TUESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2000 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:00.

The Chairperson 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

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mr Chairperson, 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 Government programme on Aids is premised on the causality between HIV and Aids; (2) believes that -

   (a)  other factors such as the impact of sexually transmitted
       diseases, tuberculosis and aggravating factors such as poverty
       contributes to the development of this syndrome; and


   (b)  the challenge facing all sectors of the South African society is
       to intensify the HIV/Aids awareness campaign and ensure that a
       culture of living positively is encouraged amongst those
       infected with this virus; and

(3) calls on the media, the opposition parties and lobby groups to support the Aids awareness campaign and the Government’s comprehensive approach to fighting the scourge of HIV/Aids.

[Applause.]

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

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  President Thabo Mbeki last week compounded the national and
       international alarm at his views on HIV/Aids by claiming that he
       believes the emphasis placed on the epidemic was the result of a
       conspiracy by United States pharmaceutical companies; and
       [Interjections.]


   (b)  Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane stated last week that South
       Africa's response to the Aids epidemic was "as serious a crime
       against humanity as apartheid", that the Human Rights Commission
       is instituting procedures to sue the Government for refusing to
       provide drugs for HIV-positive people, and that the South
       African Medical Association, which represents at least 75% of
       practising doctors in South Africa, has accused the President of
       confusing South Africans by questioning the causal relationship
       between HIV and Aids; and

(2) calls on the President to cease inventing conspiracy theories and dallying with discredited flat-earthists, and instead put his weight firmly behind South Africa’s Aids prevention campaign.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Mr Chairperson, 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) acknowledges with due respect the call on the nation by the Minister for Welfare and Population Development, Dr Zola Skweyiya, to join the Government in various initiatives to deal with the problems faced by older people, orphans, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in our country;

(2) acknowledges the Minister’s declaration of the month of October as Social Development Month to address the extreme poverty under which our communities live; (3) acknowledges with satisfaction the Minister’s unwavering belief that thousands of men, women and children do indeed die of HIV/Aids and other diseases, and that over 600 000 children will be orphaned by the year 2010 due to HIV/Aids; and

(4) appeals to all role-players to assist the Minister and his Department in making the plight of women, Aids patients, the aged, and the disabled …

[Time expired.]

Mr B W KANNEMEYER: Mr Chairperson, 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)  Minister Zola Skweyiya has declared October a month of social
       development; and


   (b)  this coincides with the beginning of hearings on the review of
       the social security system;

(2) believes that this provides an opportunity for all to put social development and social security matters on the agenda; and

(3) calls on all South Africans to support Government’s efforts to focus its development strategies on the improvement of the quality of life of the poorest of the poor and fighting the scourge of HIV/Aids.

[Applause.]

Mr H A SMIT: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) requests clarification once and for all on the latest accusations regarding the alleged involvement of former ANC Ministers and dignitaries in irregularities concerning arms deals;

(2) urges all retiring Ministers and/or Deputy Ministers, MECs in provincial legislatures as well as directors-general of state departments, for at least 24 months after vacating their offices, not to hold any post or accept any directorship that could in any way be associated with the activities of their former department or related activities; and

(3) requests Cabinet to immediately launch an independent audit of this process, acting now, not tomorrow.

Chief N Z MTIRARA: Mr Chairperson, 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) commends the President, Mr Thabo Mbeki, for meeting with the traditional leaders of this country over the past weekend at which meeting there was a convergence of views on the need to revisit the concerns regarding municipal demarcations affecting rural communities falling under the jurisdiction of traditional leaders;

(2) notes with satisfaction that the postponement of elections will give the Government and the traditional leaders an opportunity to explore avenues in the local government electoral process that will accommodate the peculiar circumstances of rural constituencies;

(3) welcomes the appointment of a committee in which both Government and traditional leaders are represented; and

(4) regards this step as recognition and endorsement of the principle of broader consultation as a prerequisite for inclusive decision-making and implementation to ensure their legitimacy.

Ms I MUTSILA: Mr Chairperson, 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 former President of South Africa, Comrade Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, and Nigerian author, Chinua Achebe were amongst the first winners of the Pan-African Broadcast Heritage Achievement Awards;

(2) believes that these awards serve as an acknowledgement of the contribution of these sons of Africa to the human cause; and

(3) therefore congratulates these heroes on receiving these precious awards.

Genl C L VILJOEN: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die VF sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) met teleurstelling kennis neem dat Suid-Afrika nie op die Olimpiese Spele na wense gevaar het nie;

(2) aanvaar dat deelnemers hulle bes gedoen het, hulle bedank daarvoor en bly is vir die ervaring wat opgedoen is;

(3) met kommer kennis neem van die bestuurstyl van Noksa en die algemene insinking van die nasionale Olimpiese selfbeeld;

(4) dit onaanvaarbaar vind dat Noksa genoeg bofbalspelers na Sydney gestuur het vir twee spanne, maar die manshokkiespan, wat die Afrika- kampioenspan was, teruggehou het;

(5) Noksa se besluit om baie meer gaste en beamptes na Sydney te neem as deelnemers, bevraagteken; en

 6) 'n beroep doen op die Minister van Sport en Ontspanning om onverwyld
    'n kommissie aan te stel om Noksa as organisasie te ondersoek en
    meer doeltreffend te maak. (Translation of Afrikaans motion follows).

[Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the FF:

That the House -

(1) notes with disappointment that South Africa has not fared as desired at the Olympic Games;

(2) accepts that the participants did their best, thanks them for that and is pleased at the experience that has been gained;

(3) notes with concern the management style of Nocsa and the general decline in the national Olympic self-image;

(4) finds it unacceptable that Nocsa sent enough baseball players to Sydney for two teams, but held back the men’s hockey team, who were the African champions;

(5) questions the fact that Nocsa took many more guests and officials to Sydney than participants; and

(6) appeals to the Minister of Sport and Recreation immediately to appoint a commission to investigate Nocsa as organisation and to render it more effective.]

Mrs N R SHOPE: Mr Chairperson, 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 the outbreak of violence in the Gaza Strip which left a twelve- year old boy dead;

(2) believes that this new wave of violence will not assist in reaching a negotiated settlement in the Middle East;

(3) condemns the excessive use of violence; and

(4) calls on all the stakeholders to work for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Mnr A J BOTHA: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die DP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) raadslid Nkosiyomsi Jolozo gelukwens dat hy in belang van die mense van Bloemfontein uit die ANC bedank het en by die DA aangesluit het;

(2) sy kommer daaroor uitspreek dat ‘n vuurwapen op raadslid Jolozo gerig is deur ‘n toyi-toyiende, ANC vlag-swaaiende groep mense en dat die ANC nie hierdie optrede repudieer nie;

(3) sy skok uitspreek oor die aanslag op die lewe van Bongani, die seun van raadslid Jolozo, en met dank kennis neem dat hy in die hospitaal aansterk; en

4) die polisie dwarsdeur die land onderskraag met die handhawing van
   menseregte, veral gedurende die verkiesingsveldtog en ook omdat die
   ANC as meerderheidsparty klaarblyklik nie hierdie kultuur onder sy
   ondersteuners wil of kan vestig nie. (Translation of Afrikaans motion follows.)

[Tussenwerpsels.]

[Mr A J BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House - (1) congratulates Councillor Nkosiyomsi Jolozo on resigning from the ANC and joining the DA in the interests of the people of Bloemfontein;

(2) expresses concern that a firearm was aimed at Councillor Jolozo by a group of toyi-toying and ANC-flag-waving people and that the ANC does not repudiate this action;

(3) expresses its shock about the attempt on the life of Bongani, the son of Councillor Jolozo, and notes with gratitude that he is recuperating in hospital; and

(4) supports the police throughout the country by way of the maintenance of human rights, particularly during the election campaign, and also because the ANC as the majority party clearly cannot or will not establish this culture among its supporters.

[Interjections.]]

Mrs I MARS: Mr Chairperson, 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 with satisfaction that, finally, R180 million of national lotto funds will be made available to NGOs and other charitable organisations - many of them in dire need of financial assistance - in order to continue their valuable work on behalf of South Africa’s most marginalised citizens; and

(2) appeals to those concerned that the selection of organisations qualifying for assistance be done in an open and transparent manner, and to ensure that proper monitoring procedures are put in place so that the public may feel assured that the money is being used to benefit the most deserving causes.

Mr P M MATHEBE: Mr Chairperson, 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 the President of South Africa, the hon Thabo Mbeki, and his Nigerian counterpart, President Olusegun Obasanjo are discussing ways of reversing the brain drain and to encourage Africans to return to the continent;

(2) believes that this is an important pillar in the realisation of the African renaissance, growth and prosperity in the continent; and

(3) commends the two Presidents for embarking on this most important initiative.

[Applause.]

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes the horrific and callous murders of two traffic officers in KwaZulu-Natal while carrying out their duties;

(2) is shocked by the death of Manga Mahlangu, Deputy Police Commissioner in Mpumalanga, who was murdered in cold blood during a cash-in- transit heist;

(3) further notes that when members of the South African Police Service and law-enforcement officers are randomly executed, it confirms that crime is out of control; and

(4) once again appeals to the Government to impose the most severe punishment and to make an example of the trespassers so that the message will be clear: These cowardly actions will not be tolerated!

Prof L M MBADI: Mr Chairman, 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) welcomes the announcement of a campaign to address the problem of alien plants that have invaded South Africa;

(2) notes that millions of cubic litres of water are annually lost to alien plants, a situation which places our scarce water resources under unnecessary pressure;

(3) congratulates the Ministers of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Water Affairs and Forestry as well as the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs for launching a holistic approach, in line with the integrated approach to policy which the UDM advocates; and

(4) urges the Ministers involved to ensure that the campaign in October …

[Time expired.]

Ms M M RAMAKABA-LESIA: Mr Chairperson, 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 the first report received from employers under the Employment Equity Act showed that employers did not care about employment equity;

(2) believes that this demonstrates the unwillingness of many employers to adapt to the new democratic era and close the gap caused by apartheid inequality in the workplace; and

(3) calls on -

   (a)  the employers to heed the requirements of the new Act; and


   (b)  the Department of Labour to monitor those employers that are not
       complying and to use the provisions of this Act to make them
       comply.

[Applause.]

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE TEAM OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO REPRESENTED SA IN SIDNEY 2000 OLYMPIC GAMES

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mr Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House -

 (1)    notes that a team of men and women of South Africa represented
     our country at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney;


 (2)    congratulates the five athletes who won medals and those
     athletes who achieved career-best performances; and

 (3)    calls on Nocsa to hold an inquiry into the performance of our
     team and to work out a detailed plan to send the strongest
     possible team to the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens.

 Agreed to.

                     DEATH OF MRS N T MAJOKWENI

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr T ABRAHAMS: Mr Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House - (1) notes with sadness the passing away of Mrs N T Majokweni, a UDM member of the provincial legislature of the Eastern Cape;

(2) notes that her efforts towards having transformation expedited will remain on record; and

(3) conveys its condolences to her family and wishes them strength in their bereavement.

Agreed to.

RECOGNITION, ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH AFRICA

                      (Subject for discussion)

Gen C L VILJOEN: Mnr die Voorsitter, alhoewel ek gewoonlik Afrikaans en Engels praat, sal ek duidelikheidshalwe vandag net Engels praat. [Mr Chairman, although I usually speak Afrikaans and English, today I shall be speaking English only for the sake of clarity.]

Whereas history has brought together a great variety of us to share one common land, which is a phenomenon common to most nations right across the world in modern times; whereas we, after bitter strife and internal conflict, have reached a negotiated settlement - close to seven years ago - to move away from a divided past towards a united and peaceful future; whereas we have together negotiated democratic Constitution based on the fundamental principles of human rights to make South Africa a home for all the peoples living within its borders; whereas, in negotiations towards this Constitution, some major conflicts were averted by agreements on the processes whereby the diversity in our country would be dealt with by the acknowledgement and protection of national identities, thereby ensuring a peaceful transition; and whereas the final Constitution was adopted in 1994 with a unanimous agreement on the formulation of a number of clauses by all the participating parties, amongst others, on the issue of self- determination for national and other minorities or people in South Africa, I, therefore, move that this House today considers the progress on the recognition, enhancement and protection of different communities in South Africa after seven years.

The real danger is the tendency to perpetuate the black-white division. Unfortunately, this had been the major division in the struggle for freedom. But it is a racial approach and this racial criterion for defining communities, after seven years, is still a bad one. It is not sound. Rather than using criteria based on physical aspects such as the colour of the skin, it should rather be done on the intrinsic values of the differences in culture, language, customs and religion, as well as the common perception within the community on historical heritage and the value systems of a community. However, a community defines itself in a certain way, because it is the right and liberty of every South African to associate with others in terms of the Bill of Rights. This association, out of the people’s own free will, constitutes the common identity of specific groups. Here in our country there is a wide range of diverse groups based on differences on ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious grounds. South Africa is, indeed, therefore a country of communities. That is a phrase I borrow from a speech made by hon Minister Buthelezi some time ago.

From this diversity will come strength if it is managed in a way that will steer away from conflict towards a common patriotism and national unity in the national state. Recently in Germany, the representatives of a number of minority groups from across the world deliberated and agreed on the text of a declaration covering the rights of minorities. I have made copies available of that for all the parties present here. Let me quote one paragraph:

It is a common tendency of modern states to assume a national identity, culture, etc, and hence a need for unitary national institutions and solutions. Far too often this tendency leads to a disregard for, or underestimation of the multi-ethnic, multicultural and multireligious diversities that exist within the boundaries of a nation state. Thus, nation states tend to be nationalising states, assuming uniformity where it does not exist and far too often misuse the coercive power of state machinery and legislation to impose such uniformity.

Is this not the case in our country? The present conflict between traditional leaders and Government on the demarcation issue and the eroding of the traditional leaders within their communities is nothing but the systematic enforcement of uniformity, consequently denying communities any form of internal autonomy at that level of government where it really matters to the community which is the local one. The same holds for the Afrikaner community of Orania which is basing its claim for its own local government autonomy on the agreements with the ANC on self-determination. This is a clear-cut example where a community initiative, at its own expense, has created a situation which warrants the allocation of autonomy. The principle involved in the concept of community autonomy is that, unlike the forced or compulsory association such as we had in the apartheid era, this is a free association and therefore not contrary to democracy.

The demarcation process used for the coming local election is a manipulation of borders and systems that will result in the subverting of certain communities against their democratic will in such a way that they will further lose the right to live in accordance with community customs. Such communities may eventually arrive at a position where their culture, including language, education, traditions and religion, will be surrendered over a period of time. This is against the individual human rights concept and the broad spectrum of collective rights. In fact, it is enforced assimilation.

On the most basic aspect of language rights, which is protected by the Bill of Rights, only a mere 22% of the population in South Africa is prepared to state unequivocally that they understand Government communications and that is because of language. A mere 13% of black South Africans prefer education only through the medium of English. A high fsigure, 72% of all South Africans, value being served in their own language by Government and the private sector. Only 5% of Afrikaners feel that the Government respects their own language whilst about a third of blacks feel that the Government is insincere, or even hostile, in respect of their minority language rights. Yet, after seven years, there is still no national language policy or any language legislation. The hon the Minister of Justice is, in the meantime, promoting the idea of only one language of record in our courts.

The postponement of the long-delayed legislation on the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities is another example of the low priority accorded this major issue in our country!

It is my submission today to this House that this subject must receive the urgent and immediate attention of the Government. That is a sure way of winning loyalty and common patriotism towards national issues, for the degree of democracy in our country is not only measurable against the much applauded liberal Constitution that we have adopted, but, to a greater extent, against the freedom that is perceived by diverse communities living under the protection of such a Constitution, free from domination, free from overregulation and free to control their own destity.

Ngaka M W SEROTE: Modulasetulo, ke ratile gore re itumele thata fa Rre Constand Viljoen a kopile Ntlo-kgolo e go buisana ka kgang e tona ya morafe wa rona, kutlwisano ya ona le go kgatlana ga ona. Ke tshwanelo gore kgang e e tsenywe mo lenaneong la Ntlo-kgolo e, gonne re itse kwa re tswang teng. Maloba re ne re laolwa ka kgetololo, me gompieno re tshwanetse go ipotsa gore re tla tswelela pele jaang.

Setswana se na le seane se se reng ``Ga ra tshwanela go tshameka ka mathe, metsi a le teng’’. Go rialo, re le batho jaana, tlhaloganyo ya rona e gaisa ya sengwe le sengwe se se tshelang, ka gonne re na le bokgoni ba go tlhaloganya. Gompione re tshwanetse go ipotsa gore tlhaloganyo e re tla e dirisa jang fa re rakana le mathata a Rre Constand Viljoen a a umakileng.

Maloba jaana re dumetse gore go se nne le kgetololo ka mmala. Re le Ma- Aforika Borwa, re ne re ratile go dirisa tlhaloganyo ya go ipotsa gore tswelelopele e tlhodiwa ke eng. Se ke ratileng go se botsa ke gore jaaka re dutse mo Ntlong-kgolo e, a re ka dula ka dipelo tse di namileng le ditlhaloganyo tse di fodileng tsa gore kgethololo e neng e le teng e fedile. A ga se moo re tshwanetseng go dula teng, re buisane ka sona selo se, eleng kgetololo ya mmala?

Sa bobedi, maloba re dumetse gore ga ra tshwanela go kgetolola ka bong. Se re tshwanetseng go se dira ke go bona gore a re ka kgatlana, mme ra dirisana mmogo.

Fa re ka ipotsa, re le ma Aforika Borwa, a re ka bua ka dipelo tse di namileng gore ga go tlhole go na le le kgethololo ya bong?

Ntlha e ngwe e ke neng ke batla go bua ka yona ke gore maloba jaana re ne ra dumelana ka kgang ya gore go nne le tekatekanyo gareng ga batho, le gore batho ba nne le ditshwanelo jaaka batho Ma-Aforika Borwa. Gompione a re ka bua ka kgotso le pula mo dipelong tsa rona gore dintlha tse, re di kgonne? Ka mantswe a mangwe, a demokerasi re efitlheletse naa? Re tshwanetse go baya dintlha tse fa pele ga rona, re di lekole, re ipotse gore a naare re di kgonne kgotsa nnyaa. Ga gona mokgwa o mongwe o batho ba rona ba ka kopanang ka ona, mme ba nna mmogo.

Go na le lentswe la sekgowa le go tweng minority''. Re tshwanetse go ipotsa gore ke eng se se kayang gore batho keminority’’ me ba bangwe ga se majority''? A ke mmala kgotsa puo? Fa re ka sekaseka kgang ya mmala, kgethololo ya bong le demokerasi, re tla fitlha kwa e tla reng fa re bua ka minority’’, e bo e se ka mmala kgotsa puo.

Mokgatlo wa ANC o dumelane gore mongwe le mongwe o na le tetla ya go dirisa lengwao la gagwe. Ga go motho yo o kgoreleditsweng go dirisa lengwao la gagwe. Ga go ise go golegwe motho ka ntlha ya gore e le Mo-Juta, Mo- Aforikanere kgotsa Moyesemane.

Ke enge se se tlhodileng puisano e re buang ka yona gompieno? Rre Constand Viljoen o buile ka Orania. Ba santse ba le teng batho ba Orania, mme ba na le ditshwanelo tse di tshwanang le tsa mongwe le mongwe mo Aforika Borwa. A go na le mathata na? Re dumetse gore go nne le maleme a le ll. A seo ga se bopaki ba gore kgatelelo ga e tlhole e le teng? Maloba jaana re ne ra ya go buisana le Basarwa. Gompione fa re bua jaana ba na lekgotla kwa ba kopanelang teng go buisanya ka tirisano mmogo.

Go fitile dingwaga di le supa fa esale re simolola go buisana ka kgang e. A dintlha tse ga ra tshwanela go buisana ka tsona, re lebelele gore a re tsweletse pele kgotsa nnyaa. Fa go ntse jaana ke ipotsa gore mathata e kabe e le eng. Fa re bua ka se Afrikaans, nna ke kopa gore rohtle ba ba buang puo eo, ebile dingwao tsa rona e le tsa yone, re gopole gore fa re bua jaana ga re bue fela ka batho ba basweu, mme re bua ka mebala e le mentsi. Ke ne ke eletsa gore dihtlaloganyo tsa rona di ka fetoga go le gonnye, mme re nagane ka mokgwa o mongwe.

Afrikaans ga e buiwe gope kwantle ga Aforika Borwa. Go rialo ke amogetse gore Afrikaans e le jalo, na le ngwao e tsamaelang le yona. Ka 1955 Freedom Charter e ne e setse e bua ka sona selo se. E re mongwe le mongwe o na tetla ya go dirisa ngwao ya gagwe. Bothata bo kae? Ke itumela fa Rre Constand Viljoen a re lopile gore re bue ka ntlha e. [Nako e fedile.][Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana speech follows.)

[Dr M W SEROTE: Chairperson, we should be glad that Gen Viljoen has asked this House to discuss issues affecting our nation today. It is important that this matter has been included in the programme of this House because of our past history. We were governed by apartheid laws in the past and today we have to find ways to proceed.

There is a Setswana saying which roughly translated means we should use every little opportunity that we have and not waste it. This means that our minds are further advanced than anything else that lives and we are capable of understanding concepts. We should ask how are we going to use this understanding to deal with the problems that Gen Vijoen has referred to.

The other day it was agreed that there should not be discrimination based on colour. As South Africans we should apply our minds and ask how we can proceed. As we are seated here in this august House, is it possible to believe that discrimination is a thing of the past? Should we not discuss discrimination based on colour? Secondly, the other day we agreed that we should not discriminate on the basis of gender. What we should do is to work together to end this. Can we as South Africans honestly claim that gender discrimination no longer exists?

Another point that was made was that there should be equality among people and that all South Africans should have rights. Today can we talk about peace in our hearts and claim that we have been able to overcome our problems? In other words, have we been able to democratise our country? We have to put these points on the table and see whether we have succeeded or not. There is no other way for our people to meet.

The English have a word minority'. We should ask what determines people as a minority and others as the majority’? Is it language or colour? When we have investigated the question of colour, gender discrimination and democracy we will reach a point where we will no longer talk about `minority’. It will not be based on language or colour.

The ANC has decreed that everyone has the right to speak his or her own language. No one is prevented from speaking his or her own language. No one has ever been arrested for being a Jew, on Afrikaner or English.

What has prompted this discussion today? Gen Viljoen has spoken about Orania. The people of Orania have rights like each and every South African. Is there a problem? We agreed that there should be 11 languages. Is this not proof that there is no longer discrimination? The other day we went to speak with the Khoi-San. As we speak today, they have a place where they meet to discuss issues relating to them and they are working together.

Seven years have gone by since we started to discuss this matter. Are we not supposed to discuss these matters to determine whether we have progressed or not? I constantly ask myself where the problem lies. I would like to remind all those who claim to speak Afrikaans, that it is not only white people who speak this language but people of many colours. I would like us to change the way we think and think in other ways.

Afrikaans is only spoken in South Africa. I have therefore accepted that Afrikaans has a tradition which correlates with it. The 1955 Freedom Charter addressed this point. It stated that each and every one of us has a right to use his or her language. Where is the difficulty? I would like to thank Gen Constand Viljoen for having asked this House to discuss this issue. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]

Mr R S NTULI: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, it is pleasing to note that there is a growing universal consensus on the universality, indivisibility and the interdependence of all human rights.

The forces of globalisation and the end of the cold war have renewed the desire for recognition and preservation of the unique identities of ethnocultural communities, national minorities and indigenous people. Yet, regrettably, there are still states all over the continent, which base their constitutional, legal and governance framework on the suppression of minority rights and ethnic dominance, leading to painful, massive human rights abuse, regional and global insecurity and the denial of basic freedom.

Freedom implies diversity. Uniformity in human society was never achieved without coercion, nor will it ever be possible to do so without coercion. Liberal democracy, in contrast, emphasises the rights and liberties of the individual citizens. It is because these include the right to associate freely with others and have a group-related dimension as well.

Belonging to a community based on common cultural, linguistic or religious heritage is an important factor of identity for most people. While they freely and voluntarily associate on this basis, no government may deny such groups the right to be different within the limits of internationally accepted human rights similar to those found in the Constitution of our country.

One of the goals of our Constitution in articulating cultural and linguistic rights of South African citizens, is to promote a pluralistic society in which members of different groups treat each other with mutual respect and dignity, and are willing to learn from and about one another. This interaction can lead to the strengthening of the bonds within our diverse society and stronger loyalty to the state.

Every cultural group has the right to manage the most central factor of its identity, namely its culture. This includes matters of language, education, cultural traditions and religion. Cultural self-determination means that everyone has the unrestricted right to his or her own native language. This includes the right to learn one’s native language, the right to use one’s native language in public and unrestricted access to the media and publications.

The right to be taught in one’s own language and the employment of the relevant medium of instruction in schools is very paramount. The DP recognises the importance of mother-tongue education, particularly for the first seven years of schooling. Pursuant to the provision of section 29 of the Constitution, the DP considers it to be the duty of the Government to provide such facilities to committees and individuals who insist on mother- tongue instruction.

The Constitution provides for the Pan South African Language Board and the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. Only the first-mentioned has been established. We are looking forward to the establishment of the other.

Finally, the DP believes that all South Africans should actively promote the respect of all languages and should promote concept for multilingualism. A preference for a particular language or languages may well develop over a period of time, with a resultant shift in usage patterns. This must however be the result of a national process driven by the principle of freedom of choice. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairperson, I enjoyed listening to the speech by Mr Serote and I think, if I understood him correctly, the important point that he made is that we are not really discussing a particular community today. We are discussing communities in principle. We are discussing all the communities in South Africa, we are not confining ourselves to one in particular.

The motion by the FF deals with the rights of communities in our country. The motion therefore touches on the most important element of our civil society. But, strange as it may sound, the motion appears to be an unnecessary one, because all the elements contained in the motion already form part of the Constitution. The motion deals with ``the recognition, enhancement and protection of the rights of the different communities in South Africa.’’ I wish respectfully to remind Gen Viljoen that the recognition, enhancement and protection of the rights of our communities are specifically covered in our Constitution in at least three sections, namely sections 31, 185 and 235.

These sections in the Constitution adequately recognise, enhance and protect the rights of communities in our country. I do not have time to quote all three of these sections in full, suffice to quote some parts of them. The jist of section 31 of the Constitution reads as follows, and I quote:

Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not …

I emphasise - …

… be denied the right … to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language …

Section 185 deals with the establishment of a commission, namely the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. Section 235 specifically recognises that communities sharing a common cultural and language heritage have a right to a form of self-determination in a territorial entity.

These three sections leave no room for any doubt about the intention of the Constitution, and therefore also the intention of the Government of the day, in respect of the rights of communities. For these reasons I say, with respect to Gen Viljoen, that his motion could appear to be unnecessary.

However, the subject of communities is such an extremely important issue that a discussion in this House would certainly serve a very useful purpose and be in the best interests of all our people. What is also true is that we have done very, very little during the past years to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution as far as the rights of our communities are concerned. In this respect we are all guilty and we cannot point fingers.

The motion therefore serves as a friendly reminder to us all that we still have a lot to do to concretise the provisions of the Constitution in respect of the rights of communities. It is true that after more than six years we have not yet even established the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. I say: What a pity!

In conclusion, we have lost six years. We cannot afford to lose one more year waiting to concretise the extremely important issue of the rights of our communities. I therefore propose that this House resolves today to call on the President and the Government forthwith to establish the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities as required by section 185 of the Constitution. We have no other option. Obedience to the Constitution of our country directs that we do exactly that without delay. [Applause.]

Mnr J J DOWRY: Mnr die Voorsitter, dit is duidelik dat die debat oor die regte van verskillende gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika die afgelope tyd baie ruimte in beslag geneem het, en daarom is die voorstel uiters aktueel en relevant.

Dit is ‘n feit wat geen regdenkende mens ooit kan ignoreer nie, dat Suid- Afrika uit ‘n verskeidenheid kultuur- en taalgroepe bestaan. Dit is daarom baie jammer dat wanneer oor hierdie belangrike gegewe in ons land gedebatteer word, so ‘n debat afgemaak word as sou die debatteerders rassisme wil bevorder. Ons in Suid-Afrika is in die eerste plek almal Suid- Afrikaners met ‘n verskeidenheid kulturele herkomste.

Daarom word ons tereg die reënboognasie genoem. Elke deel van hierdie reënboog het egter ‘n behoefte om genoegsame erkenning, uitbouing en beskerming te geniet. Hoe helderder al die kleure van die reënboog uitstaan, hoe mooier en aantrekliker is die reënboog. Wanneer sekere gemeenskappe ervaar dat hulle aan die agterspeen moet suig en voortdurend in die beskuldigdebank geboender word wanneer dinge verkeerd loop, karring ons aan ons eenheid, versoening en nasiebou. Dan word daar nie meer gebou nie, maar afgebreek, en maak versoening plek vir vyandigheid.

Die Regering van die dag moet sorg dat gemeenskappe op ‘n gelyke wyse behandel word sodat almal mede-eienaarskap van hulle land kan neem en kan help om ‘n beter toekoms te bou. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ons moet daarteen waak om gemeenskapsregte met rassisme te verwar.

Wanneer ons dit gesê het, moet ons ook elke gemeenskap aanmoedig, hoe bedreig of verontreg hy ook al voel, om op te staan en hulle plek in die samelewing in te neem, om weg te beweeg van die negatiewe en positief te help bou aan ‘n beter Suid-Afrika. Gemeenskappe moenie met oogklappe, soos in die sogenaamde ``Boetman-debatte’’, egoïsties slegs op eie belange konsentreer en treur oor die verlede nie.

Dit is die Boetmanne'' wat vreeslik die dinges in is omdat hulle eens verskanste regte weggeneem is toe selfs die staat met sy wetgewing die kerk teen sonde probeer beskerm het. Dit is dieBoetmanne’’ van ons tyd wat kwansuis nooit vir die NP gestem het nie, om daardeur te wil voorgee dat hulle nie deel gehad het aan wat gebeur het nie. Steeds voer hulle debat oor byvoorbeeld die reg van Afrikaans, maar sluit die groot Afrikaanssprekende gemeenskap - die bruinmense - en hulle gevoel oor die kwessie by dié debat uit.

Gepraat van bruinmense, dit is die gemeenskap wat steeds ná ses jaar in die nuwe Suid-Afrika wag om te sien wanneer iets na hulle toe gaan kom. Vroue uit hierdie gemeenskap, veral in die Wes-Kaap, se kindertoelaes is weggeneem. Hulle kan nie meer hulle kinders skool toe stuur nie.

Die Regering bestee R8 000 per kind per maand om kinders in plekke van veilige bewaring aan te hou nadat hulle misdaad gepleeg het - ‘n soort reaktiewe betrokkenheid - maar is nie bereid om R175 per maand aan dieselfde kind te bestee - proaktiewe betrokkenheid - om die misdaad te voorkom nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die ANC sê elke kind het die reg op skoolopleiding, maar dan neem hulle die toelaes weg sodat hulle ouers nie in staat kan wees om hulle vir skool te klee en te voed nie.

Artikel 185 van die Grondwet bepaal dat die Kommissie vir die Bevordering en Beskerming van die Regte van Kultuur-, Godsdiens- en Taalgemeenskappe die instelling of erkenning van gemeenskapskultuur of soortgelyke rade moet aanbeveel. [Tussenwerpsels.] Rade soos hierdie kan die mees betekenisvolle gemeenskapsbeskerming en -bemagtiging meebring. Die vraag is egter waarom die Regering nou al so lank met die instelling van dié kommissie sloer, en die Begroting van die land is net so swygsaam daaroor.

Die uitdaging vir ons lê daarin om ‘n Suid-Afrika tot stand te bring waarin daar ruimte is vir elke individu om sy kulturele aspirasies uit te leef, en om ten spyte van die kulturele verskeidenheid saam te werk om ‘n eensgesinde en vreedsame Suid-Afrikaanse nasie op te bou. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr J J DOWRY: Mr Chairman, it is clear that the debate about the rights of the various communities in South Africa has recently demanded a great deal of attention, and for that reason the motion is extremely topical and relevant.

It is a fact which no right-minded person could ever ignore, that South Africa comprises a variety of cultural and language groups. It is therefore a great pity, when this important given in our country is being debated, that such debate is denigrated as if the debaters seek to promote racism. We in South Africa, in the first instance, are all South Africans with a variety of origins.

That is why we are quite rightly called the rainbow nation. Each part of this rainbow, however, has the desire to enjoy adequate recognition, expansion and protection. The clearer all the colours of the rainbow, the prettier and more attractive the rainbow. When certain communities experience that they are relegated to the back seats and more often than not shoved into the dock when things go wrong, we are tampering with unity, reconciliation and nation-building. Then there is no longer any building, but breaking down, and reconciliation makes room for enmity.

The Government of the day should ensure that communities are treated equally so that everyone can assume fellow ownership of of their country and help to build a better future. [Interjections.] We must guard against confusing community rights with racism.

Once we have said that, we must encourage each community, no matter how threatened or wronged it may feel to be, to stand up and take its place in society, to move away from the negative and to contribute to positively building a better South Africa. Communities should not wear blinkers, like in the so-called ``Boetman debates’’, and egotistically concentrate only on individual interests and grieve over the past.

It is the Boetmanne'' who are in high dudgeon because their previously entrenched rights were taken away when the state, by means of its legislation, even tried to protect the church against sin. It is the Boetmanne’’ of our time who ostensibly never voted for the NP, pretending that they had no part in what had happened. They are still debating the rights of Afrikaans, for example, but they exclude the greater Afrikaans- speaking community - the coloured people - and how they feel asbout the issue from this debate.

Speaking of coloured people, this is the community that is still, after six years into the new South Africa, waiting to see when something is going to come their way. Women from this community, in the Western Cape in particular, have been deprived of their child care grants. They can no longer send their children to school.

The Government annually spends R8 000 per child per month to detain children in places of safety after they had committed crimes - a kind of reactive involvement - but they are not prepared to spend R175 per month on the same child - proactive involvement - to prevent the crime. [Interjections.] The ANC says each child has the right to a school education, but then they take away the grants and render their parents unable to dress and feed them for school.

Section 85 of the Constitution provides that the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Language Communities should recommend the introduction or recognition of community culture or associated councils. [Interjections.] Councils such as this can bring about the most meaningful community protection and empowerment. The question, however, is why the Government has been so slow with the establishment of this commission, and the Budget of the country is just as quiet in this regard.

The challenge we are facing is to bring about a South Africa in which there is room for each individual to realise his cultural aspirations, and, in spite of the cultural diversity, to co-operate in building a harmonious and peaceful South African nation. [Interjections.] [Applause.]]

Mr S NAIDOO: Mr Chairperson, hon members … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!

Mr S NAIDOO: … the UDM empathises with the FF’s aspiration encompassed in this motion. Nevertheless, the UDM cannot support the motion because it focuses on ethnic and sectoral parameters which would ultimately decimate and divide our communities. This is in conflict with our vision, our mission and our core values. The UDM espouses that all South Africans must be united in the spirit of South Africanism.

We endeavour to unite all South Africans from all communities, building on the foundations, principles and ideals of our national Constitution. To this end we will address the poverty and imbalances in our society, inspired by our unifying love for our country and its people.

We aspire to set free the creative power inherent in our diversity and to co-operate with all stakeholders to ensure a quality life and individual freedom for every citizen based on good governance and civil order, to become a winning nation.

We are now in the seventh year of our new democracy, and while sections 30, 31, 185 and 235 of our Constitution provide for our communities to live out their cultural and social life, the greatest challenge is to build a nation which logically follows on our constitutional provisions. The greatest challenge for all our leaders of various political pursuasions, inside and outside this House, is to pursue the noble goal of nation-building, rather than the divisive promotion of ethnic and political interests.

Let us leave behind a legacy so that our children and our grandchildren will remember us for having made the sacrifice, for having displayed tolerance and for having contributed towards the development of a proud nation which can take its rightful place in the world’s communities of nations. If we fail to do this, then the effect of globalisation will reduce us to a nation of beggars which will be destined to play a minimal role and which has failed to grasp the challenges which globalisation has placed before every nation in this world.

In conclusion, the UDM does recognise that in South Africa there are communities which practise and live out their lives in their beliefs and operate within certain social circles. The greatest challenge is to unite all South Africans and to weld all these focuses into a South African nation.

I would like to quote two examples. In India, with its largest democracy and various linguistic groups, they first regard themselves as Indians. Likewise, in America they first regard themselves as Americans and thereafter as Californians, etc.

Ms H M MPAKA: Chairperson and hon members, we, the ANC, believe that arts and culture can play a crucial role in nation-building, reconciliation, the development of a new national identity, and an ethos reflective of our new democracy. Arts and culture can play an important role in the moral renewal of our society.

The mission of the ANC continues to be the transformation of our country by eliminating poverty generated by the apartheid system. If one looks at the museums, for instance, the following questions arise: What do we mean by transforming a country? Why do we need to transform?

The reason for transformation is that we want to see people of this country owning these museums and contributing towards building the nation. We also want to see them participating in decision-making and administration. The reason for transforming the country is to put emphasis on appreciating and promoting all cultures in South Africa, and acknowledging the rich heritage of peoples and cultures that exist in our country.

The question that we need to ask ourselves, as a way of building unity in this country, is: What is the relationship between the commemoration of the 1956 monument, which was unveiled on 9 August 2000, and the Vroue Monument in Bloemfontein?

If we look at heritage, one realises it is a powerful agent for cultural identity, reconciliation and nation-building. Therefore, we, as South Africans, need to ensure the continuation of the heritage process. We must ensure the preconditions for the expression of creativity so as to heal our soul.

In conclusion, if our multicultural country, with its rich heritage, is to develop and be united, then a genuine appreciation and understanding of other cultures need to take place amongst our South African youth. For these reasons, not to invest in arts, culture and heritage, could constitute grave short-sightedness on the part of Government and a failure to recognise the healing and recreational potential of arts and culture as a period of national regeneration and restoration. The ambit of arts and culture will always be highly charged and emotional because arts, culture and heritage are concerned with the most central aspect of humanity - the formation of identity. Arts and culture must bring unity and spiritual upliftment in our society. [Applause.]

Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, as it has been indicated by previous speakers, the context for the rights under discussion is to be found in the national Constitution, more particularly sections 30, 31, 185 and 235. If one, however, compares the wording of section 31 to the wording of a similar article on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, namely, article 27, there are certain significant differences as pointed out by the Constitutional Court recently, and I quote:

The recipients of the protection offered by section 31 are not referred to as minorities. Instead, the right refers to those who belong to a cultural, religious or linguistic community. Additionally, the word ethnic'', used in article 27, has been replaced with the word cultural’’.

A commentator on this, Mr Currie, considers that this reflects a desire to avoid any association of the new constitutional order with the ethnic particularism of the apartheid ideology. Rather than ties of blood, the Constitution values and protects ties of affinity. Rather than recognising the rights of minorities, with the accompanying connotations of a divided population, the Constitution prefers to emphasise that it is protecting connectedness.

Whilst the ACDP readily acknowledges the need to enhance and protect the rights of different communities of South Africa in accordance with the constitutional provisions, we would earnestly caution against an over- emphasis of our differences as South Africans. Whilst we furthermore acknowledge that various forms of racism do exist in South Africa and need to be addressed, we are greatly concerned that an undue emphasis on racism, as well as on cause for volkstad, can undo the huge strides in reconciliation achieved since 1994. We should rather be focusing on our similarities - notably having all been created in the image of God. We must focus on what unites us, rather than on those centrifugal forces that threaten to tear us apart. [Applause.]

Mr G E BALOI: Chairperson, there is no doubt and no fear to the whole South African citizens that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa spells out clearly, in the Bill of Rights, that everybody is protected, and that there is absolutely nothing to worry ourselves about. The Constitution came into force against the backdrop of several centuries of ethnicity and the race-based autocratic rule.

It is no exaggeration to say that in South Africa, universally recognised fundamental freedom were observed in the bridge.

The 27 April 1994 brought about a new and complete freedom for the entire South Africans from the apartheid system to a democratic society.

Section 15 of the Constitution of the Republic - under Chapter 2, the Bill of Rights - which was accepted in 1996, provides protection for, among others, minority rights. In terms of section 15, everyone has the right to freedom of religion, conscience, thought, belief and opinion.

Section 19 of the Constitution speels out matters relating to the right to vote. It has a decisive influence on free and fair political activities.

Section 30 deals with the right to freedom of association and protects the freedom of every person to associate with others according to his or her free choice. In this context it embodies the right to participate in the cultural of a person’s choice. The people also have the right to practice their religion, culture and linguistic beliefs, provided that they are consistent with the provision of the Bill of Rights.

South Africa is our country and for our children. [Time expired.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Mr Chairperson, hon members, before I continue, I would like to note that neither the Minister nor the Deputy Minister for Arts, Culture, Science and Technology are here to listen to this debate. One wonders if their absence is an indication of how importantly or not they view this motion.

South Africa boasts a truly cosmopolitan community. While many of these communities are in the minority, be it by ethnic, religious or other definition, their rights and their protection are a sensitive and a thorny issue. Worldwide there is an increased tendency for the ruling majority to push the minorities aside, with the majority’s notion being that the question of a separate identity for minority communities will endanger national unity, and the minority’s notion being that if they are not careful about protecting their identity, the majority will absorb them and ultimately assimilate them. [Interjections.]

For many minority communities around the world, the most urgent problem concerns the denial of their basic human rights including genocide, ethnic cleansing, economic discrimination and religious persecution, amongst others.

While we are fortunate that, in South Africa, we are not faced with such dire actions, it is quite concerning to note that, to date, life has not yet been given to a proposed commission for the promotion and protection of the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities, as enshrined in the Chapter 9 of the Constitution.

The fundamental duties owed to all kinds of ethnocultural minority communities are nondiscrimination, the right to use one’s own language in nonofficial contexts, the freedom of opinions and its expression, including the right to publish in any language without restrictions, and the freedom to practice one’s religion, in any way not infringing on the rights of others.

Women within most ethnocultural communities have often been the most severely disadvantaged. Quintessential to this notion is the importance of protecting and promoting both gender equality and gender sensitivity.

We can perhaps take a lesson from India which has been, for centuries, multireligious, multilinguistic, multicultural and multiracial in nature, and has had no hindrance in accepting this reality right from the time of her independence …

[Interjections.]

Mr P M MATHEBE: Who wrote that speech?

Mrs S V KALYAN: I did. I wrote it. I have a mind of my own.

The Indian constitution, in the real sense, offers a balance between national unity and its cultural as well as social diversity. And this perhaps is because that constitution has fully accepted the principle of unity in diversity or pluralism in togetherness. [Interjections.]

Europe also has framed a convention for the protection of the rights of its different communities, especially those in the minority. This convention goes a long way in promoting full and effective equality between its national majority and minority population.

It is the DP’s hope and wish that we aim for the peaceful co-existence of all communities, and that we do not trot out the race card for every ill in our country. This calls for a major paradigm shift in our attitudes. We as politicians have a particular responsibility to encourage tolerance and to practice, ourselves, what we preach. [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairperson, the PAC long ago declared that this country is an African country on the African continent. Therefore, its people are Africans. [Applause.] We define an African as anyone who owes his or her allegience to Africa and subscribes to African majority rule, and is committed to the equitable redistribution of land and its resources as a way of eradicating poverty and creating a nation of equals.

There can be no equality where one section of the nation monopolises all the resources, including knowledge. I would like to remind this House that the UN declared 21 March the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. This was in honour of those who challenged racism through the Sharpville uprising in order to promote the ideals of nonracialism and equality.

The PAC is satified that section 9 of the Constitution recognises, enhances and protects human rights of different communities in this country. These rights, however, must be implemented, but that implementation must be aimed at forging one African nation on the basis of absolute equality. This is as yet not happening for the majority of the population of this country, especially in the economic context.

The Constitution of this country recognises eleven languages. This is a recognition of the cultural diversity of this country. All these languages and the people who speak them must be respected.

But, territorially, there can be no talk of self-determination, for many reasons, which anyone familiar with the history of this country must appreciate. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The following member, hon R J B Mohlala, will be delivering his maiden speech. [Applause.]

Mr R J B MOHLALA: Mr Chairperson and hon members, I want to start off by quoting one of the respected idioms in my language:

Re se re go šsitwa ke go itiya kati ra re kgoro ke ye nyenyane. [When we fail to achieve a particular objective, we must not fabricate reasons for that failure.]

Not all rights are absolute. Because of that, we need to be careful about what we promote, recognise and enhance.

It is common knowledge that, within the confines of different traditions and cultures of different communities, there are certain rights that, if enhanced, will necessarily lead to anarchy as some of them do infringe on the rights of other communities. It is for this purpose that I believe culture in its totality is a dynamic phenomenon. It is something that changes from time to time.

I would imagine therefore that, instead of moving from a point of trying to look at something that members already know, we should take a route that I believe is correct, which is towards the development and charting of a new culture, a culture that will transcend traditional boundaries and seek to bring about one united South Africa and one nation with a single, shared vision of culture.

This does not necessarily mean the eradication of the existing cultures that we know today. But we need to learn from the international community. When one speaks of an American culture, one does not say that to the exclusion or disregard of the culture that is practiced by the native Indians of America. When one speaks of the British culture, this is not to the exclusion of the different religious groups that one finds in Britain, practising different religious beliefs.

In order for us to achieve this we need to infuse within our communities the notion of this Government, which is to strive for a better life for all. That can only be achieved if, among other things, we are able to distinguish between languages, traditions, practices, rituals and religions. And we need to say that the sum total of this will give us the whole concept of culture. Therefore if we share culture, values and standards, there will be no need, I want to believe, for us to be debating this topic today.

The issue of protecting and recognising different groups has been one of the core areas of concern since the inception of the transition process in our country. It is, however, appreciated that there are still motions in this regard. This confirms the argument that the ANC has always extended, which is that transition is an ongoing process and does not need to be speeded up. I doubt if the basis of today’s debate stems from the legacy of inequality that was deliberately created by past governments.

Having a good understanding of the dynamics of our country, the ANC put in place measures that address the notion of diversity, basically addressing the issue of the different communities that could be protected and recognised. Such measures are included in the Constitution. What more do we need? The Constitution - which is part of the decisions taken by this House

• ensure, among other things, that the Cultural Rights Commission provided for in terms of section 185 of the Constitution is actually at a stage where it is preparing a Bill that will soon be before this Parliament, which will essentially promote cultural, religious and linguistic expressions.

Being new in this environment, I think the more I talk, the more I would be making a fool of myself. [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, may I, at this point, congratulate the hon Mohlala on his maiden speech. [Applause.]

By recognising, enhancing and protecting the rights of the different communities of South Africa, the purpose of the South African Constitution is to protect the human rights of all citizens, irrespective of race, crede, sexual orientation or economic status.

The protection of human rights are reinforced by legislation and other legal organs, such as the Human Rights Commission, the Commission on Gender Equality, the National Youth Commission, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, and so on.

Whether victims challenge the violation of their rights through the available legal mechanism depends on the extent to which they are concientised about the reality of democracy, responsibility, empowerment and the enforcement ability of the legal system to ensure that justice prevails.

The continuous demand to recognise, enhance and protect the rights of the different communities in South Africa is a phobia experienced by most colonial predecessors, who have to adapt to the complexity of democracy. At the very infancy of democracy in South Africa, the Government openly addressed this phobia in the form of sharing political authority with role- players from the apartheid regime.

The Government has invited all peace-loving leaders to participate in propagating a multiparty approach. Thus, the MF has made the best political decision in the country to align itself with the majority party, to bridge the gap between the zebra nation and the rainbow nation. Every community has the right to self-determination, joint decision-making, the acknowledgement of the rule of law, the rejection of discrimination, the maintenance of order and stability in the reform process and collective negotiation of solutions, as these affect the interest of our people.

Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, the hon member, Mr M S Manie, said something important the other day during the debate on the racism conference. He made a plea: Please put on the glasses of the other one. Look at the reality through the other person’s eyes.

Today, I want hon members to look at South Africa in the year 2000 through my glasses or from my point of view. One may differ from that, but that is how I honestly view reality. I am a citizen of South Africa. I have no other country or loyalty, no other destination than this beloved country where my ancestors arrived in the year 1690. I oppose the present Government, but I am not praying for the so-called great catastrophe. How can I do it if scripture orders me to pray for the Government to govern well, so that we may have peaceful and quiet life in the honour of God. My children and grandchildren’s future is closely connected to the future of this country. South Africa’s well-being is my wellbeing. But I am a part, not only of the broad South African community: I am a proud member of a specific people.

Ek is deel van ‘n volk, ‘n inheemse volk van Suid-Afrika, die Afrikanervolk; ‘n volk met ‘n geskiedenis wat gestempel is deur die een oorheersende drang, die drang na vryheid en selfregering. Die drang daarna om homself te regeer is ‘n voorreg wat bykans alle volke wêreldwyd geniet, en is die ideaal wat hierdie volk met groot offers verdedig het teen die grootste moondheid in die wêreld.

Die volk waaraan ek behoort, is egter ‘n minderheid in sy eie vaderland. Eers het ons met die beste bedoelings geprobeer om ‘n bedeling te skep waarin verskillende volke elkeen ‘n meerderheid binne eie grondgebied kon wees. Dit het nie gewerk nie. Daarna het ons met allerlei metodes geprobeer om vir ‘n tyd minderheidsdominansie in stand te hou. In 1994 het dit verander na meerderheidsdominansie; hoe ons ook al daarna kyk, ‘n situasie waarin byna geen volk ter wêreld hom bevind nie.

Ja, daar is die algemene lotsgebondenheid van alle mense in hierdie land, ‘n lot waartoe ons deur positiewe bydraes ons insette wil lewer. Daar is egter ook die besondere, die eie, wat kosbaar en uniek is aan elke volk; ‘n groepering van mense met ‘n gemeenskaplike taal, kultuur, afkoms, geskiedenis en geloof, en mense met ‘n roeping om dit te koester, te bewaar en te bevorder. Daarvoor vra ek sensitiwiteit.

Agb lede moet daarna kyk deur die bril van die ander persoon, en nie ons regmatige aansprake en strewes verteken as rassisme of nieu-apartheid nie. Ons vra die ruimte om dit te kan uitleef, nie alleen as 2,5 miljoen individue nie, maar ook as ‘n volk.

Daar is talle voorbeelde in die wêreld van hoe sulke aansprake in ‘n multikulturele land tot heil van almal gehandhaaf is. Kom ons maak dit ‘n prioriteit, en elke volk in hierdie land, ook my mense, sal met toewyding, oorgawe en entoesiasme die heil van almal in Suid-Afrika bevorder binne die veilige geborgenheid dat ook ons volkserfenis vir ons kinders erwe sal bly. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Die gesprek hieroor het nie opgehou met die Grondwet van 1996 nie. Die uitkoms van hierdie gesprek, waartoe ook die AEB bereid is en wat mnr George blykbaar glad nie verstaan nie, is die sleutel tot die welsyn van almal in ons land. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[I am part of a people, an indigenous people of South Africa, the Afrikaner people; a people with a history marked by one dominating desire, the desire for freedom and self-government. The desire to govern itself is a privilege enjoyed by virtually all peoples worldwide, and it is the ideal which this people defended with great sacrifice against the greatest power in the world.

However, the people to which I belong is a minority in its own fatherland. Initially we tried with the best intentions to create a dispensation in which different peoples could each be a majority within their own territory. This did not work. After that we used all manner of methods to attempt to maintain minority domination for a while. In 1994 this changed to majority domination; however one looks at it, a situation in which virtually no people in the world finds itself.

Yes, there is the general feeling of a shared common fate of all people in this country, a fate to which we want to make our inputs by way of positive contributions. However, there is also the particular, the own, which is precious and unique to each people; a grouping of people with a common language, culture, origin, history and faith, and people with a calling to nurture, preserve and and promote this. I am asking for sensitivity in this regard.

Hon members must look at this through the glasses of the other person, and not distort our rightful claims and endeavours as racism or neo-apartheid. We ask for the room to be able to express this, not only as 2,5 million individuals, but also as a people.

There are numerous examples in the world of how such claims in a multicultural country have been maintained for everyone’s welfare. Let us make this a priority, and each people in this country, including my people, will promote the welfare of everyone in South Africa with commitment, dedication and enthusiasm, secure in the knowledge that the heritage of our people will also remain for our children. [Interjections.]

The discussion around this matter dit not cease with the Constitution of

1. The outcome of this discussion, which the AEB is also prepared to be involved in and which Mr George clearly does not understand at all, is the key to the welfare of everyone in our country.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have been informed that the hon Tshivhase would like to address the House in her own language, Tshivenda, which is one of the official languages. Now, we do want to warn the House that due to the illness of the member of staff who interprets from Tshivenda into English and vice versa, there will be a problem. However, the hon member has a right to speak in her language.

Muf T J TSHIVHASE: Mulangadzulo,ṱhoho ya mafhungo anga ndi: Nḓivho na u bveledza vhuṋe ha mvelele ya vhapo nga vhuṱambo ha vhutsila ha Tshirema.

Mbonele ya ANC ndi u vhuisa vhathu fhethu huthihi na u vha ṱanganya sa Ma- Afurika. Ndeme ya vhutsila ha Vharema kha vhuṱambo uho ndi u bveledza vhutsila uri hu vhe na mbuelo. Zwi ḓo vhonala musi thaidzo i tshi raruliwa samusi Phuresidennde vho no ḓi amba nga ha tshaka mbili dza vhashai na vhapfumi. Ri tea u sedza izwo nga iṱo ḽa uri ANC i dzhiela nṱha vhushai ha vho tambudzwaho. Vhuṱambo vhu tea u vha ha vhadzulapo vhoṱhe vhane vha ḓo shela mulenzhe. Zwenezwo, zwi amba uri zwiṱaniwa zwi tea u vha hone. Vhutsila havho hu vhonale ho khwinifhadzea. Kha vhuṱambo honohu, ri tea u vhonala ri lwone lushaka lwa musenga-vhadzimu lu fhaṱaho shango, hu sa sedziwi lukanda kana ḽibulambeu ngauri hu na vha shumisaho lukanda uri vha wane mbuelo. Ri tea u vhonala sa vhana vha muthu, zwi songo vha zwa tshaka mbili, dzine dza ambiwa sa lukanda lutswu kana lutshena. Ndi zwe Phuresidennde vha bula zwone musi wa guvhangano ḽa khethekanyo nga lukanda.

Vhathu vhashu vha tea u ḓibveledza nga u imba, matangwa, mitshino, zwilidzo zwa mveledzo dzo fhambanaho uri roṱhe ri fhaṱe shango ḽashu. Vhana vhashu vha sumbedzwe filimu dza vhubvo havho musi vhe vhaṱuku uri vha ṱuṱuwedzee u vha vhaṅwali na vhabveledzi vha matangwa vha biko. Tshifhinga tshoṱhe vha vhona: The Bold and the Beautiful and Days of our lives, zwine zwa si vha ṱuṱuwedze uri vha vhe vhaṅwali kana vha vhaedzi vha vhukuma.

Ndayotewa yo zwi sumbedza uri ri na mvelele nnzhi fhedzi ri lushaka luthihi. Vhuṱambo uho vhu fanela u kuvhanganya vhathu vhoṱhe uri vha vhe na nzhele ya uri thaidzo ya vhushai i raruliwa nga u ṱana zwithu zwavho zwavhuḓi. Vha songo vha na ṱhoni ya u ḓivhona sa Vharema vha bvaho kha tshigwada tshiṱuku tsha vhadzulapo vha Afurika.

Zwo ralo, muṅwe na muṅwe kha ḓiswikise nga zwawe zwo fhambanaho, sa zwiambaro, vhutsila na zwiṅwe zwinzhi. Vhaṅwe vhathu vho vha na mbuelo nga u vhaisa vhaṅwe, vho vha dzhiela lupfumo nga nṱhani ha lukanda lwo shumiswaho musi wa khethekanyo, sa phasipoto. Hu na ṱhoḓea ya uri Vharema vhe vha tsikeledzwa vha ṱangane, vha shume sa ṅanda uri lushaka lu bvele phanḓa na u fhelisa vhushai. Ndi hune senthara dza vhutsila dza fanela u dzhielwa nṱha kha u shumiswa nga vhaimbi, vhaṱani vhane vha bveledza zwo fhambanaho.

Ri songo sedza ḽibulambeu na lushaka, Zwoṱhe zwi nga konadzea arali vhathu vha langulea, vha shumisana uri vha si pfumise rabulasi muthihi. Ri a zwi vhona uri vhathu vhahashu vha shuma u rengisa mionva na zwiṅwe zwine zwa vha zwa rabulasi muthihi. Vhathu kha vha ṱangane vha vhe tshithu tshithihi, sa tsumbo, mimaraga ine Vharema vha vha nayo. Zwi nga konadzea u fhaṱa shango ḽashu sa lushaka luthihi lwa mvelele dzo fhamabano.

Ri tea u tsireledza mvelele dzashu kha zwiimo zwoṱhe, dzi vhe na mvelephanda kha u fhaṱa shango ḽashu ḽoṱhe. Ri bve kha zwigwada zwi no ṱuṱuwedza phambano nga mirafho. Kha ri sedze zwi fhaṱaho zwine zwa ḓo bvisa vhushai kha vhathu vhashu. Arali ri tshi lavhelesa vhathu vhashu u bva tshe vha vha zwone, ndi hune zwigwada, sa ḽiṅwe ḽihoro ḽikangi ḽa imela uri ri vhe vho fhambanaho kha u ḓibveledza. Nga inwe nḓila tshelede ya muvhuso i fhelele kha u bveledza lushaka luthihi.

ANC a i nga tendelani nazwo ngauri i ḓivha vhushai na tsikeledzo ya khethekanyo nga lukanda. Ra sedza vhuṱambo hu itiwaho ngei Grahamstown, hu khou vha pfumisa ngauri vho vhumbana sa tshithu tshithihi. Riṋe-vho sa ANC ro sedza vhushai hu si na tshiṱalula nga lukanda na ḽibulambeu. Musi ANC i tshi amba nga tshaka mbili, i khou sumba vho pfumaho na vhashai. Lwa u thoma, vhadzulapo vha fhano Afurika Tshipembe vha ṱuṱuwedzwa uri: Kha ri fhaṱe shango ḽashu roṱhe. [U vhanda zwanḓa.]. (Translation of Tshivenḓa speech follows.)

Mrs T J TSHIVHASE: Madam Speaker, the topic of my speech is: Knowledge and development of culture in communities and the African arts festival. The vision of the ANC is to bring together all people as Africans. The purpose of African arts at the festivals is to improve its profitably. This will be seen when there is a solution to the present problem as indicated by our hon President when he spoke of our country as consisting of two nations, namely the poor and the rich.

We must look at that situation in which the ANC does not uphold the poverty of those who were oppressed. The festival should involve all citizens, who should participate freely. This therefore means that improved art displays should be encouraged. At the festival, we should be seen as the rainbow nation which is building the country without gender and colour discrimination, because there are those who use colour for profit. Let us be seen as children of one family and not belonging to two nations, namely black and white people. That is what the hon President pointed out at the racism conference recently.

Our people should develop themselves in music, drama, dance and the playing of different musical instruments, so that we all build our nation. Our children should be shown films about their origin and should also be encouraged to write and be producers of quality drama. For they are always shown The Bold and the and The Days of our Lives, which does not challenge and motivate them to be real writers and actors.

The Constitution has shown that we have a diversity of cultures even though we are one nation. The festival must bring about an awareness amongst all people that the problem of poverty can be alleviated by an attractive display of art works. People should not be shy and consider themselves as a minority among the citizens of South Africa.

Therefore, let everyone offer different wares, such as clothing, art works and many other handicrafts. Some people gained a lot by marginalising others. They did so by using the colour of their skin and managed to enrich themselves through discrimination, especially when it came to acquiring passports and so on. There is a need for the oppressed people to come together and work as one in order to develop this nation and alleviate poverty. There should be art centres to develop music and other activities.

We should not look at gender and nationality. Everything is possible if people take control and work together so that they do not enrich one farmer. We have seen our people who are in the business of selling fruit, especially bananas which they buy from one farmer. Let people form small co- operatives like the African markets that we see today. It is possible to build our country and be one nation with a diversity of cultures.

We must protect our cultures in many ways so that there is development of our country. We should isolate ourselves from groups that encourage differences based on colour. Let us look at that which will help our people out of poverty. If we can visualise what has happened since we came into existence, we are astounded by a certain opposition party which wants us to develop differently. In other words, more of the Government’s financial assistence should be spent on one group.

The ANC-led Government will not be party to that kind of attitude, because it is aware of poverty and oppression due to discrimination. If we look at the Grahamstown festival, it is a self-enrichment of the few. We in the ANC have looked at poverty without discrimination based on colour and gender. When the ANC speaks of two nations, it refers to the rich and the poor. For the first time, South African citizens are being encouraged: Let us build our country together! [Applause.]]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, before I call on the next speaker, I just want to add to what I said before the hon Tshivhase came to the podium that the Hansard record will come out in both Tshivenda and English. However, it is important that the many Tshivenda speakers out there should be addressed directly in their language.

Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speker, I would like to start off by thanking all the members of the different parties who participated in this debate this afternoon. I think that it was a very interesting debate. Unfortunately, we did not spend enough time discussing this very important issue.

Not only were the speeches of different members quite interesting, but I must also say that the reaction of members across the House, with regard to the interjections and observations that they made, was also interesting.

I do not think that we should beat about the bush. We are clearly miles apart in this House and in this country. The interjections this afternoon gave me the impression that we came here with some kind of special request to discuss the recognition, enhancement and protection of the rights of different communities in South Africa. Not a single word in that discussion, this afternoon, in this subject was taken from anywhere else but from this Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, for which each and every member in this House voted and supported. No special treatment was asked for. It is provisions that are obtained and set in this Constitution that were discussed this afternoon. Yet, the reaction we heard this afternoon was as if it is something strange from some strange world that we have never heard of.

There are 20 million women in South Africa, 18 million men, eight religions, 25 church denominations, 31 cultural groups, 14 languages, nine race groups and one country. This was the advertisement used by the Constitutional Assembly during the constitution-writing process to put the message across on just how diverse this society of South Africa is. To make it even more complicated, this one country that we referred to is one country because of an arbitrary colonial boundary drawn by a colonial power in 1910 when South Africa became a union.

If one looks at the preamble of this Constitution it reads:

We believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

Regarding our diversity'', I would like to ask whether these words are only words on paper. Do they mean anything? Are they supposed to be a living reality? Is the sayingunited in our diversity’’ something that one can just ignore?

The hon Mr Wally Serote, who is not in the House at the moment, asked this afternoon how we are going to use our brains today. He asked how we would proceed and whether we had a proper democracy in South Africa. We want to believe that we have the most modern democracy in the world. There is only one thing that is certain in constitutional law, and that is that nothing remains static. Nothing remains the same. True democracy means more than just the right to vote. I urge members to go and have a look at how, internationally, things develop and at how minorities are accommodated, then one can try to speak of a true democracy.

Mr Serote referred to the question by saying that he did not know what a minority is.

Hy het gevra wat ‘n minderheid is? [He asked what a minority is.]

If one takes a table, puts four wolves and one sheep around it and then takes a democratic vote as to what will be for supper, one will clearly know who is the minority at that stage. It will be the sheep. Democracy means more than just the right to vote. It means much more than that.

I can go to the Constitution itself. It clearly states which communities are referred to. Section 31 refers to cultural, religious and linguistic communities. Section 235 clearly refers to communities bound by a common cultural and language heritage. What Mr Van Der Merwe said, is true: These things are in the Constitution. But when are we going to see action from the Government with regard to the implementation of these things?

A central theme this afternoon, which came from various members, was the idea of nation-building. We should build one nation, of course, but how do we do that? I have said in the past, and I want to repeat this afternoon, that we will not build a nation with mere words, with nice preambles or by stumbling from one sporting event to the next. We will build a nation by addressing the diverse reality of this country, by accommodating the reality of the different communities that exist in this country and by accommodating their rights. It is only then that we can start to build in a positive way and go forward. [Interjections.]

I want to tell members that they should go and have a look at section 233 of the Constitution that they supported, the application of international law. In terms of international law, the rights of communities and the protection of the minorities is a reality and is becoming stronger every day. Go and have a look at section 233 in terms of the application of international law in South Africa.

Obviously, we would all like to have a prosperous and a better South Africa for everybody. We agree on that, but we cannot force people to be loyal and give all their energy to build a better South Africa, if we do not recognise the right that they have to exist and if we do not even want to recognise the basic things that are made provision for in this Constitution. Either we apply that or we ignore it. I am afraid we are miles and miles apart. [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, I wish to recognise the presence of the Minister of Education, Culture and Science from the Netherlands, the hon Mr Loek Hermans, and his delegation, accompanied by the Dutch Ambassador to South Africa, Ms L van den Assum. They are seated in the public gallery. [Applause.]

               COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL SCHEMES LEVIES BILL

                       (First Reading debate)

There was no debate.

Bill read a first time.

               COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL SCHEMES LEVIES BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

There was no debate.

Bill read a second time.

                   HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, hon members, there are two reasons why legislation is introduced in this House. The first is to pursue Government policy or departmental policy. That is the usual reason. The second reason is what lawyers call ``to cure a mischief, meaning the errors and difficulties that have arisen in existing legislation, by way of amendment.

Basically, this Bill before the House is intended to cure mischiefs that we have found in the Higher Education Act. This is the second amendment to be introduced since the promulgation of the Act in 1997.

The implementation of this Act has proved to be a challenge. The transformation of education systems is a complex and difficult matter at the best of times, but more so for a system that needs to address the inequalities of the past, while positioning itself to meet the needs and the demands of the 21st century. This Bill seeks to address some of the shortcomings that have become apparent with the implementation of the Higher Education Act of 1997.

Government’s programme for the transformation of the South African higher education system requires individual higher education institutions to change the ways in which they operate, and especially to take into account broad, system-wide interests. Unfortunately, it has become quiet clear that certain higher education institutions, both public and private, have extended the scope and range of their operations in ways which may not be in the best interests of the system as a whole, and certainly not in the national interest.

Let me give an example of the type of development that we are witnessing. The past few years have seen the proliferation of satellite campuses, whereby the map of public higher education institutions throughout the country has changed, often without regard to the effects that these campuses might have on sister institutions or to the quality of the education infrastructural provision.

In fact, there was one remarkable example of a large Gauteng-based university wanting to set up a satellite college in Bisho and therefore, in fact, effectively injuring the prospects of the local higher education institutions. In fact, these satellite institutions have been set up for empire-building purposes, arbitrarily and capriciously in many cases.

Section 3 of the Higher Education Act places an obligation on the Minister to determine higher education policy after consultation with the Council on Higher Education. The proposed amendment before us gives the Minister the discretion, under specified conditions, to determine policy for public as well as private higher education institutions. The conditions are those embodied in the co-operative governance model to which the Government is committed, as spelt out in Education White Paper 3, which the House accepted, so we are not making absolutely new law. The amendment is entirely consistent with this model.

There are objections to the proposed amendment. One objection is that the amendment gives the Minister extensive rights which are contrary to the principle of institutional autonomy, which is upheld in the preamble to the principal Act. It is alleged that the Minister will be given draconian powers to override, by executive decree, the private Acts of universities.

The key claim of this objection is that the principle of autonomy, which is upheld by the preamble, is contravened by the proposed new subsection. This is misleading because no principle, in the sense of a statement having universal or unconditional application, is in fact, built into the preamble to the 1997 Act. I want to reiterate on behalf of the Government, and my personal commitment, that the principle to which the as Government is committed is that of academic freedom, which cannot be equated to autonomy. The 1997 White Paper on higher education transformation lists academic freedom as one of the fundamental principles that must guide the process of higher education transformation in South Africa.

Academic freedom, a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, has to do with the pursuit and practice of academic work without interference, canvassing only one value, namely truth. The concept of autonomy, on the other hand, is concerned with the relationship which holds between the state and higher education institutions and, in particular, the ways in which the state manages or steers the public higher education system. Concepts of academic freedom and of autonomy are not identical, although in the portfolio committee they tend to be confused.

Our choice has been to entrench the principle of academic freedom for all higher education institutions, and to place limits or conditions on their autonomy, in common with many democratic countries. I am suprised at the extent to which Mrs Thatcher brought about changes in the United Kingdom to the autonomy of institutions. The preamble to the 1997 Act refers explicitly to higher education institutions in South Africa having conditional autonomy. That was passed by this House.

It is clear from this preamble that no appeal to a so-called principle of autonomy can exempt either an individual higher education institution or the system as a whole from meeting these transformation goals or conditions, particularly in relation to the participation of women and blacks in the institutions, especially in senior posts, and changing the value system under which higher education institutions are, in fact, worked out. This is very similar to the debate we had earlier today.

The first annual report of the Council on Higher Education, which I received at the end of 1999, clearly indicates that the higher education system is moving, but only slowly, towards meeting the transformation conditions in the White Paper and the Higher Education Act. The information contained in the Council of Higher Education’s annual report is supported by my own department’s analyses of the first two years of rolling plans submitted to it by public higher education institutions.

The higher education system in South Africa is not meeting national transformation conditions concerned with responsiveness to societal needs and to equity.

The amendment gives the Minister of Education discretion to address the laissez-faire development of higher education. It does so while respecting fully the principles of academic freedom and of co-operative governance.

Now I move to the second key area addressed in the amending Bill. Certain higher education institutions are facing serious, really serious financial problems and have as a result raised large overdrafts with commercial banks. The Auditor-General has drawn the attention of the House to financial mismanagement in higher education institutions. Steps therefore have to be taken to protect the substantial investment which the Government has made in South Africa’s public higher education system. About 14% of our Education Vote goes to higher education, which puts us among the top 25 countries in the world.

The proposed amendments to section 40 of the Higher Education Act of 1997 are designed to do precisely that. Public investment in higher education is, as I have shown, considerable. Nearly all the land and buildings, and much of the teaching and research equipment, on the 36 public universities and technikons in South Africa have been purchased with the assistance of substantial government funding. The amendment recognises that public universities and technikons are able to enter into legally binding contracts. However, it lays down a set of requirements which institutions must meet before entering into a loan or overdraft agreement or the construction of a permanent building or any other immovable development, the purchase of immovable property or long-time lease of immovable property.

These requirements ensure that the council of the institution must approve the agreement. Often the councils are not being involved in such agreements. Secondly, the Minister’s approval must be obtained if certain limits will be exceeded by the raising of the loan or overdraft, or the construction, purchase or leasing of immovable property. The limits proposed are modest and reasonable ones. In the case of loans or overdrafts, ministerial approval is required if there is the sum raised in any financial year is higher than either an amount predetermined by the Minister or where no such determination has been made, 5% of the institution’s average income for the previous two years. In the case of the construction or purchase or leasing of immovable property, the approval of the Minister must be obtained if the value of the construction or purchase or lease is higher than 5% of the institution’s average income for the previous two years.

Objections have been raised to the effect that these new requirements would limit significantly their rights to enter into contracts and will as a consequence have a potentially severe impact on the functioning of higher education institutions. The response to the first part of this objection is straightforward. The Minister clearly has an obligation to ensure that public funds are employed properly and responsibly.

The response to the second part of the objection is equally straightforward. Many other countries have requirements of this kind with other operations of higher education institutions being affected in a serious way. I commend, for example the Higher Education Funding Council of England, which operates as an agent of the United Kingdom Government. It lays down details and conditions which must be met before universities can borrow funds on a long-term or short-term basis. In fact, their threshold is much lower. They say if it is 3% or 4% of the total income as reported in the latest audited financial statements, then authorisation must be sought. They say, 4%, ours is 5%. Hon members must remember: We are in a transition mode. [Interjections.] Mr Gaum’s youthful enthusiasm will bear fruit when he speaks after me, so he should please just listen. [Laughter.]

What we are doing is a modest attempt to meet the needs of our country, when there is in fact often unbridled development which does not meet the social needs. The conditions laid down by the Higher Education Funding Council of the United Kingdom are much more stringent than those contained in our amendments. I can give Mr Gaum chapter and verse. Summing up, other democratic countries are in fact seeing higher education development as part of human resource development, meeting the needs of our country, meeting the needs of the culture and language development. Therefore we need to work out a higher responsiveness to what the community requires.

Finally, the amending Bill strengthens the regulatory framework for the operation of private higher education institutions. In particular, when we have started the regulatory systems in January 2000, it will allow for differentiation between local and foreign private higher education institutions. No country, particularly a Third World country which faces this onslaught, can afford to sit back and watch as the future sustainability of the higher education system is threatened by foreign universities looking for new markets here, for profits, not as part of our wider education development. The chairperson of the portfolio committee will deal with this. I want to thank the portfolio committee, and particularly the majority, for taking a very understanding role as to why this amendment is necessary. We do not want any grandstanding about this. This is vital for the future development of the country and therefore, after my thanks to the portfolio committee’s chairperson, I commend this piece of legislation to the House. [Applause.]

Prof S M MAYATULA: Chairperson and hon members, the Portfolio Committee on Education was given a task by this House, to look at the desirability or otherwise of the Higher Education Amendment Bill. While agreeing on the desirability of this Bill, unfortunately we could not reach consensus with the New NP, the DP and the AEB on some clauses. I will try to highlight some of these areas on which we could not agree. Some have already been covered by the hon the Minister.

This Bill is intended to amend the Higher Education Act, 1997, among other things, to extend the power of the Minister of Education with regard to the determination of higher education policy; to provide that a public higher education institution may not, without the approval of its council and under certain circumstances without the concurrence of the Minister, enter into a loan or overdraft agreement or develop infrastructure; and to make further provision for the registration of private higher education institutions, the requirements for their registration and the determination of applications for their registration. At face value, as some opposition parties want us to believe, these are draconian amendments which are intended to give more powers to the Minister and, by so doing, stifle the autonomy of the institutions of higher learning. I was privileged to be part of a delegation that visited Australia and New Zealand in June/ July and this year. I would like to share some of their experiences with regard to the role of government in higher education, even before addressing the Bill before us.

The Tertary Education Advisory Commission of New Zealand had this to say, and I quote:

The commission confirms that the tertiary education system requires a clear strategic direction. This direction will need to be responsive to the needs of society and the economy and those of tertiary education providers themselves, and will need to be able to evolve and adapt to sometimes rapid changes in those needs. The commission goes on to say:

The development of a tertiary education system that addresses these problems, challenges and opportunities will require the active engagement of the government. By this the commission means that the government will need to have a view about the purpose and function of the tertiary education system, its direction and the means to give effect to those views.

I want to believe that this need for active engagement of the government is greater in a new democracy such as ours, and this Bill is intended to provide just that. The higher education sector is flooded with a number of foreign institutions over which the Ministry has no direct control. This makes the students vulnerable to unscrupulous entities which are here to make profits at whatever costs. As a first point of defence for the public, according to this Bill, such institutions should be -

… recognised or registered as an external company in terms of the Companies Act of 1973 …

This is the only way we can make them accountable as juristic persons, able to sue or be sued in a court of law. Let us remember that these institutions are involved in a serious business, selling their services to the unsuspecting students who at this point in time have no recourse to law even if they are aggrieved.

The Education White Paper 3 defines the principle of institutional autonomy well. I am not going to go into that definition.

However, it says that there is no moral basis for using the principle of institutional autonomy as a pretext for resisting democratic change or in defence of mismanagement. Institutional autonomy is therefore inextricably linked to the demands of public accountability.

It goes on to state:

The principle of public accountability implies that institutions are answerable for their actions and decisions not only to their own governing bodies and institutional communities but also to the broader society. Firstly, it requires that institutions receiving public funds should be able to report how, and how well, money has been spent. Secondly, it requires that institutions should demonstrate the results they achieve with the resources at their disposal. Thirdly, it requires that institutions should demonstrate how they have met national policy goals and priorities.

A fundamental starting point in the Education White Paper 3 is that

Higher education must be replanned, governed and funded as a single national co-ordinated system, in order to overcome the fragmentation of the past, and successfully address the present and future challenges of reconstruction and development. This is a fundamental point of policy on which all stakeholders in higher education system are agreed.

The policy determined through the provisions of clause 2 of this Bill will give clarity to what the scope and range of operations of a university or technikon are. It will give substance to the provisions of section 29(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, by setting benchmarks for what is a comparable public institution. During the registration process of private universities or technikons, this clause is particularly important for the regulation of private higher education institutions. It will give the Minister the authority to ensure that the growth and development of the private sector takes place in a way that does not threaten the welfare and future sustainability of the system as a whole. The fear expressed by some parties, that the Minister will be able to interfere with the governance and management of the atoning of higher education institutions, based on the authority of clause 2 of the Bill, is unfounded. Section 39(3) and section 54 of the Higher Education Act of 1997 already gives him or her the measures to reasonably intervene, if so required. The policy contemplated in clause 2 seeks to provide norms and standards that are objective and transparent.

The Higher Education Act of 1997 provides various measures to monitor the financial affairs of a higher education institution. Provision is also made for intervention by the Minister if there is financial maladministration in an institution. These measures are, however, reactive in nature, and can only be detected when an institution faces financial difficulties.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for a proactive approach where the implication of loans and overdrafts of infrastructural improvements on the budget and financial position of such institutions can be monitored from an early stage. This clause provides that the Minister must approve the loan, or overdraft agreement, or reaction to improve the immovable facilities if it exceeds an amount determined by the Minister, specific to such an institution and based on its specific circumstances. In the absence of such determination, it would be 5% of the average income received two years immediately preceding the agreement or action.

It must be noted that the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000 must be taken into account when the Minister makes a determination of the account. This Act requires that, before an administrative action is taken by the appropriate authority, such authority must give the institution which is affected by that decision a fair opportunity to make representation on the matter and such a representation must be taken into account by the authority.

The authority provided to the Minister to determine an amount for a specific institution will provide flexibility, because an institution which manages its affairs well will receive a much higher amount before approval by the Minister is needed, than an institution which is in dire straits financially.

In short, no institution which is financially well-managed need have cause for concern. It is, however, one important measure, amongst others, intended to ensure accountability for the use of public funds. I propose that this Bill be approved. [Applause.]

Mr R S NTULI: Chairperson, the hon the Minister and hon members, the implementation of the Higher Education Act of 1997, we submit, has exposed some problem areas. This Bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1997 and, inter alia, has the following objectives: … to extend the powers of the Minister of Education with regard to the determination of higher education policy; to provide that a public higher education institution may not without the approval of its council and, under certain circumstances, without the concurrence of the Minister, enter into a loan or overdraft agreement or develop infrastructure; as well as to make further provisions for the registration of private higher education institutions, the requirements for their registration and the determination of applications for their registration.

The DP indeed understands and accepts that mechanisms and systems must be put in place for quality assurance purposes in our institutions. We are also aware that, recently, there has been a proliferation of private institutions of higher learning, and there is a resultant need to protect our students and the community from possible exploitation by such institutions.

Equally, we accept that there must be a balance between higher education autonomy and public responsibility and accountability. These are real issues, but the way this Bill addresses them is unacceptable. We have serious concerns with regard to the proposed legislations. Some of these concerns will be handled by my colleagues.

The amendment of section 3 of Act 101 of 1997 is very problematic, as it gives the Minister very extensive rights to prescribe the scope and the range of operation, including the size and infrastructural configuration of higher education institutions. This is contrary to the principle of institutional autonomy, which is upheld in the preamble to the principal Act.

If such powers are required to transform the education sector, the criteria upon which it might be exercised, its limits and the procedure applicable to its invocation must be expressly provided. Unfortunately, the Department of Education is not willing to narrow down this power. It is worth mentioning that both the SA University Vice-Chancellors’ Association and the Alliance of Private Providers of Education were vehemently opposed to this provision. So are we.

Clause 4, inter alia, requests ministerial approval for loans for overdraft agreements entered into by higher education institutions if the sum of the loans or overdrafts to be raised in any financial year exceeds the amount determined by the Minister for such an institution. These envisaged ministerial powers will significantly limit the rights of higher education institutions to enter into legally binding contracts, which is contrary, again, to the principle that a juristic person shall have legal competence to enter into contracts, thus creating rights and obligations. We cannot understand why the Minister needs these extensive new powers, because he already possesses substantial authority to deal with matters relating to financial irregularities at institutions of higher learning. The possible alternative which is feasible is that the Minister could invoke his right to place the institution under curatorship where such an institution’s liabilities exceeds the nett assets of the institution by a certain percentage.

The proposed amendments of section 40 are an attempt to address the lack of financial discipline at certain institutions by selectively limiting all institutions’ ability to finance core operations. The remedy, we submit, lies in sound governance and financial management by higher education institutions.

Clause 8, inter alia, provides that the registrar may, when considering an application, differentiate between a foreign and a local juristic person with regard to matters such as scope, range of operations and institutional configurations. If there are valid reasons upon which an application by foreign providers may be refused, these must be expressly set out and presented. As the Bill is formulated, there is a danger that many foreign and private institutions with good quality education and financial management systems may be wiped off. For these reasons, the DP opposes this Bill. [Applause.]

Prof L B G NDABANDABA: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, in its preamble the Higher Education Act of 1997 unequivocally spells out the transformation of education in our country. In recognising the gross limitations in our educational system, it introduced a democratic system of education by establishing a single, co-ordinated higher education system for the dissemination of knowledge. This, coupled with academic freedom, is applauded.

The objective of the Higher Education Amendment Bill is to take this transformation a step further. The Bill, therefore, provides for the amendment of higher education so as to provide for additional provisions, namely: to extend the power of the Minister of Education in respect of policies/decision-making; to give power of delegation to the principal and the Council of Higher Education; to ensure that loans and overdraft measures are regulated and vigorously controlled by Council and to increase the accountability of Council to the Minister. This we applaud. The registration of private higher education is to be further scrutinised and regulated to make provision for councils of public higher education to provide the Minister with information in terms of the Reporting by Public Entities Act of 1992, so as to ensure that only public higher education institutions and private institutions registered or conditionally registered in terms of the Companies Act of 1973 may provide higher education.

An interesting feature of the amendment to the act, however, is in sections 39 and 40. The amendment empowers the institutional council to discriminate fairly between foreign students who are fairly underlined, who are not permanent residents of our country, who are citizens and those who are citizens and permanent residents. While this practice has been a global norm and is currently practiced in this country, the problem is that it requires legal sanction for its implementation. With this in mind, the drafters of the Bill found it necessary that the amendment be introduced.

The Ministry of Education, in reviewing the changes at the higher education institutions, has become aware of violations of the fiduciary responsibilities of certain councils and institions. There have been serious lapses in financial management and maladministration of public funds. The Minister of Education has viewed this as a serious breach of public confidence in the Department, and has had to seek powers to deal with such cases with the severity that it merits. Although the IFP applauds the Minister’s initiatives to transform the educational system, the party is opposed to the creation of a situation in which the Minister of Education and the Government will have an excessive say in the running of tertiary institutions.

The IFP believes that universities and technicons are crucial institutions of an independent, vibrant civil society whose autonomy needs to be respected. The powers and responsibilities which the councils of these institutions should have should not be reduced. We sincerely hope, therefore, that these amendments and improvements will not affect the autonomy of tertiary institutions. [Interjections.]

The IFP advocates a creative approach to the establishment and governance of tertiary institutions. The IFP also believes strongly that the private sector partnerships will contribute tremendously to the financial resource base of tertiary institutions. The management of tertiary institutions will be enriched through business practices and principles.

To conclude, the IFP supports the Minister’s initiatives to transform higher education, because the IFP recognises the importance of a high quality tertiary education. … [Interjections.]

Mr G B D MCINTOSH: You are contradicting yourself.

Prof L B G NDABANDABA: We also believe that tertiary educational excellence will be maintained. I am not contradicting myself.

Adv A H GAUM: This Bill is about more centralised power in the hands of the Minister of Education and the Registrar of Higher Education and less autonomy for higher ducation institutions. It is about more government control and prescriptiveness, less educational choice for students. It is about trying to protect dysfunctional state institutions against increasing student numbers instead of allowing the market to determine what is quality tertiary education and what not. It is ultimately about an attempt to limit competition, the cornerstone, of achievement.

The Bill provides that the Minister may, in the so-called interest of the higher education system as a whole, determine the scope and range of operations of public and private higher education institutions. As the Minister is on record for complaining about the so-called proliferation of the higher education landscape due to the activities of several private providers in South Africa, it is feared by these institutions that he will use these far-reaching power to put many of them out of business. There can be no doubt that this provision will introduce substantial uncertainty and risk that will seriously prejudice both existing private education providers and those wishing to enter the market.

While the need for a private institution to be commercially sustainable is the registration requirement imposed by section 51 of the Higher Education Act, this new power may seriously compromise its ability to remain commercially sustainable. It is therefore clear that this new ministerial power is evasive and an undermining of the registration process for private higher education providers. This provision is also contrary to the principle of institutional autonomy, which is so important to guarantee the independence of institutions and ultimately academic freedom.

If it is taken into account that the Minister already possesses the authority to determine the conditions for the payment of subsidies in the case of public higher education institutions as well as to determine the conditions for registration in the case of private higher education institutions, it requires little imagination to realise the potential threat to the principles of academic independence and freedom if a ministerial sword of altering the scope and range of operations of institutions is hanging over their heads. In addition, certain public higher education institutions also exist by virtue of a public act. And the Minister will now be able to oververride these acts almost by means of an executive decree.

In a sincere endeavour to be constructive, the DA and the New NP suggested from the outset that criteria or parameters against which the Minister may determine what is in the interest of higher education system as a whole and an adequate interpretation on the standing or definition of the term, scope and range of operations, should be included in the Bill. Unfortunately, neither the Minister’s department nor the ANC was willing to consider this.

We are therefore not willing to support a clause that creates vast uncertainty …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Honourable members, quiet side- by-side conferencing is permissable. Anything over and above that definitely disadvantages the person at the podium.

Adv A H GAUM: … gives unbridled powers to the Minister and is likely to infringe on the constitutional right provided for in section 29(3) of our Constitution and is strongly opposed by both the SA Universities Vice Chancellors Association and the Alliance of Private Providers of Education Training and Development.

As referred to by my colleague, Mr Ntuli, clause 4 of the Bill also provides the Minister with another set of far-reaching new powers which amount to yet another onslaught on institution’ autonomy and their ability to effectively govern their day-to-day affairs. Read together with clause 3, the Minister will now be able to regulate the broad policy, prescribe the scope and range of operations, prescribe to a council of an institution how it must govern the instition when it comes to loans and overdrafts or when he will allow any immovable infrastructural development or the purchasing of immovable property and, ultimately, when long-term leases agreements regarding immovable property will be allowed.

This would, in effect, give the Minister the power to micromanage higher education institutions.

Although this clause, obviously, stems from the desire to address the lack of financial discipline in certain institutions, it boils down to the selective limitation of all institutions’ ability to finance core operations. The remedy lies in ensuring sound governance by all higher education institutions, not in a ministerial veto that may inhibit the activities of smoothly functioning institutions. The Minister should rather adopt a policy which is aimed at forcing dysfunctional institutions to shape up or ship out.

The current Higher Education Act also provides that the Registrar of Higher Education Institutions must register an applicant as a private higher education institution if it complies with the requirements for registration as set out in the Act.

This Bill changes the situation radically. It provides that even if an applicant meets all these requirements, the Registrar may still decide whether to register it or not. He is therefore provided with complete and unrestricted discretion, which is virtually impossible to test in a court of law. It makes of the Registrar almost a law unto himself

Meer as enigiets anders is hierdie ‘n poging om private hoëronderwysinstellings by te kom deur nuwe applikante te verhinder om die mark te betree as dit teen die Regering se wense is. Die gevaarligte begin in ‘n land flikker wanneer die regering vir hom wye, ontoetsbare diskresies begin toe-eien. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[More than anything else this is an attempt to get at private institutions of higher education by preventing new applicants from entering the market if this is against the wishes of the Government. The warning lights begin to flash in a country when the government starts to arrogate to itself broad, nverifiable discresions.]

Section 29(3) of the Constitution provides that everyone has a right to establish and maintain, at his or her own expense, an independent educational institution. The ability of the Registrar to exercise a discretion on almost arbitrary grounds is clearly a denial of this basic human right and open for constitutional challenge.

The Minister’s vendetta against the private education providers will ultimately be to the detriment of education in South Africa. It will not improve excellence, but it will suppress it. It will not attract students, but will chase them away to other countries.

The Minister of Trade and Industry tells us to create an environment that is investor-friendly. Currently, we are getting large numbers of students from other countries, many of them from Africa, who are coming to South Africa to study here, students who are investing in our country. By creating an unfriendly environment for private providers, which attract many of these students, we run the real risk of losing them. This Government is sending out very confusing messages. [Interjections.] Ms N E HANGANA: You are confusing them.

Adv A H GAUM: It is clear that the one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. The DA suggests that the Minister stop his hostile approach towards private higher education providers and accept them as partners towards opening the gates of higher education for the nation.

Die DA glo dat hierdie wetsontwerp nie sal bydra om ons land se hoëronderwysprobleme op te los nie. In plaas van hoop en sukses, dra dit die kiem van groot onsekerheid, die onderdrukking van vrye keuse en mislukking. Ons kan ongelukkig nie so ‘n wetsontwerp steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The DA believes that this Bill will not contribute towards solving our country’s higher education problems. Instead of hope and success it carries the seed of great uncertainty, the suppression of free choice and failure. Unfortunately we cannot support such a Bill.]

Mr S J DE BEER: Mr Chairperson, the UDM will support this Bill.

As ‘n mens die bespreking van die komitee deurgaans bygewoon het - en ek moet sê ‘n mens kan dit ongelukkig nie van die DA se verteenwoordigers sê nie - is ‘n mens eintlik verbaas oor die teenstand en die graad van teenstand wat kom van agb lede soos die agb lid mnr Gaum.

Dan bly dit steeds duidelik dat lede soos mnr Gaum en die ander verteenwoordigers van die DA steeds na Suid-Afrika en sy situasie kyk vanuit die oogpunt van die bevoorregte deel van die bevolking en dat hulle baie weinig kennis dra van wat die situasie in die breë gesien is en wat in die belang van al Suid-Afrika se mense is. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Die bespreking van hierdie wetsontwerp vandag vind plaas in ‘n tyd … [Tussenwerpsels.] Daar is baie min lede aan hierdie kant van die Raad wat my iets kan vertel van wat in die swart onderwyswêreld aan die gang is. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Dié bespreking vind plaas in ‘n tyd waarin die toekoms van hoëronderwys in Suid-Afrika al meer in die kalklig val. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ek het nog altyd gehoor dat as ‘n mens op iemand se tone trap en dit is raak, dan tjank hulle, soos hierdie agb lede nou maak. [Tussenwerpsels.]

By die meeste rolspelers op die terrein bestaan daar vandag groot onsekerheid oor hoe hierdie toekomstige bedeling gaan lyk en hoe die wesenlike probleme gehanteer gaan word. [Tussenwerpsels.] Vandag se bespreking moet dus eerder help om kalmte te bring as om die onrustigheid te vererger, en hierdie agb lede het net ‘n belang daarin om die onrustigheid te probeer aanhits. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Daar bestaan ingrypende probleme op hierdie terrein en hulle kan nie misgekyk word nie. Die inskrywingsgetalle by hoëronderwysinrigtings het byvoorbeeld die afgelope tyd ingrypend gedaal. Sedert 1997 het dit met 7% gedaal, en kenners meen dat hierdie daling steeds sal toeneem. Finaleskooljaar-getalle het met 17% afgeneem en minder leerders bly in die stelsel. Ook die vermoë om leerders met sukses deur die stelsel te voer plaas universiteite en technikons nou voor ‘n geweldige uitdaging.

Al hierdie verwikkelings plaas die rolspelers op hierdie terrein onder geweldige druk om positief betrokke te raak. Dit geld die universiteite en technikons, wat ‘n groter bydrae sal moet lewer deur nouer te skakel met onderwys op sekondêre vlak. Dit geld ook die Regering, wat sal moet probeer om fondse doeltreffend aan te wend, en dit is juis die poging waarmee die Minister besig is. Ook die werknemerskorps van Suid-Afrika, waarvan 76% na bewering ‘n tekort aan professionele werkers ervaar, sal moet uitreik na universiteite en technikons om nouer samewerking te bewerkstellig.

‘n Gesamentlike poging van alle rolspelers op hierdie terrein is dus nou meer nodig as ooit vantevore om die uitdagings die hoof te bied om ‘n voorspoedige Suid-Afrika te bewerkstellig. Ons vertrou dat hierdie wetgewing ‘n positiewe bydrae daartoe sal lewer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[If one attended the discussions of the committee throughout - and I must say that unfortunately one cannot say this of the representatives of the DA

• one is really surprised with the opposition, and the degree of opposition, from hon members such as the hon member Mr Gaum.

Then it becomes clear that members such as Mr Gaum and the other representatives of the DA are still looking at South Africa and its situation from the perspective of the privileged section of the population and that they have very little knowledge of the situation in general and of what is in the interests of all the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The discussion of this Bill today takes place at a time … [Interjections.] There are very few members on this side of the House who can tell me what is happening in the world of black education. [Interjections.]

This discussion is taking place at a time when the future of higher education in South Africa is coming under the spotlight more and more. [Interjections.] I have always heard that when one steps on someone’s toes, and the aim is true, then they raise a hue and cry, as these hon members are now doing. [Interjections.]

Among the majority of the role-players in the field there is great uncertainty about what this future dispensation is going to look like and how the core problems are going to be dealt with. [Interjections.] Today’s discussion should therefore contribute towards bringing calm rather than trying to encourage the disquiet. [Interjections.]

There are radical problems in this field and they cannot be ignored. The entrance figures at higher institutions of education have for example dropped dramatically recently. Since 1997 they have declined by 7%, and experts are of the view that this decline would continue to gather speed. The numbers of final year students have decreased by 17% and fewer learners remain in the system. The ability to process learners through the system successfully is also a tremendous challenge facing universities and technikons.

All these developments are placing role-players in this field under tremendous pressure to become involved positively. This goes for universities and technikons that would have to make a significant contribution by means of closer liaison with education at the secondary level. This also goes for the Government, who will have to make an effort to use funds effectively, and this is precisely the effort in which the Minister is now involved. The employers’ corps of South Africa, of which 76% allegedly has a shortage of professional workers, will also have to reach out to universities and technikons to bring about closer liaison.

A joint effort by all role-players in this field is therefore more necessary now than ever before to overcome the challenges in order to create a prosperous South Africa. We trust that this legislation will make a positive contribution to that end.]

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

Mr S J DE BEER: It is a great pity! [Applause.]

Ms P K MOTHOAGAE: Mr Chairperson, the amending Bill before this House gives us the opportunity to reflect on the work that has been done since the President assented to this Bill on 19 December 1997.

It is an open secret that the implementation of the Higher Education Act and the White Paper policy framework that seeks to establish a single co- ordinated higher education system which promotes co-operative governance and provides for programme-based education is hampered. One of the compounding factors is the one that most members have referred to - there is a large unco-ordinated private sector, especially as far as foreign universities are concerned.

Surprisingly, this afternoon, the New NP and the DP are now spokespersons for these private education providers, accusing the ANC-led Government of not seeing the private education provider as allies. The fact of the matter is that the Higher Education Act defines higher educations and goes on to define public higher education institution and private higher education institutions. We are not undermining the Constitution in any way.

The private higher education institutions are mushrooming in a very alarming way, and are of great concern to us. The Bill requires the Minister to determine the scope and range of operations for higher education.

The New NP and DP are against this. Today, we are reviewing implementation as we transform since this is a process, not an event. Technical colleges are not meeting the needs of our young people. Nobody from among the members on that side is complaining. They still want to maintain an inferior standard of education. To hon Gaum, I say: Gone are the days when the 1959 Extension of Universtity Education Act required black students to obtain ministerial consent before they could attend a white university. [Interjections.] Dit is nou twak! [That is nonsense!]

Private institutions cherry-pick courses, especially the MBA …

Mr A Z A VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it permissible for a member of this House to call another member a ``lowlife’’? [Interjections.] The hon Momberg called the hon McIntosh a lowlife. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, in a debate, you should expect an exchange of interjections. I do not think that the Chair is going to be in a position to rule unless it is exceptionally objectionable. But, otherwise, it is a fair exchange between two sides, and I do not think that we should make too much of this. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, I would like to address you on that point of order. I would like to ask you to reconsider that ruling and, perhaps, consider it outside the House and give a ruling later, because the effect of that ruling is that the hon lowlifer over there can call anybody a lowlife if he likes. I would think that that would be unfortunate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Mr Gibson, if you would like me to review that point of order. I am quite happy to do so and I will, indeed, do so. Hon member, you may now proceed.

Ms P K MOTHOAGAE: Thank you, Chairperson, I am sure that I am going to be compensated for injury time.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson …

AN HON MEMBER: High life. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I think that when the Chair is being addressed, it is important that you preserve the decorum so that it is possible for the Chair to concentrate on the point of order. I would like to ask for your co-operation in that regard.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, Mr Van Jaarsveld who just raised the point of order has just referred to me as ``high life’’. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, in your ruling, I think that you should take that comment into account. But, more importantly, the hon Mr Gibson …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member over there, there is a point of order that is being taken and you are holding a conference. I just asked a moment ago that we should deal with one item only. This is interrupting - yes, that goes for everyone - we are interrupting the business of the day, and I would like to be able to proceed with one item at a time.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, Mr Gibson referred to Mr Jannie Momberg as ``Mr Lowlife’’ in what he has said to you. Could you please, in your ruling, take that into account?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITEES: Order! Yes, I will, most certainly. If it is found that that was objectionable, as much as the first hon member would have to withdraw, then it would follow ipso facto that the hon Mr Gibson would have to do similarly.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, on the same point of order: The hon Mr Yengeni is absolutely correct. I think that what I said is unparliamentary. I wish to withdraw it unreservedly. [Interjections.]   The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Thank you very much, hon member. If there are no other points of order, we may now proceed with the business of the House.

Ms P K MOTHOAGAE: Chairperson, the debate before the House is a lively one and members in the House are awake.

I was at a point where I was saying that the private institutions cherry- pick courses, especially the MBA courses, and compete with public institutions. They take students away from these institutions which might be one of the factors why the number of students in the institutions of higher learning are declining - I am addressing that to Mr Gaum. The Act requires the Minister to regulate that issue.

The registration process of private institutions is a responsibily of the director-general who must designate any employee of the Department of Education. At the moment, accreditation of these institutions is done by Saqa, the S A Qualifications Authority, until a committee on higher education quality assurance is operational. This must be a permanent committee to perform quality promotion and quality assurance.

We should not lose track of where we come from. In 1995, this House passed the SA Qualifications Authority Act which places education and training within a coherent curriculum and an institutional framework called the NQF, the National Qualifications Framework. The key principles of the NQF are to provide quality education, access and redress, and to value and accredit all learning, formal and informal. Saqa has just circulated its 1999-2000 annual report. The report indicates that a number of private higher education institutions have gone through the accreditation process.

I think it is important, this afternoon, to share these statistics with this House. The report indicates that the deadline by which all private institutions were required to have registered was 1 January 2000. But, by 22 August, 28 institutions were conditionally registered, 61 institutions were offered extension, 23 institutions were offered conditional registration, 102 institutions were accredited and 71 were granted preliminary accreditation status. By July 2000, 158 applications had been received by Saqa for accreditation. Most institutions had not yet applied to the department for registration. This is what we have at hand. The hon members must tell us how to deal with this, because tranformation needs to go on.

The ANC-led Government is committed to restructuring and transforming programmes and institutions in order to respond better to the human resources, economic and development needs of the republic. There is no truth in the recent statement in the media that we have come up with 40 policy documents and have not implemented any. What has happened is that such things keep on reporting on the responsibility of implementing legislation and policy.

We are aware that the two parties in the Democratic Alliance are going to vote against this Bill. But, this House should make it its responsibility to use its majority for the benefit of the majority of South Africans. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, before I call the next speaker, I want to inform you that in order to assist the Whips, should there be a division, the bells will be rung for five minutes to enable those who are proceeding with other business to make it into the House. This is just to notify the Whips that they will have five minutes to get their members in.

Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Mr Chairperson and hon members, to say that this Bill is aimed at curing a mischief is an insult to our institutions. These are not enthusiastic youths, as the Minister referred to hon Gaum, but institutions of higher learning.

South African tertiary academic institutions have contributed a great deal to economic, social, legal, scientific, technological and medical development not only in this country but also globally. Despite these great contributions, South African institutions of higher learning have gone through their greatest crisis over the past decade. Much pressure, both internal and external, has been placed on these institutions to transform in various ways. Some had to expand their student base in order to make them more representative. After that, they had to seek the necessary staff components in order to comply with labour legislation. Then came the financial cuts in subsidies that forced many of them to rationalise both staff and their academic activities.

These financial constraints have impacted negatively on the number of courses taught and the amount of research carried out, as well as the important additional task of community service.

The economic climate and the huge increase in unemployment have also left their marks on universities and technikons. Students have built up huge debts at some tertiary institutions, and their ability to repay these accumulated debts seems at the very least, bleak.

Many tertiary institutions have, however, made positive attempts to transform and comply with the requirements of a new society in which each individual has a constitutional right, not only to a basic education, but also to further education. Programmes to revitalise many of these institutions have been implemented by their various managements, and I would like to point out to the hon De Beer that we are acutely aware that some have been more successful than others. As a former Minister of education, he will, perhaps, be more aware than many other members here of the reasons for that.

Now, however through these amendments, the Minister has decided to place additional restrictions on all of these institutions. After surviving years of political and other challenges and overcoming many difficulties, these institutions are faced with their greatest obstacle yet, and that is the current threat to their autonomy.

With these amendments, the Minister will be given the power to determine the scope and range of operations, including the size and institutional configuration of the various institutions of higher learning. At the same time, the Minister will have the authority to determine if higher public institutions may enter into a loan or overdraft agreement or develop infrastructure.

With these and various other restrictions proposed in these amendments, the institutions of higher education face the danger of becoming additional bureaucratic entities within the national Department of Education.

In brief, the proposed amendments threaten to strip our institutions of the innovative spirit and freedom that have allowed them to make their greatest contributions to society.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, before I recognise the next speaker, I think I am in a position to comment on the point of order that was taken.

The connotations that attach to the word lowlife'' generally are unduly negative. I am of the view that hon members here should recognise that there is dignity in the office of the elected representative, and that it would therefore not be reflecting the situation correctly to use the extremely emotively loaded wordlowlife’’.

Neither does the term ``high life’’ have a fitting place within the vocabulary of Parliament, because, once again, it has certain connotations which would be unnecessary in the context of the work of a public representative.

I would therefore like to ask the hon member who made this remark to withdraw in order that we may proceed.

Mr J H MOMBERG: I withdraw it, Chairperson.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you very much. If any reference was made to ``high life’’, I would also like that to be withdrawn.

Mr J J NIEMANN: Mnr die Voorsitter, dit verbaas my dat ek dit moet terugtrek, want dit is die teenoorgestelde van lowlife'', maar as dit dan so is, trek ek dit terug. [Mr Chairperson, I am surprised that I have to withdraw it, because it is the opposite oflowlife’’, but if that is the case, I withdraw it.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the principle in the Bill is noble and in keeping with ensuring that legislation does not remain static and antequated, but is dynamic and abreast of developments.

However, the Bill is quite clear that, among other things, it is intended to extend the powers of the Minister of Education with regard to the determination of higher education policy. Well intended as this may sound, there lurks behind it a degree of authoritarianism, such as that proposed in clause 2 of the Bill, which states that the Minister may determine the scope and the range of operations of public higher institutions, private higher institutions and individual public or private higher institutions.

In the long run, this prerogative may degenerate into a situation where the Minister may, inadvertently, lay down curricula for these institutions, a measure which could be construed as interfering with the academic autonomy of these institutions.

The hon chairperson of the portfolio committee has just said that the Minister has the powers, in any case, as given to him in Act 101 of 1997, and the question is: Why ask for more if the power is already there?

Clause 6 of the Bill, which deals with the registration of private higher education institutions is cause for alarm. While the clause does recognise the registration of these institutions, the requirements are such that it may be very difficult to have them registered. The Government needs to be reminded that some churches hailed the demise of apartheid as a possible way in which they could lend a hand in higher education and training, as is the case elsewhere. These churches are running successful universities that are awarding degrees, and these churches are such that the degrees awarded by them are of a very high calibre and can match any other degree elsewhere.

The new requirements, as proposed for section 51(b) of Act 101 of 1997, will certainly put paid to any organisation, other than the state, that wants to provide higher education, and this is unfortunate. Clause 7 of the Bill, which has reference to the functions of the registrar, spells out clearly that no private higher education institution may be termed a university or a technikon.

It sounds as if the state should have the monopoly on providing higher education and control on the awarding of degrees. Some theological seminaries elsewhere award degrees, subject to strict accreditation principles. Our country can take a leaf from the book of these institutions. We have watchdogs, such as the SA Qualifications Authority, that will monitor the quality of the degrees awarded.

Section 53(1) of Act 101, 1997, as amended … [Time expired.]

Mr K MOONSAMY: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the present Bill is yet another giant stride in the transformation of our educational system.

Before I read the text of my statement, I would like to refer to the public hearings on the Bill that is before us this afternoon. Some representatives referred to this Bill as being draconian, giving the Minister unfettered powers and also stating that the Minister would use a sledgehammer to push through this Bill.

That is the language that we used during the apartheid era, and rightly so, because the apartheid system passed, not only draconian, but savage and criminal legislation, against a voiceless and voteless majority.

We have entered a new era in our country, in upholding democratic principles. We have not forgotten the Bantu Education Act, which we referred to as the slave Act. That was during the apartheid system.

The ANC will not, under any circumstances, pass any legislation that not only undermines the Constitution, but also, in any way, introduces draconian measures or laws in our country.

Now to the text. An historical analysis of higher education indicates that we have inherited a highly fragmented system. The underdevelopment of human resources and the subsequent geographical underdevelopment of higher education provision and facilities have led to a three-tier system of higher education being offered in our country.

This has been compounded by management of the system especially in the historically disadvantaged institutions. Poor management has resulted in a number of historically disadvantaged institutions experiencing serious administrative and financial problems. For many of the historically disadvantaged institutions, their financial state is the result of admitting learners from depressed economic backgrounds who genuinely struggle to pay fees.

This means that we have to transform the institutional values and philosophies of both historically disadvantaged and historically advantaged institutions. This transformation must reconfigure these institutions in order that they can serve the mandate and goals set out in the Education White Paper 3 and the RDP base document.

The restructuring higher education institutions must ensure a greater contribution towards the national development of the country. The end result must be the production of a new South African, schooled in the democratic paradigm.

The restructuring of higher education must further lead to the development of a learning society which can stimulate, direct and mobilise the creative and intellectual energies of all people towards meeting the challenges of reconstruction and development. A restructured higher education system should give the student socially relevant knowledge that will equip the graduate with the necessary skills and tools to make a far greater contribution back into the society.

As part of this process the gap between the schooling system and higher education must be narrowed. In this respect we need to be looking at establishing bridging courses for those school-leavers who are destined for higher education institutions.

In welcoming the introduction of this Bill before the National Assembly today, it is clear that it has become necessary to tighten up areas in the Higher Education Act of 1997. This is quite natural, since the process of transformation consistently throws up new challenges which require additional amendments.

The amending Bill gives the opportunity to introduce criteria for systemic transformation. This Bill will mean that a national plan needs to be put in place to effect its implementation. This Bill needs to be seen alongside the legislation passed in Parliament last year which put in place a national framework for human resource development in the form of the Skills Development Act. Therefore the introduction of this Bill must be seen as part of a broad range of focused legislation, aimed at the transformation of education in the country and, in turn, higher education.

Our concern must equally be to lift the culture and ethos both of teaching and of learning in higher education. Quality of teaching and support to students is vital if the type of legislation we are considering today is to succeed. Key to the transformation of higher education is the value system of higher education that we should be striving to implement. Our human resources are the most valuable source we have, and we have to ensure that we harness and direct this valuable resource by creating a higher education system that is going to serve the needs of reconstruction and development on the one hand, and the strengthening of the role of the state to provide quality higher education on the other. State and affordable public higher education is one of the most debated areas, and correctly so. For Government to achieve this, three critical areas need to be addressed: Firstly, institutional transformation; secondly, the governance and systems of higher education; and thirdly, curriculum development. Without these being addressed, no transformation will take place. This then brings us to another often debated area, that of historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged institutions. Critically, co- operation and sharing of resources is essential if we are to bridge the huge divide between these two. Often this is sadly lacking, and this draft Bill is an important mechanism in addressing this.

Today’s debate cannot take place in the absence of reminding ourselves about the White Paper on Transformation of Higher Education Institutions. This policy document is an important reference point and our debate today should not attempt to locate itself outside of this framework or pretend that there is no policy.

On the question of the autonomy of universities - Comrade Minister has already made reference to this - I would like to say the Bill begins effectively to deal with this: The situation of the state providing resources to build the historically disadvantaged institutions and historically advantaged institutions, but at the same time being unable to effect the necessary transformative changes due to the autonomy status of universities, is untenable. This has reduced the state to the status of an outsider, whilst institutions decide where to develop and contract faculties, disciplines and areas of research and scope of operation. Clearly, if the state provides, the state must have a say. Higher education is not the domain of independent intellectuals who, for financial reasons, are happy to back privately funded research projects which often have a tenuous link with the development of a strong base for social knowledge and learning.

Higher education is an important tool in the ambit of any state. The functioning of the higher education sector must contribute to the development of the state and Government’s policies and programmes.

In this context, the manner in which autonomy has been advanced by a number of institutions seeks to continue practices over which there is acknowledged concern of Government … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Deputy Chair, a Bill that brings amendments to the Higher Education Act needs all the serious attention that is available, because the higher education of a country impacts on the present and future life of that country. The potential locked up in a country and the human resources that a country can marshal all flow from higher education that is stable and progressive. The PAC supports these amendments and is appreciative of the consultation with the wide spectrum of stakeholders, many of whom commented openly and sometimes critically.

With an Education budget of R50,5 billion, 13% or R7 billion is of which earmarked for higher education, our institutions of learning should begin to turn out products of high quality and excellence as their contribution to the developmemt of our country. Of course, a developing country such as ours needs greater monetary investment to make up for the skewed development of the past, but, in the final analysis, it is greater production and seriousness in our institutions which will encourage Parliament and the executive to think of even higher expenditure in education.

Our Constitution and democratic institutions are the envy of the world. Few countries would involve students, employers and even the gardeners of a university, and allow the participation of trade unions of teachers, universities and technikons in the appointment of a principal. This really sounds noble, but only if the whole institution turns out to be a success. Our barometer of success is placed in the world around us. If we have exceptional democratic institutions that produce students who cannot stand up to their peers in the contemporary world, then we shall become the underdogs in the highly competitive global economy.

The recent Sydney Olympics have put the challenge clearly before us. We have a lot of work to do. Paper democracy is no substitute for hard work. We in Africa have had our share of slavery. We do not want to become slaves again. In education, in the workplace, we just have to work hard. Paper democracy is good but it will not take us far. [Time expired.]

Miss RAJBALLY: Chairperson, higher education is a necessity for human development throughout the world. According to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, it is the conscious responsibility of the government of the day to fulfil the provision of education for the nation.

The new democratic South Africa is experiencing many teething problems in the education system. Therefore, the appropriate implementation of the Higher Education Amendment Bill has the power to decide the social, economic and political destiny of this country.

The international convention on economic, social and cultural rights, 1966, also stressed that higher education is the responsibility of the state. South Africa has experienced an influx of foreign private education institutions which are competing with the local higher education institutions. This mandates our Government to exercise its constitutional right to closely monitor the higher education system by distinguishing between foreign and private schools.

The transformation of the administrative procedure to speed up the filling of a vacancy in the Council for Higher Education, and the identification of institutions which developed infrastructure without proper planning and budgeting gives the Minister swift and effective powers to address crises- hit campus, thus protecting and cultivating graduates to serve the diverse needs of our comunity. The MF supports the Higher Education Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Chairperson and the hon the Minister, I thank you for the opportunity to give expression to my youthful enthusiasm.

Die AEB het begrip daarvoor dat daar groot probleme bestaan op die terrein van hoër onderwys. Enersyds beskik Suid-Afrika oor van die beste tersiêre inrigtings ter wêreld, en andersyds is daar inrigtings met groot probleme.

Ons het egter nie begrip daarvoor dat die oplossing van haas elke probleem in die land aldeur maar gesien word in die sentralisering van mag nie. Dit is ook die geval met hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp. Kragtens hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp kry die Minister gesag oor rade van onderwysinstellings wat hy voorheen nie gehad het nie; onder meer oor kardinale aspekte van die finansies van hoëronderwysinstellings, die bevoegdheid om die bestek en omvang van hulle werksaamhede te bepaal, en selfs oor die verandering van ‘n instelling se naam.

Die registrateur kry die bevoegdheid om registrasie te belet al voldoen die aansoeker aan al die vereistes. Op hierdie wyse kom die outonomie van die inrigtings in gedrang. Ons moet onthou, daar is reeds kanale vir ministeriële betrokkenheid. Hy doen sekere benoemings in die rade van inrigtings. Die hand wat die begroting uitdeel, is ook reeds die hand wat die beheer uitoefen. Nou kry hy nog meer mag. Ons probleem met hierdie wetgewing is dat daar geen onderskeid getref word nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The AEB understands that major problems exist in the sphere of higher education. On the one hand South Africa has some of the best tertiary institutions in the world, and on the other there are institutions with great problems.

However, we do not have understanding for the fact that the solution to virtually every problem in the country is forever seen to lie in the centralisation of power. This is also the case with this amending Bill. In terms of this amending Bill the Minister acquires authority over councils of educational institutions which he did not have before; inter alia regarding cardinal aspects of the finances of higher education institutions, the authority to determine the range and scope of their activities, and even regarding the change of the name of an institution.

The registrar has the authority to refuse registration even if an applicant meets all the requirements. In this way the autonomy of the institutions is prejudiced. We must remember that there are already channels for ministerial involvement. He makes certain nominations to the councils of institutions. Furthermore, the hand that divides up the budget is the hand that is already exercising control. Now he receives even more power. Our problem with this legislation is that no distinction is made.]

No allowance is made for differentiation, and there is no possibility for higher education institutions to move away from this ministerial supervision through a track record of proven performance and merit.

Die AEB het voorgestel dat die Minister die bevoegdheid wat hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp hom gee, moet uitoefen in oorleg met die rade van die onderskeie inrigtings. Die ANC wou nie daaraan byt nie. Ons moet onthou, besluite en optrede wat nie berus op die oorreding en samewerking van instansies nie, maar wat outoritêr afgedwing word, is van meet af aan tot mislukking gedoem. Die ANC-lede was nie eens bereid tot die floue ``ná oorleg met die raad’’ nie.

Ernstige finansiële beperkings word op die rade van die hoëronderwysinstellings gelê, weer eens sonder onderskeid. Elke inrigting sal ingevolge hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp eintlik in beginsel onder ‘n soort finansiële administrasie geplaas word. Dit word vir ons ‘n ernstige probleem. Reformeer en transformeer word dikwels vir die ANC sinoniem met sentraliseer, telkens met die verskoning dat daar ‘n krisis is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The AEB recommended that the Minister should exercise the authority which this amending Bill affords him, in consultation with the councils of the various institutions. The ANC did not want to accept that. We must remember that decisions and actions which are not based on the persuasion and co- operation of institutions, but which are enforced in an authoritarian manner, are doomed to failure from the start. The ANC members were not even prepared to accept the mild wording ``after consultation with the council’’.

Serious financial limitations are placed on the councils of the higher education institutions, once again without distinction. In terms of this amending Bill every institution will actually, in principle, be placed under a type of financial administration. This becomes a serious problem for us. To the ANC reform and transformation are often synonymous with centralisation, time and again with the excuse that there is a crisis.]

To use the hon the Minister’s words, ``there is a mischief’’.

Elke krisis in Suid-Afrika word dan egter beskou as ‘n rede vir ministeriële ingrype.

Die oordeel van die AEB is dat ware demokrasie en vryheid in ‘n land nie net geleë is in die vryheid van die individu nie, maar ook in die outonomie van sy burgerlike instellings. Die huidige Minister het die beste bedoelings. Die vraag is egter of hulle hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp sou goedgekeur het as mnr De Beer nog die Minister was.

Die AEB opponeer elke stuk wetgewing wat ‘n ingryp maak in die outonomie van gemeenskapsinstellings. Daarom sal ons hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp ook opponeer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[However, every crisis in South Africa is then regarded as a reason for ministerial intervention.

The opinion of the AEB is that true democracy and freedom in a country are not only based on the freedom of the individual, but also on the autonomy of its civic institutions. The current Minister has the best intentions. However, the question is whether they would have approved this amending Bill if Mr De Beer were still the Minister.

The AEB opposes every piece of legislation that intervenes in the autonomy of community institutions. Therefore, we shall also oppose this amending Bill.]

Mr M A MANGENA: Chairperson, the Higher Education Amendment Bill seeks to solve some problems manifesting themselves in the area of tertiary education and, by so doing, protects both students and the integrity of this level of education in our country.

One such problem is the poor management of resources by some universities and technikons, as well as the undertaking of expensive projects that are beyond the financial capacities of the institutions concerned.

As a results, some institutions find themselves in huge debts that have a debilitating effect on their proper and efficient functioning.

The Bill proposes restricting the ability of institutions to put themselves in financial trouble. While some of us wholeheartedly agree that the Ministry of Education must intervene, and we have been assured that the Ministry has sufficient capacity to handle applications by institutions for expenditure beyond a stipulated amount, we worry that we might be creating bigger bureaucratic hurdles in the Ministry of Education, which would hamper the smooth and efficient running of the healthy institutions. We fear we might be solving a problem by creating another one.

The other problem is the proliferation of private institutions of higher learning, both local and foreign, in our country. Some are of dubious character, dubious quality, origin and intention. Many parents and students have fallen victim to some of these universities or colleges.

This Bill seeks to strengthen the registration process of these private institutions and to impose penalties for those who provide tertiary training without registration. This will protect our people against some of these institutions which have questionable credentials while, at the same time, it will protect those institutions that provide quality education. Azapo will support the Bill. [Applause.]

Dr J BENJAMIN: Chairperson and hon members, this House passed the Higher Education Act of 1997 and the Education White Paper 3 with the intention of transforming higher education from its apartheid base. Apartheid policies permeated the higher education system, both in terms of structure and content, causing irreparable damage to the development of our society. So deep was this racist ideology embedded within the system of higher education that black campuses were often referred to as microcosms of the broader society. The extent to which black campuses became targets for attack from security forces in the 1970s and 1980s bears witness to this assertion.

It is ironic that the DP and the New NP use words such as onslaught'', threat’’, undermining'', anddraconian measures’’. This is part of their culture, not ours.

The Constitution, the Higher Education Act of 1997 and the Education White Paper 3 of 1997 provided for the democratisation of institutions to ensure autonomy and academic freedom. The doors of learning were to be opened, through physical access, but also making the deeper levels of higher education accessible, that is, by producing knowledge through reearch - knowledge that would address both the challenges of national development and global competition.

The expected massification of higher institutions did not materialise. This is not surprising, given that during this debate the previous DP speaker referred to the transformation of the campuses, and access and representivity as the greatest crisis facing certain institutions.

It is no wonder that, at present, white universities now reap the benefits of increased black students. Despite this, it seems as if the higher intake of black students is still seating in distant and satellite campuses.

The higher education system has been characterised by a number of inefficiencies which, no doubt, cannot be separated from the irreparable damage created in the past through depriving the majority of our people the opportunity of having access to educational, managerial and economic resources.

Last week the Minister explained to this House the different factors which account for the low enrolment of students in black institutions. One of the factors mentioned was the proliferation of private higher institutions that operate for profit and which are unregulated. The Council for Higher Education recommended to the Minister in December 1999 the following: Firstly, the examination of the generally unplanned growth of private higher education institutions on the basis of national need and in the light of the Constitution.

Secondly, the re-examination of the present legislation and the development of a regulatory framework for higher education as a matter of urgency, and, thirdly, the placing of a moratorium on the registration of new and especially multipurpose private higher education institutions …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I do not think it is possible for the speaker to be heard. The conferencing is now slightly dominating the main purpose of this House.

Dr J BENJAMIN: I was saying that the Council for Higher Education had recommended to the Minister that he place a moratorium on the registration of new and especially multipurpose private higher education institutions, and on the development of new joint programmes between the public and private higher education institutions.

The legislation that is being considered by the House is therefore, a result of extensive consultation with the Council For Higher Education as well as those stakeholders consulted by the department and through the parliamentary process of public hearings. This bill has been introduced to provide for Government regulation of the higher education sector as a whole, both in terms of financial accountability measures and in terms of regulating the private higher education institutions.

Initially, when the doors of learning were opened, the apologists of White privilege clung to their monopoly over the resources by clamouring for higher academic standards. Today, it suits those who continue to oppose change, to oppose measures that will ensure that institutions do not offer narrow skills-based programmes primarily for the purpose of making a profit in competition with public institutions offering holistic courses that are addressing the national need for advancing skills and scientific knowledge.

The provision of clause 2 enables the Minister to determine the scope and range of operations of the different higher education institutions. Far from this being draconian measures, as indicated by the DA, these provisions allow for the co-ordinated development of the differentiated system of higher education. Government through the Ministry must be enabled to ensure that policy is set, across the board, in order to distinguish between a university that is offering broad and diverse programmes and a fly by night institution operating on the basis of a profit motive. It is the duty of the democratically elected Government to protect the public against unscrupulous practices in the private sector.

While the smaller opposition parties support this Bill, the DA is constantly opposed to giving the power to the Minister to govern effectively. In their attempt to limit the power of Government to effect transformation in the interest of the vast majority of this country they elevate the principle of institutional autonomy to that of a holy cow at the expense of public accountability. Institutional autonomy and public accountability go hand in hand. Institutions receiving public funds must account to the broader society and must educate in the national interest, and must meet national policy goals and priorities as set out in the education white paper number three of 1997.

The Minister has pointed out the need for co-operative government and other members have argued that the kind of autonomy the DA wants is not attainable even in Britain, Australia or any other country that we know of. The Higher Education Amendment Bill is intended to enable the Minister to effect the balance between private and public institutions in the interest of developing a single, nationally co-ordinated - though differentiated - higher education system addressing national goals.

The Constitution grants the right for private institutions to exist, provided that such institutions are comparable to public institutions. The provision that private institutions register under the Companies Act provides a framework within which a private higher education institution can be accountable to the public in the same way as the public institutions require a council. The Board of Directors serves to provide a mechanism for financial accountability for the submission of audits, and it provides for small as well as large companies.

The ANC supports the Higher Education Amendment Bill and salutes the IFP, the UDM and all the other smaller opposition parties who have been prepared to understand and reason, rather than oppose simply for the sake of opposing.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Mr Chairperson, this morning I spoke to 300 students and staff of the University of Cape Town’s Faculty of Medical Science. I think members of the House would have been enlightened by attending that meeting. At their request, I talked about the pace of transformation.

This is a word that never appears from the opposition. Transformation is a swear word. [Interjections.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Did you ask them if HIV causes Aids?

The MINISTER: They talk about equity. Equity is a small word with enormous meanings. [Interjections.]

Mr G B D MCINTOSH: What are you doing about Fort Hare?

The MINISTER: It sticks in their throats. I will talk to the hon member privately. This Natalian has a nerve to talk about my being a colonial master. He comes from a province that adopted Shepstone’s policy of separation, the older qualities of Milner’s kindergarten. I am ashamed that the FF could associate with Milner’s kindergarten of cultural suppression and language suppression. [Interjections.] What he is afraid of is not my being a dictator. He might be calling me that, but what he is afraid of, as in J M Coetzee’s book, are the barbarians at the gate. What basically they are afraid of is that barbarians will take over this education.

What came out of this meeting with the UCT students was an extraordinary responsiveness from Black and White. However, we must grapple with the issues, that the status quo, that `things will never change’ is not good enough.

I am afraid to say this. The DP and the New NP, whatever fancy names they have, have never supported any progressive piece of education legislation since 1994. [Interjections.] Never! In fact, they mobilised against the Schools Act and took it to the Constitutional Court. [Interjections.] Nobody else took the Schools Act to the Constitutional Court. They did it, and the Constitutional Court unanimously rejected them. [Interjections.] There was a lot of hoo-ha about it.

I must remind the hon member, Adv Gaum, that a first year law student knows that no right is absolute, and that the Constitutional Court has upheld the restrictions imposed by the Constitution in a liberal democracy. He cannot say that the registrar will be a law unto himself because there is, of course, the procedures of the Administrative Justice Act which we passed and one must give reasons. Secondly, there is the whole question of an appeal to the Minister. Thirdly, even Adv Gaum … [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: The hon advocate!

The MINISTER: … the hon Adv Gaum, must recognise that there are enormous restrictions placed on this. It is not in a state of agitation, it is in a state of shame that I make these points, because I am ashamed. I have this increasingly developing gatvol'' factor - I thinkgatvol’’ is a wonderful word - about this obstructionism that comes on every progressive piece of legislation. [Interjections.]

Of course, the more depressing thing is that there is no interaction between what happens in the portfolio committee and the speeches made here. There is no interaction.

I feel that Mr Ntuli - who is the most dispassionate, most involved person in education - has to carry the burden of an impossible brief from the DP. [Interjections.] A burden that he cannot fulfil because he is asked to do things that basically he cannot have any conviction over, and because, fundamentally he recognises that one cannot have subsidy cuts. Subsidy cuts take place afterwards. One wants to prevent overdraft exploitation and that is a fundamental thing.

One calls upon the adminstrator. As an administrator, it is an extreme step to take over the running of the whole institution.

Therefore, ours is a very practical thing. It does not go far. Mr Gaum wants the market to decide everything. This is a kind of a bitch goddess'', as D H Lawrence used to say. The market with the full powers of thebitch goddess’’. When is the market interested in providing the full range of courses, such as modern languages and sociology? When is the market interested in providing history courses? It is interested in what pays - profits.

Let me say it quite clearly: I am not against the private sector. We have had 700 applications from private-sector bodies who want to register. This week, I overruled the Registrar-general. I have overruled the Director- General of the department in three cases and upheld the appeal, because they are providers of that information.

Then, let me tell the House that we will have to recruit more staff, both for the regulation of the private sector and, of course, for implementation of the funding mechanism, and, especially, the restrictions on overdrafts. We will have to do that because we need speedy interventions from the Government. We cannot continue in this way, because we understand that the South African private sector is playing a significant part, but there must be proper regulation.

As far as overseas bodies are concerned, they will not fulfill the minimum regulations that we impose. They come here because of the financial problems that they are having overseas. The cream of the students are here. They provide courses in information technology, science and MBAs. There are 25 MBA courses in South Africa at enormous fees. In fact, they impact directly on highly prestigious universities such as the Witwatersrand University, next door to them. We must take this into account. It would be irresponsible of us not to take this into account. Of course, Mr Moonsamy is right. We will have a national plan which will have to be implemented, and some of the powers that will be there in the new Bill, will be used to implement the national plan.

However, this should be done openly, and the House will be involved in this. Every power exercised here must be done after consultation with the Council for Higher Education. But so much for being a dictator. In fact, as the Minister of Water Affairs, I transferred most of the powers to catchment management bodies. Therefore, what we want to do is to have a rational system based on the transformation model which is vital for our country.

We should be gatvol. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] We should be gatvol about the continuing inequalities, the lack of access and the lack of promotion and the lack promotion for women senior posts. I commend this Bill to the House. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 206: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Balfour, B M N; Baloi, G E; Baloyi, M R; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Capa, R Z N; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Cindi, N V; Coetzee- Kasper, M P; Davies, R H; De Beer, S J; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Douglas, B M; Duma, N M; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Feinstein, A J; Ferreira, E T; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P-J A; Gininda, M S; Gomomo, P J; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hlengwa, M W; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Landers, L T; Leeuw, S J; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Lyle, A G; Maduna, P M; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Mahlangu, G L; Mahlangu, M J; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Makunyane, T L; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Mangena, M A; Maphalala, M A; Maphoto, L I; Mars, I; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mbongo, P F; Mbuyazi, L R; Mfundisi, I S; Mgidi, J S; Mkhatshwa, S; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mogoba, M S; Mohai, S J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloto, K A; Momberg, J H; Mongwaketse, S J; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Mothoagae, P K; Mpaka, H M; Mpehle, M; Mshudulu, S A; Msomi, M D; Mtsweni, N S; Mutsila, I; Mzizi, M A; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane, I Z; Ncube, N Z; Ndabandaba, L B G; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V; Ngubeni, J M; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nqodi, S B; Ntshangase, I B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Oliphant, G G; Pahad, A G H; Phala, M J; Phantsi, E; Pieterse, R D; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodike, M N; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Schneemann, G D; Seaton, S A; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Serote, M W; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcau, S N; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Slabbert, J H; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Wyk, A (Annelize); Van Wyk, J F; Verwoerd, M; Vilakazi, B H; Vos, S C; Woods, G; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zita, L; Zondo, R P.

NOES - 47: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bell, B G; Beukman, F; Blaas, A; Bruce, N S; Clelland, N J; Da Camara, M L; Davidson, I O; Dowry, J J; Durand, J; Ellis, M J; Gaum, A H; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Lee, T D; Leon, A J; Le Roux, J W; Maluleke, D K; McIntosh, G B D; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Nel, A H; Niemann, J J; Ntuli, R S; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Singh, A; Smit, H A; Swart, P S; Taljaard, R; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Viljoen, C L.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

The House adjourned at 17:17.

                             __________

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

                       MONDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2000

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 The following papers were tabled and are now referred to the relevant
 committees as mentioned below:


 (1)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Defence and to the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional
     Affairs. It is also referred to the Standing Committee on Public
     Accounts for consideration and report:
     Special Review by the Auditor-General of the Selection Process of
     Strategic Defence Packages for the Acquisition of Armaments at the
     Department of Defence [RP 161-2000].


 (2)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Select Committee on Finance:


     (a)     Report and Financial Statements of the Corporation for
          Public Deposits for 1999-2000.

     (b)     Report and Financial Statements of the Development Bank of
          Southern Africa for 1999-2000.

     (c)     Government Notice No R.896 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21545 dated 8 September 2000, Amendment of
          Prescribed Fees made in terms of section 36 of the Pension
          Funds Act, 1956 (Act No 24 of 1956).


 (3)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Transport and to the Select Committee on Public Services:


     (a)     Report of the Regulating Committee for the Airports
          Company and Air Traffic and Navigation Services Companies for
          1999-2000.

     (b)     Report of the Regulating Committee for the Airports
          Company and Air Traffic and Navigation Services Companies:
          Approach to the 2001/2 - 2005/6 Permissions.


 (4)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Justice and Constitutional Development and to the Select Security
     and Constitutional Affairs:


     (a)     Government Notice No R.501 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21204 dated 19 May 2000, Amendment of the Rules of
          the Magistrates' Courts made in terms of the Rules Board for
          Courts of Law Act, 1985 (Act No 107 of 1985).

     (b)     Government Notice No R.502 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21204 dated 19 May 2000, Amendment of the rules
          regulating the conduct of the proceedings of the several
          Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South
          Africa, made in terms of the Rules Board for Courts of Law
          Act, 1985 (Act No 107 of 1985).

     (c)     Proclamation No R.38 published in the Government Gazette
          No 21353 dated 7 July 2000, Referral of matters to existing
          Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunal, made in terms
          of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act,
          1996 (Act No 74 of 1996).

     (d)     Proclamation No R.44 published in the Government Gazette
          No 21410 dated 28 July 2000, Commencement of the Justice Laws
          Rationalisation Act, 1996 (Act No 18 of 1996).

     (e)     Proclamation No R.52 published in the Government Gazette
          No 21529 dated 1 September 2000, Commencement of sections 1 to
          5 and 10 of the Judicial Matters Second Amendment Act, 1998
          (Act No 122 of 1998).
     (f)     Proclamation No R.53 published in the Government Gazette
          No 21529 dated 1 September 2000, Commencement of section 2 of
          the Sheriffs Amendment Act, 1998 (Act No 74 of 1998).

     (g)     Proclamation No R.54 published in the Government Gazette
          No 21529 dated 1 September 2000, Commencement of sections 1,
          2, 3, 4(2), 5, 6, 29 (with the exception of subsection (2)),
          32, 33, and 34(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention
          of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act No 4 of 2000).

     (h)     Government Notice No R.850 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21504 dated 1 September 2000, Amendment of
          Regulations made in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime
          Act, 1998 (Act No 121 of 1998).

     (i)     Government Notice No R.865 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21519 dated 1 September 2000, Determination of
          amounts and exclusion of employees for the purposes of section
          98A of the Insolvency Act, 1936 (Act No 24 of 1936).
     (j)     Government Notice No R.874 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21517 dated 1 September 2000, Establishment of
          Equality Review Committee and appointment of members thereof,
          made in terms of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of
          Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act No 4 of 2000).


 (5)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Labour and to the Select Committee on Labour and Public
     Enterprises. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred to the
     Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and
     report:
      
     Report and Financial Statements of the Commission for
     Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration for 1998-99, including
     Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 1998-
     99.


 (6)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Health and to the Select Committee on Social Services:


     (a)     Government Notice No R.650 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21313 dated 30 June 2000, Amendment of Regulations
          made in terms of the Medical Schemes Act, 1998.

     (b)     Government Notice No R.755 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21399 dated 28 July 2000, Amendment of Regulations
          relating to milk and dairy products made in terms of the
          Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972.

     (c)     Government Notice No R.837 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21486 dated 25 August 2000, Amendment of
          Regulations relating to milk and dairy products made in terms
          of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972.

     (d)     Government Notice No 757 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21409 dated 28 July 2000, Notice of ratification of
          Protocol on Health in Southern African Development Community
          (SADC).

     (e)     Government Notice No R.836 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21486 dated 25 August 2000, Amendment of
          regulations regarding maximum limits for pesticide residues
          made in terms of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants
          Act, 1972.

     (f)     Government Notice No 838 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21483 dated 25 August 2000, Explanatory summary on
          Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service
          Professions Amendment Bill, 2000 published for comment.

     (g)     Government Notice No R.872 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21533 dated 8 September 2000, Regulations regarding
          the use of names which may not be used made in terms of the
          Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions
          Act, 1974.

     (h)     Government Notice No R.872 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21533 dated 8 September 2000, Regulations on
          flouridating water supplies made in terms of the Health Laws
          Amendment Act, 1977.

     (i)     Government Notice No R.921 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21552 dated 15 September 2000, Regulations
          regarding fees to be paid to the South African Nursing Council
          made in terms of the Nursing Act, 1978.

     (j)     Government Notice No R.925 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21552 dated 15 September 2000, Regulations defining
          scope of profession of emergency care made in terms of the
          Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions
          Act, 1974.

     (k)     Government Notice No R.943 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21569 dated 22 September 2000, Regulations made in
          terms of the Medical Schemes Act, 1998.

     (l)     Government Notice No 942 published in the Government
          Gazette No 21569 dated 22 September 2000, Explanatory summary
          of the Mental Health Care Bill, 2001 published for comment.

     (m) Government Notice No 876 published in the Government Gazette
          No 21535 dated 4 September 2000, Publication of the
          Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service
          Professions Amendment Act, 2000 (Act No 6 of 2000).


 (7)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Trade and Industry and to the Select Committee on Economic
     Affairs:
      
     Report and Financial Statements of the Support Programme for
     Industrial Innovation for 1999-2000.

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Education:

 (1)    Government Notice No 777 published in the Government Gazette No
     21444 dated 11 August 2000, The date on which TEFSA ceases its
     functions made in terms of the National Student Financial Aid
     Scheme Act, 1999 (Act No 56 of 1999).

 (2)    Government Notice No 789 published in the Government Gazette No
     21438 dated 11 August 2000, Approval that the pilot project Travel
     and Tourism Standard Grade, Grade 10 - 12 becomes a fully fledged
     instructional offering, made in terms of the National Education
     Policy Act, 1996 (Act No 27 of 1996).

 (3)    Government Notice No R.848 published in the Government Gazette
     No 21501 dated 1 September 2000, Correction notice to Government
     Gazette No 21192 dated 18 May 2000, made in terms of the National
     Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act No 27 of 1996).

 (4)    Government Notice No 3102 published in the Government Gazette No
     21539 dated 6 September 2000, Call for public comment on draft
     document - The National Policy Framework on Whole-school
     Evaluation, made in terms of the National Education Policy Act,
     1996 (Act No 27 of 1996).

National Assembly:

Bills:

 1 The Minister for Provincial and Local Government:


     (1)     Wetsontwerp op Plaaslike Regering: Munisipale Stelsels [W
          27 - 2000].


          The Local Government: Municipal Systems Bill [B 27 - 2000]
          (National Assembly - sec 75) was introduced by the Minister
          for Provincial and Local Government on 5 May 2000 and referred
          to the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Eleventh 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 4: Agriculture for the year ended 31 March 1999 [RP 129-99], as
 well as certain papers referred to it, and having heard evidence,
 reports as follows:


 1.     Unauthorised expenditure (Par 2.2.1(a), page 2)

     The Committee heard evidence on the exceeding of delegated
     authority by a director in the Department when he approved
     expenditure of approximately R150 000, which was R136 303 more
     than the delegated approval level. Although the Committee welcomes
     the Director-General being accompanied to the hearing by the
     official concerned, for that official to personally clarify the
     circumstances, the Committee is disappointed that the Accounting
     Officer had not conducted a formal enquiry, as required by the
     applicable Public Service Regulations. It is the Committee's view
     that when heads of department appear before the Committee, all the
     appropriate internal and, if necessary, external disciplinary and
     other administrative and human resource practices should have been
     completed within the responsibility sphere of heads of department.
     The Committee wishes to be presented with a clear indication of
     the extent of possible negligence, culpability or mala fides, and
     whether the State suffered any loss. As set out in section
     38(1)(h) of the Public Finance Management Act, it is the
     responsibility of the accounting officer to -


          "take effective and appropriate disciplinary steps against any
          official in the service of the department who -


              (ii) commits an act which undermines the financial
                     management and internal control system of the
                     department, ... or

              (iii)      makes or permits an unauthorised expenditure,
                     irregular expenditure or fruitless and wasteful
                     expenditure;".


     The flouting of limits in terms of delegated authority is totally
     unacceptable to the Committee, and the Committee was not convinced
     that the official concerned did not have better options in terms
     of which to have managed the extension of the contract.

     Without wishing to delay progress in this matter unnecessarily,
     but in view of the abovementioned, the Committee recommends that
     the Director-General provide at least the following further
     information to the Committee before it can make a recommendation
     to Parliament on the unauthorised expenditure in question:

     The Accounting Officer must provide assurance that -


     (1)     no form of favouritism was evident during the awarding of
          the contract to the service provider in question, or that
          anyone unduly benefitted;

     (2)     in future a system exists whereby appropriate enquiry and
          disciplinary procedures are initiated in all cases where
          regulations are breached; and
     (3)     appropriate processes exist within the Department to
          prevent unauthorised staff committing the Department to
          contracts of an extended nature.


 2.     Onderstepoort Biological Products (OBP)
     (Part C of Report, page 35)

     The Committee heard further evidence on the corporatisation of
     Onderstepoort, with the aim of establishing a company so that it
     can negotiate the terms of a shareholder arrangement or a
     partnership arrangement in order to attract additional capital.
     The Committee took note of the procedural weaknesses regarding the
     appointment of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer; it was
     also not clear what impact the corporatisation process would have
     on the OBP Board's relationship with the State as the primary
     shareholder. The Committee also took note that the OBP has not yet
     been listed as a public entity, as was requested by the
     Department.
     The Committee recommends that the Director-General provide the
     following information on the corporatisation process to
     Parliament:
     (1)     Details on the chairperson and members of the Board, and
          which of the members bring financial expertise to the Board.

     (2)     Whether a Chief Executive Officer has been appointed and,
          if not, when this will take place.

     (3)     How the possible external shareholder interests will be
          balanced against the interests of the State as shareholder.

     (4)     Whether the financial management system is fully
          functional and producing appropriate and reliable monthly
          management information by the third week of the following
          month, and whether this information is used by management.

     (5)     Whether a shareholder agreement has been entered into with
          the Board, and what the salient features of the agreement are.


     In addition, the National Treasury must immediately indicate by
     which date the OBP will be listed as a public entity.


 3.     Financial management


     The Committee wishes to commend the Department on the progress
     made with the establishment of a reliable internal audit function.
     The Committee recommends that the chairperson of the Audit
     Committee provide the Committee with a brief report on the
     following:


     (1)     The risk profile of the Department, based on a proper risk
          analysis by the internal auditors of the Department's
          operations.

     (2)     A brief report on the current effectiveness of the
          internal audit section, including the appropriateness of the
          scope of its audit planning.

     (3)     An indication of whether the internal auditors' work
          complies with the standards of the Institute of Internal
          Auditors (IIA), as required by new Treasury Regulation 3.2.5,
          and if not, which standards are applied in the meantime and by
          when they will be able to comply with the IIA standards; and

     (4)     an indication of the responsiveness of the Department's
          management to the findings of the internal auditors.


 4.     Budgeting and planning


     The Committee is encouraged by the Accounting Officer's intentions
     of ensuring that departmental programmes have "clearly targeted
     programmes" that will be measured in terms of their impact, and
     that many of the programmes will be targeted at the poor.

     In this regard, the Committee recommends that the Accounting
     Officer ensure that the Department timeously prepare itself to
     apply proper principles of performance budgeting, as required in
     terms of the strategic plan, to be submitted to the relevant
     Executive Authority as well as the National Treasury by 30 June
     2001 for the MTEF period commencing 1 April 2002.


 5.     Production Loan Scheme (Par 3.1, page 2)

     Four cases have been referred to the State Attorney for recovery
     of outstanding debts. In two cases, agreements have been entered
     into to repay amounts on a monthly basis. The Committee has been
     assured by the Director-General that she is exerting pressure on
     the State Attorney to enter into acceptable pay-back arrangements
     regarding Bakgaga Bakopa and CPAC.

     The Committee has been informed that it is likely that the
     outstanding debts will be recovered in all four cases.


 6.     Loan securities


     The Committee took note of the decrease of 1 769 accounts,
     compared with previous years. A total of 130 accounts have been
     written off, and their value, as well as the value of accounts
     that have been repaid, must be supplied to the Committee by the
     Director-General.

     Of concern to the Committee is the number of reported losses to
     the State through write-offs. The National Treasury must monitor
     this to ensure that the Department's risk management is adequate,
     and that the conditions in terms of which these are written off,
     are not too lenient.


 7.     Loans to farmers


     The Committee has been assured that the reported shortcomings in
     this regard have been addressed.


 8.     Agricultural Credit Account Financing of agricultural equipment:
     Belarus tractors
     (Par 3.1, Part C of Report, page 24)

     With respect to this matter, the Department must provide the
     Committee with clarity on the legal position, and must ensure that
     support in terms of spares and a local agent will be sustained.


 Report to be considered. 2.    Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 20
 September 2000:


 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered and
 examined the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
 of Vote 34: Trade and Industry for the year ended 31 March 1999 [RP 158-
 99], as well as certain papers referred to it, and having heard
 evidence, reports as follows:


 1.     Internal control [Par 3.7.2, page 7]

     The Committee heard evidence relating to the reported shortcomings
     in the internal controls of the Department. It is encouraging to
     note the corrective steps taken by the Department to prevent a
     recurrence of the reported shortcomings. However, the Director-
     General is reminded that internal control forms one of the main
     pillars of effective financial management in any organisation, and
     therefore the Committee cannot over-emphasise its importance.

     It was evident that the Department had a significant problem
     regarding the integration of management information systems. The
     Committee therefore recommends that the Accounting Officer consult
     with the National Treasury on how to urgently address the
     deficiencies, including the interface between BAS and LOGIS, and
     report to the Committee on how the matter will be resolved.
     Thereafter, the Accounting Officer must report to the Committee
     quarterly on the progress made.


 2.     Provisioning Administration System [Paragraph 2.2.1, page 2]

     The Committee notes the evidence by the Department and the former
     Department of State Expenditure relating to the transfer to LOGIS.
     However, the Committee is concerned about the process followed to
     establish absolute certainty that the State did not suffer any
     loss. The Committee has doubts about the "red-lining" process that
     was used in this case.

     The Committee wishes to recommend that in future "red-lining"
     should always be regarded as a last resort, only after full
     consultation with the National Treasury.


 3.     Unauthorised expenditure [Paragraph 2.2.2, page 3]

     The Committee commends the Department for having identified and
     acted on the matter of unauthorised expenditure. The Committee
     also welcomes the establishment of the financial control
     committee, aimed at, inter alia, preventing such incidents in
     future.


     (1)     The Committee heard evidence on the payment of an amount
          of approximately R108 970 to a consultancy group, cost which
          should have been borne by the National Lotteries Board. The
          Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer confirm the
          exact amount in question and whether value had been received
          for the services provided by the firm in question, before
          considering a recommendation on the authorisation thereof.

     (2)     The Committee notes that an amount of R4 384 922,09 was
          reported by the Auditor-General as unauthorised expenditure
          incurred over a period of three financial years. The
          expenditure is reported as expenditure of a "technical
          nature", in respect of which the State had not suffered any
          loss and where no mala fides were at stake. The Committee
          therefore recommends that the amount be authorised by
          Parliament.

     (3)     In its Nineteenth Report for 1999, the Committee
          recommended that an amount of R1 199 022,19 in respect of the
          hosting of the Second National Conference on Small Business
          not be authorised. Having received further information in this
          regard, the Committee feels it is in a position to now
          recommend authorisation of the amount in question.


 4.     Debtors [Par 3.1, page 4; par 3.3, page 6]

     The Committee notes that debtors relating to the now terminated
     General Export Incentive Scheme (GEIS) have escalated owing to new
     disputable claims identified during the verification process that
     the Department had embarked upon, as well as the interest charged
     on the amounts owing. The Committee also notes that the Department
     was dependent on the assistance of the State Attorney for legal
     action in respect of disputed claims. Having noted the list of
     companies that the State Attorney is dealing with, it is obvious
     that a substantial amount of time will be required to clear up all
     the cases. The danger of companies going into liquidation is a
     matter of concern to the Committee.

     The Committee therefore recommends that the Accounting Officer -


     (1)     consider separating the debtors under GEIS from the normal
          debtors; and


     (2)     provide a brief progress report on -


          (a) the verification process;


          (b) the various cases being dealt with by the State Attorney;
              and
          (c) whether any debts have prescribed.


 5.     Phase VI - Local Content Programme [Par 3.2, page 5]

     The Committee noted a number of cases of suspected irregularities
     in respect of the ceding of export credits to motor vehicle
     manufacturers and the accompanying rebates against excise duty.
     The Committee awaits the Accounting Officer's progress report in
     this regard.


 6.     Unspent Funds [Paragraph 3.5, page 6]

     The Committee recommends that the Department submit a plan on how
     they intend overseeing the funds allocated and voted by Parliament
     before the end of February 2001.


 7.     Backlog [Trade Mark Applications]


     The lengthy delay in processing Trade Mark Applications is totally
     unacceptable, and the Committee requests a report on the current
     position and a quarterly report in future. The Committee notes the
     appointment of 12 additional staff members, and trusts that the
     extra resources will speed up the issuing of Trade Marks to
     applicants.


 Report to be considered.

1. Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 20 September 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report
 of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 15: Foreign
 Affairs for the year ended 31 March 1999 [RP 138-99], as well as
 certain papers referred to it, and having heard evidence, reports as
 follows:


 1.     Financial management


     Compared with the previous Report of the Auditor-General, the
     current Report generally points to an improvement in financial
     management. The Committtee also recognises the difficulty faced by
     the Accounting Officer and financial managers in trying to remain
     within budgetary limits, owing to the volatility of the exchange
     rate.

     The Committee wishes to report on the following matters dealt with
     during the hearing, which the Accounting Officer should attend to:


     (1)     Audit Committee and internal audit


          The Committee was informed that by 1 April 2000 the Audit
          Committee will be constituted in terms of the requirements of
          section 77 of the Public Finance Management Act.

          The Committee recommends that it be furnished with a report
          from the chairperson of the newly constituted Audit Committee,
          containing the following information:


          (a) Details of the members of the Audit Committee.


          (b) A copy of the Audit Committee's own charter and date of
              adoption, as well as a copy of the internal audit
              section's charter, as ratified by the new Audit
              Committee.


          (c) A brief report on the internal control systems within the
              Department.


          (d) Whether the internal auditors have conducted a risk
              analysis of the Department's operations, and if so,
              whether the Audit Committee is satisfied with such
              analysis.


          (e) A brief report on the effectiveness of the internal audit
              section, including their audit planning.


          (f) An indication of whether the internal auditors' work
              complies with the standards of the Institute of Internal
              Auditors (IIA), as required by new Treasury Regulation
              3.2.5, and if not, which standards are applied in the
              meantime and by when they will be able to comply with the
              IIA standards.
          (g) An indication of the responsiveness of the Department's
              management to the findings of the internal auditors.


     (2)     Public Finance Management Act implementation


          The Committee is seriously concerned about the problems
          reported by the Department on its information technology
          capacity and the resultant effect on financial management
          practices. As a consequence, the Department has expressed
          doubt about its ability to deal with certain requirements of
          the Public Finance Management Act, claiming that, for example,
          it will not be able to close its books and submit financial
          statements for auditing within two months after the end of the
          financial year. Attempts at rationalising its IT systems and
          rolling out appropriate new software are being delayed by the
          National Treasury's requirement that such software must be
          able to interface with its own software, but that the
          specifications of that software have not been finalised yet.
          The Department is also faced with financial constraints with
          regard to new software to be purchased, estimated at between
          R9 million and R12 million.

          The Department also reported experiencing problems with the
          appointment of financial management staff with appropriate
          expertise, especially with respect to budgeting.

          The Committee recommends as follows:


          (a) That the National Treasury indicate by when final
              specifications will be available to all departments
              regarding interface requirements, and to what extent
              departments may proceed with the purchase of financial
              management software.


          (b) That the Accounting Officer of the Department indicate
              whether progress has been made since the hearing on
              obtaining the necessary funding for the purchase of
              financial management software once the Department has
              received the necessary information, enabling it to
              proceed. In this respect, the Committee wishes to point
              out to the Accounting Officer that in terms of section
              38(1)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act, he "must
              ensure that the Department has and maintains effective,
              efficient and transparent systems of financial and risk
              management and internal control".


     (3)     Overspending of budget (unauthorised expenditure)


          The Committee notes the explanation that the excess of
          R8 378 896,51 in respect of the allocation to Programme 2:
          Foreign Relations was due to foreign exchange losses incurred
          during a year of considerable foreign exchange volatility,
          which the Department did not succeed in managing down
          completely before the end of the financial year, despite
          various bold steps taken by it to do so in a short period of
          five months. The Committee commends the Accounting Officer and
          staff on managing to bring the deficit down to the level it
          had, thereby limiting the eventual excess on the Budget Vote.
          The Committee has also taken note of steps taken by the
          Department and the National Treasury, subsequent to the
          hearing, to better plan through the budget process for the
          possible effect of foreign exchange losses on the budget.


          (a) In view of the circumstances, the Committee recommends
              that Parliament authorise the amount in question.


          (b) In addition, the Committee recommends that -


              (i)  in general, effective monitoring of the Department's
                     expenditure continue throughout the year in respect
                     of all its programmes and subprogrammes and that,
                     where necessary, corrective action be taken
                     immediately;

              (ii) the Department and the National Treasury ensure
                     continued effective communication in order to
                     prevent a recurrence of such a situation in future
                     MTEF budgets;

              (iii)      with regard to the Programme: Foreign
                     Relations, the Department immediately inform the
                     Committee if circumstances develop that may again
                     result in excess expenditure; and

              (iv) the Department timeously prepare itself to apply
                     proper principles of performance budgeting, as
                     required in terms of the strategic plan to be
                     submitted to the relevant Executive Authority as
                     well as the National Treasury by 30 June 2001 for
                     the MTEF period commencing on 1 April 2002.


          (4) Suspense accounts (notes 2 and 4.1 on pages 14 & 15)


          The Committee accepts that some of the suspense accounts
          relate to amounts still to be cleared once the next Finance
          Bill is adopted by Parliament. However, the Committee
          recommends that the Accounting Officer permit the use of other
          suspense accounts only in cases where it is absolutely
          necessary and that they be considered for clearance on a
          monthly basis. The chief financial officer should furnish the
          Accounting Officer on a monthly basis with explanations
          regarding the bigger suspense accounts that had not been
          cleared.


 2.     Management of office and residential accommodation in foreign
     countries


     The Committee heard evidence that the function pertaining to the
     procurement of, disposal of and major works in respect of foreign
     properties had been transferred to the Department with effect from
     1 May 1999. The estimated value of the foreign properties owned by
     the State is R2,5 billion. It is estimated that an amount of R2
     million will be needed for this project. However, the first
     meeting between officials from the Department and the Department
     of Public Works to discuss the processes according to which the
     transfer of the function should take place, only took place on 6
     July 1999. The first documentation was handed over to the
     Department during August 1999. However, by May 2000 not all
     relevant documentation, such as building files and plans in
     respect of the function, had been received from the Department of
     Public Works.

     In correspondence subsequent to the hearing, the Department
     indicated that a formal evaluation process will have to be
     initiated in order to determine the proper value of the
     properties, as this has never been done before. The Department
     assured the Committee that it has the capacity to properly manage
     the assets.

     The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer -


     (1)     expedite the compilation of a proper asset register and
          ensure a proper asset management regime in terms of the Public
          Finance Management Act and Chapter 10 of the new Treasury
          Regulations, as well as provide a progress report, together
          with the estimated time of completion, within 60 days of the
          adoption by Parliament of this Report;


     (2)     ensure that, in respect of all capital projects, a system
          as required by section 38(1)(a)(iv) of the Public Finance
          Management Act exists for properly evaluating all major
          capital projects prior to a final decision being taken on
          them; and


     (3)     ensure that all relevant records still in the possession
          of the Department of Public Works immediately be obtained, and
          that the Committee be informed once this has been completed,
          as well as whether the documents were complete and in
          acceptable condition.


 3.     Case of misconduct against official at Dakar


     The Committee was informed that the services of the official
     concerned has since been terminated on grounds of abscondment, and
     that by absconding he was deemed to be guilty of the misconduct
     charges. On 29 October 1999, the State Attorney was approached to
     recover the debt to the State.

     The Committee recommends that the Accounting Officer, in
     consultation with the State Attorney, report on progress made in
     this regard, specifically indicating by when the matter is
     expected to be finalised and what the nature of the former
     official's debt to the State is.


 4.     Amalgamation-related costs


     The Department made payments of R6,8 million to certain provinces
     in respect of personnel expenditure without supporting
     documentation. This related to salaries for staff from former TBVC
     states still to be absorbed into the Department. The provinces
     therefore acted as agents for the Department in terms of own
     accounting practices. Vouchers submitted by the provinces were of
     such a nature that it could be ascertained that the necessary
     payments had been made, but it did not contain the necessary
     detailed information required for audit purposes. The Department
     was of the view that "with the information and vouchers at the
     disposal of the Department ... it does not appear that the State
     suffered any loss".

     In an earlier Treasury Reply to the Committee, the Treasury
     indicated that "...amounts not classified as debts of the past
     would be carried by the departments on whose books these balances
     were. Full details regarding the absence or unavailability of
     records regarding debt/suspense accounts should be provided with
     the financial statements for 1997/98 when they are presented for
     auditing. Thereafter, as previously stated, uncleared accounts and
     unauthorised expenditure, as indicated in the qualified audit
     report, should be presented to SCOPA for authorisation to finalise
     matters as a formality to complete the process".

     In a letter from the Deputy Director-General of the former
     Department of State Expenditure, Mr Gulston indicated that the
     National Treasury did not regard the information provided by the
     Department as sufficient for the Treasury to "make an order
     dispensing with the production of a voucher or such other proof as
     may appear just in the circumstances", in terms of section 34 of
     the Exchequer Act. He suggested that the Department consider
     establishing an audit trail, to the satisfaction of the Auditor-
     General, to prove that the amount was spent correctly, even though
     not all of the documentation required under normal circumstances
     will be produced.

     Although the Committee is eager for this matter to be resolved, it
     recommends that it be carried over until the transversal issue of
     expenditure related to the TBVC amalgamation is addressed and
     finalised by it and all the relevant stakeholders.


 Report to be considered.

                           3 OCTOBER 2000

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:

 (1)    Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event
     of Armed Conflict (the Hague Convention) with regulations for the
     execution and the coverence resolutions, 14 May 1954, tabled in
     terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

 (2)    Explanatory Memorandum to the Convention.

1. The Minister for Welfare and Population Development:

 National Report on Social Development for 1995-2000.

1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

 (1)    Rome Statutes of the International Court of Justice, tabled in
     terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

 (2)    Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statutes.

 (3)    Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
     Political Rights, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the
     Constitution, 1996.

 (4)    Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
     and Political Rights, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the
     Constitution, 1996.

 (5)    Explanatory Memorandum to the protocols.

 (6)    Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of
     South Africa and the Government of the United States of America,
     tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.

 (7)    Treaty between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
     and the Government of the United States of America on Mutual Legal
     Assistance in Criminal Matters, tabled in terms of section 231(2)
     of the Constitution, 1996.

 (8)    Explanatory Memorandum to the treaties.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the RSA/Nigeria Double Taxation Agreement, dated 29 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Agreement.

 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the RSA/China Double Taxation Agreement, dated 29 September 2000:

   The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Agreement.

 Report to be considered.