THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2000 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:03.

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.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr L P M NZIMANDE: 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 ANC-led Government has built a million new houses over the
       past six years; and


   (b)  the Government has ensured that over 2,5 million households have
       access to electricity;

(2) believes that these achievements are important milestones in building a better life for all; and

(3) commends the Government for improving service delivery to the historically disadvantaged communities.

[Applause.]

Mr W J SEREMANE: 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 notes -

(1) the consistent attempts by the ANC to play down and sweep under the carpet the atrocities perpetrated by the ANC in the ANC camps outside South Africa, such as the Quatro camp, and reminds the country of the remains of our people lying in shallow graves and of their souls crying out for justice, full disclosure and a proper burial; and

(2) that thousands of South Africans are still waiting for reparation after appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and that they want to know whether this Parliament cares about them.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr J H SLABBERT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the IFP, on numerous occasions this year, has brought to the attention of Parliament and of the Minister the plight of drivers of heavy vehicles;

(2) notes that media reports have once again highlighted the fact that too many drivers of heavy vehicles are medically unfit and generally too fatigued from overwork or contractual obligations; and

(3) urges the Minister of Transport, on account of the aforegoing, to give this matter his immediate and thorough attention so that this problem can be tackled in a visible and effective manner.

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

That the House -

(1) notes that the ANC-led Government has over the past six years -

   (a)  adopted the most progressive democratic constitution throughout
       the world ...

[Interjections.]

   (b)  done away with the discriminatory legislation of the apartheid
       era;
   (c)  passed laws which unite the people of South Africa, regardless
       of race, gender and religious background; and


   (d)  made significant strides in eradicating poverty and building a
       better life for all;

(2) believes that the ANC is the only organisation that can lead the process of change in our country; and

(3) calls on the freedom-loving people of South Africa to vote ANC in the local government elections on 5 December 2000.

[Applause.]

Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes the desperate plea of a South African citizen in a letter published this week in the Citizen newspaper, who writes -

   (a)  that they have broken into her house 34 times over the past 4
       years;


   (b)  that both her son and daughter have also been victims of crime,
       and even her two Rottweilers have been beaten to death; and


   (c)  that she does not have insurance any longer because she is a
       high risk;

(2) further notes that this represents the voice of citizens all over South Africa who have been victims of crime and who are pleading with the Government to do something about the escalating serious crime, which has risen by nearly 40% since 1994; and

(3) urges the Government to deliver on the promise in our Constitution that everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence, from either public or private sources.

Mr S J DE BEER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes the backlogs and funding difficulties that affect the proper delivery of education at schools in rural areas across South Africa;

(2) notes that illiteracy in South Africa remains one of the biggest obstacles for previously disadvantaged people and that illiteracy is especially high amongst those who live in rural areas;

(3) expresses the hope that rural schools will be high on the list of priorities for the additional funding allocated to the Department of Education under the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement; and

(4) urges the Minister of Education to meet with all Education MECs to ensure that existing school facilities are fully utilised and that the current dismal communication of the department with rural teachers is significantly improved to render greater support for their important task.

Mr R J B MOHLALA: 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 President Thabo Mbeki visited Avonwood in Elsies River and opened a children’s park in the area;

(2) further notes that the President has made a clarion call to gangsters to leave children alone, and to the community to help in preventing the rape of young girls;

(3) believes that the statements made by the President reflect his commitment to ensuring a brighter future for the younger generation; and

(4) calls on the gangsters to heed the President’s message and on the community to join hands with the police to fight crime in the area.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the PAC:

That the House notes that -

(1) the PAC is calling for a five-year freeze on genetic engineering;

(2) genetic engineering or genetic modification transfers a section of genetic material from one organism to another;

(3) during the freeze, there must be - (a) a developed system enabling people to exercise their right to choose products free of genetic engineering ingredients; and

   (b)  a comprehensive review of Government policy and legislation
       concerning genetic engineering;

(4) the PAC holds that it is impossible for people to exercise choice over genetically engineered foods due to lack of labeling;

(5) consumers need independent information on health, social, environmental, ethical and other implications raised by introducing new foods, and this is not available; and

(6) there are concerns …

[Time expired.]

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

Dat die Huis -

(1) met kommer kennis neem van die verdere verspreiding van die bek-en- klou-seerpandemie in KwaZulu-Natal;

(2) die Regering versoek om die verskerpte beheermaatreëls genadeloos streng toe te pas;

(3) kennis neem dat die verdere verspreiding van die bek-en-klou- seersiekte ernstige gevolge vir die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie inhou; en

(4) van mening is dat indien die siekte verder sou versprei, die Regering noodmaatreëls en selfs ‘n noodtoestand moet afkondig om ‘n ernstige krisis in die veebedryf van Suid-Afrika en die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie te voorkom. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

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

That the House - (1) notes with concern the further spreading of the foot-and-mouth pandemic in KwaZulu-Natal;

(2) requests the mercilessly strict implementation of the Government’s intensified control measures;

(3) notes that the further spreading of foot-and-mouth disease has serious consequences for the South African economy; and

(4) is of the opinion that, if the disease should spread further, the Government will have to introduce emergency measures and even proclaim a state of emergency in order to avert a serious crisis in the livestock industry of South Africa and the South African economy.]

Ms F B MARSHOFF: 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 statements made by the Democratic Alliance’s mayoral candidate, Mr Peter Marais, claiming that the price of paraffin has gone up by 220% since the ANC came to power in 1994;

(2) further notes that, contrary to his claims, it is common knowledge that the increase in the price of paraffin is a result of the increase in the price of crude oil leading to price increases in all derivatives;

(3) believes that Mr Peter Marais’s statements only serve to deliberately mislead our people and thereby undermine his integrity and that of his party; and

(4) urges the Democratic Alliance to drop Mr Peter Marais as its mayoral candidate as he has become a source of embarrassment to all Capetonians and South Africans.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Ms J A SEMPLE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP and the Democratic Alliance: That the House -

(1) recognises that, between 1995 and 1998, the tourism industry saw an average growth of 15%, but that this boom seems to be over;

(2) notes that tourism has to show an annual growth rate of at least 10% to be really successful, but in 1999 only showed an expansion of 3%;

(3) further notes that for every eight tourists, one job is created and that, last year, 6 million visitors came to South Africa, creating about 800 000 jobs; and

(4) calls on the Government to show its commitment to tourism growth and job creation by tackling problems of security, service standards, poor public transport, pollution and skills training with renewed vigour and enthusiasm in order to attract more tourists and thereby create more jobs for all the people.

Prince N E ZULU: 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) is appalled by the report of a Western Cape mother who strangled her five-year-old daughter to death on the morning of 12 August 2000;

(2) is pained by the fact that the killing is a result of the unhappiness in the marriage of the parents;

(3) is dismayed that the unhappiness in the marriage emanates from the father’s long work periods away from home and away from his family; and

(4) condemns work periods that neglect family values and family responsibilities to the point of despair and senseless killing.

Chief M NONKONYANA: 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 statement by the Movement for Democratic Change that if a blood bath is to be avoided, there has to be an exit strategy for Zimbabwean President, Robert Gabriel Mugabe;

(2) believes this statement is irresponsible and worsens the political tension in the country;

(3) further believes that it is the people of Zimbabwe that will determine the destiny of their President in the presidential elections of 2002; and

(4) calls on the MDC to desist from making irresponsible statements, and to use its representation in Parliament and its opposition status to work towards the strengthening of democracy and reconstruction of Zimbabwe.

[Applause.]

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

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the Western Cape, under the leadership of the DA, is the
       province with the lowest level of unemployment in South Africa
       ...

[Interjections.]

   (b)  Premier Gerald Morkel won the 2000 Golden Star award for doing
       the most to solve unemployment; and


   (c)  Premier Morkel also won the 2000 Golden Arrow award for the
       Premier doing the most to improve his province; and

(2) urges the House to look at the scoreboard as the facts speak for themselves: Only the DA knows how to govern and it is the only party committed to creating a better life for all, not just for some.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Ms A VAN WYK: 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, in the month preceding the municipal government elections -

(1) calls on all registered voters to make use of their democratic right and vote on 5 December 2000;

(2) urges all political parties, candidates and their supporters to conduct the campaign and elections in a responsible manner conducive to democracy; and

(3) wishes the IEC and its officials conducting the elections a trouble- free and peaceful municipal government election which will truly be considered by all to be free and fair.

Mrs F MAHOMED: 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 wave of positive sentiment appears to be lifting South African financial markets;

(2) believes that -

   (a)  sentiments in the local markets have been lifted by a perception
       that interest rates could fall;


   (b)  the tax cuts suggested by the Minister of Finance, Mr Trevor
       Manuel, could boost consumer and investment spending; and


   (c)  the Government's privatisation programme is gathering momentum;
       and

(3) commends the Government for adopting sound macroeconomic policies and pragmatic fiscal policies.

[Applause.]

Mr T M GONIWE: 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 recent political developments in Swaziland;

(2) further notes the land evictions, detention, torture, harassment and brutality of the Swazi police in response to peaceful demonstrations;

(3) believes that these acts constitute a gross violation of human rights, which must be condemned;

(4) calls on all those in positions of authority not to sanction actions of this nature; and

(5) further calls on all role-players and stakeholders in Swaziland to work towards a peaceful resolution of their problems.

[Applause.]

Dr J T DELPORT: 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, noting the panic in the ranks of the ANC with regard to the coming municipal elections, calls upon the voters of South Africa not to be led astray by the promises of the ANC who are bound, once again, to be unable to deliver on those promises.

[Applause.]

      EXTENSION OF TRIAL-RUN PERIOD OF QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That, notwithstanding the resolutions adopted by the House on 21 June 2000 and 13 October 2000, the period for the trial run of questions for oral reply be extended until 14 February 2001.

Agreed to.

ONGOING VIOLENCE IN PALESTINE AND PROSPECTS FOR THE PEACE PROCESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST REGION

                      (Subject for Discussion)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I hereby request, with the consent of all the parties, that you call for the House to rise for a few moments of silence in order to honour the memory of all those who have died in the conflict in the Middle East.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will, due to the wish of the parties, ask the House to rise. Silence please.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, Deputy President and hon members, in 1990 the South African black townships were burning and South Africa was in turmoil. The apartheid system was condemned by the international community as a heinous crime against humanity. The majority of people were not citizens in their own land. Today, who would want to go back to that South Africa?

The road we have travelled since the ushering in of our democratic system has been a steep one. We have learnt hard, but worthwhile, lessons that to listen to the views of others, whatever the differences, is the first step to agreement, and that there can be no peace without mutual respect. That is why this Parliament has made a point of debating major international conflicts so that, where possible, this Parliament can contribute to world peace.

When we look at the crisis in Israel and Palestine we must recognise that emotions run very high within our own country. We must base our opinions and analysis of the conflict in Palestine on sound universal principles. We must not allow the Middle East conflict, tension and violence to be transplanted to our country. We must protect and nurture our young democracy, and we must not let the violence of that conflict take root on our soil.

I want to emphasise that the ANC Government will not tolerate attacks of any kind on Jewish and Muslim individuals or institutions. [Applause.] We must express our opinions calmly and treat opposing views with tolerance and understanding. We must start from the perspective that this is not an issue about Jews or Muslims but about world peace.

When we look for solutions to the conflict, we must make certain recognitions. Firstly, both sides in the conflict are there to stay. Secondly, for peaceful negotiations to resume, an immediate stop to hostilities and violence, from all sides, must take place.

The modern state of Israel was born out of a terrible experience suffered by the Jewish people in Europe, the most terrible human tragedy that this world has seen. There are few Jews today who are not traumatised by this experience, even those born later.

However, we must acknowledge that the creation of the state of Israel created certain problems. What of the rights of the Palestinians who had lived on the land for centuries? Some 700 000 Palestinians fled from what had been British-mandate Palestine. Today, there are four million Palestinian refugees. Their right to return has been reaffirmed every year since 1948, in UN resolution 194 111 which states:

Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so.

This question was never resolved and so the first sticks were laid on the fire.

The ANC has always supported the struggle of the Palestinian people for national liberation, self-determination and the right to reside in the land they call home. [Applause.] By its insensitive acts the state of Israel has been throwing matches on this very dry pile of sticks since it occupied, in 1948, territories that were outside the UN partition plan. I know that it is hard for some to acknowledge this, but it does not help to bury our heads in the sand.

The situation has got steadily worse since the 1967 war. The refusal of Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in terms of resolution 242 of the UN Security Council is the most serious stumbling block to peace in the Middle East. Every house that a settler has built, every immigrant that settles in this territory, has been yet another match. The visit of Ariel Sharon to the Al Aqsa Mosque was one match too many.

We have seen glimmers of hope. The recognition, by the PLO, of the state of Israel in 1988 was a major step forward. For many, the declaration of principle signed by Rabin and Arafat in 1993, with its recognition of the PLO by Israel and limited autonomy, on the surface, held hope.

However, the process was always flawed. The fragmentation of land handed over can only remind us of our own experience of Bantustans, and the inequity of living standards of Israelis and Palestinians has just added fuel to the fire. We need to make the point very strongly that there will never be peace until UN resolutions 242 and 338 are fulfilled. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories. [Applause.]

The future of the Palestinians and the Israelis cannot be separated. The fate of each rests in finding ways of living alongside the other. The world has made its position clear, most recently, in UN Resolution 1322 which states that it:

Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem and the subsequent violence there … condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life.

Even the United States, which has been Israel’s strongest supporter, did not oppose this resolution. Our Government supports this resolution, and we, as the ANC, endorse it. We do not harbour any prejudice based on race, religion or ideology. Our values are based on our commitment to human rights.

The existence of the state of Israel is a reality that we do not question. But we cannot accept the use of excessive force against the Palestinians, especially against children and young people. We must condemn the collective punishment of the Palestinian people for the acts of individuals. We condemn Israel’s refusal to abide by the UN resolutions. We call on the progressive forces in Israel to unite and raise their voices against this carnage and against such excessive force that results in such huge civilian losses. With 15 times more casualties amongst Palestinians than Israelis it must surely touch the soul of any humanist. As the ANC, we call on the ordinary people of Israel and Palestine to embrace peace, to speak out against the provocative acts of leaders who use conflict to advance their personal agendas, and to speak out against the rash who act without thinking. We call on progressive forces throughout the world to offer support to all those who seek a real solution.

We also support the establishment of an international mechanism for a speedy and objective settlement. This must consist of representatives from a wide range of countries who have not shown bias to one side, especially the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and other reputable international organisations and statesmen, in addition to the United States.

South Africans of all faiths and political persuasions must unite against this terrible war, and show that we share a common commitment to peace in the Middle East, a just and lasting peace that will allow Israelis and Palestinians to live in their own peaceful sovereign state with secure borders and the ability to compete freely and equally in the economic arena. [Applause.]

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, all of us in this House are concerned by the continuing violence in the Middle East which has tragically claimed the lives of at least 163 people since 28 September. We condemn the human rights violations and any disruption of the peace process, albeit in a far-off land which is close to our hearts.

I do, however, find it very interesting that Mr Yengeni managed to find 79 minutes of Parliament’s time to debate the Middle East crisis today, while he has never sought nor found one minute of Parliament’s time to introduce a motion, on his own or on his party’s behalf, on tragic events much closer to home, where we have a direct sphere of influence and we have some chance of correction. These tragic events pertain to the murder of 204 police officers this year, 361 farmers or 24 000 South African citizens. [Interjections.] That is a shameful indictment of the priorities of the Chief Whip. He prefers to waste Parliament’s time on matters over which our influence is marginal, and refuses to discuss matters for which we are directly responsible.

However, since he has started this discussion, I want to say this: We call upon the parties in the Middle East conflict and their leaders to work to bring about peace in the region and negotiate, in peaceful circumstances, a lasting settlement of the issues which divide them. Indeed, if they can follow any instruction from us, it is only this - they should follow the South African approach to negotiations.

While conscious of the rights of individuals and organisations in South Africa to hold views on all aspects of the conflict and to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech, this should not result in any violent actions by any party. As South Africans, we know that there is only one place for such conflicts to go, and that is back to the negotiation table.

I think it is instructive and noteworthy that former President Mandela has offered to mediate in restoring negotiations between the Palestinian National Authority and the Israeli government. I think that is perhaps appropriate. Both parties need to reaffirm their commitment to the Oslo Peace Accord of 1993, which recognises two fundamental pillars of peacemaking: Firstly, Israel’s right to exist within secure borders; secondly, there should be equal acknowledgement of the rights of Palestinians to self-determination.

In Mr Yengeni’s speech this afternoon there were two simultaneous and contradictory elements. On the one hand there was, at the beginning, an inclusive, nation-building, tolerant-of-diversity approach. Although it is fast disappearing, it still exists among one or two brave souls on the Government benches. But there is another strand in the ANC, which we saw on display today from the same speaker, that is divisive, destructive, intolerant, and partisan. [Interjections.] Because while the hon Mr Yengeni comes here as an apostle of peace and reconciliation, the truth is that he has deliberately misstated the opposition’s view on the very issue under discussion. He has even gone so far as to call upon the Leader of the Opposition to speak and break the silence when, in fact, I have broken my so-called silence … [Interjections] … and spoken 48 hours before his speech. [Interjections.]

The ugly and unacceptable face of the ANC is personified in the person of the Chief Whip because he has, in a reprehensible way, sought to misrepresent the position of others on this very sensitive and delicate matter. [Interjections.] Indeed, getting a pious lecture on human rights from Mr Yengeni is a little like getting a talk on childcare from King Herod. [Interjections.]

I find it interesting that, in the hon Yengeni’s speech today, he said - and he might be correct because he said it - that Israel’s actions are the most serious stumbling block in the Middle East peace process. [Interjections.] I have just said yes, but he asks: Do you deny it?

If this is correct, why is it that the ANC Government has, over the last three years - no doubt it is continuing to do so this year - provided no less than R42 million worth of arms and ammunition to the same Israeli government? [Interjections.] Why is it? Why has Prof Asmal’s committee, the blue ribbon Arms Control Committee, given the green light to those arms sales, if what Mr Yengeni says is correct?

I am not sure that today’s motion does any favour to any side in this conflict. I do not think that if I announce my position - perhaps the hon member can read figures a little bit better than he can hear - … [Interjections] … it will promote peace in the Middle East by one millimetre or one jot. However, I think we are in danger, with motions of this kind, of turning Parliament into the theatre of the absurd. [Interjections.] Passions can be inflamed locally or one can oversimplify the problem, or state the facts.

There is a big difference between the hon Mr Yengeni and myself. I have sought out and met with the leaders of the Palestinian National Authority, from Chairman Arafat, whom I have met, to Mr Arakat, to yesterday’s meeting with Mr El-Herfi. Has Mr Yengeni, once, ever, a single time, had a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel or even, in preparation for today’s debate … [Interjections] … met with the ambassador of Israel? Of course, the answer is: No. [Interjections.]

This is not an even-handed approach to peace. This is an attempt to import a foreign and tragic conflict for domestic political purposes. [Interjections.] It has everything to do with the local elections, and nothing to do with international peacemaking. [Interjections.] That is the truth. [Applause.] We must reject it, and we should stand up for human rights and for peace. We must stand on the side of the position which accords with the deepest beliefs of all moderate and decent Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians in South Africa. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think it would be wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to ask Mr Yengeni whether the President of this country has met both Mr Arafat and Prime Minister Barak. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon Minister, I am sure you can have time to correct any factual errors.

Hon Mr Leon, in your speech you said that the Chief Whip of the ANC, Mr Yengeni, had deliberately misstated what you had been saying. Just yesterday, I again drew the attention of the House to the fact that to say misinterpreting'' andmisstating’’ was one thing, but to say ``deliberately’’ was the equivalent of saying that somebody was lying. Accordingly, I must ask you to withdraw that statement.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, the hon the Minister of Finance referred to the hon the Leader of the Opposition as ``cowardly’’, as he was returning to his seat, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw that word.

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Manuel, from your nod I assume you did say that. Could you please withdraw it?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I am sorry, but I cannot hear you, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Would you please withdraw the words that Mr Andrew has accused you of having used. If you did not say that, please say so.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, yes, I did say that the hon Leon is a coward. Are you asking me to withdraw that?

The SPEAKER: Yes, I am.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, for the sake of form in the House, I will withdraw that. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, please be seated. We have been through this before. When you are asked to withdraw, please withdraw, and do not qualify your withdrawal, Mr Manuel.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, it is very sad that the very serious subject that we are discussing is now turning into a personal fight between the ANC, which apparently sides with the Palestinians and the DP, which apparently sides with Israel. [Interjections.] That is the impression hon members are creating. I think we should stop this personal fight and these accusations, and we should confine ourselves to the very, very serious matter that is on the Order Paper. The IFP wants to make it very clear that we are not interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries, and that we do not side with either of the conflicting parties in the Middle East.

What we are discussing today is a very sad situation in that territory of the Middle East, a country which is both beautiful and filled with innumerable historical treasures for both Christians and Muslims. Both Jesus Christ and the prophet Mohammed, walked there. I have been privileged to visit those areas on a number of occasions, and every time I left them with a bleeding heart - a bleeding heart because of the continuous conflict, hate and bitterness.

This land has reminded me of the poem by the famous South African poet, N P van Wyk Louw who, referring to South Africa, but which may very well be applicable to the Middle East, wrote:

O wye en droewe land, alleen onder die suider sterre sal nooit ‘n höe blydskap kom deur jou stil droefnis.

We were once again reminded of the ongoing conflict when, at the end of September, violence erupted in that area. Whatever our initial reaction may be, none of us can claim to be unmoved by the sight of dead and dying children, or by stories of soldiers being kidnapped and lynched in public in a graphic illustration of so-called mob justice. None of us can honestly say that these horrible images leave us cold.

The IFP deplores the senseless loss of life and wanton destruction in the name of, on the one hand, aspiration, and on the other, security. Neither of these ideals will ever be fulfilled in the cauldron of violence that we are witnessing.

Over the past few weeks we have heard many comparisons between South African apartheid and the situation facing the Middle East. I am not going to test the veracity of these comparisons, but I want to highlight one lesson because hon members should know it. I want to highlight one lesson from our own experience in a humble and well-intended message to both Israelis and Palestinians.

My South African message has its origin in 1990 and the outcome in 1994, and it comes in three parts. Firstly, Israelis and Palestinians have to realise, and accept, that violence will not achieve a solution to their problems; secondly, Israelis and Palestinians have to accept that they need each other to find a solution; thirdly, both parties have to accept that the solution will only be found through honest negotiations, and no other way. This is the message the IFP wishes to send to Israelis and Palestinians, without taking sides. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: [Inaudible.] Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Yes, one can take lessons from the South African experience. The hon member is going to have an opportunity to talk, and we will listen to him. So, he should not talk nonsense while I am talking. [Laughter.]

Yes, one can take lessons from the South African experience. We want to say to both parties that there is no such thing as irreconcilable differences. Every problem has a solution. They should not stumble over the rocks of their history. They should move speedily and boldly to their future.

In conclusion, I want to appeal to all South Africans that we should not waste time and opportunity by engaging in recriminations about the history of the Middle East and all the resolutions and so on, because then we are taking sides and thus making it impossible for those people to reach a solution. Rather, let us help, where we can, by utilising the experience of our own peaceful, negotiated settlement. Let us leave it to the Palestians and the Israelis to find their own solution, and let us not interfere and prescribe to them what they must do.

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, may I just point out to the hon Koos van der Merwe that the leader of the Democratic Alliance did not choose sides. He only stated some objective facts which apparently the ANC did not like to hear.

The killing of a 12-year-old boy who got caught in the crossfire, is a tragic event which should never have happened. The lynching of two Israeli soldiers in the police station at Ramallah, is a tragic event which should never have happened. As a matter of fact, the eruption of violence in the Middle East, once again, is a tragic event which should never have happened.

Violence will not solve anything in the Middle East. The only way out for the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael is to come to terms with each other on the basis of a whole-hearted acknowledgement by both sides of the right to secure an independent statehood. Full implementation of the Oslo Accords, which guarantee an independent state of Palestine and the safety and security of the state of Israel, is therefore of paramount importance.

Where there is a commitment to peace - and South Africa is a good example in this regard - no obstacle is insurmountable. The latest Camp David Summit clearly demonstrated that agreement is possible even on the most sensitive issues, such as the position of Jerusalem. According to all local and international press reports on the summit, Palestinian sovereignty over Muslim and Christian quarters of the old city of Jerusalem, was put on the table for the first time since 1967. Ninety per cent of the West Bank, allocated to the Palestinians, was also part of a peace deal which could eventually result in the withdrawal from certain occupied territories, provided the peace process remains on track.

A prerequisite for a permanent peace settlement in the Middle East, however, is full acceptance thereof and compliance therewith by all role- players, including radical groups in Israel as well as in Palestine. The peace process can no longer be held captive by radicals on both sides with hidden political or religious agendas.

The fact that important countries in the region, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, do not recognise Israel’s right to statehood is also a stumbling block to the peace settlement. Hopefully, these countries will follow in the footsteps of Egypt and Jordan in this regard. This may also expedite full implementation of the Oslo Accords. The Middle East is actually beyond South Africa’s sphere of influence, and the leader of the Democratic Alliance referred to that. It is, however, our duty to use the little influence we have to urge the parties to go back to the negotiating table because the alternative is too ghastly to contemplate.

Intussen durf ons nie toelaat dat die konflik in die Midde-Ooste ‘n politieke speelbal word tydens die munisipale verkiesings nie. Ongeag ons dienstige of kulturele bande wat ons aan die Midde-Ooste bind, moet ons Suid-Afrikaanse patriotisme ons daarvan weerhou om enige onverantwoordelike dinge in Suid-Afrika aan te vang wat verband hou met die Midde-Oosterse konflik. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[In the meantime we dare not allow the conflict in the Middle East to become a political football during the municipal elections. Regardless of the expedient or cultural links tying us to the Middle East, our South African patriotism should keep us from getting up to anything irresponsible in South Africa that may be linked to the conflict in the Middle East.]

Prof B TUROK: Madam Speaker, this debate is taking place under the eyes of diplomats from the Arab states and Israel. It therefore behoves us to be calm, objective and principled. It is therefore my duty to say that the speech by the hon the Leader of the Opposition was the most inappropriate fight-back speech he has ever made. [Interjections.]

I want to start with a personal statement. I have tried to train myself to be objective in South Africa. [Interjections.] My social origins as a white privileged youth, surrounded by underprivileged black people, meant that I had to think with my head and not with my skin. In this debate, too, I want to think with my brain and not with my ethnic origins.

My parents were Jewish refugees, first from anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia and later from fascist thugs in Latvia. They might easily have landed up in Israel instead of South Africa since Israel was established as a haven for refugees from anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, in South Africa they also encountered massive anti-Semitism under the NP and the predecessors of some of the people sitting on that side of the House. [Applause.] Let me remind hon members that John Vorster was a Nazi and he was interned for that reason, but now under our Government we have created a multiracial, multireligious, multicultural society, where all Jews can live in peace and harmony. Let us all applaud that. [Applause.]

The South African Government has been highly responsible with respect to the situation in the Middle East. It has recognised the governments of both Palestine and Israel. It has condemned the activities of bands of armed civilians of both the Israeli and Palestinians sides, and this as recently as 12 October. It has expressed grave concern for the safety of three Israeli soldiers. It has implored all leaders to recommit themselves to peace, and at the same time it has called upon the Israeli government to abide by the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in times of war, because of the excessive use of force against civilians. It has condemned the actions of collective punishment, where armed soldiers fire at random on protestors in a manner that we were familiar with in the old South Africa. The South African Government has called for the centrality of the United Nations as a custodian of peace and security. The South African Government has tried to be even-handed, despite the problematic background in that area. Let me remind the House that in 1948 Israel was established by force of arms. It was established against the armed might of Britain, but the victims of that conflict were not British. The victims were Palestinians. When the British troops left Palestine, 700 000 Palestinians had to flee as Israel annexed large tracts of land.

The outcome of this history was a patchwork of occupied land, riddled with violence, instability and injustice. Nevertheless, despite that turbulent history, the United Nations finally came to decide that Israel had the right to exist, as our Chief Whip has emphasised. Resolution 242 guaranteed the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area. This was followed by the Oslo Accord of 1993 - an agreement, again historic, between Israel and the PLO. So after decades of struggle and nonrecognition, Israel and the PLO have come together in that environment to discuss the future, because both sides have rights.

Palestinians want self-determination. The people of Israel want security. Both have rights and this is now declared by the United Nations Security Council and by our Government. Fortunately, the gap can be closed. In 1988 Arafat recognised the state of Israel and condemned all forms of terrorism. In 1993 Israel recognised the PLO and ceded limited autonomy. Therefore it is appropriate for this House to have this debate and appeal to the people of Israel to implement the policy of self-determination for the Arab people, the Palestinians, because that is the route to peace. [Applause.]

Let me also remind the House that this conflict between Jews and Arabs has had serious effects inside Israel itself. There has been major conflict of a political kind among Jewish people in Israel. It is not as though there is an agreed policy and a single political position.

There are conflicting forces in Israel. Half the population are said to favour self-determination for Israel. Let me remind hon members that Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated because of his position on the Palestinians. He was replaced by Peres and then Peres was replaced by Netanyahu. Netanyahu was replaced by Barak and now Peres is back in negotiations. All this reflects massive instability, massive confusion, and political problems within Israel itself. And therefore, when we say we want peace in the Middle East, it is also to safeguard the future of the people of Israel.

The legacy of this conflict has created a patchwork of territory, as has rightly being pointed out - a kind of Bantustan system. This is not an area that is governable. It is a state without a state. It is not governable, and the world must pay attention to the future of the Palestinians and the people of the whole area, because just as Bantustans were not a solution for South Africa, so this patchwork of territory is not a solution for Palestine or Israel itself. [Applause.]

Let me say that as we watch TV every night, one is so distressed at the action of heavily armed soldiers against youngsters who are throwing stones with catapults. This reminds one of Soweto. It reminds us of the atrocities of the apartheid regime, and I appeal to the government of Israel and to all their supporters and their diplomats upstairs to call off this kind of violence.

People will demonstrate. They have the right to do so. Armies must not retaliate with the kind of heavy weaponry that we have seen on our television screens. [Applause.] I think it is also appropriate, in my last few seconds, to say that the actions of General Sharon, who is not an isolated individual but a leader of the opposition, created his situation and that must be recognised by everybody, including that side of the House. [Applause.]

Mr B H HOLOMISA: Madam Speaker, Deputy President and hon members, the solution to the Middle East conflict lies in the recognition and acceptance by both Israel and the Palestinians of the reality and legitimacy of each other’s claim to the right to exist as a sovereign state.

The seeds of the dispute were sown along the troubled course of Middle Eastern history ever since the birth of Israel in 1948, when its sovereignty as a Jewish state and homeland was conferred on it by the UN. The Six Day War in 1967 and the war of 1973 resulted in a radical shift in the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of Israel. One tragic consequence of that shift in the balance of power was the disintegration of the Palestinian community in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip which came to be occupied by the Israelis. The Palestinians became refugees scattered amongst the neighbouring Arab states of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon.

The current bloody conflict afflicting the Middle East must stop as a matter of urgency. The cessation of hostilities will only be sustainable if the playing field is truly levelled. The Israeli’s hand has been strengthened by the inconsistency of the big western powers’ policy on disarmament in the region. Their policies, inspired and energetically executed by the USA, have severely curtailed the military capacity of the Arab states, whilst no effort has been spared in arming Israel and elevating it to a regional superpower. These military disparities are at the centre of Israel’s aggression and recalcitrance in peace negotiations.

That scenario is not conducive to an equitable settlement. The UN must seriously review the military imbalance and take drastic measures to disarm Israel in the same way they have disarmed other Arab states. This will bring about military parity, which is a precondition for a lasting peace settlement.

The rest of the world can no longer remain spectators and be content with watching the uneven conflict and scores of people losing their lives. The international community will fail in its duty to uphold the principles of the UN charter which guarantees freedom and national self-determination of all people, if it does not intervene and share equally, with the USA, the role of mediation and brokering of peace in the affected areas.

The settlement will not be sustainable in a duopolitical environment characterised by carrot-and-stick diplomacy. Both sides of the conflict must accept the levelling of the playing field and agree in principle to physical demarcations that will facilitate the emergence of economically viable political entities.

Some South African communities have strong ethnic links with the Middle East. These communities must not allow these ethnic sentiments to cloud their objectivity in their evaluation of the situation and in suggesting solutions.

Finally, a partisan approach will widen the chasm dividing the warring sides and hamper reconciliation. Let us wisely use our own successful experience in conflict resolution to attempt reconciliation to foster a lasting solution to the Middle East crisis. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, the ACDP regrets the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, and we would love to see a speedy resolution to this crisis. We support all initiatives that will bring peace and stability in the Middle East, thereby avoiding further loss of life, injury, destruction of property and other forms of suffering.

Nonviolence, we believe, is the only way to lasting peace and stability. No matter how long the negotiations proceed, the ACDP wishes to see Israel’s survival guaranteed and Palestinian self-determination realised to ensure that coexistence of both the Israeli and Palestinian people is guaranteed.

The ACDP believes in peace and nonviolence, and will therefore not support calls by any religious or emotional group for the death of Israel. All nations were created by God, and they have the right to exist. Problems between nations and ethnic groups must be addressed and peaceful solutions found, no matter how long it takes.

We will all do well to heed the advice of King David, where he says, in Psalm 122:

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May those who love you be secure. May there be peace within your walls and security within your citadels.'' For the sake of my brothers and friends, I will say,Peace be within you’’.

Lastly, the ACDP calls on our Government to work impartially when dealing with the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Leaders of political parties must act with maturity and responsibility, and stop inflaming people’s emotions for political gain. We also appeal to the Department of Foreign Affairs, in particular, not to take a partisan approach, but to be even-handed when dealing with the complex issue of the Middle East.

We dare not lose hope, and we must not give up on peaceful negotiations. [Applause.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, it is quite remarkable how much time and attention the hon Chief Whip, Mr Yengeni, has to devote to foreign affairs. He is becoming like an alternative Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is, in fact, the poor man’s Aziz, but perhaps Dr Zuma needs a second man to carry her bags. [Interjections.]

When he is not spending three weeks in Zimbabwe, holding hands with President Mugabe while our Parliament is sitting, then he has time to be involved in the Middle East crisis. Instead of paying attention to the job for which he is paid, which is to run Parliament properly, he is spending time on foreign affairs and on hot air.

While pretending to be high-minded, he inflames feelings for political purposes. But, of course, we understand why he is doing this. He is desperate to focus the attention of the people of South Africa on anything other than ANC failures. [Interjections.] The ANC has failed South Africans in the job field. Millions of South Africans and I remember the promises of jobs'',jobs’’ and ``jobs’’. [Interjections.]

Mr Yengeni does not … [Interjections.] It is much more convenient to talk about the Middle East. Millions of South Africans and I are concerned about the failure of the Government to bring crime under control. Again, the ANC would prefer to talk about the Middle East. [Interjections.] Of course, we all care about the Middle East and the loss of life there, but I want to say that it pales into insignificance against the tens of thousands of South Africans who have been murdered since this Government came into power, and the millions more who are dying from Aids and Aids-related diseases. [Interjections.]

South Africans do not feel safe in their homes, in the streets and at work. And Parliament, instead of talking about things we could and should be doing something about, debates the Middle East, about which we can do nothing. [Interjections.]

The hon Chief Whip also seems to me to have abused his office. How did this debate get priority and precedence on the Order Paper without consultation with any of the parties? [Interjections.] The debate on the budget, which affects 42 million South Africans, has been cut to 30 minutes so that the hon Mr Yengeni’s ``foefie’’ can get time for debate in Parliament. Many of us are happy that he will be a candidate for redeployment by the hon Deputy …

Ms D P S JANA: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The hon Gibson has not said one word on the topic. He is … [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, that was not a very clever point of order, but we do not expect Priscilla to be very clever.

Many of us hope that the hon Chief Whip will start doing properly the job that he should be doing. If he is tired of it or bored with life here, he should apply to the Deputy President’s ANC redeployment committee, and he should seek a job in a nice place - somewhere in one of those bastions of human rights, such as Libya, Cuba or Iraq. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, the Palestinian people are entitled to freedom and justice in their own state, and we in the FF support their right to this. But the Israeli people are also entitled to freedom and justice in their own state, and we in the FF also support their right to that. The way to give effect to this reality is through territorial self- determination. Everybody recognises and agrees with this. Die ANC het Dinsdag nog in ‘n voorstel in hierdie Huis sy weersin uitgespreek oor die ontkenning van die Palestynse volk se reg op selfbeskikking. Verder het die ANC in daardie voorstel die Palestyne verseker van sy ongekwalifiseerde steun in hulle strewe na vryheid, selfbeskikking en geregtigheid. Die ANC se steun vir selfbeskikking en vryheid word deur die VF verwelkom. Artikel 235 van die Grondwet van Suid- Afrika maak presies voorsiening vir territoriale selfbeskikking vir gemeenskappe gebind deur gemeenskaplike kultuur- en taalerfenis wat dit sou verkies. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[As recently as last Tuesday, the ANC expressed its disgust, in a motion in this House, at the denial of the Palestinian nation’s right to self- determination. In that motion the ANC furthermore assured the Palestinians of its unqualified support for their pursuit of freedom, self-determination and justice. The FF welcomes the ANC’s support for self-determination and freedom. Section 235 of the Constitution of South Africa specifically provides for territorial self-determination for communities, bound by a common cultural and language heritage, which would prefer this option.] May I remind the House and hon Minister Pahad that this ANC Government, under the signature of hon President Mbeki, has solemnly undertaken in an accord to address the issue of Afrikaner self-determination, including territorial self-determination. This has not been done and this problem and issue will not go away. It will need to be resolved.

Feit van die saak is, Jasser Arafat het 9 September 2000 gestel as die datum waarop Palestinië onafhanklik wil word, maar hy het dit nie reggekry nie. Nou blyk dit hulle gaan deur middel van konflik en geweld en amper ‘n poging om Israel onregeerbaar te maak, probeer om dit af te dwing, maar dit sal nie slaag nie. Die partye in die konflik moet besef die eerste prys van ‘n probleem bly ‘n internasionaal erkende onderhandelde skikking.

Ten slotte het ek rede om te glo dat die ANC-regering baie goeie kontak met die Palestyne het. Kan ek hulle goeie advies gee? Hulle moet vir die Palestyne sê Ehud Barak en Ariel Sharon is nie Roelf Meyer wat sonder meer gaan kapituleer nie. Hulle moet dit onthou. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The fact of the matter is that Yasser Arafat set 9 September 2000 as the date on which Palestine wanted to become independent, but he has not succeeded in this. Now it would appear that they are going to try to enforce this through conflict and violence and a virtual attempt to make Israel ungovernable, but this will not succeed. The parties to the conflict should realise that the first prize in solving a problem remains an internationally recognised, negotiated settlement.

Lastly, I have reason to believe that the ANC Government has very close ties with the Palestinians. May I give them some good advice? They must tell the Palestinians that Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon are not like Roelf Meyer and will not capitulate without further ado. They must remember this.]

Mr M S MANIE: Madam Speaker, Mr Tony Leon stated here in this debate, and I quote what he said …

An HON MEMBER: The hon Leon!

Mr M S MANIE: He is Mr Tony Leon, that is as far as I will go. He said … The SPEAKER: Hon member! Please take your seat. You are well aware that the normal form of address in this House is to address each other as ``hon member’’. Please, will you do so?

Mr M S MANIE: Under your direction, I will call the member honourable and in future I shall also be honourable to him. The hon Tony Leon stated here in this House a few minutes ago to everybody here that this debate is a waste of time. Now he will deny it, but the hon members can listen to the recording. He said that this debate is a waste of time. I say that those who say this debate is a waste of time need say very little else because that reflects what they feel about what the whole world is condemning out there. Instead of addressing the issues and expressing themselves on these issues, they launch a vicious attack on the Chief Whip to try and deflect what the real issues are, so that they do not have to commit themselves in what they have to say. [Interjections.]

However, let me say that this debate is critical for us in South Africa. It is critical for us because, firstly, if we do not handle this situation correctly, it has the potential to spill over into big problems for us here in our own country. Secondly, it also offers us the opportunity as people here in this country to say how we feel once again about what is happening in another country. People who have had an experience like ours are compelled to express themselves.

At the outset let me say that the struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination within secure borders is a just struggle. So any fair- minded person will have little choice but to join the rest of the world in condemning outright the excessive use of military forces against the Palestinian people. Where have we seen and how can we justify heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and tanks being used against people who are armed with stones and catapults? This did not even happen in the worst days of apartheid.

What I must say is that these hon members must not talk about apartheid, because they were the perpetrators of apartheid. They do not know what it was like to be on the receiving end of this kind of actions that we are seeing on TV. [Interjections.] Let me say that we are not condemning the Jews; we are condemning the actions that internationally people are condemning. We are condemning actions that we find unacceptable, and the reason why many Muslims in South Africa and elsewhere are outraged is not only the killings. Yes, that is a major area, but this thing is also because of the actions of Sharon, who, with the desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque, turned this into an international religious issue as well. So Muslims will be outraged for two reasons, and that is what we have to take into account.

The clashes between pro-Palestinian supporters and police outside the US and Israeli embassies in Pretoria gave rise to a real possibility that the violence in the Middle East could spill over into South Africa. All activities or statements that make it more difficult for us to resolve the bigger problem or create local tensions must be avoided. Everything we do should be tested against whether we are assisting in bringing about peaceful negotiation or not. We are all South Africans and we should exercise tolerance and respect towards one another. In South Africa we need to build bridges between the different communities because South Africa cannot prosper if all of us do not work together to achieve common objectives in our country.

In this regard, I would like to share with the members what I have done with a colleague of mine. Comrade Andrew Feinstein and I, several months ago, long before this problem erupted in Palestine, embarked on a programme in which we said that what we wanted to do was start building bridges between the two communities, so that problems generated elsewhere did not find expression here in our own country. [Applause.] We have appeared jointly on radio stations to try to give different views and perspectives on some of these issues, sensitive as they may be. We have made comments to the print media and we are urging and encouraging people to embark on practical ways to close the divide that exists between Muslims and Jews in South Africa, because Jews and Muslims are an integral part of the South African rainbow nation. As much as anybody else, they are an important and integral part of that.

To me the Democratic Alliance’s stance on this crisis is shocking. Really, it is shocking to me, since they are the ones who are normally so vocal about anything that happens outside South Africa. Let me say at the outset that I regard what is happening in Zimbabwe as absolutely important, but if we think of the amount of Parliament’s time that has been used on the debates and issues that they have put forward for us to discuss about Zimbabwe - yes, it was important, but why then, can they not see the importance of what is happening in Palestine? [Interjections.]

I want to ask this question: Is it because of the differences that exist within the Democratic Alliance? This unholy alliance that they have has brought the old NP together with the old or new DP - I do not know who is new and who is old anymore! [Interjections.] We know for a fact that the old NP supported the old Nazi government. Is that not perhaps the reason why they cannot find a common position to express themselves on this issue. [Applause.]

In conclusion, the other thing that begs the point is the question of Shahied Esauw and Yagya Adams, the new Muslim recruits to the DP … [Interjections.]

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: You are jealous!

Mr M S MANIE: Now that they are not making statements I am hoping that these two people will have the guts, as DP members, to express themselves unequivocally on the violence. [Time expired.] [Applause.] Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, violence continues unabated in the Middle East and innocent lives continue to be lost as a result of these Israeli-Palestinian clashes, which are in their second month.

The cause of the violence is well known worldwide. The danger lies in the fact that if this low-intensity war - despite assurances from Israeli and Palestinian authorities that they are committed to the peace processes - is not brought under control, it has the potential to spill over to other regions and the consequences will be fatal. It is time the South African Government made its views known on the ongoing violence in the Middle East.

The Israeli fear of delivering justice to the Palestinians, which the world demands, is compounded by their insecurity that they may be signing their own death warrant. It is our view that there will be no winner in the Middle East if no compromise is reached. The Islamic nation’s alleged rejection of Israel’s right to exist will not solve the Middle East problem. The reality is that Palestinian victory cannot be achieved through the elimination of the Israeli state and the establishment of a Palestinian- Islamic hegemony over the whole of Israel. Also, the issue of Israeli’s refusal to engage with the Palestinians on fundamental issues that have given rise to the prevailing violence in the region should be addressed by the UN as a matter of priority, ie peace should be restored and Israeli’s bombardment of the Palestinians should cease with immediate effect. The same pressure should be applied to the Palestinian leadership to preach peace amongst their supporters. The Hisbollah leader’s call on Palestinians to launch more suicide bombings against Israel will only serve to fuel the prevailing situation.

The Oslo Accord should be revisited, as it has partly provided a solution to the problems in the Middle East. The accord incorporates specific clauses agreed upon regarding the Palestinian territory and better treatment for Israeli-Arabs within the context of peaceful Arab-Israeli coexistence.

History has shown that violence breeds violence and cannot, as a result, achieve any political objective or a long-lasting peace in the Middle East. [Time expired.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, the international community has been seized with the Palestinian question for a long time. Condemnations of violence and aggression by Israel are not enough. They will not bring back to life the children, women and men who have been massacred and continue to be massacred. The Palestinian question demands action to end this tragedy.

The Palestinian situation was created by those who are now conspicuous by their silence over the Palestinian question. The authors of the Balfour Declaration, which led to the Palestinian problem in 1948, are well known. It is imperative that they deal with their own creature, whose birth was, indeed, very bloody. As long ago as 1967 the UN Security Council, through Resolution 242, called on Israel to withdraw from all territories being occupied by force in the Middle East.

The PAC has painfully observed that many Western countries have used a double standard in the handling of the Middle East situation. This has been to the extent where Israel was allowed to develop lethal weapons, including nuclear weapons, while its neighbours were denied this sovereign right by war and sanctions. Consequently, Israel is well-armed and has become a law unto itself, hence its defiance of the UN resolutions regarding the people of Palestine. The PAC has had much sympathy for the Jews who have suffered a holocaust, because Africans have also suffered the worst holocaust in history. It is disturbing that people who claim to have suffered under Nazism can be so insensitive to the suffering of the Palestinians, who have known no peace for over 50 years. [Applause.] Sanctions have been imposed on a numbers of countries in the Middle East by the US and Britain, but not once on Israel.

The PAC wants to be friends with Israel, but this country must recognise the rights of the Palestinian people and respect their territorial integrity. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mevrou die Speaker, vandag se debat is vir my net weer eens ‘n bewys dat die illusie van een reënboognasie nog nie werklikheid geword het nie. Gooi ‘n knuppel in die hoenderhok en elkeen val terug in sy ou etniese, historiese en godsdienstig-kulturele loopgraaf. Vandag se debat is daarvan ‘n bewys.

Die Israel-Palestynse probleem is so oud so die mensdom self en dateer terug na die dae van Jakob en Esau, Ismael en Isak. Dit het uitgegroei tot, nie net ‘n politieke stryd nie, maar ‘n godsdiensoorlog tussen Judaisme en Islam. Die probleem waaroor dit gaan, is wat beskou word as ‘n stuk heilige grond, Jerusalem.

Twee faktore noodsaak my om te pleit vir neutraliteit en geen inmenging. Eerstens, die Christelike geloof wat ek en ondersteuners van die AEB en 75% van mense in Suid-Afrika bely, ken nie iets soos ‘n heilige oorlog nie. Die aanvalswapen van die Christen is die swaard van die Gees, die Woord van God, volgens Efesiërs: 6, en nie die wapen nie. Tweedens, kragtens die Grondwet, wat godsdiensvryheid onderskryf, mag die Suid-Afrikaanse Regering hom nie inlaat met ‘n godsdiensstryd nie.

In die lig hiervan het ek ‘n paar ernstige vrae. Volgens mediaberigte was die Adjunk-direkteur-Generaal van Buitelandse Sake belas met die Midde- Ooste aan die voorpunt van ‘n optog ter ondersteuning van Palestina. Ek vra die agb Minister of sy haar oor die waarheid daarvan vergewis het? Is dit met haar medewete gedoen? Watter stappe sal oorweeg word? Is die agb Minister bereid om daarvoor verskoning aan te bied? [Tussenwerpsels.]

Mnr S ABRAM: Mev die Speaker, op ‘n punt van orde: kan die agb lid ‘n bietjie aan my verduidelik waar in die Bybel die stellings staan wat hy nou maak? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, today’s debate once again proves to me that the illusion of a rainbow nation has not become a reality yet. Set a cat among the pigeons, and everyone retreats to their own ethnic, historic and religious cultural trenches. Today’s debate is proof of this.

The Israeli-Palestinian problem is as old as humanity itself and dates back to the days of Jacob and Esau, Ismail and Isaac. It has developed into not only a political struggle, but a religious war between Judaism and Islam. The cause of this is what is regarded as a piece of holy land, Jerusalem.

Two factors necessitate my pleading for neutrality and no interference. Firstly, the Christian religion that supporters of the AEB and 75% of the people in South Africa and I practise, does not recognise any such thing as a holy war. The Christian is armed with the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, according to Ephesians: 6, and not with weapons of war. Secondly, according to the Constitution, which endorses freedom of religion, the South African Government may not become involved in a religious war.

In view of this, I have a few serious questions. According to media reports the Deputy Director-General of Foreign Affairs entrusted with matters pertaining to the Middle East led a march in support of Palestine. I am asking the hon the Minister whether she has ascertained how true this is. Was this done with her knowledge? What steps will be considered? Is the hon the Minister prepared to apologise for this? [Interjections.]

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon member please explain to me where in the Bible the statements he is making appear?]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, that is not a point of order. Mr Aucamp, will you proceed, please.

Mnr C AUCAMP: Ek het Efesiërs 6 aangehaal.

Die verteenwoordiging van ‘n bepaalde minderheidsgroep kry die erkenning en status van ‘n ambassadeur. Meneer Yasser Arafat kry die erkenning van ‘n staathoof wanneer ons President ingehuldig word. Kan ek hieruit aflei dat die Regering konsekwent sal wees en geen beswaar sal hê as Afrikaners, wanneer ‘n Afrikanerraad gestig word, buitelandse erkenning in die lande van Europa en Amerika vra nie?

Laastens, gister het die LP’s ‘n stel dokumente uitgedeel wat van die portefeuljekomitee af kom. Ek sien hierin ‘n skisofreniese tweeslagtigheid. Regeringsdokumente is objektief korrek, en ANC-dokumente uit en uit pro- Palestina.

Dis is fataal en gevaarlik vir Suid-Afrika. Sy status in die wêreldgalery van lande kom in die gedrang en die Palestynse onderrok wat uithang, maak dat die stryd wat daar plaasvind hom kan verplaas na Suid-Afrika, en dit gaan vir ons fataal wees. Ons pleit vir nie-inmenging en objektiwiteit.[Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: I quoted Ephesians 6. The representation of a specific minority group receives the recognition and status of an ambassador. Mr Yasser Arafat receives the recognition of a head of state when our President is inaugurated. Can I deduce from this that the Government will be consistent and will not object when Afrikaners, once an Afrikaner Council has been established, request foreign recognition in countries in Europe and America?

Lastly, yesterday MPs distributed a set of documents from the portfolio committee. I see a schizophrenic ambiguity in them. Documents of the Government are objectively correct and ANC documents are clearly pro- Palestinian.

This is fatal and dangerous for South Africa. Its status in the world gallery of countries is being jeopardised and the Palestinian slip which is showing, means that the struggle that is taking place could spread to South Africa, and that would be fatal for us. We are pleading for non- interference and objectivity. [Time expired.]]

Mr M A MANGENA: Madam Speaker, TV footage of well-armed Israeli soldiers shooting at civilians and processions of grieving Palestinians carrying the bodies of their children to the graveyards are just replays of our own bitter history. We see, in that footage, our own children being killed in Soweto, Langa, KwaMashu and elsewhere by police and soldiers simply because those children were of the wrong colour.

Just the other day, this House debated a noble motion remembering and condemning atrocities committed against the Jews by the Nazis. What we see now is a classical case of victims of persecution turning into villains.

The state of Israel stands condemned before the whole world for using excessive, disproportionate and brutal force to deal with unrest by people of another religion. Stone-throwing youths do not deserve a bullet through their heads. Little babies do not have to die by the bullet simply because their older brothers are throwing stones. [Interjections.] We have seen Israeli security forces dealing with protests by Jews in a much more humane manner before. Why cannot they employ those same methods to control angry Palestinian youths that are throwing stones?

As things stand at the moment, Jews and Palestinians are condemned to live together in that area. For decades, they have argued and fought one another, killed one another and forced one another into exile. The peace process that the two sides embarked upon in order to end this circle of violence and death now seems terminally ill.

Israel must stop the brutal killing of unarmed Palestinians, and the two sides must work out a lasting mode of coexistence in that territory which is just, equitable, peaceful and lasting. [Applause.]

Dr Z P JORDAN: Madam Speaker, members of the House, comrades, what concerns us today is that, for the past four weeks, almost on an hourly basis, the world has witnessed what at first seemed like an opportunity to secure peace between Israel and Palestine and between Israel and her neighbours literally being blown to bits and going up in smoke. This morning we heard the welcome news that former Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Chairman Yasser Arafat were engaging in discussions to try and put an end to the violence. We welcome any attempts to put an end to the violence.

Yet, it has to be stated that the root cause of the violence we are witnessing almost daily is the historic injustice of the dispossession of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people, who today account for the largest single refugee community in the world, number some 4 million souls living in a diaspora that spans the Arab countries of west Asia, countries of North Africa and the cities of Europe and North America. Since 1948, their most elementary right - the right to live in their homeland - has been flouted with alarming impunity by successive Israeli governments.

Within the living memory of everyone in this House, Palestinian homes, sometimes entire villages, have been bulldozed to the ground on the flimsiest of pretexts. During the past 10 years alone, we have seen on our TV screens aggressive, heavily armed settlers who have shamelessly taken over entire neighbourhoods in Palestinian towns and villages. Many of these settlers do not come from the Middle East. In fact, most of them come from the USA. Even as we speak, these settlers number in excess of 200 000 in Gaza and the West Bank, and some 200 000 in Jerusalem.

Regrettably, neither of the leading political parties of Israel, the Likud and the Labour Party, can escape blame for these provocative actions. Despite his own stated commitment to withdrawing from the occupied lands, Prime Minister Ehud Barak has, however, also made it clear that he is not prepared to dismantle such settlements. He expects, instead, that the Palestinian National Authority should build its state around them.

An eminent Palestinian scholar, Edward Said, recently stated that ``peace between Israel and Palestine can only be made between equals’’. Such equality requires that, in the first instance, the state of Israel must unequivocally recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination. That recognition must, at the very least, entail recognition of the right of all the Palestinians of the diaspora to return to their motherland. After all, the right of return is at the very foundation of the Zionist movement itself. Israel cannot claim that right for herself, while denying it to the Palestinians. [Interjections.]

The right of the state of Israel to exist within secure borders must also be unequivocally recognised and embraced by the Palestinians and Israel’s other neighbours. Both sides to this quarrel should renounce the use of force in their bilateral relations. A good beginning in that direction would be a withdrawal from the territories occupied as a consequence of the 1967 war, and a commitment from Israel to observe the relevant UN Security Council resolutions on the issue.

The words of an eminent member of the Jewish community, Rabbi Michael Lerner of San Francisco, on this matter are most instructive. Rabbi Lerner wrote as follows in Tikkun a Jewish community journal in California:

I was honoured to attend the signing of the Oslo accords at the White House in 1993, and in the pages of Tikkun magazine, I have severely criticised those Palestinian intellectuals like Edward Said who did not believe that Palestinian self-determination would be granted in the five years that Oslo promised. Now, seven years later, I can understand why Palestinians would feel cheated and outraged over the endless occupation. Add to that the racist attitudes that led Barak to seek Israeli Arab votes in the last election, his subsequent refusal to allow Arab parties into his government for fear that their presence would make the government appear ``illegitimate’’ and the long history of discrimination against Israeli Arabs in housing and employment, and you get the volatile ingredients that led to the explosions last week and the subsequent massive violence against Arabs both inside Israel and in the occupied territories.

Hon members should bear in mind that these are the words of an American Rabbi, who goes on to say:

For example, as police looked on, Jewish mobs re-enacted a classic Russian pogrom on Palestinian civilians in Nazareth … None of this justifies Palestinian violence or the far more massive counter-violence of the occupying Israeli army. But I see no hope that the disgusting cycle of violence on both sides will stop until Israel is willing to end the occupation and end its internal racism against Arab Israelis.

Shalom'' is invariably the manner in which one will be greeted in the streets of Tel Aviv.Asaalaamu Alaikum’’ is the greeting one will hear among the Palestinian citizens of Hebron. Both these greetings invoke peace.'' And there is an obvious philological relationship between the two words. However, it beggars the phrasetragic irony’’ in that, since 1947, neither the citizens of Israel nor the Palestinian inhabitants of Hebron have known any peace.

Since the end of the Second World War, every single generation amongst the Israelis and the Palestinians has witnessed a war. There is scarcely a family in either community that has not experienced the bereavements that must come with armed conflict. Every home in either community can recount the names of sons or daughters killed in war; of mothers and children maimed and injured in conflict. Yet with every greeting of each other, of strangers, and even across the lines of hostility that divide them, both these peoples express their deep and profound yearning for peace.

Shalom'' andsalaam’’ are very simple words that easily roll off the tongue in either Hebrew or Arabic, and yet, in that part of the world, they mean something that is so terrifyingly elusive. Our task is to help the two sides of this gruesome conflict to find each other, so that peace may reign between Israel and her neighbours, ie between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

It requires great courage to wage a war. But it requires even more courage to make peace. The fates of the Palestinians and the Israelis are inextricably interwoven. Our appeal today is that both communities should find the courage to reach out for the olive branch of peace now because, after the bloodshed, after the pain, after the muck, and after the mire and the dust of war have settled, they will have no other option but to live with each other.

Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence to say one thing. There was a remark from that side of the House saying: ``You racist.’’ Did you say that? [Interjections.] Did you say it? [Interjections.]

Do not ever do that! [Interjections.] What are you saying? Do not ever call me a racist! [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jordan, please address the Chair. [Interjections.] Hon member, could you please take your seat. Hon De Lange, are you rising on a point of order? [Interjections.]

Mr W J SEREMANE: His hands are dripping with blood!

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! All of you!

Adv J H DE LANGE: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition has, on two occasions, called Deputy Minister Mabandla a racist. I ask you to ask him to withdraw that.

Secondly, the hon Mr Seremane has just said to Dr Jordan that his hands are dripping with blood. I think that serious steps should be taken on both occasions and they should withdraw, Madam Speaker. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seremane, please sit down until you are called. [Interjections.] Order! Hon members, will you please let me keep order! Hon Mr Leon, did you call Ms Mabandla a racist?

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Yes, I did, Madam Speaker. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Would you please withdraw that.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION. I withdraw, Madam Speaker. [Interjections.] The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seremane, did you use those words?

Mr W J SEREMANE: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to the hon Dr Jordan. [Interjections.] I was referring to somebody who interjected from that side of the House, abusing my surname. [Interjections.] I am not the only Seremane, and all the Seremanes have nothing to do with … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, if you were addressing that to any member of this House on any side, would you please withdraw that statement?

Mr W J SEREMANE: Madam Speaker, I would gladly do that if they also withdraw that kind of … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, I earlier appealed that there should please be no conditional withdrawal. If there was an objectionable statement, you may raise it as a separate point of order.

Mr W J SEREMANE: Madam Speaker, with due respect, I will do so.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, hon members, as we come to the end of this debate on the recent dangerous developments in the Middle East, we must once again reiterate the view that in discussing and dealing with the issue of the Middle East we are moved by one objective, and one objective only, and that is that whatever we do and whatever we say must be geared to achieving a just and long-lasting solution to the problems in the Middle East.

I am happy that members of the Government and some members of the opposition were constructive in their assessment of the developments in the Middle East, and have attempted to deal with the issue in a way that can only help us help the Israeli and Palestinian people. I am sad, unfortunately, that the hon the Leader of the Opposition and his tape recorder, the hon Gibson, made contributions which were pathetic and reflected the worst manifestations of infant disorder and intellectual bankruptcy.

How can the hon the Leader of the Opposition say that we are wasting parliamentary time? We are discussing an issue that is capturing the imagination of people and is a discussion point throughout the world. We are quite conscious that if the Middle East explodes, it will impact on world peace and security. So, by discussing the issue we are not wasting time; we are trying to contribute in an attempt to find a solution to a very dangerous situation.

Let me also tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition, who is only in touch with the right-wing in Israel, that we have contact with Israelis and Palestinians at every level. President Mbeki has met Prime Minister Barak twice in the last few weeks, and they are in constant telephonic communication. We are also in constant telephonic communication with all sections of the Palestinian and Israeli communities.

There is no question, as the opposition is trying to suggest, of siding with one side or the other. However, we cannot ignore the reality that it is nearly 33 years since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called on Israel to withdraw from all Arab territories it occupied after the 1967 war and, indeed, recognised the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. It is 12 years since President Arafat announced that the Palestine Liberation Organisation was ready to negotiate with Israel on the basis of the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to seek ``reciprocal recognition whereby, in return for Israeli recognition of an independent Palestine state, the PLO would accept Israel’s right to security’’.

It is the 10th anniversary of the massacre of Muslim worshippers in a mosque in Hebron which led to widespread uprisings. It is seven years since President Arafat and Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo Accords. According to these accords, by 1998 a final status agreement was to have been completed and implemented. This was extended to September 2000, and we are still faced with the reality that we are nowhere near concluding the final status agreements.

It is also, sadly, the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a rightwing lunatic in Israel. It is 18 months since Prime Minister Barak won the election on the wave of an unprecedented peace movement in Israel. Barak’s peace manifesto was supported by millions of Israelis, Palestinians and indeed by millions of people throughout the world, including South Africa.

I would suggest that the hon the Leader of the Opposition stop pandering and playing to the tune of the rightwing in Israel. He must accept that there is a narrow group of Israelis who are progressive and who seek genuine peace. [Applause.] These millions of progressive people in Israel expected that Prime Minister Barak would deal with the nonimplementation of the Oslo Accords, that he would tackle the burning issues of the enlargement of the existing settlements, that he would stop the building of new settlements, and that he would stop the continuing confiscation of Palestinian land. Alas, this did not happen! Therefore, sadly, a year and half later, the Middle East is engulfed in a most serious escalation of violence.

No one, including Tony, who has seen the images of violence in the Palestinian territories in the last few weeks, can remain indifferent to or silent on what we have been seeing. The death toll has reached over 160 and is growing every day and thousands have been injured. Tragically a high percentage of those killed or injured are children.

Our condemnation of those atrocities is not because we are siding with one group or the other, but accords with international opinion as is reflected by the UN Security Council resolution adopted on 7 October which, inter alia, deplored the provocation carried out by Sharon at Haram al-Sharif and the subsequent violence. Can anybody deny that Sharon calculatedly acted to ignite a very volatile situation? I do not believe so. The Security Council resolution also condemned the acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of life. No stretch of the imagination by the opposition can allow us to equate the misuse of modern weapons of destruction with the use of stones, and the Leader of the Opposition’s mental gymnastics will not help in this way.

The Middle East process is in grave danger of collapse and, as the hon Mr Geldenhuys said, the consequences would be too ghastly to contemplate. The reality is that the resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict has to be reached through negotiations, but it seems that a different formula for negotiations will have to be developed. In this connection we welcome the last Sharm el-Sheikh summit of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

We believe that Camp David collapsed because the maximum concessions that the Israeli offered were less than the minimum the Palestinians could accept. Therefore it is no use saying that everything was offered, but the Palestinians were intransigent and did not accept what was offered. This having been said, it is important to underline that whatever the context or formula for future negotiations, there are certain conditions that have to be met if a just and lasting settlement between Palestine and Israel is to become a reality.

A final agreement should clearly be based on the international consensus enshrined in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since the 1967 war. It recognises the principle of the self-determination of the Palestinian people and conversely recognises the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. Clearly even the opposition cannot challenge the notion that land for peace is the only viable solution for the conflicts in the Middle East.

We also believe that there should be an international inquiry into the origins of the present conflict, as called for in Security Council Resolution 1233. I think it is necessary, because members of the opposition and others keep saying that this violence has been orchestrated. Well let us set up an international commission of inquiry so that we can determine the truth. We also believe that Israeli security forces should withdraw to their positions as on 28 April 2000 and that the sanctity of all holy sites should be scrupulously respected.

Lastly, the Israeli practice, as has been said, of inflicting collective punishment on the Palestinian people should cease. I am sure nobody can accept that Israeli collective punishment, which takes the form of, inter alia, blockades of Palestinian towns and cities, preventing people from engaging in gainful employment, preventing the evacuation of the sick and wounded, hindering the flow of merchandise and much more, can be accepted as normal state practice, and therefore it must come to an end immediately. Finally, in this respect, I think the United Nations should take appropriate measures to protect the Palestinian people.

In conclusion, let me say that this discussion has great importance because the developments in the Middle East will impact on world peace and security. We must all act swiftly, decisively and constructively to achieve a just and long-lasting solution in the Middle East which is in the interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

If we fail, as the hon Jordan said, right-wing and religious zealots everywhere in the world will exploit the crisis to achieve other agendas. We cannot ignore the reality and danger of the sharp increase in Europe and United States of xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. The ugly face of fascism and neofascism once again haunts us. The dead and the injured in the Middle East must not be the foundation on which they flourish. I hope the DP will become more responsible. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Hon members, we have been debating a very serious and distressing situation that is of concern to South Africans in particular, in that we have had a very long struggle for land and the right to self- determination ourselves. We have resolved that relatively peacefully, with the help of many parliaments and many people all over the world. It is therefore distressing that we should consider that similar situations elsewhere are of no concern to us. [Interjections.] Lives are being lost daily, and that is tragic wherever it happens and whoever is involved, and it is regrettable that sometimes … [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Madam, you appear to be making a speech and adopting a particular line. May I suggest that if you do so you vacate the Chair and let somebody else take it … [Interjections] … and take an ANC speaking turn.

The SPEAKER: Hon member, you should have heard the rest of what I am saying. I am saying - I will repeat it - that lives are being lost daily, and this is tragic wherever it happens and whoever is involved, and it is regrettable that at times this was being turned into a party-political debate. [Interjections.]

I have been involved for some time in trying to bring women in Israel and Palestine together in a peace process, and I have knowledge of many, many people in both countries who want peace and are striving for peace, and this Parliament’s responsibility, in my view, should be to work with them and to continue to debate ways of bringing peace in that area and elsewhere. Our history - and it is a common history - requires this of us, and it is in the interests of all South Africans and all those who want justice and peace anywhere. That is a responsibility of this Parliament - hopefully of all political parties in this Parliament. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS - ILLEGAL FARM EVICTIONS

Adv S P HOLOMISA: Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of the month of June this year, the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs took a decision to conduct fact-finding tours of the provinces of the Free State, the North West, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. The decision was prompted by incessant press and media reports about an escalation of incidents of evictions of farmworkers, labour tenants and occupiers from many of the farms in the four provinces.

Mhlalingaphambili, andiyazi nokuba ndiya baphazamisa kusini na abaya bantu bathethayo ndithetha. [Chairperson, I am wondering whether I might be disturbing the people that are talking over there.] The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, would you please take your seats. You are disturbing the hon member who is making his input from the podium.

Adv S P HOLOMISA: Due to the urgency of the matter, very little time was available to those responsible for organising the visits to prepare programmes which would ensure that all relevant role-players and stakeholders were accorded an adequate opportunity to interact with the portfolio committee representatives. We regret, therefore, the inconvenience caused to those who tried to participate in the programme, but could not fully do so. It is my earnest hope, therefore, that there should be no cause for anyone to make undue political mileage out of such organisational shortcomings.

Overall, though, all four delegations were able to meet a relatively representative cross-section of the relevant role-players and stakeholders to made an assessment of what was going on. At the same time it is true that in certain cases we had to rely on allegations which could not be proved due to the absence of other people to corroborate such allegations or the lack of official data from state and other agencies. The primary objective of the visits was to establish whether or not illegal and unfair evictions had taken place, and if they had, to establish the scale on which they were taking place and whether the applicable pieces of legislation, namely the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act were deficient in any way in the course of their implementation.

The portfolio committee has not been able to establish the exact figures pertaining to instances of evictions. Neither was it able to determine the number of legal, as opposed to illegal, evictions, except with regard to the fact that the Extension of Security of Tenure Act does not provide for farmworkers and other occupiers to have the right to bury their dead on land on which they are entitled to live. The remaining problems regarding the legislation related to implementation.

When we passed, as Parliament, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and entrenched the right of persons to visit and maintain family graves on other people’s land, we presumed that human nature dictated that those same persons had the right to be buried next to their dead as well. Clearly, Parliament will have to address this absurd and un-African state of affairs by effecting the necessary amendments.

The above-stated problems notwithstanding, the portfolio committee did establish that a great deal of injustice occurred on many farms. The root cause of the problem is, of course, the fact that the victims of evictions, legal or illegal, are vulnerable, poor and illiterate, and the tenure of most of them is dependent on employment arrangements with the landowners and, crucially, these people live on land belonging to others. They have no land of their own in their fatherland.

Due to the economic situation prevailing in the agricultural sector, sometimes it becomes necessary for a farmer to reduce the workforce. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the state to provide such people with land. It is for these reasons that we urge the Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs to prioritise the needs of farmworkers and labour tenants in the implementation of its land reform programmes. This is an untenable situation which requires an aggressive and urgent intervention.

We also discovered that confusion and ignorance about the law was reigning supreme on the part of both the farmers and the farmworkers. The police are also ill-equipped in understanding the law, thereby resulting in incomplete investigations and the prosecution of illegal and unfair eviction cases. In certain instances landowners would seek to use the police to carry out unlawful eviction of farmworkers. This was personally confirmed by the police. Thus, the training of the police and others involved in administration of justice on an ongoing basis becomes imperative and urgent.

The net result of all this is the breakdown in the social and moral fabric of the affected landless communities and the uncontrollable influx of the communities into the neighbouring towns, thereby putting a strain on the limited resources aimed at the social upliftment of the urban residents, as well as the further deterioration of race relations. A persistent perception on the part of the landless farm communities that the police, prosecutors and magistrates do not only socialise, but also collude with and connive against victims of evictions does not help matters in any way.

Some of the problems have been somewhat lessened by the co-operation which is being promoted by the establishment of local forums made up of all role- players and stakeholders in a district. The portfolio committee encourages the formation and strengthening of these forums in all farming districts.

Xa sithetha neenkokeli zabalimi abamhlophe ngezikhalo nezikhalazo zabasebenzi nabanye abantu abahlala emaplasini abalimi, zithi ezi nkokeli nazo azihambisani namanyundululu awenziwa ngoogxa bazo. Siyazi kholelwa ke xa zisitsho. Kodwa ke ilizwi lazo alivakali kakhulu njenga xa ingamatama angamaxhoba abenzi bobubi. Singakholwa xa sinokuziva zikhalima ngaphezulu xa amaxhoba ingabantu abamnyama.

Oogxa bam baza kubalula, kwezabo iintetho, izenzo zobubi kumaphondo ngamaphondo. Kodwa ke sonke siyafunda emaphepheni ngokungcola okwenziwa ngamanye amafama kubantu abawasebenzelayo, sikubona nakoomabonakude. Ukurhuqwa komntu ebotshelwe ngasemva evenini ebalekayo; ukuqatywa komntwana ipeyinti emhlophe emzimbeni; ukuthintelwa kwabantu ukuba bangcwabe amawabo ngakooyise ‘mkhulu, buburhalarhume obunokwenziwa zizigebenga ezingena buntu kuphela. Abo bazenza abameli babalimi kule Ndlu bangawenza ngcono umsebenzi wabo xa benxakama ngenkohlakalo eyenziwa kwizi-aram ezingena bani, ezixhatshazwa ngaabo basaxhamla iziqhamo zocalucalulo.

Ndiphi na kanene? Kodwa andikagqibi. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)

[When we speak to the leaders of the white farmers about conditions under which farmworkers live and their complaints, and those of other people who live on the farms, they say that they do not condone the kind of ill- treatment that farmworkers receive at the hands of other farmers. We believe them when they say this. But their voice is not as clearly heard when it is black people who are victims as when it is white farmers.

My colleagues, in their speeches, are going to mention some of the criminal acts that occur in the different provinces. But we all read newspapers and watch TV and from there we can see the criminal and evil activities that other farmers subject their labourers to. This is like when a man was tied onto the back of a bakkie and dragged along; when white paint was poured over a child; when people are prohibited from burying their own next to their grandfathers. That shows how inhumane people can be where their fellow human beings are concerned.

Those in this House who see themselves as representatives of the farmers, could help by calling out with one voice against all the cruelty and abuse that is directed against these poor people by those who still enjoy the fruits of the apartheid period.

Oh! I am not finished yet. Where was I?]

The land question is a larger issue than the securing of rights in land for those who are historically marginalised and excluded. It is a class, race and gender issue. It is a democracy issue. It is critical, therefore, that all Government departments be involved in a co-ordinated formulation and implementation of land reform policies and laws. Land reform is for real people who need land, houses, water, electricity, roads, transport, schools, health care facilities, finances, safety and security, law administration and justice, and so on. In addition to the legislative and judicial dispensations, the land question demands a broad national dialogue and commitment to negotiated solutions informed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

We urge all members to acquaint themselves with the report which we place before the House and to act on the recommendations contained in it. [Applause.]

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I would like to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee for letting us visit the different provinces, and for what we experienced there. I will not respond to his speech directly, except to say that in terms of the examples he has given us of the abuse of people on the farms, that cannot be tolerated and people who do that should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. But that represents only a minority of the farming community. We who are in the majority would like to see good relations and order on the farms.

Die verslag wat ter tafel gelê word, is die resultaat van die besoek van die lede van die portefeuljekomitee, wat in vier groepe die provinsies besoek het. Die ondersoek het oor twee dae gestrek en verskeie voorleggings is gedoen. Die notules van elke besoek het as basis gedien vir hierdie finale verslag. Ek wil twee opmerkings maak oor hierdie verslag. Eerstens berus die bevindings wat in die verslag weergegee is op die voorleggings van gevallestudies waarvan die aangebode feite nie getoets is nie en as subjektief beskou moet word. In enkele gevalle was dit moontlik om die gegewens te toets, byvoorbeeld in die Vrystaat. Daar is gevind dat die werklikhede op die grond, soos aangebied deur ‘n amptenaar, totaal verskil van wat in die voorlegging beweer is. Finale gevolgtrekkings kan dus nie op grond van die gegewens in die verslag gemaak word nie, en verdere ondersoeke is nodig.

Die tweede opmerking raak die aanbevelings van die verslag. Hierdie aanbevelings weerspieël die kommer van die ondersoekspan oor die probleme in die landbou-arbeidsveld wat deur verskeie voorleggings uitgelig is. Die kern van hierdie aanbevelings is dat daar groter koördinasie tussen die verskillende rolspelers moet wees om die bestaande landbou-arbeidswette reg aan te wend en toe te pas.

Om dié doelwit suksesvol te bereik is dit noodsaaklik dat al die rolspelers op die hoogte van sake moet wees oor die verskillende wette en oor hoe hulle werk en wat daarmee beoog word. Ek dink dit is waar die werklike probleem ten opsigte van arbeid in die landbou lê, naamlik dat die verskillende rolspelers nie presies weet wat beoog word en hoe om dit toe te pas nie, en eintlik teen mekaar werk.

Wie is hierdie rolspelers? Dit is die boere, die arbeiders, die Departemente van Landbou, Grondsake, Arbeid, Justisie en Veiligheid en Sekuriteit, die vakbonde, Agri-SA en plaaslike gemeenskapsleiers. Die indruk wat ek op die toer gekry het, is dat dié mense onafhanklik van mekaar optree en nie weet wat aan die gang is nie, en dat departemente nie eens met mekaar koördineer nie. Ek dink dit is ‘n belangrike tekortkoming.

Die gebrek aan kennis en selfs die onkunde oor die wette by die rolspelers oor hulle doel en hoe hulle toegepas moet word, is na my mening die oorsaak van probleme tussen werkgewers en werknemers in die landbou. Die verpolitisering van hierdie verslag oor onwettige uitsettings in die landbou sal, wat my betref, geen doel dien nie. Trouens, die meeste uitsprake is gebaseer op onvolledige getuienis of ondersoeke wat die probleem sal vererger as ons daaroor sou spekuleer.

Hierdie verslag het byvoorbeeld te make met die omvang van onwettige en onredelike uitsettings van plaasarbeiders. Tog bevind die verslag egter dat daar nie genoegsame statistiek beskikbaar is om enige gevolgtrekking te maak oor die omvang van sulke uitsettings nie. Spekulasie oor die onderwerp en die aanhaal van individuele voorbeelde uit die notules wat nie deeglik gekontroleer is nie, sal ‘n verkeerde indruk laat.

Die kern van die probleem onderliggend aan die gerugte van uitsettings, en veral onwettige uitsettings, wat arbeidsverhoudings in die land vertroebel, is die onkunde oor die Wet op die Uitbreiding van Sekerheid van Verblyfreg en ander arbeidswette. Daar is ook groot verwarring oor wat wettige uitsettings ná die beëindiging van ‘n dienskontrak behels en wat onwettige uitsettings sonder enige rede is. Daar is selfs verwarring in gevalle waar mense plase verlaat nadat hulle bedank het.

Enersyds skep die onkunde oor die wette verwagtings by die arbeiders in die landbou oor regte en permanensie van werkgeleenthede en verblyf wat nie in die wette vervat is nie en wat deur politieke retoriek uit verskillende oorde aangeblaas word. Vir die werf van stemme in die plaaslike verkiesings is dit ‘n feitlik onuitputbare bron. Die politieke voordeel wat só behaal sal word, sal egter van korte duur wees as die waarheid die politieke opportunisme inhaal. Andersyds wek die onkunde oor die wette wat arbeid reël onregmatige vrese by boere dat die wette hulle die reg op die toepas van vryemarkbeginselbesluite ontneem en verskeie verpligtings, veral ten opsigte van huisvesting, op boere plaas wat nie op ander sektore van toepassing is nie.

Die botsende verwagtings en vrese wat op onkunde gebaseer is, is aan die orde van die dag. Dit bly die kern van die probleem. Om voorbeelde links en regs aan te haal om die een of ander standpunt te ondersteun, dien dus geen doel nie. Hierdie verslag voor ons val in hierdie kategorie, naamlik dat dit nie klarigheid gee nie en eerder bydra tot die onsekerheid.

Al wat goed is in die verslag is die poging om deur aanbevelings die koördinasie tussen die verskillende rolspelers te bevorder en meer inligting op die grond te plaas. Vandaar my steun aan hierdie deel van die verslag. Die res van die verslag het te veel vraagtekens, en behoort terugverwys te word na die komitee vir opvolgondersoeke en klarigheid. Die enigste manier om die probleme wat tydens die ondersoek onder die aandag gekom het op te los, is deur intensiewe opleidingsprogramme.

Die vingers wat gereeld na die landbou gewys word as sou dit nie goed gaan op die landbou-arbeidsveld nie, het nie veel grond om op te staan nie. Die meeste gevalle wat as bewyse voorgehou word, is eensydig van aard en nie volledig ondersoek nie.

Wanneer daar oor arbeid in die landbou gepraat word, is daar omstandighede wat in gedagte gehou moet word. Die ekonomiese omstandighede in die landbou is moeilik. ‘n Groot persentasie boere veg om oorlewing. Ekonomiese omstandighede noop die inkorting van werkgeleenthede. Verder word die boere se veiligheid bedreig en die arbeid op plase word as ‘n politieke speelbal teen hulle gebruik. Daar moet dus versigtig met hierdie omstandighede gewerk word om nie onnodig emosies op te sweep nie.

Die ekonomiese omstandighede dikteer ook aan die landbou hoe om sy arbeidsake te reël. Die werkgewers in die landbou is oor die algemeen goeie werkgewers, en hanteer hulle arbeiders beter as wat algemeen erken word. Ek het Agri SA se kommentaar oor die verslag gevra, en hulle sê:

It is clear from the report that most of the problems which do occur, are the result of the Act not being implemented correctly. This cannot be fixed by amending the legislation, only by enforcing it and informing people of their rights.

Dit is in daardie lig dat ons hierdie verslag moet sien, naamlik dat ons duidelikheid moet gee aan die mense op die grond oor waarheen ons op pad is. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The report that is being tabled is the result of the visit by the members of the portfolio committee, who visited the provinces in four groups. The investigation lasted two days and various submissions were made. The minutes of each visit served as a basis for this final report.

I want to make two remarks about this report. Firstly, the findings in the report are based on the submissions of case studies of which the presented facts have not been tested and should be viewed as subjective. In a few cases it was possible to test the information, for example in the Free State. It was found that the realities on the ground, as presented by an official, differ entirely from what was alleged in the submission. Final conclusions can thus not be made on the basis of the information in the report and further investigation is necessary.

The second remark deals with the recommendations of the report. These recommendations reflect the concern of the investigating team about the problems in the area of agricultural labour which were highlighted by various submissions. The essence of these recommendations is that there should be greater co-ordination between the various role-players in order correctly to apply and implement the existing agricultural labour laws.

In order to reach this goal successfully it is essential that all the role- players be fully informed about the various Acts and how they work and what is envisaged with them. I think that this is where the true problem with regard to labour in agriculture lies, namely that the various role-players do not know precisely what is envisaged and how to implement it, and actually work against one another. Who are these role-players? They are the farmers, the workers, the Departments of Agriculture, Land Affairs, Labour, Justice and Safety and Security, the trade unions, Agri-SA and local community leaders. The impression I got on the tour was that these people act independently of one another and do not know what is going on, and that departments do not even co-ordinate with one another. I think that this is an important shortcoming.

The role-players’ lack of knowledge and even ignorance about the Acts and about their objective and how they must be implemented is, in my opinion, the cause of problems between employers and employees in agriculture. The politicisation of this report on illegal evictions in agriculture will, as far as I am concerned, serve no purpose. In fact, most statements are based on incomplete evidence or investigations which would exacerbate the problem if we were to speculate about it.

For example, this report deals with the extent of illegal and unlawful evictions of farmworkers. Yet the report finds that sufficient statistics are not available to draw any conclusion about the extent of such evictions. Speculation on this subject and the quoting of individual examples from the minutes, which are not thoroughly checked will create an incorrect impression.

The crux of the problem underlying the rumours of evictions, and illegal evictions in particular, which is marring labour relations in the country, is the lack of knowledge about the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and other labour laws. There is also a great deal of confusion about what constitutes legal eviction following the termination of a service contract and what constitute illegal eviction without any reason. There is even confusion in cases where people leave farms after they have resigned.

On the one hand, the lack of knowledge about the Act creates expectations among the workers in agriculture about rights and permanency of job opportunities and accommodation which are not contained in the Acts and which are incited by political rhetoric from various sources. This is a virtually inexhaustible source for the winning of votes in the local elections. The political advantage gained in this way, however, will not last, as the truth will catch up with political opportunism. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge about the Acts regulating labour gives rise to unjustified fears on the part of farmers that the Acts deny them the right to implement free-market principle decisions and place on farmers various obligations, particularly with regard to accommodation, which are not applicable to other sectors.

The conflicting expectations and fears based on a lack of knowledge are the order of the day. This remains the essence of the problem. To quote examples left and right in support of one or other position therefore serves no purpose. This report before us falls into that category, namely that it does not give clearness and rather contributes to the uncertainty.

The only good thing in the report is the attempt, by way of recommendations, to promote co-ordination between the various role-players and get more information on the ground. This is the reason for my support for this section of the report. The rest of the report contains too many question marks, and should be referred back to the committee for follow-up studies and clarification. The only way to solve the problems highlighted during the investigation is through intensive training programmes.

The fingers which are regularly pointed at agriculture, alleging that things are not going well in the area of agricultural labour, are not on solid ground. Most of the instances presented as evidence are one-sided and not comprehensively investigated.

Whenever labour in agriculture is discussed there are circumstances which have to be borne in mind. The economic circumstances in agriculture are difficult. A large percentage of farmers are fighting for survival. Economic circumstances necessitate the reduction of job opportunities. Furthermore, the farmers’ safety is being threatened and the labour force on farms is being used as a political footfall against them. These circumstances must therefore be dealt with fully to avoid stirring up emotions unnecessarily.

The economic circumstances also dictate to agriculture how to manage its labour issues. The employers in agriculture are generally good employers, and treat their workers better than is generally acknowledged. I asked for Agri SA’s commentary on the report, and they said:

It is clear from the report that most of the problems which do occur, are the result of the Act not being implemented correctly. This cannot be fixed by amending the legislation, only by enforcing it and informing people of their rights.

We must view this report in that light, namely that we must give the people on the ground clarity about where we are headed. [Time expired.]]

Prof H NGUBANE: Chairperson and hon members, I must begin by responding to the hon Van Niekerk who says that it is only a minority that are experiencing suffering and cruelty on the farms and in farming areas. My response is based on the fact that we went to KwaZulu-Natal, accompanied by a farmer.

In KwaZulu-Natal we were looking specifically at people who live on farms under the Land Reform Labour Tenants Act. We never found a single family that had benefited from this Act. Either they had been evicted from the farms or, if they remained there, they had been moved from the original sites to new sites, where they had negotiated new relationships. Invariably, these new relationships denied the family access to the cropping land and livestock pasture which the family used to have. So, my argument is that if these families constitute a minority in KwaZulu-Natal, we did not find this minority. We did not find a single family that still lives according to labour tenancy and that has benefited from the labour tenancy legislation.

I feel that this is absolutely regrettable, because here was an opportunity in this country for especially the two races, black and white, to try to reach reconciliation. Admittedly, when these laws were passed in 1996, the farmers were reluctant and had objections to the fact that the quality of their land and the economic area which would be retained by them would be rejected by the banks because the labour tenancy legislation meant that people would then own land in their own right.

Admittedly, if they really meant well, they could have put a site at the border of their farms for these families with land and cut off the bondage. What was wrong with labour tenancy was the bondage whereby the families which were so described had to give free labour to the farmer for six months. That could not be tolerated in the present day. So, there was a need to change this law, but instead of the beneficiaries getting anything out of it, they have been made to suffer tremendously. I have only five minutes and I cannot recount to hon members the amazing and shocking experiences of suffering that we came across.

If this opportunity, for instance, was used properly, people would not be asking questions such as: What is happening in Zimbabwe - is it likely to happen in South Africa? Because we would be saying here is a group of people, the white farmers, who needed to give a handful of people just a small piece of land, people who are not even strangers to them, people who have been living with them, looking after their children, minding their houses, working with them and enabling them to have a surplus. It was not as if these people were imposed on them. They were no strangers. But the response of the farmers to this law is really regrettable, because I think we have missed fantastic opportunities.

Having said that, in the last minute that I have I also need to mention that this report - which we, as the IFP, support - has recommended that legislatures should in future take care that what is legislated, ie the laws that we pass, are implementable. I quite agree with that because a lot of things could have been avoided had we really looked at the legislation carefully.

I do not want to boast, but the IFP did not support the Bill which led to the law of 1996 because the IFP was very much aware of the possible consequences. The IFP was aware that the time was not ripe in this country for the farmers to be big-hearted in responding to the provisions of the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr N H MASITHELA: Chairperson and members of the House, I rise to support the position of the ANC on the subject that is being discussed today.

The debate under consideration is a matter which touches the core values of humanity. The history of farmworkers or farm labourers, is, indeed, a very sad one, particularly in the countryside. Having worked for most of their lives as farm labourers, contributing to the economy and the agricultural development of South Africa, they are still faced with evictions and abuse. The abuse of farm dwellers persists, irrespective of whether they are labour tenants or farmworkers. They have no security of tenure, as a result of apartheid laws. Unfortunately, these people have a history on the farms. The portfolio committee undertook a trip to visit at least four provinces, as the chairperson has said. I will not divulge much on that matter. However, I know as I am standing here - as do the members of our portfolio committee, and this House - that there are people, white farmers, who do not conduct themselves like the many other farmers who are guilty of evictions.

Ons in die ANC is dankbaar teenoor die boere wat goed is vir hulle werkers. Hulle moet so aanhou. Hulle moet ook hul medeboere aanmoedig en beïnvloed om hul goeie voorbeeld te volg. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[We in the ANC are grateful to the farmers who treat their labourers well. They must keep it up. They should also encourage and influence their fellow farmers to follow their good example.]

Coming back to the evictions, it was reported to my constituency office in the Free State that a Mr Steve Motoai, who has been staying on a farm for more than 10 years, earned R5,00 after deductions for housing, electricity and water every month. When he fought for his rights, he was told that by the end of that month he had to be off that farm. And this is not fiction. It is a fact.

During our visit to Valspruit in KwaZulu-Natal a certain Mr Twala, who was evicted by a farmer, is at the moment staying in a 100 m2 yard without water, visitations and electricity. In terms of the Act, that is a constructive eviction. That is not fiction, it is a fact. That contributed to the death of Mr Twala’s wife. Mr Twala is now left only with his seven- year-old son. Unfortunately, this situation reminds some of us of the past which I know is not an issue for discussion now. But let me remind members on the left-hand side of the House that there was a system called slavery where a person could be wholly owned by another person. The fathers of those members, who were in the former NP government, were related to them.

When the ANC took over in 1994 we committed ourselves to redressing the imbalances of the past and building a new society. To illustrate this, the ANC ensured that a human rights clause was enshrined in the Constitution. We passed the Labour Relations Act, the Land Restitution and Reform Laws Amendment Act, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and many others to protect some of these people who did not have rights.

It is important to make this observation that there are those in this House who claim to support this noble goal, while their actions contradict what they are saying. For instance, they are quiet or silent when farmers evict people. They do not stand up and condemn that. There are farmers who abuse their farmworkers. They paint them silver because they do not like their colour or put them in a pigsty because they do not regard them as human beings like themselves, yet the people who claim to be supporting this cause are quiet on that matter.

In most instances the working conditions on these farms are appalling. They work for more than 45 hours per week without overtime payment and without any protective clothing. In fact, when they fight for the same basic conditions of employment, they get evicted.

In my opinion the eviction does not only relate to the property. It relates to class and racial issues. In order for all of us at least to understand what I am saying, the Human Rights Commission stated in its report that racism was prevalent in the rural communities and on the farms. I have referred to the incident involving an African who was painted silver so as to change his colour when I dealt with racism. I will not go deeper into that matter.

However, what is also glaring is that on the farms where a white farmer has employed a white manager, that person would earn a higher salary than the black employees, who would also not enjoy the same benefits and working conditions as the white manager. Is that not racism? In my opinion it is.

The manner in which evictions are conducted, legally or illegally, widens the racial gap in our society and causes unnecessary tensions. The issue of human rights is one on which the ANC is not prepared to sacrifice or compromise. Here, I am not speaking for or about people who invade land. They must be arrested.

I want to take this opportunity to say that if any member of society finds or sees anybody invading land, it is important for him or her to communicate the information to the police. I am quite confident that the police will do their job, and those people will be arrested. It would not be helpful for one to call a rally to address that matter because it is not going to resolve the matter; in fact, it is going to exacerbate the problem.

It is my humble submission that the current spate of evictions does cause problems in our country. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr S ABRAM: Mr Chairperson, one must concede, upfront, that there are problems with regard to the eviction of farm tenants. One is not going to be able to resolve all these problems if one wants to wield a big stick. Therefore, I want to address the report as we have it before us, in which, I believe, there are shortcomings and where we tend to try and look at the option of legislating in order to find the necessary solutions.

Here I want to refer, for example, to recommendation 8. The first part thereof is 100% correct. There is no problem with that part which says:

The State must provide adequate resources to ensure that the laws and policies aimed at the poor and the vulnerable are speedily and meaningfully implemented … The second part says that legal assistance is provided for victims of eviction. I believe that what one should rather do is become proactive and assist such victims to resettle elsewhere so that they can live a better life instead of spending money unnecessarily on legal fees which is going to get us nowhere. It is a bottomless pit.

It is said, elsewhere in the report, that where certain forums exist on which various interests are represented, there seem to be fewer problems. I want to strongly recommend that we rather look at that and get the message down to people at all levels, so that better relationships can be developed.

One must also remember that recommendation 6 states:

More land-owners must be encouraged to make more land available to the government for distribution to the landless occupiers.

I believe that the situation in agriculture today is such that, within the very near future, we are going to find many more farmers going under, and market forces will actually dictate the availability of land at reasonable prices. I believe that such land should be purchased and then utilised for the settlement of people.

Of course, the Constitution guarantees certain rights to individuals. For example, if one looks at section 25(6) of the Constitution of the Republic, it says:

A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.

Therefore, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Act 62 of 1997, known as ``Esta’’, was enacted so that security of tenure could be provided to the farm occupiers who have the permission of the owner or the person in charge to live on land belonging to someone else. Esta sets out the duties and rights of both occupiers and owners, so as to provide for a working relationship between the farmowner and the occupier that is conducive to fostering mutual respect for their respective cultures, customs, religions and human dignity. This is in line with the Deputy President’s debate earlier this week dealing with moral regeneration. With regard to farm evictions, since the enactment of Esta, the number of people unlawfully evicted from farms has decreased to some extent. It is virtually impossible to attach a figure to the total number of evictions taking place throughout these provinces. [Time expired.]

Ms C DUDLEY: Mr Chairperson, as I was in Zimbabwe with the official parliamentary delegation observing the elections, I was, unfortunately, unable to join the portfolio committee in investigating reported incidents of unfair farm evictions and other related matters.

The portfolio committee found that one of the impediments to the successful implementation of the land laws is the fact that most police officers, farmers and farmworkers are not familiar with the law. The ACDP agrees with the recommendation that the Departments of Agriculture, Land Affairs and Labour, along with all relevant stakeholders, should run information campaigns throughout the country for both farmers and occupiers. We were also encouraged by the way in which the portfolio committee accepted the suggestion that NGO’s such as Amos be utilised to accomplish this task, which they already do to the extent that their limited funds allow. The ACDP also agrees that thorough investigations must be conducted into unfair evictions and assault cases on farms to ensure the proper and impartial implementation of the law. Those who break the law must face the consequences, especially with regard to abusive behaviour. This, of course, applies to everyone and not just farmers. It is unfair to label a whole group of people because of the actions of a few.

The agro-industrial sector is vital to the welfare of our country and economy, and remains a huge employer and earner of foreign exchange. It would be suicidal for us to demoralise farmers and destroy this industry. Our farmers are in demand in other countries, especially in Africa, and our loss will be their gain.

It is necessary for me to relate a recent incident where the media accompanied the Mpumalanga provincial land affairs committee on farm visits, and grossly distorted and manipulated footage to show the farmer in a negative light. Their vindictiveness was not only aimed at the farmer, but at Christianity.

The film was apparently deliberately spliced, leaving viewers to think that the farmer was seriously using the word of God to condone the abuse of farmworkers. This kind of mischief is both wicked and irresponsible and fuels racial bitterness. It is also counterproductive, to say the least. [Time expired.]

Mrs B M NTULI: Mr Chairperson, Ministers and hon members, the nature of the evictions that are taking place in the Free State, KwaZulu-Natal and the North West, and particularly in Mpumalanga, are racially and politically motivated. One would have thought that we are at a point where South Africa is a country that is free from racial discrimination, and where blacks and whites live together peacefully. But that is not the case. There are people who still live in the past, people who think that black people’s lives are not important because they are third-class citizens.

Let us decide now to be masters of change rather than victims of change. We cannot pretend that life is perfect in the farming communities, especially for farmworkers and farm dwellers. If we desire change, we must change before that change can take place. I am not blaming everybody here because there are many good farmers, but there are those who are not prepared to change. There are those farmers who are prepared to undermine this Government. This is in places such as Piet Retief, Badplaas, Roossenekal, Ermelo, Standerton and Belfast. Those are places of terror. Farmworkers are suffering there. It is not possible to attach a figure to the number of people evicted, but there is a register which is being prepared by the Department of Land Affairs.

Kubi emapulazini, kodwa ububi obukhona e-Piet Retief endaweni yaseMabola e- Dirkiesfontein, buphezulu kakhulu. Kule ndawo abantu basuswa emapulazini ngamasosha namaphoyisa. Bayashaywa, kushiswe izindlu zabo, kuthathwe izinkomo zabo futhi kubhidlizwe izindlu nefenisha yabo. Lokhu kwenziwa egameni lombuso ngoba kuthiwa isizathu sokususwa kwabo ngukuthi umbuso wethu usho njalo emThethweni obizwa nge-Extention of Security of Tenure Act.

Abanye abantu basuswa ngamaphoyisa kungabikho okwenziwayo. EMabola, eDirkiesfontein, bonke abantu bakhona bakhala ngoMnu Greyling ongumholi wamabutho amakhomando e-SANDF kanye ne-Special Security Company. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.) [The situation on farms is bad. On a farm near Piet Retief, in the areas of Mabona and Dirkiesfontein, it is worse. In these areas people are removed by soldiers and police. They are beaten up, their cattle are plundered and their furniture is destroyed. It is said that this is being done in the name of our Government since it was stated in the Extension of Security of Tenure Act that people should be removed.

Some people are removed by the police and nothing is done about it. In Mabona and Dirkiesfontein everyone is complaining about Mr Greyling, the commander of the SANDF and Special Security Company.]

They are terrorising and beating up people, confiscating cattle, burning people’s homes down and using state vehicles, in full uniform. Mr Greyling has his own territory: The police are afraid of him. They go about shooting black people’s dogs, because they say these will mate with their dogs. To them shooting a black person is like shooting a bird.

Kuyo le ndawo kukhona amadoda ashiswe ngensimbi ebizwa ngokuthi yi-cattle prod. Bashiswe ngaphansi ukuze ubudoda babo bungabe busasebenza. Abanye bashaywa namehlo abo awasaboni kahle. Ngicela komama ukuthi sike sibeke le ndaba kuNkulunkulu. Kubhidlizwa namathuna. Abantu abakwazi ukuvakashela amathuna oyisemkhulu kanti amanye awo awasekho. Abanye abavunyelwe ngisho nokungcwaba abafileyo babo, ngoba umThetho obizwa nge-Extension of Security of Tenure Act uthule mayelana nokungcwaba.

Abantu baphila phansi kwesimo esibucayi kakhulu. Amaphoyisa endawo awakhulumi lutho kungakakhulumi iphoyisa elimhlophe, namacala wonke aphathwa ngamaphoyisa amhlophe kuphela ngoba umuntu omnyama akakwazi ukuphatha icala lomlungu. E-Kudu Farm abantu kuthiwa basuka ngoba bezivumela bona, lokhu okuthiwa yi-relocation. Le nto-ke ibeka abantu bakithi esimeni esibucayi.

Abanye bahlala nje eduze komfudlana futhi abavunyelwe ukwakha kodwa bakha izindlu zomhlanga okuthi uma imvula ina amanzi angene. Abantwana bahamba phakathi kwamasimu omoba lapho beya esikoleni. Ngenkathi behamba lapho, kungenzeka noma yini. Nomama abavikelekanga kulesi simo esikhona lapha endaweni yase-Kudu Farm. Kuthi uma sebexoshwa laba bantu kuqashwe abantu baseMozambique basebenze, kuthi uma kuphela inyanga baxoshwe nabo bese kubizwa amaphoyisa kuthiwe bangabafuduki abahlala ngokungemthetho ezweni, banikwe ama-R180.

Endaweni yase-Dirkiesfontein kukhona imindeni engama-200 okukhona kuyo abantu abahlala endaweni engeyombuso. Kukhona umfudlana abawusebenzisela ukukha amanzi. Isiteshi samaphoyisa esiseduze senze ipayipi lendle laqonda kuwo lowo mfudlana ukuze bangabi nawo amanzi okuphuza. Abanawo amanzi abangawasebenzisa, abanazo izikole, abanandawo lapho belima khona. Baphila njengezinyoni.

E-Rosendal, ngase-Belfast, kunendawo lapho kukhona khona lo Mnu Landman endaweni ebizwa nge-Landman’s Valley. Uyesatshwa ngamaphoyisa futhi usatshwa yibo bonke ngoba uthi uma esephuma eseshaya abantu, bese kumemeza wona amaphoyisa athi: Balekelani ezintabeni ngoba lo mnumzane uphethe izikhali ezimbi ngendlela emangalisayo. Kuyaziwa ukuthi kunalo mnumzane onezikhali ezimbi kodwa akaboshwa.

Kukhona futhi nendawo yase-Belfast lapho kukhona khona lo mnumzane othi uma exosha abantu bathi uma sebelanda impahla yabo athi kubo: Hambani niye kuMandela azolanda impahla yenu. Kwesinye isigameko wababiza labo bantu wase ebiza nenkosikazi, wayimisa, wasethi kuyo: Bheka entabeni, naziya izimfene. Uyabona, le enkulu uMnu Mandela, leya uGraça, leya uMbeki kanti leya uZanele. Bavula amatshe ngoba benifunela ukudla kokuthi nidle. Le nto eyenzeka laphaya kuleziya zindawo yehlisa isithunzi sombuso wethu futhi idelela lo mbuso esikuwo manje.

Kungaba yiphutha-ke uma ngingayeka indaba eyenzeka kula mapulazi, emahlathini, lapho kunale nto khona ekuthiwa yi-outsourcing. Imisebenzi inikezwa abantu okuthiwa ama-subcontractor bese kuqashwa abantu baseMozambique banikezwe ishumi ngelanga, bese kuthi laba abanikezwe ama- subcontract kuthi leyo mithi abayigawulile iyekwe laphaya emahlathini, bese bengaholi-ke labo bantu futhi bangakwazi nokuholela abantu babo, lokho okungabanga ukuthi balwe bodwa.

Ngicela ukuthi laba bantu abahluphekayo emapulazini babonelelwe ngokuthi bathole umhlaba, bakhelwe izindawo zabantwana ukuze bafunde, nokuthi abantwana babo babe nemfundo eyaneleyo. [Ihlombe.]

Ngenxa yesikhathi ngizokushiya lokhu okunye. Kodwa ngicela komama ukuthi sike sihambe siyothandaza. uNkulunkulu akahlekwa ngoba uNebukhadnezari noma wayengubhongoza kodwa wagcina esedla utshani kanye nezinkomo. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)

[There are men in this area who were burned with a cattle prod. Their private parts were burnt so as to destroy their sexual organs. Some had their eyes injured. This resulted in the destruction of their sight. I would like to say to women that we should refer this incident to God. Graves are being destroyed. People cannot visit the graveyards in which their grandfathers are buried since some of the graves are no longer in existence. Some people are not allowed to bury their relatives because the Extension of Security of Tenure Act does not say anything about burials.

People are living under dreadful conditions. Local police cannot say anything until a white policeman has spoken. White police are the ones who handle all cases because a black policeman cannot handle cases against white people. It is said that on Kudu Farm people left the area of their own free will because of what was called relocation. This put our people in a bad position. People stay close to a stream and they are not allowed to build. They build their houses with reeds and this does not prevent rain from flowing through their houses. Children walk through the sugar cane field when they go to school. Anything can happen while they are walking there. Even women are not safe from this situation that is prevailing on Kudu Farm. When these people are fired, immigrants from Mozambique are hired to fill their positions. At the end of the month, these immigrants are fired, the police are called in and the immigrants are then accused of being aliens who came into the country illegally. Immigrants are paid R180 for the job they have done.

In Dirkiesfontein there are about 200 families. Among these families are those that have settled on state land. There is a stream from which they fetch water. The police station nearby has installed a sewage pipe that passes through this stream so that these people are not able to use the water from this stream. They do not have water. They do not have schools. They do not have land to plough. They live like birds.

In Rosendal, near Belfast, there is a place where Mr Landman lives. This place is called Landman’s Valley. Everybody, including the police, is afraid of this man. When he comes out to beat people, the police themselves scream and say: ``You must run away to the mountains because this man is carrying the most dangerous weapons.’’ It is known that this man has dangerous weapons but he is not arrested.

There is also another farm in Belfast, and on this farm there lives a man who chases people away and when they come back to collect their belongings, he says to them: Go to Mandela and tell him to come and collect your belongings.'' One day he called these people. He then called a woman and said to her:Look at the mountain. There are monkeys. That bigger one is Mandela, and the other one is Graça, the next one is Mbeki and the last one is Zanele. They are opening stones to find you some food.’’ The things that are happening there are degrading our state and are an insult to the present Government.

It would be a mistake not to mention the things that happen on these farms and in the forests where there is something called outsourcing. Work is given to people who are called subcontractors, after which Mozambiquans are hired. They are paid R1 per day. After they have sawed down the trees the subcontractors are not paid their salaries because the trees that they had sawed down are left in the forest. Now they cannot pay their workers. This causes them to quarrel with their workers.

I would like to ask that farmworkers be given land and that schools be built so that their children are educated and get a good education. [Applause.]

I will leave out other things because of time constraints. Again I would like to say that we as women should come together and pray. God cannot be mocked because even Nebuchadnessar, who was a boss, ended up in the pasture eating grass together with cattle. [Applause.]]

Genl C L VILJOEN: Mnr die Voorsitter, agb Minister, agb lede, u moet mooi na my luister. As daar ooit ‘n raakpunt is tussen wit en swart wat óf landelike stabiliteit en goeie samewerking tot gevolg kan hê óf, soos in Zimbabwe, chaos en anargie kan bring, dan is dit die boer/arbeiderverhoudings. Laat ons dus verantwoordelik wees en staatsmanskap wys, en nie onnodig sonder behoorlike feite die gemoedere opjaag nie. Tans is hierdie verhoudings eintlik bo verwagting goed. Ek het onlangs ‘n vraag aan die Minister gevra. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.) [Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairman, hon Minister, hon members, you must listen attentively to me. If ever there has been a point of contact between white and black that could either result in rural stability and good co-operation or, like in Zimbabwe, cause chaos and anarchy, it is farmer-worker relations. Let us therefore be responsible and display statesmanship, and not unnecessarily incite emotions without having the proper facts. At present these relations are in fact unexpectedly good. I recently asked the Minister a question.]

I asked the Minister whether the Government’s initiatives to establish more emerging commercial farmers were supported by organised farming. Her answer was yes, the two do support that initiated strongly. Agri-SA and their provincial affiliates are supporting emerging farmers and championing several empowerment projects and Ntsika. The vast majority of commercial farmers are open to land reform. These people cannot all be wrong. I admit that there might be some exceptions, but this is a very promising remark by the Minister.

Tans het ons dus ‘n situasie met hierdie verslag dat daar nie behoorlike rekord gehou word nie. Daar is hierna verwys deur verskillende van die sprekers. Ek het ook die Minister hieroor uitgevra. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[At present we therefore have the situation with this report that no proper record is being kept. Reference has been made to this by several of the speakers. I also questioned the Minister about this.]

I also asked the Minister whether the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs kept records of cases of assault and/or abuse of farm owners, etc, and she said no, cases of assault and abuse were reported to the Police Service. The Police Service had no record. If this is a very serious situation, surely the record would have been kept?

Hierdie is dus ‘n verslag wat op die oomblik nie op goeie inligting berus nie. Daar gaan sekere waarhede in wees, maar die verslag is verdag en dit is ook baie vaag. Dit is verder ‘n gevaarlike verslag in dié sin dat dit die persepsie skep van ‘n heksejag teen boere. Veral subparagrawe (3) en (4) van die verslag se aanbevelings is vir my totaal verkeerd. Die oplossing lê in paragraaf 6 oor die verskeie forums. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[This is therefore a report that is at present not based on good information. It will contain certain truths, but the report is suspect and it is also very vague. It is furthermore a dangerous report in the sense that it creates the perception of a witch-hunt against farmers. I think that recommendations 3 and 4 of the recommendations in the report in particular are totally wrong. The solution lies in recommendation 6 which refers to the various forums. [Time expired.]]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, I support the report on the tour. However, I wish to make the following remarks: South African farmworkers are the workers who are exposed to the most degrading and humiliating working and living conditions, with poor housing facilities. They are subjected to abject misery as a result of these conditions. Their problems are compounded by an absence of security of tenure, as they are highly exposed to random evictions, despite the existence of legislation aimed at protecting them.

In the past we have witnessed ugly scenes of confrontation between farmworkers and farmers - the dispute being new forms of forced removals of farmworkers from the land or the farms they have occupied for many years. These farms have become homes for many farmworkers who have known no other home, as they were born, raised and worked on these farms. The cases of eviction often involved those who are pensioners or disabled. As a result of their incapacity, they become natural targets of crazy farmers who see no value in them, as farmers seek the services of younger labourers.

We have made official unannounced visits to the identified hot spots to investigate these allegations of the abuse of farmworkers by their employers. It is public knowledge that some of the findings relating to the conditions which farmworkers are exposed to were shocking. A classic example of farmworker discrimination is the case of Mr Elias Mokadi from North West, whose family had been left helpless and homeless after he was dismissed from his job. [Time expired.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, section 6(4) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Act 62 of 1997 states: Any person shall have the right to visit and maintain his or her family graves on land which belongs to another person, subject to any reasonable condition imposed by the owner or a person in charge of such land in order to safeguard life or property or to prevent the undue disruption of work on the land.

The reference to any reasonable condition, assumes that there is a reasonable person to make the reasonable decision mentioned in the Act. We Africans, black and white, are not birds of passage. We are here to stay. We have a moral and constitutional right to own land and to use land to eke out an existence. We must work out an agreement or an arrangement that will make it possible for all to own land and to use land.

The debate this afternoon on Palestine and the references to Zimbabwe all refer to this problem of land. These are warning lights to the people of South Africa to really come together and sort out the question of all the people of this land being entitled to all the land in this country. Even if one were to say that land is available for purchase, we know that the poor cannot buy land. Two thirds of the people cannot even afford to purchase any land. The question of evictions also masks the problem of racism. How can people be expected to live under some of the conditions found on farms and in squatter camps? I know that if some of the people in this House were left in some of these conditions for a day or a week they would cease to exist. They would just die.

Judge Goldstone’s landmark legal case on the Group Areas Act applies here, too. We cannot remove people from a place where they occupy space and expect them to occupy another place where there is no space to occupy. Here humanity and ubuntu demand that we should be fair to one another.

Mr M S GININDA: Chairperson and members of this House, the place of eviction in a civilised society like South Africa of indigenous people who were once owners of land, but were deprived and dispossessed of that land by colonialism and apartheid, is a complex one and requires a critical approach. The ANC fought tooth and nail against forced removals. Eviction is nothing but a synonym for forced removals - that is uprooting the poorest of the poor from their original places of residence. Uprooting them in the land of their birth is a criminal offence and it is a crime against humanity. Forced removal was nothing but a displacement of our people, and so is eviction. Whether one calls it eviction or illegal eviction, the fact remains that this practice brings untold hardship and suffering to the majority of our people who unfortunately happen to be the poorest of the poor. Eviction does not in any way promote the spirit of reconciliation, nation-building and national unity. Eviction dehumanises the victim, leaves him or her homeless, landless, frustrated and full of anger and animosity.

Does a victim of eviction live a better life during and after the eviction process? Our experience shows that the victim of eviction lives a very miserable and frustrated life, a life that is full of anger and vengeance because of the great humiliation suffered. Eviction destabilises the balance of peace in the countryside. It causes insecurity to both the perpetrator and the victim.

Eviction, whether one calls it legal or illegal, is a new form of forced removal in our fledgling democracy where the landless are pushed against their will to the periphery to become a pool of labour, as was the case in the past. Does this unite our divided society? The answer is no. It militates against the principle of a united South Africa. We strive for a nonracial society. Does eviction promote this endeavour? The answer is no. Instead, it promotes land ownership that is based on racial lines.

Indeed, eviction whether legal or illegal is a major crime against humanity and against human rights. Those who voted us into power and who are victims of eviction ask us why they are subjected to eviction in a free, nonracial, nonsexist, united and democratic South Africa. Our answer is always not satisfactory because logically it is not supposed to happened.

They were forcibly removed during apartheid and they are continuing to be victims of the same practice even today. If eviction has to happen, it has to happen in the public interest, not when it benefits an individual against the will of the overwhelming majority of our people. Eviction causes overgrazing, soil erosion and the desertification of the environment in the areas in which the victims are dumped.

What is amazing is that this practice is perpetrated by those who enjoyed the privileges of apartheid and who, unfortunately, profess to be believers in the Son of Man. The Son of Man had compassion and love. He never behaved like them. How do they justify being believers in Christ when they cause other people to be homeless and landless? How do they justify being believers in Christ when they want to grab everything? Is it not selfishness to the furthest extreme? How do they justify being followers of Christ when they rejoice when they cause other people to live without grazing land, ploughing land and, as a result, cause them to starve, go hungry and get diseases because they do not have land on which to produce food.

Eviction of the victims of colonialism and apartheid oppression has to be abolished with immediate effect. Whether one calls it legal or illegal, those families in the countryside must be granted landownership rights where they are, and let those who are already evicted return to their original places of residence and be granted land ownership rights there.

Eviction militates against the principles of fundamental human rights. Property goes missing during an eviction. In my constituency, as I am speaking now, approximately 75 head of cattle belonging to different families have gone missing and are still missing. The burning and demolishing of houses becomes the order of the day when eviction takes place. During evictions the furniture gets broken and damaged, and schoolchildren are deprived of learning opportunities.

In my constituency, from December 1994 to June 1998, 10 out of 16 families who were victims of eviction, were evicted because court orders were issued. Out of the 10 families, nine had to have their homes burned down and demolished. What are the irreconcilable sins of these families? If this is justice, then justice to me means something that is totally inhuman. Where is humanity and humanness? Where is a sense of respect for other people’s property?

The trauma that accompanies eviction is shocking. We may say whatever we want to say, but I believe when all is said and done, eviction of the landless who were deprived and dispossessed of their land by colonialism and apartheid will remain a crime against humanity for centuries to come, and to address this question we need to have legislation in place so that our people can be secure in the land of their birth. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr A J BOTHA: Chairperson, hon members, the hon Gininda was so forceful, he nearly made me fall down. It is with mixed feelings that I speak here today. During the portfolio committee visit to the Free State by nine colleagues we had the opportunity of getting to know each other much better.

For me personally, this was a very pleasant and enriching experience. I wish to congratulate, particularly, the leader of our delegation, variously known as either Advocate, Nkosi, or the hon Pathekile Holomisa, who is also the chair of the portfolio committee. The quality of his leadership and the standard of his objectivity are, indeed, commendable. This is particularly noticeable after his return from a regrettably long absence in order to attend to royal affairs. There was a sudden improvement in the ANC study group’s contribution with respect to the recommendations attached to this report. An example of this is a last-minute change, yesterday morning, to a recommendation that all evictions stop indefinitely.

What this would have meant, in effect, was that no further legal terminations of employment could have taken place in agriculture, indefinitely. Imagine what would have happened to the running of Parliament if this ludicrous absurdity was applied here. The very impressive dispatch with which the hon Speaker dealt with dishonourable actions by parliamentary staff this week would not have been possible. Those individuals would not have been suspended and would still have been on full pay. Those members of the portfolio committee who would reject the same right to agricultural employers owe this House an explanation as to why they were silent when the hon Speaker made her ruling this week. It was this and some other changes that enabled, albeit with some reservations, a unanimous acceptance of the ten recommendations by the committee.

It is with sorrow that I cannot say the same about part of this report. I find this unfortunate in the extreme, since there is indeed a significant and developing rural poverty problem. An inevitable global trend in agriculture is for less and less people to produce more per capita.

Together with depressed international commodity markets, heavily subsidised international competitors and very little protection from an unsympathetic Government, this has left South African agriculture in very poor shape, adding significantly to job losses. In some areas, the situation is reminiscent of the depression of the 1930’s, suggesting an investigation on the level of the Carnegie Commission of that time.

This present report does nothing of the kind. Instead, the contents of the report are mainly anecdotal, mostly unverified and, therefore, unsubstantiated. Some of the observations are inflammatory and racist in the extreme. To substantiate this assertion, we need only look under general remarks where it states:

Some evictions are said to be racially motivated because of pressure applied by white farmers on colleagues who seek to make their land available to farm-workers.

Deleted at the last minute from this sentence was the following:

… because they do not want black people in their vicinity.

Anybody who has any knowledge of the South African rural landscape would know how absurd the suggestion is that black people could be excluded from any rural vicinity in this country. What this does is to deviate from the verifiable abuse which, of course, is there as part of the unfortunate human condition.

Generally, no attempt was made to afford alleged miscreants their constitutional right to reply, with one very notable exception. The Free State delegation was informed by a very senior official from the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs that 2 500 evictions take place monthly, and that one single farmer had, in fact, evicted 1 400 workers. At the insistence of the delegation, it was agreed to visit this farm. An unscheduled visit two days later revealed the following: Some four years previously, constraints necessitated the sale of four of the six farms then belonging to the enterprise. This resulted in 10 permanent employees and 65 temporary employees losing their jobs in 1997. The retrenchments complied with all legal requirements.

Far from being evicted, some of the erstwhile permanent workers who were interviewed by the delegation were still living on the farm and were, in fact, refusing to leave. The owner of the property, described by the very same senior official as a rich farmer, turned out to be the Industrial Development Corporation, a Government-owned parastatal. This absurdity is not referred to at all in the report. Absolutely no evidence was found anywhere to substantiate the claim that 2 500 evictions take place monthly. This, also, was not reported.

With reference to the primary objective, it is claimed in the report that it is nearly impossible to quantify evictions, notwithstanding a reference to an eviction monitoring project in KwaZulu-Natal, for those who believe that everything is true. A private inquiry into the findings of this project, a joint venture between the department of land affairs in KwaZulu- Natal, an NGO called Afra and organised agriculture in KwaZulu-Natal, revealed the following statistics for a two-year period, roughly covering 1998 and 1999. In the whole of KwaZulu-Natal and out of 40 000 employees, this official report reveals that there were 25 actual evictions per year.

Compare this with 109 actual farm murders per 40 000 farmers, and then ask: Why has it not occurred to the portfolio committee to discover an urgency to investigate the extent and impact of farm murders? Neither in the minutes nor in the report is any interest shown in this one single piece of verifiable information that 45 parliamentary labour days and approximately R100 000 of additional costs to Parliament had produced.

Yesterday, the hon Holomisa apologised for the shortcomings in arranging this visit. It was caused by the urgency to enable the visit to take place by the end of June. Again, the last two weeks produced an urgency to finalise this report. Strangely, in between, for three full months, there was a debilitating malaise during which absolutely nothing was done about this matter.

It would be a singularly obtuse person who would not wonder why this is the case. I believe that neither Parliament nor agriculture, nor the suffering people out there are well served by this attitude. The DP accept the recommendations, but rejects the report itself out of hand. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, die verslag van hierdie komitee en ook sekere dele van die debat openbaar ‘n situasie wat ‘n uiters negatiewe refleksie werp op die boere van Suid-Afrika. Die vraag is of hierdie situasie waar is, of dit deurlopend is en of dit wetenskaplik begrond is.

Ek erken daar is probleme, soos in enige gemeenskap. Elke terrein het maar sy sondebokke, maar verkondig hierdie verslag die waarheid, die situasie op die grond? Is dit nie veel eerder die resultaat van ‘n lukrake bietjie gepraat hier en daar nie? Die verslag wys dit self. Dit sê die getalle is onmoontlik om te bepaal. ‘n Ander sinnetjie sê: ``Die afgevaardigdes is ook vertel van … ‘’ en dan word daar ‘n hele storie opgedis.

Mnr J H MOMBERG: [Onhoorbaar.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Dit lyk my die ouens was self nie daar nie!

Wetenskaplike opnames is gedoen oor hierdie sake. Het die komitee daardie resultate van wetenskaplike studie verdiskonteer? Ek verwys hier maar net na prof Neels Moolman van die Universiteit van die Noorde. Is daardie resultate geraadpleeg?

Die probleme in die landbou self word nie in die verslag behandel nie. Wat is die grootste rede waarom mense nie op plase aangehou kan word nie? Dit is onekonomies. Diesel het 60 keer duurder geword in die tyd wat mielies se prys dieselfde gebly het. Wat doen ‘n boer as sy begroting nie klop nie? Hy kyk hoe hy goedkoper kan boer om te oorleef, en afleggings is dikwels die resultaat.

Verder moet ons ook waarsku teen die opblaas van geïsoleerde gevalle, byvoorbeeld dié van mense wat witgeverf word en agter bakkies aangetou word. Ons verwerp dit, maar moet dit nou voorgehou word asof dit die reël is?

Die komitee beveel ‘n deurtastende ondersoek na plaasuitsettings aan. Hoeveel keer het ons nie al in hierdie Raad gevra dat die vraagstuk van plaasmoorde ondersoek moet word nie! Die Minister het gister ‘n belofte daaroor gedoen. Tog is daar geen portefeuljekomitee wat dit ondersoek nie. Is dit dan nie belangrik nie?

Hierdie is ‘n plofbare situasie. Ek vra groter sensitiwiteit daarvoor as wat hierdie verslag openbaar. Die aanbeveling in die verslag … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairman, the report of this committee and also certain parts of the debate display a situation that casts an extremely negative reflection on the farmers of South Africa. The question is whether this situation is true, whether it is the case throughout and whether it is scientifically based.

I admit that there are problems, like in any community. Each area has its culprits, but does this report proclaim the truth, the situation at grass- roots level? Is it not much rather the result of random talking here and there? The report itself reveals this. It says that numbers are impossible to determine. Another sentence states: ``The delegations were also told of … ‘’ and then an entire yarn is spun.

Mr J H MOMBERG: [Inaudible.]

Mr C AUCAMP: It seems to me as if the chaps themselves were not there!

Scientific surveys were undertaken on these issues. Has the committee taken the results of scientific study into consideration? I am making reference here to Prof Neels Moolman of the University of the North. Have those results been consulted?

The problems in agriculture itself are not dealt with in the report. What is the major reason why people cannot be retained on farms? It is uneconomical to do so. Diesel has become 60 times more expensive at a time when the price of maize has remained the same. What does a farmer do when his budget does not balance? He sees in what way he can farm less expensively in order to survive, and retrenchments are often the result.

We must furthermore warn against exaggerating isolated cases, for example, cases of people who painted white and towed behind bakkies. We reject this, but should it be presented as being the norm?

The committee recommends a thorough investigation into evictions from farms. How many times have we not asked this House that the question of farm murders should be investigated! The Minister made a promise in this regard yesterday. Yet there is no portfolio committee investigating it. Is it not important?

This is an explosive situation. I am asking for a greater measure of sensitivity for it than the report shows. The recommendation in the report …] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, I regret your speaking time has expired.

Mr C AUCAMP: Dan sê ek net dat ons die verslag verwerp, mnr die Voorsitter. [Then I just want to say that we reject the report, Mr Chairman.]

Mr D A HANEKOM: Chairperson and hon members, Eveline Williams lived on a farm, not far from here, just outside Stellenbosch with her sister and her children. Mrs Williams was born on that farm and grew up in that house on the farm. She played there as a child. When she was 14 years old, her grandmother died and was buried on that farm. Both her parents died when she was in her twenties, and were buried in what had become the family gravesite.

When Eveline, her sister and her children were evicted from that farm - their family home - in 1995, they had no place to go. Their family home and the site on which their parents and grandparents were buried did not belong to them and, therefore, they had no other place to go.

When they were evicted, the owner of that farm had lived on that farm for just six months. His position was that he had bought the farm, it belonged to him and he had the right to choose who would live on that farm and who would not. He was going to employ only contract labour and he did not want anyone else living on that land. The fact that Eveline, her sister and her children had nowhere else to go did not seem to worry him very much.

This is the harsh reality. Eveline’s story could be told by thousands of South Africans. There was no law to protect her. Eveline could have been one of the hon members here. That could have been an hon member and his or her house where he or she grew up as a child. That could have been an hon member’s sister or mother. The situation is heartrending. Hon members need only think of the house where they grew up and how much it meant to them. They need only think of somebody telling them: ``Get out. This does not belong to you. It belongs to me because I bought it.’’

In 1996 we introduced a Bill to give protection to people who live on land which does not belong to them. Opposition parties which today say that the law does not need to be amended and that there is no problem with the law, voted against that Bill in 1996 because they thought it constituted an infringement of property rights. Well, of course, the opposition is right. The problem is not the law. The evictions, which continue to occur, have more to do with violations of the law, with the enforcement of the law, with attitudes of certain people and with problems within the criminal justice system, and of course, probably primarily with the attitudes of some farmers which cause a great deal of hardship to evicted people and to other farmers.

Let me say something about the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The Act does allow for evictions. It was never intended to stop all evictions as long as alternative land is available. We cannot tolerate a situation where people are evicted and dumped on the side of the road with no place to go. That is what the law is about. It offers a high degree of protection to people, but not absolute protection. As long as a person has done no wrong, there has to be alternative land available. If one is 60 years or older, and has lived on land for 10 years or longer, one has permanent rights to live on that land. The Act therefore does offer a high degree of protection. But, it also strikes a fair balance between the rights of owners and the rights of occupiers. It tries to regulate the relationship between owners and occupiers. If the law were respected by all and applied properly, it would go a long way towards offering farm dwellers greater security of tenure and protection of rights. People who live on land which is not their own today have the right to receive visitors, the right to family life, the right to receive postal services, the right to access to water and the right to freedom of political association. Those are rights which did not exist previously.

This law is a transformational law but the problem is that it is not always respected. That is the challenge that remains in front of us. The challenge remains implementation. I do not agree with Prof Ngubane who says that this law is not implementable or that it is fundamentally flawed. That did not come out of the investigations that were conducted. Besides the issue of burial rights, very few people indicated to us that this law needed to be changed, or that it was fundamentally flawed.

We welcome Prof Ngubane and anyone else to indicate to us where they believe this law is inadequate and, of course, the role of this legislature is then to strengthen that law. The issue remains the implementation of this law. Our challenge is to ensure that the general public has knowledge of this law, that there are workshops conducted and that victims get proper legal assistance, because without it they will remain vulnerable.

Of course, the biggest challenge which confronts us is the challenge of property ownership, the challenge of transforming the racially skewed pattern of land ownership we have in our country. For this we need long- term solutions. The Extension of Security of Tenure Act provides for this. It requires goodwill and effort on all sides.

So, what do we do? In our constituency offices in rural areas we have a role to play. We have a responsibility to make people aware of their rights, to go out to farms and to speak to farmworkers. We have a responsibility to reach out to farmers, to make many farmers who do not feel comfortable about so many changes around them feel more comfortable and to make our farmers feel appreciated. Those who are doing something and are trying to offer a better life to people must be made to feel appreciated and we must give them encouragement. But, at the same time, we have to let those farmers that are guilty of malpractice and human rights abuses know that they are not appreciated. We have to encourage the good to do better and send out a clear message to the bad that they do not belong and that we really do not appreciate what they are doing. Let all of us say that.

Gen Viljoen, it was reported, when he went with a team of people to Mpumalanga, made it very clear when he was confronted with a human rights abuse situation, that he did not approve. That is important. We should send out those messages, both of appreciation for the good and of condemnation of the bad.

What do ordinary people do? Ordinary people need, above all, to learn to respect each other, to respect each other’s rights and the laws of the country. They need to acquaint themselves with the law and, above all, show kindness, compassion and generosity. So many people have such a lot and so many more people have so little.

Because we are on the eve of elections I am going to end by saying people should exercise their rights as citizens of our country, and do so carefully and responsibly. They should not vote for a party that voted against the law that offers them greater protection. They should vote for the party that fights for their rights, believes in their rights and will stand with them right to the end. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Report adopted (Democratic Party, New National Party, Freedom Front, Federal Alliance and Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging dissenting).

              MEDIUM-TERM BUDGET POLICY STATEMENT 2000

                      (Subject for Discussion)

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I call upon the Minister of Finance. I am sorry, I call upon the hon Feinstein.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: We only share the same Bible, Chairperson. We are not the same person. [Laughter.]

Mr A J FEINSTEIN: Chairperson, I would hope that what is more important is whether we share the same views on the economy or not. The ANC welcomes the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement as a further consolidation and development of Government’s fiscal and monetary policy. Economic policy under South Africa’s first and second democratic governments has consistently focused on balancing a massive shift from distorted apartheid spending to social spending, to benefit the poorest in our society, together with the need to stabilise public finances and restructure our economy to survive in an unstable global environment.

This Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement continues to maintain this balance while loosening fiscal policy somewhat to further increase spending on the poor. This increased spending, 3,7% a year in real terms, reflects Government’s stated priorities of speeding up change through improved economic and social infrastructure, a more efficient justice system, intensified human capital development, effective redistributive social services, provision for HIV/Aids-related services, and the encouragement of economic development and accelerated employment.

This statement clearly reflects that this Government has pursued, to borrow a phrase, ``prudence with a purpose’’. Macroeconomic prudence is being pursued to ultimately release, in a sustainable manner, additional funds for social spending on the poorest of the poor.

One of the key challenges facing this Government is to build the capacity of the Public Service to deliver these services more efficiently, effectively and rapidly to more people. For instance, in the area of dealing with the scourge of HIV/Aids, where the additional resources announced are to be greatly welcomed, Parliament has indicated the need to receive more disaggregated information in order to be able to assess and comment on the total amount of money that is being spent across all the departments and spheres of Government, and the effectiveness thereof.

The ongoing reforms of the Budget process, which engender greater transparency and certainty, will contribute greatly to Parliament’s ability to effectively conduct this type of oversight, which can only be of benefit to the country as a whole. It is, however, a pity that this policy statement has had to be dealt with so quickly, and as a consequence superficially, due to the syncopation of the parliamentary year. This process is as important to this House as the Budget itself, and must in future years be treated as such.

The very welcome expenditure plans outlined in the statement are predicated on a growing and stable economy. Commentators in our own country and around the world are unanimous in their view of the fundamental soundness of this economy. The policies of the ANC Government rescued the sinking apartheid economy and have put the country on a stable foundation for sustainable growth. This policy statement again delivers a low deficit, low inflation, significant reductions in Government dissaving, together with increased social spending, declining interests on debt and continued excellent revenue collection. The picture in the real economy, however, is mixed. While the statement indicates encouraging export performance, suggesting that structural change to make the economy more competitive is starting to reap rewards, growth performance remains sluggish and the displacement of formal jobs by informal employment continues.

In attempting to understand why growth is not reaching the 5% to 6% levels we require, it is worth considering the findings of what is perhaps the largest empirical cross-country study of growth determinants, undertaken over three decades by Prof Robert Barro of Harvard University. The evidence from the study indicates that growth is enhanced by better maintenance of the rule of law, smaller government consumption and lower inflation.

Growth is also stimulated by greater starting levels of life expectancy, as well as secondary and higher schooling. Additional public policies that are important for growth include tax policy, public pension and other transfer programmes and the nature or the regulation of financial, labour and other markets. Also important are infrastructure investments, research and development outlays, the quality of education and the distribution of income and wealth.

This vast array of policy prescriptions provides a daunting challenge to our ability to move this economy onto a sustainable higher growth trajectory that will create jobs and improve the daily life of millions of our people. While this policy statement does not and cannot provide the impetus for that leap, it contributes a number of important building blocks. Key among these are the additional investment in infrastructure and capital expenditure generally, the commitment to human capital development, further investment in the justice system and continuing vigilance over inflation.

The prospect of further tax relief to ordinary South Africans will be eagerly anticipated and is to be welcomed. However, an overall strategy on tax policy, especially as it relates to the promotion of higher savings, should precede or accompany the February announcements in this regard. The role of the restructuring of state assets in contributing to a growth spurt must also be examined in more detail than is done in the statement.

It is because material inequalities and inequalities of opportunity continue to bedevil our growth objectives that the provision of free water and key services to the poorest of the poor, as has recently been promised by the President, must be unequivocally welcomed. In addition, accelerated spending on social infrastructure will also benefit the poor disproportionately and is, therefore, welcomed.

What this brief analysis of the determinants of growth indicates is that while we are making good progress in some areas, a united effort across all sectors of our society is required to place South Africa on a growth path that will meet the needs of all our people in a fair and just manner. We, as the country’s political leadership in this House, have a massive responsibility to contribute constructively to this effort, to constantly talk up our economy here and in the tumultuous, cut-throat world beyond our borders; to talk not only of the challenges that confront us, but also of the opportunities that exist now and that beckon in the future.

The ANC - with our history at the coalface of the struggles of ordinary people, our competence in economic management and our commitment to leading this economy and country out of the darkness and into the light - is the only party that can deliver a better life for the many, and not just a few; a life in which all can have dignity, security, prosperity and freedom from want. The ANC, therefore, supports this statement. [Applause.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, as a book-keeping exercise and a wish list for the South African economy, the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement has much to commend it. But as a coherent plan to meet the socioeconomic needs of the South African population it offers little hope. In the short time available, I shall illustrate how the Budget Policy Statement is littered with unsubstantiated claims and promises. The Minister’s theme in his speech amounted to ``happy days are here again’’. However, when one reads the document, one discovers that this is a hollow claim.

The Budget Policy Statement makes forecasts of steady economic growth over the next three years. Unfortunately, we have heard these forecasts time and again from the Minister, but the reality has been very different. In his four Budget speeches since 1997, the Minister has forecast growth which would have amounted to a total of 10,3% by the end of this year. In practice we shall have had growth of only 6,9%. In other words, in the four budgets presented to Parliament by this Minister of Finance, he has overestimated South Africa’s economic growth rates by nearly 50% on average.

The Minister has made frequent mention in recent weeks - in justification of what happened to the rand - of how the South Africa rand has not done worse against the US dollar this year than the Australian dollar. That is all very well, as far as it goes. However, if one looks a little deeper, one discovers that things are not so rosy. The rand has, in fact, devalued by 36% against the Australian dollar since 1994.

If we look at this year the Australian dollar may not have done well, but their economy grew by 4,7% on an annualised basis in the second quarter of this year compared to 1,6% in South Africa. Their consumer price index in June was up by 3,15%, compared to 5,1% in South Africa, and their prime lending rate was 5,25% lower than South Africa’s.

In a number of places in the document, the Minister correctly identifies a serious problem, but no solution to that is offered. For example, the document states, and I quote:

The skills shortage places a supply constraint on the rate of growth of the economy. Skills shortages may become an even greater challenge than at present unless …

Various things are then listed, one of which is that -

… measures are taken to address the loss of skills through emigration.

This is an absolutely correct identification of the problem. It is a critical area, as South Africa is suffering from a massive skills loss which will prevent us from achieving the growth rate that we require. But nowhere in the document is anything mentioned as to what has to be done to make skilled people feel comfortable and welcome in this country. [Interjections.] Is that what that hon member is proposing? [Interjections.] Now we know why the rand will soon be worth R8,00 to the dollar!

Then we have problems identified and even suggestions that the Government is addressing them, which are contradicted by the figures in the document. For example, the document states that:

The increase in the provincial share over the MTEF will assist provinces in accommodating …

and one of the things mentioned is the pressures on the health services resulting from HIV/Aids.

When one looks at the funds that have been allocated for this purpose to health, one finds that the total health expenditure is to reduce in real terms per capita over the next three years. So, here we have an item identified in the document as a critical area and a priority for the medium term, yet the funds allocated to it simply do not match up to the claims made in the document. And so one could go on.

Despite the optimistic assumptions made in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, the ANC promise that comes out of this document is, simply, one of a miserable life for all. [Interjections.] The Minister has admitted that we need a 5% or more growth rate to have a significant impact on unemployment. Even with the favourable assumptions made in the document, growth rates of only 2,4% to 3,7% are projected. This amounts to nothing more than telling the millions of unemployed and poor people in this country that life for them is going to go from bad to worse.

We will not get out of this rut until Government gets its act together and is able to tackle the problem vigorously and stops equivocating on key areas of policy. Government, for example, must decide whether it is for or against privatisation, and get on with it. Contradictory messages and a pathetically slow performance have cost South Africa dearly in very many respects. Even the Governor of the Reserve Bank gets agitated about it.

Government must decide whether it considers business and the private sector allies or enemies, and get on with it. We get conflicting signals all the time. Government must decide whether it wants skilled people to stay in or come to South Africa or not, and get on with it. Parts of Government, which we heard earlier today, belong to the ``good riddance to bad rubbish’’ school of thought, while others bemoan the loss of skills. One person, in the ANC, a leading office bearer, has even recommended that skilled people should be barred from emigrating!

Unless we can do what is necessary to achieve the investment levels, the economic growth rates and the job creation that South Africa needs, our economy and all our people face a bleak future. It may be of some electoral use for the Minister to make marvellous promises, but the Minister’s repeated promises to the hard-pressed South Africans that:``Your cheque is in the post,’’ will not help. We have seen over the past four years that, for most people, the cheque never arrives.

South Africa deserves better than this. The key has to be focusing more attention on how to increase the size of the economic cake without ignoring the need to divide the cake equitably to ensure that some do not receive only crumbs or nothing at all. Poverty eradication and job creation in a growing economy must be our top priorities. Unfortunately, this Medium-Term Budget Policy will not achieve any of these goals. [Applause.]

Mr M F CASSIM: Mr Chairperson, I rise on behalf of the IFP, generally known as the Inkatha Freedom Party'', but otherwise also known as the Insuring Financial Prosperity Party’’. Now, we believe that that is what the average South African wants from us, and from a Parliament that is prepared to guarantee the financial prosperity of this country.

Let us see what has happened in the past six years. In the past six years, for the first time, we have had clear policy documents, without ambiguity, placed in front of us. [Interjections.] I would like to congratulate the Minister and say to him that I think this is an enormous advancement in the way in which the financial matters of Parliament have been handled in this country.

For the first time, if I were a foreign businessman setting foot here in South Africa, I would be in a position to have a road map which would allow me to navigate into the future. It shows me, over the next three years, more or less what is going to happen in respect of expenditure and where that expenditure is going to be targeted. So, I must, on behalf of the IFP, congratulate the Minister and say to him: This is very well done, indeed.

Now, what can we do to make certain improvements? There are areas in which we could make a number of improvements. Firstly, the report indicates that there will be a growth of around 3%. What we would like to have had was the thinking behind that prognosis that there would be a growth of 3% in order that, then, we could see whether that growth was going to take place or whether there would be problems. What would happen if that growth of 3% did not materialise and the Minister had to come to Parliament and say: Well, I now need to revise this downwards to 2% or 1,5%? How would the labour unions react to that? What would that do, then, to the rest of the programme? Would the rest of the programme remain intact or would that have to be cut down?

The hon Andrew Feinstein pointed out that there will be a 3,7% growth in social services, but if we look at the most important ones that affect the poorest and the middle class most - these are education, health and welfare

• in respect of these, over a period of four years, there is an actual 1,3% decline. The question is: Is this merely an assumption that is put on paper, or we will really have to cut down on these most important key areas by 1,3%?

Our contention in the IFP is that it would be quite wrong to target health, education, and welfare, considering HIV/Aids, malaria, and a whole lot of problems such as cholera. We may not be in a position to reduce in those key areas. What would happen then?

So, our view in the IFP is that while we support the Minister in the direction in which he is going, we plead with him very seriously to give us a detailed background as to the reason why he prognosticates that a 3% growth is possible. On what is that really based? The report does not indicate that. Secondly, in respect of the 1,3% decline in the key areas of health, welfare and education, we request that that deduction should not be made. In fact, if anything, he might have to actually revise those figures upwards in order that we can have a stable, prosperous and healthy South African community.

Dr G W KOORNHOF: Mr Chairperson, hon members, I note that the IFP has a new spokesperson on Finance, and I hope they do not see that as a challenge to Dr Gavin Woods.

The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement provides mostly positive news, and has good intentions. The real test will be whether we can implement such policies effectively in a way that will benefit our economy, and thereby the quality of life of the people.

I want to highlight five areas where we face huge problems in the medium to long term. The approach we will take to tackle these problems or challenges will determine whether they will be transformed into opportunities, or will put us on a downward spiral of economic and social decay. Firstly, we need to break the poverty cycle. Poverty is not created by poor people: It is created by not investing enough resources in human capabilities. In South Africa we fall short in this aim.

Secondly, the South African economy has the potential to grow at a rate of at least 4% per annum for the next few years. We need to kick-start the economy and move it away from the current no-man’s land. Thirdly, our efforts to create jobs are far below par. The impression is created that job creation only slips through the back door of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement.

Fourthly, the restructuring of state assets seems to be tackled half- heartedly by Government, with the result that the perception is created that the ball is simply kept in the air. Let us play the ball and score a goal that will benefit our country on this issue. Fifthly, HIV/Aids is potentially the biggest threat to our society. It is unforgivable that in November 2000 we do not have an integrated national plan to address this issue. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon members, the ACDP commends Government in its intention to meet the socioeconomic needs of all South Africans, especially those who are very poor. We are particularly encouraged by Government’s intention to focus on public spending programmes that promote human development and broaden economic opportunities.

We welcome the reduction in the Budget deficit, which will release 1% of the GDP per year. The ACDP recommends that the funds that will be made available as a result of this be used for either tax cuts or to reduce our foreign debt, which would strengthen our balance sheet. Our first choice is, of course, the reduction of our foreign debt, however small this might be.

We are encouraged by Government’s policy framework on the accelerated restructuring of state-owned enterprises, which will impact on Transnet, Telkom, Eskom, Denel, the Airports Company and several others. In conclusion, we also welcome the statement made by the hon Feinstein when he said: Out of the darkness into the light,'' because it reminds us of the scripture:Out of the darkness into His wonderful light.’’ [Time expired.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, what happened in this House this week, especially the workshops we had on Tuesday, is unique anywhere in the world. When a government takes Parliament into that kind of confidence and has the kind of empowering discussions undertaken here, this is certainly something unique.

Having said that, it is also true that we sometimes expect too much of the Budget statement. A Budget statement is only the synthesis of other Government policies. The Treasury should not be expected to answer for each and every line department.

Apropos the comments made here this afternoon, I would like to start with a note of appreciation to the hon Feinstein. I think by referring to Barro’s latest book, he is focusing on a series of issues. Important among those issues is, of course: ``Beyond what you can measure, there is the need to talk the economy up.’’ I think that that positive statement came from a number of speakers. We also heard it from the hon Green just now.

But against that, the chief spokesman for the Doomsday Alliance has developed a personality cult. It is about Doomsday: This is whacko taxes culture; it is about marking the date and burying one’s soul, because there can be no future in this country. It is most unfortunate that the hon Andrew takes that kind of Doomsday position on everything. The way he articulates this ignores the reality of some issues. In fact, when he talks about Australia, he should recognise the fact that that country restructured its economy 20 years ago. Look at the balance of payment deficit of 4,5%. He cannot just choose a target.

The other day he said that the rand had depreciated because Zimbabwe is our neighbour. What we are saying now is that he should look at the depreciation of the Australian dollar this year - they do not have Zimbabwe as a neighbour. So, he should not choose facts to merely tell a story. In the same way he can take the per capita spending and say that in India the per capita debt looks very different from the per capita debt in Norway. One can choose these kinds of ways in the figmental way that Ken Andrew has just done. It does not say anything.

Apropos the issue of growth, I think most economists recognise that there are a series of exogenous factors that they cannot take account of, especially in the private sector, where they revise their estimates more frequently. I stand in this House and say, with all honesty and sincerity as I always do at this podium, that we have given this country our best estimates. We have taken account of everything. These are the latest official statistics, including the Reserve Bank’s quarterly bulletin. Those are the estimates we used to make this budget. We placed that before the country and, thankfully, the majority of the people in this country have voted and they will continue to vote for cents, rather than Doomsday. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

               GENERAL INTELLIGENCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I do not know why that hon member is laughing. Maybe she has a reason, but it is sickening. It is only a sick mind that laughs when someone is called to the podium to come and speak. It is a sick mind that does that. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Why do you have such a complex today?

The MINISTER: No, it is not a question of a complex. It is a question of seeing someone doing some of the silliest things. [Interjections.] Yes, that is the accident of that member’s Bantu Education. He was totally responsible for it. He should not blame me for that. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

The MINISTER: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill. During the budget debate for the secret services, Minister Nhlanhla indicated that the Ministry for Intelligence would be tabling this Bill before the House rises. I am happy that this is happening.

In a nutshell, the Bill aims to align the intelligence services legislation with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act. It also seeks to align the disciplinary code and the conditions of service of the intelligence services with the latest trends in labour law. It seeks to regulate strikes in the intelligence services and to create consultation forums to deal with conditions of service and grievances. This is to ensure that the intelligence services operate in an environment where fair labour practices and proper consultation with our members on their conditions of service and grievances are a norm.

It also seeks to regulate the activities of former members, and will provide for the Minister to issue regulations in this regard, the aim being to ensure that former members conduct themselves in a manner not detrimental to our national security interests and those of the smooth, efficient and effective functioning of the intelligence services.

Lastly, it seeks to ensure that different state departments and parastatals, in pursuit of a 1997 Cabinet decision, observe the minimum security standard policy. The Bill will provide for the Minister to issue regulations in this regard. The regulations would deal with, among others, the protection of sensitive information belonging to the state in Government departments and parastatals, and ensuring that they operate in keeping with the minimum information security standard guidelines.

Our competitors are tightening their security infrastructure and so should we. They are creating a working environment conducive to boosting the productivity of their members and to ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in their organisation and security systems. They are making sure that the subjective elements of their craft are attended to, and by so doing, giving their members the edge over their rivals and competitors. This is indeed the challenge we are rising to through this Bill.

Hon members’ support for the Bill will be a resounding statement that we are in search of excellence in our intelligence services and are willing to put our shoulders to the wheel by creating a supportive work environment for them. Hon members have already eloquently demonstrated this by the manner in which discussions on the Bill were handled. These discussions showed that hon members regard intelligence as a national asset where … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, let me try to get a more receptive House for you. Hon members, I think this is an important subject that is being discussed and the level of noise is quite unacceptable. Unless you want me to call you by name … [Interjections.] I think if you co-operate, and provided you speak quietly and you do not disturb anyone else, I will not find that objectionable. The MINISTER: These discussions indeed show that hon members regard intelligence as a national asset worthy of our collective support and guidance. For this I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to the chairperson, Ms Mapisa-Nqakula, and to all the members of the ad hoc committee and the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. Hon members, I thank you in anticipation. [Applause.]

Ms N N MAPISA-NQAKULA: Chairperson, hon members, the acting Minister for Intelligence has put to the House the objects of the General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill of 2000. In his speech he touched on some of the motivating factors for the changes we are seeking to introduce.

From the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and ad hoc committee perspective, I would like to deal with some of the sensationalised elements that this Bill seeks to address. In the past three years the services have been faced by a few highly publicised cases of indiscipline. In this regard, we can cite problems experienced by covert structures involving members of the SA Secret Service and the National Intelligence Agency.

These cases were an aberration rather than the rule. These aberrations are what the Bill now seeks to keep down to a bare minimum. The committee would like to reiterate what the Minister for Intelligence said in this House: ``We are committed to engendering a culture of zero tolerance of maladministration, poor financial management and control.’’ Whilst there are some negative elements within the intelligence services, the latter form a minority which is fighting a losing battle. Bad elements are and will be dealt with fairly, firmly and within the rule of law. This Bill will facilitate this and ensure that the process of dealing with cases of indiscipline is done in keeping with the best international intelligence practice and in the best practice of labour relations.

By changing the criminal justice process we will empower the managers in the services and ensure that the morale amongst members is at the highest level and that discipline is beyond reproach. To this end, the Bill will strengthen the lines of communication within the services between the management and members and amongst members through a consultative forum. It will also help streamline grievance procedures with a view to faster, better and more effective ways of resolving disputes and conflicts. This will strengthen the bond between members and their management and also improve national security.

The following are the areas of concern in the Bill. Regarding the consultative forum, this forum is a body of elected representatives from across the services. It serves as a tool and channel of communication to and from management of members’ views on issues of general concern, and provides a means of consultation on key issues such as terms and conditions of service. The forum is represented on all chief directorates. Their representatives are allowed to accompany members attending disciplinary or grievance hearings.

On matters that relate to grievances the services have established clear lines of communication. A member with a grievance is expected to first take the matter up with the line management, and if that does not prove satisfactory, the consultative forum, together with management, will resolve the problem. Members are allowed to seek legal or professional advice within the services while ensuring that they continue to respect the need-to-know principle.

The Bill seeks to ensure that members of the services remain positive with the most equitable conditions of service, taking into account that they can neither bargain collectively nor embark upon a strike, as is the case in the rest of the Public Service. Our hopes and wishes are that they will make effective use of this consultative forum and not be forced to set up a trade union movement by failing to take these forums seriously.

With regard to disciplinary and discipline procedures, the cases of discipline that the services have had and how the services dealt with those cases gave the services negative publicity. The cases ranged from absence without leave to corrupt practices by the members. At some stage the services had a number of outstanding cases awaiting judgment by courts of law. In some situations members of the services were suspended from work for long periods with pay. The Bill is therefore dealing with the procedure to be followed when dealing with such disciplinary cases. As already pointed out, the Bill will ensure that the cases are disposed of in the shortest possible time, yet fairly, justly and within the rule of law.

Since 1994 investment in human resources has claimed huge amounts of the services’ budgets. During this period some members opted to leave the services of their own accord, others through old age, retirement and ill health. The services have a firm policy of keeping their activities and the identities of their employees secret. Not only activities and identities of employees are kept secret, but also specialised intelligence skills and knowledge. The reason for secrecy is that it greatly reduces the scope of targeting by foreign intelligence services, criminals and others wishing to corrupt the members. This is vital for the success of the intelligence operations and for the maintenance of the security and stability of the Republic.

A code of secrecy has been maintained, even by those members who have left the services. This matter is addressed in clause 18 of the Bill. I wish to point out here that many members who left the services have joined the mushrooming number of private security companies. There is evidence that some former members were readily available to join these companies and use the skills and knowledge acquired, whilst they were members of the intelligence services, in a subversive manner inside and outside the Republic. Now where does this put the credibility of intelligence services of our country and where does it put us as the Republic of South Africa? We need to deal with this now, not later, hence the section of the Bill that addresses this matter.

In conclusion, I would like to raise a matter I believe needs special attention as we continue to consolidate our democracy. As already pointed out, the Bill, amongst other things, directs us to establish a consultative forum to address problems that members are confronted with in their day-to- day intelligence activities. I believe that the forum would best serve the interests of the members, rather than a trade union operating within the services. It goes without saying that one cannot have a trade union whose ability to operate and serve its members will be determined by, among other things, measures to deny them access to information. It must be remembered that the services must always exercise the maximum balance between secrecy and transparency in all intelligence-related matters.

We are not advocating tampering with the Constitution, but the Constitution which we drafted has put us in a very difficult situation, in terms of which the security sector can actually organise itself into a trade union movement. Even in the most advanced democracies we have not seen intelligence services being mobilised into a trade union organisation. This presents a challenge to all of us to begin to debate these issues at some point, not as the majority party, but all of us together as patriots of South Africa. [Applause.]

Mr S PILLAY: Chairperson, a quote from Sun Tzu says:

A major military operation is a severe drain on the nation, and may be kept up for years in the struggle for one day’s victory. So to fail to know the conditions of opponents because of reluctance to give rewards for intelligence is extremely inhumane, uncharacteristic of a true military leader, uncharacteristic of an assistant of the government, uncharacteristic of a victorious chief.

So what enables an intelligent government and a wise military leadership to overcome others and achieve extraordinary accomplishments is foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, and cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people who know the conditions of the enemy.

So a skilful military operation should be like a swift snake that counters with its tail when someone strikes at its head, counters with its head when someone strikes at its tail, and counters with both head and tail when someone strikes at its middle.

The question that arises is: Do we provide that capacity for the intelligence services and hold them more accountable or not?

We recognise that the intelligence services are necessary for the stability and wellbeing of our country, and that the intelligence services have a responsibility to act at all times in the interests of the whole nation. It becomes essential, as the need arises, to consider amendments to existing legislation to improve the efficiency of the intelligence services. We are satisfied that the amendments are essential, and therefore the DP supports this Bill. [Interjections.]

At a time when criminals run rampant, bombing and murdering citizens and tourists in our country, the people look to elected representatives to give direction to ensure their safety through the efficient functioning of the officials entrusted with that task, and to stop this type of murderous behaviour, prevent its recurrence and protect their interests. Given the cowardly attacks that have been launched against the citizens of our country, investors, tourists and our offices especially here in the Western Cape, it has become imperative that the intelligence services are assisted and strengthened and made more accountable so as to be able to fulfil their statutory obligations.

As previously stated, the Bill sets out to do the following: Further regulate the intelligence services to ensure greater accountability and encourage exemplary conduct on the part of senior management and members, establish an intelligence review board and the management of information acquired by members whilst employed by the intelligence services, manage the utilisation of skills acquired by former members, create an environment that is conducive for members to have their concerns addressed so that they are not seduced by those whose wish is the destruction of our country, and create a conducive environment in terms of which members of the intelligence services will be able to focus on preventing crime.

I take this opportunity to advise the criminals involved in the bombings in the Western Cape that those who attempted to bomb our offices will be arrested, prosecuted and convicted. As elected representatives we will be at the forefront of fighting and destroying the scourge that has plagued our country, and at a time when unscrupulous criminals go on a rampage of bombing and trying to spread terror, the people look to their elected representatives to give direction to the officials in intelligence in order to strengthen, assist and enhance their capacity to protect the citizens of this country.

We need a strong and highly disciplined intelligence community that will serve the needs of the whole nation and be able to defend, not only itself, but also the citizens of our country, as very correctly illustrated by Sun Tzu. This discipline must be extended to the financial aspects of intelligence. An issue that the hon the Minister needs to give urgent attention to is the cost of implementing these amendments that we agree to. I trust that the Minister will provide us with the relevant information as soon as possible.

Whilst supporting the intelligence services, it must be borne in mind that the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence has the very important role of oversight to ensure that all intelligence agencies of the state function within the confines of the law. Criminals must not interpret this as their being able to do as they please, because they are criminals and therefore outside the law. We will continue to work tirelessly to assist, advise, strengthen and ensure that the population is safe from criminals by empowering our intelligence services. The passing of this legislation is part of that process.

In conclusion, members of the intelligence community cannot be allowed to embark on adventures without accountability. Furthermore, we simply cannot allow a situation to develop in which some misguided idealist carrying a dead ideology, or some miscreant filled with malicious and destructive intentions, comes along and tries to influence or does influence members of our intelligence services to engage in go-slow action, go on strike under the guise of trade unionism or, to engage in partisan behaviour. These amendments are designed to deal with those issues, hence our support for it. [Applause.]

Prof L B G NDABANDABA: Chairperson, hon members, the acting Minister for Intelligence and the chairperson of the JSCI have highlighted the significance of the Bill and its history. The General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill is a forward-looking piece of legislation.

Intelligence services in our country are regulated by the Intelligence Services Act, Act 38 of 1994, the National Strategic Intelligence Act, Act 39 of 1994, and, of course, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. The memorandum on the objects of the Bill clearly states that the intelligence services are excluded from the application of labour legislation in respect of the Public Service and the private sector. It is important, therefore, to apply labour legislation to guide the intelligence services in the formulation of their own legislation and internal policies. The Bill, therefore, makes a lot of sense. It is in this spirit, therefore, that the intelligence legislation is being amended by the present Bill in order to give effect to the changes brought about by labour legislation in our country. The Bill, in the view of the IFP, is relevant, because it creates internal mechanisms with a view to fair labour practices and proper consultation on the conditions of service within the intelligence services. By the same token, the Bill regulates the activities of former members of the intelligence services by empowering the Minister to make regulations spelling out how former members must behave themselves in order not to harm the interests of the intelligence services and national security, which we hold so dear to our hearts.

The National Strategic Intelligence Act, Act 39 of 1994, is amended to also empower the Minister to make regulations to deal with the protection of sensitive information which we cannot afford to have go out. This step is in keeping with the Minimum Information Security Standards Policy of 1997, which was approved by Cabinet.

In conclusion, the IFP believes that South Africa’s intelligence requirements are determined by its level of internal stability and its relation with the outside world. The improvements in the operation of intelligence services brought about by this Bill are therefore relevant. It is precisely for this reason that the JSCI, in its wisdom, did not find anything controversial in the Bill. Therefore, the IFP supports the Bill. We have no doubt that the Bill will boost the morale of the intelligence services in our country. [Applause.]

Mrs M E OLCKERS: Chairperson, the security of the state is not negotiable. In a democracy there should be a clear acknowledgement of this fact. The security of the state is also the highest calling of a government. Once all the people in a country accept that fact, issues like empowerment, growth, peace, development, housing, education, etc would find a fertile environment in which the citizens of the country could go about their daily lives.

Although the New NP have reservations about the constitutionality of one or two clauses, the wording of the Bill before us today goes a long way in addressing these doubts. One of the problems the New NP had with the previous draft was the fact that any person who has been or is currently a member of the security fraternity may not utilise their skills in any security related employment after they have left the employment of the services. This was changed so that it is now possible for such persons to use their skills in a private capacity by applying for a clearance certificate to the Director-General of Intelligence and registering so as to render that security service. The restrictive trade or limitation situation is therefore less severe.

I would like to thank the legal staff, especially Adv Taki Netshitenzhe and Mr Dennis Nkosi of the Ministry, for trying to accommodate our views on this aspect and in the final Bill that is before us today. It is a disturbing situation when all sorts of institutions start to surface under the pretext of being research institutions, security firms and cellphone repair companies, with the view of engaging in surveillance work, covert work, interception, tapping, etc with the eventual intention of interfering in the security and stability of the state.

Another clause I wish to highlight is that which deals with the unacceptability of mass action and strikes by people while in the employ of the security services. A very solid negotiating structure is prescribed in these amendments for use by unhappy employees in cases of dissatisfaction. Recently the actions of the Scorpions came under a lot of fire for requesting and subsequently confiscating footage from SABCTV in order to assist them in identifying people who were involved in murder and possibly in the bomb attacks on civilians in the Western Cape. It is unacceptable that certain institutions seem to think that these atrocities must be allowed to continue like ``I am okay, Jack’’, while the security services need that very evidence which was screened in public in any case, to stop these acts from taking place and hopefully make those arrests.

It is unacceptable that certain witnesses have been in witness protection for almost two years and are now regretting becoming involved in some of these cases. In certain cases, unnamed people have already approached some of the witnesses to discuss their evidence, according to newspaper reports. This situation is unacceptable. It is not acceptable that innocent people die or are maimed while public film footage or knowledge of people possibly involved is protected. Is this a moral attitude? Surely, the state must do everything in its power to stop these acts continuing. The New NP will play its part in assisting the Government in their effort to curtail crime in whatever form it manifests itself. The New NP therefore supports the amendments to this Act. [Applause.] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Before I call Mr Abram, I would like to say that we have two categories of speakers and contributors in Parliament - those who speak from the podium and those who speak continually from where they are seated.

Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, naturally there were some shortcomings in the existing legislation and therefore an amending Bill was necessary. Insofar as this particular matter is concerned, I rise here to say unequivocally that we support this amending legislation.

The hon the Acting Minister and the chairperson of the ad hoc committee have mentioned all the elements that led to the drafting of this particular amending Bill. Amongst others, the chairperson mentioned indiscipline. We have actually become a materialistic society and we are willing to sell our souls and information for the sake of a potjie lensiesop [a pot of lentil soup].

I believe that insofar as intelligence is concerned, we need to send a message to the community out there that instead of seeing people involved in intelligence operations and intelligence gathering as so-called impimpis [informers], they should actually see them as the guardians of the security, not only of the state, but also of every inhabitant of this country. I believe that the debate on the Deputy President’s motion on improving the moral fibre of our society should make a contribution in this regard. Every South African should view any information that they pick up, which could have a detrimental effect on the country, as vital information that could be useful somewhere.

The other issue that one has to bear in mind is that one cannot allow unionisation to take place in this particular sector. If one is going to allow collective bargaining by operatives, we are going to find ourselves in real difficulties. A great degree of loyalty to the cause - and the cause is the safety and security of the country and its inhabitants - is a prerequisite for an intelligence operative.

The other issue that needs to be workshopped outside is the fact that people believe that these intelligent operatives are a bunch of impimpis [informers]. In fact, when people find out that some of us are serving on the JSCI they seem to look at us with different eyes, because we are supposedly spying on them or have become impimpis [informers]. I think we should give consideration to the holding of workshops so that the community outside could be made aware of the seriousness of this particular operation, and that is the National Intelligence Agency of South Africa.

Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, the business of conducting intelligence services in the modern world is becoming increasingly complex and sensitive. South Africa is a strategic country at the southern tip of Africa and it must not underestimate its important role as a peace broker. Even more so, it has to maintain political vigilance as it engages in international political matters. Naivete and political ignorance, especially in matters relating to intelligence, must be avoided at all costs.

The General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill seeks, amongst its other provisions, to attend to the nature of such concerns. The people employed to conduct their duties under the provisions of this Bill must be those who strongly believe in the democratic ideals of this nation and who are willing to perform their duties with patriotic allegiance.

We must not allow any standards that may be in conflict with our national character or that may cause our intelligence service’s capacities to either support or inadvertently promote the ideological causes of foreign nations within the borders of our country. In other words, the independence of the Intelligence Services in all their different guises is to singularly seek to uphold the integrity, interests and rights of the people of South Africa, yet to do so in the context of our international relations and interests.

The ACDP therefore supports the strict rules with regard to the discharge of members who regularly absent themselves from their duties. We are all well aware of cases in the past where members of the intelligence services have behaved with ill discipline in respect of their duties.

Although we have the most liberal Constitution that this country may have wished for, there are of course certain requirements where, for the purpose of effective rule, certain of the rights of those who are privy to information of national interest and security, must be strictly monitored and limited. No country in the world would encourage the unionisation of its intelligence members because it could definitely compromise national security.

The provision in section 14 in this Bill on labour relations addresses this area in the correct spirit of our national Constitution. In this regard no member of the agency or service ought to exercise such powers that may compromise his or her duties in the case of departmental dispute. The Bill adequately provide for proper avenues of recourse in matters of dispute.

We strongly support the provisions in section 16 that prohibit former members from selling their knowledge or from being employed in private security firms within three years after their employ in the agency or service. The ACDP therefore, in the light of our views on intelligence, believes that the Intelligence Review Board to be established must be made up of South Africans only with proven credentials supporting our national interest.

In conclusion, the ACDP supports this amending Bill and I wish to thank the chairperson of the JSCI, the hon Mapisa-Nqakula, for her guidance, input and good chairing skills during the JSCI bosberaad and the committee meetings when we worked through the amendment Bill. I also wish to commend Mr Dennis Nkosi and Adv Netshitenze on a job well done. [Applause.]

Mr M I SCOTT: Chairperson, hon members, in my input to this debate, I am going to focus on two areas. These areas are restraint of trade on former members and the intended Intelligence Review Board.

Since 1994 the foreign intelligence agencies have grown in their presence more than threefold. We have also seen the mushrooming of private security and intelligence companies. These factors are indeed a worrying factor for our young democracy. In this amending Bill we are introducing a restraint on trade by former members of intelligence agencies or services.

The amendments before the House say that members who leave the agency or service cannot use their skills, information, material acquired as a result of their employment by the agency or services against our national security interests. Secondly, members cannot be employed by the private security industry for three years after leaving the service unless a member has obtained a clearance certificate from the director-general.

This is a step in the right direction. I must also point out that the restraint on trade by former members within the intelligence community is normal in developed democracies. This is not something new that we are trying to do. It is going to be important to come up with similar provisions for the members of defence intelligence, crime intelligence and other agencies as soon as possible, because this piece of legislation only covers the National Intelligence Agency and the South African Secret Service.

The setting up of the Intelligence Review Board is a necessary mechanism to control or manage the information in the possession of former members. At last we will begin to eliminate problems created by people who write books like One step behind Mandela. Wittingly or unwittingly this member released some information that was detrimental to the operations of VIP units for Presidents. That should be stopped, it has to be stopped and it cannot be allowed to happen again.

Lastly, I would like to thank the members of the ad hoc committee who participated in the drafting of the amendments for their contribution and co-operation. Secondly, I would also like to thank the staff and officials of the Ministry for their assistance in drafting the Bill. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I am rising to thank all hon members for supporting this Bill.

I am particularly grateful to the members of the Doomsday Alliance or the Doomsday Cult for taking a correct stance on the Bill. I was particularly impressed with the remarks of the hon Martha Olckers. She did very well and indeed she ensured that she could dispel all sorts of sickening jokes about blondes. I am indeed grateful to her for that. [Applause.]

Of course the ``Doomsday Alliance’’ co-operated and that is noteworthy and commendable. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND INDUSTRY - SADC TRADE PROTOCOL

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

                      TIME OF MEETING OF HOUSE

                           (Announcement)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, you saw that the hon Jannie Momberg approached me. He wants me to announce that tomorrow hon members should be here at nine o’clock sharp, in order to ensure that the business of the nation may proceed.

I hope that you will all diarise that tomorrow the House will sit at nine o’clock in the morning. And that being the last day, I think that maybe the doors may be closed if hon members are not here by nine o’clock.

Hon members, that concludes the business of the day.

Order! Order! Order hon members!

Please take your seats for a few more seconds.

Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, it may be advisable that the hon Jannie Momberg provide tea at 8:30, and we might be here.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Well, there is a challenge for the hon Momberg. I leave it to him.

The House adjourned at 18:27. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 On 13 October 2000 the National Assembly rejected the Tourism Amendment
 Bill [B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76(1)). Consequently that
 Bill, as well as the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B - 99] (National
 Assembly - sec 76(1)) (ie the version agreed to by the National
 Assembly on 19 May 2000), was referred to the Mediation Committee. On 2
 November 2000 the Secretary to Parliament, in accordance with Joint
 Rule 188(3), submitted the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50F - 99]
 (National Assembly - sec 76(1)), as agreed to by the Mediation
 Committee, to the Speaker of the National Assembly and Chairperson of
 the National Council of Provinces for consideration by the Houses. (For
 report of Mediation Committee, see "Committee Reports".)

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
 relevant committee as mentioned below:


 (1)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Health and to the Select Committee on Social Services:


     Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health of
     the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Ministry of
     Health of the People's Republic of China on Public Health and
     Medical Sciences, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
     Constitution, 1996.


 (2)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Trade and Industry and to the Select Committee on Economic
     Affairs. The report of the Auditor-General contained in the report
     of the Competition Tribunal is referred to the Standing Committee
     on Public Accounts for consideration and report:


     Report and Financial Statements of the Competition Tribunal for
     1999-2000, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
     Financial Statements for 1999-2000.

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

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

 Constitutional Review:


 Discharged: Luyt, L.


 Finance:


 Discharged: Luyt, L.


 Justice and Constitutional Development:


 Discharged: Luyt, L.


 Public Accounts:


 Discharged: Luyt, L.


 Report 13 of Public Protector:


 Discharged: Luyt, L.


 Trade and Industry:
 Discharged: Luyt, L.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Speaker and the Chaiperson:

 REPORT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN DELEGATION TO THE CONFERENCE OF PRESIDING
 OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENTS


 United Nations General Assembly Hall, New York, United States of
 America - 30 August - 1 September


 Delegation:


 Members:


 Dr F N Ginwala, Speaker of the National Assembly; Ms N Pandor,
 Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces; Ms B Mbete, Deputy
 Speaker of the National Assembly; Mr M L Mushwana, Permanent Deputy
 Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces; Mr D H M Gibson, MP


 Staff:


 N Mgayiya
 K Christians


 Report:


 The IPU convened the Conference of Presiding Officers of National
 Parliaments at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Conference
 was held in conjunction with the Millennium Assembly and took place in
 the United Nations General Assembly Hall from 30 August to 1 September
 2000.


 The aims of the Conference were to express support for international
 cooperation and to enshrine a commitment at the highest level by
 parliaments to work much more closely with the UN system and other
 major international negotiating fora both nationally and globally
 through their world organisation, the IPU. The Conference is part of
 the IPU's efforts to strengthen its cooperation with the UN, as
 envisaged in the Agreement of Cooperation concluded between the two
 Organisations in 1996.


 In order to prepare the Conference, the IPU set up a Preparatory
 Committee composed of the President of the IPU Council, several
 Presiding Officers, including the Speaker of the National Assembly, and
 other MPs. The Committee met in Vienna (January 1999), in Rabat
 (September 1999) and in Geneva (January 2000) to draw up the practical
 arrangements for the Conference, to draft the Rules of the Conference,
 and to prepare a Declaration for the Conference.


 The Declaration, entitled the "Parliamentary vision for international
 cooperation at the dawn of the third millennium", highlights the main
 challenges facing the world community and the United Nations in the
 twenty-first century, describes changes in international relations and
 outlines the national, regional and international parliamentary
 dimension of international cooperation. The first drafts were prepared
 by a Working Group. The IPU geopolitical groups and the national
 parliaments represented in the IPU were given an opportunity to study
 the text and make proposals prior to its finalisation at the third and
 last meeting of the Preparatory Committee. Presiding Officers of
 national parliaments provided their perspective on the Declaration in
 their speeches and adopted it by consensus.


 The Conference was opened with a welcoming address by the United
 Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan and an opening statement by
 the President of the IPU Council, Mrs. Najma Heptulla. The keynote
 address was given by the President of the United Nations General
 Assembly, Mr. Theo Ben Gurirab.


 Introducing the Declaration for its adoption, Mr M Traoré, Speaker of
 the National Assembly of Burkina Faso, stated that the presiding
 officers intended to "convey this document to our parliaments, as
 appropriate, and to urge them to do everything possible to ensure that
 it is followed up in a practical and effective manner. We also request
 our governments to bring this declaration to the attention of the
 United Nations General Assembly for debate. Finally, we call upon the
 United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union to seek ways of
 strengthening their institutional links and practical cooperation."


 Text of declaration (MS Word "IPU.Text.ipm"):

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. Report of the Mediation Committee on the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B and B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 1 November 2000:

   The Mediation Committee, having considered the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B and B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76), as well as the papers referred to it, reports as follows:

   1. The Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76) was passed by the National Assembly on 19 May 2000 and submitted to the National Council of Provinces for approval.

   2. The National Council of Provinces passed the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76) on 3 October 2000, containing a number of amendments agreed to by the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs.

   3. Upon referral of the latter amended Bill to the National Assembly, that House accepted some of the amendments passed by the National Council of Provinces, with the exception of five amendments to Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. Consequently, the National Assembly rejected the Bill.

   4. The Bill was referred to the Mediation Committee on 13 October 2000 in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b) of the Joint Rules of Parliament. The Mediation Committee met on 1 November 2000, and, after deliberation, agreed to submit another version of the Bill.

   5. The effect of this decision is that the Secretary to Parliament is required to submit the latter version of the Bill to both the Speaker and the Chairperson of the Council in terms of Joint Rule 188(3), for consideration by the House and the Council.

   6. The Committee therefore submits the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50F - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76), and recommends that the House and the Council pass this mediated version.

2. Fourteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 30 October 2000:

 The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the
 Special Review of the Auditor-General of the Selection Process of
 Strategic Defence Packages for the Acquisition of Armaments at the
 Department of Defence [RP 161-2000], as well as certain papers referred
 to it, and having heard evidence, reports as follows:


 1.     Introductory Comment


     By many accounts the international arms trade industry experiences
     a high incidence of malpractice, with purchasing countries often
     having been the victims of very costly exploitation. With this in
     mind, the Committee has considered the transactions and the
     broader financial and fiscal implications pertaining to the recent
     South African arms purchases. These have been considered through
     the Auditor-General's special review [RP 161-2000] and the
     Committee's subsequent public hearing concerning these
     acquisitions and through the substantial quantity of solicited and
     unsolicited information it has gathered. The Committee's resultant
     observations and findings provide the basis for the following
     Report and its accompanying recommendations.


 2.     Cost to State


     On 15 September 1999, when announcing its decision to contract for
     the strategic arms packages, Cabinet presented the total cost
     thereof to be R29,9 billion. Two months later this was adjusted to
     R30,3 billion. The Committee has looked into both the validity of
     this amount and the State's attention to the full financial and
     fiscal implications of the purchases.


     Regarding the first issue, it has become clear to the Committee
     that the Cabinet's announcement omitted to mention certain other
     cost implications which, it would seem, will significantly add to
     the State's commitment. These factors included the cost of
     servicing the loan portion of the payment obligations (i.e. the
     interest charged), the price escalation conditions contained in
     the supplier contracts and the cost effects of negative foreign
     exchange movements.


     In September 2000, the cost at current foreign exchange rates,
     together with contractual price escalations, had risen to R43,8
     billion. This figure, which was quoted by the Department of
     Defence at the Committee's hearing of the Department on 11 October
     2000 and which was later acknowledged by the National Treasury in
     writing, excluded the interest obligations which would arise from
     the associated loans. The Committee expresses its concern at the
     possibility of the overall cost of the arms packages increasing
     further over the term of the contracts concerned. As all this is
     hugely material to the public interest, the Committee believes
     that the public should have been informed of these possibilities.


     The Committee's scrutiny of the documentation presented to it by
     the various departments, and from which the Cabinet made its
     ultimate decision, indicates that the Cabinet was sufficiently
     informed to have made the public aware of the fuller cost
     possibilities of the deal.


     Concerning the second issue, the Committee is satisfied that the
     National Treasury, in its 1999 "affordability study", did address
     the foreign exchange, price escalation and interest considerations
     and that it attempted to estimate and project these considerations
     into its long-term budget and cash-flow thinking. The National
     Treasury's submissions to the Cabinet were also careful to point
     out the risks associated with these factors. The National Treasury
     is commended for the comprehensive approach used by its study.


     Nonetheless, the Committee will remain anxious about the movements
     within certain major currency markets and the realism of the macro-
     economic assumptions used. In this regard, it intends meeting with
     the Minister of Finance, together with the Portfolio Committee of
     Finance, to discuss the ongoing assessment of the economic and
     financial fundamentals of the defence packages.


     It must be pointed out that the Committee does note the partial
     neutralisation of foreign exchange and balance of payment effects,
     through the currency-linked arrangements of the anticipated offset-
     related inflows.


     The Committee has at this stage not obtained all the information
     necessary for it to complete its evaluation of the cost make-up of
     the prices to be paid for the Gripen and Hawk deals, where there
     is a doubling of the basic unit prices - apparently for necessary
     extra features. The Committee will pursue this detail, with the
     assistance of the Auditor-General, in order to satisfy itself that
     there was no loading of the price - to cover Industrial
     Participation guarantees or to offset the cost of any other
     Industrial Participation obligation.


 3.     Offsets arrangements - Defence industrial participation
     programmes and national industrial participation programmes
     (DIPs/NIPs)


     Concern has also been expressed, through the Auditor-General's
     review, about the government's announcement of the R104 billion in
     offsets (investment and counter-trade).


     A subsequent government press release indicated that this amount
     represented the nominal value of the offset transactions and that
     the economic benefit that would flow from this for the country,
     would be in the region of R70 billion. The government also
     estimated that this activity would create 65 000 new jobs in South
     Africa. The Committee has thus directed its attention towards
     verifying the make-up of both these amounts, their credibility and
     evaluating the possibility of their realisation.


     Also of interest to the Committee is the difference in opinion
     regarding the essential purpose of the industrial participation
     contracts which make up the R104 billion. While the government
     argued mainly from the point of the industrial participation
     arrangement contribution to economic development, the negotiating
     team which secured the arrangements and the Department of Trade
     and Industry say these arrangements are rather about countering
     the negative economic and fiscal effects of the arms deals.


     The Committee acknowledges that substantial thought and effort has
     been put into the establishing of these arrangements and to secure
     their certainty.


     Of the R104 billion the Committee is advised that R14,7 billion
     relates to DIPs and R89,4 billion to NIPs. The DIPs would appear
     to be fairly assured as these projects are directly connected to
     the production of the armament purchases in question, and
     therefore payment would only be made once these deals were
     completed. The uncertainties therefore relate more to the
     enforcement of the NIPs.


     The Committee's considerations therefore focus strongly on the
     attainment of these vitally necessary offset projects,
     particularly bearing in mind experience of developing countries.
     The exceptionally high industrial participation demands on the
     suppliers and the seemingly low penalties should they default (10%
     of the contract price in the case of NIPs), are also noted in this
     regard.


     It is this last issue, in particular, raised by the Auditor-
     General, which is of most concern to the Committee. The NIPs
     contractual arrangements appear to allow for a supplier, once
     having supplied the arms and having received payment therefor, to
     pay over a relatively modest sum of money and be unconditionally
     excused from all offset obligations. Notwithstanding the
     Departments of Defence and of Trade and Industry believing that
     this is not likely, the Committee remains concerned.


     The Committee observes that these deals were negotiated at a time
     when the international arms industry was in a situational
     downturn. With international armament markets having since
     recovered, the Committee fears that the large commitments by
     suppliers might now be resisted and even reneged upon. With South
     Africa unlikely to be a serious arms purchaser over the next few
     decades, this possibility needs to be watched closely.


     Notwithstanding explanations by members of the government's
     negotiating team, the Committee is reluctant to accept that
     suppliers whose intentions are honourable, would refuse to agree
     to guarantees of more than 10%. Given that these are essentially
     business arrangements that are only as good as their viability,
     two questions arise: Firstly, does the resistance to a higher than
     10% guarantee (which need not be limited to bank type guarantees)
     suggest a lack of confidence in the business viability of the
     offsets proposed? Secondly, if these business deals are
     sufficiently competitive to be viable, why then are they only
     explored via arms procurement deals?


     The Committee notes that there is sufficient flexibility for
     suppliers to respond to changing market and business conditions by
     proposing alternative ventures, if necessary.


     The government-to-government agreements, which make references to
     NIPs commitments, while noble in intent and of some influence in
     official international communications, have questionable
     contractual or legal standing.


     The Committee sees the economic benefit of these NIPs as a
     significant part of the bigger "value-for-money" composition of
     the arms deals, and as such sees a strong responsibility on the
     part of the government to enforce them. In addition to an
     effective monitoring system, the Committee wishes to see the
     government assertively pursuing delivery of these benefits. Any
     possibilities for the tightening up of these arrangements should
     be investigated - especially the proportionately large British
     Aerospace obligations. The Committee would wish to receive
     biannual reports on the progressive realisation of these
     commitments - both at their overall value and the economic benefit
     value. This is necessary to assure the public on the social
     payback from this major diversion of public resources (i.e. the
     matter of the opportunity costs).


     Relatedly, the Committee expresses concern at the possibly
     optimistic estimations of jobs to be created, and advises of its
     intention to request the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry
     to express its opinion on this.


     Finally, the actual written contracts do not appear well prepared,
     with instances of clumsy language, missing annexures and incorrect
     references. One of the more important indiscretions is the
     reference to the use of two different foreign currencies in one of
     the contracts. The Committee will assess whether these important
     contracts were subjected to appropriate legal scrutiny during
     preparation.
 4.     Selection of prime contractors


     The Committee has noted the processes employed for the selection
     of the prime contractors. Because of the possibilities of improper
     influence having been exerted in certain of these selections,
     further investigation is considered necessary.


     In the case of the Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) contract, the
     Committee is concerned as to the reason why the evaluation system,
     which was accepted in April 1998, was changed at a combined Arms
     Acquisition Council and Arms Acquisition Steering Board meeting in
     June 1998.


     A special ministerial briefing concerning the two options were
     presented to the subcommittee concerned on 31 August 1998, where
     it was decided to go with the non-costed option. This would appear
     to have led to the choice of a contractor who otherwise would not
     have been awarded the contract. The Committee remains unconvinced
     as to why the change in evaluation method took place (after
     submission of tenders), and why such change was only introduced in
     this particular programme. A further unanswered question is
     whether only the non-costed option was presented to the Cabinet.


     These matters should also be included in the investigation
     recommended below.


 5.     Selection of subcontractors


     The Committee is concerned about the possible role played by
     influential parties in determining the choice of subcontractors by
     prime contractors. What further concerns the Committee is that the
     government had no influence in the appointment of subcontractors.
     The Committee refers to this in its recommendation for further
     investigation, mentioned below.


     The instance concerning the Integrated Management Systems (IMS) of
     Corvettes should be included in such an investigation, not only
     because it was included in the review of the Auditor-General, but
     also because of the large volume of information made available to
     the Committee on the matter. One aspect that the Committee will
     particularly examine, is the basis for comparisons of the
     respective products and the basis upon which the risk for the
     South African product was loaded.


 6.     Acquisition policies (Ministry of Defence; Armscor)


     The Auditor-General's review raises a number of questions
     concerning the arms procurement policies and procedures used in
     the deals in question. This not only relates to their all-round
     appropriateness, but also to their application. One example was
     the Armscor tendering processes followed, where conflict-of-
     interest provisions are clearly weak.


     The Committee also questions whether there was not too great a
     concentration of influence - from documentation through to
     decision-making. This is to be a part of the investigation
     recommended below.


     There should be a thorough post mortem and review of the arms
     procurement processes. It is recommended that the Auditor-General
     assist in the conduct of this further review.


 7.     Special forensic investigation


     After the National Assembly had referred the Auditor-General's
     report to this Committee, the Committee received a large amount of
     unsolicited evidence, of varying plausibility, from a number of
     different sources. Amongst the numerous allegations and assertions
     were those which reflected common ground to a significant degree.
     It is on the basis of this, and the Committee's perception of the
     other issues raised in this Report, as well as the need to prove
     or disprove once and for all the allegations which cause damage to
     perceptions of the government, that the Committee recommends an
     independent and expert forensic investigation.


     In this regard, the Committee will prepare a brief for such an
     investigation, which stipulates particular assertions that ought
     to be investigated, while placing no limitation on the scope of
     the investigation.
     In noting the complex and cross-cutting nature of the areas to be
     investigated, the Committee feels that the investigation would be
     best served by combining a number of areas of investigative
     expertise and a number of differing areas of legal competence and
     authority. It therefore recommends that an exploratory meeting,
     convened by the Committee, be held within two weeks of the tabling
     of this Report in National Assembly. The Auditor-General, the
     Heath Special Investigating Unit, the Public Protector, the
     Investigating Directorate of Serious Economic Offences and any
     other appropriate investigative body should be invited, so that
     the best combination of skills, legal mandates and resources can
     be found for such an investigation. Once this is established, the
     Committee will issue an investigation brief to the team for its
     input. Also, the chosen investigating body will be requested to
     report on its progress to the Committee at regular intervals, as
     well as at the conclusion of its work, so that this can be
     included in the Committee's final report to the National Assembly
     on the matter.


     In more fully developing its brief for the proposed meeting, the
     Committee will continue to complete a few areas of its own
     investigation, and this could well include a meeting with certain
     Cabinet Ministers. In this regard, the Committee acknowledges the
     Cabinet's commitment to co-operate fully with the Committee and
     with any other investigations into the procurement Deals.


 8.     Concluding comments


     As the Committee is still finalising certain aspects of its
     investigations, a second report will be issued early in 2001,
     followed by a final report, which will incorporate the report of
     the investigating body, once its work has been completed.


     In conclusion, the Committee acknowledges the extent to which the
     Department of Defence, Armscor, the National Treasury and the
     Department of Trade and Industry, with the agreement of their
     respective Ministers, have met their accountability commitments to
     Parliament in the course of the Committee's enquiry.


 Report to be considered.