het saam met vier kleiner broers in ‘n oop koletrok gery, en nie in een van die fênsie Blou Trein-trokke waarvan hy hier kom vertel het nie. Dit is nonsens en hy behoort dit te weet. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, I want to agree with the hon member Mr Gerber that Afrikaners should play a significant role in land redistribution. When I look at the register of members’ interests, I must say that Mr Gerber, all by himself, could probably make a major difference in that respect with his own interests if he should start redistributing it.

I also want to tell Mr Gerber to look into his own history, regarding the wagons to the concentration camps in the Anglo Boer War. My own grandmother, along with her four brothers, rode in an open coal wagon, and not one of those fancy Blue Train wagons that he spoke about here. That is nonsense and he should know it. [Interjections.]]

Perceptions, perceptions, perceptions! We have one subject today for discussion, but completely opposing points of view. Why? Because reality and history are perceived completely differently by the people in this room today. At the end of August again we had a conference on racism.

Weer eens was daar persepsies, persepsies, persepsies. Hoe die konferensie ook al aangebied is, my persepsie was dat dit ‘n eensydige affêre was, klaar en afgehandel. Dit is die persepsie wat aan my oorgedra is, en as ek so luister na van die bydraes vandag hier, dan word dit ook so bevestig. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Once again there were perceptions, perceptions, perceptions. In whatever way the conference was presented, my perception was that it was a one-sided affair, and that was the end of the matter. That is the perception that was conveyed to me, and when I listen to some of the contributions here today, then that is confirmed.]

Hon President Mbeki in his speech noted the need to address white fears and black expectations. During negotiations in the past we said to Mr Mbeki that he was wrong. We are not talking about white fears, but about legitimate rights of different communities in South Africa. As long as he thinks the problem is that we have to address fears he will never succeed in getting South Africa away from racism. He has to address the legitimate rights and aspirations not only of the Afrikaner community, but of all the communities in South Africa. As long as he does not do that we will continue to struggle with things such as racism.

Die agb mev Jana het in haar toespraak gesê rassisme moet eers uitgeroei word voordat daar sprake kan wees van nasiebou en vooruitgang. Ek wil die stelling maak: rassisme, nie net in Suid-Afrika nie, maar ook internasionaal, is nie ‘n doel op sigself nie. Wie sal nou rassisme as ‘n doel op sigself nastreef? Dit kan nooit ‘n doel op sigself wees nie.

Dit is veel eerder ‘n simptoom van ‘n dieper onderliggende probleem in ‘n gemeenskap of in ‘n land, en daardie probleem kom onder meer na vore in die vorm van rassisme. Die probleem in Suid-Afrika, en dit is my persepsie, is dat die grondwetlike resep vir Suid-Afrika verkeerd is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The hon Mrs Jana said in her speech that racism had to be eradicated before there could be any suggestion of nation-building and prosperity. I want to make the statement: Racism, not only in South Africa, but also internationally, is not an end in itself. Who would pursue racism as an end in itself. It can never be an end in itself.

It is much rather a symptom of a deeper underlying problem in a community or a country, and that problem, inter alia, crops up in the form of racism. The problem in South Africa, and this is my perception, is that the constitutional recipe for South Africa is incorrect.]

We are only paying lip service to the recognition of different communities and their interests and rights. One cannot build a nation by stumbling from one sporting event to the next and then expect people to be enthusiastic about nation-building and to feel accommodated and secure in that sense.

Daar is nie vandag baie gepraat oor die aanbevelings van die konferensie nie. Ek wil stilstaan by een of twee van daardie punte met betrekking tot die program van aksie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Not much has been said today about the recommendations of the conference. I want to concentrate on one or two of those points relating to the programme of action.]

Item 26 says, and I quote: ``… measures be adopted which would restore and enhance the usage and recognition of diverse cultures …’’ It refers to the whole question of section 185. Obviously that needs to be addressed. We have been hearing from the Government for the last five years that that issue will be addressed. Up to this day it is not being addressed. There are many other examples that also need to be addressed. The fact of the matter is: We will not get away from racism until we find a constitutional dispensation that gives recognition to diversity in South Africa. [Interjections.] That needs to be done. If we do not do that we will continue to have problems in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker and hon members, deracialising this country should be accepted as a process. It is not a matter of switching it off or on as if it was a light switch. People in this country must themselves be committed to change and this goes for the former liberation movements as well.

The Government has to take up where former President Mandela left off. Nation-building was his passion as head of state, and it is not unreasonable to expect his successor to strive to bring the cosmopolitan population of South Africa closer to one another. It is also not unreasonable to expect the same population to be amenable to deracialisation. South Africans, particularly the Government, should refrain from making subtle racial remarks and, on being called upon, saying that people overreact and are spoilt brats. As a nation we should refrain from reliving the past. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is very unfortunate that racism is still alive and kicking in this country. Imagine a situation where a man confined to a wheelchair, begging for alms, accepts money from whites only, and if a black person makes an offer he puts his hand over the top of the money box clearly indicating that he will not accept help from blacks. This is as unbecoming as it is annoying, because it will perpetuate polarisation among the people.

Racism is not prevalent between blacks and whites only. It is equally rife among blacks who have names by which they call others who are not of their group. Batswana have even gone to the extreme of having a noun class in their language study in which they lump all people other than Sothos. Class 3, the le-/ma- class of their noun classes, is an example of the first degree of racism. This should not be allowed to continue. There are derogatory terms used by other African language speakers when they refer to others too.

It sometimes boggles the mind when hon members in this House promulgate legislation such as the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000, and do very little to conscientise the populace on its content and significance. Government and Parliament should not be seen as doing more talking than delivering.

The establishment of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities is long overdue. It is a body like this that can help in improving racial understanding and tolerance and assist in ridding South Africa of xenophobia.

South Africa has to be a place for all people of goodwill under the sun. May we look forward to the Third United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which will be hosted by South Africa next year!

Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, racism is a cancer which is not easy to eradicate. Its roots go deep into the mind and psyche of an individual, community or nation. A person infected with racism cannot have a clear vision or judgment. Racism attacks, corrupts and destroys the whole mind.

South Africa became well known worldwide because of apartheid. South Africa was Balkanised in such a way that mere legislation cannot be a quick fix to put us together. It is for this reason that the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity.

The World Council of Churches launched a programme to combat racism. Preaching at the World Council of Churches Conference on racism, I appealed to the World Council of Churches to adopt a programme to combat violence and crime. This was adopted, and this year a programme of action will be tabled before the churches of the world.

Racism, however, should continue to be roundly condemned. Racists should not be allowed to walk tall in our society. They should be made to feel guilty and rejected in a civilised society. Nonracialism should become the norm, and we should work towards the ideal of one world, one human race and one destiny.

As racism is a moral, ethical and theological problem, religious institutions should take up the fight in their teaching, preaching, worshipping and moral life.

The PAC supports the recommendations and the programme of action of the Conference on Racism. The PAC calls on all schools to raise consciousness in schools because pupils are in their formative years, and what they will become in life is shaped at school. Schools that do not have a vision of a nonracial society should be closed down. Racism should be eliminated in places of work.

Racism feeds on greed. The antidote to greed and selfishness is the ethic of sharing - the sharing of land, of wealth and of facilities. This should be a national virtue, and schools should give trophies to pupils who excel in this virtue. In the community and the nation, special recognition and awards should be given. The consciousness of a common fatherland or motherland with a common fate and future should be raised.

If we spend more money and time on this exercise, racism can be easily eradicated. We wish the Third United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held next year every success. Ms G L MAHLANGU: Madam Speaker, hon members, and ladies and gentlemen, after the comment by Comrade Matthews about serious thinkers, I am not going to comment about a number things that I had wanted to mention here.

When Patsy Tlakula from the Human Rights Commission heard the testimonies given by people on the subject of racism, she said:

I have been in this commission for five years. Through the media and complaints that reach us, I had a sense that the situation on the farms was very bad, but, yesterday, it was shocking - people have lost legs, eyes, and their ears have been bitten by dogs. It is just an awful situation of vicious attacks that are taking place on the farms. Besides attacks on the farms, there had been incidents of urban terrorism - marauding gangs of white people drive around in rural towns, looking for unsuspecting black people who are going about their business. They stop and attack.

Racism was entrenched as a device to rule over people whose ethical and moral base was rooted in a trinity and spirituality and who believed in: Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu'' [A person is a person through other people]. Why else should we have committed ourselves to a nonracial society? Why else should we have given birth to a new kind of culture with a Constitution that outlaws racism? Jailed, exiled, banned or banished, we smiled, though it was painful, for sustenance. Widowed or maimed, we persevered and focused on spiritual inspiration. As hon Mawa Ramgobin would say:I cannot be, if others are not.’’

The extent to which the current political dispensation will be successful will depend on our being able to manage the expectations of the black population for an improved quality of life, on the one hand, and the white negative fears, on the other. The central issue of these two separate agendas is the distribution of opportunities, resources and status.

How do we address past imbalances and inequalities? Look at the attitude of some people towards affirmative action. The hon Pallo Jordan, at the instance of the racism conference, said the following:

It is ridiculous to pretend that white and black South Africans are starting from the same starting line. They are not. The playing fields are far from level. All affirmative action is doing is trying to level the playing fields. It is not saying that the money in the bank which you have as a result of unearned rewards you had under apartheid will be taken away from you. It is just saying that we are levelling the playing fields, and that we are going to give each child running shoes. That is all, so that we can compete more or less equally. We know that the one kid whose parents have money in the bank because of unearned rewards of apartheid had better training. We know he has a better diet. He has all those things. We are not saying we are going to cancel out his training or we are going to give the other kid some steroids. We are just saying that everyone is going to have running shoes.

Today, in South Africa, nobody wants to own apartheid, despite the benefits they derived from it. Our society uses skin colour as a prescriptive basis of distributing status, privilege, opportunities and resources. Racism is evil and immoral. This is a reality. Racism goes hand-in-hand with gender discrimination. The ecumenical women’s meeting on racism took place last year, from 9 December 1999 to 14 December 1999. The resultant declaration was: We declare that fullness of life in Christ and Christ’s prayers for unity require the assurance of women’s participation, the elimination of violence against women, and that the image of God in women be valued and recognised.

Furthermore, we declare that the fullness of life in Christ and Christ’s prayer for unity require that no race be valued higher than others.

We declare that racism and ethnocentrism are against the will of God and have no place in God’s household. As women and mothers, we envisage a world where antiracist work becomes a priority and is built on a model of shared leadership. Women are always at the receiving end of all these evil systems and practices.

Mosadi ke motshwara-thipa ka fa bogaleng. Le fa le ka mo lebala, la motlodisa matlho, mosadi ke mmelega mafatshe le dit[s]haba. Kgatelelo ya bomme e tliswa ke kgetelelo ya merafe le batho gareng ga bona. (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)

[A woman is a pillar of strength. Even if one ignores and embarrasses her in front of others, a woman will carry the weight of the world on her shoulders. Women are oppressed by nations and people who rule them.]

There is a need for a common agenda and a collective social memory of the future. The first step in this direction is to negotiate a shared common agenda through compromise, patience and reconciliation. The tragic reality of South Africa is that we tend not to have a sense of national identity. We think of ourselves as black or white.

The new South Africa is where the white minority owns the economy, while the black majority runs the politics and has a living memory of three centuries of oppression - what a volatile brew! I will refer hon members to a giant of the times and well-known reggae singer, Bob Marley, when he said:

Who the cap fits, let him wear it.

We have seen them wearing the cap this afternoon! How many pieces of legislation were voted against when it was clear that the lives of the ordinary people were going to improve? Thanks to the majority in the ANC, all those Bills were voted for and we managed to pass them.

That has to change. We should listen to the African drum. We all cried here. Those hon members who followed Comrade Thabo Mbeki when he said: ``I am an African’’, all said that they were Africans. One cannot be an African without ubuntu. [Interjections.] Ubuntu can play a creative role in rebuilding social relationships that have divided society. Ubuntu can help us to be reconciled.

Today black people are extending a hand of reconciliation, and the masters of apartheid and racism behave as if it is business as usual. They know that they benefited. We never heard their voice against apartheid and against the banishment of our comrades. Even in this province, where more than 3 million Africans were forcibly removed to the Eastern Cape, I never heard the hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk or the hon Tony Leon shouting. [Interjections.] We do expect them to be ashamed, but not to defend an evil system like apartheid and racism. [Interjections.] They should deal with their guilt, accept their wrongs, own up and make up. No amount of denial will heal them.

For racism to be eliminated, we have to start somewhere. We have a powerful Constitution. Should we not start at the genesis of the current problem? Should the white land-owning South Africans not address the issue of land dispossession? Do they not feel the moral need to share? Should they not share their scientific knowledge to conduct good farming with their fellow African compatriots? What voluntary efforts are being made by the current white holders of 87% of the land? Hardly any. [Interjections.]

What are their expectations to the landless people? Should not more than normal efforts be made by the beneficiaries of apartheid to help educate and train people who were victims of apartheid and the notorious Bantu education? Should they not be seen to be engaged - with the power of Government on their side - actively on the ground, fighting crime and violence in the townships and everywhere else? I said that whoever the cap fits, should wear it, and they are doing exactly that. Thanks to Bob Marley. [Interjections.] As South Africans, we need to transform our country together. We can and we must become a united and great nation. Yes, we are diverse in our cultures, but we can and must build our unity in the fullness of our diversity. This is a richness that we have.

With regard to our efforts at reconciliation, we are the envy of the world. Those hon members should not tarnish this, and they should not harp on racial minority interests. They should join the majority of South Africans who are black, deprived and dispossessed. They should fight their poverty and not their skin colour. They should help in all and every way possible to create conditions of good health, both physical and mental. We are not a poor country. We can afford to live together in harmony. The hon Wally Serote sums it up correctly when he says:

I ask for our want to make life magic. Since it is so brief, since it is so loved, since it is so unquestionably rare, can’t it be shared.

When the HRC consulted ordinary people on the ground in preparation for the Conference on Racism, they did so because they needed to break the conspiracy of silence that is prevalent in all discussions about racism.

At one level, silence is caused by fear of victimisation and intimidation. Silence is also evasive in denial in the case of those who do not wish to be challenged about racist practices. They pretend they do not understand what we are talking about. They make the kind of noises that are being made. They demand definitions and make countercharges. There is generally a paradigm of denial by those who have power and who are not prepared to allow themselves to be confronted with the reality and effects of racist action.

``What we received as a result went well beyond our expectations.’’ This was said by Barney Pityana, when his colleague Patsy Tlakula found testimonies given by people most traumatic.

If one scratches below the surface, many white South Africans function with suspicion, and I think that should end. We are faced with a huge problem which can and will only be addressed through honesty and commitment to eradicating all forms of racism. We owe it to ourselves, our children and generations to come. [Applause.]

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, I will get to the issues raised by the hon Gwen Mahlangu later in my speech. [Interjections.] We are supposed to be debating this grand-sounding document today, the South African Millennium Statement on Racism and Programme of Action. There is not very much in it. There is nothing in it which demonstrates the monstrous racism which the President considered so compelling a national problem that he called a multimillion rand conference at the opening of Parliament on 4 February here.

The document fails to demonstrate that racism, rather than poverty or poor administration, is the real problem six years into our transition. It is one of our problems, certainly, but it cannot be used to explain away the other problems. Only three of the 15 points under the programme of action really address race. Four of the 15 call for the declaration of days, decades, dialogue and a movement against racism, rather than a movement against Government or a movement against Gear, of course, or globalisation. Two points deal with reparation, one international and the other local.

The Government is urged to address reparations for victims of racism, as recommended by the TRC report of 1998. But TRC reparations are not, of course, for victims of racism. They are the legal quid pro quo for the amnesties granted to perpetrators from all sides of the conflicts of the past, as a result of which victims cannot claim damages. Let me remind members, if I may, that the origins of the TRC itself lie, in fact, in the heartbreaking stories of abuse by the ANC as told to its own commission, the Skweyiya commission. The commission ordered compensation. The ANC decided instead that there should be a ``commission of truth’’ for national disclosure of violations, which would use state funds to compensate victims across the board. Seven years and one month later the ANC is still avoiding the issue.

Point 25 wants us to ratify a few more international instruments, none of which deals with race. There are two points which deal admirably with xenophobia and cultural diversity, two of the so-called related forms of intolerance.

Finally, before I get to race, there is one other related point which is close to my heart and on which I petitioned Dr Pityana.

An HON MEMBER: It is about time you got to the point.

Ms M SMUTS: Well, it is about time the document got to the subject. That is the point. [Interjections.] Here I can see that the Human Rights Commission tried but failed to get this point past the Government. This is what I petitioned Dr Pityana on. I argued that the Government’s effective abandonment of women on the Aids issue constitutes discrimination as defined in both the convention on race, the ICEAD, and the one on women, Cedaw.

We know that research project after research project shows that South African women suffer sexual coercion on an enormous scale, with violence impossibly high by international, including African, comparisons. Women are nevertheless denied antiretrovirals after rape, or before birth, despite the fact that the drugs are offered to us for next to nothing. I know the subject was quietly raised at the conference. I know it was. But I have to say that if point 23 is the result, then it falls hopelessly short. I assume each hon member has the document. Point 23 is the result.

There was a time when we all spoke the same language here and in the two constitution-making processes. Racism and sexism sit side-by-side in our Constitution because the effects of centuries of prejudice and condescension were directly comparable for women and for blacks. They boil down to ``distinction, exclusion and restriction’’ to use the definition from the two conventions.

Women and people of colour also know what it is to have internalised an assigned inferior status, and we know how to help each other reject that by building confidence. However, these are the psychological or social aspects. All of us clearly understood how one should deal with these matters constitutionally, in the law and in policy.

Firstly, one repeals discriminatory law. Incidentally, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development reported on Tuesday that the Black Administration Act of 1927, cornerstone of the previous dispensation, remains unreviewed six years into this dispensation. The committee has suggested that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs should get their act together.

Secondly, one prohibits unfair discrimination, but the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act is not yet in effect. Thirdly, one institutes affirmative action or corrective programmes and yes, we support them and we always have. [Interjections.] It is the ANC’s … [Interjections.] Hon members should please listen. It is the ANC’s africanisation, masquerading as affirmative action, that we oppose. [Interjections.] Hon members should go back to their own election manifesto of 1994 if they want to see what affirmative action used to mean. [Interjections.]

The Constitution and the law still speak that language, and so does the Constitutional Court. Judge Albie Sachs calls it a structured focus on nondiscrimination, as the heart of implementable equality guarantees. I hope that Parliament still speaks that language and today’s largely quiet debate indicates that it does.

Government, however, does not. The Human Rights Commission does not. They have slid deep into what the Human Rights Commission calls social analysis rather than mere legal certainties'' and from there into the realm ofthe deep recesses of one’s consciousness’’. That is what the HRC called it in the media racism report.

Law and policy can deal with conduct, not the content of people’s thoughts, opinions, beliefs and free expression. However, both the HRC and the executive have, over the last year, dragged debate down to the level of allegations, of subliminal prejudice and hatred and, yes, it surfaced at the conference too. [Interjections.] One can only surmise that there was not enough demonstrable, concrete, conduct-based proof of the white racism that the ANC apparently needs to protect a bitterly unpopular new elite and to survive electorally. [Interjections.]

If anti-racism training in schools and in the public and private sectors, as proposed here in point 11, means the kind of treatment the media got from the HRC, we say no''. If it means what Prof Jakes Gerwel calls the conventions of civility’’ and an appreciation of diversity, then, ``yes’’.

It is a tragedy to see the ANC of Mandela and Luthuli turn into a race- driven nationalist party. [Interjections.] I do not think that that extends to all the members here. [Interjections.] Perhaps that is why many of them are not here. Let us, hon members, get back on track with the transition. [Interjections.]

In truth, we started exactly when the United Nations’ decade on racism commenced in 1993. Instead of declaring a new decade which starts now and covers the next two general elections, let us complete the United Nations’ decade. We started in 1993; let us get on with unfinished business. [Interjections.]

Point 21 asks that the disparities in wealth, land reform, access to capital and skill, be addressed. Yes, get on with it. Government does not need a race conference or a programme to fulfil these obligations. Point 29 asks for the implementation of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Discrimination Act. Get on with it. Let the courts adjudicate without special ministerial preparation and designation.

Reconciliation is not a new process, as Prof Gerwel has said, as opposed to our President who speaks of the danger of social instability implicit in our race divisions. There has been a systematic drive to polarise this country into black and white. Little wonder that the case against gender discrimination, which cuts across colour, has become so muted. Both the President and the ANC have said that whites think blacks are primitive, pagan, savage and satanic. That is shocking. The President told South Africa at the conference that one cannot expect blacks to distinguish between whites who supported apartheid and the few who did not. By design, or effectively, he has been driving the concept of collective guilt which we specifically excluded from the TRC’s Act and in the interim Constitution.

Yes, I know what the President said here last week, but that has not stopped the hon Gwen Mahlangu from driving the same line of argument today. I know what he said last week, but the harm has been done. We need look no further than the statements of the PAC in its pamphlet - Stanley should take note - and from the provincial secretary this past weekend, namely, ``One oppressor, one bullet!’’ One needs look no further than that to see how dangerous this polarising approach has been.

There is white racism in this country. There is black racism in this country. [Interjections.] There is tribalism. The Constitution created by all of us here together recognises that fact and deals with it. It also deals with the legacy of apartheid. Why the pretence? Why pretend? Everybody is in denial? [Interjections.] Why deny the Constitution? [Interjections.] [Time expired.] Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, at last democracy has given us the freedom to speak. Racism in South Africa did not cease with the demise of the apartheid regime in 1994. Redressing the inequalities of the past and redistributing resources to the historically disadvantaged is still met with hostility by certain privileged minority groups who want to retain the economic status quo.

The primary aim of the conference on racism was to address the truth that racism in South Africa still exists and that collective efforts must be made to eliminate personal acts of racism and the apartheid system which internalised racism in people. The political parties are graced with power to transform the electorate and promote the principle of the rainbow nation, instead of politicising every issue that affects either black or white, thus creating the zebra nation. Propagandanistic fight-backs belong to the apartheid regime and not in the current democratic era.

What are we fighting? Six years of democracy is fighting back against approximately 350 years of oppression by the colonial government. Constructive opposition is the key to progress. In the 1999 national election the DP and the New NNP trampled each other for the Indian vote. Yet, when the DP won seven seats in the provincial legislature in KwaZulu- Natal, it gave six to the whites and one to the blacks. The MF nagged the DP for cheating the Indian voters in the 1999 national election. Finally in July, when a white MPP, Mr Wessel Nel, resigned, the DP appointed an Indian MPP, Mr Gobodi from Estcourt.

This is another political stunt executed by the DP just before the local elections to manipulate the Indian vote. The MF predominantly represents Indian communities with the objective of uniting them with the majority. Unlike other parties we do not use other race groups as scapegoats to protect our interest. The MF will not apologise for our blatant honesty.

Mahatma Ghandi was the first political leader to bridge the Indo-African relationship. Likewise, the MF is following in his footsteps by forming an alliance with the majority party. Although the apartheid government desperately tried to sever the relationship between the majority and the Indians, something which was evidently contrived in the 1949 riots, the Inanda riot of 1985 in KwaZulu-Natal and the Group Areas Act, Indians stubbornly chose to be at the forefront of the freedom struggle. The MF will not allow former white political parties to indoctrinate black fear into the Indians. The MF is the only political party which has the guts to openly admit that we want to reconcile the Indians with the majority. The answer to economic, social and political development is to co- operate and maintain a close working relationship with the ruling party. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mevrou die Speaker, as ek na die Ordelys kyk, sien ek die onderwerp van bespreking is ``Recommendations of Conference on Racism’’. Met die uitsondering van my kleinniggie Dene Smuts het nie een van die sprekers hulle daarby gehou nie. Dit lyk of ons ons eie konferensie wil oorhou asof daar nie reeds een gehou is nie. Ek dink nie een van die sprekers het eens die verslag gelees voor hulle hul toesprake geskryf het nie, soos die dominee wat sy preek opstel en agterna die gespaste teks soek. Ek wil my probeer bepaal by die verslag self. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, when I look at the Order Paper I see that the subject under discussion is ``Recommendations of Conference on Rascism’’. With the exception of my grandniece Dene Smuts, not one of the speakers confined themselves to the topic. It would seem as if we want to hold our own conference as if one had not already been held. I doubt whether any of the speakers even read the report before they wrote their speeches, like the clergyman who prepares his sermon and only then looks for the appropriate text. I want to try to confine myself to the report itself.]

I can call it a mild report of a vicious conference. In his opening speech at the conference, President Mbeki expressed confidence that South Africans have wisdom, ingenuity and sensitivity to the human condition to overcome racism. Although the conference was more often than not not marked by this sensitivity, the report itself fares a little better in this respect.

There are still some concerns that I would like to deal with. The report explains its solidarity with the refugees who are flocking to South Africa without warning against the danger of the indiscriminate influx of foreigners. This very tendency will further destroy our country, and the fact that these foreigners are taking up the limited work and jobs available in South Africa will definitely contribute to more racism and, perhaps, justified xenophobia.

The report has the tendency to credit apartheid with all the evils that are present in South Africa without explaining why the same inequalities exist in countries of the same nature as South Africa, which did not have a policy like that.

The report asks that the criminal justice system be equipped to apply the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. Somewhere, there is a bit of a slip-up. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act does not operate in the sphere of criminal law, but that of civil law.

In line with the President’s plea for sensitivity, the AEB makes a plea for sensitivity for the fact that 16 December is, for a large part of the Afrikaner community, a day with specific religious content and will, in our hearts, always be the Day of the Covenant. We appeal for some sensitivity towards that.

Die AEB verwelkom punt 26 van die verslag, wat aanbeveel dat maatreëls getref word om die erkenning van die verskeidenheid taal-, kultuur- en godsdiensgemeenskappe aan te moedig en te bevorder, en deel ook die verslag se kommer dat daardie kommissie nog nie ingestel is nie. Ek dink die konferensie het lippediens hieraan bewys, en die illusie van ‘n allesomvattende eenkleurnasie is die oorheersende indruk van die konferensie.

Dit is ironies dat die konferensie oor die regte van taal-, kultuur- en godsdiensgemeenskappe hierdie jaar onverklaarbaar genoeg nie eens plaasgevind het nie. Die AEB deel die kommer van die Mynwerkersunie dat die trant van die konferensie eerder tot rassespanning en polarisering aanleiding gegee het. Die ontkenning dat daar ook neigings tot rassisme by ander gemeenskappe is, het die konferensie in ‘n eensydige inkwisisie laat ontaard. Ek sluit af. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The AEB welcomes point 26 of the report, which recommends that measures be taken to encourage and to promote the recognition of the diversity of linguistic, cultural and religious communities, and also shares the concern expressed in the report that that commission has not yet been established. I think the conference paid lip service to this, and the illusion of a comprehensive one-colour-nation is the overriding impression of the conference.

It is ironic that the conference on the rights of linguistic, cultural and religious communities did not even take place this year for some inexplicable reason. The AEB shares the concern of the Mineworkers’ Union that the manner in which the conference was conducted actually gave rise to racial tension and polarisation. The denial of the fact that there is also a tendency to racism in other communities caused the conference to degenerate into a one-sided inquisition. I wish to conclude.]

I hope that the milder touch reflected in the report, despite its flaws, is an indication that a more positive and inclusive approach will be taken than that taken at the conference. [Time expired.]

Mr M A MANGENA: Chairperson, there is no doubt that the national conference on racism, held in Sandton recently, was a historic and important event in our country. The conference focused national attention on the scourge of racism that affects millions of our people every day on farms, in private homes, banks, insurance companies, supermarkets, the army, the Police Service and everywhere. Occasionally, it erupts into something that hits the headlines like when a man is painted silver or another one is tied behind a bakkie and dragged for several kilometres until he is dead and pieces of his flesh are collected like samples of mud on the tar road.

Racism is an irrational disease that destroys human relations and is capable of shaking the very foundations of a society or a country. We have experience in this country of the consequences of racial discrimination and racist practices. The programme of action adopted by the conference, which includes the declaration of a decade of national mobilisation against racism, is most welcome. Racism will not just go away of its own accord. It needs to be confronted and rooted out of the fabric of our society.

The incessant complaints of racism emanating from blacks, and the fact that they are at the receiving end of racist practices everywhere, is a measure of the weakness of the blacks. Only the weak can complain of being discriminated against or being oppressed. Women complain of being oppressed socially and economically, because they are in a weak position at this point in time. Blacks do not complain of discrimination in soccer or politics because they are on an equal footing with everybody.

We are ill-treated, beaten up and evicted from farms because we own very little land. We complain of racist discrimination in banking, insurance, commerce and industry because our ownership stake in these sectors is almost zero. We complain about being discriminated against in rugby, cricket and other such sporting codes because other people are in a more powerful position in these areas.

An HON MEMBER: Bua ntate! [Tell them, sir!]

Mr M A MANGENA: We are put in this position of weakness by a history of colonisation, discrimination and oppression, spanning several centuries. Be that as it may, blacks must guard against being a nation of moaners. We should guard against entrenching a victim mentality in our general psyche.

Yes, we should complain against and talk about racism when and wherever we encounter it, but, above all, instances of racist discrimination against us should galvanise us into action. That action must be geared at raising our economic and social status.

Journalist Mathatha Tsedu … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr M S MANIE: Chairperson, when I came up here, I came as a sweeper. I am supposed to sweep and pick up on some of the points that people have raised here.

I must say that I would be spoiling the little bit of dignity that we have been able to give this debate, if I were to respond. So I apologise to my comrades here and say that I am not even going to waste my time responding to some of the points, because I think that would not do justice to the issue.

However, let me say that the ugly face of racism was not about which bus one could travel on or which toilet one could use, in the past. It was about the horrible consequences that this had on the lives of people, which led to the poverty, the shacks and the high unemployment in the black communities. That is what racism was about. Although the legal basis is now removed, the effects of that system, prior to 1994, are still deeply entrenched in many areas in South African society. In my view, our single biggest challenge is to build a new South African nation - a South African nation that can pool all its skills, its talents and its resources to overcome crime and unemployment and to make our economy grow, a rainbow nation that can accommodate the very diverse religious, cultural and language differences in our country. However, the reality is that we do have very distinct groups. Whether we call these groups nations or communities, we have two very distinct groups in our country. We have what is referred to as broadly black aspirations and expectations on the one side, and white fears on the other side. We might define this differently, but we all have to agree that that is one of the characteristics of South African society currently.

My problem, however, is that we have, for too long, tried to convince one another of the views of either the one group or the other, and that we have not made a lot of progress with respect to the solutions to the problems. If we are unable to see things through the eyes of the other group, we will be coming up with the wrong solutions. We have to ask ourselves: What is it that the other group sees as the major problems to them, and what do they see as possible solutions? We are all convinced that we are right in our approach, but are we? That is the question that we should be asking.

I would like to share a small experience that I have had with hon members. My daughter was cutting my hair in the bathroom. [Interjections.] Yes, I have a daughter old enough to cut my hair. For those hon members who think I am a youngster, I am 51 years old. My wife came in while my daughter was cutting my hair and said to me that I must please make sure that I vacuum up all the hair after my daughter had finished. [Interjections.]

So I agreed, and after my daughter had cut my hair I took the vacuum cleaner and cleaned up as best as I could. I looked around, and it looked clean to me. My wife popped into the bathroom and she said: I asked you so nicely to vacuum up all the hair, and look what the place looks like! I looked around and I could not see what she was talking about. [Laughter.] I really could not. So for the hell of it I put on my spectacles, and I was shocked. I saw how much hair was still on the floor. [Laughter.]

The point that I am trying to demonstrate here is that I was convinced that I was right, that I had cleaned the floor completely. In fact, I made sure because I did not want my wife to tell me that I had not done a proper job. However, the reality is that even though I was convinced I was right, I was wrong, because I did not put on my spectacles.

I have used a very ordinary example, because sometimes these examples are easier to understand. However, the point that I am trying to get across here is that we need to start looking through the spectacles or the eyes of other people, and not just look at things from where we come from and from what we see. It is something that we should learn, not just from me, but in general from other people when we are confronted with issues like that. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Now I have got my spectacles on, you see, so I can see things from both sides, hopefully. [Laughter.] However, let me use another example. When we talk about the inequalities, many people are saying that apartheid was wrong. We have heard that nobody voted for apartheid, because of their reply whenever you ask them: ``Was apartheid wrong? Did you support it?’’ [Interjections.] So it is a very strange phenomenon that nobody voted for it, but that it was around for so long. [Laughter.]

However, people say that one should not speak about apartheid, because that was in the past. However, we are talking about the consequences of apartheid. I want to demonstrate that with another example. A person is sitting in his home and somebody comes in. They chat, and the one whose house it is, is cleaning his gun.

Mr K M ANDREW: Is it a licensed gun?

Mr M S MANIE: Madam Speaker, it might be licensed if it is that hon member’s. If it is mine, it is not. [Laughter.] So he is cleaning the gun, and it goes off accidentally. The visitor is fatally wounded. While the person is bleeding it is not good enough for the owner of the house to say:``I am sorry that I accidentally shot you’’, and want to walk away. What we need to do is to deal with the effects of the system. If we had knowledge that apartheid was wrong, we have to see what we can do to stop the bleeding. That is the responsibility of us all. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Let me also say that if we are all saying that, then that is exactly the problem. We should not all be saying that; we should all be doing it. There is a big difference between saying that apartheid is wrong and doing something about it. We have all been saying that and we do nothing. We must get into the mode of doing and not talking. I think that is what we need in our country, and it is not because one is white or black. All of us should see it as our collective responsibility.

I want to say that there are many white people who have the desire to be part of the new South Africa. We met with the SA Agricultural Union not so long ago, and I must say that I was very impressed by the honest desire that they showed to find out what they should be doing and how we should be starting consultations and discussions so that we could start working together to deal with problems, not only with regard to farmers, but also about farmworkers.

When we talk about the bosses, we also need to talk about the problems of the workers. If we talk about things from one perspective only, we are not going to find solutions. We need, in fact, as a nation, to start dealing with things in a more balanced way. Then we will start finding solutions quicker.

I also want to say that if we are saying that there are many white people who have the desire to be part of the new South Africa, one must then understand, at the same time, that black people are not angry and bitter. All they desire in the new South Africa is to be part of the new South Africa and benefit from it by having a better quality of life, and that means that everybody must assist them to get there.

I can talk about these things forever, but this little thing is telling me that my time is almost up. But before I am told that my time is up, I just want to conclude on a lighter note by saying that now that Abe Williams is no longer a member of the House, I am now transferring the responsibility of getting my father’s pension to the DP. [Laughter.] I hope that Douglas Gibson will be given that message. [Applause.]

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Mr Chairman, I am happy that we are having this discussion, and I am also happy that we are so passionate about the subject, though, of course, we are passionate from diverse angles.

Maybe I should start with my old friend, Rev Meshoe. Rev Meshoe knows the story of Nicodemus better than I do. He asked, according to the Bible, what he should do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course, Rev Meshoe knows the answer. He never said that the answer was Miracle 2000. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

But, seriously though, my mother, who was a charwoman, unomakhishini'' - I come from the womb of such a level of cheap labour - used to say to me as a small boy:It is only women who know and who have experienced the labour pains and the pangs of childbirth.’’ If one has never been a victim of the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts; if one has never had one’s freedom of movement restricted in any way whatsoever; if one has never in one’s life experienced being a kaffir, a coolie, ikula''; if one has never experienced being ahotnot’’ in one’s life, the most one can do is to sympathise with those who have and show solidarity with them. [Applause.] But one should never come to this House to denounce them when they say: ``But, for God’s sake, there is a problem in this country.’’

When one goes out to a place called Vryburg now and asks them in the middle of the street, Is there racism?'' the masses are going to say,Yes, there is racism.’’ When one goes to other parts of the country, even in Bryanston in Johannesburg, and sees the little boy who was attacked by white thugs and nearly lost an eye, and asks him,’’ Why did this happen to you?’’ he will say, ``It is because of my race.’’

For God’s sake! My daughter, an 11-year-old, who was born in exile, says to me: ``Daddy, we live in a place where there is a preponderance of whites, but when we go out to Soweto, where you claim to have grown up, we do not see whites. Why is that the case?’’ Again one cannot lie to this child and say that this is a God-given order. [Laughter.] Those ghettos were created by fellow human beings, and deliberately so.

It is a shame that some people are mourning the so-called demise of the ANC of Luthuli, Mandela, etc because those selfsame people were responsible for the banning order that was slapped on that ANC, and at that moment they never mourned their own action against the ANC. [Applause.] But more than that, is it not time for us to step back and say that, whatever we may think of Helen Suzman, she was totally different from this motley collection of people who claim that they are her followers. [Interjections.] She is completely different from them.

As a black South African with my experience of white racism, I have no apology for being passionate about racism in this country. Racism is an international problem, and that is why the world is gathering in this country next year to discuss it. In the meantime, people pretend that six years down the line since the demise of apartheid, racism has disappeared in the country. It has not, for God’s sake. It is a daily experience of ordinary people. When one sees, for instance, in the whites-only streets of some of the suburbs, a black in the back of a white man’s bakkie and a dog sitting next to the white man in the cab on a rainy day, what does one make of that? Is it not racism to prefer to sit with a dog to sitting with a human being? It still happens, and it is the experience of our own people.

By the way, 55 years after the end of the Second World War we still acknowledge that there was indeed a holocaust; we do not deny this. Yet when we say that the consequences of apartheid are there and are staring us in the face, people say, ``No, you are dividing this nation.’’ This surprises us. After all, we have never been united, we still have to build one nation in this country, and we will not build it by magic or by pretending that the past never happened. We will have to build it consciously and go all out to build it.

The question is: What are the leaders of the opposition offering to unravel our past which stares us in the face? That is a critical question. [Applause.] One cannot run away from that one. The answer, for God’s sake, is not as simple as saying, You are in government, so do it.'' It is as though they are saying,You took over from us, and therefore you are to blame for the consequences of a past that you never created.’’ That is a wrong attitude. It is the moment now for all of us as serious and honest leaders to say: What is it that we can do to create this society that we have committed ourselves to in the Constitution? We all profess to be nonracial and nonsexist in our orientation.

We all profess to be committed to the emergence of a democratic society based on the basic values that we all incorporated in our Constitution. But what do we do beyond that point? Again, as the old English adage goes, actions speak louder than words. They speak louder. What is it that we are all doing? Is it really preferable for some of them to say, No, let this Government do it.'' Then they put up all sorts of sickening posters in whites-only areas, or predominantly white areas, with slogans, such as Resist high rates!’’ But why do they not put them up in Soweto? They do not exist there. I know they do not. They do not have those posters there.

The reason they are not doing it is simple. [Interjections.] Please listen. The reason they are not doing it … [Interjections.] Hon members should please listen; they have got ears, unless of course their ears are not connected to whatever savvy they are supposed to have. [Laughter.] They should listen. The reason they will not do this is because they are preoccupied with protecting the rich. They are the ones who must not be taxed in order that we may use whatever we rake in by way of taxes to resolve those problems.

How else can we do it if we do not take certain measures to transfer resources from where they currently reside in racial terms? [Interjections.] This is it. This House was actually told an untruth this afternoon, namely that we tax on a racial basis. We do not. Cyril Ramaphosa, who is as black as I am, pays as high taxation as he does because he belongs to those people who do have. He has achieved something and there are many like that. But those hon members say that people should not pay these high rates; because - and this is what they ought to be saying to complete the statement which reflects their state of mind - if they do, this Government will take their money and use it where it was never used before. [Interjections.]

I have said the ghettos never created themselves. [Interjections.] No, for God’s sake, Dene should listen. The ghettos never created themselves. There never was a Soweto until some white people sitting in this institution created it. That is it. Yes! [Interjections.] Now what are they offering as a solution? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

The MINISTER: Look they are in denial mode. That is the problem. They should be saying ``The past was awful, this is what we will do, together with the Government.’’ We do not even want their phony apology. [Interjections.] What we want is their honest action to deal with the past. [Applause.] They are not as yet grappling with that past. Instead they are seeking a reassurance that indeed things that have to be done are not going to be done. They are even afraid of affirmative action. [Interjections.] They are afraid of it. Does the hon member practise it? Does the hon member practise it? [Interjections.] Where? For God’s sake, they had centuries to do it. They had 46 years of apartheid to do it. They sat here to our exclusion. They never did it. They cannot do it now. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

    CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON LIMITATION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
                    GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS BILL

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

    INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ORGANS OF STATE BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Mr Chairman, the Bill that lies before the House has a long history. On 3 October 1985 the SA Law Commission reported to the then Minister of Justice on its investigation into time limits for the institution of actions against the state. That was, Project 42. The SA Law Commission recommended, among other things: the repeal or amendment of several provisions which limited the institution of actions against Government institutions or persons for whose actions Government institutions were liable in law; uniform provisions for such actions in terms whereof the defendant, that is the Government or a Government institution, had to be notified in writing of intended proceedings within six months after the debt became due; and that the usual requirements for prescription should apply to the debts of Government institutions.

The recommendations of the SA Law Commission were encompassed in a draft Bill, but, presumably because of objections by certain Government institutions, that Bill was never introduced into Parliament. However, in the light of legislative changes that have taken place since 1985, and the reasoning in the case of Mohlomi v Minister of Defence, where the Constitutional Court held that section 113(1) of the Defence Act of 1957, which provided for limitations of actions against the Defence Force, was constitutionally invalid, the SA Law Commission submitted a Supplementary Report on the Investigation into Time Limits for the Institution of Actions against the State to the previous Minister of Justice on 30 September 1998.

The Limitation of Legal Proceedings against Government Institutions Bill of 2000, which emanated from that report, was eventually introduced into Parliament on 25 November 1999. The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the Bill and the submissions received in respect thereof, presented the Bill which is before the House today, namely the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill of 2000.

Because the objects of the respective clauses of the Bill are dealt with comprehensively in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, I do not find it necessary to discuss or to give a detailed explanation of these clauses. I will rather use this opportunity to briefly highlight the necessity and desirability of statutory provisions of the kind contained in the Bill.

There are at present several statutory provisions which regulate the right of a person to institute legal proceedings against certain organs of state, for example, the SA Police Service and the Public Service, for the recovery of certain debts. The majority of these provisions provide that the creditor or plaintiff must give the organ of state concerned notice of his or her intention to institute legal proceedings against that organ of state, and that a certain period of time must elapse from the date of the notice before such legal proceedings may be instituted.

Provision is further made for the lapse of the right to institute such legal proceedings after the expiry of certain fixed periods, calculated from the date when the cause of action arose. The periods allowed for the issuing of a notice, and the expiry periods differ from one statute to another, and this creates uncertainty that is aggravated by the uncertainty about the constitutionality of each different provision. In the light of the above, the principal object of the Bill is to harmonise and create uniformity in respect of the existing laws pertaining to notice periods for the institution of legal proceedings against organs of state. Regarding the origin of such, let us call them restrictive, provisions, it was pointed out in the SA Law Commission’s 1985 report that the position regarding state liability was not clear in the Roman and Roman-Dutch law. However, between 1888 and 1903 laws were passed in the Cape, Natal, Free State and Transvaal to lay down the principle clearly that the state was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. Provisions providing for specific expiry periods and requirements of notice followed shortly thereafter.

Regarding the necessity and desirability of notice requirements as envisaged by the Bill, the Constitutional Court in the Mohlomi case made, inter alia, the following remarks:

An insistence on notices of the kind required by section 113(1) is by no means peculiar to the particular proceedings that it governs. Similar conditions precedent to the institution of actions are, and have long been, familiar features of our statutory terrain, especially the part occupied by departments of state, provincial administrations and local authorities once they become prospective defendants. The conventional explanation for demanding prior notification of any intention to sue such an organ of Government is that, with its extensive activities and large staff, which tends to shift, it needs the opportunity to investigate claims laid against it, to consider them responsibly and to decide, before getting embroiled in litigation at public expense, whether it ought to accept, reject or endeavour to settle them.

The court continues:

Rules that limit the time during which litigation may be launched are common in our legal system as well as many others. Inordinate delays in litigating damage the interests of justice. They protract the disputes over the rights and obligations sought to be enforced, prolonging the uncertainty of all concerned about their affairs. Nor, in the end, is it always possible to adjudicate satisfactorily on cases that have gone stale. By then, witnesses may no longer be available to testify. The memories of one whose testimony can still be obtained may have faded and become unreliable. Documentary evidence may have disappeared. Such rules prevent procrastination and the harmful consequences of it. They, thus, serve a purpose to which no exception in principle can cogently be taken.

Further arguments that could be raised in support of the provisions of the Bill, and which have already been raised in the SA Law Commission’s 1985 report, are, amongst others, the following. Organs of the state are obliged by law to follow cautious and sometimes cumbersome procedures. Organs of state operate on an annual budget and must be notified of possible claims as soon as possible. Organs of state need time to deliberate and consider questions of policy and the possibility of settlements. If a settlement can be arrived at, unnecessary costs are saved. Organs of state act in the public interest and not for gain. Certain organs of state are obliged by law to render services in the public interest which expose them to actions. Because public funds are involved, organs of state must guard against unfounded claims.

I am aware that, over the years, some judges have drawn attention to the adverse effect on claimants of requirements like those provided for in the Bill. Mr Justice Innes then a judge of the Appellate Division, described them in Benning v Union Government as conditions which clog the ordinary right of an aggrieved person to seek the assistance of a court of law''. In Avex Air v Borough of Vryheid, Mr Justice Botha, then a judge of the Appellate Division, referred to them ashampering as it does the ordinary rights of an aggrieved person to seek the assistance of the courts’’.

I also realise that certain counterarguments could also be raised against the provisions of the Bill. For example, organs of state are not the only defendants who have extensive activities and a fluctuating workforce. Large companies experience the same problems, but do not enjoy special protection. Although it is in the public interest that public funds should not be wasted, it is also in the public interest that well-founded claims should not fail as a result of strict procedural requirements.

Although these counterarguments may be valid, I am of the opinion, and I think that members of this House will agree with me, that when the pros and cons of the provisions of the Bill are considered, one can come to no other conclusion than that the advantages of those provisions far outweigh any disadvantage which they may have. I also agree with the Constitutional Court’s remark in the Mohlomi case that rules that limit the time during which litigation may be launched, such as the provisions of this Bill, serve a purpose to which no exception in principle can cogently be taken. Furthermore, it is important to know that the Bill empowers the court, upon application by a creditor, and if certain requirements are met, to condone such creditor’s failure to comply with the notice requirements provided for in the Bill.

I would like to make use of this opportunity to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, Adv Johnny de Lange, and members of that committee for the hard work they have put into the consideration and improvement of this Bill. I am of the opinion that the high standard which this committee has set for itself in its approach to and processing of legislation in general is, once again, reflected in the manner in which the committee dealt with this Bill.

I have noted the contents of the portfolio committee’s report on the Bill, and I would like to give the committee the assurance that I will see to it that my department attends, as a matter of urgency, to the issues which fall within our line function. [Applause.]

Adv J H DE LANGE: Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen, hon members, I rise in unconditional support of this Bill on behalf of the ANC, and also to thank all the parties that were involved with the drafting of this Bill. It has been passed without any opposition, but more importantly, it is an incredibly technical and difficult Bill. We had to sit long hours and spend much time in trying to really sort out what the law is in this regard. I really want to thank everyone for the role they have played in this regard. Of course, that includes the officials from the department and the SA Law Commission who have assisted. They really have had to keep their wits about them.

Before I say a few words on the Bill, I just want to raise one issue to which the Minister alluded towards the end of his input. It is the fact that, once again, we had to amend parts of the Black Administration Act. All the parties have found it quite extraordinary that the Black Administration Act has not as yet been reviewed. As members know, the Black Administration Act, which was passed in 1927, was the cornerstone for the manner in which Africans were treated in this country under the apartheid government. Our government committee is making, I think, the third amendment to this Act. Furthermore, about a week ago the High Court found that certain provisions in the regulations that deal with intestate black estates are unconstitutional. It is very clear that this Bill is iniquitous. It was one of the cornerstones of apartheid.

As far as our department is concerned, we have dealt with those parts that we administer. But the problem is that most of the Bill falls under other departments. Therefore, we really are urging Government to try to get the departments together in order, once and for all, to review this legislation and get rid of those parts that we particularly do not need anymore, which I think will probably be the whole Bill. I cannot imagine that even one word of it should stay on the Statute Book. I raise this on behalf of the whole committee, because I think this is really important. As I have said, most of the aspects have already been amended by our department, but the problem is to get the other departments to review the other aspects.

As has already been mentioned, this Bill really deals with a difficult part of our law, which is the question of what restrictions we place on litigants who want to bring cases against the state. For example, what time limits do we set and what procedural steps do we take to create limitations for a person litigating against the state?

As members know, the cornerstone of dealing with prescription in this country is the Prescription Act of 1969. This is an old and archaic Act. We have made reference to this in our resolution. It seems to us that the whole area of prescription needs to be reviewed. We cannot rely on this 1969 Act, particularly because we have found in our law that there are more exceptions to the rule than otherwise. There are more pieces of legislation that deviate from the Prescription Act than comply with it.

This was brought about during the apartheid era. On the one hand periods of prescription were provided for in the Prescription Act, of which there were many - the most important one being a three-year prescription period, except when one of many disabilities applied, such as in the case of minors. On the other hand, a lot of other laws, for example in terms of the police, defence, correctional services, intelligence, the Public Service, and provincial and local government, were passed, creating further restrictions, not only on the time in which one could bring a case, but also in terms of other procedural restrictions. For example, in most of these cases one had to bring a notice within one month or six months from the date the action arose. If one did not meet those requirements, then one’s case simply prescribed and one could not bring a case anymore.

Therefore, if one studies this Bill one realises the fact that what it does

• and it is sad that its name originally referred to limitation of legal proceedings - is that it extends the rights of people. Firstly, what we have done is to harmonise or create uniformity of all those laws that we deal with in the Bill in terms of prescription. We have repealed all those Acts that limit the period to lower than three years, and have made the Prescription Act now apply to all those laws. This will mean, at the very least, that one will always have a prescription period of three years. To use an example, the South African Police Service Act at present provides for a prescription period of one year, but once we have passed this legislation the prescription period will move up to three years in cases against the police.

Therefore, when it comes to state institutions or what we have defined as organs of state - which we have defined more narrowly in this legislation than in the Constitution, but still very broadly - being sued, both contractually and delictually, we have now changed the prescription period to a more balanced period of at least three years.

Let me say this before I get to the second point. On that first point of prescription, I must mention that we have not included a review of all legislation dealing with prescription. For example, the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act is not included in this legislation. This Act has its own rules pertaining to prescription. The President has established a commission to review all aspects of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act and we felt that that commission should also look at the area of prescription.   The same goes for the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We have not included it in this Bill because we felt it needed to be addressed separately. On the whole, other than these, most other pieces of legislation dealing with prescription are contained in this Bill.

Secondly, this Bill also provides that in all these cases a notice must be provided to the organ of state against which one litigates. Such a notice must be lodged within six months after the debt becomes due. In the case of a delict, the debt, for example, becomes due on the day of a car accident. Within six months of that happening, one has to let the organ of state know, by notice, that one is going to proceed against it.

However, we included a further innovation which did not exist previously. That is that if one does not give one’s notice within the six-month period, we allow such a person to approach the court, and if he or she can give sufficient reasons why he or she did not give notice in time, the court can condone the fact that a notice was not given. Therefore, in theory, until one’s prescription period has passed, which will usually be three years, one would still be able to apply for condonation if one did not give notice in time.

Hon members can therefore see that we have, on the one hand, extended people’s rights by extending the period within which people can litigate. On the other hand, we have tried to retain some certainty for the organs of state. We have tried to create a balance. Thus, even in cases where people did not strictly stay within the parameters of the law, courts can decide if they have a good enough reason not to have given notice. And if they have a good enough reason, then, of course, it can be condoned.

I therefore feel that, on the whole, we now have a very balanced piece of legislation regulating when one wants to sue or litigate against organs of state. Firstly, we have extended the rights of our people by extending the period of prescription. This is essential, especially in the rural areas where people are more illiterate, and it could take some time before they reach a lawyer or can actually make their case known. It will give them more leeway and enable them to litigate at a later stage.

Secondly, of course, we have also created some certainty for Government in the sense that there has to be a notice period. Yet, we have not made it inflexible, because the court can still condone it.

A lot of what we have done has flowed from our new Constitution, which stipulates that every person has the right to a court hearing of any dispute he or she would want to place before the court. On the basis of the interpretation of that right the Constitutional Court has, in the Mohlomi case, decided that the notices required by the Defence Act were unconstitutional.

In my opinion we have gone even further than the Mohlomi case, and I have no doubt that we have complied with both our Constitution and the ruling in the Mohlomi case, and that we have brought everything in line with the Constitution. In my view we have, in this regard, created a much better and more humane regime around prescription periods.

As I have said, we also passed a resolution which deals extensively with issues which we could not include in this legislation. The most important of these is the Black Administration Act. We think the whole Prescription Act should also be reviewed, as well as a few other issues. I suggest that everyone should read about these in the resolution. [Applause.]

Mr M A MZIZI: Chairperson, Minister and other Ministers, I rise on behalf of the IFP to support the Bill. We support this Bill, not only because it is a good piece of legislation, but because the Bill has actually come a long way since the dark days when these Bills were prescriptive. The Bill does, indeed, cover many areas. In the past, the miners could not bring a lawsuit against Government institutions but, from now on, they may do so. One other thing that I want to address is an issue raised by my colleague in the FF …

… die agb Corné Mulder. Hy het nou die dag bekommerd geraak oor my toespraak tydens die debat oor Zimbabwe en wel omdat ek in isiZulu gepraat het. Miskien was sy besorgdheid geregverdig. Die probleem is dat daar miskien nie ‘n tolk was nie. Ek wil hom verseker dat as ons in ons eie taal praat, dit nie is omdat ons probeer om iets weg te steek nie. Daar is baie ongeletterde swartes daarbuite wat nie kan verstaan as ons Afrikaans praat nie. Hulle mag dink ons praat miskien in ‘n hoogdrawende taal wat hulle nie kan verstaan nie. Ek wil die agb Mulder ook verseker dit is nie soos daardie toespraak van my oupa Dingaan kort voor die Slag van Bloedrivier nie. Hy moet net nie bekommerd raak nie. Hy moet rustig bly. Ons kan nie weer vir hom sê wat in daardie toespraak gesê is nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[… the hon Corné Mulder. He became concerned about my speech during the debate on Zimbabwe the other day, because I spoke in isiZulu. Perhaps his concern was justified. The problem is that there may not have been an interpreter. I want to assure him that when we speak in our own language, it is not because we are attempting to hide anything. There are many illiterate blacks out there who cannot understand what we are saying when we speak Afrikaans. They may think that we are speaking in a grandiloquent language which they cannot understand. I also want to assure the hon Mulder that it is not like that speech of my grandfather Dingaan shortly before the Battle of Blood River. He should not become worried. He must remain calm. We cannot repeat to him what was said in that speech.]

Mangisho-ke lapha ukuthi lo mthetho ufike ngesikhathi esiwulungele kube kufanele ukuthi, ngabe ngempela, kudala wafika. Uma umuntu ewubheka lo mthetho, uqinisekisa ngezinto eziningi lapho umuntu engathola khona ukuthi nengane ingakwazi ukumelwa. Uma umuntu efuna ukufaka isicelo, esedlulelwe yisikhathi, naye lowo muntu unelungelo lokuya enkantolo ayofaka leso simangalo ukuze inkantolo imelekelele ukuthi akwazi ukuqhubeka ngalelo cala.

Kodwa-ke engithanda ukuthi ngikubeke lapha kuNgqongqoshe ngukuthi, ngeshwa, umThetho omayelana nezingozi zemigwaqo, i-MVA, asikaxoxi kabanzi ngawo. Kunemitheshwana lapha engibona ukuthi impela kuzofuneka bayichibiyele. Njengokuthi nje uma umuntu efelwe yingane, ishayiswe yimoto, lapho eseya emthethweni eyofuna ukunxephezeliswa, kufika kuthiwe: Cha, awulahlekelwanga yilutho ngoba leyo ngane ibingangenisi mali. Kuye kuthi umuntu efelwe yinkosikazi athi uma eyofaka isicelo sokuthi anxephezeliswe kuthiwe kuye, cha, akukho sinxephezeliso angasithola ngoba lowo muntu kade engangenisi mali kodwa umuntu ebe elahlekelwe yigugu lakhe. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)

[I would like to mention that this Bill comes at the right time, actually it is a long awaited Bill. When one looks at it, it says that even a child can be represented. If one wants to institute an overdue application, one has the right to make that application in court so that the court will assist one in continuing one’s case.

What I want to say to the hon the Minister is that we have not discussed the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, legislation on road incidents. There are clauses which I think will have to be amended. For instance, if a person loses a child in a road incident, when that person goes to court for compensation, he is told that he has not lost anything, because that child did not bring any money home. If a man who has lost his wife goes to court for compensation, he is told that he will not be compensated because his deceased wife did not bring any money home. But be that as it may, the person has lost something precious to him.]

O ka utlwisisa hore ho jwang ha mosadi wa hao ya motle a o lahlehetse, ebe o bolellwa hore, tjhe, eno ha a na taba, ha o a lahlehelwa hobane mosadi eno o ne a sa tlise letho lapeng. Empa o lahlehetswe. Ke ne ke lakatsa he hore ha ho shejwa Molao ono, ka nnete ho ke ho shejwe taba eno ya hore motho a fumane phumula-meokgo ha eba a lahlehetswe ke setho sa hae seo a neng a se rata haholo, ho ena le hore ho thwe se ne se sena mosebetsi. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)

[One can understand how it must feel to be told, after losing one’s beautiful wife, that one should not worry because she was not the breadwinner. The fact is that one has lost a loved one. When the Bill is being considered, what must be looked into is the issue of compensation for the loss of a loved one rather than the question of whether or not that person supported the families financially.]

Siyakubonga lokhu ngokuthi kufike ngesikhathi esikahle ngoba phela uma umuntu engekwazi ukufaka icala enkantolo, esedlulelwe yisikhathi, kungenzeka ukuthi abaningi bethu balahlekelwe ngokuningi njengoba sasilahlekelwa ekuqaleni. Sekukuhle-ke manje uma uHulumeni osephethe eseze wasibonelela. [lhlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)

[We appreciate this Bill since it has come at the right time. If a person cannot make an overdue application, many of us will lose many things, as happened in the past. It is good now that the present Government is treating us with more consideration. [Applause.]]

Mrs S M CAMERER: Chairperson, the New NP supports this Bill. As acting spokesperson on Justice for the DA, it is a pleasure for me to say, for the first time that I have occasion in this House, that the DA supports the Bill. My colleague, Hendrik Schmidt of the DP will also confirm this later on in the debate.

The pleasure also derives from being able to speak on behalf of a much larger group of democratically elected representatives of the people - up from 28 to 68 members - which also includes the FA. On behalf of the DA, I also support the remarks of the chairperson, the hon Johnny de Lange, on the Black Administration Act.

This Bill is not controversial as far as it goes. It is supported by all the parties in the House, as far as I am aware. Since this Bill was originally introduced to Parliament by the Minister of Justice, it has not only changed its name but also, to an extent, its nature, but its purpose remains the same as originally intended by the SA Law Commission, namely, to place limits on legal proceedings against Government institutions. It is interesting to note the resolute manner in which the present governing party appears to have adopted the penchant for euphemisms and euphemistic titles of the previous government.

The Limitation of Legal Proceedings against Government Institutions Bill has now become the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill. But the limitations, indeed, remain. That having been said, I do not disagree with the chairperson, the hon De Lange, that in some cases, the prescription periods have been extended and the parameters and structure for the limitations have indeed been greatly improved by this offering of the Portfolio Committee on Justice.

As often happens, the original Bill has been almost entirely redrafted in the committee - as the chairperson indicated - with the very able assistance of, as usual, Messrs Labuschagne and De Lange of the Department of Justice. Significant improvements to the Bill include the tightening of definitions and extension of the application of the definition of organs of state and, thereby, the Bill and more detailed, rational provisions relating to giving of notices and service and process.

The main thrust of the Bill, as has been indicated, is to create as much uniformity as possible in the provisions relating to the institution of legal proceedings against Government bodies or organs of state as they are defined in the Bill, for the recovery of debt and to further regulate the periods of prescription which apply to the debts of Government. While the Bill is highly technical and creates greater uniformity and certainty in relation to legal cases instituted against the state, this is to be welcomed, which is the main reason why we in the New NP and the Democratic Alliance support the legislation. The question of whether such limitations fall foul of the Constitution remains to be resolved, as has been indicated in the resolution of the committee. In fact, the extent to which different periods of notice of proceedings and differing prescription periods applied to various areas of government was quite a revelation and certainly did not favour, in the past, the man or woman in the street seeking justice against a Government body. This has, hopefully, been remedied to some extent.

Both organ of state'' anddebtor’’ are widely defined in the Bill. Organ of state'' includes all national and provincial government departments, municipalities and officials or institutions exercising powers and functions in terms of the Constitution or provincial constitutions. Debt’’ includes debts arising from unlawful acts and omissions for which the organs of state may be liable to pay damages, based either on delictual or wrongful action on the part of the institution, and official or statutory liability. However, the Bill will not apply to any debt arising from contractual liability.

The Bill imposes a duty on any creditor to give the organ of state written notice of the intention to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt which must be served on the Government body within six months of the debt becoming due. Full particulars of the debt must be given in the notice. But, recognition that we are in the information technology age has been incorporated into the Bill, for the first time in legislation before this House, by providing that the notice may indeed be sent by e-mail or fax. However, the Bill also implies that such a drastic step would only be resorted to in order to beat a deadline as a hard copy of the notice must be delivered within a week of the e-mail being sent. Nevertheless, this provision, in an otherwise legalistic and technical Bill, has created new millennium history and presumably, the precedent thus created will be followed in future in legislation dealing with the provision of notice.

The matter of the six-month notice period is not unproblematic in the sense that it reduces a 12-month notice period applicable in certain provisions being repealed by the Bill. However, a creditor may apply to court for condonation of failure to give notice within the six-month period which the court may grant on good cause shown, and provided that the organ of state is not unreasonably prejudiced. The Bill also deals with prescription of these debts.

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

Mrs S M CAMERER: Chairperson, my colleague will deal with the other aspects of the Bill.

Adv H C SCHMIDT: Chairperson, this Bill is of a highly technical and legal nature. The question which needs to be answered is whether the Bill, in regulating the institution of legal proceedings against organs of state, constitutes a threat to the rights of citizens.

More in particular, we should ask whether the Bill also grants protection to impoverished people whose rights have been grossly infringed and who, firstly, may be unable to meet the necessary deadline of giving notice within six months after the debt has become due, or, secondly, may only become aware of their rights to compensation long after the event.

The answer to this question, in our view, should be an affirmative one, in that the limitation of six months for the giving of notice of intended legal proceedings against organs of state, as defined in the Bill, is reasonable and justifiable in terms of the Constitution. The provision for a court to condone a creditor’s failure to give timeous notice within six months after a debt has arisen is entirely consistent with the common law concerning the entitlement to apply for condonation of the late notification of the institution of such legal proceedings.

The mere fact that a specified period is mentioned in the Bill does not exclude any affected person from bringing such an application against an organ of state after the six months has expired. The circumstances of each and every individual case will have to be considered and weighed against the requirements, set out in the Bill, being that the debt has not been extinguished by prescription, that good cause exists for the failure by the applicant and that the organ of state was not unreasonably prejudiced by the failure of the creditor to notify the organ of state timeously. The decision, therefore, lies squarely within the discretion of the court.

It is to be noted that not all civil claims are dealt with by this Bill. Two important exceptions should be mentioned. The first is the exclusion of all contractual matters when the organ of state as a contracting party is affected. This is so because the reason for the granting of a six months’ notice period to organs of state is based on the practical requirement that, due to their size and the number of issues being dealt with simultaneously, including the institution of various legal actions, an organ of state needs to know which actions are contemplated to be instituted against it, in order to preserve the necessary records and/or obtain evidence pertaining to the events relied upon by the other party in suing it. Secondly, a party suing another person, be it a natural or a juristic person, is only bound, in terms of this Bill, to give notification to an organ of state as defined in the Bill.

A further important aspect of this Bill relates to the intention to provide uniformity for the extinction of debts by prescription. This, in short, means that excluding a small number of existing Acts, the normal period of three years has to lapse since the debt arose before it can be stated that a debt has, in fact, prescribed. This is in favour of those persons and/or institutions who intend to sue organs of state for debt arising due to any unlawful act or commission for which an organ of state is liable for the payment of damages. In this respect, the Bill does away with certain more limited time periods of, inter alia, 12 months for the prescription of certain debts, by means of a schedule repealing sections of, inter alia, the Black Administration Act of 1927, the Merchant Shipping Act and various other legal aspects.

It is, however, unfortunate and surprising to find that the Black Administration Act of 1927, or at least certain sections thereof, is still operational. It is our view as the DP that the simplification and uniformity of a notification period, an extinctive prescription period of three years, is desirable to ensure that little is left to chance and the ignorance of people who intend to sue other organs of state not defined in this Bill, and who do not do so due to a lack of knowledge of the particular provisions prescribed, within the particular Act applicable to the civil action. We therefore support the request by the portfolio committee that certain sections of a number of Acts listed in the reports of the portfolio committee, inter alia the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, the Road Accident Fund Act and the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, be reviewed. The DP therefore supports the Bill as it provides, inter alia, for well- defined periods relating to a notification period of six months as well as the reinstatement of the period of three years pertaining to the prescription of debt by extinction.

Mr M E MABETA: Chairperson, the UDM fully supports this Bill. We also agree with the resolutions taken by the committee that the provisions have to be revisited in order to arrive at a more uniform notice period in notices and prescriptions, even though this means that certain Acts, such as the Black Administration Act, have to be visited in a piecemeal approach.

However, the end result will be a more harmonious, uniform and sustainable system which accommodates differences, where appropriate, in a manner that does not lead to negative consequences such as litigation, uncertainty and injustice. They are unnecessary and come at a great cost to the public.

We fully support the Bill.

Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, hon Minister, it is undeniable that the various statutory provisions that limited the right of a person to institute proceedings against organs of state resulted in much injustice over the years.

When one, furthermore, considers the multiplicity of provisions regulating notice and prescription periods, it is apparent that these provisions created a legal minefield for lawyers attempting to assist clients in instituting actions against organs of state. Thus, in order to create uniformity, existing provisions, with certain exceptions, are repealed by this Bill, and substituted with uniform notice and prescription periods which will apply in respect of all proceedings against organs of state, as defined, arising out of a debt.

The question arose during the committee’s deliberations on the desirability of organs of state receiving prior notice of such proceedings at all. The rationale for the notice requirement is that Government institutions should be notified of intended litigation to enable them to investigate an incident properly, and if necessary, arrange to settle the matter.

This requirement was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in the Mohlomi decision, referred to by the hon the Minister and Adv De Lange. One should further bear in mind that condonation can be obtained where notice is not timeously given, and that such condonation will be granted where the action has not prescribed, where good cause is shown and where there is no unreasonable prejudice to the state.

The ACDP supports this legislation as it creates uniformity, subject to certain exceptions, regarding both notice and prescription periods applicable when one wishes to recover damages from an organ of state. It furthermore addresses the manifest inequality which existed between persons who wished to claim against organs of state, as opposed to claiming against some other defendant.

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, hon Minister, the introduction of this Bill is the culmination of a recommendation made in 1985 regarding time limits for the institution of actions against the state.

This Bill, is an adaptation of the draft legislation which encompassed the recommendations contained in the report of the SA Law Commission and has taken into account changes in legislation since that report was published and the reasoning of the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of a provision in the Defence Act, which resulted in the SA Law Commission submitting a supplementary report.

Clause 2 of this Bill clearly lists circumstances in which the provisions will not apply to debts, eg where the debt has been extinguished by prescription before the Bill comes into operation, where legal proceedings have been instituted in respect of a debt before the Bill comes into operation, in which case the proceedings must be continued and concluded as if the Bill had not been passed. These repeals and amendments will facilitate and expedite the proceedings.

Clause 3 contains the main thrust of the Bill, namely that no creditor may institute legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt against an organ of state, unless such creditor has given the organ of state written notice of his or her intention to do so or the organ of state has given written consent for the institution of legal proceedings without such notice.

Clause 4 sets out different ways in which a notice of intention to institute legal proceedings may be served on an organ of state. It goes on to explain clearly where a notice has been sent … [Time expired.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, in a democratic country the people, through political parties, decide how the various organs of state should function at the economic, social and political levels. The state has a duty to govern social order and implement legitimate action against any citizen who violates the laws and administration of the country. Likewise, the state has to lead by example, and must be accountable to any citizen if a particular contract of performance has been breached. Therefore, the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill empowers creditors to institute legal action, subject to fair criteria and within a reasonable period of six months, against the state to recover damages or debt.

The Bill facilitates the course of the administration of justice without prejudicing creditor or debtor. The MF supports the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Organs of State Bill.

Ms F I CHOHAN-KOTA: Chairperson, hon members, in this debate one has often heard people say how technical this Bill is. In fact, this is a trick of the trade. Lawyers often say that things are very technical so that they do not have to explain the practical import of what they are saying.

This Bill, as it happens, is of enormous practical import. As any practising attorney will tell you, the time periods and the prescription periods that applied previously posed an enormous challenge and often led to many injustices. In some instances a person who had suffered damages at the hands of the state would have as little as a month to institute action or lose forever the right to claim.

One could legitimately ask: Why should the state be treated differently from other litigants? The argument goes that the state needs to be treated differently when sued so that its complex bureaucracies can regulate their affairs. However, the organisational and functional needs of the state have to be balanced with the rights of the individual, particularly in our constitutional dispensation, and so the Act provides for the following innovations. A six-month period now applies for notices to be served on the state. Servicing of these notices can now be made in the form of fax or e- mail. If the notice period, for some good reason, is not able to be complied with by the litigant, then the court is able to condone this shortcoming. Furthermore, a three-year period is allowed for the issue of summons, as opposed to the 12-month period that would generally apply.

In short, this Bill strikes a good balance between the rights of the individual and the peculiar needs of the state. It simplifies the area of prescription and notice periods when the state is sued, and I am sure that everybody will welcome this new Act. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I notice that the hon Mr Salie Manie’s vacuum cleaner has not done an efficient job of clearing this House entirely of its members. Hon members, that concludes … Oh, we still have to hear from the Minister. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I do not think I should say anything, save to thank all the hon members and the parties they represented here for supporting this Bill, and also to say that I have given an undertaking to the chairperson of the portfolio committee that within the next six months we will be able to respond as a department to all the issues raised in the memorandum that the portfolio committee has kindly given us on this Bill - as government, rather than as the department. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 17:15. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

The following member has been appointed to serve on the Committee
 mentioned, viz:
 Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence:

 Pillay, S R

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

The following members have been appointed to serve on the Committee
 mentioned, viz:


 Ad hoc Committee on Pan-African Parliament:

 ANC

 Doidge, G Q; Ebrahim, E I; Gandhi, E; Hangana, N E; Jeffery, J J;
 Kalako, M V (Alt); Lekgoro, M K; Magazi, N M (Alt); Maphalala, M A;
 Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masithela, N H (Alt); Mokaba, P R (Alt);
 Ncube, B N Z; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M N; Ramotsamai, C M P.

 DP
 Eglin, C W; Clelland, N.

 IFP

 Van der Merwe, J H.

 New NP

 Geldenhuys, B; Schoeman, R S (Alt).

 UDM

 Abraham, T.

 ACDP

 Madasa, Z L.

 FF

 Mulder, P W A.

 AZAPO

 Mangena, M.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the Abuja Treaty, dated 20 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Treaty establishing the African Economic Community (Abuja Treaty), referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Treaty.

 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Education on the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 55 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 26 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Education, having considered the subject of the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 55 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 55A - 2000].

2. Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 6 September 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered and
 examined the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
 of Vote 9: Constitutional Development for the year ended 31 March 1999
 [RP 132-99], as well as certain papers referred to it, and having heard
 evidence, reports as follows:


 1.     Financial management and internal audit
     (Par 3.4, page 5)

     The Committee commends the Accounting officer on the solid
     foundation that has been laid on which the Department can build
     its financial management capacity. In particular, the dedicated
     focus on financial management as an essential part of general
     management is commendable, and the Committee is also keen to see
     the results of the value-for-money tests in relation to work done
     on behalf of the Department by contractors outside the public
     sector. Most importantly, the Committee commends the Department on
     the steps taken to ensure appropriate control over the extensive
     transfer payments made by it.

     The Committee also took note of the Director-General's concern
     about the limited financial management expertise available in the
     public sector. Given the imminent implementation of the Public
     Finance Management Act, this expertise was becoming available only
     at a premium that may not be affordable in terms of the public
     sector pay scales.

     The Committee recommends that the Director-General persevere with
     the actions aimed at improved financial management, specifically
     with regard to the following aspects:


     (1)     To ensure that the Audit Committee fully complies with the
          requirements of section 77 of the Public Finance Management
          Act, which could entail the application of section 77(c).

     (2)     To bring the Internal Audit Component up to full strength,
          especially with regard to the head of the unit, and ensure
          continuing professional training for the staff in question.
          The Monitoring Unit: Internal Audit and Audit Committees
          established within the Office of the Accountant-General should
          advise the Accounting Officer and the Audit Committee on the
          adequacy of the staffing of the Department's Internal Audit
          Unit in terms of generally accepted benchmarks, and report to
          the Committee in this regard.

     (3)     To tighten up the relevant control measures to prevent any
          irregularities regarding cheques.


     With regard to other aspects relating to the implementation of the
     Public Finance Management Act, the Committee noted a number of
     commendable initiatives that the Accounting Officer had initiated,
     such as the recent review of the Department's approval of
     delegations as the first major step towards implementation of the
     Act. The Committee also noted the interaction with the National
     Treasury with regard to the management information systems
     currently available to public sector management that will have to
     support the various reporting requirements of the Public Finance
     Management Act.

     The Committee therefore further recommends that -


     (a)     the Accounting Officer report to the Committee regarding
          the manner in which the results of improved delegations will
          be measured, and whether any improvement has indeed been
          registered as a result;

     (b)     the Accounting Officer report on the extent of the success
          of aligning the Department's business plan with the
          performance agreements of its senior managers;

     (c)     the National Treasury provide the Committee with a brief
          report on the progress made with further improvements to the
          information systems required by Accounting Officers in order
          to comply with their reporting responsibilities in terms of
          the Public Finance Management Act.


 2.     Multiparty negotiation process: Conference facilities at World
     Trade Centre
     (Par 3.1, page 2)

     The Committee heard evidence from the Special Investigating Unit
     on its investigation into possible irregularities in expenditure
     relating to the leasing of conference facilities at the World
     Trade Centre, reported on in the Auditor-General's Reports on the
     1992-93 to 1997-98 financial years.

     Having referred the report of the Special Investigating Unit to
     the Auditor-General for comment, and having taken note of his
     comments, the Committee recommends that -


     (1)     the Accounting Officer fully investigate the possibility
          that a double payment might have been made by the Department
          with regard to certain assets which were invoiced directly to
          the Department but for which rental was also charged;

     (2)     the Parliamentary Law Advisers be requested to comment on
          the Special Investigating Unit's opinion that any claim by the
          Department against the WTC cannot be recovered, owing to the
          Prescription Act; and

     (3)     the Department of Public Service and Administration, in
          consultation with the National Treasury, report to the
          Committee whether appropriate disciplinary or other
          regulations exist that would enable action to be taken against
          Accounting Officers who allow prescription to take place,
          thereby resulting in a loss to the State.


 3.     Unauthorised expenditure, R217 215,05
     (Par 3.1.2(c), page 4)

     The Committee took note of the finding of an independent
     consultant, appointed by the Director-General, that no official
     could be held responsible for the unauthorised expenditure. The
     Committee also took note that the Auditor-General concurred with
     the report of the consultant.

     The Committee therefore recommends that the unauthorised
     expenditure of R217 215,05 be approved by Parliament.


 Report to be considered.

1. Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 6 September 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered and
 examined the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
 of Vote 8: Communications for the year ended 31 March 1999 [RP 131-99],
 as well as certain papers referred to it, and having heard evidence,
 reports as follows:

 The Committee commends the Department on its successful transition from
 a statutory body to a national Department of State and in particular on
 the efficient and professional manner in which the accounting systems
 were transformed. However, the Committee wishes to note that although
 the issues reported in the Auditor-General's Report appear to be of
 lesser materiality, issues of non-compliance and weak internal controls
 often lead to irregularities.


 1.     Management and internal control (Par 2.2.4, page 2)

     The Committee noted the evidence of the Director-General on the
     action taken against an official who by his actions had
     disregarded the requirements of the financial regulations,
     Treasury Instructions and departmental rules.

     The Committee therefore recommends that the Director-General -


     (1)     indicate to it how the success of the corrective measures
          already taken will prevent the repetition of similar
          transgressions; and

     (2)     ensure that staff members are fully conversant with the
          measures to be implemented as well as with the applicable
          rules and regulations.


 2.     Personnel expenditure (Par 2.2.6, page 6)

     The Committee has noted the evidence of the Director-General on
     the promotion and appointment of certain personnel, and the fact
     that these matters have not been finalised between the Department
     and the Office of the Auditor-General. The Committee has also
     noted that the Director-General is to seek legal opinion in this
     regard. The Committee therefore requests that he report back to
     the Committee on progress made.


 3.     Internal audit (Par 3.2.1, page 4)

     The Committee has taken cognisance of the processes in place to
     address deficiencies in the internal audit function, as well as
     those of getting internal control up to the required standard. A
     fully operational internal audit function is indispensable for the
     proper management of finance.

     The Committee welcomes the training workshops for personnel of the
     Department on the subject of internal control. The Committee
     requests the Director-General to submit to it the following within
     two weeks of the tabling of this Report in the National Assembly:


     (1)     A report on the abovementioned workshop.

     (2)     A copy of the Audit Committee Charter.

     (3)     A copy of the Internal Audit Charter.

     (4)     The latest audit programme, approved by the Audit
          Committee.


 4.     Student loans (Par 3.3.1, page 5)

     The issue of student loans has not been resolved between the
     Auditor-General's Office and the Department. The Committee
     recommends that this issue be resolved and that the Department as
     well as the Auditor-General report back to the Committee as a
     matter of urgency.


 5.     Fruitless expenditure: Interest on credit card accounts (Par
     3.4.1, page 6)

     The Committee expresses its concern that the late settlements of
     accounts resulted in interest payments amounting to R47 270.

     The Committee views such fruitless expenditure in a very serious
     light, more so because it is a waste of tax- payers' money. It is
     encouraging to note that the Director-General has initiated steps
     to ensure that such a situation does not recur in future.

     The Committee urges the Department to ensure that the
     implementation of the corrective measures is maintained on an
     ongoing basis.

     The effectiveness of these measures will be closely monitored by
     the Committee, in conjunction with the Office of the Auditor-
     General.


 6.     Other debtors (Par 3.6, page 7)

     Regarding the sale of the former Capital Radio, it is noted that
     this matter is before the courts and is therefore sub judice. The
     Committee also noted that the Director-General was confident that
     a future proposal will realise R10 million.

     The Committee therefore requests that the Department report the
     outcome of the court case to it, as well as the details of any
     future sale proposal.


 7.     General


     (1)     Late submission of financial statements


          The Director-General assured the Committee that, in respect of
          the 1999-2000 financial year, the Department's financial
          statements would be submitted to the Auditor-General's Office
          before the required time. The Committee welcomed this
          assurance, especially in view of the requirements and
          provisions of the Public Finance Management Act.


     (2)     Procurement process
          Regarding the procurement process, the Committee recommends
          that the Director-General -


          (a) take appropriate steps to ensure adherence to all tender
              procedures; and

          (b) respond in writing regarding the contract for the sale of
              non-ferrous scrap metal of Telkom and the Post Office.


 Report to be considered.