WEDNESDAY, 20 JUNE 2001 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:02.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

Debate on Vote No 2 - Parliament:

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker:

As we strengthen the bonds of friendship and solidarity with our fellow Africans we have an obligation to help ensure, in our country and elsewhere on our continent, that no African child should ever again walk in fear of guns, tyrants and abuse; that no African child should ever again experience hunger, avoidable disease and ignorance; that no African child should ever again feel ashamed to be an African.

This is the vision of our President, articulated when he opened Parliament on 9 February. We, this Parliament, must rise to the challenges of this vision.

We have already, as a Parliament and as a people, won national, regional, continental and international acclaim for our commitment to democracy within our borders and beyond. After stunning the world with the peaceful transition from a tyrannical, brutal and enslaving apartheid regime to a rights-based one, we astounded even ourselves by our willing embrace of reconciliation and nation-building.

We have agreed, as a country, to build peace and security; to build our economy for the benefit of the many, not just the few; to sustain and intensify the transformation of our society; to ensure and guarantee equality before the law, the dignity of all our people and mutual respect for our rich and diverse cultural differences. At the centre of all this, was and is, Parliament. Like a pregnant mother who goes through painful labour, who lets the infant suckle on her nurturing breast and watches it grow with pride; in the same way we passed a large number of transformatory laws, ensured that committees report on all their work, increased our oversight responsibility, agreed on more labour-intensive constituency periods to listen to the people. We changed some of the old, like the Questions and Interpellations sessions, to give a voice to all parties in Parliament.

Since 1994, the opening of Parliament and the Budget Address are a celebration of democracy. The fact that the President of the Republic and his Cabinet come to this democratic Parliament to account for their actions and decisions is a celebration of democracy; a celebration that causes a stir in all our communities; a celebration which makes us all pregnant with expectation and breathless with anticipation; and a celebration to which all our people are invited.

This Parliament, under the laudable leadership of the Speaker and the presiding officers, has gained the respect and awe of the world. In organisations of international repute, like the Commonwealth Parliament Association, the Organisation of African Unity, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and SADC, our Parliament carved out a positive profile for itself. It played a leading role in the birth of the African Union and the Pan- African Parliament.

When he addressed the Parliament of Ghana on 6 October last year, our esteemed President, Thabo Mbeki, said:

Our elected legislatures, an independent judiciary and a free press are important parts of the new Africa we are working to create. We are firm in our conviction that we need to ensure that we have the capacity to intervene both in defence of democracy and human rights and to achieve the goal of a better life for all.

Our efforts in the region and continent cannot dwindle, because we are all of one mother - mother Africa. The hon the President went on to say:

Africa shares a common destiny. We are, to one another, brother and sister, whatever the nationality of the passports we carry. What Kwame Nkrumah said about the liberty of the peoples of Africa being indivisible remains true to this day.

What are the challenges we face now that the foundation has been laid? We must increase our oversight capabilities to play a greater role in speeding up change and creating a better life for all. It is our constitutional duty to ensure that the laws we pass here have the intended impact on the lives of our people.

Addressing this Assembly the hon President Mbeki called on MPs to dedicate more time to their constituencies; to listen to the people’s experiences on the ground; to raise their concerns with the executive and follow up on it; and to report to them on the work we do here.

We must also, as this Parliament, strengthen the democratic culture that is enveloping this continent. As President Mbeki told the Ghanaian Parliament:

In the last decade, we have seen much progress in the deepening of democracy with multiparty democratic elections being held in many of our countries. I believe that in the greater part of Africa, we have made great strides towards the creation of conditions for sustained democracy.

Parliamentarians must count themselves among the decision-makers of the country and the continent. Every day we hear of the role that civil society, business and labour have to play in the transformation project. We, too, must more and more assume a high priority role in the quest to restore Africa to her former status as a world leader.

Another crucial area that needs our urgent attention is the empowerment and development of members of Parliament to better understand and participate in the intricacies of Parliament. This is evident from a number of experiences varying from misunderstanding to arrogant misfires. The most recent and glaring example of such a misfire was the unsubstantiated allegations the hon Holomisa made about the Speaker.

The subsequent debate was aimed at concluding that no one, including the media, should be allowed to make such remarks about the Speaker, who is the embodiment and the integrity of this House and of the rules of this institution, except by tabling a substantive motion in the House. This is an international convention. The lesson for all of us is to put the necessary rules and guidelines in place to prevent a recurrence of this nature.

A gravely misunderstood question is that of the role of the opposition. We must ask the opposition what it has delivered since 1994, apart from piggybacking on the ANC … [Applause] … apart from the occasional name- change with great fanfare and apart from strange bedfellows sleeping with their enemies. [Interjections.] The official opposition should rightfully engage the Government and should do so constructively, critically and in line with the aspirations of millions of people whom we represent.

Unfortunately, we have an opposition that subscribes to negative criticism and bad-mouthing; an opposition that hurls insults and abuse instead of engaging seriously on issues; an opposition that shouts loudly from the benches; an opposition whose politics depend on the dictates of the media that chases after every rumour and wild allegation; an opposition that suffers from selective amnesia; an opposition that prophesies selective oversight; and an opposition that endorses selective democracy. Maybe our democracy and the people will benefit more from an opposition that does not only represent and reflect a small and wealthy minority, but rather one that reflects and represents the demographics and wishes of our diverse society. [Interjections.]

We thank the Speaker and the presiding officers for their guidance through the stormy seas. We must thank the Leader of Government Business, the hon Deputy President Jacob Zuma, for his hands-on approach and his commitment to Parliament. [Applause.] We want to thank the Chief Whips’ of the opposition parties for their role in the Chief Whips Forum. [Interjections.] We have to thank the Secretary to Parliament and his staff for their support. We are also grateful for the support staff of the ANC, including the political staff, researchers, personal assistants, secretaries, administrative assistants and constituency office staff.

Democratic South Africa has truly been blessed with the outstanding visionaries and intellectuals in this Presidency, who led our country out of its isolation from Africa and the world to its rightful place in the assembly of nations. We must heed the clarion calls made by the vision of our President. We must focus on our efforts in resolving the problem of the colour line by ongoing confrontations with the demons of racism and racial prejudice wherever they rear their heads, increase our role in the region, the continent and the world to speed up change, give a louder voice to our constituents, strengthen the hand of committees and stabilise the capacity of Parliament itself to better serve the needs of our people. And we must ensure that Parliament is located at the centre of our efforts, as a nation, to bring change.

In supporting Vote 2, we must reiterate that, for Parliament to complete its historic mission, it must be resourced adequately. We must implore the hon the Minister of Finance to give more resources to Parliament, and not less. [Applause.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I want to say that the hon Mr Doidge has really brought a very strange element into this debate - a debate that is, normally, quite friendly. But today Mr Doidge has chosen to attack from the start. That is fine, because, quite frankly, we can do the same.

Unfortunately, I think what he has done today is to set a precedent for the future. I find it very sad indeed that generally speaking, a debate that is good and positive about Parliament has taken on the kind of tone that it has this afternoon. I think that he is going to have a great deal to answer for in the future. [Interjections.]

Make no error, nothing is quite as good as Mr Doidge would like it to appear to be. He talks about the opposition in a particular way, ie what we have not done, what we should be doing, and so on. The opposition reserves the right, forever, to challenge this Government when it does things wrong. [Interjections.] The fact that we find that the Government is doing far too much wrong is, of course, a very important point and one that the hon Mr Doidge seems to forget. But, quite frankly I, again, want to say to Mr Doidge that it is a huge pity that he has brought this element into this debate today, a great pity indeed.

Let me say that in some respects Parliament has improved quite considerably. For example, we now do have computers - I think many MPs are not really aware of the fact that we struggled for a long time to get these computers. But, quite frankly, we are still inundated with huge piles of papers each day, and notices of meetings that too often arrive too late. We obviously look forward to the day when the network is set up properly, so that we can make proper and efficient use of our computers.

However, there are many other areas where parliamentary life struggles on from one year to the next, and which need to be resolved urgently. One of these, clearly, is the issue of Hansard where, just as it looked as though things were coming right and speeches would be available within 48 hours after delivery, the situation has yet again deteriorated. Hansard is an essential service - I think, all MPs will agree - and we again urge that the problems being experienced are resolved as soon as possible.

Another issue is that of staffing. However grateful one is - and we, certainly, are grateful for the assistance received, for example from the EU - it is still a fact that only the most senior office bearers in the various parties have anything like a reasonable staffing complement. All other members have to struggle with shared secretaries who are not always available when they are required and this, obviously, remains unsatisfactory.

The parking situation is atrocious. The matter has been going on for months, if not years, and yet it remains absolutely unresolved. We have discussed it at the Chief Whips’ Forum. Quite frankly, after the type of speech the hon Mr Doidge has made today, I understand why we do not get anything done at the Chief Whips’ Forum … [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: He is busy playing politics!

Mr M J ELLIS: Yes, he is too busy playing politics, Madam Speaker. If he actually got down to doing some of the things that he was supposed to do, maybe these matters would in fact be resolved. But I would say that, quite frankly, it is atrocious that this parking problem has continued to the extent that it has. Yet again, we have to appeal to everyone to make sure that it is resolved as a matter of urgency.

However, we note with a great deal of interest that there is a vast sum of money being spent on the parliamentary buildings and the parliamentary villages. It certainly seems as if the decision must have now been taken that Parliament is to remain in Cape Town. We would certainly like confirmation of this fact. If this is not the case, then we would certainly like to know how we can justify the spending of millions of rands on Parliament if Parliament is only temporarily in the city.

I want to add another point of deep concern to the DP and the DA, ie Question Time. It does remain a serious bone of contention. It is, of course, an essential part of the parliamentary process and we are now finalising the proposed changes to Question Time, but we remain very unhappy in view of the fact that the ANC appears to be developing the system more to the liking of Ministers, who have to answer questions, than to the rights of members to ask questions.

Question Time should always be to the benefit of members, and not to the benefit of the executive. I believe that, at the end of the day, we are bending over backwards now. Certainly, the ANC is aided and abetted by certain people, like Mr Koos van der Merwe. We are bending over backwards to make life easier for Ministers while denying the right of members to ask legitimate questions of the executive. It is a point that we will fight for forever. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, sir?

An HON MEMBER: Why are you so self-righteous? Mr M J ELLIS: I want to say to the hon member that I have a duty to this country to make sure that we do the very best, and we will continue to do it regardless of what he says. [Interjections.]

The dust has settled somewhat concerning the controversy surrounding the Office of the Speaker. Some very sharp comments were made at the time. I trust that all of us have learned from the experience. This is not the occasion to address that matter again, and I merely want to thank the presiding officers for the work which they do - Madam Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chair and the Deputy Chair. I certainly believe it cannot always be easy to preside over a House that has as much spirit as this one, and we appreciate the manner in which it is done. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and your presiding officers. [Applause.]

I also want to thank the Chief Whips of all the various parties, but I will not go into details, because of the opening remarks that Mr Doidge made. I want to say that, generally speaking, in the Chief Whips’ Forum, we have developed a pretty good rapport which I think has been spoiled somewhat this afternoon. I also want to say thank you to the Secretariat to Parliament for all the hard work that they do. We really do appreciate the efforts they make to ensure that Parliament does run properly and smoothly. [Applause.]

Ms B O DLAMINI: Madam Speaker, hon Deputy President and hon members, I wish to start by congratulating hon member Doidge on being able to shake the hon member Mike Ellis. [Interjections.] I wish to state categorically that the ANC is not afraid of criticism, but criticism from the opposition has always been very destructive and arrogant. [Interjections.] One can see from the response of the hon Mike Ellis that, if we can keep on fighting fire with fire, they would vanish. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

During the Makifeng Conference of December 1997, the ANC resolved that all MPs and MPLs, including presiding officers, Cabinet Ministers, Premiers and MECs shall be accountable to their constituencies, report regularly on developments in the legislature and the executive, take up issues raised by constituencies and address the needs of the constituencies. This resolution is based on the fact that the ANC believes in participatory democracy, which informs the ANC’s call on our people to unite in action for change.

Participatory democracy has also helped people to participate in the law- making process. This has helped Parliament to interact with the electorate. It is the duty of all MPs to report back to the electorate during constituency work, so as to remain accountable to the people. Constituency offices have changed the face of Parliament for the people.

Ngaphambi kokhetho luka-1994 abantu bebengakwazi ukuhlangana namalunga ePhalamende. Lokhu sikuzwa uma siye emihlangwaneni sihambise imibiko yePhalamende emiphakathini. Abantu bajabula kakhulu ngokuthi isishayamthetho basibona ngamehlo, into abangakaze baze bayibone, into engakaze ize yenzeke ngaphambi kokhetho luka-1994. Bekushaywa imithetho nje abantu bengabambi iqhaza ekushayweni kwayo, futhi bengazi ngisho nangayo leyo mithetho ngoba kwakuyimithetho yokuvikela idlanzana labantu ababephethe ngaleso sikhathi - i-DP ne-New NP eyayiyingxenye yayo leyo mithetho. (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.) [Before the 1994, elections people could not meet members of Parliament. We hear this when we are in meetings in which we give parliamentary reports to communities. People are happy because they can see the legislators with their own eyes, whereas this was not the case before. It is something which did not happen before the 1994 elections. Laws were made and people did not participate in that process. They did not even know about those laws, because they were laws to protect only the minority that was in power at that time. Only the DP and the NP, were part of that process.]

The ANC has drawn its representatives from different constituencies so as to ensure that all constituencies are represented. In the ANC one does not apply to be an MP there is a democratic process and one is elected by the structures. This results from the fact that we in the ANC believe in collective decision-making.

The ANC remains accountable to its membership and supporters, but we have adjusted to the fact that constituency offices are for people from all walks of life. People from different political organisations have been able to access our constituency offices, because we are committed to unite in action for change.

Communities from rural areas have used these offices for a number of problems and issues. For example, the problems with pensions, maintenance, child support grants and identity documents, as well as problems related to farmworkers, womens’ rights, and many others. Members of the public can access Parliament through the public awareness programmes, publications, tours to Parliament and information technology. The above have enabled Parliament to close the gap between itself and ordinary people.

There is still room for improvement in all this. Parliament needs to find a structured way of processing reports and information from the electorate. We need to ensure that MPs report to the executive about problems they find in their constituencies.

Parliament needs to look seriously into time allocated to constituency work. The way we are approaching constituency work presently, leaves much to be desired, because we only go to constituencies for one or two weeks and we quickly return to Parliament, ending up not doing thorough work. We need to dedicate more time to constituency work, so as to balance constituency work and parliamentary work. Parliament needs to find ways of taking important documents like Hansard and annual reports to constituencies, so that people can have access to these.

Constituency offices must be equipped in a way that people do not feel the distance between Parliament and themselves. This could be done in a number of ways. For example, the hon member Andries Nel has suggested that members should have CD-ROMs with Parliament’s website on them. This information could be updated on a quarterly basis. It would enable people to access Parliament through constituency offices.

We need to acknowledge that constituency allocations have been increased this year, but there is still room for improvement. There are still constraints that face members when they have to discharge their duties in their constituencies. Some MPs are deployed in very remote and vast areas. Parliament needs to find a way of providing more financial assistance to these members, so that they can travel to these areas. This should go hand in hand with improved ways of accountability. The ANC supports this Vote. [Applause.]

Dr G G WOODS: Madam Speaker, the issue before us concerns the House’s consideration of the parliamentary Vote for the 2001-02 financial year.

In supporting this Budget the IFP would like to raise a few points. The first concerns areas of expenditure. In general, we are pleased with the increase in the allocation given to Parliament. In addition, we are pleased with the deployment of those moneys across particular areas of importance for the way we do our work here. I think all these are starting to count towards us and towards this Parliament becoming a Parliament of the people and acting in their interest.

There are, of course, areas that we are always going to point our fingers at, to say where we would like more money spent. I can think of two in particular. One would be research facilities for the committees themselves. If the committees are to give considered views in overseeing the work of Government, especially when it comes to legislation, in my view the need for in-committee research facilities grows all the more important. The current arrangement where we have an independent and separate research unit has not fulfilled that function. This is partially expressed by the amount of funds that we have difficulty in spending in that area.

I would like to point to an area where a lot has happened. There is a lot to be grateful for in the facilities that have been accorded to the physically disadvantaged and other disadvantaged people in the House. I would like to suggest, as part of that small community, that there are a few other areas which we hope to see addressed in the near future.

The second area I would like to touch on, concerns financial management, and coming from where I do, I cannot let that go. I think that generally the accounting officer and his team have done a pretty good job, as expressed in the Auditor-General’s report on financial management matters of Parliament. I think a lot of improvement, eg on risk assessment, management and the internal control side, as well as on segregation of duties and the way it is geared up for the new Public Financial Management Act, all need to be acknowledged. The third and final area I wish to refer to concerns a subcommittee that I used to serve on under the hon Barbara Hogan - I am now serving under the hon Pallo Jordan - ie the subcommittee on Parliament’s budget, which is an arm of the Rules committee. There I would I like to suggest that the Rules of Parliament more clearly define what the exact role of that committee is. As things happen now, people make submissions to that subcommittee, we hear what they say and pass them on, and the figures are changed. I think there is a critical need to assess the budget, the areas of spending and the relative proportions, as well as to make more constructive suggestions. So with that, I do hope that the Rules committee will consider giving greater definition to the role of the subcommittee. I do think that we have an important role to play.

Mr J F VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, Deputy President and hon members, let me start by acknowledging the mayor of the Colesberg municipality and some other people from my constituency in the gallery. [Applause.]

One morning when I was approaching the gates of Parliament, I nearly caused an accident. This was because, to my surprise, I noticed that the statue of Louis Botha in front of Parliament had been replaced by a statue of what seemed to me to be an African warrior. This surprise was short-lived, because I noticed that someone had only dressed up the honourable General’s statue in that way. Later on I found out that it was only part of Cape Town’s One City, Many Cultures Campaign.

Parliament is a product of our new Constitution, and its role should therefore be redefined in terms of the new Constitution. It is also important that Parliament should transform its physical appearance to fit into the new dispensation. With that I do not necessarily mean that we should have new buildings, although the current architecture does not reflect African culture. It will have cost and other implications that we currently cannot afford. But there are elements of Parliament that should change, with less cost but with very important implications for the transformation of this institution.

The process of transformation in our country brought about a growing and urgent need for Parliament to review its symbols. The symbols are the parliamentary emblem, the mace of the National Assembly, the black rod of the NCOP and the ceremonial garments. The continued use of the Westminster system’s symbols in the South African Parliament does not bode well for the spirit of the African Renaissance, which anchors transformation in South Africa. Our new symbols should redefine and rewrite the history of Parliament. The symbols should further demonstrate and reflect South African institutions as part of the proud, diverse and rich traditions of Africa. Therefore, Parliament has embarked on a national campaign involving the public in the development of new parliamentary symbols.

We also need to look at what messages we want to convey from Parliament. We need to look at how best we can convey these messages through the artworks that we display in the precincts of Parliament. But we should ask questions about some of the artworks that are currently being displayed within Parliament. For instance, what is the message that we send out with the continued presence of the statue of Louis Botha and others like him, which reflect our colonial apartheid past? Should these artworks not be replaced by works that are symbolic of our liberation and diverse culture? Artworks have the potential to contribute to national consciousness and nation- building.

Our challenge is that art that is exhibited in Parliament should portray the broad spectrum of our 11 official languages, and the other languages mentioned in section 5 of the Constitution. We should embark on a conscious and deliberate selection of artworks reflecting all these cultural groups. Parliament is in the process of appointing a curator and drafting policy on artworks. These are steps in the right direction, but a lot of work still needs to be done and these processes need to be speeded up.

Yesterday the South African-born Hollywood actress, Charlize Theron said about ex-President Mandela: `` He is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a South African. He is a great inspiration to me.’’ I truly believe that most South Africans echo these words. The Chief Whip of the ANC, Comrade Tony Yengeni, said on the occasion of the debate on the 10th anniversary of the release of Comrade Nelson Mandela,and I quote:

… his life serves as an inspiration to the people of South Africa, both black and white, to the people of the African continent and the international community.

He is the founding father of our rainbow nation, and through his term of office, managed to foster our national unity.

It is therefore important for Parliament to honour Madiba in the most appropriate manner for the role he played. It is important that a resolution adopted by this House during the above-mentioned debate, i.e. that a bust of this great man should grace the precincts of Parliament, is implemented as soon as possible.

The establishment of the NCOP is an important breakaway from the old Westminster system. The NCOP ensures that through its system of permanent and special delegates, the nine provinces and local government have a direct voice in Parliament when laws are made. This is an important part of the transformation of Parliament, because most laws have to be carried out at provincial and local level. The refurbishment of the NCOP Chamber is, therefore, an important part of the transformation of the physical appearance of Parliament. The reorganisation of the space within the NCOP Chamber will make it more functional and effective for the role that that House is playing in this new dispensation of co-operative governance. The new coat of arms is one of our new national symbols of the new democratic South Africa. It is therefore important that it should be displayed within Parliament. Suggestions by the New NP and DP that both the new and old coats of arms should be displayed is unacceptable. The country has one coat of arms - that and nothing else should be displayed. It is time this Deurmekaar'' Alliance understood that the days ofEendrag maak mag’’ are over, they are finish and klaar. Now it is the time for !ke e: /xarra //ke. [Laughter.] Now it is the time for unity in diversity.

The problem is that we do not currently have a proper slot in the meetings of the Rules subcommittees to deal with these and other issues that affect the transformation of Parliament on our parliamentary programme, because portfolio committees get preference over these committees on the programme. Our challenge is for Parliament to find a proper space for the housekeeping committees on its programme. It is also important that members, especially those with expertise, address these issues, to demonstrate more commitment and effort to making a contribution.

Some of the issues covered in my speech are not covered by the budget of Parliament, but are funded by the Public Works department. But the responsibility for policy and decision-making still rests with Parliament. Whether it is the budget of Parliament or that of Public Works, it is important that provision is made for decisions on transformation to be implemented.

I want to close by thanking Madam Speaker and the presiding officers of both Houses for their leadership in the transformation of Parliament as an agent for change. I also want to thank the Secretary to Parliament, his management team and staff for their contribution. All of us are sometimes working under very difficult circumstances, but we should always remember that our ultimate goal is a better life for all.

The ANC supports the Vote. [Applause.]

Mr C H F GREYLING: Madam Speaker, normally this debate is not a debate in which to score political points. I must say that I was surprised at the tasteless attitude displayed by the hon the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party. It is obvious that he has ambitions to succeed the hon the Chief Whip, should the latter vacate his seat. [Interjections.] But I have news for him; rumour has it that he does not have the necessary support amongst his colleagues. And to the hon Van Wyk, I must just say …

… die agb lid moet sy feite regkry. Hy ken nie die geskiedenis nie en hy moet uitvind wat by die ``internal arrangements’‘-komitee gebeur het. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[… the hon member must get his facts straight. He does not know the history and he must find out what happened in the internal arrangements committee.]

The discussion of Vote 2, namely Parliament, is important for various reasons. One reason is that Parliament’s effective functioning to a great extent serves as a display window of our democracy. Our conduct as representatives of Parliament - and therefore as representatives of all the people of South Africa - should at all times comply with what the voters expect of us, and dignity should be part of this.

The public is placing us under a magnifying glass and it is our duty to ensure that we continuously strive for excellence. Parliament’s budget for 2001-02 amounts to R422,7 million. Constituency allowances will increase by R6,3 million, and I would like to express my gratitude that constituency allowances were increased from R4 800 to R6 000 per month, per member. This amount is definitely more realistic for maintaining an office with infrastructure. We also appreciate the fact that funding for party support and members’ facilities was increased. All these increases can only lead to MPs doing a better job and enable them to perform their duties more effectively.

Na my beskeie mening moet ons in hierdie debat krediet gee waar dit geregverdig is, maar ons moet ook nie huiwer om op bepaalde tekortkomings te wys waar dit bestaan nie. As ek dan na laasgenoemde moet verwys, wil ek tog die aandag daarop vestig dat daar ‘n paar aspekte is wat kwel.

Voorbeelde hiervan is portefeuljekomiteevergaderings wat steeds nie betyds begin nie. Behoorlike kennisgewing word nie gegee nie. Soms is die vergaderings reeds verby, dan kry ons eers kennis daarvan. Verder is daar portefeuljekomitees wat sit terwyl die Huis ook sit. Net gister het agt portefeuljekomitees gesit terwyl die Huis ook in sitting was.

‘n Verdere aspek wat pla, is die slordigheid van die parlementêre terrein wat werklik daadwerklike aandag moet kry. Die Parlement is Suid-Afrika se simbool van ons jong demokrasie, en as sodanig behoort dit te alle tye onberispelik netjies te vertoon. Besonder baie buitelandse besoekers word hier ontvang, en dit is werklik nodig dat die terrein te alle tye ten minste skoon sal wees.

‘n Reëling waarvoor ons ook dankbaar is, is die feit dat Maandae nou beskikbaar is vir die doeleindes van partye se studiegroepe. Ons vertrou dat waar daar nog portefeuljekomitees op Maandae vergader, hierdie aangeleentheid ook reggestel sal word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[In my humble opinion we must give credit where it is due in this debate, but we should also not hesitate to indicate specific shortcomings where they exist. If I then have to refer to the last-mentioned, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are a few aspects which are causing concern. Examples of this are portfolio committee meetings which still do not begin on time. Adequate notification is not given. Sometimes the meetings are already over before we are notified about them. Furthermore, there are portfolio committees which sit while the House is also sitting. Just yesterday eight portfolio committees sat while the House was also sitting.

A further aspect which is causing concern, is the untidiness of the parliamentary grounds, which must really receive decisive attention. Parliament is South Africa’s symbol of our young democracy, and as such it should be immaculately neat at all times. An exceptionally high number of foreign visitors are received here, and it is really necessary that the grounds should at least be clean at all times.

An arrangement which we are also grateful for, is the fact that Mondays are now available for the purposes of parties’ study groups. We trust that where there are still portfolio committees meeting on Mondays, this matter will also be rectified.]

In conclusion, I would like to add my voice to those who have already thanked the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of Committees for their sometimes difficult role, not only in maintaining the dignity of the House, but also order. This is truly not always an easy task and we would like to thank them for their role in this regard.

I would like to thank the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party for the co-operation we enjoy in the Chief Whips’ Forum. To the Secretary to Parliament, Mr Mfenyana and his staff, I would like to extend a word of gratitude for their service at the Table.

Ek rig ook aan alle ander parlementêre personeel elders in die kompleks wat die ratte van die Parlement geolie hou ‘n besondere woord van waardering.

Laaste maar nie die minste nie, ‘n besondere woord van dank aan die media, wat die taak het om te rapporteer oor die bedrywighede van die Huis en sy komitees. Die rol wat hulle speel om die werksaamhede van die Parlement aan die gemeenskap bekend te stel kan nie onderskat word nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [I would also like to address a particular word of appreciation to all other parliamentary staff elsewhere in the complex who keep the wheels of Parliament turning.

Last but not least, a particular word of thanks to the media, which has the task to report on the activities of the House and its committees. The role they play to introduce the community to the proceedings of Parliament cannot be underestimated.]

We support this Vote.

Mr M J MAHLANGU: Madam Speaker and hon members of Parliament, members are tasked with scrutinising legislation emanating from the executive, developing legislation and exercising oversight over the executive function in general and the transformation process in Parliament.

It is expedient to begin the transformation of our people and institutions, including Parliament, by changing the mindset of the people. The synergy between the thinking and practice of the the thoughts is still lacking in some conjunctions. To be on the same wavelength, it is a known scenario that the imperatives of transformation dictate that whenever management of change occurs, like our present scenario, one cannot avoid the change of management style.

When the mindsets of the people are ready, having been frozen by the past regime, we need to sensitise them about thorny issues and democratic priorities that should be undertaken by all of us. I am persuaded to assume that we are at that stage now. Another further step will be to jointly defrost our minds onto a scenario where the calibration of our action is measured by the positive feedback from our communities, without partly blemishing and point scoring.

It is evident that we have travelled a long and uneasy road that demanded - and still demands from all of us - perennial commitment, preparation of strategic plans and aggressive implementation thereof, to improve the quality of lives of our people. We realise and recognise the constraints under which we have worked, but have progressed as far as we have made inroads into the stages at which we are.

There is progress which our democracy can boast about in delivery and development by both our members as instruments of democracy and our people as targets for development. Our Parliament has instituted one of the most ideal, pragmatic systems in its workings, which is the parliamentary committee system. I am going to deal with this point extensively.

Our democracy is about the participation of our entire population in the affairs affecting their own political, socioeconomic and cultural livelihood. Lack of finance prevents those who live a distance away from travelling to Cape Town to make a presentation. I want to mention two options today. We should either improve the budget effectively so as to allow people to come to Parliament, or committees should visit villages which are far from Parliament so that they can participate in the presentations of the legislative processes of this country. This is to make it possible for Parliament to access people who have something different to say.

Currently, the public hearings within the committee system benefit big, organised businesses and their lobbyists. Our committee system is globally acclaimed, because of its all- inclusiveness, a scenario that was never dreamt of before. Our results will show if we work together in the building of our nation. It is important to underline that when we are in committees, political point-scoring accelerates retrogression, instead of accelerating progression.

Our current budget cannot even begin to address the sore points of our Parliament in general and committees in particular. We need up-to-date, adequate technology, information management technology and strong research units that will service our community as and when research is requisitioned or required. The committees are the engine of Parliament. This is where the real issues are assigned for thorough deliberation and reported to this House.

The committee system has settled very well, but inadequate research support is hampering efficiency. Chairpersons would like to have researchers attached to each committee. Resources and capacity have to be looked at. Parliament’s research component is a very transient arrangement. It is definitely not sufficient. Researchers are very few and are not attached to committees according to their experience, qualifications and professions.

Parliamentary committees are the ideal vehicle for Parliament to fulfil its role in terms of the Constitution. The Constitution makes provision for representative and participatory democracy, accountability and transparency. It facilitates public involvement in the legislature and other processes of Parliament.

Committees have been actively involved in promoting these ideals on behalf Parliament. Structures and procedures have been put in place to promote these goals, enabling these committees to be much more active and effective than before. Committees are generally assigned other functions and other responsibilities. Besides considering legislation in portfolio and select committees, they are expected to have oversight of Government in the financial field and in domestic functions, as well as to examine specific areas of public life and matters of public interest, to monitor and oversee Government affairs and provinces, consider private members’ legislative proposals and a few others.

I want to dwell on an issue which I think is very important for Parliament. This issue is the question of oversight. Parliament, in representing the people of the Republic of South Africa, also has an obligation to act as a custodian of their resources. The rendering of public service can only be as effective as the management of the money that funds them. For this reason, Parliament played an active part in drafting the Public Finance Management Act, which is already transforming public spending at the present moment. Therefore, the implementation of the PFMA becomes a very crucial role of Parliament itself to monitor the spending by the departments, public entities and constitutional institutions.

Parliament also finds itself in the accountability chain as the ultimate arbiter of the financial performance of accounting officers. This accountability chain represents a critical drive for improving management in the public sector.

In conclusion, I would also like to join the rest of the House in thanking the Secretary to Parliament for making it possible to begin to train the staff in the committee section, so that they can play their role efficiently in assisting and supporting the work of committees in Parliament.

I wish to thank the presiding officers and congratulate them on setting the national agenda. The manner in which they have objectively secured most crucial debates and have been able to treat all matters with impartiality is laudable.

I also want to applaud the prudent leadership of Dr Pallo Jordan, who is the chairperson of the Rules subcommittee, in terms of the budget. He has made it possible to drive the budget process in this Parliament.

Let me thank all chairpersons who have really given me respect and co- operation in my work as Chairperson of Committees, as well as the Leader of Government Business, the Whips and the presiding officers. My task has been made easy by them, and I want to say bravo to all of them.

I also thank the Secretary to Parliament for completing the task of getting the secretaries to chair Parliament. I support this Vote. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, I rise to support this Vote.

The ACDP is generally satisfied with the new interim Questions procedure that is being applied. What we are not happy with, though, is the way in which the Deputy Speaker seems to ignore us, or her failure to acknowledge us when we raise our hands to attract her attention. There must be the same acknowledgement from her that we receive from Madam Speaker. Otherwise we have to keep our hands raised throughout Question Time, which is not fair. She must either nod her head, smile, frown or do something to say to members, ``Yes, I have seen you.’’ [Laughter.] [Applause.]

The new system of questions is definitely working better than the interpellations, which did not give many members an opportunity to participate. [Applause.] Some Cabinet members respond to questions by hon members very well, and with politeness. They should be commended for that. I especially want to give credit to Ministers such as Valli Moosa, Ronnie Kasrils, Jeff Radebe and Thoko Didiza for treating members of the opposition with dignity and respect as fellow parliamentarians. I wish I could say the same for all Cabinet Ministers!

The ACDP would also like to see the parliamentary programme divided into four quarters, with our recess coinciding with school holidays. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Madam Speaker, am I included in that list? [Laughter.]

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, why have I been slandered in Parliament by being excluded from the list? [Laughter.]

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Madam Speaker, do we allow such divisive behaviour in this Parliament? [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is parliamentary to make comments about Ministers. Proceed, hon member.

Rev K R J MESHOE: Members of Parliament must have time to be with their families, especially children who still need their guidance. It is never good news to hear about Cabinet Ministers either divorcing or separating from their spouses. Much of this is a result of pressure of work that keeps them away from home for long hours and days.

The ACDP maintains that we cannot build a nation while we are failing to maintain our families. We cannot show care and concern to the children of this nation while we are failing to show love, care and concern to our own children. Charity should begin in our own homes. To emphasise the important fact that children and teenagers need their parents, especially fathers, I am going to read a portion of an e-mail I received this morning from my 19- year-old daughter:

Dear Dad. This is just a short note to let you know how much I love, respect and appreciate you. Thank you for, even though you are extremely busy, always having the time to talk, laugh and for taking care to find out what’s happening in our lives. Thank you for, together with mom, training me up in the way that I should go. Now, when I act the way I do and people are amazed, all I can say is that I was brought up well.

This is possible because we are able to make time for our families. My daughter continues: You are my role model and I smile with pride when I am told, ``you take after your father in many areas!’’ I am honoured to be known as your first daughter. Not many people can boast of the father-daughter relationship that we have. I am grateful for it and am proud that I can boast of having …

[Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon Meshoe: Witness hy nou, of brag hy nou? [Is he testifying or is he boasting?] [Laughter.]

Parliament is more than a mere functional body that has to work through a specific agenda. Parliament is the mirror of society. The Constitution reflects something along these lines, in describing Parliament as a national forum. Parliament is a microcosm of the country as a whole. [Interjections.]

But Parliament does not only reflect society - it also impacts on society, not only through what it does, but also through the way in which it operates and not only through its agenda, but also through its modus operandi. Bitterness, malicious confrontation and insulting behaviour in Parliament inevitably results in a heavily polarised society. It conditions our different communities outside to think that confrontation and aggression are the name of the game. This is even more so in a pluralistic society like South Africa, where the laagers can so easily be drawn up against each other.

As such, a huge responsibility rests on our shoulders as members of Parliament. We must have a healing and consoling influence on society. Therefore, I fully support the plea by the Chief Whip and by the Speaker that the level of debate, and especially of interaction with each other in this House, must be raised. The golden rule must certainly be: ``Play the ball, and not the man.’’ It is a myth that politics is a licence for bad manners. Yes, Parliament is not a place for sissies. We must have vibrant debates and a healthy level of heckling. But let us take note of the Roman proverb: Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.

Dit beteken: wees sterk in jou saak, maar gematig in jou aanslag. Dit is net wanneer ‘n mens nie ‘n regverdige saak het nie, dat mens dit wil opdos met ‘n groot lawaai en geskreeu, soos die dominee wat in die kantlyn by sy preek geskryf het: ``Argument weak, shout hard!’’ (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[This means: be gentle in manner, but resolute in deed. It is only when one does not have a just cause that one wants to embellish it with a lot of noise and shouting, like the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon: ``Argument weak, shout hard!’’]

Maybe it would be a good suggestion that every day, just after the moment of silence for prayer or meditation, we do the haka across the floor, and then calm down a little bit. [Laughter.]

Daar moet egter ook sekere konstitusionele ontwikkelinge in Suid-Afrika plaasvind om die Parlement werklik ‘n forum vir al die gemeenskappe te maak. Suid-Afrika het ‘n unieke, gediversifiseerde samelewing. Die belange van die verskillende gemeenskappe moet nie net verteenwoordig en verwoord word in debatte nie, maar ook in besluitneming. Die tradisionele liberale demokrasie wat in wese deur individue verteenwoordig word, moet plek maak vir ‘n plurale demokrasie, wat gemeenskappe verteenwoordig.

Die konstitusionele meganismes waarvolgens ons Parlement opereer, loop onvermydelik uit op meerderheidsoorheersing en op die tirannie van getalle. En die meerderheidsparty skroom nie om hierdie getalle-tirannie aan te wend nie.

Binne ons parlementêre stelsel het ons geen voorsiening vir wigte en teenwigte, wat wêreldwyd in plurale gemeenskappe toegepas word nie. Die stem van minderhede word verdra, maar nie verdiskonteer nie. Getalle het ``the name of the game’’ geword, en nie belange nie. Die onvermydelike gevolg is konfrontasie, eerder as konsosiasie.

Konstitusionele meganismes moet geskep word waardeur die verskeidenheid of kaleidoskoop van die Suid-Afrikaanse samelewing in reële terme verdiskonteer word. Suid-Afrika is ‘n unieke land met unieke probleme en unieke vraagstukke. Dit vra ook unieke oplossings. Ons kan nie maar ‘n voorafvervaardigde demokratiese stelsel van die rak afhaal nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[However, some constitutional developments should also occur in South Africa to make Parliament a true forum for all the communities. South Africa has a unique, diversified society. The interests of the different communities should not only be represented and expressed in debates, but also in decision-making. The traditional liberal democracy which is essentially represented by individuals must make place for a plural democracy representing communities.

The constitutional mechanisms according to which our Parliament operates inevitably lead to domination by the majority and the tyranny of numbers. And the majority party does not hesitate to use this tyranny of numbers.

We have no provision in our parliamentary system for the checks and balances which are applied worldwide in plural communities. The voice of minorities is tolerated, but not taken into account. Numbers have become the name of the game, and not interests. The inevitable outcome is confrontation rather than consociation.

Constitutional mechanisms should be created through which the diversity or kaleidoscope of the South African society can be taken into account. South Africa is a unique country with unique problems. This also requires unique solutions. We cannot simply pick a prefabricated democratic system from the shelf.]

We need tailor-made solutions, and therefore a tailor-made Parliament. The degree to which a real problem-solving approach and system is adopted and applied in the highest council of the country, will spell out the difference between failure and success in South Africa. We need a win-win situation instead of the out-dated winner-takes-all approach. Striving towards that goal makes it worthwhile for me to serve in this august House.

May I take this opportunity to thank the Speaker, the personnel and every colleague in this Parliament. [Applause.]

Dr Z P JORDAN: Madam Speaker, Deputy President, hon members and comrades:

The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.

I have great respect for the British political institutions and for the country’s system of justice. I regard the British parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.

The American Congress, that country’s doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.

These were the words spoken in court by Nelson Mandela before he was sent to prison for 28 years. That these words fell on the wilfully deaf ears of most of his white compatriots does not diminish their importance, because they encapsulate the ANC’s attitude to democracy and specifically to Parliament as an institution.

My remarks today are on Parliament and what it means to this country and the future of our democracy. Since 1994 this august Assembly has been responsible for 669 Bills and has passed 632 Acts. Thirty-one Bills are being considered by the committees of Parliament this year. Six of them have already become law. Because South Africa has now been readmitted to the international community, this Parliament approved 47 international treaties and conventions during the first three years of its life. Between 1994 and the year 2000, 283 international agreements were tabled in Parliament and 57 of these have been approved.

It is a matter of pride for all South Africans that South Africa is ranked amongst the first 10 parliaments in the world for the equitable representation of women in Parliament. [Applause.] This is highly commendable, but the question we must ask ourselves is why we are amongst the top 10 and not yet number one.

Since 1994 the doors of Parliament have been thrown open to the South African public. The media, a crucial pillar of any democracy, now has free access to every committee of this Parliament, except perhaps the Portfolio Committee on Intelligence, and I think even our hypersensitive fourth estate will agree that this is unprecedented. We trust that the transparency with which Parliament now operates assists South Africa’s media to keep our people informed about how the decisions that so directly affect their lives are taken. Perhaps it is the papers I read, but I rarely have a sense that South Africa is living through an exciting period when I read our daily newspapers. [Interjections.] But if that is truly the case, it is not Parliament that is failing the nation. Parliament gives palpable expression to the principle of ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people’’. In a sense, Parliament is a distillation of the national will, as expressed through free and fair elections in which all South Africans have an equal right to participate.

In the first instance Parliament is accountable to the South African people who, through their votes, mandate us as their elected representatives to manage the affairs of the nation on their behalf. It is from amongst the members of this House that the President constitutes his Cabinet. That executive is accountable to this Parliament, whose role it is to act as a watchdog of the public interest by exercising its oversight function.

The issue of the representativity of Parliament has always been of paramount concern to us. It was our sensitivity to the pluralism of our society that persuaded the ANC to eschew party-political considerations in favour of a system of proportional representation that could better reflect the reality of diverse opinions and political preferences in our society. Ironically, it is those who bay loudest about representivity who appear keen to collapse the numerous diverse viewpoints represented here into a conventional two-party system, if they can manage it. Or, if they cannot, at least to reduce the multiplicity of opposition voices to one - theirs. This, we are told, they will do in the interests of democracy. [Interjections.]

Representative government is based on the possibility of consensus about the key issues within society. Parliamentary debate consequently is not merely an opportunity to iterate and reiterate known policy positions and options; its purpose is also to search out areas of commonality and to create the space for the proponents of differing viewpoints to find each other.

Because this will not always be possible, the universally accepted deadlock- breaking device is calling a division. Without exception, it is recognised that when a division is called it is the majority view that prevails. It is also generally accepted that the committees of Parliament are not mere agglomerations of individuals who happen to serve on the same committee. What Parliament therefore expects from its committees is a collective view. In the instance where disagreement runs too deep, as in all other instances, the view of the majority of members is taken as the view of the committee. On the whole, parliaments do not accept the notion of minority reports.

Democratic politics, however, is by its very nature fluid. There are no stable majorities or minorities. Today’s majority may become tomorrow’s minority and vice versa. It consequently is the beginning of wisdom that a majority wields its power responsibly, displaying due sensitivity to the views of minorities who could, in the course of time, dislodge it from its dominant position. Equally, minorities, recognising that they could be tomorrow’s majority, should also display maturity, because the precedents they establish today might well be applied against them tomorrow.

It is this fluidity that also dictates that hon members conduct themselves with a degree of decorum and try to protect the dignity of this institution. One would have expected, for example, that after Mr Welz, the editor of Noseweek, admitted that the matters he had reported on were unfounded, based on unsubstantiated rumour and gossip, hon members who used them to raise motions and place them on the Order Paper would have had the moral courage to retract those motions in the light of the fact these were just rumours.

We do of course expect that the cut and thrust of real political constatation will animate Parliament. But while we do that, let us guard against reducing this institution to a marketplace where any member can broach scandal and wild rumours in the full knowledge that parliamentary privilege protects him or her against charges of libel. [Interjections.]

In a democracy government derives its power from parliament but that power is also limited. The doctrine of the separation of powers is intended to build in the necessary checks and balance. In our case, having borrowed extensively from the British model, the majority party in Parliament is called upon to constitute the executive. Thus, though separate from the legislature, members of the executive have access to power by virtue of their membership of this legislature. When Minister Fraser-Moleketi says that the separation of powers is not absolute, this is one dimension of what she is referring to.

In order to carry out the tasks our nation has charged us to perform, Parliament needs a substantial budget. But, even the wealthiest household cannot live above its means. Parliament is entirely dependent on the fiscus for its finances and the National Treasury has, therefore, to weigh the demands of Parliament against our nation’s other transformative priorities.

During the current financial year, Parliament’s budget stands at R422 669 000 million. That represents a 0,13% increase over the previous financial year. Members’ remuneration accounts for 36% of Parliament’s budget; 15% of the budget is spent on members’ facilities. Put another way - we, hon members, spend more than half of Parliament’s budget. The remaining 49% is divided amongst the other six programmes that provide support services for this institution.

But, because ours is a young democracy, our expectations of Parliament far exceed what older democracies vest in theirs. We have already implemented a number of changes to demonstrate a commitment to making this a far more representative institution. Access ramps, braille, and voice announcements in our elevators have made these premises more user-friendly to the disabled and sight-impaired. Yet we still need to do much more to facilitate the work of members who are physically challenged by disability. We should continue to be seized with this matter.

Parliament’s language policy is also still under discussion. But we have the constitutional obligation to equality of treatment of all our official languages, and that implies that the outcome of such discussions will necessarily entail more facilities for indigenous African languages, supported by an appropriate detachment of interpreters and translators.

The real work of Parliament, as we all know, is conducted in its committees. We should expect the committees to make even bigger demands on the fiscus in the immediate future as this institution takes on more responsibilities both nationally and internationally.

All-party delegations, from this Parliament, observed elections in Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Namibia in the year 2000. Our Parliament has also hosted the 35th CPA African Regional Conference. We are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Pan African Parliament. Because of the prestige that South Africa enjoys internationally, committees of this Parliament are being invited to give of their experience to emergent democracies and to assist in the resolution of a number of thorny problems in various parts of the world.

We are currently hosting a delegation from the Parliament of Burundi. During the course of this year, we have received delegations from the US Congress, the Chinese Parliament, the Kuwaiti Parliament, and Rumania.

Amongst the responsibilities that Parliament will have to shoulder is that of conducting a constitutional literacy campaign for South African citizens about their Constitution. This will empower citizens to access the rights they should enjoy. There is deep and widespread ignorance among ordinary citizens about the provisions of our Constitution. Let us face it, even the best Constitution in the world will be a dead letter if the citizens, whom it is designed to protect, neither know nor understand it.

The ANC’s commitment to Parliament and its sovereignty, dignity and esteem, as one of the central pillars of our democracy, remains undiminished. We, therefore, support this budget. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, after the speech of the hon Mr Jordan, it is perhaps appropriate that I look closer to home, in terms of what we, ourselves, are doing. I intend, today, to actually deal with some of the issues that have come up recently, and the way we need to move forward from there.

On 15 May, I referred for the consideration of the House, serious allegations contained in an open letter. In doing so I said that unless substantiated, they attack the integrity of the House and of Parliament. I regret that, though referred to and raised by some hon members in a debate that ensued, the issues placed before the House have not been adequately debated and much less resolved.

Given the opportunity to substantiate its allegations, the UDM and its leaders have chosen not to do so even though protected by parliamentary privilege. Instead, what the author of the letter has said is and I quote: ``What our letter seeks is clarification on all the matters raised in the letter in question. What a strange way of seeking clarification. However, the author will soon have the opportunity to substantiate his allegations, though in a different venue. [Interjections.]

The hon Mr Gibson has presumed to indicate my alleged preferences on how the issues I had referred should be handled. I cannot accept his advocacy, purportedly on my behalf, in the amendment put forward, that the issue should be the appropriateness of the existing relationship between the Speaker, the majority party and the executive.

As is all too often the case, the more so recently, the House once again descended into a party-political confrontation, with most parties failing to address matters that are of fundamental concern to the consolidation of our democracy and particularly about the nature and strength of Parliament. For some members, the issue has simply become my membership of the ANC leadership which has, in itself, been defined as the problem.

Hon members, I want to make clear that my membership of the ANC or its leadership is not negotiable. [Applause.] It was not in the days when these precincts declared such membership a crime, nor is it now, nor will it ever be. [Applause.] In 1994, I refused to allow it to be used as an opportunistic bargaining chip to obtain public office. I will not do so now. I have been honoured by members of the ANC who chose to entrust me with the task of assisting in leading their organisation. Only the membership of the ANC will determine when I should relinquish that responsibility. [Applause.]

In debates, and also in public discourse, all too often, an assumption is made that membership of a political party automatically impairs one’s capacity to be impartial or to judge issues on their merit. It would appear that the absence of debates and decades of intolerance of any freedom of thought and association has led to a diminished capacity to appreciate or recognise principle, integrity and critical examination of ideas and issues as factors that guide one’s judgment.

Surely what is of relevance in this context is to assess whether any particular judgment or action is motivated by party-political advantage. The critical factor in considering the conduct of any Speaker, is not a perceived conflict between parliamentary responsibility and party loyalty, but gauging specific actions in the context of the responsibilities placed on the office-bearer by the Constitution and the rules.

In 1995, after I had apologised to President Chissano for the damage inflicted on his country by South Africa, there were calls for my resignation as Speaker and my membership of the ANC was raised by the old NP and DP. After discussions it was agreed that we needed to consider what kind of Speaker the Parliament of a democratic South Africa needed. We still need the discussion on the manner and parameters within which the presiding officers of our democratic Parliament should function.

In the recent case of the Gauteng Legislature v Killian and Others, the Supreme Court of Appeal recognised that the common law powers of a presiding officer included acting as spokesperson of the House in its collective capacity, regulating the business of the House by means of order, and as the interpreter and custodian of the rights and privileges of members of the House.

Let me place before members today some of the principles and considerations which, I believe, should give direction to this institution and to its presiding officers. In so doing I will refer to some of the examples cited in members’ debate two weeks ago, to illustrate what the functions of the Speaker are and are not, and also what the responsibilities of hon members and political parties are, both the majority and the minority. In so doing I will take advantage of the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that, having stepped off my throne, I enter the hurly burly of contested politics. But it is not a path I intend to pursue hereafter. [Interjections.]

I have often argued on Commonwealth and other platforms that in emerging democracies a Speaker needed to have a voice in the councils where the process of transforming society and its institutions were debated and decided, in order to help shape the legislature in accordance with fundamental democratic values and principles. I am not alone in holding that view. The Empire has passed and most of us cannot afford to wallow in colonial nostalgia … [Applause] … or try and emulate what the House of Commons does. We should rather focus on what South Africa needs. [Interjections.] Since 1994 we have accepted that Parliament should function in an inclusive way, making space for all parties, regardless of size, on front benches, in committees, in delegations and in the provision of facilities. This is not a personal view or idiosyncrasy, but emanated from the majority party’s assessment of what was necessary in order to entrench good governance and democracy in our circumstances.

Whereas in some parliaments powers are vested in the personal office of the Speaker, I believe that in South Africa presiding officers can only exercise the authority of the House as prescribed in the Constitution and the Rules. In doing so, we inevitably have to interpret these to the best of our ability, and it is always open to the House to declare its different understanding or interpretation, and to expect the presiding officers to act accordingly.

We try to create an illusion that Speakers or Deputy Speakers are infallible, but that is not really so. It just helps us keep control of the House. The point is that we are interpreting Constitutions and Rules and, ultimately, it is the House that will determine which interpretation should prevail at any particular time.

The presiding officers are required to interpret the Constitution regularly. In the first instance we are responsible for ensuring that Parliament exercises its powers within the Constitution. Interpretation is necessary both for procedure and for substance. If legislation or a procedure is found to have been unconstitutional, the Court requires Parliament to rectify the problem and we cannot opt out by saying: ``But the executive sent us a flawed Bill.’’ It is our responsibility.

The presiding officers are also required to interpret the Rules. This members notice mostly when we are presiding over debates and calling members to order. But much more is involved. I had assumed that parties that felt aggrieved by interpretations or actions would use formal and informal channels to take up any perceived party-political bias. I was surprised when I read in the Hansard that the Chief Whip of the DP claimed that there have been a number of occasions, and many more recently, when the duality of roles of the Speaker has led to very unfortunate consequences'', and thatthis has led to some shocking incidents which have weakened Parliament instead of strengthening it’’.

I cannot help asking why someone who professes a commitment to strengthening Parliament did not feel it necessary to raise these shocking incidents until a parliamentary debate was precipitated by another party. The hon Mr Gibson should really try, at some point, to explain his silence while ``Parliament was being weakened’’. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: I was not silent, I … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: One of the examples, cited was the Patricia de Lille case. The only correct part of what was said about that case was that the hon De Lille withdrew such statements as I had requested. That she did do. But the hon Mr Gibson went on to say that the ``Speaker allowed what amounted to a Kangaroo court to convict Mrs De Lille and impose an unconstitutional sentence … [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Correct, quite correct.

The SPEAKER: … and further that ``the Speaker pursued the matter through the Cape High Court and the Appeal Court, knowing full well that the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act was flawed and unenforceable’’.

I very much regret that I would have had to use unparliamentary language if I were to describe the complete inaccuracy of that statement. [Applause.] I also regret that the Deputy Speaker did not consider the point of order made by the hon Chohan-Kota that Mr Gibson’s statement inferred extreme mala fides.

As I have said, the Speaker exercises the authority of the House. I would be grateful if the hon member or anyone else could point out the Rule or Rules under which the Speaker could deny the National Assembly the right to set up a committee or refuse to implement a decision taken by a resolution of the House. Clearly, the hon Gibson operates by Rules that are different from the ones adopted by the National Assembly.

Further, I would have expected him to have noted the judgment, on appeal, given by the late Chief Justice Mohammed that while we could not limit freedom of speech, there was nothing unconstitutional in Parliament disciplining its members, provided that we made provision for this in the Rules. So instead of blaming the Speaker for the inability of the House to act, the DP - and, indeed, all parties - should specifically address this shortcoming in our Rules as soon as possible.

The hon Mr Gibson is correct in saying that the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act has still not been amended. But his reason for this does not coincide with the facts. He says that the Speaker has indicated that she would like something to happen and has kept on pointing fingers at Whips and party leaders and said we must take the initiative ... It cannot be up to other people to take an initiative'', he said,which properly belongs to the Speaker. She has dragged her feet and the result is that one can take no action, almost, against a recalcitrant member of Parliament.’’

Really, where has the hon member Gibson been during these past three years … [Interjections] … during which I have been chairing a committee that has completed new draft legislation on powers and privileges? Perhaps he is also unaware that the DP was absent at every single meeting of that committee throughout 1998. [Interjections.]

In no parliament is it the responsibility of the Speaker to whip members of the opposition or, indeed, of any party to attend to their parliamentary duties. I believe that is the hon Mr Gibson’s job. [Applause.]

I do intend to keep on pointing fingers at Whips and party leaders of most parties for having failed to participate in considering the crucial issues in the proposed legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: You are talking about four years ago … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: The only other specific example about functions of the Speaker has been raised by the Chief Whip of the IFP, who introduced the chairperson of Scopa as an actor in the controversy, and claimed that I ``became involved in the functional affairs of a portfolio committee’’ and referred to matters raised in the media and in correspondence by the hon Gavin Woods.

It is very clear that the hon Woods has a view of the Constitution and Rules of Parliament, in particular the relationship between the NA and committees, that is different from the one set out above, as well as of the functions of the Speaker. Any genuine concerns should have been raised in the Chairpersons Forum or brought to the Rules Committee. But here again, the forum of the media and generating publicity has been elevated above the use of parliamentary channels to resolve differences.

Any Speaker who did not draw the attention of a committee or chairperson to a possible violation of the Rules or Constitution would have been in grave dereliction of duty. In a letter to the Joint Investigating Initiative, dated 21 November, the hon Woods said that, after discussions with the Speaker and the legal adviser, Prof Haysom, a number of issues have been clarified. He writes:

The first of these concerned Scopa’s position vis-à-vis the investigating bodies. Legal interpretation would have it that having helped facilitate the working together of the four bodies concerned in terms of its parliamentary resolution, Scopa should not play an interventionist or instructive role in the course of the crucial investigation. Each of the bodies concerned must be allowed its legal independence from Parliament in the course of its work. Scopa would, however, appreciate being kept informed of the progress of the investigations, and especially of their final conclusions.

This accords with the constitutional position. It is quite clear then that as early as 21 November, a meeting with Prof Haysom had been facilitated - at which I was not present - and the hon Woods had accepted the advice provided at that meeting, namely that Scopa could not intervene or instruct bodies that were accountable to the executive or were independent.

A great deal of time, when hon members should have been scrutinising the processes involved in the arms purchase, has been spent on debating the intention of Scopa, expressed in the 14th Report adopted by the NA. Let me repeat ``adopted by the NA’’ and stress that thereby the Report is a report of the NA and no longer that of a particular committee.

A presiding officer must assume that hon members knew what they were doing and would not knowingly have intended to go against the Constitution. It is only when media reports suggested that the House had agreed to instruct the President to act in a particular way, that it became necessary to clarify the constitutional position that ``any such action would be of dubious legal and constitutional validity’’.

I want to stress that this would be the constitutional position, whether the Report was promoted by the majority or the minority parties. As the late Chief Justice Mohammed declared, it is not Parliament, but the Constitution which ``is the ultimate source of all lawful authority in the country’’ and hence both the majority and minority parties are bound by it.

I have already indicated that there is a view - fortunately not of the majority - that committees are autonymous of the NA. We are dealing with some of this at the next meeting of the Joint Rules Committee. I want to request the hon Woods and the IFP to bring their concerns regarding the perceived interference by the Speaker in the functioning of committees to that meeting, so that the details of their complaints can be examined and differences can be resolved in Parliament where they belong.

I would also like the Rules Committee to consider who, besides the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, should have responded to the Deputy President and advised him that the special review by the Auditor-General had been correctly referred to Scopa and that it was Scopa’s responsibility to enquire into the issues raised.

Importantly, it is necessary to confirm whether the presiding officers should be the channel of communication between the executive and Parliament and whether it was correct for the Speaker to assert that documents and information could only be made available to the executive in terms of our Rules.

It is also necessary to clarify the role of all the parliamentary office- bearers and to distinguish their functions from political party office- bearers. In 1994, we abolished the Office of the Chief Whip of Parliament, which allowed the executive to run Parliament, but the cultural hangover remains. We also need to consider a formal relationship and possibly a forum for interaction with the Secretary to Parliament and his staff.

I want to return to a matter I raised earlier and which has been raised also by other members in this debate. The democratic Parliament began to take shape in a very positive way. Prior to the 1999 elections, I had paid tribute to the first Chief Whips who co-operated to shape this institution in accordance with the founding principles of our Constitution.

I regret to say, the second Parliament has regressed. Instead of developing into a national forum where issues of national importance and international significance can be debated, ideas exchanged and policies developed, much as the hon Jordan has outlined, we have become an arena for continuing interparty conflict, a perpetual election campaign. Parties have not been able to agree on guidelines for having any debate that is not a party motion except by calling it a Speaker’s debate. For over a year parties have not agreed on a new formula for the composition of parliamentary delegations.

Any idea, policy or action cannot be critically examined. Rather, the focus is on the party affiliation of the person who originates the idea or policy or takes the action. We consistently seek underlying agendas and motivation for everything a member does or says and thereby we drown all good ideas.

We do not make time to discuss and build consensus on the principles and policies on which the institution of Parliament should be developed. Rules and conventions should flow from such discussions among all members, but there is no appropriate forum for this and we are too busy to devote time to this at our meetings of the Rules Committee.

The spirit of confrontation is extended also to the executive. Constitutions are interpreted and conventions and practices evolve over decades. We have a strong authoritarian history in South Africa, but also another tradition of drawing mandates and authority through grass-roots participation and consultation. Our Constitution provides for a very powerful Parliament and for a strong executive with sufficient authority to drive the transformation process. This was by design, not accident. Our Constitution is not a replica of that of the United States, Germany or Britain, but provides for clearly defined, exclusive jurisdiction between the executive, legislature and judiciary. We need to understand this, as we strive for balance.

Initially there will be tension which needs to be managed. But we cannot operate on the principle that the executive is the enemy, and neither are we in Parliament the enemy. Many members now in the executive led the negotiations which gave birth to the Constitution. This is also true of members of Parliament, particularly because here we find members who are not part of the majority party, but who also participated in giving birth to this Constitution. We therefore have a unique opportunity to manage our relations in a way that will secure a balance favourable to Parliament and the space to exercise the power provided in our Constitution. I believe this House needs to seize that opportunity before it passes away with time.

Finally, I would like to thank the Secretary to Parliament and his staff in all their divisions for the support that they provide to all of us. I would like to thank in particular Mr Kasper Hahndiek, the Secretary of the National Assembly, and the Table staff, for ensuring that our debates and proceedings are managed smoothly. To the Chair and Deputy Chair of Committees my thanks for always making themselves available to assist us, as well as for undertaking their specific and unenviable challenge of managing the scheduling of committees. My thanks also go to the presiding officers of the NCOP, for their co-operation which has allowed the two Houses to move in tandem and to you, Deputy Speaker, for your calming presence and your support. I would also like to thank the members here and the Whips, notwithstanding my critical comments. We have achieved much but we still have far to go. Let us please move forward together. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Members, there are so many of you rising that I am not quite certain who is going to be moving.

Mr M R BALOYI: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the DA MEC, Helen Zille, has rejected Minister Kader Asmal’s announcement of a move to replace apartheid-era school names;

(2) believes that the rejection by Helen Zille of this move is motivated by the DP’s approval of what apartheid represented and stood for …

[Interjections.]

(3) condemns Helen Zille for not supporting the Minister’s move; and

(4) calls on the parents, teachers and learners to support the Minister’s plan to replace apartheid-era school names.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes the statement by the ANC condemning what it describes as the ``tomfoolery’’ of the hon Winnie Madikizela-Mandela;

(2) notes further that although ``tomfoolery’’ and grandstanding have characterised the attitude and actions of that hon member for years, she has not been disciplined either by her party or by the Whips of this House; and

(3) expresses its dismay at the way in which the ANC has sought to justify and excuse the inexcusable and again calls upon the President to apologise for his action.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

Mr V B NDLOVU: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House - (1) sadly notes that two commuters were killed and three seriously injured when a gang of dagga-smoking teenagers ran amok on a train in Belhar on Monday night;

(2) further notes that the other three injured passengers had to jump out of the moving train to save their lives due to the new threat on passengers’ lives;

(3) calls upon the Department of Safety and Security to deploy more police on trains to protect innocent people;

(4) compliments the SAPS for having arrested three suspects in connection with these murders; and

(5) believes that this arrest will alert other teenagers not to involve themselves in such criminal activities.

Ms N E NGALEKA: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House - (1) notes that the DA unicity mayor for Cape Town, Peter Marais, is alleged to have given his five family members low-cost houses that were meant for the poor in Parow …

Interjections.]

(2) further notes the call for investigation into the alleged corrupt practices of staff that manage the blocks of low-cost flats in Parow; and

(3) calls on the Western Cape MEC for Housing, Cecil Herandien, to investigate these allegations, and on Tony Leon and the DA to be loud in condemning this corruption in the DA-controlled unicity.

[Applause.]

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with shock - (a) the brutal and senseless murder of two commuters, Cornelius Adolf and Nico Fuller, when a knife-wielding gang ran amok on a train near Belhar, on the Cape Flats;

   (b)  that three other passengers were injured after they jumped out
       of the train to escape the gang; and


   (c)  that three violent deaths have occurred on trains in the past
       ten days;

(2) finds it unacceptable that safety on trains has deteriorated to such an extent that commuters are placing their lives in danger; and

(3) urges the Minister of Transport, Metrorail and the SAPS to speed up the formation of a dedicated Transit Police Force, because many South Africans rely on this form of transport, and their safety must come first.

Mr D G MKONO: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM: That the House -

(1) notes the ongoing taxi violence in Umtata, which has escaped the attention of the Minister of Transport, as well as the Minister of Safety and Security;

(2) further notes that the uncertainty in the taxi industry is reflective of the nondelivery of Government in formalising regulation and implementing necessary steps vital to ensure safety; and

(3) calls upon the Minister of Transport, as well as the Minister of Safety and Security, to immediately implement action plans to ensure that no further unnecessary loss of life occurs.

Mrs J CHALMERS: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that police in Port Elizabeth arrested three suspects in a crackdown on perlemoen poachers and confiscated perlemoen valued at R200 000; (2) commends the Government for halting the practise of auctioning confiscated perlemoen which often merely boosted the coffers of the smugglers;

(3) further commends the police for their tireless efforts to fight perlemoen poaching and smuggling; and

(4) calls on the Government to impose more severe sentences in the courts on perlemoen poachers in order to act as a real deterrent to this costly and destructive criminal practice.

[Applause.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the PAC:

That the House -

(1) notes that a democratic dispensation is determined by the results of a general election;

(2) that time for debates is determined by the same results, and in some cases a little more time has been given to the minority parties;

(3) nevertheless regrets that a lot of time available to one party results in monotonous and repetitive debates, which amounts to the majority party speaking to itself; …

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

(4) therefore recommends that minority parties be given more time - at least 5 minutes - in order to stimulate discussions and raise the standard of debates in this august House.

[Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UCDP:

That the House -

(1) notes with shock and disgust that Asnath Mhlongo, a physically disabled woman in Sasekani Village, outside Tzaneen in the Northern Province, was burnt to death in her house by some unknown hoodlum;

(2) thanks the neighbour who pulled the deceased’s children from the house to safety, though he could not rescue their mother;

(3) calls on all who provide information leading to the arrest of the perpetrator to assist the police to ensure a quick arrest;

(4) sympathises with the deceased’s colleagues at Munghana Lonene FM and the entire SABC where she was employed; and

(5) sends condolences to her children and all her next of kin.

Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -

(1) notes with approval the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Western Cape to persist with the prosecution of Mr E C Adams, former Chairperson of the Muizenberg Police Forum, in connection with R3 000 missing from the forum’s account;

(2) further notes that the former treasurer of the police forum, who is now a DA councillor in the Cape Town Unicity Council, withdrew the charge without consulting the forum; and

(3) urges the DA leadership, and particularly the hon Gibson, to take action against this DA councillor for attempting to cover up alleged fraud and theft of public funds.

[Interjections.] [Applause.]

An HON MEMBER: Maduna!

Adv P S SWART: Chair, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes the instruction from the North West Provincial Secretary of the ANC that the ANC deployment committee ``is about to conclude the deployment of municipal managers in all our councils’’ and that no council may appoint managers until they have consulted with this committee; and

(2) believes that if the ANC insists on orchestrating every municipal and provincial appointment from central level, those who make these deployment decisions must accept the blame for every failure that occurs in ANC-run councils and provinces.

[Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, while we were busy someone shouted Maduna.'' I think we have requested from the Chair that the honorifichon’’ should precede the name of any hon member here. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: Hon Maduna!

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, please. [Laughter.]

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

That the House -

(1) applauds the sentencing of the convicted fraudster Vito Assante to 1 620 years in jail as sending a resounding signal to criminals that crime does not pay;

(2) regrets that large sums of money are lost through fraud and corruption in this country, which is a very critical investment disincentive; and

(3) hopes that this record prison term will set a trend to criminals and bring hope to business people and investors about South Africa.

Ms M M SOTYU: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the announcement by the Minister of Defence, hon Mosiuoa Lekota,
       of a new voluntary military service for matriculants; and


   (b)  that this project is part of job creation and skills development
       and will target science and technology students with
       historically disadvantaged backgrounds;

(2) believes that this plan will contribute positively to youth empowerment and development; and

(3) commends the Minister of Defence for embarking on this important initiative.

[Applause.]

Dr S J GOUS: Comrade Chair … [Laughter.] … I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with grave concern that according to the Actuarial Society of South Africa’s new behavioural-demographical model of the Aids epidemic -

   (a)  5,3 million South Africans were infected in 2000 - 600 000 more
       than the Health Department's estimate of 4,7 million; and


   (b)  if there is no significant change in sexual behaviour, 45% of
       the adult population will die of Aids;

(2) further notes that the Government is still using the report of the presidential advisory panel on Aids to hide their inactivity, as they are still ``weighing up’’ the report; and

(3) calls on the Government and all respective role-players to address the threat of Aids by initiating projects to change present sexual behaviour, and to co-ordinate a programme of antiretroviral medication to prevent this disease from reaching disastrous proportions.

[Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, comrade hon member. [Laughter.]

Mr M N RAMODIKE: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes the announcement by Cosatu to call for a nation-wide strike …

[Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Mr M N RAMODIKE:

[… because of their opposition to the privatisation of state assets;

(2) expects the tripartite alliance to address labour problems at all the available negotiation forums without in any way disrupting the economy of the country; and

(3) calls on the Government to ensure that the restructuring process addresses the plight of workers.

                          WORLD REFUGEE DAY

                         (Draft Resolution) Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes that today is World Refugee Day;

(2) recognises that 2001 marks the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees which, together with its 1967 protocol, is the most broadly accepted foundation instrument of the international protection regime;

(3) alarmed at the expanding number of refugees around the world and their terrible plight, notes that the council of the International Parliamentary Union, at its 168th session, adopted a resolution which called on all parliaments to mark this anniversary in any appropriate manner, for example by holding a debate on the refugee issue, and resolves to take this question forward; and

(4) affirms its continued commitment to the plight of refugees. Agreed to.

                      UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

                              (Ruling)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, yesterday, in the course of her reply to the debate on her Vote, the hon the Minister of Housing, when addressing an hon member of this House, used the words, he is very dishonest''. This is clearly, in terms of parliamentary rules, unparliamentary and I call upon the Minister to withdraw the words,he is very dishonest’’.

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: Chairperson … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

The MINISTER OF HOUSING: I withdraw that part of my input.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, that is all that you are required to withdraw. [Interjections.]

Order! Are you rising on a point of order, hon member? Mr M RAMGOBIN: Chairperson, yes. I would like your ruling on the question of honesty and dishonesty. If members of this Parliament use untruthful information in this Parliament and do not retract that untruthful information - like Patricia de Lille and members of the DA using information from Noseweek - is it permissible, and is it not important for those members to withdraw those remarks?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, the Chair cannot rule on a hypothetical situation. All that the Chair attempts to do, as Madam Speaker indicated earlier in her debate, is to interpret the Rules which have already been made and which are binding on this House, so that if, within the context of those Rules, something is said or done that is not acceptable, the Chair will ask that the matter be retracted.

Hon member, do you still wish to …

Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, while I recognise that the hon Ramgobin is not an expert on issues of truth and honesty, I would suggest that his comment regarding a particular hon member and members from a political party, in terms of which he alleged that they are making, or have made, untruthful statements, is, in fact, in itself out of order, and he should be required to withdraw that. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Sit down, hon member. Inasmuch as I would like to pursue what you are saying, hon member, even at the beginning of the remarks that you made is a suggestion that the hon member does not know the truth. [Interjections.] That part in itself is also problematic for the Chair, because it goes to the question of a member’s integrity. I think what we have done from the Chair is to ask hon members to observe the integrity of all hon members in this House.

Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, on a point of order: May I just remind you that he not only referred to Mr Ramgobin’s truthfulness, but also honesty. He said that he was not an expert on honesty. May I suggest that that is …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! In the spirit, yes. I would ask that both sides withdraw, if there is any suggestion as to someone’s honesty or dishonesty. I think that that is clearly unparliamentary and, therefore, not permissible. Let us ask the hon Andrew to withdraw the suggestion that he is not …

Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, yes, I withdraw and I also … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! What portion do you want the hon Mr Ramgobin to withdraw?

Mr K M ANDREW: Chairperson, the suggestion that there are untruthful statements made by the hon Patricia de Lille and hon members of the DA.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, would you withdraw that portion?

Mr M RAMGOBIN: Chairperson, I did not say that. [Interjections.] I asked for a ruling from you whether it was permissible for members of this Parliament, for example Mrs Patricia de Lille, to use untruthful reports from outside and to do so in the sanctity of this Parliament. [Interjections.] I am saying I require, as a reasonable human being, a ruling from you whether it is correct, whether it is honest, to use an untruthful report from Noseweek in this Parliament. Chair, I am suggesting that, in the spirit of openness and to protect the integrity of this Parliament, people like Mrs Patricia de Lille withdraw such statements. That is all I am saying.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think, to the extent that the hon member is … [Interjections.] Order! Order, hon members! I will recognise you now, hon member. Let us take one point at a time. To the extent that the hon Mr Ramgobin says that the report itself is untruthful and not the member, I think that is quite permissible in terms of the Rules.

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, on a point of order: The question is out of order. We are not discussing any report or anything. I think the whole question is out of order. I would ask you to rule on it in that way. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I accept that, yes. It is out of order. It is hypothetical, and therefore does not really merit being a point of order. Yes, hon member?

Mr A C NEL: Chairperson, are we closing that? The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We are going to close this issue, because I think there is no further point in pursuing it. [Interjections.]

      FAST-TRACKING OF DRAFT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL

                           (Announcement)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! This afternoon the Joint Programme Subcommittee took a decision in accordance with Joint Rule 216, that the draft Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill be fast-tracked. In terms of Joint Rule 216(4), this decision is tabled in the House for ratification.

Decision ratified.

                   PRECEDENCE TO ORDER OF THE DAY

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, I move:

That Order No 1 under Further Business be considered. Agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO AMEND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, I move:

That the House, in terms of Rule 238(3), gives permission for the legislative proposal to be proceeded with.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 18:01. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson: (1) Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the following Bill:

   (i) National Council for Library and Information Services Bill [B 44B - 2000] - Act No 6 of 2001 (assented to and signed by President on 19 June 2001).

2. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Subcommittee of the Joint Programme Committee on 20 June
     2000 took a decision, in accordance with Joint Rule 216(2):


     That, in accordance with Joint Rule 216(2), the Criminal Procedure
     Amendment Bill be fast-tracked.


     That the Joint Programme Subcommittee -


          (i) notes the urgent nature of the amending legislation
              (Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill) proposed by the
              Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional
              Development, as explained in the Memorandum in terms of
              Rule 238 submitted by the Committee (Announcements,
              Tablings and Committee Reports, p 695);


         (ii) provided that the National Assembly gives permission that
              the legislative proposal be proceeded with -


              (a)  approves that the draft Criminal Procedure Amendment
                   Bill be finalised in the shortest possible period by
                   the Committee, and that for that purpose, the
                   provisions of Assembly Rules 239(1)(c) and (3);
                   240(a) and (b); 241; 243(1)(b) and 253(1) be
                   suspended in order for both Houses to pass the
                   legislation before Parliament adjourns in June 2001.


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

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:


 Bill, subject to proposed amendments, passed by National Council of
 Provinces on 20 June 2001 and transmitted for consideration of
 Council's proposed amendments:


 (i)    Eskom Conversion Bill [B 16B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec
     75) (for proposed amendments, see Announcements, Tablings,
     Committee Reports).


     The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public
     Enterprises for a report on the amendments proposed by the
     Council.