FRIDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2000 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 09:03.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

          FILLING OF VACANCY IN JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION

The SPEAKER: Order! I have to announce that a vacancy has occurred in the Judicial Service Commission owing to the resignation of Dr L Luyt, who was designated as a member of the commission by the National Assembly in terms of section 178(1)(h) of the Constitution.

Dr Luyt was designated in his capacity as a member of the opposition parties and must, therefore, be replaced by a member of an opposition party. I have received two nominations, namely Mr D H M Gibson of the DP and Adv Z L Madasa of the ACDP. Are there any further nominations?

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must ask in terms of what Rule you raise this matter in the House this morning, when it is not on the Order Paper.

The SPEAKER: I am raising it because I am announcing a vacancy. A number of parties, including your own, Mr Ellis, had submitted nominations and asked that they be put on the Order Paper. Please keep your seat till I have finished.

I then looked at this last night and realised that those nominations could not be put on the Order Paper because no vacancy had been declared. If it is the wish of the House - if you will let me finish - to say that there will be no election today, you are welcome to do so.

The reason I wanted an election today is that I had written to the parties some time ago, alerting them to the vacancy. I indicated that the Judicial Service Commission would be meeting later this month and, therefore, we needed to proceed. It was an oversight on our part that we did not declare the vacancy earlier.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, it certainly would be the request of the DP that, since this matter is not on the Order Paper, no election should take place today.

The SPEAKER: In view of the urgency of the matter, I will take the view of the House on this. What is the view?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Madam Speaker, the view of the majority party is that, since the Judicial Service Commission is to meet in the next two weeks, and since we have been informed about the vacancy and the opposition parties have put their candidates forward, it is only correct to elect on the basis of the candidates. We should go ahead now and not delay the process because this does not appear on the Order Paper.

I think we have, as Parliament in the past, for certain reasons, gone ahead with parliamentary business, so I submit that it is in the interests of the House and in the interests of the country that we go ahead with this election today. The SPEAKER: Just a moment. I will hear you all. Are there any other parties wishing to express their views before I call on the DP?

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Madam Speaker, the IFP was consulted on the matter and we have no objection to the election taking place today. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, in the interests of what you have said and in the interests of the nation and because the commission is, in fact, going to sit very soon, the ACDP also has no objection to the request that we have the election today. [Applause.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to Rule 29, which sets out the sequence of proceedings. As far as I can understand this Rule, it makes no provision for matters that are not on the Order Paper. I also draw your attention to the fact that, while it is absolutely correct that parties were invited to submit nominations, members are guided by the Order Paper. If there are members who are not present, who were not aware that this matter was going to be dealt with, they are then at a disadvantage because they will not be able to express their views. I think it is a dangerous precedent for matters on which decisions have to be taken not to be on the Order Paper, which is the means by which members are informed of the business of the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, the point raised by Mr Andrew, as far as the Rule is concerned, can be looked at, but I will not accept that if members choose to be absent from the House, the House will not conduct its business. I am sorry. [Applause.] That applies to all parties. I expect members to be in the House.

The point raised about the Rule is worth looking at. I will suspend business while I look at the Rule for half an hour.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, we will go along with that ruling at this point, for you to look at the Rule. In the meantime we will also look at the Rule and come up with a specific proposal. We are likely to ask for the suspension of that Rule so that we may proceed. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I will determine the Rules that apply here, with the consent of the House, not that of individual members. We will now proceed. Mr K M ANDREW: Robert Mugabe!

The SPEAKER: Order! May I please hear who said that and to whom that reference was?

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, it was a reference to Mr Yengeni.

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Yengeni, you may respond to that if you wish, but at the moment I shall proceed with the business of the House. [Interjections.] Order! [Interjections.] The business of the House is suspended. We will resume in half an hour, when I hope you will be in a better mood to proceed with the business of the House. [Laughter.]

Business suspended at 09:11 and resumed at 09:50.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, as I indicated earlier, I have taken the opportunity to look at the Rules during the suspension of business. The point of order that was taken concerned Rule 29. I have looked at that. It specifies the order of business. It assumes that there are items on the Order Paper. It also allows for motions which would vary or put additional points on the Order Paper. So unless we are able to have a motion which puts additional items on the Order Paper, in my view the point raised by Mr Andrew would be valid.

In that case, we have three options. Firstly, we can suspend the proceedings today in terms of Rule 32, and continue with business on the next sitting day, which will be Monday, 16 October 2000. Secondly, we can entertain a motion without notice to suspend Rule 29, and proceed with a decision on the person to serve on the Judicial Service Commission. Thirdly, we can decide that the opposition parties should not be fully represented on the Judicial Service Commission until November.

Those are the options that I see before us. I will entertain your comments, and would wish that you direct yourselves to the points that I have made.

Mr D M BAKKER: Madam Speaker, in the light of Rule 98(3), which specifically states that ``except with the unanimous concurrence of all the members present no motion shall be moved on the day on which notice thereof is given’’, I would prefer that we go for the third option, as you have spelt it out. Otherwise we are going to contradict other Rules contained in our Rule Book, and I think we should not do that.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is a point of view. On the other hand the House could concur that we proceed. As I said, these are the different options before us, because if the House wishes to proceed, I accept it would have to be unanimous. We can proceed today and decide as a House that the opposition parties will not be represented on the JSC until November, or we can suspend proceedings. I will need, in terms of Rule 32, to consult the Leader of Government Business, which I will do - and this is subject to that - but it is an option that is before us, and we would resume our session on Monday. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, the DP has considered your three options and we would actually opt for Option 3, which means that the opposition parties would be unrepresented until November.

I would like to make the point, Madam Speaker, that all opposition parties, with the exception of one, have indicated that they will support Mr Gibson’s appointment. [Interjections.] Quite frankly, if the ANC are going to support a nomination from another party, it would mean that that person who is appointed will actually be the ANC representative anyway.

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Ellis - and I am warning all members of this House - at the moment no nominations have been placed before this House, and there will be no debate on individual nominations. We are debating procedure, so, please, no member should refer to this or that party, and so on. [Interjections.]

No, Mr Ellis, you have made your point. You would prefer that the opposition parties are not represented. I do want to say that the majority opposition party and the ACDP are the only two parties we have received nominations from for placing on the Order Paper. We telephoned last night and informed parties about the procedure we intended to follow today. So members were informed. It was not every single party, I accept that, but they were informed. Now I will hear any other options.

Adv J H DE LANGE: Madam Speaker, I rise, on behalf of our Chief Whip, just to raise a few points. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs, because this matter has been in Parliament for a long time. The position of the ANC was that if the opposition parties could get together and agree on a candidate, we would not oppose that. That was what we were hoping would be achieved. It was not: two candidates were put forward.

Our understanding, until yesterday, was that this matter was on the Order Paper. As you pointed out, Madam Speaker, it was then found that there was a problem in so far as Mr Luyt’s withdrawal had not been mentioned, and it had to be taken off the Order Paper. So we came here with the full understanding that that was the issue, and that we would have to vote on the matter.

Now against that background, our feeling is that you raised most of the options. Firstly, we could just go ahead and not have full opposition in the JSC, which we think is not the right option. This Parliament should not do that, particularly when it has been grappling with the issue for a long time. We knew that this was going to happen. We should fulfil our duties and have a full complement from the National Assembly in Parliament.

Secondly, there is, of course, the option that you have raised, ie coming back on Monday. One could even have said on Saturday, tomorrow, if that is necessary. [Interjections.]

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: What about Sunday for your party?

Adv J H DE LANGE: Why do you not wait for your turn, Mr Boy Geldenhuys? Then you will get up and talk. Try to do it decently, all right?

That is an option. It will obviously be very costly, and we need to avoid that at all costs. There is another option in the Rules which, I think, has not been mentioned, namely Rule 2(1), which states that in unforeseen eventualities the Speaker may give a ruling or frame a rule in respect of any eventuality which these Rules do not provide for. Now clearly the situation here is … [Interjections.] You will talk again just now. Just relax.

Mr D H M GIBSON: It is a nice try!

Adv J H DE LANGE: Stay calm! What we are suggesting is that, clearly, this is an eventuality that could not be foreseen. By yesterday we still understood that this matter was going to be on the Order Paper. Therefore, we could not foresee that we had to give notice to put the matter on the Order Paper. There would be nothing wrong, therefore, if you use that Rule. That is a possibility that will, firstly, save the country a lot of money if we come back. Secondly, it would mean that we will have our full complement in the JSC.

Of course, there is also the possibility, if everyone agrees, of suspending all those matters and voting on it. But, clearly, that is not going to happen. There is another eventuality, a route which, if we have to, we can go. But we would prefer not to. That route is that nothing stops us, particularly in an instance like this, from suspending the various Rules in the Rule Book which do not allow us to put that matter on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: You would have to give notice.

Adv J H DE LANGE: We should give notice, but we can suspend the giving of notice. Nothing stops us from doing that, as members can see. That is what the Rule says. Suspension means, to make the House run, one actually suspends the Rule. That is what it means. [Interjections.] That is logical. You do not have to be a genius to understand it!

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, the way you are going on we will still be arguing on Monday morning. So, please let us proceed.

Adv J H DE LANGE: So it is our view that one of the options needs to be taken: Either the one where we frame a Rule in terms of Rule 2(1), allowing us to put this matter on the Order Paper and vote today or, if necessary, we will need to ask the legal advisor of Parliament to get us a resolution that should be put on the Order Paper to suspend the Rules accordingly.

We do not think that we should go to the JSC without a full complement. And, secondly, we think this country cannot afford a come-back on another occasion. We are adamant that there should be a full complement at the JSC at its next meeting, which is in two weeks time.

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, I want to bring something to your attention, in addition to what has been put on the Table. It was brought to our attention yesterday that the matter would be on today’s Order Paper. We were quite surprised that it was not. In fact, when I saw the Order Paper, I went over to the hon Momberg and told him that he had said that it would be on today’s Order Paper, and that it was not on the Order Paper. I asked him what was going on. So, we were very surprised when we saw that it was not on today’s Order Paper.

With regard to Mr De Lange’s input about unforeseen eventualities, we think we would like to support that view in that Rule 2(1) actually makes that available. Why should we suspend this matter for another two weeks? We have the House here today, and we have the majority of the people here today. [Interjections.]

Something that we strongly object to is the hon Ellis’s allegation and assertion. The motivation for supporting the person that we are putting forward, Adv Madasa, is that he is a senior person who has made quite a contribution in this matter. So, we are putting this person forward. We would like the hon Mr Ellis to withdraw the allegation that he made. [Interjections.] [Applause.] He is actually saying that. They wanted us to rubber-stamp their candidate … [Interjections.] Now they are saying that our candidate is … [Interjections] … going to be rubber-stamped by the ANC. That is wrong! [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, I just hope I am not going to be pulled over backwards by the suction on that side. To address the two substantive points made by the hon Mr De Lange, first of all, quite clearly, as regards the Order Paper and what we are talking about, the Rules do make provision for notices without motion if they are unanimous and so on. So, I think to suggest that Rule 2(1) is meant to cover this kind of eventuality is entirely inappropriate and invalid.

In respect of Rule 3(1) to which the hon Mr De Lange referred, it provides that:

Any provision of these Rules relating to the business or proceedings … may be suspended by resolution of this House.

That is by resolution. A resolution is what a motion or a draft resolution becomes after it has been adopted by the House. And we see, quite frequently, on the Order Paper, a draft resolution that Rule so and so be suspended and the hours of the meeting on Friday be from 9:00 until the House adjourns or some other suspension of the Rules. That is then as a draft resolution. When it is given, very often, as a motion or as a draft resolution on the Order Paper, the House then agrees to it or disagrees and then it becomes a resolution.

Now, when one looks at motions and draft resolutions and so on, Rule 94, regarding the nature of a motion says the following:

A member may propose a subject for discussion, or a draft resolution for approval as a resolution of this House.

So, it is quite clear that the nature of a motion is either a subject for discussion or, relevant to what we are talking about, a draft resolution for approval as a resolution of this House. So, that is what a motion is.

Madam Speaker, as you have pointed out, Rule 98(3) makes it quite clear under ``Notice of motion’’ that:

Except with the unanimous concurrence of all the members present, no motion shall be moved on the day on which notice thereof is given.

So, therefore, Rule 3(1) certainly does not apply either, and I recommend to you that that is, in fact, the procedure we should be following, and that the matter should stand over until the next sitting of this House. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I wish to be informed. I am having difficulty understanding - there are a number of opposition parties here - the opposition prefers not to be represented. I have not heard any argument or reasons for that being put forward. It is their choice. As I have indicated, this procedure was known last night, and had we, at that point, been contacted, we might have dealt with the matter.

The good business of the country does not require that we leave vacancies in serious structures of the state because of party-political bickering. I am prepared to hear any party that will argue why - because it is procedural - they do not believe that the opposition parties should not be represented, because the meetings are taking place in two weeks time.

The fault, I accept, we should have anticipated, and I apologised to the House earlier. If we are saying that we are punishing staff or the Speaker because the vacancy had not been put on the Order Paper, then what we are really saying is not a reason, because we are saying that that is more important than conducting the good business of this country. Before I give a decision in terms of Rule 2(1), I would wish to hear why that is so.

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, still on that point - I will not be controversial by adding ``to the DP’’ - our opinion is that the representation of the opposition on the Judicial Service Commission is of great importance and a matter of great seriousness. But, it is also our opinion that in the spirit and intent of the Constitution, the opposition should be deciding who should represent the opposition on the Judicial Service Commission. That is the intention. [Interjections.]

At the beginning of this new Parliament in 1999, there was criticism that there was not adequate consultation with the opposition parties and there was a dispute and certain people were appointed to Parliament, or rather, to the Judicial Service Commission.

Now, a vacancy has arisen. It is naturally the duty, in the first instance, of the Official Opposition - the largest opposition party - to take the initiative in this matter. They are not currently represented in the Judicial Service Commission.

We wrote to each of the other opposition parties putting forward our suggestion - to all the opposition parties. It was apparently also discussed with them. I do not have the figures right off the top of my head, but I think they total about 135 members, and all except six members from one political party, supported the suggestion of the Official Opposition that Mr Gibson be nominated to the Judicial Service Commission … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I am not looking at the merits. Please … [Interjections.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, I am not talking of … [Interjections.] So that is 129 out of 135, and I am probably only out by a couple of members, but certainly only six members out of the total had a different point of view for whatever reason.

It has come to our knowledge that, in fact, the majority party in this House, the ANC, in the face of over 95% of the opposition favouring a particular candidate, planned to put a different candidate into the position. In our view, a person elected through that process is, in fact, not representing the opposition but beholden to the governing party which is contrary … [Interjections] … in our view, to the intention and spirit of the Constitution. It is for that reason that we take such a strong view, and have such a strong objection to the process being followed. And, we will certainly neither support it nor cease our opposition to anything that leads to that result.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will recognise you, Mrs Camerer, but I really want to be clear. If I have heard you correctly, Mr Andrew, you are saying that the DP will oppose any procedure which would reach that result. I think that is the word. So, your objection is to the anticipated result rather than the procedure.

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, in fact, to both.

The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. If it is to both, then I understand.

Mr K M ANDREW: In a sense, they are separate issues. We also think a proper procedure needs to be followed.

Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Speaker, as a representative of the opposition on the Judicial Service Commission, I would like to appeal to you to take a broader view than just a procedural one. I mean, you may be correct, ultimately, that in terms of Rule 2(1), you have an ultimate overriding power, in extreme cases, to ensure the smooth working of Parliament, which is presumably why that Rule is there, but, in the context of this, we are looking at electing an opposition member who should really have the support of the majority of the opposition members on that Judicial Service Commission. I am not talking about personality, but about principle. A case like that, in which this House is, in terms of the constitutional provisions, to elect a representative opposition member - that surely must be the intention of that provision. I would appeal to you …

The SPEAKER: Order! Could I just ask you to address the question I put, which is: Why does the opposition prefer not to be represented on the JSC?

Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Speaker, I am addressing that point. I think it is important that we are represented, but I think the key word there is ``represented’’. I am appealing to you to look at this not purely procedurally, but in the context of what we are doing here, in terms of the principles of natural justice and the spirit of the Constitution, where we are trying to elect representatives of the opposition.

Looking at what we did before, in the case of Mr Luyt, it would be very difficult to argue that at the time he was truly representative of the opposition, in that he sat there as a member of a two-person party in this House, although that may have changed subsequently because he did join the official opposition.

However, if we are looking at electing in the context of what we are doing here, true representatives of the opposition, I would ask you to reconsider acting in terms of Rule 2(1) as possibly inappropriate in a case like this.

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, with regard to the positions that you put, we definitely want to support categorically the position that we would like the opposition parties to be represented today, if that is possible.

Now, with regard to what the hon Andrew has said, we just want to inform you that there was no proper consultation. There was a lobbying process that went on. I need to answer that because there was no meeting of the opposition parties, and exactly the same arrogance that they displayed the last time is being displayed in this House today. [Applause.]

Therefore we are saying that the reason why we put up another candidate is that we felt that that was a better candidate. That is the position.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon Mr Green, you have made the point and you have responded. Can we now proceed, please?

Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, I am not going to view this matter as a point of law, because I think this House is being held to ransom on legal technicalities. I also think it is a shame that the House could be so well constituted and not be able to go on with its business.

I would like to submit that delay on this matter is not going to help, one way or the other. Postponing the voting today and holding the voting a little later is not going to advance this cause, one way or the other. We will still have, more or less, the same results.

I would like us to really try to resolve this matter today by putting it to a vote today, so that we vote on it today. There is really no point in postponing the vote. It is very expensive for the country to bring so many members of Parliament here, to come and argue on a technicality. I really think we ought to try and look at it differently. [Applause.]

Mr M F CASSIM: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the IFP, and I wish to address some of the points that you have put before the House. First, is it important and is it an imperative that the Judicial Service Commission should be fully constituted? In our view, it is an absolute imperative. We cannot see how so important a body, with such important duties, can function without its full complement.

We then address ourselves to the question of what it is that impedes the Judicial Service Commission from having a full complement. Is it an incapacity or is it an inability on the part of Parliament to do this?

In the hour that we have had, we have not become convinced that such a situation exists. The IFP was quite willing, if an eventuality arose amongst the opposition parties that there was no contention, to support whoever was the candidate that the opposition agreed should go forward.

We had not anticipated that it was going to become a politicised matter, and to the best of our recollection, all of our Whips and the party itself had the understanding that the matter was going to be put forward. The fact that it did not appear on today’s Order Paper, as a result of the fact that Mr Louis Luyt’s resignation had not materialised in time, has indeed created the problem.

However, the answer that we would like to give is that we believe that it would be seriously prejudicial to the functioning of the Judicial Service Commission if it is not fully constituted. Therefore we would like to align ourselves with the view that this must happen and that there is no reason why the Judicial Service Commission should not have its full complement. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I wish to hear the opposition parties first, before I recognise the ANC again.

Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, it is clear that at some time or other this morning, you will have to make a procedural decision. When it comes to exceptional procedural decisions, the crux of the matter is …

An HON MEMBER: It is pronounced ``procedural’’.

Mr C AUCAMP: OK, procedural''. Dankie man. Ektry’’ darem. [Thank you, man. At least I am trying.] [Laughter.]

How does the procedural decision affect the material position? I think that if the DP can argue that the procedure affects the material essence of the matter, then they have a case. However, if the procedure does not affect the material essence of the matter, then we are dealing with something else.

So I suggest that we ask the DP to show Parliament how the change in procedure and how the fact that this is not on the Order Paper we received this morning affects the material essence of the matter. If they can show that to us, then we must definitely take steps to change the Rule. If there is no difference, then we can go on. [Applause.]

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, we believe that the full complement of the Judicial Service Commission should be put in a position to be there at their next sitting, and we came here fully prepared to participate in the election to fill the vacancy in the commission.

The only problem I have is that if we are going to tinker with the Rules in any way, we have to weigh up the consequences thereof. I must admit, though, that I do not have the Rules in front of me.

If it is absolutely imperative - and we believe it is - that the Judicial Service Commission should have its full complement at its next meeting, we have to weigh that up against the price we have to pay for tinkering with the Rules. Secondly, if we find that it is in this instance important to tinker with the Rules, then that must not serve as a precedent in future. This would be the position that we would take. With that reservation, we came here fully prepared to participate in selecting a person. [Applause.]

Adv J H DE LANGE: Madam Speaker, allow me to address three points. The first one is the hon Mr Andrew’s point that the spirit of the Constitution suggests that the Opposition decides who from the opposition parties goes to the JSC. Hon members will note that he chose his words carefully. He said: The spirit of the Constitution.'' He cannot saythe letter and spirit of the Constitution’’. I would suggest not only does the spirit not say what he is saying, but the letter and spirit do not say so. The Constitution is abundantly clear that the National Assembly decides on the six people who represent the National Assembly. That cannot be argued.

What has happened in practice - and this is a good practice - is that in respect of the first JSC we asked the opposition to choose three members for us. They did, and there was no dispute. We happily sent those people to the JSC. On the next occasion when we asked for nominations there was a problem and we then, as the National Assembly, had to vote on the matter. We know how the vote worked. In this case again we have asked the opposition please to sort out their problems and to get a candidate. They could not do so and we are back again where the National Assembly has to decide who represents it. That is the first point.

The second point one wants to make concerns the astounding proposition that Mr Andrew has made. They are opposing both the procedure and the result. That is astounding, because if that is so it means that the DP will never approve a candidate other than one from the DP. [Interjections.] That means if they cannot get the ACDP to withdraw their candidate, for the five years that constitute the duration of this Parliament we will not have the third candidate of the opposition in the JSC. That is an astounding proposition. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order!

Adv J H DE LANGE: Madam Speaker, one therefore supports what hon members Mogoba and Aucamp have said, that clearly it cannot be like that. We should not tolerate that proposition at all and we should give no credence to that way of thinking.

The third point concerns the proposition that there was widespread consultation and that 135 members agreed. Clearly, that support is crumbling quite rapidly when one hears the opposition parties talking. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

In conclusion, can I just say that what we are therefore saying is that we have heard all parties and all sides, and we would ask you to proceed in terms of Rule 21 and provide a procedure for concluding this matter today.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I believe the House and all the parties have expressed their views. I requested the DP to clarify whether their objection was only to the procedure or to the result, and it was repeated that it was to both procedure and result. And that concerns me, because we cannot be held up because somebody does not like the outcome arrived at in terms of our Constitution and in terms of a democratic system.

The law and the Constitution do not provide for a candidate of the official opposition. They could have. The law and the Constitution could have said that. It does not say so. It says: ``A member from the opposition parties.’’ I have not consulted the actual quote, but that is what it says. We certainly looked at it when we were faced with nominating six people on a previous occasion. It should be a member from among the opposition parties.

I therefore wrote to all parties informing them of the vacancy, including the majority party, because the decision is that the National Assembly designates. We do have other legislation, for example the legislation on the intelligence committee, which very specifically provides for representatives of particular political parties. So it is not a practice that is unknown in our jurisprudence, but here it does not provide that. It says: ``It shall be the National Assembly which designates.’’

On a previous occasion I had asked the opposition parties - I am referring to the first set of appointments - to come together and agree on a candidate. If they were unable to agree there would have to be a vote. On that occasion there was no agreement, it does not matter on which candidate. There was no agreement and therefore it was brought to a vote and the National Assembly determined that.

So I cannot accept the view that the result will determine what is being said. Mrs Camerer, I take the point you are making, but I am bound by what the Rules and the law say. They say the National Assembly will designate. I cannot now say that they must only designate a member of the DP, the New NP, the ACDP or any specific party. It says it must be a member of the National Assembly from the opposition parties. I hear what you say, but I cannot follow that procedure because we are bound by what the law requires.

There could be some ambiguity about Rule 21 and the circumstances in which it can be applied. On the other hand, rules are there to facilitate procedures, not to obstruct, and I think we need to know this. If there was a valid reason given, I was prepared to hear it, but to say ``we do not like the result’’ means we will have the same problem, except at a procedural level, in November. The alternative is to leave opposition parties not fully represented. A number of opposition parties, even those who have supported whatever nomination was going to be put forward by the DP - and we were told all of them were - have said we cannot leave the Judicial Service Commission with a vacancy. Accordingly, I intend to proceed with the designation of a member of the House. [Applause.]

I think my bottle has been appropriated by the staff. May I please have it back? Firstly, a vacancy having been declared, are there any nominations? As I said, we have received nominations, but they were not put on the Order Paper.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, the DP proposes Mr D H M Gibson.

HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Order! Are there any other nominations?

Mr D M BAKKER: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the nomination of Mr Douglas Gibson for that position. [Interjections.]

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, the ACDP proposes Adv Zwelethu Madasa.

The SPEAKER: Order! Is there support for that nomination?

Mr V B NDLOVU: Ngiyamxhasa uMadasa. [Ihlombe.] [I support Madasa. [Applause.]]

The SPEAKER: Order! Are there any further nominations?

Mnu V B NDLOVU: Somlomo, bengicela ukusho ukuthi lokhu kukhuluma okukhulunywayo angikuthandi. [Ubuwelewele.] Angizuhlala phansi ngoba kusho leli lungu elihlniphekile. Bengicela ukusho ukuthi uma ngesekela igama likaMadasa hhayi ngoba ngingabathandi abamhlophe, ngakho leli lungu malingakhulumi kanjena. [Ubuwelewele.] [Ubuwelewele.] (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)

[Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I do not like this kind of talk. [Interjections.] I will not sit down just because this hon member has said so. I would like to say that I support Madasa. It is not that I do not like white people, therefore this hon member should not talk like this. [Interjections.][Laughter.]]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, please let us proceed. There are no other nominations and we will now proceed. We will have to look at the procedure to follow when we have, let us say, five or six nominations, which may occur. That we will look at in the Rules Committee.

But, since there are two, in terms of Rule 77(1), I have determined that we shall use the following procedure for the designation of a candidate. The House will use the electronic voting system, because we will then be able to record each individual vote, and members will be asked - and I accept that this is arbitrary, but I hope there will not be a debate - to press the red button if they are in favour of designating Mr Gibson and the blue button if they are in favour of designating Adv Madasa. [Interjections.]

Order! The candidate with the highest number of votes will be declared designated by the House to fill the vacancy in the Judicial Service Commission. The bells will now be rung for three minutes. [Interjections.]

The bells were rung.

Members proceeded to cast their votes, as follows:

D H M GIBSON - 50: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Baloi, G E; Bell, B G; Blaas, A; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Camerer, S M; Clelland, N J; Cupido, P W; Delport, J T; Durand, J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; McIntosh, G B D; Mogoba, M S; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Nel, A H; Ntuli, R S; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pillay, S; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schoeman, R S; Selfe, J; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Singh, A; Smit, H A; Sono, B N; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Niekerk, A I; Viljoen, C L.

Z L MADASA - 190: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Carrim, Y I; Cassim, M F; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chohan- Kota, F I; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; De Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Dudley, C; Duma, N M; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Feinstein, A J; Gcina, C I; Gerber, P A; Gillwald, C E; Gininda, M S; Gogotya, N J; Goniwe, T M; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Green, L M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hlengwa, M W; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jana, D P S; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Leeuw, S J; Lekgoro, M K; Lishiva, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Lyle, A G; Madasa, Z L; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Makasi, X C; Makunyane, T L; Makwetla, S P; Malebana, H F; Maluleke- Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbombo, N D; Mbongo, P F; Meshoe, K R J; Middleton, N S; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Moeketse, K M; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mohlala, R J B; Mokaba, P R; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Moloto, K A; Momberg, J H; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Motubatse, S D; Mpahlwa, M; Mpaka, H M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Msomi, M D; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mzizi, M A; Naidoo, S; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane, I Z; Ncube, B; Ndlovu, V B; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhlengethwa, D G; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, S B; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Pieterse, R D; Rabinowitz, R; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Shilubana, T P; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcawu, A N; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Slabbert, J H; Smith, V G; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Southgate, R M; Swart, S N; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshivhase, T J; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Woods, G; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zulu, N E; Zuma, J G.

The SPEAKER: Order! Adv Madasa is accordingly designated for appointment to the Judiciary Service Commission. [Applause.]

Adv Madasa, I congratulate you on your designation. We will inform the commission and they will be in touch with you. [Applause.]

                          NOTICES OF MOTION The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the continued aggression by Israelis against Palestinians and the use of sophisticated weapons of war in the attack on the Palestinian headquarters;

(2) believes that this latest act of aggression demonstrates the lack of commitment by the Israeli government to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East crisis;

(3) condemns this latest act of violence;

(4) calls on peace-loving people throughout the world to condemn this act of aggression; and

(5) urges the Leader of the Democratic Party, the hon Tony Leon, to break his deafening silence on this blatant abuse of human rights.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr S E OPPERMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the new maximum security prison in Kokstad, financed by the
       Department of Public Works to the value of more than R350
       million, has been completed, but is without proper provision for
       water, sanitation and electricity;


   (b)  the seriousness of this omission was brought to the attention of
       the Department of Public Works during September 1997; and


   (c)  the council of Kokstad cannot be expected to bear the
       responsibility of raising over R57 million to solve the problem;
       and

(2) therefore calls on the ANC-led Government to stop playing hide-and- seek, to provide the finances to complete the project and to take appropriate action against those responsible for this absurdity.

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

That the House, noting -

(1) that one of the major contributors to global warming is carbon emission from energy usage;

(2) that South Africa is the 16th largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world owing to our chosen dependence on cheap energy;

(3) the urgent need to move away from using fossil fuels, for example coal and gas, for energy sources in future; and

(4) that Eskom has committed itself to extending electricity to all rural areas based on existing methods of coal-generated electricity,

calls on the Ministers of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Minerals and Energy and Arts, Culture, Science and Technology to co-ordinate efforts to -

   (a)  develop and promote renewable energy technologies such as wind
       and solar energy;


   (b)  provide a tax incentive to support renewable energy projects;
       and


   (c)  factor all hidden and externality costs such as water
       consumption and pollution damage into our calculations for
       energy usage.

Mr B NAIR: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the emphatic statement made by President Mbeki that Zimbabwean-style land invasions will not take place in South Africa;

(2) further notes that he said it was not necessary to spread scare stories about land invasions and that Deputy President Jacob Zuma was misquoted on the subject; and

(3) calls on all South Africans, the international community, the media and financial markets to take note and to stop speculating that South Africa is headed the Zimbabwean way.

[Applause.]

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) expresses its grave concern about the escalation of violence in the Middle East; (2) calls on all role-players in the Middle East to resume peace negotiations on the basis of the Oslo Accord, which provides for an independent Palestinian state and simultaneously guarantees the safety and security of the state of Israel; and

(3) urges all local political parties in South Africa not to use the situation in the Middle East for petty political point-scoring.

[Interjections.]

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move:

That the House -

(1) notes the escalation of conflict in the Middle East with the mob killing of three Israeli soldiers;

(2) condemns the retaliatory missile attack on targets near the headquarters of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and the killing of civilians; (3) acknowledges that these acts of violence, and especially the response of Israel, are highly irresponsible since both sides have no choice but to negotiate a settlement, sooner rather than later;

(4) urges all stakeholders to realise that no one can benefit from this conflict, as there will be no winners should it escalate into a full- scale war; and

(5) calls on both sides in this conflict to show restraint and resume peaceful negotiations in order for this painful chapter in their mutual history to close.

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

That the House -

(1) takes note of -

   (a)  the consistent delay in implementing the UN-OAU peace plan for
       the Western Sahara;
   (b)  the failure to organise a referendum on the issue of self-
       determination by the Moroccan authorities; and


   (c)  the long suffering of the people of the Western Sahara;

(2) believes that -

   (a)  the UN-OAU plan is the only viable solution to bring  about
       peace and stability and a better life for the people of the
       region; and


   (b)  a referendum along the lines of East Timor is the only means to
       resolve the situation;

(3) urges the Moroccan authorities to proceed without further delay to organise a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara; and

(4) expresses its support for the right of the people of the Western Sahara to self-determination.

[Applause.] Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ACDP:

That the House -

(1) acknowledges the appointment of Adv Zwelethu ``Mighty’’ Madasa to the Judicial Service Commission;

(2) recognises that it will be a privilege and an honour for the ACDP to represent Christian democratic principles on this Commission; and

(3) notes that Adv Madasa is a worthy addition to the Commission and knows he will serve with passion and dedication.

[Applause.]

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

That the House -

(1) applauds the ANC on the release of its candidate list for executive mayoralship and district council chairpersons;

(2) welcomes the calibre of ANC cadres nominated and is assured that these cadres will speed up delivery of services in transformed local government;

(3) wishes them every success in the transformation of local government structures; and

(4) calls on all South Africans to vote for ANC candidates during the local government elections.

[Applause.]

Mr E K MOORCROFT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the last of nearly 20 000 African penguins, which had been
       rehabilitated after having been oiled by pollution issuing from
       the sinking of the ore-carrier Treasure, were released into the
       ocean two days ago;


   (b)  the rehabilitation programme involved many thousands of
       voluntary workers in the largest rescue operation of its kind
       the world has ever seen; and


   (c)  the programme was a resounding success which not only saved a
       major portion of a population of a critically endangered
       species, but also brought great credit to our country in the
       eyes of the worldwide conservation community; and

(2) wishes to thank the SA National Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds and all the willing volunteers who gave so generously of their time, talents and money in the cause of saving part of our priceless natural heritage. Mr M F CASSIM: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  with great good fortune, a pipe bomb was discovered in Cape Town
       and diffused by police yesterday; and


   (b)  the need to be ever vigilant continues to be an imperative
       governing our society; and

(2) requests that -

   (a)  all parking areas in the city be swept at regular intervals
       using sniffer dogs and bellyscopes; and


   (b)  police units increase the frequency of roadblocks to ensure that
       the coming months remain free of bombing incidents, and so that
       innocent people can go about their daily tasks without serious
       danger to themselves.

[Applause.]

Nkskz C I GCINA: Somlomo, ndiza kuphakamisa egameni lika Khongolose ukuba kuqatshelwe ngenyameko isiphakamiso:

Sokuba le Ndlu -

(1) isiqaphele ngenyameko isigqibo sikaRhulumente sokuvumela iiprojekthi zophuhliso lwasemaphandleni;

(2) iqaphele ukuba esi sigqibo sibonakalisa ukuzimisela kukaRhulumente okhokelwa nguKhongolose ekuphuculeni impilo yabantu basemaphandleni;

(3) isamkele ngovuyo nochulumanco esi sigqibo; nokuba

(4) imthulele umnqwazi uRhulumente ngokuzingisa ekuphuculeni impilo yabantu kweli, engaphazanyiswa zizaphuselane ezingayifuniyo inkqubela. (Translation of Xhosa notice of motion follows.)

[Mrs C I GCINA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes with appreciation the Government’s decision to approve development projects in the rural areas;

(2) notes that this decision is an indication of the ANC-led Government’s commitment to the improvement of the quality of life in the rural areas;

(3) welcomes this decision with greatest enthusiasm; and

(4) applauds the Government for persevering in its endeavours to improve the quality of life in the rural areas without allowing itself to be distracted by those who do not want to see progress.]

Mnr A H NEL: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) daarvan kennis neem dat -

   (a)  parlementslede gister gekeer is om die straat vanaf die
       Marksgebou oor te steek omdat die President en sy gevolg op pad
       was na die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies;


   (b)  daar darem nie van parlementslede by hierdie geleentheid verwag
       is om te buig of op aandag te staan nie; en


   (c)  hierdie buitensporige veiligheidsmaatreëls binne 'n
       sekuriteitsgebied plaasgevind het en dit moeilik is om te glo
       dat die President self hiervoor verantwoordelik is of daarom
       gevra het; en

(2) versoek dat ons almal moet besef dat ons verteenwoordigers en dus dienaars van ons mense is en daarom moet waak teen enige optrede wat aanleiding kan gee tot vertoon, hoogmoed en onaantasbaarheid. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.) [Mr A H NEL: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  yesterday members of Parliament were prevented from crossing the
       road from the Marks Building because the President and his
       entourage were on their way to the National Council of
       Provinces;


   (b)  on this occasion at least members of Parliament were not
       expected to bow or to stand to attention; and


   (c)  these excessive security measures took place within a secure
       area and it is hard to believe that the President himself is
       responsible for them or requested them; and

(2) requests that we should all realise that we are representatives and therefore servants of our people and must therefore guard against any behaviour which can give rise to ostentation, pride and untouchability.]

Mr S NAIDOO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes with concern the pervading corrupt situation in prisons in this country where prisoners have become victims of mafia-style activities in prisons;

(2) urges the Minister of Correctional Services to investigate the sodomy situation in the Durban-Westville Prison where prison warders have helped the older prisoners to sodomise the young prisoners by receiving bribes from the older prisoners;

(3) helps facilitate and monitor the programme to mould our youth in prisons to become role models so as to stop those sodomites from their inhuman and indecent acts; and (4) condemns, in no uncertain terms, any form of crime-related incidents in prisons that contributes to damaging the fragile foreign investment in our beloved country.

Ms S B NQODI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the giant Malaysian Ramatex Group's R730 million investment near
       Mdantsane will create 10 000 direct skilled jobs and earn the
       South African Government R630 million a year in foreign
       exchange; and


   (b)  this group has also announced a R70 million garment factory,
       which will employ 3 000 people;

(2) acknowledges that this initiative will have positive spin-offs which will be felt way beyond the borders of the Eastern Cape;

(3) congratulates the ANC Eastern Cape government for creating conditions conducive to international investment; and

(4) appreciates Ramatex’s contribution towards uplifting the poorest of the poor.

[Applause.]

Mr N S BRUCE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes that, in view of Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni’s remarks that privatisation and labour reforms need greater urgency if our growth prospects are to be restored, and the continuing decline in the rand’s value; (2) calls on President Thabo Mbeki to -

   (a)  give support to the Governor's views;


   (b)  institute a review of all laws that inhibit investment; and


   (c)  transform the Public Service so that delivery takes place;

(3) notes that South Africa’s economic prospects should not be bleak while business is booming for our major trading partners; and

(4) calls on the Government to distance itself from and condemn the needless vandalisation of the Zimbabwean economy that, by association, is inhibiting this country’s recovery.

         RESIGNATION OF UNDERSECRETARY TO NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I wish to announce that before we return at the end of this month, we shall be taking leave of one of our table staff, Mr Zach Matome Mawasha, who will be taking up a position outside Parliament. Mr Mawasha joined our staff in 1994. Subsequently, he moved to the procedural division of the Gauteng legislature. He returned to us in August 1998 as an Undersecretary at the National Assembly Table. The presiding officers have appreciated and noted his dedication and his diligence, as well as the advice that he has always been giving us. We thank him for his services to Parliament. [Applause.] Mr Mawasha, our good wishes go with you, but we very much regret that you are leaving us.

     EXTENSION OF TRIAL-RUN PERIOD OF QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY`

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr A C Nel: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That, notwithstanding the resolution adopted by the House on 21 June 2000, the period for the trial run of questions for oral reply be extended until 1 November 2000.

Agreed to.

RATIFICATION OF DECISION OF JOINT PROGRAMME SUBCOMMITTEE ON FAST-TRACKING OF MARINE LIVING RESOURCES AMENDMENT BILL

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That the House ratifies the decision the Joint Programme Subcommittee took on 12 October 2000 in accordance with Joint Rule 216(2), namely that the Marine Living Resources Amendment Bill, 2000, be fat-tracked by, where necessary, shortening any period within which any step in the legislative process relating to the Bill must be completed, in order to make it possible for the Bill to be passed by both Houses of Parliament before adjournment in November 2000.

Agreed to.

                  BILLS OF EXCHANGE AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker and hon members, the Bill before the House today proposes to amend the Bills of Exchange Act of 1964 in order to achieve the following four broad objectives: to simplify and clarify certain provisions of the principal Act, to promote the interests of consumers, to accommodate technical advancements and to reduce the incidence of fraud.

It addresses only the most important reforms recommended by the SA Law Commission Report of August 1995, as well as other reforms that have since become necessary due to significant developments over the last 20 years. Such developments include improvements in technology, the extension of branch networks and new payment mechanisms such as electronic transfers, credit cards, debit cards and smart cards. Cheques now have a more limited role in payments, so cheque law can be simplified in the interest of consumers. A further result of improved technology is that cheques have become more susceptible to forgery and fraud.

The one category of amendments deals with simplification and clarifications. A second category deals with the interests of consumers. One of those is that currently an instrument made payable to cash or order is not a bill of exchange. This act is amended to assist members of Parliament who often issue and accept cheques made payable in this manner. Also, the Act is amended to allow persons who have no intention of incurring personal liability to sign cheques without incurring personal liability, by adding words to their signature indicating that they are signing in a representative capacity on behalf of another.

Currently, the principal Act also provides that the negotiation of a cheque on which the payee’s or endorsee’s name is misspelt can take place only if the person whose name has been misspelt endorses the cheque using his or her misspelt name and adding his or her proper signature. The amending Bill also recognises what are called bank cheques, and the consequence of this amendment is that banks will be obliged to honour cheques when the criteria for a certification provided for in this clause have been met. Section 84 of the principal Act gives a bank certain rights in respect of unendorsed or irregularly endorsed cheques. Currently, these rights are only given for negotiable cheques. It is currently impossible for banks to claim against the drawer of a nontransferable cheque. Nontransferable cheques may now be used as security, without frustrating the drawer’s intention to be bound only to the person specified as the payee. A pledge is deemed to have been concluded, because it is not clear whether nontransferable rights can effectively be pledged.

The third category of amendments takes account of technological advancements. Since a cheque is an instruction given to the drawee bank by the drawer, the drawee bank cannot make payment in good faith without verifying the drawer’s instruction embodied in the cheque. Presentment means the conveying of the drawer’s instruction to a drawee bank in order for the bank to do this verification. In order for presentment to take place, the principal Act currently requires the physical handing over of the cheque at the branch of the bank on which the cheque is drawn.

Technological advancement has, however, made it possible to present cheques more efficiently by means of the electronic transmission of the essential data pertaining to the instruction. Clauses 13 and 15 make provision for this mode of presentation, thereby confirming the current practice in the principal Act without diminishing the rights of the customer.

The last category pertains to amendments for purposes of the prevention of fraud. When a cheque is presented to a drawee bank, the bank compares the signature on the cheque with the drawer’s specimen signature in its records. Further validation of this instruction - for example, by telephoning the drawer each time a cheque is presented - is not commercially possible. It is not equitable for the banks to be liable for losses resulting from the erroneous payment of cheques when the drawer’s signature, owing to the fault of the drawer, has been perfectly forged.

In order to encourage responsible behaviour on the part of drawers, who are readily able to prevent the occurrence of such forgeries, the proposed amendment creates an obligation for companies, close corporations, Government departments and similar entities to take reasonable care in the custody of cheque forms and in the reconciliation of their bank statements. This obligation, however, does not extend to individuals.

As a result of the proposed amendment, if a drawer’s signature has been perfectly forged owing to the fault of the drawer, the drawer would have to bear the loss. This will, however, apply only if the drawer is a company, a close corporation, a Government department or a similar entity.

If the signature of an individual has been perfectly forged, that person will bear the loss only if he or she had knowledge of the forgery and did not give notice of such forgery to the bank. The ordinary consumer’s interests are thereby protected to the extent that their liability for such losses is much more restricted than in the case of a company, close corporation, Government department or similar entity. [Interjections.]

Members will recognise that this is a very technical Bill. It is also a very old piece of legislation and so members should bear with the boring nature of the Bill. I think one would just like to indicate that, given the nature of the Bill, there has been fairly widespread consultation on the Bill. Cabinet, in endorsing this Bill, made its passage subject to a consumer information campaign being implemented. The portfolio committee also echoed this view, and the Consumer Institute of South Africa supported the Bill provided an intensive information campaign on the amendments contained in the Bill is conducted.

In conclusion, it should be emphasised that the Bill proposes to address the four key objectives. It is envisaged that the electronic presentment of cheques would reduce the number of stolen or lost cheques. We believe the amendments will more effectively protect consumers and prevent fraud. [Applause.]

Mr N M NENE: Chairperson and hon members, the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill has four provisions which have already been alluded to by the Deputy Minister, which justify this Bill being before us today.

If I had my way I would have actually recused myself from speaking after the Deputy Minister, because he stole some of my thunder. But because I have been allocated eight minutes, I will use at least four of them. These provisions clarify certain provisions in the Act. Secondly, they deal with the protection of users, as has been alluded to, the accommodation of technological advancements and the reduction of incidences of fraud.

Most of us who are cheque account holders with various banks are not very conversant with the intricate and complicated implications of the laws that regulate the use of these instruments. Firstly, I would like to try and explain what bills of exchange are in order, perhaps, to further clarify what the Deputy Minister has said. These are negotiable instruments which are essentially documents embodying a right to the payment of money that may be transferred from one person to another. The most commonly used of these instruments are promissory notes, cheques and drafts.

Of these three, allow me to confine myself to cheques, which most of us are familiar with. Clause 1 of this Bill deals with the word bank'', which replaces the wordbanker’’ because it is now outdated. The word ``cheque’’ means a bill drawn on a bank payable on demand, and includes a bill drawn by a bank upon itself, which is an addition to that. A definition of a collecting bank has also been added, which means a bank collecting payment of a cheque or other bill of exchange. A number of definitions have been drafted in an attempt to clarify certain provisions, so that this sophisticated system becomes more user-friendly and accessible to ordinary people.

I also want to deal with nontransferable cheques because, I think, that is where the confusion lay. Nontransferable or not transferable'' cheques can only be paid into an account of the payee and cannot be cashed over the counter or transferred to a person other than the payee. What this Bill says is that the wordsnot transferable’’ must be written boldly on the face of the cheque.

Under no circumstances can this crossing be cancelled in terms of the new Bill. Banks are then required to take the utmost care that the cheque is paid into the payee’s account and nobody else’s. It is also no longer compulsory to draw the two parallel lines outside the word transferable'', as long as the words are there. Some common practices such as drawing two parallel lines at the corner of the cheque or writing the wordonly’’ after the payee’s name have no meaning in this new legislation, and have been very confusing all along.

With regard to technological advancements, this Bill allows banks to make use of electronic imaging of cheques to prevent the loss of cheques in the banking system. Cheques can be lost or intercepted, and paper cheques can be costly to produce. As stipulated in the preamble to this Bill, this is also to accommodate technological advancements. The Banking Council of SA assured the portfolio committee that this would not make banks any less liable.

The personal liability which has also been touched on by the Deputy Minister is that, under the existing legislation, one is personally responsible if one signs the cheque of a company or organisation without putting the words pp'' oron behalf of’’ and the name of the company or the organisation thereafter. Without these words, the company’s creditors can call on one to pay the cheque if, for some reason, the company cannot pay. The new Bill states that as long as the name of the company or organisation on behalf of which one is signing appears on the cheque, it is assumed that one does not wish to accept personal liability.

In conclusion, the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill will benefit both the banks and the consumers by recognising the bank cheque which is often used by those people who do not qualify for cheque accounts; by reducing the incidence of fraud, which will benefit the poor and illiterate people who are usually the most vulnerable; and by encouraging responsible behaviour by creating an obligation for companies and close corporations, Government departments and so forth to take reasonable care of cheque forms in their custody, and in the reconciliation of their bank statements.

Consumer education regarding these amendments is, however, crucial for ensuring maximum benefits, as envisaged in the Bill.

[Applause.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Mr Chairperson, may I first of all say that it is a pleasure to follow on Mr Nene and the hon Deputy Minister in the debate on this Bill. As has been said, it is a very technical but, nevertheless, very important Bill. I must say that I am relieved that it is not my responsibility to explain every clause of the Bill in detail and what its precise meaning is, because it would be extremely difficult.

However, this Bill does present an interesting challenge, because the Act that it is being amending is based on the English Bills of Exchange Act of

1. This Act contains a great deal of archaic language which cannot easily be changed because of a wealth of case law surrounding it, and if one starts changing any of the words or phrases, one can run into problems with interpretation.

So, this Bill and its 1882 language has had to be amended to make provision for the modern age, for electronic banking and, specifically, for the electronic presentation of cheques. It has also had to be amended to take account of technological developments such as photocopiers, scanners, imaging, and so on, which make cheque forgery much easier.

Of importance to the person in the street is the standardisation of the crossing of cheques in which ``not transferable’’ is specified as the required wording, and this will bring about greater clarity and less confusion once this process is undertaken. The banks have undertaken to conduct an extensive education programme amongst their clients so that they become aware of what is required if a cheque is to be nontransferable.

The committee as a whole, I believe, was rather astonished to learn that if one crosses a cheque, at present, and one writes ``not negotiable’’ on it, the cheque is still negotiable. So, there is a great need for clarity and standardisation in this regard, and this Bill is going to help to bring that about.

Companies, close corporation and Government departments now have an additional onus to exercise reasonable care in the custody of cheque forms and in the reconciliation of their bank statements since the intention is to reduce losses, theft and fraud and make companies, close corporation and Government departments more responsible in looking after their cheques and checking up on who is withdrawing money from their accounts. We believe that the changes are appropriate, and we will be supporting the Bill.

Mr A Z A VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairperson, this is a technical Bill and relates mainly to cheques, which were the first official historic alternative to cash payments. This Bill is an attempt to limit fraud by means of cheques and other bills of exchange. It is estimated that something to the order of R160 million is lost annually through fraudulent cheques. The New NP supports this Bill.

Another significant aspect of this Bill is that the interest of consumers, the collecting bank and the drawee is protected. Cheques, in future, will have to be crossed in bold letters and it is recommended that the words not transferable ornontransferable’’ be used, meaning that a cheque is payable to a specified person.

The following definitions are used in the Bill. The term named payee only'' is used and refers to the fact that the cheque is payable to the named payee only. A general crossing is an instruction that the cheque should be paid into a bank account, a special crossing on a cheque indicates that it should be paid into an account at a specific bank. The termnot negotiable’’ is recommended and defined in the Bill. It protects the real owner against a claim from a thief or anyone who comes into possession of the cheque. This term can also be used in bold letters on a cheque. The Bill also attempts to clarify who is responsible at various stages when cheques or other bills of exchange are used. This Bill provides for electronic banking and the transfer of funds.

Legal terminology and technicalities are defined. The defining of losses resulting from a bank’s payment of a cheque on which the drawer’s name is forged is significant as amended. If the bank was negligent in paying a cheque, for example, when the bank should have detected that the drawer’s signature had been forged and did not resemble the drawer’s signature, the bank incurs the loss. If the drawer’s signature has been perfectly forged, not owing to the fault of the drawer, a bank paying such a cheque bears the loss.

If, however, a drawer’s signature has been perfectly forged owing to the fault of the drawer, this Bill stipulates, in section 72B, that the drawer will have to bear the loss. It is significant to note that this will only apply if the drawer is a company, a close corporation, a Government department or a similar entity. Once again, the amount of R160 million per annum lost due to fraud is unacceptable in a developing country such as South Africa.

The New NP is of the opinion that this Bill will be of valuable assistance to consumers and the role-players in the financial, legal and banking sectors.

Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, the Bill aims to address the most important reforms recommended by the SA Law Commission, whilst retaining the principal Act. It is the opinion, we understand, of the department that the objects of the amendments will not only amplify and clarify certain aspects of the Act, but also include amendments, inter alia, firstly, to promote the interests of consumers; secondly, to accommodate technological advance; and, thirdly, to create mechanisms to reduce the incidence of cheque fraud.

While some of the amendments are of a technical nature, with little or no direct impact on the citizens of our country, the amendments with regard to the prevention of fraud will have a direct impact on these people, particularly those living in rural areas, who do not have access to banking facilities. The implementation of the provisions in the Bill dealing with this issue will have to be preceded by an educational and information campaign, to sensitise the disadvantaged sectors of our population, who have become accustomed to conducting business with nontransferable cheques in a manner which is open to abuse.

It is undeniable that millions of rands are stolen and lost annually, due to cheque fraud. This malpractice not only has a negative effect on consumers, but is also detrimental to the banking sector as a whole. This amendment should provide the necessary protection for banks to reduce the incidence of fraud and further illustrates the commitment needed from Government to lead from the front in this regard.

The obligation on the private sector to exercise care may have a beneficial effect, particularly when it comes to people from sectors that have very little knowledge of cheques and bills of exchange and negotiable instruments in general. We support the Bill.

Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson and hon members, the ACDP supports the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill. Cheque fraud costs this country about R160 million a year. The intention of this Bill is to limit the ways cheques can be transferred, in order to avoid acts of negligence or fraud. One other implication of this legislation is the probability of the move away from traditional paper cheque transactions towards more electronic forms of banking. The ACDP generally agrees with this legislation, with its aim of providing a secure service to the average consumer.

There are, however, areas in this legislation that do not provide an adequate sense of satisfaction that the consumer will, in most cases, benefit from transactions that involve cheques. It is far more likely that the consumer will be left with the probability of liability in cases where dishonest cheque transactions have occurred.

In terms of the prevention of fraud, we agree wholeheartedly that persons must make more of an effort to ensure that due care is exercised that the transaction that is undertaken actually meets the purpose for which it is intended. We further agree that a person who signs on behalf of another person ought to be held responsible as well, within the collective agreement of that arranged partnership.

What does not seem to be adequately clear, when reading section 24, as to be amended by clause 8, is whether this collective responsibility continues to hold if a person who is permitted to sign on behalf of another person or company signs a cheque that may cause financial harm to a company or person. Will the company or person on whose behalf a cheque is signed be held liable for costs or will this responsibility lie with the person who actually signed the cheque?

The Bill is correct to call upon clients to take greater care in how they manage and control their transactions. We therefore support the Bill.

Ms F B MARSHOFF: Hon Chairperson, the amending Bill before us went through an extended consultative period prior to being tabled in Parliament. The Portfolio Committee on Finance also interacted with the various role- players on a number of occasions, in public hearings and informal briefings, and through their representative councils.

The banking industry has also committed itself to embark on an intensive education and information process for its clients, once this Bill has gone through Parliament. The information will be made available to clients in a user-friendly manner, using plain and simple language. The education and information brochures will, among other things, spell out the responsibilities of the banks towards their clients and the responsibilities of the persons writing out cheques. As the Deputy Minister has already addressed the issues with regard to customer protection and fraud prevention, I will not go into these aspects of the Bill again here. As there was also general agreement within the portfolio committee with regard to the passage of this piece of legislation through Parliament, I can only rise to support this Bill. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: It seems to me that hon members expect the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance to give each member here a sample of a cheque which they could then cash, be it crossed or uncrossed. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, I would just like to thank all members for supporting the Bill.

We all recognise, as we have heard from the speakers, that it is a complex piece of legislation, which uses very technical language. However, as the hon Ken Andrew said, it is still an important piece of legislation.

I think that it is important for people out there to take note of whatever information is made available in the information campaign that is going to be launched to publicise the contents of the amendment, because, in that way, people will be able to protect themselves and organisations from cheque fraud and so on. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

              SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson and hon members, the amendment proposed in the SA Reserve Bank Amendment Bill has, as its objective, the enhancement of section 10A(2) of the SA Reserve Bank Act, Act 90 of 1989, as an effective tool of monetary policy. The proposed amendment does not relate to the introduction of a minimum reserve balance requirement in South Africa, but intends to allow for the adjustment of the amount of vault cash that may be taken into consideration for purposes of the calculation of the minimum reserve balance.

The Bill amends section 10A(2) of the Act so as to empower the Governor of the SA Reserve Bank to determine what percentage of the total amount of a bank’s holdings of Reserve Bank notes and subsidiary coin may be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the minimum reserve balances required to be maintained by that bank in an account with the SA Reserve Bank.

Currently, in terms of a notice dated 1 April 1998, banks and mutual banks are required to hold 2,5% of their total liabilities, as adjusted, in an account with the SA Reserve Bank for this purpose. The introduction of a percentage mechanism provides for flexibility, through the ability to relax or tighten this percentage of total holdings, depending on national economic circumstances.

In applying the mechanism contained in section 10A, the Reserve Bank exercises a measure of control over the extent to which a banks holdings of Reserve Bank notes and coin can be taken into account for purposes of the calculation of their minimum reserve balances. The Governor of the Reserve Bank will still be required to determine, from time to time, this percentage, after having regard to the national economic interest.

Although section 10A of the principal Act has thus far been applied with reasonable effectiveness as an instrument of monetary policy, there have been recent difficulties relating to liquidity experienced by certain banks. These limitations revolve around the fact that, as currently worded, section 10A allows banks to take the total amount of their holdings of Reserve Bank notes and coin into account in the calculation of their minimum reserve balance requirements.

Therefore the objective of the proposed amendment is to supplement and enhance section 10A of the principal Act as an effective and efficient tool for monetary policy. It seeks to increase the reserve dependency of commercial banks on the SA Reserve Bank, which enables the bank to influence interest rates charged by banks. The SA Reserve Bank has given the Portfolio Committee on Finance the undertaking not to implement any measure without first engaging in consultation with the Banking Council of South Africa, an undertaking which the council has accepted. In conclusion, it should be emphasised that the Bill merely proposes to provide greater flexibility to an existing monetary policy instrument, which is just one of a range of monetary policy instruments which the Reserve Bank may implement in the furtherance of its administration of monetary policy in the Republic. [Applause.]

Ms B A HOGAN: Chairperson, I rise in support of the amendment to the South African Reserve Bank Act. Most central banks, well, all central banks, require commercial banks to maintain a reserve ratio with the central bank. Firstly, this is for prudential reasons, but, secondly, it is to enable the central bank to effect monetary policy depending on the liquidity requirements within the market and the amount of money which the bank wants released within the market.

As a monetary policy instrument, it has declined in significance over the last couple of years, but the South African authorities, over the past 18 months, came across a situation where commercial banks, having large amounts of cash in their vaults, were able to meet their liquidity requirements, but merchant banks, not required to have large amounts in their vaults and not keeping it, constantly had to resort to the central bank to have their liquidity requirements met. The bank therefore was continually having to respond to the liquidity requirements of merchant banks, which do not hold large cash vaults, and therefore their monetary policy was being undermined by this continuing need for liquidity requirements, while at the same time the larger commercial banks were not subject to the same pressures. Therefore the SA Reserve Bank has called for this amendment, which we endorse.

The Banking Council initially had reservations with regard to this amendment and, quite rightly, pointed out that if the central bank was to impose a large percentage of the vault cash which could not be included in the reserve requirements, this would be at a substantial cost to the banks themselves. However, in consultation with the SA Reserve Bank whilst we were having the hearings, they were satisfied that the Reserve Bank was, firstly, not going to implement a 100% requirement - that would not make sense although some people have been under that impression; and, secondly, that the SA Reserve Bank would undertake to consult with the banks before they imposed such a percentage requirement.

We felt constrained as a committee to take independent advice on this issue, which we did, and having taken independent advice, we are satisfied that the business of banking will not be undermined by this reserve requirement and we therefore, as the ANC, rise in support of this amendment.

Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, the objective of this Bill is to provide the Governor of the Reserve Bank with an additional tool in the management of monetary policy. I think we do have to recognise that potentially this Bill has both positive and negative consequences. Just to dwell on the negative aspects first: if and when disallowing some of the vault cash of banks to be part of their required minimum reserve balance, comes into effect, the implication will be to increase the costs of commercial banks in respect of holding cash, and the result of that is almost certain to be that they will increase their bank charges in respect of cash transactions, and the primary victims will in fact be the poor, because they are the ones who most, use cash as opposed to cheques, electronic banking credit cards or other forms of banking.

Let me preface the positive side by repeating what the Deputy Minister said, and that is that it is important that the Reserve Bank gave an unequivocal undertaking to the Portfolio Committee on Finance, and therefore to Parliament, that if they were to change the ratio of vault cash that would be allowed as part of the reserve balances, they would only do so after consultation with the banks. But the particular positive of this amendment is that it does enhance the Reserve Bank’s ability to fulfil its constitutional obligation to protect the value of the currency. Our financial institutions and the SA Reserve Bank are valuable assets and deserve our support, particularly, I might say, at this time, given the state of our economy, where the forecasts of our growth rate are dropping daily and the value of the rand is now at the lowest level it has ever been, this morning at R7,50 to the dollar and over R11 to one pound sterling.

I believe while this is not a short-term catastrophe, our economy, despite many of the balances, many of the figures being positive, is in a very serious state of jeopardy in respect of confidence, particularly internationally, and I would hope that the hon the President and the hon the Minister of Finance would give serious thought to trying to develop as broad a consensus across the political, economic, business and labour spectrum as possible so that we can, wherever possible, present a united front on the way forward to improve the prospects of our economy, the prospects of people getting jobs and the prospects of eradicating poverty.

The DP believes that the positives of this Bill outweigh the negatives and therefore we will be supporting the Bill.

Mnr A Z A VAN JAARSVELD: Mnr die Voorsitter, die Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Suid-Afrikaanse Reserwebank is ‘n tegniese wetsontwerp wat die President van die Reserwebank in staat stel om ‘n persentasie vas te stel van die gemiddelde daaglikse bedrag van ‘n bank se reserwebanknote en pasmunt wat in berekening gebring kan word by die vasstelling van die minimum reserwesaldo.

Die Nuwe NP steun hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp omdat die banksektor ná samesprekings met die Reserwebank betreffende die bedrag pasmunt hulle bedenkings laat vaar het. Die doel en betekenis van die wetgewing is om die President van die Reserwebank van addisionele meganismes te voorsien om die geldvoorraad te bestuur. Vergun my ook die geleentheid om mnr Tito Mboweni, die President van die Reserwebank, geluk te wens met sy siening dat die Reserwebank kan toelaat dat die waarde van die rand daal en dat hoë prioriteit verleen moet word daaraan om die rekening van die termynboek af te bring.

Dollar-aankope deur die Reserwebank om die termynrekening te verminder is onvermydelik, en kan lei tot ‘n verswakking van die rand indien die Reserwebank, soos onder sy voorganger, dr Chris Stals, in 1998 tydens die Asiatiese krisis, probeer om die daling van die rand te stuit. Dit het veroorsaak dat spekulante op die termynmark ingeklim het, wat tot die verswakking van die rand gelei het, en uiteindelik veroorsaak het dat rentekoerse tot ‘n vlak van tot 25,5% verhoog is, wat op sy beurt ‘n inhiberende invloed op die ekonomiese groei gehad het.

Dit skyn asof die Reserwebank se analitiese modelle tans daarop dui dat die waarde van die rand teenoor die dollar van R7,50 nie die inflasieteiken van tussen 3% en 6% soos geprojekteer vir 2002 sal ondermyn en dit dus in gevaar sal stel nie. Ekonome is van mening dat die Reserwebank deels verantwoordelik is vir die verswakking van die rand teenoor die dollar in September vanweë dollar-aankope. Skynbaar is dié aankope en inmenging op die valutamark gedoen om die skuldverpligtings te verminder.

Dit is baie maklik om retrospektief kritiek op die Reserwebank se optrede en dr Stals se benadering tot die beskerming van die rand uit te spreek, maar dit skyn asof die Reserwebank tans ‘n verantwoordbare beleid volg en voldoende beskerming aan valutareserwes bied, tot voordeel van die breë finansiële sektor. Die Nuwe NP steun hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr A Z A VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairperson, the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill is a technical Bill that enables the Governor of the Reserve Bank to determine a percentage of the average daily amount of a bank’s Reserve Bank notes and coin that may be taken into account when determining the minimum reserve balance.

The New NP supports this amending Bill, because the banking sector, after discussions with the Reserve Bank about the amount of coin, abandoned their reservations. The objective and significance of the legislation is to provide the Governor of the Reserve Bank with additional mechanisms for managing the money supply. Allow me also to congratulate the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Tito Mboweni, on his view that the Reserve Bank can allow the value of the rand to decline and that a high priority must be afforded to bringing down the term book’s account.

Dollar purchases by the Reserve Bank for the purpose of bringing down the term account are unavoidable, and could lead to a weakening of the rand if the Reserve Bank tries to stop the decline in the value of the rand, as his predecessor, Dr Chris Stals, did in 1998 during the Asian crisis. That caused speculators to enter the term market, which caused a weakening of the rand, and eventually caused interest rates to rise to 25,5%, which in turn had an inhibiting effect on economic growth.

It appears as if the analytical models of the Reserve Bank are at present indicating that the value of the rand to the dollar of R7,50 will not undermine the inflation target of 3% and 6% as projected for 2002 and so put it at risk. Economists are of the view that the Reserve Bank is partly responsible for the weakening of the rand against the dollar in September owing to dollar purchases. Apparently these purchases and interference in the currency market took place to reduce debt obligations.

It is very easy to criticise Reserve Bank action and Dr Stals’ approach to the protection of the rand in retrospect, but it appears as if the Reserve Bank is at present adapting an accountable policy and is providing adequate protection for currency reserves, to the benefit of the financial sector in general. The New NP supports this amending Bill.]

Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, the Bill aims to provide for the increase of the deposits of banks which are held at the South African Reserve Bank. This in itself is a laudable attempt to bring this aspect of the South African banking sector in line with international practice.

This higher deposit effectively creates a bigger safety net for banks and will ensure greater stability in the banking sector and the economy as a whole during times of financial uncertainty or upheaval. With these remarks, we support the Bill.

Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, the ACDP supports the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill.

The Bill gives the Governor of the Reserve Bank certain powers to determine what percentage of the total reserve of the central bank’s holdings a bank may maintain in its account, and brings this amount in line with our modern requirements. Some of the reasons given for these provisions include the need to meet demands in case of financial crisis, and to increase the fluidity of the central bank as a supplier of currency. This is a prudential requirement, in the interests of the public, to ensure that banks are secure institutions.

The Bill simply updates and improves the existing Act. In real terms the money values, R250 million, are the same, however, allowing for inflation and devaluation of our currency. We believe that this will not necessarily be a barrier to entry into financial services for previously disadvantaged communities. It flows also from the experience of the 1998 South-East Asian crisis which was caused by the lack of proper prudential requirements.

Having said this, there are strong indications that this country is strategically aligning itself to compete on an international level. In this regard, the need for a monetary policy to contain the pressures of the global economy must be regularly evaluated. All banks have a social responsibility to ensure that a country maintains a stable economic environment. Similarly, not all banks are of equal strength, and as such a certain equitable reserve level must be maintained for banks to operate efficiently. With this input, the ACDP supports the Bill.

Mr B NAIR: Chair, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister and members, because the South African Reserve Bank is responsible for monitoring the stability of the banking system in the country, the bank’s reserves strengthen and stabilise the system as a whole. The reserves are used to meet seasonal fluctuations or in the event of a financial crisis. A commercial bank, for example, may require additional funds and these reserves may be used to help the bank. It also provides the central bank with funds for operational purposes.

The normal practice of all banks is to bank their surplus cash with the Reserve Bank, the South African Reserve Bank being the banker of banks and the lender of last resort, among its functions. Banks are free to withdraw their funds as required. In order to facilitate this, the commercial banks are now being made to hold minimum reserve balances with the Reserve Bank. The argument against minimum reserve requirements is that it is a tax on the banking system. It is argued that low or no reserve requirements remove discrimination between financial institutions, subject to such requirements and those that escape it. Because the Reserve Bank is not in competition with commercial banks, no interest is paid on these reserve balances.

Of the G7 countries, only Canada does not require minimum reserve balances for the central bank. South Africa’s requirement of 2,5% of total liabilities, less issued capital and reserves, is in line with most of the G7 countries. Italy’s was as high as 15,7% in 1998. South Africa’s was as low as 0,9% in 1998. Therefore, the need for minimum reserve requirements is onerous, more so with the concession by the Reserve Bank that vault cash can form part of the minimum balance.

According to the Reserve Bank, although section 10A of the Reserve Bank Act was effective, it was found that some banks experienced liquidity shortages while others had a surfeit of cash. The amendment to the Act will smooth out the liquidity imbalances in the system. This means that the Governor will determine from time to time the minimum amount of notes and coin the banks will be required to hold with the Reserve Bank. The ANC supports the Bill.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. Hon members, while we are on the subject of liquidity problems, I understand that hon members will experience some easing of liquidity pressures today if they examine their bank accounts. I call on the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chair, that is why these Bills were shifted from last week to today.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, I can understand that.

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Chairperson, I am thankful that all the parties have supported this Bill, because when we started there was a fair amount of disagreement on the part of the banks with regard to supporting the Bill. One is quite pleased that, in the discussions in the portfolio committee, certain agreements have been reached.

I just want to say that, really, we see this as a stabilisation mechanism in times when we face a crisis, as we often do, for no reason that emanates from our own country, but due to external reasons. This is something which we see in that particular light. We do not believe that there is any particular eagerness on the part of the Reserve Bank to quickly implement what the provisions are making possible, but to have it as an instrument at such times when we face crises.

Secondly, I would also like to say that there may be no financial crisis in the world today, but there is a fair amount of turmoil and a fair amount of volatility. People would have noted the very sharp rise in oil prices, with the conflict in the Middle East seemingly fuelling that when we were actually entertaining hopes that those prices would begin to come down.

Hon members would also have noted the very strong dollar and the consistently weakening euro, to the extent that a number of central banks had to come to the aid of the euro. So these are manifestations, to some degree, of the current volatility and turmoil. Clearly, those matters do have an impact on the rand as well.

I would want to agree with the hon Ken Andrew that we should seek to establish some broad consensus on how to move forward from an economic point of view. I think that there are very healthy signs that are beginning to emerge in the South African context. We have the Millennium Labour Council which brings together labour and business, and the President’s working groups, which bring together big business and black business, trade unions and commercial farmers. But we also had the black economic empowerment report making a recommendation that we needed some kind of accord.

I think all those signs are pointing in the direction that South Africans are beginning to grapple with the need to come to some broad agreement about some important issues that we need to look at on the economic front. But overall I would like to thank all parties and members for supporting the Bill. [Applause.]

Debate concluded. Bill read a second time.

            CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson, hon members, today’s session of the National Assembly will be considered by our people as a landmark of immense significance for the future of the construction industry. This process and the legislation before us constitute a foundation for the rejuvenation of the construction industry.

The collaboration that has led to this landmark moment was set in motion by a meeting in 1995 between the Department of Public Works and the captains of the South African construction industry. That meeting addressed the partnership role of the industry and Government in reconstruction and development, as well as the structural impediments to growth, development and transformation of the construction industry. It also gave impetus to the shaping of a comprehensive policy framework within which the industry can play a more strategic role in the social development and economic growth of our country. The White Paper that was published last year, creating an enabling environment for reconstruction, growth and development in the construction industry, sets out a comprehensive industry development strategy and proposes the establishment of a statutory Construction Industry Development Board to drive this strategy in partnership with all Government delivery agencies and the private sector. The construction industry, which is a national asset, has a pivotal role to play in infrastructure delivery to meet the needs of ordinary South Africans. It is this objective which underpins Government’s vision and its commitment to construction industry development.

In the South African context - and indeed, in our context - the industry development must be geared to roll back the enormous legacy of an inadequate infrastructure, its inequitable distribution and the underdevelopment of locally based physical and human resources. The unlocking of the industry’s potential to address this stark reality is what is at the core of the enabling legislation before us in the Assembly today.

Previous government policies and market forces have distorted the nature and profile of the South African construction industry, which is characterised by adversarial relationships between clients and contractors, contractors and subcontractors, as well as the workforce. Previous legislation affecting the construction industry reinforced the fundamental intentions of apartheid and limited black participation to the domain of unskilled artisans and cheap labour. This was achieved not only through the Bantu Education Act, but also through the Native Building Workers Act of

1. Job reservation was further reinforced by the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956.

These instruments of policy shaped the entire industry to benefit white artisans, contractors, professionals and material suppliers. Today the emerging black sector faces a range of hurdles. The inability to access markets, training and finance contributes to a vicious cycle that hinders the sector’s growth. It is against this backdrop that Government and the private sector embarked on a structured process of engagement to reshape the industry.

It is important that I should highlight some of the significant milestones of the process that underpins the legislation before us. The Green Paper published in 1997 invited public comment on the draft policy. To enable thorough planning and consultation with all stakeholders towards the establishment of the Construction Industry Development Board, an interministerial task team was appointed and started its work in 1998. The task team established an industry-wide reference group to ensure the inclusive input of public and private sector stakeholders. It further set up a focus group of industry specialists to refine the key output identified in the Green Paper, such as the register of contractors, which is an important function of the Construction Industry Development Board.

This partnership refined Government policy as embodied in the White Paper of 1999. In November 1999 a two-day industry summit workshop was convened to debate the first draft of the legislation. In December 1999 the amended draft legislation was published for public comment. In June 2000 that draft Bill was actually appropriately amended. In August 2000 I, together with provincial MECs, convened public sector workshops in all the provinces. Since then the legislation has been refined by the select committee, and was supported in the NCOP by all nine the provinces.

I now wish to deal with the essence of the legislation. Recognising the dispersed nature of the industry and its main role-players, including clients and service providers, the Construction Industry Development Board will constitute a national competence for industry development. It will provide strategic leadership to realise Government’s vision of a construction industry policy and strategy that promotes stability, fosters economic growth and international competitiveness, creates sustainable employment and addresses the historic imbalance as it generates new industry capacity.

The objectives of this Bill are to establish and promote appropriate and uniform best-practice standards and guidelines that promote improved stability and performance in the industry as well as social and economic objectives; ensure the uniform application of policy throughout all spheres of Government and provide uniform and ethical standards throughout the industry; promote the sustainable growth of the construction economy; and improve the investment environment and the participation of the emerging sector in the mainstream.

The board will drive best practice through programmes and instruments that include the establishment of a register of contractors, a register of projects and a code of conduct. The appointment of the board must also take account of the need to reflect the race, gender and geographic composition of our land, and to reflect the aspirations of our people who are the real beneficiaries of our industry’s activities.

The responsibility conferred on the board is immense. The board will, therefore, continuously require the support and input of stakeholders, and this will be accomplished through the establishment of the stakeholders’ forum. This forum will enable the representation of all stakeholders, including Government departments, provinces and local authorities. It will also include representation by employer bodies, the profession’s organised labour bodies and those from emerging sectors and others interest groups.

The Construction Industry Development Board must be a catalyst for change. It must ensure sustainable growth of the construction industry, regional and global competitiveness, and the continuous inclusion of the historically marginalised sectors of our society. It must promote investment and value for money to clients.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the task team as well as the department’s drafting team and all stakeholders for the hard work that has been put into the legislation before us. In particular, I wish to thank members of the portfolio committee under the capable leadership of iNkosi Hlengwa for their efforts to ensure that the legislation has been finalised in time for consideration at today’s Assembly.

Today is indeed a historic day. The passage of the Bill before this House will place the construction industry firmly on the national agenda in the interest of all South Africans. The industry has the full support of Government, and we will continue to value its contribution to the development of our people and our democracy. As we move forward to implement this enabling legislation, we will continue to rely on the commitment of all role-players to growth, development and transformation of the construction industry. [Applause.]

Inkosi W M HLENGWA: Mr Chairperson and hon members, I wish to start by saying that the Bill under discussion is a section 76 piece of legislation that was introduced through the NCOP, which was formerly known as the Senate. This Bill, after having been passed by the NCOP, was referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works of the National Assembly. I must hasten to add that the Bill was not new to us as the portfolio committee, since the department had kept us informed along the different types of presentations that were made. The NCOP also made available the submissions from the stakeholders, and one could say confidently that the Bill enjoyed overwhelming support. The amendments which were effected by the NCOP were endorsed by the Portfolio Committee on Public Works.

One of the fundamental features captured in this Bill is that it acknowledges the indispensable role that the construction industry plays in the economy, and in the provision of the infrastructure that is fundamental to the development of the country. It also acknowledges the various challenges that the construction industry faces, and that includes instability, the dispersed nature of the industry’s participants, the development of the emerging sector in construction, the impact of the industry on communities and the high levels of risk associated with the construction industry. I understand that this legislation is meant for the development of the construction industry to meet the needs and the aspirations of the citizens of South Africa. It is clearly stated in this Bill that a number of departments will be involved in its implementation, and we applaud the Minister of Public Works in her quest to have a unified approach in the alleviation of poverty that is facing our country. The following departments were consulted during the process of drafting this piece of legislation: Transport, Water Affairs and Forestry, Housing, Provincial and Local Government, Finance and State Expenditure.

Clause 5 of the Bill clearly demonstrates that the board must facilitate communication between construction industry stakeholders, all spheres of government and statutory bodies. According to clause 5(d), the board must establish a construction industry stakeholders’ forum as contemplated in section 13. It is against this background that we believe that following this route will ultimately lead to the realisation of a synergy that we always anticipated.

The IFP will support the passage of the Construction Industry Development Board Bill that is before the House, since we believe that it has good intentions to bring about the development of the construction industry. Finally, I would like to thank the honourable members of the portfolio committee, the legal team component, the Select Committee on Public Services of the NCOP and the department for a job well done. [Applause.]

Mr B A RADEBE: Mr Chairperson, hon members of the House, the ANC supports the passage of the Construction Industry Development Board Bill. We also wish to applaud the Minister and her department for the diligence with which the draft Bill was prepared.

This Bill provides for the establishment of the Construction Industry Development Board which will galvanise all industry role-players for positive change in the South African construction industry. This Bill seeks to establish a national agenda for reconstruction, growth and development in the construction industry, as outlined in the White Paper that was adopted last year. Current practices and our inherited regulatory framework stifle industry innovation as well as the participation and potential of the emerging black sector of the industry. The Construction Industry Development Board will unlock this potential. Since 1948, government policies have limited the participation of blacks, whose role was deliberately restricted to that of the cheap, unskilled ``handlanger’’ [handyman]. Today, the racially skewed ownership in the construction industry continues to reflect the distortions and unequal power relations of apartheid. In those days, black contractors were few and far between, and women contractors were probably unheard of. Although we have made much progress, particularly through affirmative procurement and the emerging contractor development programmes introduced by the department, much more is needed.

The Construction Industry Development Board has a fundamental role to ensure the full participation of black enterprises within the industry, not only in building work, but also in specialist fields such as electrical and mechanical engineering. The Construction Industry Development Board must overcome the impediments that perpetuate the informal and underresourced status of the black and women-owned enterprises. It must ensure that these enterprises grow and emerge into the mainstream of the construction industry. The proposed register of contractors that the Construction Industry Development Board will establish is one of the mechanisms that can ensure a recognised track record for emerging black contractors.

To derive maximum benefit, the Construction Industry Development Board must also ensure co-ordination and interaction with the Construction, Education and Training Authority whose recent establishment was supported by the department through the industry-wide co-operation established by the interministerial task team. The new board must ensure the all-round growth, development and performance of the construction industry which must operate in a powerful and efficient manner in order to meet the social and economic needs of our nation. With the volatile nature of the demand in the construction industry, we need a dedicated agency to promote sustainable growth and investment.

The skill and delivery capacity of the public sector leaves much to be desired, and the board must ensure that the capacity of this important industry client is fully developed. In this regard, the board must build on the work done by the department and the interministerial task team to address bottlenecks that impact negatively on the sustainability of the construction industry. These include delayed payments by both public and private sector clients.

All the activities of the envisaged board will enable the preservation of our industry as a national asset, and will pave the way for the survival of the South African industry in the increasingly competitive global environment. The immediate challenge is to appoint a board that can provide credible leadership, embodies competence and commitment and reflects the race, gender and geographic composition of our country.

This Bill is the result of a very long consultative process that dates back to 1996. All the stakeholders in both the public and private sectors were brought on board, even as the policy documents which laid the foundation for this Bill were being drafted. The Bill is fully supported by all stakeholders. It is time to leave the drawing boards and discussion tables; it is now time to get our hands dirty in its implementation; it is now time to establish a Construction Industry Development Board and address the pressing challenges ahead. I support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr S E OPPERMAN: Chairperson, it is no secret that there are enormous challenges facing those who will be members of the Construction Industry Development Board.

According to those in the know, the construction industry is going through deep waters. The industry is declining and some even say it is, to a large extent, already in a crisis, a situation our country can ill afford. Therefore, we highly appreciate the efforts of someone like Alice Gushman, a hotel worker in Newlands who was named housing person of the year by the Western Cape branch of the Institute of Housing of South Africa.

For thousands of poor Capetonians she is the saviour who turned their shacks into dream homes. Thanks to her efforts, 1 300 Philippi families now have brick homes for the first time. So in her own small way, this woman did her little bit in helping to carry the building industry. She is a wonderful example for all of us.

There was general consensus amongst all those who handed in submissions that there is an urgent need for a Construction Industry Development Board, and no one in their right mind can have any objection to the objectives of the board. It is a sincere wish of the DP that the board, with the co- operation of all the stakeholders, will be able to turn the tide.

Some of the objectives of the board will be best practice standards, improvement of industry stability, good performance and efficiency. The need for best practice in performance and efficiency is not debatable. There is no other alternative.

Ek wil vanmiddag die gewone manne en vroue in ons onderskeie gemeenskappe, wat deur al die jare uitstekende diens in die konstruksiebedryf gelewer het, vereer. Die Boet Spandiels, die Hannes Novembers, die Piet Adonisse, die Jannie Magermans, die Bernard Cooks, die Danie Pietersens, die Faried Salies en die Sandra Africas van ons gemeenskappe is mense wat nie net ‘n goeie voorbeeld met puik vakmanskap gestel het nie, maar wat ook entrepreneurs was wat deur die jare ten spyte van moeilike omstandighede werk verskaf het aan baie arm mense.

Ek glo hierdie mense behoort ook in die huidige bedeling tasbare erkenning te kry daarvoor. Hulle was egter meer as dit. Hulle was manne en vroue van integriteit; die belangrikste basis waarop ons nie net die bedryf nie, maar ook ons gemeenskappe behoort te bou. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[This afternoon I want to honour the ordinary men and women in our various communities, who have rendered an excellent service in the construction industry over the years. The Boet Spandiels, the Hannes Novembers, the Piet Adonisses, the Jannie Magermanns, the Bernard Cooks, the Danie Pietersens, the Faried Salies and the Sandra Africas of our communities are people who not only set a good example with their excellent workmanship, but were also entrepreneurs who, over the years, despite difficult conditions, provided jobs to many poor people.

I believe that these people should also be given tangible recognition for this in the present dispensation. They were, however, more than that. They were men and women of integrity; the most important basis on which we should build not only the industry, but also our communities.]

So we want to challenge and encourage all our contractors and subcontractors, specialist professionals and material suppliers, as well as our skilled and unskilled workers, to co-operate. Yes, we need good performance and efficiency, an objective that this board must encourage with passion. We cannot allow a situation similar to the one in Kagiso, Krugersdorp, where the residents, after their homes were damaged by strong winds and rain, complained about the corrupt practices of builders which resulted in poorly built houses.

Another objective is the growth of the emerging sector. What a fine example we have in Evelyn Vetman, a former hawker who is now a business owner of a thriving Khayelitsha construction company. She is called The Stone Lady'' and her motto isIts time to make things happen’’. She has great appreciation for big construction companies like Murray and Roberts, and Stock and Stocks who have, she said, ``paved the way for me’’.

This is the kind of excellence and partnership that would be vital to the building of a strong industry and a strong economy. We can add to the list of core objectives labour absorption, skill formation, procurement and delivery, management reform, safety and health and, very importantly, responsible management of the environment.

One cannot overemphasise the responsibility of the building industry to help with the management and protection of our natural environment. I believe it will be the responsibility of the board to co-operate with the National Environmental Advisory Forum and other stakeholders to be vigilant in their evaluation of the potential impact of every project on the environment.

The Skyfram Dam near Franschhoek, for example, will effectively dam the last relatively free-flowing river in the Western Cape, the Berg River. This will, in turn, have a detrimental effect on the sensitive flood plain environment. Most environmental NGOs agreed that Skyfram is a bad idea. This viewpoint of John Taylor from Durbanville is typical of the problems we have when development, urbanisation, etc, are done by people who are insensitive to the environment.

In Schedule 1 of the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998, there is a list of all the national departments exercising functions which may affect the environment. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works that the name of our department be added to that list.

We have high expectations for the Construction Industry Development Board, but we must also realise that in the real world there are no short cuts to success. It is only through hard work and perseverance that the board will reach its full potential. We wish them well. The DP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mnr die Voorsitter, heel aan die begin wil ek my dank betuig teenoor die amptenare van die Departement van Openbare Werke vir die bekwame wyse waarop hulle hierdie wetsontwerp aan ons bekend gestel het. [Mr Chairperson, at the outset I would like to express my thanks to the officials of the Department of Public Works for the competent manner in which they have introduced this Bill to us.]

This is an important piece of legislation because effective, well- maintained infrastructure forms the very basic foundation for providing an acceptable quality of life for all and sustainable growth in a successful country. The construction industry plays a pivotal role in this respect. Since the mid-eighties South Africa experienced a constant decline in the construction industry. Their turnover in most instances has more than halved and they have lost more that 50% of their employees. In this regard I would like to quote from a submission by the SA Association of Construction Engineers:

There is no doubt that the construction industry is presently in a crisis and has been in a serious decline for a number of years. If this country is to become a successful nation in a global sense, there is no doubt that a healthy and vital industry is the key factor in achieving this goal.

The construction industry is one of the most efficient employment-creating sectors in the economy. The four constituent members of the Construction Industries Confederation alone represent approximately 12 000 companies and employ approximately 330 000 people. This figure is, according to the confederation, at an all time low at the moment and could be doubled with the implementation of appropriate policies.

Currently, South Africa has no recognised vehicle to drive the implementation of a common strategy and to systematically promote the best practice of public and private sector role-players in an integrated manner. Hopefully, the establishment of the Construction Industry Development Board and the implementation of the policies of the board will facilitate the recovery of this sector. The recovery of the sector can play an important role in making South Africa an attractive investment destination for local and international investment.

Dit is van die uiterste belang dat die lede van die raad met die grootste sorg uitgesoek word. Dit sal die sukses van die raad bepaal. Hiervoor is die Minister verantwoordelik.

Die wetsontwerp het bepalings in wat voorskryf hoe die raad op ‘n gereelde basis geëvalueer moet word. Die bekommernis wat ‘n mens in jou hart het oor al die strukture wat geskep word, is of die agb Minister deur middel van hierdie bepalings sal kan sorg dat die raad tot voordeel van die land opereer. Ons wens haar sukses toe met hierdie taak en die Nuwe NP ondersteun hierdie wetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[It is of the utmost importance that the members of the board be chosen with great care. This will determine the success of the board. The Minister is responsible for this. The Bill contains provisions which prescribe how the board must be evaluated on a regular basis. The concern one has about all the structures which are created, is whether the hon the Minister will be able to see to it that the board operates to the benefit of the country, by way of these provisions. We wish her everything of the best in this task and the New NP supports this Bill.]

Mr S ABRAM: Mr Chairperson, it stands to reason that this legislation aims to redress the previous imbalances. It is, therefore, a transformatory piece of legislation, and will carry our full support.

I merely wish to make a couple of comments: Firstly, if one looks at the process that has led to the eventual publication of this Bill, then one must admit that there has been widespread consultation with the various sectors that are involved herein. And here one needs to congratulate the dedication of the officials of the Department of Public Works who have tirelessly worked towards bringing this legislature to the stage where it is today, on their dedication. Furthermore, if one looks at the legislation, it makes provision for the creation of a Construction Industry Development Board. Clauses 16 to 21 deal with the regulating of contractors, registration, deregistration and everything else associated with this.

I merely want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. We have, out there in the community, several people who may not have had any formal education, who may not have had any apprenticeships that they have served in this particular field, but who are excellent people who know how to lay a brick, a sewer pipe and so on. Whilst one must regulate the involvement of contractors as far as public sector work is concerned, I believe that one must encourage these people to go through ongoing training, and that the department and this board must enable that training to take place, so that such people’s capacity can be developed.

Furthermore, there is a financial implication with the creation of this particular board. At this juncture, apparently, it would be R11,5 million per annum. There is always a tendency that when one creates bodies such as these, certain individuals try to create their little fiefdom and the result is increasing costs. We need to guard against that. We need to see that the board performs, and that it does not indulge in unnecessary projects which are going to cost us money. Training of our people at all levels who have not had that opportunity is vital. I believe that this board will be able to play a major role in helping to bring on board people who have not had those opportunities and equip them for the task of contributing to the economy. [Time expired.]

Adv Z L MADASA: Mr Chairperson, the Bill is an endeavour to rationalise the industry. We note that the Minister, in terms of clause 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Bill, has the discretion and powers to determine the criteria for nominations. Therefore, we urge the Minister, in the exercise of this discretion, to ensure that the requisite expertise from as diverse a base as possible is taken into account. The Minister must avoid, as far as possible, having a board that is a federation of an exclusive interest group. All in all, the ACDP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Miss O R KASIENYANE: Mr Chairperson, hon members, the construction industry, comprising both the building and civil engineering sections, performs an indispensable role in the economy of South Africa and, increasingly, in that of the region as a whole. It provides the infrastructure which is fundamental to the ongoing development of our country. Its activities affect the lives of every citizen and impact on our health, our education and the total environment in which we live, work and rest. It contributes to creating a better life for all.

Beneath the success of this industry are a number of disturbing features. These include an unstable and insecure employment environment that impacts negatively on sustainable human resource development. Jittery periods of investment and intense competition lead regularly to the folding of businesses and to the further particular casualisation of labour.

The structure of the industry is biased towards the urban centres of development. The ease of entry into the business of construction is not related to the impact of this industry and the stringent contractual and regulatory requirements that are in place to protect the public. Thus, fly- by-night contractors have brought the industry into disrepute and clearly, self-regulatory mechanisms have not been effective. These are some of the structural problems that have led key stakeholders to define the industry as one that is in crisis. The purpose of the Construction Industry Development Board is to bring about change to address these issues. It is about the actions needed to stimulate change and to promote increased participation of the emerging sector, particularly black business, improved labour relations and sustainable employment. It is about appropriate human resource development and improved industry and client performance, competitiveness and an appropriate regulatory framework. It is about establishing leadership to promote change. Above all, it is about accelerated and improved delivery to the people of South Africa, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the industry’s output. They are the real stakeholders in construction industry development, and it is their interests that the new board must serve.

It is in this context that the ANC is convinced that this board should be constituted on the basis of individual competence, leadership and commitment to the aspirations of all our people. We, therefore, welcome the support of all the stakeholders for this model which enables the inclusive representation of all role-players through the stakeholder forum that the board will establish. We are also greatly encouraged by the level of industry co-operation that has been established by the interministerial task team which has set out to establish a culture of development through partnership and a platform for implementation of industry development initiatives.

We have no doubt that the Construction Industry Development Board will build on this platform and will drive the national strategy for industry development on behalf of all stakeholders. For the first time in South Africa, the CIDB will establish a core national competence and resource for public and private sector role-players for the development of the industry. The CIDB will constitute the national authority recognised by the public and private sectors to drive the implementation of best practice methods by clients and suppliers as well as the uniform application of policy and best practice. In providing this resource, we are convinced that the CIDB will reduce the wasteful duplication of effort by various national, provincial and local authorities who are currently striving on their own to develop best practices.

Through the register of contractors and the register of projects, the CIDB will promote improved risk management and reduce costs to clients and the industry. This, in itself, will begin to foster improved investor confidence. Standardised and simplified contract documentation will enable participation of emerging black enterprises, and sector status reports will provide valuable information to decision-makers in Government and the industry.

In pursuit of this vision, set out in the White Paper, the CIDB will produce measures that support accelerated delivery, empowerment, efficiency and good governance. The ANC congratulates the Minister and the department on the vision and process that have led to the legislation before us. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I wonder whether the hon the Minister will also consider hon members, as our foremost nation-builders, part of our construction industry. [Laughter.]

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson, I must really thank all the hon members who participated in this debate for their constructive remarks on a construction Bill.

There are a few points which were raised as points of concern. One of them is about training. I once asked a successful company - I think it was BAE - why it was successful. Their reply was simple: Training, training and training! I think that is exactly what, as a department, we intend to do in the training of emerging people in construction, with the help of the ILO. We also are trying hard to make sure that we begin to find ways and means to overcome one of the chief obstacles, that being the obstacle of restricted access to finance.

The other concern raised had to do with the quality of the work, and I do want to believe that even we, as a department, do realise that we cannot have what I sometimes call winter roads, which get washed away in summer. Hence I do believe that this board will really concentrate on making sure that its registered membership do not, at the end of the day, produce shoddy work, and hence we talk in terms of best practice in the Bill itself.

I also want to assure members that it is important to carry those who are emerging in this sector, if we want to see a future in the sector itself. However, what is important is that, as Government, throughout the work that we do in Public Works, we firmly believe in the importance of partnership, not only with business, but also in ensuring that the conditions for the employers too are a matter of consideration.

What I would like to say, in thanking the hon members for their support, is that the passage of this Bill, which I said was historic in its form, is actually a very crucial component of the Government’s all-round effort to create an enabling environment for the development of the South African construction industry. As the Minister concerned, my only worry is that we are getting too much of a mushrooming of contractors. Because of some of the programmes that we have in Government, like the Community-Based Public Works Programme, some people just think that one can go to sleep and wake up the following day with a complete construction company. It is not as easy as all that.

I also want, in the presence of hon members, to ask the so-called traditional companies to take the issue of mentorship seriously, because it is necessary for this type of industry. We do believe that there is a lot of work that lies ahead of us all, once the board has been established. Hon members must also not worry that there are going to be fiefdoms, because after every five years there is a review of the work that has to be done by this particular board.

I thank you very much for your co-operation. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                  COMPETITION SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

             (Consideration of Bill and Report thereon)

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted and Bill, as amended, agreed to.

                          MEAT SAFETY BILL

   (Consideration of Bill, as amended by NCOP, and Report thereon)

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted and Bill, as amended, agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - VISITS TO NORTHERN PROVINCE SCHOOLS

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

                       TOURISM AMENDMENT BILL

   (Consideration of Bill, as amended by NCOP, and Report thereon)

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

Bill accordingly rejected.

The Deputy Chairperson of Committees announced that the Bill would be referred to the Mediation Committee.

The House adjourned at 12:38. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    Bill, as amended by National Council of Provinces, and rejected
     by National Assembly on 13 October 2000, referred to Mediation
     Committee in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b):


     Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec
     76(1)) - (Mediation Committee).

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Minister for Provincial and Local Government on 13 October
     2000 submitted a draft of the Redetermination of the Boundaries of
     Cross-boundary Municipalities Bill, 2000, as well as the
     memorandum explaining the objects of the proposed legislation, to
     the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint Rule 159. The
     draft has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Provincial
     and Local Government and the Select Committee on Local Government
     and Administration by the Speaker and the Chairperson,
     respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).


 (2)    The following Bill was introduced in the National Assembly on 13
     October 2000 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
     classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:


     (i)     Redetermination of the Boundaries of Cross-boundary
          Municipalities Bill [B 69 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75)
          - (Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government -
          National Assembly) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior
          notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No
          21635 of 5 October 2000.]

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
     Health and to the Select Committee on Social Services:


     Report of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases for 1999-
     2000.


 (2)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Trade and Industry, the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs,
     the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs and to the
     Select Committee on Economic Affairs for consideration and report.
     The committees must confer and the Portfolio Committee on Trade
     and Industry must report:


     (a)     Amendment Protocol on Trade in the Southern African
          Development Community (SADC), tabled in terms of section
          231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.


     (b)     Explanatory Memorandum to the Amendment Protocol.


 (3)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Water Affairs and Forestry and to the Select Committee on Land and
     Environmental Affairs:


     Report and Financial Statements of the Trans-Caledon Tunnel
     Authority for 1999-2000.


 (4)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Minerals and Energy and to the Select Committee on Economic
     Affairs. The Report of the Auditor-General contained in the paper
     is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
     consideration and report:


     Report and Financial Statements of the National Electricity
     Regulator for 1999-2000, including the Report of the Auditor-
     General on the Financial Statements for 1999-2000.


 (5)    The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts:
     Resolutions of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for 2000
     and replies thereto obtained by the National Treasury - Fifth,
     Sixth and Seventh Report, 2000.


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


     Report and Financial Statements of the National Productivity
     Institute for 1999-2000.


 (7)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry. It
     is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the
     Select Committee on Economic Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 32 - "Trade and Industry", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (8)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Housing. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Public Services:


     Memorandum on Vote No 15 - "Housing", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
     2001.


 (9)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Education. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Education and Recreation:


     Memorandum on Vote No 8 - "Education", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
     2001.


 (10)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy. It
     is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the
     Select Committee on Economic Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 21 - "Minerals and Energy", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (11)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Social Services:


     Memorandum on Vote No 14 - "Home Affairs", Adjustments Estimate,
     2000-2001.


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


     (a)     Memorandum on Vote No 1 - "The Presidency", Adjustments
          Estimate, 2000-2001.


     (b)     Memorandum on Vote No 2 - "Parliament", Adjustments
          Estimate, 2000-2001.


     (c)     Memorandum on Vote No 31 - "Statistics South Africa",
          Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


     (d)     Memorandum on Vote No 36 - "National Treasury",
          Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
     (e)     Memorandum on Adjustments Estimate for 2000-2001.


     (f)     Adjustments Estimate of Expenditure to be defrayed from
          the National Revenue Fund during the financial year ending 31
          March 2001 [RP 1-2000].


 (13)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and
     Constitutional Development. It is also referred to the Select
     Committee on Finance and to the Select Committee on Security and
     Constitutional Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 18 - "Justice and Constitutional
     Development", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (14)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises. It
     is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the
     Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises:
     Memorandum on Vote No 23 - "Public Enterprises", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (15)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation. It
     is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the
     Select Committee on Education and Recreation:


     Memorandum on Vote No 29 - "Sport and Recreation", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (16)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Public Services:


     Memorandum on Vote No 26 - "Public Works", Adjustments Estimate,
     2000-2001.


 (17)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Transport. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Public Services:


     Memorandum on Vote No 33 - "Transport", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
     2001.


 (18)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science
     and Technology. It is also referred to the Select Committee on
     Finance and to the Select Committee on Education and Recreation:


     Memorandum on Vote No 4 - "Arts, Culture, Science and Technology",
     Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (19)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Communications. It is
     also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises:


     Memorandum on Vote No 5 - "Communications", Adjustments Estimate,
     2000-2001.
 (20)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Health. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Social Services:


     Memorandum on Vote No 13 - "Health", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
     2001.


 (21)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and
     Forestry. It is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance
     and to the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 34 - "Water Affairs and Forestry",
     Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (22)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Labour. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises:


     Memorandum on Vote No 19 - "Labour", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
     2001.


 (23)   The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land
     Affairs. It is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance
     and to the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs:


     Memorandums on


     (a)     Vote No 3 - "Agriculture", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
          2001.


     (b) Vote No 20 - "Land Affairs", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (24)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services.
     It is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the
     Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 6 - "Correctional Services", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (25)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local
     Government. It is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance
     and to the Select Committee on Local Government and
     Administration:


     Memorandum on Vote No 22 - "Provincial and Local Government",
     Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (26)   The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and
     Administration. It is also referred to the Select Committee on
     Finance and to the Select Committee on Local Government and
     Administration:


     Memorandums on -


     (a)     Vote No 24 - "Public Service and Administration",
          Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


     (b)     Vote No 25 - "Public Service Commission", Adjustments
          Estimate, 2000-2001.


     (c)     Vote No 27 - "South African Management Development
          Institute", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (27)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Welfare and Population
     Development. It is also referred to the Select Committee on
     Finance and to the Select Committee on Social Services:


     Memorandum on Vote No 35 - "Social Development", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (28)   The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security. It
     is also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the
     Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs:


     Memorandums on -


     (a)     Vote No 17 - "Independent Complaints Directorate",
          Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.


     (b)     Vote No 28 - "South African Police Service", Adjustments
          Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (29)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is
     also referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Economic Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 11 - "Foreign Affairs", Adjustments
     Estimate, 2000-2001.


 (30)   The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance and to the Portfolio Committee on Defence. It is also
     referred to the Select Committee on Finance and to the Select
     Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs:


     Memorandum on Vote No 7 - "Defence", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
     2001.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

 Government Notice No R.849 published in Government Gazette No 21499
 dated 25 August 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, 1985.

1. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry:

 (1)    Government Notice No 683 published in Government Gazette No
     21357 dated 14 July 2000, Release of a part of the Berlin State
     Forest which is no longer required for forestry, made in terms of
     section 50(4) of the National Forests Act, 1998.


 (2)    Government Notice No 759 published in Government Gazette No
     21422 dated 28 July 2000, Prohibition on the making of fires in
     the open air, the destruction by burning ground cover, including
     slash and the execution of blockburns in the district of Letaba
     and Pietersburg, made in terms of the Forests Act, 1984.


 (3)    Government Notice No 843 published in Government Gazette No
     21483 dated 25 August 2000, Change of service area by the Amatola
     Water Board, made in terms of the Water Services Act, 1997.


 (4)    Government Notice No 869 published in Government Gazette No
     21520 dated 8 September 2000, Change of name of the Goudveld
     Water, made in terms of the Water Services Act, 1997.


 (5)    Government Notice No R.55 published in Government Gazette No
     21523 dated 8 September 2000, Commencement of section 7 of the
     National Forests Act, 1998.


 (6)    Government Notice No 894 published in Government Gazette No
     21544 dated 8 September 2000, Extension of the period for
     registration of water use in the Crocodile West and Marico Water
     Management Area, made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998.


 (7)    Government Notice No 895 published in Government Gazette No
     21544 dated 8 September 2000, Extension of the period for
     registration of water use in the Mvoti to Mzimkulu Water
     Management Area, made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998.


 (8)    Government Notice No 902 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, The transfer or disposal of water
     services works, made in terms of section 73(2)(a) of the Water
     Services Act, 1997.


 (9)    Government Notice No 905 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the Breede River
     Water Conservation Board, the Angora Irrigation Board, the Le
     Chasseurs and Goree Irrigation Board and the Robertson Irrigation
     Board - Division of Swellendam, Province of the Western Cape, into
     the Central Breede River Water User Association - Water Management
     Area No 18, Province of the Western Cape, made in terms of the
     National Water Act, 1998.


 (10)   Government Notice No 906 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the Goree
     Irrigation Board, division of Robertson, Province of the Western
     Cape, into the Goree Water User Association - Water Management
     Area No 18, Province of the Western Cape, made in terms of the
     National Water Act, 1998.


 (11)   Government Notice No 907 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the Marthinusvlei
     Irrigation Board, division of Robertson, Province of the Western
     Cape, into the Marthinusvlei Water User Association - Water
     Management Area No 18, Province of the Western Cape, made in terms
     of the National Water Act, 1998.


 (12)   Government Notice No 908 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the
     Agterkliphoogte Irrigation Board, division of Robertson, Province
     of the Western Cape, into the Agterkliphoogte Water User
     Association - Water Management Area No 18, Province of the Western
     Cape, made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998.


 (13)   Government Notice No 909 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the Uitnood
     Irrigation Board, division of Robertson, Province of the Western
     Cape, into the Uitnood Water User Association - Water Management
     Area No 18, Province of the Western Cape, made in terms of the
     National Water Act, 1998.


 (14)   Government Notice No 910 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the Willemnels
     Irrigation Board, division of Robertson, Province of the Western
     Cape, into the Willemnels Water User Association - Water
     Management Area No 18, Province of the Western Cape, made in terms
     of the National Water Act, 1998.


 (15)   Government Notice No 911 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Transformation of the Lower Riet
     River, the Richie and the Scholtzburg Irrigation Boards into the
     Orange-Riet Water User Association, division of Jacobsdal,
     Koffiefontein and Fauresmith, Province of the Free State and
     divisions of Herbert and Kimberley, Province of the Northern Cape
     - Water Management Areas Nos 13 and 14, made in terms of the
     National Water Act, 1998.


 (16)   Government Notice No 916 published in Government Gazette No
     21549 dated 15 September 2000, Release of portions of Injaka
     Plantation which are no longer required for forestry, made in
     terms of section 50(4) of the National Forests Act, 1998.


 (17)   Government Notice No 3272 published in Government Gazette No
     21566 dated 22 September 2000, Code of Conduct for council members
     of the National Forests Advisory Council, made in terms of the
     National Forests Act, 1998.

National Assembly:

Bills:

1. The Minister of Public Enterprises:

(1)     Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Transnet-pensioenfonds [W 57 -
      2000].


      The Transnet Pension Fund Amendment Bill [B 57 - 2000] (National
      Assembly - sec 75) was introduced by the Minister of Public
      Enterprises on 25 August 2000 and referred to the Portfolio
      Committee on Public Enterprises.