FRIDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2000 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 09:03.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF WORK OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON REPORT OF PUBLIC PROTECTOR

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That, notwithstanding the report adopted by the House on 9 June 2000, the deadline for the completion of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Report 13 of the Public Protector be extended until 28 February 2001.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, the objection of the DP is that this happened in Parliament about four years ago. It is a disgrace that this matter of Minister Maduna is dragging on. We will all be dead before the matter is disposed of, if it carries on any longer. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Agreed to (Democratic Party dissenting).

                     REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

                       (First Reading debate)

Ms B A HOGAN: Mr Chairperson, I hope that we will not have a repetition of what we had the last time when, after I had started, I was told that I was supposed to speak on the Second Reading debate and not on the first. I am hoping that I will not be stopped midway. This Revenue Laws Amendment Bill amends a number of taxation Acts, but the most important amendment relates to the change in taxation from a principle of a source-based taxation system to a residence-based taxation system. In the debates in the media, it has often been presented as a major, major change and an overhaul of our taxation system, and to the extent that it does change the principles of the way that we are taxed, it is correct to think of it as a major overhaul. But, it must also be recognised that, in fact, all taxation systems are a mixed bag of source and residence-based principles. What we are doing here is simply refining the system to change it to a complete residence-based system to make it easier to administer and make tax legislation and collection easier in the future.

The reasons for the introduction of the principles of this particular form of taxation are part of Government’s efforts to lower the tax rate by widening our tax base. In future, the taxation of South African companies and residents will be based on their income worldwide and not simply on their income earned from activities based within South Africa. It offers better protection to the SA Revenue Service because it deals more effectively with diversionary … The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, you are conversing very loudly in the House. Please give the member time to express herself.

Ms B A HOGAN: Mr Chairperson, people are having their lively after- breakfast discussions. [Laughter.] I do not want to interfere with that.

Another reason why we are introducing this changed basis of taxation is to protect the South African tax base from increasing diversionary activities aimed at diverting tax from the tax base, particularly via transfer pricing. We have deemed, as the ANC, that to merely use transfer pricing procedures as in the Act is insufficient and that moving to this base will protect the tax base more effectively.

It is also an internationally accepted basis for taxation. We have to accept that we are an internationalised economy, and that we have been for over a century. To base one’s taxation principles simply on the basis of what is earned within a country is to deny the fact that, here in South Africa, we are a capital-exporting country. Therefore, we need to bring our tax legislation into alliance with international practice in this regard. We also have to bear in mind that we have had a relaxation of exchange controls. Thus, we have resources which are moving abroad that we need to track down in terms of its taxation implications.

Finally, this form of taxation is also better able to deal with e-commerce. So, as the ANC, we are convinced and we remain confident that this is a far better way of dealing with our taxation system than the mixed bag that we had in the past.

Very briefly, the implications of this new taxation system are not as great as they seem initially. If members were thinking that South African companies and residents are going to be taxed on their worldwide income it would suddenly seem as though there was going to be a massive flow of revenue because South African multinationals operating abroad would be taxed on their income from abroad. This is not how it is going to work.

The taxation system will be based on a residence minus system. So, it will honour the notion that no individual or company should be subjected to double taxation and, therefore, there will be tax credits granted in certain circumstances. There will be complete tax exemptions for those companies where there is a tax regime similar to ours.

The punitive part of this legislation will only come into play for those companies operating abroad that cannot prove that they are on a permanent business establishment. But what appears to be the case is that they have simply set up a shell for diversionary tax initiatives. This has attracted a lot of criticism in the debate and we feel confident that it is absolutely necessary to curtail diversionary tax activity. That, in sum, is what this tax law will be dealing with. It is not a major transformation. It is the refining of the system.

Criticism has also been lodged that there has been insufficient time for consultation. I must say that we could go on consulting forever, but we must recognise the superlative - and I have used this word deliberately - the superlative effort of the Ministry of Finance and Sars to engage with the parties concerned. A long list of meetings, of further meetings, of drafts, of going back to interested parties, is available in a submission made to us.

Four drafts, at least, were made available, and it was not just made available on the internet. People were invited to meetings. They were reinvited and they made comments. When they came before Parliament they restated their positions. We engaged in a series of robust discussions. The Ministry, with Sars, also engaged in robust discussions with the people making submissions.

What was really noticeable, at the end of the day, was that the Ministry of Finance and Sars came up with a document that listed every single issue that had been raised by over 25 submissions that had come before us and gave us a detailed response on each of the issues raised, showed flexibility on many of the issues, remained firm on others. I can say with confidence that there was no doubt in the minds of all the committee members that Sars and the Ministry of Finance had applied their minds to it.

So I have a great deal of confidence in supporting this changed taxation regime. Once again, I would like to congratulate Mr Pravin Gordhan, the Commissioner of Sars, Mr Kosie Louw and the Ministry of Finance for very commendable work done with us and for the open flexible attitude that they adopted. This was very significant. It was quite remarkable to see people - I really hesitate to use this word ``constructively engaging’’ - but it was a very exhilarating process to see that constructive engagement. We look forward to the much more robust debate on the capital gains tax and for an equally constructive engagement in that regard. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: This is Anne’s best speech!

Dr G G WOODS: Mr Chairperson, I remember the finance committee’s 1997 deliberation on the Katz commission’s 5th report and the protracted arguments involving, amongst others, the Sars brains trust which eventually led to the active/passive income split, with the latter moving towards residence-based treatment. By many accounts, this left the tax system halfway along the road with something of a split personality and, therefore, a certain awkwardness.

It was, therefore, a relief to many and in particular international tax practitioners when the Minister announced, earlier this year, that the system was now to shift more decidedly towards the residence side. However, I did sometimes think back to some of those fierce Katz and Sars arguments of three years ago which resisted certain of the very premises upon which the amendments we are considering today are based.

When the Minister made these announcements I must say that one wondered how these very tricky and very complex amendments would be accommodated in tax legislation. Looking at how they have achieved this, I must say that Kosie Louw and company and Sars have been very clever in the way that they have re-engineered certain sections of the Income Tax Act and in particular sections 9 and 10, repealing certain parts, amending others and even introducing a new subsection. It reads very clearly and it is to the point.

I would like to associate myself with the hon Barbara Hogan’s compliments to Pravin Gordhan and Sars, and, indeed, the Treasury and the way that they approached this whole exercise and, indeed, about the accommodation of the various interests towards the end of drafting this Bill.

The significance of this shift from a source to a residence based system is perhaps less about what it is now and more about what it will become. I think what this means is that, at least in the short to medium term, the change will affect a relatively few taxpayers and that, for the most part, through double taxation agreements and related tax credits, will mean little by way of a broadened tax base and tax gains.

However, in time, and provided our real economy moves up a few gears and into a bigger international league, we will find that the shift to a residence-based system will allow us to better capitalise on our foreign incursions, because through legislation such as this we would have moved into greater tax harmony with those countries we have very active trade and investment relations with. And as we increasingly submit to global markets we will move away from the internal issues which have preoccupied our tax system for some time, issues such as allocated efficiency and then equity consequences of taxes as we seek even greater harmonisation with the outside world. In addition to special interest group issues, I imagine that the harmonisation process is also what Kosie Louw was referring to, on Wednesday this week, when he told the committee that we can expect many refinements to this new legislation in the years ahead.

In order to make the most of the situation, I think we are going to need to convince the Treasury tax policy unit of the recent evolution towards economic efficiency objectives and away from equity objectives. I think this does generally imply a greater welcoming of some strategic introduction of tax incentives, and there have been some moves in this direction recently by Treasury which we welcome. We would encourage these to go further so that we can give full effect and full exploitation to these amendments to the Act which we welcome today. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Andrew, I am looking at you from the Chair. I did not see that you were seated.

Mr K M ANDREW: Mr Chairperson, may I apologise for not having been here when my turn arose a few minutes ago.

I might say, in mitigation, that the parliamentary programme handed out yesterday, which I was given, stated that the first item on the Order Paper for today was 62 minutes of debating the Abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust. If one happens to have been excommunicated in the Marks Building, one would know that one does not get Order Papers until about 11 o’ clock in the morning. So, I would hope that if the Chairperson does find me guilty, he will give me a suspended sentence. [Interjections.]

Mr J H MOMBERG: Go and ask Mr Ellis. We told him yesterday morning. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Rubbish! [Interjections.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Unfortunately, for Mr Momberg, I must point out that some of the members of the House can read and if he would like me to read it to him, I can read it to him.

Mr J H MOMBERG: Yes, that is the only answer. [Interjections.]

Mr K M ANDREW: Well, funnily enough, it is dated Thursday, 2 November. There is only one Thursday, 2 November. [Interjections.] Yes, I shall!

I believe that, other than Mr Momberg’s temper, we are dealing with the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill which deals with residence-based taxation. I apologise that I was not here for Ms Hogan or most of Dr Woods speech. [Interjections.] I was working, which may be foreign to that hon member.

This form of taxation is an international trend and has been caused by a variety of things. In the case of some countries - probably through greed - clearly globalisation and the development of e-commerce meant that looking worldwide has become increasingly necessary. There is no doubt that, sooner or later, South Africa would have had to adopt a system of this sort. The question arises however that given the very complex nature of this tax, given the fact that, generally speaking, it is highly developed countries that have introduced it so far, and given the capacity constraints within Sars, is it the opportune time to introduce this tax or not?

Now, the process followed in terms of this tax was somewhat unusual. Most of the Katz commission’s reports and proposals were discussed by the Portfolio Committee on Finance and hearings were held and so on, before legislation was tabled in this House. This time round, in fact, it was different. While there had been peripheral discussions on some of these issues which had been mentioned, somewhat incidentally, in some of the earlier Katz commission’s reports, there were certainly no in-depth hearings or discussions within the committee prior to the legislation.

Now, on two of the biggest and most complex tax changes, the Minister has circumvented that process and simply announced the new taxes as a fait accompli and on a tight schedule as well. In practical terms, the Portfolio Committee on Finance had little option but to focus on the details of the legislation rather than on the more important issue of whether a change to a residence-based taxation system is desirable for South Africa at this time or not, given the stage of development of our economy.

The Portfolio Committee on Finance held numerous hearings and workshop sessions. I am pleased to be able to pay tribute, firstly, to the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Finance, Ms Barbara Hogan, and to my colleagues from all parties on the committee for their diligence in examining this complex legislation as thoroughly as possible in the time available. Secondly, I pay tribute to the officials from Sars and the national Treasury for their willingness to make amendments to the draft Bill as and when problems or anomalies were identified. Thirdly, the various private sector bodies who made submissions and assisted the portfolio committee in understanding some of the implications of the Bill also need to have tribute paid to them. I should add that Sars were repeatedly congratulated by outside experts on the quality of their work in producing such a complex Bill in a short space of time.

The contents of the Bill have been described by the hon the Minister in his introductory comments, and I do not intend to repeat them I do wish to make a few general points, and address a couple of questions being asked by the general public. Firstly, in dealing with taxation, we must always keep the bigger picture in mind. In other words, we must not set about winning the taxation battle, and end up losing the economic war. Let us not forget that the biggest generator of tax revenue is economic growth. Therefore, it is desirable that we measure each tax against its impact on economic growth and not just the conventional tax criteria.

Secondly, we need to retain and attract skilled people in this country, if we are going to have economic growth. With regard to professionals in South Africa, from 1998-1999, for every one person coming into South Africa, we had five professional people leaving this country. Does tax play any role? Maybe, maybe not, but we need to ask ourselves the question. The hearings revealed inadequate co-ordination between the National Treasury and Sars on the one hand, and departments such as Trade and Industry and Home Affairs on the other. This needs to be addressed.

The DA is not happy with the way in which the tax was announced. [Interjections.] We are concerned about possible negative macroeconomic effects, but we are pleased about the numerous amendments that are accepted. But, despite our reservations that it will cause more harm than good not to go ahead in the circumstances, we will not be opposing the Bill. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like to ask you to make a ruling. The hon Mr Momberg referred to the hon Mr Ellis as a ``suurgat’’. [Laughter.] I would like you to rule that the term is unparliamentary and ask him to withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Gibson, could you just repeat the word for me, please?

Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, the word was ``suurgat’’. I believe that it is undiplomatic, unambassadorial and also unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Momberg, did you say that?

Mr J H MOMBERG: I did say it, Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Would you withdraw it, please.

Mr J H MOMBERG: Is it unparliamentary, sir?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, it is.

Mr J H MOMBERG: Chairperson, I withdraw it. He is not a ``suurgat’’. [Laughter.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, could we please get an indication of what suurgat'' means? What is asuurgat’’? [Laughter.] [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That was said in Afrikaans. Ek verstaan nie wat suurgat'' beteken nie. [I do not know whatsuurgat’’ means.]

Mr D V BLOEM: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek het die antwoord. Dit is ‘n suurlemoen met ‘n gat! [Gelag.] [Mr Chairperson, I have the answer. It is a lemon with a hole in it! [Laughter.]]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Chief Whip, I understand a suurgat'' isa sour person’’ or ``a sour hole’’, something like that. [Laughter.] I do not know the exact meaning of it. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] However, we do not encourage such words being used in Parliament, hon members. We should not be using such words about one another. Let us continue.

Dr P J RABIE: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill is aimed at shifting South Africa’s focus from a source- based to a residence-based taxation system. We have no option but to use this particular system because most of our major trading partners use this particular system of tax. The New NP supports this Bill. We think that it is wise and, I think, it was timeously applied and used and implemented for our particular purposes.

This is a very technical and complex piece of legislation. While drafting this particular Bill, a number of private sector role-players requested us that discretion and caution must be used when this Bill is administered by Sars. We requested the relevant officials there to apply a fair degree of caution, because it may result in the lessening of direct foreign investment and outward investments from South African companies.

A central theme in this Bill is that resident and locally controlled companies will be taxed on their South African and foreign income, while foreign workers and companies in South Africa will pay tax on their local income. There was a need to reform the present source by a system of tax, because it was inadequate in the sense that it did not offer sufficient protection against international transactions where profits were diverted from the local tax base, and did not deal effectively with e-commerce transactions.

This Bill will have an effect on foreign controlled companies controlled by South African residents. In a nutshell, the income on distribution to South Africa, as a foreign dividend, will be included in the income of South African citizens. The income will be exempted if the profits were generated in a country that taxed at a rate of, at least, 27%, and another significant aspect is that passive income such as interest, rental, and royalties and income that were diverted away from this country to the system of transfer pricing will be taxed in future. Residents who work abroad for more than 183 days during a 12-month period will not be subjected to local tax, provided they were outside the country for a continuous period of 60 days within that year.

Iets anders wat ons ook moet in ag neem is die gedagte van billikheid wat gedeeltelik deur voorgenoemde wetsontwerp gehanteer word. Dit verwys veral na persone wat as pensioentrekkers bestempel kan word. Veral buitelandse pensioentrekkers wat in hierdie land woon en van ons infrastruktuur gebruik maak, sal voortaan volgens hierdie tipe wetsontwerp belas word.

Iets anders wat baie belangrik is, is dat Suid-Afrika se belastingstelsel moet ontwikkel na gelang van die behoeftes in ‘n veranderende wêreld. Suid- Afrika is deel van die Suider-Afrikaanse handelsgroep. Al die lande in hierdie groep se ekonomieë is in globale terme relatief klein. Ons het oop ekonomieë en ons is kwesbaar. Indien ons nie aan ons belastingstelsel ‘n mate van billikheid en regverdigheid gee nie, gaan ons vind dat baie van ons voornemende beleggers hulle geld en bates in belastingskanse soos die Eiland Man, Jersey, Gibraltar of Monaco gaan belê. Daarom voel ons dat hierdie wetsontwerp, afgesien van sy gebreke, wel ‘n positiewe stap is wat op die duur belastingverligting en ekonomiese groei kan onketen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Something else we also have to take into consideration is the idea of fairness that is partially dealt with by the aforementioned Bill. It refers, in particular, to persons who can be referred to as pensioners. Specifically foreign pensioners who are living in this country and make use of our infrastructure, will, according to this type of Bill, be taxed in future.

Something else which is very important, is that South Africa’s tax system must develop according to the needs of a changing world. South Africa is part of the Southern African trade group. All the countries in this group have economies that are in global terms relatively small. We have open economies and we are vulnerable. If we do not imbue our tax system with a measure of equity and fairness, we are going to find that many of our prospective investors will invest their money and assets in tax havens such as the Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar or Monaco. For that reason we feel that this Bill, apart from its shortcomings, is a positive step which, in the long term, may bring about tax relief and economic growth.]

Dr G W KOORNHOF: Mr Chairperson, hon members, allow me to thank all the role-players who worked long and tiresome hours to bring this Bill before Parliament, especially the South African Revenue Service team - Mr Pravin Gordhan and Mr Kosie Louw who are both present - and all the organisations which made presentations, the national Treasury and my fellow members of the Portfolio Committee on Finance, under the able leadership of Ms Barbara Hogan.

Ek wil ook minister Trevor Manuel bedank vir die twee toegewings wat hy aangebring het, naamlik ten opsigte van buitelandse maatskappye wat hulle hoofkantoor na Suid-Afrika wil verskuif, en ten opsigte van Suid-Afrikaanse kontrakwerkers in die buiteland. Hierdie stap het baie van die kritiek teen die wetsontwerp ontlont. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[I also want to thank Minister Trevor Manuel for the two concessions made by him, namely in respect of foreign companies wanting to move their head office to South Africa, and in respect of South African contract workers abroad. This step has defused a lot of the criticism against the Bill.]

Due to the short timeframe before the implementation of this Bill, a substantial effort should be made to inform and advise potential investors on their tax position, and how this Bill will affect their investment decisions. An open question is: How successful will the SA Revenue Service be on the implementation of the Bill? It is clear that they will be stretched to their limit on their capacity.

The Bill, similar to many other pieces of legislation, carries elements of risk. In this case, for example, we do not know what the impact will be on economic growth and job creation. We cannot assess what the potential gains in revenue will be, or to what extent direct foreign investment to South Africa will be affected. SARS is of the opinion that the extent of economic disruption will be mild and that we will retain our international competitiveness.

We for our part are satisfied that many of the original concerns raised have been addressed. Lack of available time does not allow me to address specific issues that are contained in the Bill. The UDM will however support the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, and hopes that the eventual benefits will exceed the negative effects on investors and the South African economy.

Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members, the ACDP supports the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill because, in principle, we support the shift from a source-based to a residence-based system of taxation.

The only concern that we have - before I go to the contents of the Bill - is the issue of definitions. We have expressed our objection to the definition of spouse'' in other Bills, and we have noted that the definition ofspouse’’, which is going to affect the Estate Duty Act of 1955, is now also being changed to include a permanent same-sex relationship. We, as the ACDP, object to that change because our Biblical definition actually defines ``spouse’’ as either male or female in a relationship of two opposite sexes. So, that is our only concern. However, I do want to commend the chairperson of the committee, the members, as well as the department for this Bill.

South Africa, as a developing country, needs to broaden its tax capture area as far and wide as it possibly can. This is an international trend, yet we must follow a path of taxation that will not penalise our people to either invest or work abroad. Taxation, as important as it ought to be, should however not only be about primarily increasing state revenue but also about considering such factors that can equate to an alternative and indirect form of taxation.

Criteria to qualify for the tax breaks on foreign income can occur, where good reason exists, that sufficient investment capital is ploughed back into the country, especially where it contributes to job development and to the provision of other essential social services. We must also bear in mind that it is also not very often that a new domestic company competing internationally for a relatively short term may actually succeed in doing profitable business overseas.

The time does not allow me to elaborate further, but I just want to say that the ACDP supports this Bill. [Time expired.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, just before I call on the next speaker, may I request the Whips to help the Chair to control the noise in the House. There is serious noise in the House and we cannot hear what is being said on the podium. Can we behave ourselves, and can the Whips control the noise in the House please? The noise continues despite the fact that I said people should keep quiet!

Mr N M NENE: Mr Chairperson, hon members, it was very interesting to note that the hon Ken Andrew forgot to write his speech today, and that he ended up contradicting himself. He referred to the unusual process that took place, which is the direct opposite of what took place. He said it was inevitable for this Bill to be introduced due to globalisation, and yet he also said it was not desirable and not timeous. I wonder when he thinks it should actually be introduced. It was also very interesting to note that the Democratic Alliance spoke in different tongues, because the hon Dr Rabie indicated that it was very desirable and very timeous that the Bill has been introduced.

In his Budget Speech the Minister of Finance announced a number of tax changes, some of which require amendments to be effected to our legislation, as we hereby do today. The preamble to this Bill is the longest I have ever seen, as it covers a large variety of the objectives of this Bill, the most important of which are the following: to amend the Income Tax Act of 1962, so as to delete certain definitions; to amend certain definitions and to insert certain definitions; to change from a source-based taxation system to a residence-based taxation or worldwide taxation; to further regulate income deemed to be from a source in the Republic; to further regulate the taxation of foreign dividends received by or accrued to residents; and many other amendments that cannot be covered in the time allocated.

In our unwavering commitment, as the ANC Government, to broadening the tax base while reducing tax levels, our focus has been on bringing to the tax net some of those that have escaped before. I would like to look at some definitions. The first is ``gross income’’. The definition of gross income in section 1 of the Income Tax Act of 1962 is amended, and most of the references to income from source in the Republic are deleted. Residents therefore will become taxable on their worldwide income with effect from the year of assessment commencing on or after 1 January 2001. Non-residents will, however, still only be taxed in the Republic on income which is derived from a source in the Republic. It would also be good to mention that foreign retirees living in South Africa will not be taxed on their social security pensions, and tax on their other pensions will be deferred for three years.

The definition of resident'' is introduced in the Income Tax Act, as there are currently a number of references throughout the Act to resident’’ and ordinarily resident in the Republic''.Resident’’ means any natural person who is ordinarily resident in the Republic or a natural person who is not at any stage during the relevant year of assessment ordinarily resident in the Republic but who is either physically present in the Republic for a period exceeding 91 days or part days during the relevant year of assessment as well as during each of the three years preceding such year of assessment, or was physically present in the Republic for a period exceeding 549 days or part days in aggregate during the preceding three years of assessment. Where such a person is outside the Republic for a continuous period of 330 full days after such person ceases to be physically present in the Republic, such person shall be deemed not to have been resident from the day that such person so ceased to be physically resident in the Republic. ``Resident’’ also refers to any person other than a natural person that is incorporated, established, formed or has its place of effective management in the Republic. This will, however, not include an international headquarter company.

An ``international headquarter company’’ is defined as a company the entire equity share capital of which is held by persons who are not residents or trusts; where any indirect interest of residents or of any trust in such equity share capital does not exceed 5% in aggregate of the total equity share capital of such company; and where 90% of the value of the assets of such company represents interests in the equity share capital and loan capital of subsidiaries of such companies which are not resident and in which such company holds a beneficial interest of at least 50%.

The effect of the exclusion from the definition of ``resident’’ will be that the provisions of sections 9D and 9E will not apply and the income of the subsidiaries will also not apply to such a company. The company will also not be taxed on the dividends received from its foreign subsidiaries or foreign-sourced income. As secondary tax on companies will now only be imposed on companies that are residents, the international headquarter company will also not be subject to secondary tax on companies on dividends declared.

The committee went through an extensive process, contrary to what has been said, of public hearings where submissions were heard from various affected parties. I would like to commend the SA Revenue Service and the Treasury for the accommodative spirit in which these hearings were conducted. It is in this transparent spirit that this legislation was crafted and therefore the ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, hon members, I would like to express appreciation for the consensus on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill albeit that in one case the consensus is a grudging one. I also appreciate greatly the good words that were expressed for the staff involved in the process, in the SA Revenue Services both the commissioner and Mr Kosie Louw, and then also in the tax policy chief directorate in the Treasury Mr Martin Grote, who were responsible for developing the proposals.

Let me just again say that we greatly value the contribution of the Katz Commission, but there is no provision anywhere that we have to clear tax policy changes with the Katz Commission. In the fifth report the commission in fact dealt with the issue of the shift from source to residence. It raised two concerns. The first, which we have been able to address now, is the housing of international headquarter companies, and the second is the capacity issue.

In respect of the latter, clearly by bringing it here there is an appreciation that it would be contradictory in the extreme if Sars were to bring a piece of legislation here and participate as they did in the drafting of the legislation. If they felt that they could not implement the legislation it would be contradictory in the extreme. That it would be difficult to implement is not debated. I think tax policy changes in general would be difficult. However, this is not about self-flagellation. It is about the modernisation of the tax system and we welcome that and appreciate the words of parties across the board.

Let me conclude by saying thank you again. Ahead of us, firstly, lies the elections and I wish all parties well in their endeavours, knowing, of course, that the ANC will win 95% of the wards and of course an equal proportion of PR seats. [Applause.] But then I would also like to wish all members well for the well-deserved rest that comes after the electioneering that lies ahead, for Christmas and New Year, for the fast, for Eid, for Tweede Nuwejaar and whatever else is celebrated over the next period.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

                     REVENUE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

Order disposed of without debate.

Bill read a second time.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON MINERALS AND ENERGY ON ABOLITION OF LEBOWA MINERAL TRUST BILL

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

               ABOLITION OF LEBOWA MINERAL TRUST BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Chairperson, hon members, chair of the portfolio committee Duma, members of the portfolio committee, ladies and gentlemen, the Lebowa Mineral Trust is a statutory institution created by the former Lebowa government. Its main objectives were to take over mineral rights vesting in the Lebowa government and to promote mineral development for the benefit of the self-governing territory of Lebowa. The Lebowa Mineral Trust is therefore a relic of the past which has managed to survive the six years of the new democratic dispensation.

The new constitutional dispensation ushered in new principles and values as far as mineral matters are concerned. The Constitution recognises the principle that mineral matters are exclusive legislative competencies of the national Government, meaning that the nations’ mineral resources must be exploited for the benefit of all South Africans.

Regarding the abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust, the White Paper on Minerals and Mining Policy for South Africa states that intermediate statutory regulating institutions such as mineral trusts will be phased out. Further, Cabinet approved in 1998 that the LMT be abolished.

Against the background of the White Paper, the new constitutional dispensation and Cabinet’s decision, it is abundantly clear that the LMT’s continued existence is incompatible with the present circumstances for the following reasons. Its statutory mandate is geographically limited to a defunct territory, which is no longer recognised by the Constitution. It is incompatible with the constitutional principle that all mineral-related matters are to be dealt with on a national basis. It is not supportive of a coherent nationwide approach to ensure that the nation’s mineral resources are developed for the benefit of all. It duplicates the functions and powers currently performed by my department, and it is contrary to the principle that mineral resources are part of a national patrimony.

The Bill before us today provides for, inter alia, the repeal of the Lebowa Mineral Trust Act of 1987, the revision of all minerals held by LMT back to the state, the transfer of all assets and liabilities, duties and obligations to the national Government and the procedures for dealing with the existing personnel of LMT, taking into account the current conditions of service and applicable labour legislation.

The mineral rights to which I referred earlier are those mineral rights which were transferred by the Republic of South Africa to the government of the former Lebowa which it, in turn, transferred to the Lebowa Mineral Trust. These mineral rights are, once again, reverting back to their original owner, the Republic of South Africa. However, provision is made in the Bill for those who allege that the Lebowa Mineral Trust holds mineral rights on their behalf to lodge such claims with the Minister of Minerals and Energy.

This Bill guarantees security of tenure to existing prospecting or mining operations. No holder of prospecting or mining rights, granted in terms of the Lebowa Mineral Trust Act of 1987, will be adversely affected by this Bill. There is no justification for the continued existence of LMT, either in its current form or in a transformed configuration. The Government strongly believes that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it and, as such, all its mineral resources should be exploited for the benefit of the whole of South Africa. The time has come for LMT to go. Sifuna ihhambe [We want it to go].

Some members are concerned about the negative impact that this Bill will have on the Northern Province, in general, and LMT-funded projects, in particular. Let me assure members that this Abolition of Lebowa Mineral Trust Bill will not transfer minerals from the Northern Province to the rest of South Africa for as long as there are minerals to be exploited. In the Northern Province, there will always be opportunities for those who wish to participate in the minerals and mining industry.

As far as LMT’s development role is concerned, we will carry out these functions as has been done for the rest of the country. The department has its regional office in Pietersburg, which is in a position to cater for the minerals development needs of the Northern Province. In addition, in the process of restructuring, we intend to strengthen our development role.

In 1998, the department launched the national steering committee of service providers to small-scale miners. This is an association of organs of state such as Mintec, the Council for Geoscience, Ntsika and Khula, whose main objective is to develop a reliable and efficient system to assist prospective investors, especially small-scale miners and aspirant black mining entrepreneurs. Further, the department is also going to link up with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that prospecting or mining entrepreneurs are covered by the DTI service on entrepreneurial development. Therefore, we believe that the Abolition of Lebowa Mineral Trust Bill has been introduced into Parliament at the appropriate time, because it straddles the period between that of the Minerals Act of 1991, which was based on the mining policy of the previous Government, and the Minerals Development Bill, based on the minerals and mining policies of the postapartheid era, which refers to the current Government. Therefore, we believe that we are in line with our policies. I also want to state that we all know that the Northern Province has been identified as a priority province for development in terms of poverty alleviation. We think that this period of the abolition of the Bill is in line with our national policies. [Applause.]

Mdi S D MOTUBATSE: Mohlomphegi Modulasetulo, mohlomphegi Tona le maloko a hlomphegago, lehono re gahlane mo go tla go sekaseka Molaokakanywa wa go fedišwa goba go phumulwa ga Lebowa Mineral Trust. Ka segagešo re re: ``Hloya taba, e sego motho.’’ Gape ndikgorong tša segagešo ga re ke re seka motho, re seka molato.

Re fediša Lebowa Mineral Trust gobane Mmušo wa rena o nyaka gore dilo ka moka di sepele gabotse le ka toka. Ke realo ka ge ke nyaka go hlatholla mabaka ao a dirago gore Lebowa Mineral Trust lehono e fedišwe. Ga se lehloyo go batho ba Lebowa; eupša re gapeletšwa ke mabaka.

Sa mathomo, bjaloka ge Motlatša-Tona a šetše a hlalošitše, Lebowa Mineral Trust e be e hlamilwe, e bile e le ka tlase ga molawana wa Proclamation wa 1996, wo o bego o hlatholla gabotse gore mmušo wa bogareng wa maloba, wo bego o tsebega ka Repabliki ya Afrika-Borwa, o ile wa fetišetša ditokelo le dimenerale go nagalegae ya maloba ya Lebowa. Sa bobedi, mmušo woo o ile wa fetišetša lefase, goba wona mobu, ka go šiana ga wona, go mmušo wa Lebowa. Mo re bolela ka ga lefase goba mobu wo o bego o le ka tlase ga taolo ya magoši goba ditšhaba. Sa boraro, Proclamation R28 ya 1992 e ile ya fetišetša mobu wo o bego o le ka tlase ga taolo ya South African Development Trust go mmušo wa Lebowa. Potši šo ke gore a na mmušo wa bogareng o be o re mmušo wa Lebowa o dire eng ka mobu woo le diminerale tšeo ka moka?

Go hlamiwa ga Lebowa Mineral Trust go be go swanetše go hola batho ba Lebowa ka moka; eupša lehono ge re eme mo re tlo lemoga gore bao ba hotšwego ke LMT ga ba fetše le seatla. Lebowa Mineral Trust e be e swanetše go hlokomela mobu goba naga le diminerale legatong la mmušo wa bogareng; e be e swanetše go hwetša le go tšea tokelo ya go ba le diminerale go baagi ba Lebowa. Mo e bego e dumelelwa ntshe, e be e swanetše go swara diminerale legatong la motho mang kapa mang yo a ratago, goba makgotla. Gape LMT e be e swanetše go hlokomela tshepedišo ya diminerale ka Lebowa, le go hlokomela gore setšhaba se a buna.

Lehono re go kae? A nagalegae ya Lebowa e sa le gona? Ke therešo gore nagalegae ya Lebowa ga e sa le gona. Lehono Lebowa Mineral Trust e šetše e le tšhuana - e no lekelela mohlareng e le noši. Modiro wa Mmušo wo ke go kgonthišiša gore batho ka moka ba ba ka tlase ga molao wo swanago.

Manyami ao re bilego le wona ka ga Lebowa Mineral Trust, ge re be re leka go ahlaahla le go hlatholla mediro ya yona, ke a a latelago: Ka ngwaga wa 1994 Mmušo o ile wa leka gore mekgatlo ya borakgwebo le mafapha a mmušo ka moka e be le mokgwa wo mofsa wa go šomišana le setšhaba. Re a tseba gore re ile ra ba le tokomane yeo re bego re e bitša RDP, yeo e bego e leka go kgothaletša mang le mang go šoma le setšhaba ka botlalo. Manyami ke gore tšeo ka moka Lebowa Mineral Trust ga se ya ke ya di lemoga. Sa bobedi, ge setšhaba ka moka se be se leka gore se tliše tšeo se bonago gore e ka ba diphetogo, baLMT, ba ile ba tšeya nako ya bona. Ke gona ba phafoga gona bjale. Ke kwišiša gore ka tlase ga Mmušo wo eteletšwego pele ke ANC, re swanetše go lekana. Ke mošomo wa Mmušo go šireletša bao ba se nago sa bona, le go fa bao ba hlakago mekokotlelo gore ba kgone go sepela. Ke ka fao lehono re rego a re phumuleng Lebowa Mineral Trust; re thomeng go aga le go šomiša diminerale tša Profensi ya Lebowa ka boswa, mo re bonago gore puno ya gona e tlo re boela, gomme ya thuša setšhaba ka moka gore se bone tšwelopele.

Nakong ya ge re ahlahla Molaokakanywa wo ka komiting ya phothofolio, badirišani ka rena ba bile le bothatanyana. Bontši bo be bo hlakahlakanya dilo. Ga ke tsebe gore e be e le ka boomo goba ke ka mokgwa wo ba bego ba rata ka gona, gobane ba be ba hlakanya Molaokakanywa wo wa go phumulwa ga Lebowa Mineral Trust le go tšeelwa ga batho diminerale le lefase. Ke kgopela mohlomphegi Tona gore a ke a hlatholle temana ye gore Ntlo ye e kgone go kwišiša, gobane go phumulwa ga LMT ke go tlošwa ga sehlongwa se itšego sa mmušo; ga se go tšeelwa ga batho diminerale goba lefase.

Gape ke kgopela gore Ntlo ye e kwišiše le ka mokgwa woo batho ba gaborena ba hlalefetšwago ka gona ka Northern Province, gobane le ge ba na le ditokelo tša go ba beng ba diminerale le lefase, ba di rekišetša borakgwebo ba bašweu ka tšhelete ye nyenyane. Ge go swanetše gore go tsene batho ba go swana le nna ka mmala, dishere tša gona di no rotoga; go diragale gore mafelelong ba lefe tšhelete yeo gasenyane.

Seo ke se kgopelago Tona ke gore a lemoge gore Lebowa Mineral Trust e be e le yona kgomo e nnoši ka Lebowa yeo e bego e na le mafsi. A bjale re dira eng go kgonthiša gore batho ba Northern Province le bona ba tšwela pele? Batho ba gaborena le bona ba nyaka mešomo; ba nyaka go bona tšwelopele ka nageng ya gabobona. Ke ile ka lekola diprojeke tšeo di lego gona, gomme manyami ke gore bontši bja tšona ga akaretše naga ya Lebowa. [Nako e fedile.] [Legofsi.] (Translation of Sepedi speech follows.)

[Ms S D MOTUBATSE: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, we are gathered here today to discuss the Abolition of Lebowa Mineral Trust Bill which seeks to abolish or phase out the Lebowa Mineral Trust. In my language we say: ``Hloya taba, e sego motho’’ [Play the ball, and not the man]. Furthermore, our traditional courts do not try people as individuals; they try cases.

We are phasing out the Lebowa Mineral Trust because our Government is committed to fair and orderly governance and administration of mineral rights. I am saying this because I want to explain some of the reasons why we are in favour of the abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust. The people of the former self-governing territory of Lebowa should however note that we are supporting the abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust not out of sheer malice towards them, but because of some constitutional circumstances.

Firstly, as the hon the Deputy Minister has explained, the Lebowa Mineral Trust was instituted under a Proclamation of 1996, which made it abundantly clear that the previous central government, the then Republic of South Africa, had transferred all mineral rights to the former government of Lebowa. Secondly, the previous government also transferred land to the former government of Lebowa. We are referring here to communal land which was under the jurisdiction of magosi. Thirdly, in terms of Proclamation R28 of 1992, land that was held in trust by the South African Development Trust was transferred to the government of Lebowa. The question is: What did the previous central government expect the Lebowa government to do with land that had mineral deposits on it?

The institution of the Lebowa Mineral Trust ought to have benefited all the people under its jurisdiction, but as we stand here today, we can testify that only a handful of them benefited. The LMT ought to have derived the right to administer the land and the minerals on behalf of the previous central government from the people of Lebowa themselves. Where necessary, the LMT ought to have held the mineral rights on behalf of all the people and organisations in the said territory. In addition, the LMT ought to have had mineral rights governance and ensured that all communities under its jurisdiction benefited.

Where are we today? Does the homeland of Lebowa still exist? It is indeed true that the Lebowa homeland is now a defunct territory. Today the LMT is standing like an orphan perched on a tree branch. It is the Government’s prerogative to ensure that all people observe the same rule of law.

The difficulties we faced as we were analysing the functions of the LMT, are as follows: In 1994 the Government tried to get both the business and the public sector to co-operate with the communities. We all remember a document called the RDP, which encouraged everyone to co-operate with the community at large. Unfortunately all these were not heeded by the management of the Lebowa Mineral Trust. Secondly, while the whole nation was committed to transformation, the LMT management took their own time, and only now have they started to wake up.

I understand that under the ANC-led Government we must be equal. The Government’s priority should be to protect the needy and the have-nots by providing them with the necessary mechanisms to kick-start projects that will enable them to get going. That is why we are saying we must phase out the Lebowa Mineral Trust and start building and utilising the mineral resources of the Northern Province in a way that will benefit us and help develop the entire nation.

During our deliberations on the Bill in the portfolio committee, our colleagues in the opposition parties expressed various concerns. However, most of them kept on confusing matters. I do not know whether it was by arrangement or whether it was deliberate on their part to link the abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust with the state takeover of some private land and the abolition of certain mineral rights. To this end, I would appeal to the hon the Minister to clarify this issue so that the House may be acquainted with the facts. The fact of the matter is that the phasing out of the LMT is the effective abolition of a statutory structure, and not the state taking over some private land and abolishing mineral rights at all.

I also want this House to understand how our people in the Northern Province who own some land and mineral rights are often defrauded by unscrupulous white businesspeople who buy their products at alarmingly low prices. However, when it is the turn of black people to acquire some shares from them, they are required to buy them at shockingly high prices - sometimes one has to pay up to nine times the original price for the same products that they sold at reduced prices.

I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider the fact that the Lebowa Mineral Trust was the only milk cow in the former Lebowa. What are we going to do now to ensure that the people of the Northern Province also benefit from mineral projects? Our people need jobs, and they want to see their region being developed. Sadly, when I examined some of the available development projects I found that most of them are not in the Northern Province. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]

Mr I O DAVIDSON: Mr Chairperson, at the portfolio committee meeting held to formally discuss the Bill the parliamentary law adviser issued a warning, right at the outset, that the contents of this Bill could result in a constitutional challenge as a certain clause in the Bill could be seen as being in conflict with section 25 of the Constitution, ie the clause dealing with the whole question of property rights. What is the offending clause of the Bill before us? It is clause 3(1)(a), which has the effect of vesting all assets, rights and obligations of the LMT in the state.

Obviously, what we are talking about here is mineral rights. Despite attempts by myself and other parties to engage the ANC on the constitutional aspect, no real discussions took place. The Government chose to portray the Bill as an administrative adjustment - and we have just heard all about that. The Bill is not just an administrative adjustment but a crude grab, by the Government, of rights belonging to individuals and tribes in the area.

We all know that the LMT is a product of this country’s history - a history which denied blacks the right to own land and, therefore, mineral rights attached to the land. The history goes back to the 1913 Land Act and the 1936 S A Development Trust Act which allowed black people to own land and mineral rights in certain areas only. The successor of the Development Trust Act in Lebowa was, indeed, the LMT. This trust was established in 1986 to house land and mineral rights in trust for the people in the area.

Now, what is important, and I think what the ANC does not realise or fails to understand, is that section 14 of that Act quite clearly designates this trust as a private holder of mineral rights. Now, if it is a private holder of mineral rights, and the Act clearly designates it as such, why is the LMT treated differently from any other public corporation which houses mineral rights, at this point in time, such as the Anglos, the Billitons, the Anglo-Vaals the Goldfields, etc. Why is the LMT being singled out? Why are they being singled out for separate attention? That is what the beneficiaries of the trust want to know and that is, indeed, what we want to know.

Indeed, I am aware of the fact that the White Paper intends vesting all mineral rights in the state. But that is a law which is still to be presented to this Parliament. It is not yet law and, therefore, the question has to be asked: Why is this piece of legislation before this House before the main piece of legislation dealing with mineral rights in this country comes before this House?

We know exactly why. It is because, in that law, the whole question of the constitutionality of the property rights clause is going to be contested by heavyweight mining companies and that law is going to have to deal with compensation and with transitional arrangements. This law does not deal at all with transitional arrangements or the whole question of compensation. Then we have to ask ourselves: Why? Is it the case that there are different standards for different people? Is it because the LMT is a soft touch as far as this is concerned? This Act is an act of blatant discrimination against people in that area of the Northern Province. [Interjections.]

However, for me there is one more fundamental reason why this Bill has to be opposed, and that is the whole question of restitution. Ever since I came to this Parliament I have heard the word ``restitution’’ and the DA fully agrees with that concept. The LMT was set up to hold mineral rights in trust for black people and the tribes in that area. If the trust is to be abolished, as this Bill attempts to do, then those mineral rights must be handed back to the people who should own those mineral rights but for the laws previously mentioned.

The Department of Minerals and Energy, after a preliminary investigation, dismissed any notion of individuals or tribes in the area being in a position to prove ownership of mineral rights, yet the committee was swamped with evidence to the contrary. The Mphahlele tribe, the Makopane tribe, or others, have rights dating back to the beginning of the 19th century or the late 19th century.

What moral right does this Government have, this ANC Government, to take away these hard-earned rights of people who live in the area? Now, I am very conscious of clause 3(1)(c) of the Bill which allows the Minister to actually give these rights back to the people on provision of sufficient proof. However, I am also conscious of the fact that the department, when looking at this, summarily dismissed those deeds that were bought before them as not being sufficient or enough proof.

I am also deeply conscious of the fact that, if one looks at the deeds registers and gazettes for that period of time, they are hardly kept in perfect order. The onus of proof is, indeed, an onerous one. Mineral rights may well be established by way of anecdotal records or burial sites. What this Bill should be doing is establishing a mechanism to help the restitution process, not obstruct it. Why, in this regard, is the LMT being treated differently to the Ingonyama Trust in KwaZulu-Natal?

We believe that this Bill should be rejected. We believe, in the first instance, that a process should be put in place to establish a register of land and mineral rights claimants in the area and, secondly, we believe that the LMT should be transformed in line with the overwhelming desire of the beneficiaries and people in the area into a development agency to develop the mineral rights in conjunction with the holders of those rights in the area. [Applause.]

Mr E J LUCAS: Mr Chairperson, Minister of Minerals and Energy and hon members, the IFP recognises that the Abolition of Lebowa Mineral Trust Bill is an administrative adjustment which does not necessarily affect ownership of mineral rights but seeks to regulate the administration of mineral rights, since mining and mineral matters are a national competency.

The abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust is necessary to fulfil this constitutional requirement. However, we believe that a mechanism must be put in place to carry out the present function of the Lebowa Mineral Trust and ensure that the Northern Province will benefit.

The ownership of mineral rights remains a topical issue. The Department of Minerals and Energy has assured us that those who already have mineral rights will retain their rights and that all other claims will be scrutinised and dealt with fairly.

The crux of the matter is that the indigenous people of South Africa were dispossessed of both land and mineral rights. This places the onus of responsibility on the Government to rectify the terrible injustices of the past and give our people back their dignity. [Interjections.] Because, Mr Ian Davidson, we know we were the recipients of the cruel indoctrination and laws that were passed against us as black people. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Furthermore, the portfolio committee learned, on its visit to the Northern Province, that there were genuine concerns among the communities about the abolition of the Lebowa Mineral Trust. These concerns include stimulating job creation and sustainable development, community input into the development process and poverty alleviation, the future of joint venture agreements, and how the proceeds from the mineral development can be ploughed back into the Northern Province.

Another concern is the transfer of staff from the trust to the department. The trust staff receive higher salaries than the departmental staff. We hope that they will not see their conditions of service downgraded upon being appointed to another public body. This situation will require serious attention to ensure a smooth transfer.

This Bill was discussed at great length in the committee, at which all the parties agreed that the status of being the poorest province in the country should be removed from the Northern Province, and that the community should benefit from the mineral deposits in their area. It should be noted that the committee amended the Bill to the effect that the regulations to be prescribed by the Minister, in respect of the nature of proof required when claiming ownership of mineral rights, will only be made after consultation with the committee.

I would like to thank the Minister, the Deputy Minister, the director- general and his staff. I would also like to thank all the political parties that participated in the portfolio committee and the secretary of the committee, for all the hard work put into this effort. A special thank you also goes to the chairperson of our committee for organising the visit to the role-players in the Northern Province. The IFP supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr A H NEL: Mr Chairperson, the empowerment of previously disadvantaged people, especially on the economic front, is a priority of both Government and the opposition. So serious is the Government about this that they have established the Black Economic Empowerment Commission to recommend to them how to achieve this. What this Bill before us does, however, is to disempower and dispossess people of the poorest province in our country. Is it because this Government does not trust the ability and entrepreneurial skills of ordinary black people? We, as the opposition, are always accused of not having confidence in the ability of blacks to manage or to govern. [Interjections.] This is, of course, absolute nonsense. It is rather the ANC which does not have faith in black people, and this Bill is but one example.

It is the ideologues in their ranks who say that ordinary people cannot be trusted to decide what is best for them. Their whole philosophy is: We know better. We will decide.'' This is a typicalbig brother’’ attitude, especially, it seems to me, when one is small and black. Most disturbing to me is that it is this philosophy that ruined half the world’s economy. [Interjections.]

This Bill takes away all mineral rights and money from the communities and beneficiaries of the LMT and vests them in the state. [Interjections.] It assigns all decision-making to the Minister who is being advised by her officials, thus it is all neatly centralised.

Nowhere in the world has governments or government officials been able to create prosperity. On the contrary, prosperity is created by entrepreneurship, individual freedom and effort and minimum government intervention. [Interjections.]

We agree that the LMT, as presently structured, is not desirable, and that it must be transformed to benefit the communities and people of the Northern Province. There was almost total agreement on this, both in the committee and in the various submissions and evidence heard in the public hearings.

So, we still think that the best way to handle the situation is to put the following into one Bill: Firstly, the abolition of the LMT; secondly, the referral of the regulatory part to the Department of Minerals and Energy; and, thirdly, the investment of the money and the mineral rights that belong to the state in a development trust for the benefit of the people of the Northern Province. Such a Bill we would have agreed to.

In the public hearings several people and communities said that they would challenge the constitutionality of the Bill. I think that they have a good chance. In evidence before the committee, the parliamentary law adviser said that the mere fact that the Bill states that mineral rights can be claimed afterwards on application, acknowledges that legal ownership is involved and, therefore, this Bill could contravene section 25 of the Constitution. There are other reasons, too, and Ian Davidson has referred to them. I want to urge the Minister, notwithstanding the advice from her department, to advise the President to refer this Bill to the Constitutional Court before signing it. [Interjections.]

Ek wil afsluit. Daar word baie keer gevra wat het van die mense geword wat die ou NP gesteun het. Ek is een van hulle. Ek het die party nie alleen gesteun nie, ek het ook vir hom gewerk. Ek het die leiers geglo dat ons die regte ding doen. Natuurlik het ek nooit volkome verstaan wat apartheid aan mense gedoen het nie. Ek weet net vandag dat van die dinge wat in die naam van apartheid gedoen is, absoluut walglik was, en nooit gewone mense se goedkeuring sou wegdra as hulle daarvan geweet het nie.

Nogtans het ek lankal my aandeel en verantwoordelikheid daaraan aanvaar en verskeie kere om verskoning gevra. Dit is my agtergrond. Vanuit hierdie agtergrond kan ek nooit weer enige maatreëls of wette steun wat mense se eiendom sonder hulle toestemming of sonder vergoeding van hulle af wegneem nie. Daarom kan ek hierdie wetgewing nie steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[I want to conclude. The question is often asked what became of the people who voted for the old NP. I am one of them. I not only supported the party, but also worked for it. I believed the leaders, that we were doing the right thing. Of course, I never fully understood what apartheid did to people. I only know today that some of the things that were done in the name of apartheid were absolutely abhorrent, and would never have had the approval of ordinary people had they known about them.

I nevertheless accepted my part in and responsibility for apartheid a long time ago and I have apologised several times. It is my background. From this background I can never again support any measures or laws that take away people’s property without their permission or without compensation. I therefore cannot support this legislation.]

Mr S J DE BEER: Mr Chairperson, nearly all the opposition parties agreed during the portfolio committee meetings that the submissions made by the majority of people during the public hearings indicated that they preferred and supported the restructuring or reformation of the LMT. That point is not in contention. Nobody agreed to the total abolition of the LMT. The UDM rejects the Bill and supports the feeling of the beneficiaries and traditional authorities that the Bill has the effect of arbitrarily confiscating property rights, and that the affected groups or communities should seek redress in the Constitutional Court.

After the first Bill for the abolition of the LMT was published, it was widely criticised by the general public in the Northern Province but, in particular, also by the beneficiaries of the LMT and the Northern Province traditional leaders. An attempt was made to address most of the points of criticisms levelled against the first Bill in this second Bill. But, it is our contention that this Bill is, however, even more draconian and unconstitutional than the first one. Both the first and the second Bills are based on the misconception that the interim Constitution of 1993 took away the beneficiaries of the trust, which undoubtedly existed prior to the rights of the beneficiaries in the trust.

This is a misconception, since it could never have been the purpose of the interim Constitution which, in any case, never changed the status of the LMT. On the contrary, this Bill seeks to take the rights currently vested in the LMT on behalf of the beneficiaries and vest them in the state without any compensation. This, in our opinion, is undoubtedly an infringement of property rights and, therefore, renders this Bill subject to a constitutional challenge. The objective of this Bill is clearly contrary to the provisions on property rights in the democratic Constitution.

The Minister, who is a champion of this course of action, and who has a legal obligation to protect the interests of the beneficiaries by virtue of her office as a delegated trustee of the LMT, and her department are intimating that there are no private holders of land rights, and therefore that individuals, tribes, the Bapedi Kingdom of Sekhukhuneland and finally the LMT are not holders of mineral rights. [Interjections.] The Minister and her department further intimate … [Time expired.] [Applause.] Ms C DUDLEY: Mr Chairperson, hon members, it was clear from the submissions made at the hearings that the people of the Northern Province are suspicious of this Bill, which seeks to abolish the Lebowa Mineral Trust. They are concerned that their province, being one of the poorest provinces in South Africa, in spite of its enormous mineral wealth, will be deprived even further of what little hope it has of development and wealth creation. The Bill gives no assurances that the people in this area will not be further disadvantaged.

Many submissions to the hearings called for the restructuring and reformation of the trust, and made detailed recommendations on how this could be accomplished. The ACDP recognises that the pulling down of apartheid structures, which supported separate development, is not, in itself, a negative move. However, we believe that the correct approach to the dismantling of these structures would be unbundling. This situation will need to be unbundled no matter what, and as it stands, the state is simply swallowing something that is indigestible until it is done.

The ACDP proposes that a new Bill be drafted which will break the trust into logical components by means of a transparent process. The ADCP also proposes that an independent commission + established to preside over public hearings through which people who have concerns and interests may participate in the process and thereby be accommodated.

It is our opinion that management buyouts should take place where possible and assets could be sold by tender process to those running businesses. Where central government funded assets, they can revert to central government, but where the province funded assets, they must revert to the province, etc.

All rights must be transferred to the legitimate individual components that make up the trust. For example, social services must go to the province, and viable economic activities must be sold by tender process to those running businesses or others if necessary, provided the rights of all those involved are protected. Educational institutions must revert to the provincial education department and tribal rights and land to tribal authorities.

For these reasons, the ACDP cannot support this Bill. In addition, the ACDP is against state ownership of property, and believes that private ownership of property was ordained by God and is firmly grounded in His law. When the state grows in its control of property, it grows in the same degree toward totalitarian power, and tyranny is the result. [Applause.]

Genl C L VILJOEN: Mnr die Voorsitter, daar is ‘n Nederlandse spreekwoord wat sê: ``Eers gegoven, dan genomen, is erger as gestolen.’’ Hierdie spreekwoord geld ten opsigte van die inwoners van Lebowa - of Lebowa nou bestaan of nie, die stamme woon nog in Lebowa. Hulle woon waar die minerale regte nou van hulle af weggeneem word. Hulle is die armstes van die armes in ‘n baie arm deel van ons land. Ek ken daardie wêreld, ek kom daarvandaan. Van hulle word nou weggeneem daardie ondergrondse regte wat vir hulle ontwikkeling kon beteken.

Ek sien die tradisionele leiers was nie ingesluit by die liggame wat geraadpleeg is in hierdie proses nie. Volgens die mening van die VF sal die effek van hierdie wetsontwerp ‘n verdere erodering beteken van die gesag en invloed van tradisionele leiers in die gebied. Minerale regte en gemeenskaplike grond is onafskeidbaar aan mekaar gekoppel, en is instrumente in die hande van tradisionele leiers. Terwyl daar tans ‘n geskil oor die rol en funksies van tradisionele leiers bestaan, is hierdie wetsontwerp in hierdie stadium ‘n groot fout. Daarby is dit ook verdag dat dit so ongesiens op die laaste nippertjie van die sittingsjaar deurgeglip word.

Laastens moet ek iets sê oor die beginsel van sentralisasie. Dit is ‘n politieke foefie van die ANC om alles te sentraliseer en as party dan Vader Krismis te speel tot in die verste hoeke van die afgeleë Lebowa. Dit is wat tans gebeur as die Minister haar die reg voorbehou om kastig wat sy nou wegvat op Vader Krismisagtige styl terug te gee.

As ons ernstig is oor landelike ontwikkeling, dan moet die uitvoering daarvan gedesentraliseer word en moet ons staatmaak op die entrepreneurskap van daardie mense. Daarom behoort die mense van Lebowa en hulle leiers bemagtig te word om hulle eie landelike ontwikkeling te kan doen. Hierdie wetsontwerp ontmagtig die mense en bemagtig die ANC-vader Krismis, en dit is nadelige sentralisasie.

Die VF staan die wetsontwerp sterk teen. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairman, there is a Dutch proverb which goes: ``Eers gegoven, dan genomen, is erger as gestolen.’’ (First given, then taken back, is worse than stolen.) This proverb is valid in respect of the inhabitants of Lebowa - whether Lebowa exists or not, the tribes are still living in Lebowa. They live where the mineral rights will now be taken away from them. They are the poorest of the poor in a very poor part of our country. I know that part of the country, I come from there. They are now being deprived of those underground rights that could have meant development to them.

I see the traditional leaders were not included in the bodies that were consulted in this process. In the view of the FF the effect of this Bill will be the further erosion of the authority and influence of traditional leaders in the area. Mineral rights and communal land are linked inseparably, and are instruments in the hands of traditional leaders. As there is at present a dispute about the role and functions of traditional leaders, this Bill is a huge mistake at this stage. Apart from that it is also suspicious that it is being slipped through unseen at the very end of the sitting year.

Finally I must say something about the principle of centralisation. It is a political gimmick of the ANC to centralise everything and then, as a party, to play Father Christmas right into the farthest corners of remote Lebowa. This is what is now happening, when the Minister reserves the right ostensibly to give back, like some Father Christmas, what she is now taking away.

If we are serious about rural development, then its implementation should be decentralised, and we must rely on the entrepreneurship of those people. That is why the people of Lebowa and their leaders should be empowered to undertake their own rural development. This Bill disempowers the people and empowers the ANC Father Christmas, and this is detrimental centralisation.

The FF strongly opposes the Bill. [Applause.]]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Mr Chairperson, the apartheid government left many monuments and legacies of all types. The Lebowa Mineral Trust is one of them. The integration of this former homeland institution into one unitary South Africa can be understood. The guarantees given by the Minister, as well as by Ms Motubatse - kgadi ya Maroteng, re mo leboga ka Sepedi se sebotse seo a re filego sona [daughter of Marokeng, we thank you for the excellent Spedi you gave us].

What is puzzling is how the assets accruing from these mining ventures are being removed from the area and people in one of the poorest areas in our country. The benefits to the area from this mining enterprise are well- known and are easily demonstrated. For instance, to mention but one of them, there is the new network of tarred roads, including the one that I personally travel on frequently. I was already an adult when I witnessed the inconvenience and torture visited upon our people by rough roads. The Lebowa Mineral Trust contributed to bringing about a change in this particular area.

The trouble with our Government is that, instead of building on what already exists, the tendency is to take away what people have and break it down, like some of the rural towns of the Transkei and start development de novo at considerable cost, in some cases, never even to attain the standard of facilities enjoyed before.

The Lebowa Mineral Trust should have been beefed up as a major resource in the area. We cannot always be at the foundation level of development. Some people in our communities have waited far too long for the basic needs and facilities of life. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mnu D M NKOSI: Sihlalo, oNgqongqoshe namaPhini akhona kanye namalungu ahloniphekile, ngifuna ukuqala ngokubonga kuMfundisi. Ubeke into ezwakalayo.

Mangisho ukuthi umsebenzi usemningi. Umbiko wekomidi sesiwubekile ngaphambili ukuze kuxoxwe ngawo. Sicela ukuthi amalungu ahloniphekile awubheke. Imininingwane azoyithola kuwona.

UmThetho-sivivinywa wokuPheliswa kweLebowa Mineral Trust siyavumelana nawo, siyikomidi. Sikholelwa ukuthi ngisho nalabo abathi banenkinga mayelana nezinye izinto, bazoba nalo ithuba lokuthi siqhubekele phambili nokubonisana uma sixoxa ngomthetho ozobekwa phambi kwekomidi onyakeni ozayo. UmThetho-sivivinywa ohlongozwayo ozobekwa phambi kwethu ngowokuthuthukisa izimbiwa, phecelezi, i-minerals development Bill. Yonke le nkulumo kufanele ukuthi ibe khona.

Imiphakathi yesifunda saseNyakatho nesaseMpumalanga kufanele ihlomule emnothweni wezwe. Onyakeni ozayo kuzoba nokubonisana malungana nomThetho- sivivinywa ohlongozwayo wokuthuthukisa izimbiwa ngendlela yokuthi sithuthukise umnotho. Imiphakathi eseduze nalapho kukhona khona izimayini kufanele ukuthi ibe yingxenye yokubonisana ekwakheni uhlelo lokuthi uma izimayini zisebenza abantu nemvelo kuvikeleke futhi kuthuthukiswe.

Amalungelo ezimbiwa ngesinye isihloko esibalulekile esizobonisana ngaso ngoba iningi labantu emiphakathini emnyama abazange babe yingxenye yomnotho wezwe, bephucwa ngomthetho wobandlululo. Kufanele amalungelo ezimbiwa asezandleni zeLebowa Mineral Trust, anikezwa unomgogwana weLebowa futhi ebe ayephucwe ngumbuso wobandlululo, abuyele emuva embusweni ophethe ngokwentando yeningi. Njengoba usuphelile umbuso wobandlululo, izimbiwa kufanele zibuyele embusweni ophethe. Ngokubonisana noNgqongqoshe nomnyango sivumelane ngokuthi, mayelana nohlelo lokwakha nokukhulisa umnotho, kufuneka sithathe isinyathelo sokuthi kuphuculwe isimo sezifundazwe ezihluphekayo ezinezimbiwa eziningi njengesaseNyakatho.

Mangibonge umNyango weziMbiwa nezamaNdla, ikakhulukazi uNgqogqoshe nephini lakhe. UMnu Nogxina, onguMqondisi-Jikelele, ngiyethemba ukuthi uzoqhubeka nokusebenzisana nathi ekomidini. Mangidlulise ukuzwelana noNkk Tanya Lyons ongumsebenzi osebenzela ikomidi. Ngithe uma ngiza lapha ngathola ukuthi ushiywe nguyise namhlanje ekuseni. Sikhalisana naye singamalungu ekomidi.

Umsebenzi mukhulu eKomidini leziMbiwa namaNdla. Amalungu ekomidi ngizowacela ukuthi ehlise ulaka namandla ngoba azophelelwa ngamandla endleleni uma ejaha. [Uhleko.] Amalungu ekomidi aziphethe kahle ngaso sonke isikhathi, kodwa engikubonayo ngukuthi njengoba umsebenzi umningi kangaka, le nkulumo yamalungelo ezimbiwa yikhona izobekwa onyakeni ozayo. Isicelo esikhona kulo mThethosivivinywa esiwudlulisayo ngesokuthi kubuyiselwe isimo la kufanele sibe khona ngoba, ngendlela yokusebenza yangaphambilini, kwaba nenkinga yokuthi abantu badayiseka. Sesiyibuyisela emuva-ke. Sithi izinkomo mazibuyele ekhaya.

Akukho muntu ophucwa ilungelo lezimbiwa. Mangikubeke kanjalo-ke bese ngigcizelela nokuthi umsebenzi usemkhulu. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu speech follows.)

[Mr D M NKOSI: Thank you Chairperson. Deputies and hon members, I would first like to thank the clergyman for making such a sensible speech.

I would also like to mention that more work still needs to be done. We have compiled the report as a committee so that it can be tabled. We ask hon members to look at it. They will find all the details in it.

We as a committee support the Abolition of Lebowa Mineral Trust Bill. We believe that even those who have problems with some of the things that are said in it, will get the opportunity to discuss those problems so that we will move forward discussing the legislation that will be brought to the committee next year. The proposed Bill that will be put forward for our attention is about developing minerals and is called the Mineral Development Bill. Discussion on this whole issue should take place.

Communities of the Northern Province and Mpumalanga should gain in the country’s economy. Last year some negotiations took place on how the economy could be improved in relation to the proposed Mineral Development Bill. Communities that are close to mining industries should participate in the negotiations concerning the fact that while mining industries are in operation, people and nature must be developed.

The issue of mineral rights is one of the topic that we will discuss because most people in black communities have never been part of the country’s economy. They were denied the right to participate by the apartheid legislation. The mineral rights held by the Lebowa Mineral Trust were taken from Lebowa, which was previously controlled by the apartheid government. They must now be managed by the democratic Government. Since the apartheid government does not exist, the minerals should go to the ruling Government. Regarding the programme of building and developing the economy, we, together with the hon the Minister and the Department of Minerals and Energy, have agreed that steps should be taken to improve the position of poverty-stricken provinces which have plenty of mineral resources, like the Northern Province. I would like to thank the Department of Minerals and Energy, especially the hon the Minister and her Deputy. I hope that the Director-General, Mr Nogxina, will continue working with us in the committee. I would like to express my sincere condolences to Mrs Lyons who works for the committee. On my way here, I heard that her father passed away early this morning. We, the members of the committee sympathise with her.

There is still more work to be done by the committee of the Department of Minerals and Energy. I am going to ask members of the committee to assuage their anger and save their energy because they will be drained if they panic. [Laughter.] Members of the committee have behaved themselves, but since there is still a lot of work to be done, I foresee that this issue of mineral rights will be tabled next year. The request that we are making regarding this Bill, is that the situation should be normalised. The past method of working caused a problem because people were sold out. We are now reversing this. We say the cattle should return home.

Let me put it like this, no one is being deprived of mineral rights. I would like to emphasise the fact that there is still more work to be done. [Applause.]]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Chairperson, firstly, I would like to thank the members of the committee who supported this Bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to say to the hon Dorothy Motubatse that we agree with her. There is nothing abnormal about the whole issue of mineral rights; we are simply correcting the abnormalities of the past.

I want to say to Mr Davidson that I do not think his argument is valid. No one is taking away mineral rights. We are just trying to normalise the situation in terms of our policy, in terms of our legislation, and in terms of the Constitution. He says we should retain the Lebowa Mineral Trust. I do not know in what context we could do this, because Lebowa no longer exists. He wants us to maintain the abnormal situation which existed in the past. I do not think that is our intention. What are we transforming? Lebowa no longer exists. The mineral rights belonged to the Lebowa government. Members on that side gave it to them. [Interjections.] On this side we are saying that it should be the same all over South Africa. That is our argument.

If the hon member is saying that we must transform it, in what way should we do this? We are normalising the situation. We are not depriving anyone of the right to come forward and apply to mine. [Interjections.] It does not amount to theft, because this is what the situation used to be, what we have at present and what those members did as part of the former government in trying to divide this country. [Applause.]

To the UDM, the ``Unholy Divided Movement’’, I say that we cannot continue to allow the division of the mineral resources of this country. What we are doing is in the best interests of the South African people. I want to assure them that the communities in the Northern Province they are referring to are very happy about what we have done because this is going to create the opportunity for them to continue to benefit. [Interjections.] This department and Ministry have already demonstrated that one of our key objectives is to ensure that as the different mining companies … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, can you give the Minister a chance to reply? [Interjections.] Order! You have had your bite at the cherry.

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Chairperson, as we continue to allow different individuals to prosper and mine in various places, one of the key factors of our policy is social responsibility. This was never the case in the past and we are correcting that. I do not know what Mr Davidson is talking about. He was part of this. [Interjections.] I do not know what we are supposed to have stolen. We have stolen nothing. The ANC-led Government has never bothered to take away things from the people. The hon member should stop making noise. [Interjections.] He is an adult.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Deputy Minister, can you take your seat.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Chairperson, I am sitting here closest to the Deputy Minister and yet I cannot hear a word of what she is saying because of the level of noise in the House. Could you please try to ensure that we all hear what the Deputy Minister is saying.

Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, arising from that point of order: As a matter of information, I am sitting a little further than the hon the Chief Whip and I can hear quite clearly. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, everyone has been at the podium, those who have been participating in the debate. I cannot see any reason why you are now making such a big noise from your desks. It is time for the Deputy Minister to respond to the debate. Can we all give the Deputy Minister the chance to respond to the debate? Hon Dudley, what is the problem now? Is it a point of order?

Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it correct that the House should be silenced now when other members are speaking … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEE: Order! That is not a point of order. My ruling is that all the members should please give the hon Deputy Minister the chance to respond to the debate.

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Thank you, Chairperson. I just want to take this opportunity to assure Mr Lucas that what we are doing currently is to make sure that we create an opportunity for all communities to benefit from the mineral resources of this country, and also to make sure that the social aspects are being met. Well, if one is Mr Davidson and one was part of the old order, one is haunted by the past. There is nothing I can do. [Interjections.]

Mr Nel has been part of this committee for quite some time and this matter has been discussed many, many times. The assets of the Lebowa Mineral Trust have not been removed. We are not doing what happened in the past, when minerals were exploited to benefit other provinces. What we are basically doing is normalising the situation. The people of the Northern Province are going to benefit from the prospecting and mining in the area. The only thing we will do, as we have been doing, is to continue administering the mineral rights in a proper and responsible manner.

I want to say to Mr Nel that he was here before when some of these things happened, and he never raised his voice. We appeal to him to give us an opportunity today. To Mr Viljoen, we say that we are not stealing anything from anyone. The social aspect will be considered. Regarding the communities in the Northern Province, which he is representing today - I do not know which communities - what I do know is that the poor people of the Northern Province have never benefited before. For the first time in South Africa, they are benefiting.

To the hon Bishop Mogoba, regarding the road to kwaMphahlele, which he says has been developed, if he looks at what was done by the mining houses or big business in his area, he will find that what is happening today is different from before, because one of the key issues is social responsibility. Already, some of the companies are taking responsibility by building clinics and contributing towards the building of schools. Thus, there is a social aspect which is taken care of in terms of the mining industry. Those individuals and communities are currently benefiting. So, he must give them an opportunity and a chance to continue doing that. He will see a great change in his area. I think that when he retires from this Parliament and goes back to kwaMphahlele, he will be able to find a clinic very close to his home which would have been built by the mining industry.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say to the chairperson and his committee that we thank them for the support which they have given us and for everything that they have done for us. Regarding those who are not supporting us, we did not expect much from them because they want to retain the status quo. We are saying that, regarding our new Bill, the procedures which are being put in place are correcting the past and we are going to make sure that we change and transform South Africa. As we move towards the local government elections, we are going to prove that the ANC is a Government which is responsible and committed to social change in this country. [Applause.]

We are going to make sure that the Northern Province is catered for, not in the narrow way which has been articulated here where we talked about a Lebowa which no longer exists. To the hon Ramodike, I am sorry to say that when he did away with Lebowa, the other thing which he should have done was to ensure that the Lebowa Mineral Trust also was in line with the laws of this country instead of leaving it and coming to argue about it now when Lebowa no longer exists. Thus we are trying to create a normal situation.

Those who are still crying will continue crying as crybabies do, but we, as the ANC, are going to continue to deliver and change the lives of the people of South Africa. We shall leave them behind. If that is their option and choice, we shall leave them. We are moving forward. The train is leaving them. They can either join us in changing the lives of the people, or they can get left behind and continue to moan. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

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

Division demanded.

During division:

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I see there are a few members who have their hats on.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, may I just point out to you that a number of us brought along our hats because we thought that this was the last day, but we have been notified that we are coming back on the 20th. I would like to ask all members to take off their hats. [Laughter.]

The House divided:

AYES - 219: Ainslie; A R; Arendse, J D; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Capa, R Z N; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Kato, F I; Cindi, N V; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Dlamini, B O; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Dyani, M M Z; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Feinstein, A J; Ferreira, E T; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P-J A; Gininda, M S; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, T M; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Grové, S P; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jana, D P S; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Leeuw, S J; Lekgoro, M K; Lobe, M C; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Lyle, A G; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlangu, G L; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Makwetla, S P; Malebane, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Maphoto, L I; Mapisa- Nqakula, N N; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Maziya, A M; Mbombo, N D; Mbuyazi, L R; Mgidi, J S; Middleton, N S; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mohai, S J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Momberg, J H; Montsitsi; S D; Moonsamy, K; Moosa, M V; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mpehle, M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Msomi, M D; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mzizi, M A; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncube, B; Ndou, R S; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubane, H; Ngubeni, J M; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Omar, A M; Pahad, A G H; Phala, M J; Phantsi, E; Pieterse, R D; Rabinowitz, R; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Routledge, N C; Saloojee, E C; Schneeman, G D; Scott, M I; Seaton, S A; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skosana, M B; Skweyiya, Z S T; Slabbert, J H; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tsheole, N M; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Verwoerd, M; Vos, S C; Woods, G G; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zondo, R P; Zulu, N E.

NOES - 54: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Baloi, G E; Bell, B G; Blaas, A; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Cupido, P W; Da Camara, M L; Davidson, I O; De Beer, S J; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dowry, J J; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Frolick, C T; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Koornhof, G W; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Madasa, Z L; Mbadi, L M; Mogoba, M S; Moorcroft, E K; Mtirara, N Z; Mulder, C P; Nel, A H; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Rhoda, R T; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Semple, J A; Simmons, S; Sono, B N; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Viljoen, C L.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

INTRODUCTION AND FAST-TRACKING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MUNICIPAL STRUCTURES SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, before we proceed to the next item of business, I have to announce that a request has been received from the Minister of Provincial and Local Government for the introduction and fast- tracking of a Bill entitled the Local Government: Municipal Structures Second Amendment Bill. The Joint Programme Subcommittee has just met to consider the request and has decided to fast-track the Bill.

This would mean that the Assembly would have to meet once more this year to consider the Bill, after receiving the report from the relevant portfolio committee. The most suitable date for the Assembly to meet is Monday, 20 November. The subcommittee’s decision would need to be agreed to by this House. It has been circulated to the parties and will require your ratification.

Decision ratified.

              TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS AND FAREWELL SPEECHES

                           (Announcement)

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, may I request you to grant two single tickets to all members attending that meeting. We do not have tickets left. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members you should delay your applause till I finish the announcement. I was not going to make the announcement about the tickets until you agreed. But now that you have agreed, two vouchers will be given to all members of the Assembly today, and four will be given to members of the committee, because the committee will have to meet before 20 November.

An HON MEMBER: Viva, Speaker, viva.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, that also means that the opportunity for farewell speeches, over which I am sure you laboured long and hard last night, which was due to take place today will actually happen on 20 November.

We will now proceed with the business of the day. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, please take your seat. I think we will accommodate the hon members who are leaving.

Hon members there are still too many of you in the aisles. We want to proceed. May I please call you to order? You may proceed, hon Minister.

CHIROPRACTORS, HOMEOPATHS AND ALLIED HEALTH SERVICE PROFESSIONS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Mr Chairperson, today history is being made in this House. The introduction of the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Amendment Bill represents one of the most ground- breaking pieces legislation in the whole world.

This has been communicated to us by a group of international observers at the public hearings. They have told me that South Africa is to be congratulated on its foresight and commitment to enabling people to chose their health care modalities in safety and supported by the state.

This Bill recognises the role and place of alternative medicine as an integral part of caring for the body, the mind and the soul in a holistic manner. This is completely in keeping with the World Health Organisation’s definition of health, which clearly affirms that health is so much more than merely the absence of disease.

This Bill will regulate the alternative medicine industry which is valued at approximately R1 billion. Members will also remember that the Medicines Control Council is setting up procedures to evaluate the safety and efficacy of traditional medicine.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, if you could just pause for a moment. Hon members, if you want the Chair to be robust, I think the Chair will be. I am pleading with you to follow the rules, or I will apply the rules as they are laid down.

However, it is totally intolerable for the situation to get out of hand. I think I previously requested that you may be in a conversation sitting side by side. Any other form of conversation will most certainly not be acceptable. I do not want to call you by name, but if you persist then I will have to do what is necessary.

The MINISTER: Mr Chairperson, as I said, this Bill will regulate the alternative medicine industry, which is valued at approximately R1 billion. Members will also remember that the Medicines Control Council is setting up procedures to evaluate the safety and efficacy of traditional medicines. Therefore, these efforts will complement one another.

One of the important features of this Bill is the fact that it facilitates the recognition and accreditation of practitioners and therapists who were previously excluded from the mainstream of the health profession. These professionals will now have the opportunity to be part of the process for the recognition of their independent practices. [Applause.]

These include the people who practise Chinese medicine and acupuncture, therapeutic aromatherapy, therapeutic massage therapy and therapeutic reflexology. This means that there will be protection for qualified practitioners and therapists, and absolutely no place for charlatans. The council will establish professional boards to define the scope of practice of each and every profession. The professional boards will also define the norms and standards for practice.

This Bill has a long history. It was my brainchild as Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Health, and was originally mooted in 1995. The consultations and meetings with many different stakeholders since that time have provided us with a rich and fertile basis for drafting this Bill, and will ensure a high quality of alternative health service for the citizens of our country for the future.

A very important point in the Bill which came from many stakeholders - and they are sitting up there - was the composition of the new council. In attending to this new problem, we have opted for the broadest inclusivity. We believe that this is equitable and democratic.

The new council will provide a broad umbrella for alternative healing modalities. It is our sincere wish that all qualified practitioners and therapists will be a part of this new body and that no one will be left out in the rain.

I am satisfied that the Bill will facilitate the establishment of a democratic and representative council without the domination of one group by another. During the first year, the new council will focus on facilitating and consolidating the registration of all practitioners and therapists into a single register.

The second important task will be to facilitate the accreditation of all professional groups, including the recognition of the training and scope of practice of the various persons registered with this council. I know that there has been a vigorous debate on whether we should have practitioners and therapists, or whether these groups should be combined under a single term. I am sure that this debate will continue under the new council, and I believe that that is the proper place for that debate to take place.

One of the most progressive things this Bill will achieve is the recognition of the fact that there are other forms of healing in society which complement traditional Western medicine. It acknowledges that many people are quite comfortable with consulting these practitioners. Through this Bill, we will show that it is possible to harmonise the recognition of these therapeutic practices. The practitioners themselves are responsible enough to work together to establish acceptable standards of practice, and to protect the interest of the public.

I hope that this experience will further guide us towards assisting African traditional healers to set standards for the practice of traditional medicine, and to regulate their profession. We should go further and find ways and means to encourage the preservation of our indigenous knowledge systems. There are many African herbs and therapeutic practices that are essential for keeping the body and mind in a healthy state. It is unfortunate that these knowledge systems are not being passed on from generation to generation.

I would like to give my special thanks to the members of the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Services Professions Interim Council of South Africa for keeping the fires burning, and for the careful drafting work that they have done. I can now safely say that their efforts have been rewarded, because we now have the Bill which establishes the new council. I wish to thank them for all the hard work, and I know that they will also support the new council because I know how passionate they are about this Bill.

I wish to thank the NCOP Select Committee on Social Services and its Chairperson, Ms Loretta Jacobus, for working tirelessly on the Bill until the stage where we are having the second reading debate on it in this House. I am also grateful to the Portfolio Committee on Health for piloting this Bill from start to finish. I wish to congratulate the chairperson of the committee, Dr Abe Nkomo, not only for piloting this Bill, but also for according the stakeholders the opportunity to express their views on the Bill.

My special advisers and the officials in the department have also played a very important role in the formulation of the Bill. It was not an easy task, and it was not an easy process. As we can see, it has taken us more than six years to producing this Bill. I would like to urge this House, therefore, to approve this Bill. We must establish this new council before the term of the interim council ends on 12 February 2001.

To the new council soon to be established, I would like to emphasise that, at all times, we will expect them to uphold the interest of the public over any other personal and organisational interests, and I wish them well in their endeavours. I trust that the passing of this Bill will bring joy to many practitioners and therapists who will now be registered under this Bill, and that the public will be better served as a result. Our ultimate aim, as always, is the delivery of health services to the public, and I feel fully confident that this Bill will contribute greatly to that goal. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, there are still those who are continuing business standing in the aisles. I am making it quite clear that that is not acceptable.

Dr S C CWELE: Mr Chairperson, there is a growing world-wide trend to move away from Western allopathic medicine towards alternative and more natural healing methods. This growth of alternative health professions has resulted in the need to regulate and define the scope of practice in order to ensure high professional and ethical standards, on the one hand, while protecting the public, on the other.

In 1995, South Africa responded by moving away from the rigid, nonrepresentative council established by the apartheid regime, the DA, to establish the interim council to regulate the estimated R1 billion industry. The interim council was, among other things, to advise the Minister on the composition of the council and the scope of individual disciplines or professions under the council.

The ANC supports this amending Bill as it takes the process of transformation forward. The Bill establishes the Allied Health Professions Council of South Africa which will replace the existing Interim Council. The Bill also provides for the establishment of professional boards which will have the responsibility of advising the council on matters relating to the professions falling within the ambit of a particular board, guiding the profession and protecting the public. The council and the board will be responsible for the final formulation of the scope of practice of the professions.

Some parties are arguing that the Bill promotes the blanket voluntary registration of aromatherapists, massage therapists and reflexologists because the Bill uses the expression therapeutic''. The use of the expressiontherapeutic’’ indicates that such professions have as their object the promotion of health or the treatment, prevention or relief of physical or mental defects, illnesses or deficiencies in humans.

The professions which have, for example, BT-treatment as their object, by means of massage therapies, do not and will not fall within the applications of this Act, and persons practising in such professions will not have to register in terms of this Act. Another example is that of a hairdresser who performs scalp massage only as part of doing the client’s hair and will, therefore, not be required to register with the council as there is no intended therapeutic outcome.

But we must stress that all persons practising any of the 10 professions mentioned in the Bill, to which the provisions of this Act will apply, must apply for registration in terms of section 15 of the principal Act. People who practise professions to which the Act applies, without being registered, shall be guilty of an offence and subject to a fine or imprisonment.

In conclusion, we do not view this transformation as just an event, but as a process which will require our collective contribution in order to adapt and meet the challenges posed by the development of the professions or industry. We thank all stakeholders who have given valuable contributions during the public hearings this week. We support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Mr Chairperson, the object of the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Second Amendment Bill is to establish the Allied Health Professions Council of South Africa, to provide for the establishment of professional boards; to regulate the relationship between the two and ultimately to protect the public.

Unfortunately, the Bill, in its present form, has failed in these principal objectives. I qualify my statement on the following grounds: Firstly, an Interim Council was established some five years ago. Its mandate was basically to formulate the scope of practice and set up accreditation criteria for the 10 disciplines it was supposed to represent. Earlier this year, we had to extend the life of this interim council because its term of office had expired and, through sheer negligence, an extension had not been applied for, and because the interim council, in the five years of its existence, had not finished its assigned tasks.

When all is said and done, the Interim Council has failed in its duty in that it still has not formulated the scope of practice or regulations pertaining to some existing and new disciplines. A case in point is that of 23 ayurvedic practitioners who were registered in 1996. Only four are fully qualified and the other 19 have between 48 hours and 80 hours of training. To date, no regulations for this discipline have been formulated or promulgated. In effect, this means that the interim council has processed the applications of persons who have applied for registration without having accreditation criteria or regulations in place.

The Minister says that the Bill is groundbreaking. That is one point I do agree with. The Bill itself is flawed in three areas: Firstly, the constitution of the council reflects an unequal representation. Homeopaths who have about 509 registered members have one representative on the council while ayurvedics who have only four fully qualified people have the same representation.

Secondly, the distinction between practitioner and therapist is rather muddied. While a practitioner may diagnose, treat and prescribe, a therapist may not. So, therapists can only work on referred cases but may not prescribe or diagnose. Such differentiation in terminology effectively limits a therapist from practising within the full ambit of his or her practice.

Thirdly, regarding voluntary registration, the Bill provides for affected disciplines to allow their members to choose whether or not they want to register. Voluntary registration may prove to be disastrous in the sense that if a member of the public is treated by an unregistered practitioner, he or she may not have the protection of the council.

Moreover, a curious anomaly has also risen since Monday, when a second round of hearings were held. The chairperson of the interim council, who was appointed by the previous Minister of Health, made an impassioned plea to the Portfolio Committee on Health to heed its recommendations in respect of the distinction between a practitioner and a therapist, even going so far as to advise on the legal implications. His report also highlighted the need for the Bill to state explicitly which categories of medicine can be prescribed and dispensed, because failure to do so is sure to result in malpractice suits. Despite all the suggested recommendations and amendments, both by major role-players and the opposition parties, the ANC component of the Portfolio Committee on Health voted for the Bill as it was.

To deviate a bit from the topic, I would like to state that the Portfolio Committee on Health has failed miserably in its function of oversight and monitoring. It has merely become a rubber stamp puppet body. Perhaps this is also a reason why the Department of Health is not delivering effectively because the Portfolio Committee on Health is itself so ineffective.

Since June 1999 only one site visit has been made on the occasion of World Aids Day. Are we surprised? We have had hearings on HIV/Aids, but no report; we have had hearings on evaluation of the Act, but no report from the Portfolio Committee on Health.

Hearings on Monday in respect of this Bill were held, but there were no closed committee deliberations, and we voted on Wednesday. In fact, people who did not even attend hearings or discuss the Bill voted on the Bill. For example, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Housing, who knew nothing, came there for that.

The passage of this Bill has been protracted, taking some six years to be brought to Parliament. The delay and timing is going to have an impact in electing professional boards and then the members to the council. Instead of the democratic process happening, an election of the council will happen first, and a second election will be held … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Are you rising on a point of order, Dr Nkomo?

Dr A S NKOMO: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon member should apologise to the House and to the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Housing because she did not vote. She came there because we were sitting overtime. The hon member is deliberately misleading the House. [Interjections.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: She voted!

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Dr Nkomo, please be seated. The only time that any member may rise to interrupt a member on the podium is on a point of order. And the point of order will, of necessity, require that the member who is at the podium is breaking one of the rules that you have approved in the Rules Book. That is the point of order the Chair can sustain.

If you disagree with what a member is saying, the only way in which that can be corrected is when a member of your party has a turn at the podium, and you can make the correction. It is not within the power of the Chair to be able to assist you if you are in disagreement with the speaker. So, if you have a point of order that is the only point of order that the Chair will sustain. [Interjections.]

Order! Yes, you may disagree as much as you like. [Interjections.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Ag, sit down man! Shut up! Shut up! Oh, do you want to take the floor? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, the rule provides that when the Chair is addressing you, you do not interrupt. And I will not accept any interruptions on any side! [Interjections.] Yes, hon member. Unless you want me to name you! I think when it is the Chair that is being asked, the Chair is going to try and be totally impartial. That is what freedom of speech is all about.

The Speaker has ruled on two occasions over the last two days that you may say that someone is misleading'' the House, but that you may not say that someone isdeliberately misleading’’ the House because deliberately misleading'' is another form of saying that the member is lying. I think that Dr Nkomo did use the wordsdeliberately misleading’’. If you have said deliberately misleading'', then I must ask you to withdraw the words deliberately misleading’’.

Dr A S NKOMO: Mr Chairperson, the truth is that the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Housing … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Again, to assist the House, the Speaker did indicate that when you are called on to withdraw, from whichever side of the House it is, you may not embellish, and you may not explain. The point is that, in terms of the rules of this House, you may not use the words deliberately misleading''. Therefore, I call on you to withdraw the wordsdeliberately misleading’’.

Dr A S NKOMO: Mr Chairperson, the truth is that I am withdrawing. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That is unacceptable.

Dr A S NKOMO: Mr Chairperson, I withdraw.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, you may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr P A C HENDRICKSE: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it in order for the member at the podium to tell members to shut up?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Once again, I think it is a question of decorum. You have the right of speech and you have the protection of the Chair. I think that if you are at the podium and if you want to ask for the intervention of the Chair, please do so in order that we may keep the decorum of this House. It would be unacceptable while you are at the podium to be engaging in debates that lessen the decorum of the House. Please proceed, hon member.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Chairperson, before I conclude I would just like to say it was not right of me to have said ``shut up’’, but she started this first … [Interjections.] And we have here on this side somebody saying they are going to take the fight outside. It just shows how childish our members are. [Interjections.]

Concern has been expressed over the past six years about the true agenda the ANC has regarding the structure of health care in South Africa. The fact that the department and its members have again chosen to ignore the advice of so many people, including its own interim council, indicates a hidden agenda which can only have severe ramifications for South Africa. While the Bill may be historical and groundbreaking and while the DP supports the principle of regulation, we cannot support this Bill, which is badly flawed. We are going to experience the consequences in years to come. [Applause.]

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, the IFP supports 100% the establishment of a council to regulate allied health professions. We count amongst these homeopathy, chiropractic, Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, naturopathy, osteopathy and phytotherapy. These are health professions based on established texts and recognised pharmacopoeias, and with clearly defined scopes of practice. They can be monitored in terms of what conditions they treat and what can be used to treat them.

There are groundbreaking provisions in this Bill which help us move away from conventional medicine and very expensive drugs. However, we should not confuse progressive with irresponsible. We are 100% against the establishment of a council which regards complementary therapies as if they are health professions. Among these, I include aromatherapists, reflexologists, massage and colour therapists and any one of hundreds of new holistic philosophies or disciplines which may be good for one’s health, but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be categorised as health professions.

Prostitution, they say, is the oldest profession in the book. Why do we not include it amongst the registrable health professions, along with all the others that would be embraced by this Bill? Can one imagine that a professional may choose whether or not to register? Architects, doctors, lawyers, homeopaths and chiropractors are all required to be registered if they want to practise legitimately. Now we have professions in which people may choose to be registered or not and we differentiate with an adjective. We would happily provide registration for all the traditional healers in the country rather than include the holistic therapies that are being brought on board by this Bill. Unfortunately, the Bill does not incorporate traditional healers.

The absurd aspect of this inclusion of complementary therapies is that the vast body of aromatherapists, reflexologists and massage therapists have warned against it because of the confusion it will cause. The 7 000-strong SA Beauty Association sent a petition of 2 900 to the Minister saying this would create confusion. They are already covered by regulations for hairdressing and cosmeticology. They have a course approved by the SA Qualifications Authority under Manpower with an NSB 8. Now the same discipline gets an NSB number under health, NSB 11, and the products that they sell should now be governed by the MCC. That is still stuck with the Sammdra Bill that we passed on the last day of last year and has not now been adopted.

We want to protect the public through councils and boards. We do not want to confuse them and expose them to potential quackery. Consider how the Bill proposes to differentiate between the qualified practitioner and the unqualified. A professional registered aromatherapist will be called a therapeutic aromatherapist, while a nonprofessional will be called an aroma therapist practitioner. Can anyone tell me that the public will know the difference between the two? Can anyone assure us that unqualified persons will not treat and sell treatments to the unsuspecting ill? Can anyone claim that we can police the unlawful practices of the quacks masquerading as professionals when we ourselves are not clear about the differences between the scopes of practice of the two - the unqualified practitioner or the qualified therapist? It confuses me! Can anyone tell me that the public will know the difference? The person who answers yes to any of the above does not deserve to be an MP.

The council’s job over the last six years should have been to get into order the genuine professions of health care. Instead it is being bogged down by bickering between the various therapists and practitioners. Time and again letters complain that the council cannot be trusted. At the hearings on Monday the ANC members were apparently shocked by the revelations of incompetence within the council and of its chairperson, and by the implications of this Bill. The chair of the interim council has responded by threatening to sue the public for making accusations and the health committee has responded by closing ranks behind its chair, who did not want hearings in the first place.

The IFP has amendments on the Order Paper today. Those are a last-ditch effort to save the proceedings. We proposed amendments in the hearings. They were simple. They said since all the confusion has been related to bringing on board the therapists who are not clear about whether they should or should not be professionals, let us leave them out and get on with the business of regulating alternative health care. Those amendments were rejected.

We also supported amendments to have tertiary institutions on the council and to have internships for newly qualified professionals. Those were rejected because it is too complicated with all the complementary therapies on board. We will not oppose the Bill if our amendments are approved. We will oppose it if they are not. [Time expired.]

Dr S J GOUS: Mnr die Voorsitter, die Wet op Chiropraktisyns, Homeopate en Verwante Gesondheidsdiensberoepe van 1982 is in 1995 gewysig om ‘n tussentydse raad te skep. Die hoofdoel van die tussentydse raad was eerstens om aanbevelings aan die Minister van Gesondheid te doen oor die skepping van ‘n nuwe raad, en tweedens om aanbevelings aan die Minister van Gesondheid te doen oor die aanpassings wat nodig sou wees om meer rigting te gee aan die professionele praktyk, demokrasie, gelykheid, beskikbaarheid, toeganklikheid en gemeenskapsbetrokkenheid.

Agb lede sal onthou dat ons vroeër vanjaar dringende wetgewing in hierdie verband moes hanteer omdat die tussentydse raad se termyn in daardie stadium reeds verstryk het. Dit het geblyk dat die tussentydse raad se wettigheid reeds in Februarie 2000 verval het, en ons moes toe wetgewing goedkeur wat hulle lewensduur terugwerkend herstel het. Die tussentydse raad se termyn is toe verleng tot Februarie 2001.

In daardie stadium het die Nuwe NP reeds gevra of dit nou genoeg tyd sou wees om hierdie nodige wetgewing voor te berei en om ‘n nuwe raad te skep en in die lewe te roep. Ons is herhaaldelik deur die Departement van Gesondheid verseker dat dit wel die geval is. Die vraag wat dus nou ontstaan, is hoekom ons nou skielik weer hierdie wetgewing as dringend moet hanteer en hoekom dit nou weer vandag op die tweedelaaste sittingsdag van die 2000-sessie van hierdie Parlement deurgejaag moet word.

Die tussentydse raad het sy kommer uitgespreek dat daar nie genoeg tyd sou wees om die nuwe raad te konstitueer nie, al word hierdie wetgewing vandag goedgekeur. Hulle kommer berus op die feit dat daar ‘n vakansieperiode voorlê, en intussen moet ‘n volledige verkiesing van raadslede voor Februarie 2001 gehanteer word. Hoe dit ook al sy, die onaanvaarbaar lang tydperk wat die Departement van Gesondheid en die tussentydse raad reeds sukkel om hierdie wetgewing te finaliseer is ‘n aanduiding dat alles nie wel is in die tussentydse raad nie.

Uit voorleggings voor die Portefeuljekomitee oor Gesondheid het dit dan ook duidelik geblyk dat daar ernstige verskille en onenigheid bestaan tussen die lede. ‘n Mens kry die ongemaklike gevoel dat daar diep meningsverskille en persoonlike agendas bestaan wat nie maklik uitgepluis gaan word nie. Hierdie onderstromings het dan nou ook in die wetgewing tot uiting gekom in die sin dat vele persone en assosiasies ernstige bedenkings uitgespreek het oor die praktiese werkbaarheid en uitvoerbaarheid van hierdie wetgewing. Om verskeie redes het die Nuwe NP en die DA dan ook ernstige bedenkings oor hierdie wetgewing se werkbaarheid.

Die hoofdoel van ‘n instelling soos die te stigte raad op verwante gesondheidsberoepe sou eerstens wees om die publiek te beskerm teen misbruik en uitbuiting, en tweedens om rigting en leiding te gee aan die onderskeie betrokke beroepe. Ons is van mening dat die wetgewing nie in een van hierdie twee hoofdoelwitte gaan slaag nie.

Die eerste probleem ontstaan met die samestelling van die raad. Dit verteenwoordig gevestigde beroepe soos homeopate en chiropraktisyns, wat reeds vele geregistreerde lede het, maar dit word gelyk gestel aan veel kleiner en minder bekende beroepe.

Tweedens skep die definisie van terapeut en praktisyn oneindige probleme. Dit is duidelik dat hierdie onsekerheid in die toekoms sekere beroepe ernstig gaan benadeel en kortwiek, aangesien terme soos diagnoseer'', behandel’’ en ``die resepteer van medisyne’’ ter sprake kom. Die moontlike probleme wat reeds uitgewys is, lyk reeds soos ‘n nagmerrie, en ons voorspel dat van hierdie sake in die hof gaan eindig.

Die laaste probleem is dat sekere beroepe nie verplig gaan wees om te registreer nie. Sekere lede van ‘n beroep gaan dus registreer en ander nie. In hierdie omstandighede gaan dit onmoontlik wees om die belangrikste doel van die ontstaan van die raad te vervul, naamlik om die publiek te beskerm. Hierdie is dus defektiewe wetgewing waaraan die Nuwe NP en die DA nie ‘n aandeel wil hê nie, en ons kan dit daarom nie steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr S J GOUS: Mr Chairperson, the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Act of 1982 was amended in 1995 to create an interim council. The primary objective of the interim council was, firstly, to make recommendations to the Minister of Health about the creation of a new council, and secondly, to make recommendations to the Minister of Health about the adjustments which would be necessary to provide more direction to professional practice, democracy, equality, availability, accessibility and community involvement.

Hon members will remember that earlier this year we had to deal with urgent legislation in this regard because the interim council’s term had already expired at that stage. It became apparent that the interim council’s legitimacy had already lapsed in February 2000, and we then had to approve legislation which would restore their term retrospectively. The interim council’s term was then extended to February 2001.

At that stage already the New NP asked whether that would be sufficient time to prepare this necessary legislation and to create a new council and establish it. We were repeatedly assured by the Department of Health that this was indeed the case. The question which now arises is why we now suddenly once again have to treat this legislation as urgent and why it once again today, on the second-last sitting day of the 2000 session of this Parliament, has to be hurried through.

The interim council has expressed its concern that there would not be enough time to constitute the new council, even if this legislation is approved today. Their concern is based on the fact that a vacation period lies ahead and in the meantime a comprehensive election of councillors has to be dealt with before February 2001. Whatever the case may be, the unacceptably long time which the Department of Health and the interim council have already taken in struggling to finalise this legislation is an indication that all is not well in the interim council.

From submissions to the Portfolio Committee on Health it also became apparent that serious differences and discord exist among the members. One gets the uncomfortable feeling that intense differences of opinion and personal agendas exist which are not going to be easy to sort out. These undercurrents have now also found expression in the legislation in the sense that many people and associations have expressed serious reservations about the practical workability and feasibility of this legislation. For various reasons the New NP and the DA also have serious reservations about this legislation’s workability.

The primary objective of an institution such as the envisaged allied health professions council would be, firstly, to protect the public against abuse and exploitation and, secondly, to give direction and guidance to the various relevant professions. We are of the opinion that the legislation is not going to succeed in either of these two primary objectives.

The first problem arises with the composition of the council. It represents members of established professions such as homeopaths and chiropractors, which already have numerous registered members, but these are now being placed on an equal footing with far smaller and less well-known professions.

Secondly, the definitions of therapist and practitioner create endless problems. It is clear that in future this uncertainty is going to severely disadvantage and hamper certain professions, because terms like diagnose'',treat’’ and ``the prescription or dispensing of medicine’’ are at issue. The possible problems which have been pointed out so far already look like a nightmare, and we predict that some of these cases are going to end up in court.

The final problem is that certain professions are not going to be compelled to register. Certain members of a profession are therefore going to register and others are not. Under these circumstances it is going to be impossible to fulfil the most important objective of the establishment of the council, namely to protect the public. This is therefore defective legislation which the New NP and the DA do not want to be a part of, and we can therefore not support it.]

Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, because the term of office of the interim council expired in 1999 before the council could make the relevant recommendations or establish a new council, this Bill seeks to extend the terms of office of the interim council retrospectively in order for the council to accomplish this task.

Registration of new disciplines was, however, never the mandate of the interim council. Due to time constraints, this task is obviously best left to the new council to ensure that regulations and set criteria precede accreditation. Apparently, there are no existing regulations pertaining to any of the new disciplines. In fact, the interim council’s accreditation committee, by their own admission, have been expected to process applications for registration of new disciplines without any criteria or regulations.

The primary function of the new council should be the protection of the public. This must include all members of the public, not just the literate who are possibly able to distinguish between those who are capable of making a diagnosis and those who are not. Even those who can read do not necessarily have a copy of every profession’s scope of practice.

Although this Bill does distinguish between a practitioner and a therapist, therapists can choose whether or not to register and, therefore, comply with the regulations. This causes confusion and is potentially counterproductive. For example, a registered reflexologist will be called a therapeutic reflexologist but if the registered reflexologist is deregistered for malpractice, they may simply revert to being a reflexologist and continue to practise. This does not protect the public who are unlikely to grasp the difference.

This Bill has also been accused of paving the way for beauty therapists and even prostitutes to offer services that are covered by medical aid. In a globalising world, it is very important for true professionals to be clearly identifiable. Globalisation is not just a trade issue. Official qualifications from recognised universities and colleges should be required for professional status, and the integrity of such qualifications must be defended and not polluted.

Due to these reservations, the ACDP cannot vote in favour of the Bill.

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, this amending Bill comes after extensive consultations and hearings. No less than 30 bodies were consulted and the portfolio committee took many hours to listen and do its utmost in the interest of the health of the nation.

The wide variety of interested stakeholders point to the more complex terrain of health. In the Bible, there is reference to a person who was healed and a controversy arose as a result of the healing. His response was:

I do not know if Jesus is a prophet … one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.

Also, from the African world view, healing may be even more complex because a patient asks the question why'' and nothow’’. One would have thought that this very wide community would have been given prominence in this amendment. We would like to advocate that more representation be given to the African traditional healers because, whether we like it or not, many of our patients go to them all the time.

I think that the emphasis of this Bill is on control and supervision. The creation of the new council is meant specifically to ensure that the overarching body, which is the council, exercises oversight and control. We would like to ask that that control be exercised very, very thoroughly.

The PAC will support this amending Bill.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, one of the main objects of the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Second Amendment Bill is to abolish the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Interim Council that was established when the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Act, Act 63 of 1982, was amended in 1995, and to establish a new council to be known as the Allied Health Professions Council of South Africa.

There has been a growing recognition that there appears to be a greater move towards alternatives. The MF feels that the council has had to carefully choose these various professions which are included in the Bill. With the exception of chiropractors and homeopaths, these professions had not initially been listed in the definition of allied health service professions. Furthermore, it was felt then that the demand for these professions meant that the registers should be reopened, given the growth in recognition and stature of these professions and the corresponding growth in practitioner and patient numbers. There is thus a demand for official recognition of these professions.

The Bill seeks to achieve the above through establishing academic standards and criteria for registration and the right to practice such professions, upholding ethical standards and also to protect the public and negotiating medical aid scheme recognition. The MF also welcomes the fact that these allied medical practices will be paid for by all medical aids and that proper tariff rates will be established. The Bill is also aimed at providing for the establishment of the professions boards.

The MF supports the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Second Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, before I recognise Mrs Baloyi, Whips, if there is going to be a division in the House you might want to call in all your members. [Applause.]

Mrs S F BALOYI: Chairperson, I will not waste my time by responding to the various comments that were made by various members of the opposition. I will not give them that credit. However, I just want to point out that the hon Kalyan ungumafikizolo nje [is a newcomer]. I really do not know what she has to say about this Bill. The DP is the prophet of doom and gloom.

I also just want to say to members here that all this party is here for is to protect the profits of the multinationals, because what is going to happen is that these alternative groups are now going to be in the system legally. They are afraid that the other groups are going to take away their patients, and their medicines will no longer be as profitable as they were before. So Ms Kalyan is talking a lot of nonsense here. [Applause.]

She says that she does not know where the Bill came from. We sat for hours on end, days on end as the portfolio committee and eventually came up with a report on which this Bill is based. That was given to the then Minister of Health, Dr Nkosazana Zuma. So I do not know what she is talking about.

I will also deal with voluntary registration before I continue with my speech. It is very unfortunate that the opposition parties should use a debate like this for political expediency … [Interjections] … because we are making history here. We are transforming the health services. For the first time, the marginalised groups will have a voice and a say.

They are talking about voluntary registration. I just want to put the record straight. Those who do not register will not be allowed to practise. They will be guilty of an offence for practising without being registered. So what is all this hullaballoo about?

This Bill is the result and the culmination of a long consultative process, deliberations and discussions with various interested bodies and groups. The Bill, amongst others, seeks to abolish the Chiropractors, Homeopaths and Allied Health Service Professions Interim Council, whose term of office of its members expires next year.

I shall deal with the constitution of the council as it is an important section of this Bill, albeit technical. Allow me to demystify some of the terminology used in this Bill, so that people can understand what we are talking about. Of course we all know that this was the result of medicine being thought to be the profession. That is why people like myself do not really understand what we are talking about. It is because of some of the terminology. Chiropractors are practitioners who treat dysfunctions of the nervous system through the manipulation and treatment of the spinal column. Homeopaths are practitioners who use a system of treatment based on the administration of miniscule, ie very tiny, doses of drugs which are capable of producing in healthy people symptoms similar to those of the disease being treated.

Allied health professionals, as has already been said by Dr Cwele and the hon the Minister, include reflexologists, aromatherapist, etc. These practitioners use many and varied treatments. I will not repeat what Dr Cwele said, but once the Bill has been adopted and comes into effect they will no longer be known as therapists but as therapeutic practitioners, because we all know that there are various types of therapists, eg massage therapists.

Asazi-ke ngalabo abahlikihla imizimba ngoba befuna igazi ligijime. Laba okukhulunywa ngabo kulo mThethosivivinywa ngabelaphayo. [We do not know about those who massage their bodies so that the blood will flow faster. Those who are referred to in this Bil are healers.]

We are giving them the recognition that they were denied all along. These people were arrested, harassed and some of their practices were actually closed by the so-called normal professions in medicine and health.

The Bill provides for the constitution of a council. It is, however, also important to note that the new council will have a great role and responsibility in view of the diverse nature of the professions which fall under its ambit. As these are not a homogenous group of professionals, their training and scope of practice differ widely. Whilst some undergo university training up to periods of about three or more years, others undergo a certain number of hours of training that qualifies them to practise in that profession.

Having said that, the Bill stipulates how many practitioners from each profession are to serve on the council. The council will consist of 10 members, each elected by his or her profession and six members shall be appointed by the Minister, one to represent the department and one on account of his or her knowledge of the law. Four of them shall be community members.

The council has to assist in the promotion and protection of the health of the population of our country, in order to control the practice of the professions and investigate complaints, control and register persons in respect of any profession, set standards for training and, lastly, govern, administer and set policy relating to the professions registered with the council. We hope and believe that the council will be able to undertake this function. The ANC supports the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, I would like to thank all the members who participated in the discussion of this Bill. I think their contributions were, indeed, invaluable.

I would like to start off by thanking Dr Cwele for explaining the meaning of ``therapeutic’’ for the benefit of the House, particularly those members sitting on the other side of the House. [Interjections.] And I also want to thank him for supporting the Bill.

With regard to Ms Kalyan’s comments, I just want to repeat that in 1998 - of course she was not here then, but she should read history - the portfolio committee, indeed, tabled a report in this Parliament after detailed consultation with all stakeholders. It gave this report to the Minister and the Department of Health. Therefore, that report became the basis for this Bill. So it is nonsense to say that the portfolio committee was rubber-stamping. How can they rubber-stamp their own creation? [Applause.]

Obviously, she does not understand parliamentary processes. The scope of practice is to be set by the Minister, but only after the professional bodies have been set up. And the professional bodies cannot be set up until the Bill has been passed. Therefore, what she is saying is really nonsense. The interim council was never asked to draw up the scope of practice. For her information we have drafted the regulations. These will only be promulgated after the Bill has been signed to become an Act. We cannot do this before that. [Interjections.] Indeed, this was done in consultation with all the stakeholders.

The council has equal membership per council precisely so that it can determine the proportional representation after all the practitioners and therapists have been allowed to register. As Mrs Baloyi has just said there is nothing in the Bill about voluntary registration. That is absolute nonsense. Only those practitioners and therapists that are registered may practise. Anyone who practises without registration, I want to tell the House, will be breaking the law.

With regard to the comments made by Dr Rabinowitz, there is no question, I repeat - she is not even here … [Interjections.] Oh! I did not see her. [Interjections.] I want to tell her that there is no choice when it comes to registration. Everyone who wants to practise must register. Obviously, she has not read the Bill. She must go back and read the Bill carefully, so that she can understand the provisions of the Bill. I think it would have been really nice if she had come to the portfolio committee and presented her proposals there. As I understand it, she has missed some of the hearings. I think she should start attending the committee meetings and do justice to the task that the IFP has given to her. [Interjections.]

The revelations of incompetence that she spoke about are untried and untested. They are the accusations of 1 out of 10 professions. They cannot be accepted before both sides have been heard. That is not fair and runs counter to everything that we stand for.

Regarding Mr Gous’ comments, it is precisely by regulating that we protect. [Interjections.] I do not know whether it is Dr Gous'',Mr Gous’’ or hon Gous''. [Interjections.] Yes, indeed, but he is not honourable regarding the way in which he has contributed. Because, indeed, I think he is also allowing afree for all’’ to continue. [Interjections.] No, we cannot delay the new council.

Concerning the hon Ms Dudley’s remarks, regulations have been formulated and this has been done in consultation with the interim council. As I say, they cannot be promulgated before the Bill becomes an Act. I think the hon member also needs to understand the processes of Parliament. We have no interest in allowing the public to use their medical aid schemes to pay for commercial sex services. I am surprised that it even crossed her mind that this Government would allow that to be done. She must understand this Bill.

With regard to Dr Mogoba’s contributions, yes, we will take care of traditional healers after the local government elections. I invite him to vote ANC. [Applause.] We will fast-track the Bill on traditional healers together.

I want to thank Mrs Baloyi for dealing with ungovernable committee members such as Ms Kalyan who do not come to committee meetings or come late and therefore miss out on some of the discussions and debates. I wish to thank her very much for supporting the Bill. [Interjections.]

I think now what remains for me to do is to wish all members a merry Christmas and prosperous new year. I know that they will be going back to their constituencies to motivate all South Africans to vote during this historic local government election which will bring about a major transformation in our local government system and administration.

However, they should not make a mistake. They should remember to vote for the party that has brought about transformation, prosperity and peace in our land. Vote ANC. Indeed, it is the only party that has the capacity and commitment to bringing about real and substantive transformation for a better life. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Amendments to the Bill, as printed on the Order Paper, put:

1. On page 6, in line 6, to omit ten'' and to substitute14’’.

2. On page 6, in line 11, to omit one is'' and to substitutethree are’’.

3. On page 6, in line 11, to omit has'' and to substitutehave’’ .

4. On page 6, in line 13, to omit one is'' and to substitutethree are’’.

5. On page 6, in line 13, to omit has'' and to substitutehave’’.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 61: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Andrew, K M; Bakker, D M; Bell, B G; Blaas, A; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Da Camara, M L; Cupido, P W; Davidson, I O; De Beer, S J; Dowry, J J; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Ferreira, E T; Frolick, C T; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Goosen, A D; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Madasa, Z L; Mbadi, L M; Mbuyazi, L R; Meshoe, K R J; Middleton, N S; Moorcroft, E K; Mpontshane, A M; Msomi, M D; Mzizi, M A; Ndabandaba, L B G; Nel, A H; Ngubane, H; Ngubeni, J M; Odendaal, W A; Opperman, S E; Rabinowitz, R; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schoeman, R S; Seaton, S A; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Slabbert, J H; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Swart, P S; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Viljoen, C L; Vos, S C; Woods, G G; Zulu, N E.

NOES - 199: Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Baloi, G E; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Capa, R Z N; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Kota, F I; Cindi, N V; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Feinstein, A J; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, T M; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Grové, S P; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jana, D P S; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Leeuw, S J; Lekgoro, M K; Lobe, M C; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lyle, A G; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G; Mahlangu, G L; Mahlangu, M J; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Makwetla, S P; Malebane, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Mapisa-Nqakula, NN; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Maziya, A M; Mbombo, N D; Mgidi, J S; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mogoba, M S; Mohai, S J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Momberg, J H; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moosa, M V; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mpehle, M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncube, B; Ndou, R S; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Omar, A M; Phala, M J; Phantsi, E; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Saloojee, E C; Schneeman, G D; Scott, M I; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tsheole, N M; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Verwoerd, M; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zondo, R P.

Amendments accordingly negatived.

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

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 199: Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Baloi, G E; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Capa, R Z N; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Kota, F I; Cindi, N V; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Duma, N M; Du Toit, D C; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Feinstein, A J; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, T M; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Grové, S P; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jana, D P S; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Leeuw, S J; Lekgoro, M K; Lobe, M C; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lyle, A G; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G; Mahlangu, G L; Mahlangu, M J; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Makwetla, S P; Malebane, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Maziya, A M; Mbombo, N D; Mgidi, J S; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mogoba, M S; Mohai, S J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Momberg, J H; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moosa, M V; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mpehle, M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncube, B; Ndou, R S; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nqakula, C; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Omar, A M; Phala, M J; Phantsi, E; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Saloojee, E C; Schneeman, G D; Scott, M I; September, C C; Shabangu, S; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tsheole, N M; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Verwoerd, M; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zondo, R P.

NOES - 61: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Andrew, K M; Bakker, D M; Bell, B G; Blaas, A; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Cupido, P W; Da Camara, M L; Davidson, I O; De Beer, S J; Dowry, J J; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Ferreira, E T; Frolick, C T; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Madasa, Z L; Mbadi, L M; Mbuyazi, L R; Meshoe, K R J; Middleton, N S; Moorcroft, E K; Mpontshane, A M; Msomi, M D; Mzizi, M A; Ndabandaba, L B G; Nel, A H; Ngubane, H; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Rabinowitz, R; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schoeman, R S; Seaton, S A; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Slabbert, J H; Smuts, M; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Swart, P S; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Viljoen, C L; Vos, S C; Woods, G G; Zulu, N E.

Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read a second time.

    AFRICAN RENAISSANCE AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION FUND BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted and Bill, as amended, agreed to.

                       TOURISM AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Consideration of Bill)

Order disposed of without debate.

Bill agreed to.

    CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
              CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - ROME STATUTE

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

    CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
       CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - RSA/USA EXTRADITION TREATY

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

    CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
 CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - RSA/USA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

    CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
    CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - RSA/AUSTRALIA EXTRADITION TREATY

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC PROTECTOR OFFICE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY - INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

CONSIDERATION OF FOURTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Order disposed of without debate.

Report adopted.

               ADULT BASIC EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL
                    (Debate and Decision on Bill)

Order disposed of without debate.

Bill agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, in terms of Rule 30(2) the House is adjourned until Monday, 20 November 2000 at 14:00.

Mr L T LANDERS: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: Has the Bill been read a second time?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Yes, the Bill was read a second time. Is there any doubt about it? I did call on the Secretary to read the Bill a second time. [Interjections.]

In terms of the last question that was put, I am advised that that was a decision arising from the NCOP, and therefore there was no need to read it a second time.

Does that satisfy you? Thank you very much for raising that. The House adjourned at 12:11. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Joint Programme Subcommittee on 3 November 2000 took a
     decision, in accordance with Joint Rule 216(2), that the Local
     Government: Municipal Structures Second Amendment Bill, 2000, be
     fast-tracked by, where necessary, dispensing with any House Rule
     or Joint Rule and shortening any period within which any step in
     the legislative process relating to the Bill must be completed in
     order to make it possible for the Bill to be passed by 24 November
     2000.


 (2)    In terms of Joint Rule 216(4) this decision must be tabled in
     both Houses for ratification. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. Report of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women, dated 3 November 2000:

 The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and
 Status of Women (hereafter referred to as the Joint Committee) reports
 as follows:


 Banks Amendment Bill


 One of the tasks of the Committee is to ensure that legislation passed
 by Parliament is gender-sensitive.


 The Chairperson of the Select Committee on Finance of the National
 Council of Provinces, Ms Q D Mahlangu, informed the Chairperson of the
 Joint Committee, Ms P Govender, that the Banks Amendment Bill [B 56B -
 2000] was drafted in gender-insensitive language. An example of this is
 on page 8, in line 30, of the Bill, under Clause 4:
   "If before or during any review under subsection (1) it transpires
   that any member of the board of review has any direct or indirect
   personal interest in the outcome of that review, such member shall
   recuse himself and he shall be replaced by -".


 Another example is on page 16, in line 7, under Clause 10:


   "(a) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, any bank will be unable to
        repay, when legally obliged to do so, deposits made with it or
        will probably be unable to meet any other of its obligations,
        the Minister may, if he deems it desirable in the public
        interest, with the written consent of the chief executive
        officer or the chairman of the board of directors of that bank,
        appoint a curator to the bank.".


 The implication of this is the assumption that all these positions are
 held by men.


 The Joint Committee obtained a legal opinion from the Women's Legal
 Centre, stating that it was possible to change the Bill and suggesting
 ways in which it could be changed, which it forwarded to the
 Chairperson of the Select Committee.


 On 3 October, the Select Committee had a discussion with State Law
 Advisers and Parliamentary Law Advisers, who indicated that the Bill,
 under the prevailing circumstances, could not be amended by the Select
 Committee. The Select Committee unanimously felt that the Bill had to
 be made gender-sensitive, but passed it, stating in their report that
 it -


   "... notes with concern that the principle Act (the Banks Act, 1990)
   and the Banks Amendment Bill [B 56B - 2000] are gender-insensitive,
   and recommends that the National Treasury correct this within 12
   months of the adoption of this Report by the Council".


 The Select Committee also noted the urgency of amending the
 Interpretation Act to facilitate gender-sensitive drafting.


 The Joint Committee is aware of the fact that Parliament has passed
 many Bills amending principal Acts which are not drafted in a gender-
 sensitive manner.


 The Joint Committee is of the opinion that legislation must be drafted
 in a gender-sensitive manner. We therefore support the call to the
 National Treasury to correct the principal Act, the Banks Act of 1990,
 within 12 months of adoption of the Select Committee's Report. This Act
 must then be brought to Parliament. We further call on the Justice
 Ministry to table an amended Interpretation Act in Parliament as a
 matter of urgency.


 The policy and practice of this Parliament has been to draft the
 Constitution and all Bills in a gender-sensitive manner. Therefore, the
 Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status
 of Women calls on the Finance Ministry to ensure that its drafters
 draft all Finance Bills in a gender-sensitive manner, in line with the
 Constitution.