THURSDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2001 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:01.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

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

That the House

(1) notes the importance of - (a) National Marine Day on Friday, 19 October 2001, and the commitment of the ANC-led Government to the sustainable use of our natural resources for the benefit of all South Africans; and

   (b)  the importance of black economic empowerment within the fishing
       sector in order to increase the standard of living of poor
       fishing communities, historically one of the most deprived
       sectors of our economy;

(2) acknowledges the commitment of Government to root out corruption within the fishing industry in order to bring about normalisation for the even and equitable distribution of this resource across the board;

(3) recognise the work of the department through its coast care programme for furthering the upliftment of the fishing communities along our coast, within its poverty relief programmes; and

(4) takes note of the Communicator of the Year Award during National Marine Week to recognise exceptional efforts by individuals to communicate marine and coastal issues in their respective fields and congratulates all award recipients.

[Applause.]

Ms R TALJAARD: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes with dismay reports that the President and Ministers of Finance, Defence, Trade and Industry and Public Enterprises have had privileged access to a draft report from the special investigation into the arms deal;

(2) recalls a meeting between the Ministers and the Auditor-General at the start of the investigation which prejudiced the independence of the Auditor-General;

(3) condemns any apparent attempt either to influence the three investigating agencies towards reaching uniform conclusions, or to intimidate them into supporting the Government’s defence of its arms deal; and

(4) calls on -

   (a)  Ministers not to intervene in the arms investigation in any way;
       and


   (b)  the Auditor-General to place on record whether there have been
       any other Ministerial interventions and, if so, how many and
       what was on the agenda for discussion.

[Applause.]

Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the Minister and Department of Correctional Services are
       committed to placing rehabilitation of prisoners at the core
       their its activities so that a balance is struck between
       rehabilitation and safe custody; and


   (b)  the Department has developed individualised needs-based
       rehabilitation programmes that include provision of specialised
       treatment and development to prisoners in partnership with the
       community and the prisoner; and

(2) congratulates the Minister of Correctional Services on launching a prisoners’ skills training exhibition in East London, a creative arts competition for prisoners in Durban and the Upington Training Centre for prisoners as examples of the rehabilitation programmes that are being implemented.

[Applause.]

Mr I M CACHALIA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  reports that South Africa and Algeria aim to boost trade between
       the two countries; and


   (b)  that President Thabo Mbeki and his Algerian counterpart,
       President Bouteflika, ordered their Ministers to develop a model
       for intra-Africa and south-to-south bilateral agreements;

(2) believes that these developments reflect the commitment of both Presidents to the economic growth and prosperity of the African continent and building a better world; and

(3) welcomes the announcements made by the two presidents.

Dr S J GOUS: Voorsitter, hiermee gee ek kennis dat ek sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis - (1) kennis neem van die onaanvaarbare vermorsing van die belastingbetaler se geld, na aanleiding van die volgende:

   (a)  die departement van gesondheid in die Noordelike Provinsie het
       'n internasionale rekenaarmaatskappy R116 miljoen betaal om 'n
       inligtingstegnologie-stelsel te installeer wat nie gebruik kan
       word nie; en


   (b)  'n nuwe tender van R94 miljoen is toegeken aan 'n ander
       rekenaarmaatskappy om dié stelsel te verwyder en deur 'n
       splinternuwe stelsel te vervang;

(2) aandring op ‘n verduideliking wat die vermorsing van R116 miljoen sal regverdig; en

 3) glo die ondersoek wat geloods is, moet so spoedig moontlik
    afgehandel word sodat diegene wat hulself skuldig gemaak het aan
    wanbestuur tot verantwoording geroep kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr S J GOUS: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the House –

(1) notes the unacceptable wasting of taxpayers’ money, arising from the following:

   (a)  the department of health in the Northern Province paid an
       international computer company R116 million to install an
       information technology system that cannot be used; and


   (b)  a new tender of R94 million has been awarded to another computer
       company to remove this system and replace it with a brand-new
       system;

(2) insists on an explanation that will justify the wasting of R116 million; and

(3) believes that the investigation which has been launched must be completed as soon as possible so that those who are guilty of mismanagement can be brought to book.] Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes the disarray, havoc and problems of political alliances on both sides of the House;

(2) notes that these tensions highlight the fact that these alliances are rooted in the past, based more on convenience and expediency than on principled considerations;

(3) further notes that the South African political landscape remains littered with the baggage of the past and racial voting patterns, which hampers the development of a shared vision and real nation- building;

(4) also notes that these alliances are the embodiment of this, irrespective of how often they have attempted to change their focus; and

(5) urges politicians of principle from all parties who are committed to a new South Africa and real nation-building, to unshackle themselves from the racially defined politics of the past and to consider an invitation by the UDM to a convention of political leaders to achieve real and lasting realignment of the political landscape.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, could you please lower your voices. You are talking so loudly that we cannot even hear what members are saying …

Mrs F MAHOMED: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the -

   (a)  suspension of all business by the United States House of
       Representatives in Washington DC; and


   (b)  numerous anthrax scares in various cities in the United States
       and recently in Cape Town;

(2) strongly condemns the perpetrators of these heinous crimes and demands that they be prosecuted to the full extent of the law;

(3) expresses solidarity with our US counterparts and hopes that they will be in a position to resume their work as soon as possible;

(4) further condemns the irresponsible hoax callers and practical jokers whose morbid pranks can only spread panic and despondency amongst our own population; and

(5) urges all South Africans to remain calm and not allow themselves to be panicked by the threat of chemical or biological attacks.

[Applause.]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UCDP: That the House -

(1) requests -

   (a)  the Gauteng health department to clear up the uncertainty
       regarding the allegations that R654 000 a year is being lost to
       unscrupulous suppliers of bread to primary schools; and


   (b)  that the required amount of bread to the said schools be adhered
       to, namely 800 g instead of 700 g; and

(2) calls on the Ministry of Health to institute an inquiry into this matter, especially that this malpractice has been going on since the scheme’s inception in 1996, and that the supplier has been awarded a tender for a further two years.

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

That the House - (1) notes with sadness the developments in the Limpopo River region where workers from Zimbabwe are employed without legal documentation;

(2) realises with sadness that unemployment in that region is disturbingly high and that this presents the Government with uncomfortable choices;

(3) observes that this is a problem of land redistribution inherited from the days of racial segregation, as on both sides of the Limpopo River landowners, and therefore employers, are white and workers or workseekers are black; and

(4) nevertheless feels that this is an excellent opportunity for SADC to come in and integrate the needs of the countries in the region and not leave it to one country to have to take the painful decision to evict and expel citizens of a neighbouring country.

Mr M T GONIWE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That this House -

(1) notes with profound sadness the untimely death of Mrs Patricia Moferi, who for many years served members of this House with dedication as a chamber service officer and a service officer at the Good Hope building; and

(2) expresses heartfelt condolences to her family, relatives, friends and colleagues, and assures them of our support and wishes them strength at this time of grief.

[Applause.]

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

That the House -

(1) is horrified to note police statistics which show that more than 21 000 South Africans were murdered last year; (2) recognises that even if these figures show a slight reduction over previous years, the murder rate in our country is unacceptably high; and

(3) calls on the ANC Government to make a real commitment to protecting the lives of South Africans by making money available for -

   (a)  increased visible policing; and


   (b)  proper equipping of police officers to enable them to do their
       job.

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) is shocked to read in the ICD Annual Report that 158 police have failed to perform their duties and responsibilities in the Eastern Cape;

(2) is also shocked to read that there are 603 and 332 police in Gauteng and the Western Cape, that are neglecting their duties or performing their duties in an improper manner;

(3) urges the SAPS management to investigate these matters and to fire the irresponsible culprits concerned; and

(4) urges that harsh discipline be taken, which will bring back order in the police service, which is what is needed most.

Mr K A MOLOTO: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, remarked that the Palestinian President was solely to blame for the assassination of a former Israeli Cabinet Minister, Rehavam Zeevi; (2) further notes the comments by an Israeli government spokesperson that the entire diplomatic and security situation needs to be reviewed;

(3) condemns the assassination of the former Israeli Cabinet Minister and the killing of unarmed and innocent civilians, especially Palestinian women and children; and

(4) urges all the role-players not to be distracted by the recent wave of violence and to work towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Middle East.

[Applause.]

Dr P J RABIE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  with concern that the rand reversed all gains against the US
       dollar to 935, dragging the bond market down on Monday, 15
       October 2001; and


   (b)  the volatile market was not helped by the statement made by the
       Deputy Minister of Finance, Mandisi Mpahlwa, in Amsterdam, that
       interest rates were unlikely to be cut further this year; and

(2) calls upon Deputy Minister Mpahlwa to note that the determination of interest rates is the prerogative of the Reserve Bank.

Mr J T MASEKA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) expresses its outrage at the report that a staggering 11 rape cases have been reported in Marico in the North West during the past 24 hours; (2) calls on the Minister of Safety and Security to heed the warning by experts that rape has become a national emergency in South Africa;

(3) expresses its concern that the increase in child rape is due to the myth that having sex with a virgin can cure HIV/Aids; and

(4) calls upon the Government to intervene urgently to protect the children and women of South Africa.

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

That the House -

(1) notes the attacks by the DP on South African sports administrators;

(2) rejects claims by the DP that sports administrators, other than in rugby and cricket, put their interests above those of sportspersons; (3) commends the sacrifices made by sports administrators in the interests of the country; and

(4) calls on the DP to apologise unreservedly for this slur on South African sports administrators.

[Applause.]

                         SQUID BOAT DISASTER

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the tragedy at sea when a squid boat, the Southern Reaper, sank
       off the St Francis Bay coast on Tuesday; and


   (b)  that seven of the crew are still missing, while one body has
       been recovered;

(2) commends the sea rescue teams who assisted in the safe recovery of nine of the crew members; and

(3) conveys its condolences and support to the families of those who lost their lives.

Agreed to.

FINAL DECLARATION OF IPU MEETING ON ``ACTION OF PARLIAMENTS AND THEIR  MEMBERS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND
                        RELATED INTOLERANCE''

                      (Subject for Discussion)

The SPEAKER: Chairperson, I think I ought to remind the Chief Whip of the IFP that from down here I cannot extend the time of his speech. [Laughter.] Six weeks ago, members from over 50 parliaments met in Durban to consider what roles parliaments should play in fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. More than 300 members of parliaments met in the shadow of the UN Intergovernmental World Conference Against Racism. With a more modest agenda and largely ignored by the media - and perhaps because we were - we agreed on a declaration that had previously been circulated to over 160 parliaments around the world.

On behalf of the IPU I was privileged to present the declaration of parliaments to the World Conference and also conveyed the commitment of parliaments, including our own, to take an active part in the process that began in Durban. I submitted to that World Conference and do so to this House today, that the declaration and programme of action adopted by governments will remain pieces of papers, mere declarations of intent, unless we as parliaments intervene to ensure their implementation. This is a heavy responsibility and today we must begin our consideration of how we will discharge that burden.

We will have an opportunity on another occasion, when Government presents its report to us, to consider the intergovernmental conference. I wish to appeal to colleagues today that we desist from debating the detail of that conference, its success and its problems, and focus rather on how we as parliaments are going to address racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

The South African Parliament has a historic responsibility to lead in that process. Each one of us in this Assembly has lived in that most comprehensive and institutionalised form of racism known as apartheid. Each of us experienced it differently, depending on our ancestry, pigmentation and relationship to the power structure of the period. Seven years into a democratic South Africa and in the light of the revelations before the TRC, not one of us can dare deny knowledge of what that system meant to the majority of South Africans and its consequences in our lives.

Apartheid was not simply racial discrimination as it prevailed - and still prevails in so many countries, including our own. Rather, it was the total organisation of society and all its institutions on the basis of a predetermined and rigid relationship of inequality between black and white. Into the foundations of institutions were built systems which served to strengthen, entrench and perpetuate that founding assumption, hence the imperative to remove these mechanisms from the institutions that are now our common heritage. The entire edifice was maintained by a legal framework that excluded the majority from access to both economic and political power, as well as through repression, coercion and violence.

In 1994 the monopoly of political power was finally broken as our new Constitution gave birth to this Parliament. It was thus incumbent on us, and remains so, to effect all the other changes that are necessary, including changes in laws, institutions and culture, to rid our society of its racist heritage.

A member of this House described her feelings at the end of negotiations when decisions were being taken to repeal a range of apartheid laws one by one. It was like swatting flies,'' she said,as we called `repeal, repeal, repeal.’’ I regret the hon Patricia de Lille, who made that statement, is not here today. But I am sure she will join in the recognition that those flies died, but there were many left over and we still have the task of eliminating the entire swarm and cleaning up the debris.

In the last seven years this Parliament has passed over 700 laws, and our Constitution protects us from any racist legislation on the Statute Book. But can we as MPs honestly declare that in every area in which we have enacted legislation, we have cleared away and eliminated all legal forms of racial discrimination and established effective equality? Of course not. Should we not perhaps provide that all committees examine not only a particular Bill, but also the context in which the law will operate, including social and economic circumstances, to ensure that no aspect of racism still prevails?

I am not sure we would succeed totally, but would the very attempt not raise our awareness of what remains to be done? We must do more than repeal one or more old laws; we need to systematically and critically examine the context in which every Bill before us will be applied and consider the persons and institutions responsible for administering, monitoring and enforcing the laws we enact. The entire legal and judicial system, the police and security services and the Public Service need to be scrutinised.

Do they help to eliminate racism or do they perpetuate it, albeit inadvertently? As all old institutions were based on foundations of racial inequality, simply changing the laws is not enough. To take one example: Notwithstanding the problems, we have achieved much in our education system, including unifying it and opening schools to all.

Should we as Parliament and members of Parliament not monitor what is being taught in the schools, in our various constituencies? Should we not open the textbooks, read and assess them? There was an excellent report on values we should be inculcating.

What can parliamentarians do to promote those values? Are the educators and law-enforcement officers, for example, being trained to promote the values of tolerance and diversity? To what extent do our own debates in this House reflect tolerance, diversity and inclusivity? We have a unique opportunity to demonstrate and promote these. What standards are we setting?

To what extent do we consider the impact of our example and occasionally desist from scoring party-political points? How often do we curb our words and refrain from addressing each other in disparaging language? It is not whether a particular phrase is unparliamentary or not, or whether it leads to disorder in the House, but rather of being sensitive to the message we are conveying and the example we set.

At our meeting in Durban there was an excellent debate on the tension between hate speech and freedom of expression, and also our responsibility to promote a society based on tolerance. This raised many of the issues we debated in the Constitutional Assembly, and in the negotiations. Should we perhaps revisit those debates, so that we can raise national awareness?

We also need to look at parliamentary mechanisms. We have established a committee that looks at the implementation of Cedaw, but what are we doing about the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination? There are other relevant conventions, including these protecting the rights of migrant workers and members of their families, and those relating to the status of refugees.

We need to require that the executive table draft reports on all conventions in Parliament, which committees can then consider and in which there can be public hearings before final reports are submitted to the relevant international authority. Let us also look at which conventions remain to be ratified. We need to consider and debate the reports prepared by the UN special rapporteurs. We could learn from them, especially recently on the issue of xenophobia.

What are we as members of Parliament doing about the xenophobia that is now being manifested in particular in communities in South Africa, and which runs against our history of being a home for the people of the region and our aspirations for African unity? Today genocide ethnic, linguistic and religious violence and cleansing xenophobia; and intolerance of almost every type of difference prevail on every continent. There is also a greater awareness of the diversity of populations, an awareness arising at least in part from improvements in the dissemination of information and greater diversity arising from the movement of people. We need to celebrate this diversity as an enrichment of our society, rather than a threat to its survival.

We in South Africa are particularly blessed as the cradle of humankind and with a diversity reflected in our population. The declaration, ``Tolerance and Diversity: A vision for the 21st Century’’ signed by many presiding officers of national legislatures, including this one, says, and I quote:

Instead of allowing diversity of race and culture to become a limiting factor in human exchange and development, we must refocus our understanding, discern in such diversity the potential for mutual enrichment, and realise that it is the interchange between great traditions of human spirituality that offers the best prospect for the persistence of the human spirit itself.

For too long such diversity has been treated as a threat rather than a gift. Too often that threat has been expressed in racial contempt and conflict, in exclusion, discrimination and intolerance. These horrors are still with us in various forms. It is now time to confront them and to take comprehensive measures against them.

Let us now go forward together and contribute to the realisation of this vision in South Africa and internationally. [Applause.]

Mr P R MOKABA: Members of Parliament, I greet Madam Speaker, who is not, of course, in her seat, but because what we are celebrating today - the input of the Interparliamentary Union - took place in Durban when it did as a result of the insistence of the Speaker of the Parliament of South Africa.

Madam Speaker realised at the time that there was not a way in which governments were going to speak alone when governments are supposed to be implementing laws. However, it was important for parliaments to come together and for public representatives to come together to share a common vision with the implementors of that law. For that reason, I rise to congratulate Madam Speaker, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Comrade Nkosazana Zuma, on the achievement they scored for humanity and not just for South Africa. [Applause.]

The importance of the whole conference and the importance of the input of members of Parliament, or public representatives, is underscored by the fact that South Africa has accepted the mantle of leadership in the struggle against racism here and abroad. We remain, as a country, a shining example of how racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination here and abroad can be confronted in a way that is uniting, and in a way that avoids division and builds patriotism.

But what we need to be aware of as members of the legislature, as members of Parliament, is that we should guard against reducing the issue of racism to a mere question of attitudes. We should guard against reducing racism to a mere question of formal freedoms.

Racism, we have defined many, many times, and it is when we agree on the definition of racism that we will make progress towards resolving it. It is not the fact that one is born white, neither is it the fact that one is born black that constitutes the problem of racism. It is how these facts of biology are used to discriminate, to decide who must eat and who should not eat. That is the simplest definition of racism: That because of the colour of one’s skin, there is no way one can be allowed to live as a full human being, that because of the shape of one’s nose one will be identified as a person who should be deprived of public goods and services. That is the basis of racism.

To recognise racism as such is important, because it says to those who want to fight it that, indeed, it is something that we can change, because it does not require the elimination, by any means, of people one differs from on the basis of colour. It requires the elimination of the system that ensures that public goods and services are allocated on the basis of how people were born. That is what is critical: that this racism is socioeconomic. It is not an inborn thing. It can be changed and that is how we should recognise it. The Government of the day in South Africa, since its inception, has been putting in place programmes, programmes that at times have been misunderstood, programmes approved by this Parliament, programmes to affirm people who have been excluded from the Constitution before - the Africans and black people in general. The RDP programmes - the programmes of affirmative action and black economic empowerment - are at the centre of our struggle towards resolving the problem of racism.

It would be important for us, as parliamentarians and public representatives everywhere, at least to agree on this fundamental approach to the issue of racism, ie that we have to change the material conditions of life of our people to ensure that all have equal access, irrespective of race, to public goods and services. Seven years into freedom, we need to be asking ourselves the question: Are the property rights that we have safeguarded in our Constitution allowing us to move forward towards the resolution of racism? Have we changed patterns of ownership of productive forces to a point where everybody feels that they can be owners in our country?

Regarding the issue of income inequalities, which is still one of the worst forms of racism in our country, what are the strategies and legislative programmes that we can put in place? What are the actions that we should take to assist us in eliminating these income inequalities? Income inequality is sometimes, and I think correctly so, defined as a market failure. It is also a form of failure, not of Government alone.

I am saying that if Government does not take action by putting programmes in place, income inequalities are going to remain with us for many many years. But this Government has taken action with regard to this issue of income inequalities by ensuring that we turn around patterns of ownership. It is for this reason that we are asking the support of all members of Parliament to ensure that South Africa moves as quickly as possible towards a nonracial, democratic and nonsexist country. Related to this is an issue that is equally sensitive, that we should consider as members of Parliament

• we will not be able to defeat racism until we have defeated the problems of tribalism and ethnicity.

The issue of title deeds for the rural masses has to be discussed - without emotions - because it is an important issue towards dealing with the problems that I have just defined. It does not make sense that in a rural setting one finds a farmer having a title deed on his land, but those who work on that very same land do not have title deeds. This is not a party- political issue, but one of how we deal with rural development and of how indeed we liberate the Africans in particular, and blacks in general.

This is not an anti-chiefs issue. It is about how together - the chiefs, the public and political parties - consider issues of rural development for our people, for if we do not do that their vote will continue to be diminished in comparison with the vote of the urban dwellers. It is important that we do not make such issues party political, but that we consider dealing with problems of discrimination in our country, eg what are the socioeconomic and political programmes that we should put in place to ensure that we move quickly away from problems of discrimination among ourselves.

The principle of affirmative action is a good one, but it has been used most of the time to address problems between white and black. It is critical that we find a system that can address or move us away from ethnicity, as I have pointed out, as well as from tribalism and various other forms of discrimination. And from the legislative framework, we should find that system.

This is what the IPU was all about. This is what all political parties in South Africa must be sensitive to. When these matters are addressed, it does not help us, because of party-political positions, to accuse people of reverse racism when, actually, what is being done is to judiciously apply affirmative action, which is a temporary weapon until people are equal.

To correct what former governments before us have done, it is this approach that we, as members of the legislature here and in every other province, should adopt, for South Africa to move as a country. As a patriotic people we should lead the world against the scourge of racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination.

Unfortunately, it does not seem as if we are agreed on this basis. That is why, even at that conference, instead of South African parliamentarians speaking with one voice, we had problems of those who wanted to go there in the international context and engage in the party politics of South Africa. That did not assist the country. That did not assist humanity. It is something that we, as South Africans, must consider. When will we act only from a patriotic basis?

South Africa goes there and says to the world: We have defeated the first forms of racism and we need your support to continue on this path. It is something that we could do as we move into Africa and into the world. What did we have? Members of our own Parliament seeking to detract from that particular message, in spite of the fact that the Speaker actually gave permission for people to speak their minds. She said people should not be suppressed because they come from opposition parties; they should be allowed to speak their minds so that South Africans can be heard, and that right was misused. However, I am not surprised because, at least, the conference has come back to haunt them in the provincial legislature and the unicity, where the problem of Marais is not a problem of corruption only, but is rooted in racism. [Applause.] It is rooted in the need to abuse and mislead the coloured population. It has exposed the undemocratic practices that we find in a party that says it is fighting for democracy, where a leader takes decisions alone to expel people from his party. [Interjections.] It is easy, because they are coloured people. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, let me express my surprise at the hon Peter Mokaba’s complaint, that MPs at the conference did not speak with one voice. The only MPs that spoke at all were Sheila Camerer and I. The hon Peter Mokaba and the ANC delegates did not speak at all, and the subject on which I spoke was the tension between free speech and hate speech. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Ms M SMUTS: That subject requires a certain treatment and application.

As Madam Speaker has said, this debate is not about the Durban race conference, neither is it about the NGO forum that took place a week beforehand, nor the UN Conference of governments itself. I say that it is fortunately so, because the sooner the world forgets the race conference and its association with us, the better for us. [Interjections.]

It was in the words of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel, ``a circus of calumny’’. Moreover, I have to ask the question whether the journalist, Daniel Johnson, son of Paul, did not, in fact, have a point when he said that it created a context for events that followed thereafter. [Interjections.] I say so because I found, at the NGO forum, that Middle Eastern participants who became agitated at anything approaching free speech, debate and challenging questioning, identified themselves upon enquiry in discussions afterwards as members of the avowedly violent organisations rather than mainstream Middle Eastern movements.

It has to be said, before I revert to the IPU Statement, that the hatred that flowed at the NGO conference was, however, also present in the precincts of the venue where the IPU Conference was held on Sunday. It was in that place, the pleasant UN-controlled venue, that I was handed this copy of the notorious Hitler pamphlet, which I have produced here for a purpose and to which I will return. The debate is about the declaration of the IPU Conference but it cannot escape its context.

The Interparliamentary Union met on the subject of the action of parliaments, etc. The declaration produced there is necessarily - given the broad composition of that pleasant Sunday meeting - in somewhat broad brush strokes and impressionistic, and I intend to concentrate on a specific aspect.

The declaration says that we are conscious of the importance of national adherence to and implementation of the relevant international treaties, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). It says that we should urge our parliaments to adopt and monitor the implementation of laws consistent with our own constitutions and which are necessary for the purpose of implementing the conventions.

The qualification that such implementation should be consistent with our own Constitution is there at our suggestion, with the support of the hon Peter Mokaba on behalf of the ANC members of the delegation. And, it is important to make that qualification because the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, is a convention that is problematic. In fact, a string of countries has registered reservations, especially against its article 4, which deals with free speech and association. Those countries range from Austria through the Bahamas and Belgium and carry on through the rest of the alphabet. They have registered the reservations because they point to contradictions with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 4 is, of course, the one that requires state parties to declare all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority and hatred and incitement to racial discrimination an offence, punishable by law, and the declaration makes it illegal for organisations to practice propaganda activities which incite racial discrimination. South Africa, in my view, should not in fact have ratified the ICERD without reservation. This is a subject of interesting dispute between myself and Dr Barney Pityana who, through the SA Human Rights Commission, has pursued certain enquiries which in my view should have stuck to our own Constitution rather than the ICERD in trying to curtail free speech.

Our own Constitutions free speech provision is modelled on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which, unlike the ICERD, is one of the genuinely great instruments. Our own free speech clause, in turn, expressly departs from the ICCPR in a number of respects which should be observed and which necessarily imply that we should not implement the ICERD exactly as it stands.

The ICCPR, through article 20, especially provides for the prohibition by law of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Now, we expressly did not require such legal prohibition in our free speech clause and, therefore, we should think not once, but twice before we do legislate against hate speech.

Secondly, our own definition of hate speech in our Constitution carries a higher test or threshold than the ICCPR. It is not incitement of discrimination that we have removed from the protection of free speech, but the advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to cause harm. We did so not because we approve of incitement or discrimination or propagandistic activities or organisations, but because there is always a danger that governments, any government, in a divided society will misuse the matter of race to suppress political dissent under the cloak and disguise of acting against racism. That is what happened in the old South Africa under the old NP regime.

In addition, hate speech measures are always used by the powerful against minorities. Madam Speaker here today said we should revisit those debates during constitution-writing; I do so instantly. The examples of racial speech that presented themselves, interestingly while we were negotiating that constitution, included Mr Louis Farrakhan, who was then visiting South Africa as a celebrity and, interestingly, Mr Tony Yengeni, the hon MP, who said at the time that all whites were thieves. It is quite interesting to look back at that time. When we were negotiating, each time I cited one of those examples my fellow negotiators who were black, and also some of our black journalists, thought that I was scoring political points, but in fact I was not being provocative. The fact was that the racial reproaches clouding the contemporary atmosphere then tended to target persons other than black. That simply showed that the power had shifted, because I think that the genuinely held assumption was that it was only black people who needed protection from white racist speech. That indicated that black hate speech would not be seen as such.

The thing is that hate speech measures are always used - the trend has been demonstrated - they are always used by the powerful against the minorities in various countries; and do not forget that the majorities tend to have the prosecutorial power and the minorities tend to be at the receiving end. That is relevant to the point to which I wish to return.

I have said that our Constitution does not expressly require legal prohibition of hate speech. Therefore, we should think not once but twice before making such laws. A number of such legal provisions have been passed. Section 10 of the Equality Act, for example, states that no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on the prohibited grounds. That section does not in fact distinguish statements made in private conversation from public utterance. It tends to want to regulate all speech. Although it purports to regulate hate speech, it is much more far-reaching than that.

Section 12 of that Act deals with the dissemination and broadcasting of information, and that section, like the previous one, goes way beyond hate speech and also way beyond what our Constitution envisages. Therefore, as legislators we introduced a proviso which ensures that the constitutional free speech clause will prevail. The proviso includes specific reference to bona fide engagement in artistic creativity and debate.

Now the Equality Act does not criminalise hate speech as the ICERD requires. Instead it referred that matter for further consideration. But what I want to do today here is this: I want to draw members’ attention to the fact that we have in fact criminalised certain forms of hate speech. We did it 1996 in the Film and Publications Act. The advocacy of racial hatred that constitutes incitement to cause harm in publications, like this pamphlet, carries a fine or imprisonment for up to five years in this country. As always, we built in a proviso. We said bona fide scientific, literary or comparable matters and bona fide discussion or argument would be not be criminalised.

I wish to argue today that the Public Prosecutor, the Attorney-General in KwaZulu-Natal, would in my view be in a position to institute proceedings on this pamphlet. The person who produced and distributed it has publicly identified himself. He has associated himself with the Islamic Propagation Centre, formerly funded by the Bin Laden family. The centre itself has distanced itself from him, as indeed the Bin Laden family has disowned its son.

It is in closed societies, like some in the Middle East, that hate speech does such harm. If incitement that goes on in certain territories and countries had been public perhaps the terrorism we are now seeing would have been anticipated - even better, the incitement could have been countered head-on. In open societies we like to meet argument with argument, insult with answer. It is never we on this side of the House who want prohibitions on speech. It is usually the other side. We prefer argument. But I say that if ever there was a case for action, this is one such case. Hitler asks: ``What if I had won?’’ One of the good things would be that there would be no Israel and no Palestinian blood shed. The rest is hon members’ guess. The bad thing: I would not allow the making of the new Beetle. It is truly, truly shocking. If ever there was an example of something that ought to be taken to the courts, this is it. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I think the contribution by Madam Speaker was a very good one. She confined herself to the subject, and we can go along with practically everything she has said. The same applies to Ms Dene Smuts, who also made a very good contribution.

But there it stops, because I am very surprised at the speech made by the hon Mr Peter Mokaba. Time only permits me to deal with one aspects thereof. He stopped short of calling tribalism racism. He said we must move away from forms of discriminatinon such as tribalism. This means that the hon member is attacking the system of traditional authorities, because tribalism is translated into traditional authorities. [Interjections.] There can be no other explanation for it. The hon member stands here and he says we must move away from that. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon the Deputy President if he agrees with the sentiment that we must move away from tribalism as a form of discrimination. [Interjections.] One sees that we have silence here. I think the hon member owes the country an explanation for the stand that he has taken. [Interjections.]

It is no use for the hon teacher sitting here, the professor with the big moustache, to talk about that, because traditional authorities are protected in the Constitution. [Laughter.] I can also teach the hon professor something. [Interjections.]

The subject before us …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Dr Z P JORDAN: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to deliberately misconstrue what someone has said? [Interjections.] Is it parliamentary? I did not hear the hon Mokaba say anything about traditional authorities. He spoke about tribalism. Is it proper to misconstrue his words? Is that parliamentary?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member we will look at what the hon Mokaba said and we will look at what Mr Van der Merwe said. We will then make a ruling later on that matter. Continue, hon Van der Merwe.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson I think the point of order is totally unfounded. [Interjections.] That hon member …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Van der Merwe, continue with your speech.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: I am continuing because I want to answer that hon member also. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Continue, hon member. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: I am trying to continue, but the hon members here are shouting so much that I cannot hear myself. [Interjections.] The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon members! Hon members, can we give the hon member time to speak. Order! [Interjections.] Hon members, can we give the member a chance to continue.

Mr J H VAN DE MERWE: I suggest, Chairperson, that you chase the Chief Whip out. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, you do not have to challenge the Chief Whip. [Interjections.] Continue with your speech, hon member.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, returning to the debate, the meeting in Durban led to the declaration by the IPU. The way I read this it calls for action by Parliament and parliamentarians, action in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The South African Parliament and each one of us is therefore requested to do something.

However, this comes from the IPU and I think that we should, just for a moment, look at the IPU, ie what this body is. This union which was established in 1889 is 112 years old and today consists of 142 parliaments. The IPU’s focal point is a worldwide parliamentary dialogue. It meets twice a year and had two meetings this year.

At IPU meetings - I am also trying to educate the hon the Minister. If he could just listen he would learn a lot - up to 1 000 members of parliament from all over the world convene. One can hardly imagine the amount of dialogue and interaction that takes place there. From that came this resolution that something has to be done; action has to be taken in respect of these evils.

We, as parliamentarians, have to look closely at ourselves. The subject under discussion refers to what this Parliament can do and what we, as parliamentarians, can do. The Speaker has clearly spelt out what Parliament could do. If we look at what the country has done, we see that we have a Constitution that provides for human rights. We have a Human Rights Commission. We have courts that protect human rights. So as far as Parliament is concerned, enough has been said about what it can do.

However, I want to focus on what we, as individual parliamentarians, can do. I think that is the gist of it. What action can I, as a member of Parliament, take. I want to quote from the declaration. It says:

Members of parliament have a personal responsibility to use their influence on public opinion to promote the values of diversity and tolerance.

This huge international body, which represent 142 parliaments, is asking me and each one of us to take personal responsibility to fight these evils. I want to go a step further and say that the question whether or not to take action is inherently a question of attitude. Our attitude towards other people is what counts.

In conclusion, I want to say that our resolve today should be a very personal one which each member should cherish, namely: What can I do? What is my part going to be in the fight against these evils? If I can answer that question personally, ie that I am committed to carrying out my responsibility to do something constructive, then I am sure that this positive attitude will ensure that action comes from that. [Interjections.]

Ms G L MAHLANGU: Mr Chairperson, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to congratulate Madam Speaker on initiating this debate.

I, however, would have been happier if we had discussed the IPU, as an organisation, before this debate. There are a number of reasons why I say so. One of the reasons is that the Interparliamentary Union is a world organisation of parliaments. As a result, it is a focal point for world- wide parliamentary dialogue and works for peace and co-operation among people as well as the firm establishment of representative democracy. I am definitely sure that anyone participating in the IPU would like to maximise their participation, and we are not different from such people.

We stand to benefit a lot from our interaction with other parliaments if we, ourselves, are better prepared before each conference. We are in an even more serious position, as South Africa, as we are always perceived to be leading Africa. Hence there are lots of expectations.

Over 140 parliaments - in fact, to be precise and for the benefit of Mr Van der Merwe, it is 143; I do not know which one he dropped - are members of the IPU. The programme of this union is very interesting and rich. The IPU has four study committees which are as follows: Firstly, a committee on political questions and international security; secondly, a committee on parliamentary human rights questions; thirdly, a committee on economic and social questions; and lastly, a committee on education, science, culture and the environment.

Our participation in these committees is minimal, precisely because we have never presented resolutions on any of these prior to conferences. According to the rules, it will be those countries that have submitted resolutions that will be given priority when it comes to speaking rights.

I need to mention here that I have listened to the Chief Whip of the IFP.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Jy lyk mooi, Gwen. [Gelag.] [You are looking lovely, Gwen. [Laughter.]]

Ms G L MAHLANGU: Ek weet. [I know.] [Laughter.] I know that. What I am going to say now is that when we were addressed by the head of state in Cuba, the hon member, who has just left this podium, absented himself. I want to believe that as we leave here as a delegation, we all represent South Africa, no matter how one feels about a country. I think that is what one should be saying here. Otherwise one actually undermines the IPU. [Interjections.] I am, however, very pleased that in terms of preparations for the coming IPU conference in Morocco, all these concerns will be addressed.

I also need to mention the involvement of African countries. This is very disappointing in the sense that we do not have regular meetings as a geopolitical group, but, to a large extent, rely on the Francophone countries. This tendency is a concern for Anglophone countries as they feel marginalised.

A major concern for parliamentarians is peace and security. The two IPU conferences held in Jakarta and Amman provided an excellent forum for dialogue and negotiation.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, may I ask the hon member a question? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Would you take a question, hon member? Ms G L MAHLANGU: No.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, she is not prepared to take a question.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I wanted to answer her on her lie that Cuba … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Sit down, hon member. [Interjections.] Order! Continue, hon member.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: She was lying, Chairperson. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Continue, hon member.

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, if I heard Mr Van der Merwe correctly he was saying that the hon member Mahlangu was lying. I believe that should be withdrawn.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, would you withdraw those words please. It is unparliamentary to say a member is lying. Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I will do so, but I just want to tell you … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: No, hon member. Just withdraw that, hon member. [Interjections.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: I sat listening to the President for more than an hour. [Interjections.] Then I had another appointment and had to leave. [Interjections.] I withdraw the words.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I did not say you must substantiate what you were saying. You must just withdraw the words that the member was lying. Can you please withdraw them, hon member.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I withdraw that the member is lying. [Interjections.] She is telling an untruth. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEES: Continue, hon member.

Ms G L MAHLANGU: A major concern for parliamentarians is peace and security, and the two IPU conferences held in Jakarta and Amman provided an excellent forum for dialogue and negotiation on issues relating to peace and security for parliamentarians all over the world.

In the general debate on the political, economic and social situation in the world, many delegates voiced their concerns about conflicts and disputes that threaten international, regional or national peace and security. The situation in the Middle East remains, of course, the focus of much discussion. On 11 September this year, at the time of the attack on the World Trade Centre, the IPU conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, was discussing the situation in the Middle East.

The IPU has always been a strong advocate for the prevention of conflicts and for the stemming of conflicts at the source before they erupt, rather than coping with the ravages of war and its consequences. Thus, in May 2000 the union urged states to address all the root causes of armed conflict in order to ensure the long-term protection of civilians through the promotion of economic growth, poverty eradication, sustainable development, national reconciliation, good governance, democracy, the rule of law, and respect and protection of human rights. For many years the union has been outspoken in calling for the banning of all nuclear weapons. It made a strong case for this in its resolution of April 1999 on parliamentary action to encourage all countries to sign and ratify the comprehensive test-ban treaty prohibiting all nuclear testing, to encourage universal and nondiscriminatory nuclear nonproliferation measures, and to work towards the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons.

In Amman the IPU conference once again expressed its support for the United Nations disarmament efforts and encouraged the parliaments of all states that had not yet ratified the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons to do so without delay. The conference reiterated its call for the earliest possible disappearance of all weapons of mass destruction, be they conventional, biological, chemical or nuclear.

Echoing the appeals made by the United Nations General Assembly in October 1999, the IPU urged states to take all possible measures to ensure that children under the age of 18 do not take part in hostilities or military action, and are not forcibly recruited into armed forces.

On the partnership between men and women, for almost a quarter of a century the IPU has been urging its members to make sure that their delegations to IPU meetings include at least one woman. Since then careful attention has been paid to the members’ compliance with those terms, not only by women MPs, but also by the IPU governing bodies, which some three years ago mandated the gender partnership group to keep track of developments. It should interest members that South Africa has never been a victim, because the ANC makes it a point that women participate, whilst other parties in this House have never sent a single woman to participate.

In June 2000, the United Nations Secretary-General declared that respect for international law was essential for the proper functioning of contemporary society. He appealed to all states to take stock of their accession to the multilateral treaties, of which he was a depository, inviting them to take advantage of the Millennium Summit to sign and ratify those treaties or accede to them. Mr Kofi Annan further asked the IPU to bring the matter to the attention of national parliaments for their support.

On the protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, for a number of years now the status of accession to Cedaw has been submitted twice a year to the meeting of women parliamentarians and discussions concerning the implementation of and respect for this key legal instrument took place again in 2000 at the meetings in Amman, Jakarta and Cuba in April this year. In Jakarta the meeting of women parliamentarians took a close look at the optional protocol to Cedaw when it adopted this new instrument on 6 October 1999. The United Nations General Assembly invited all the state parties to the convention to accede to it as soon as possible. I hope by the time we go to Morocco we shall have looked at the optional protocol.

In ratifying the optional protocol, a state would recognise the competence of the committee on the elimination of discrimination against women. Members should note that we still have not ratified the optional protocol, as I have just been addressing the Speaker on that.

As a mother and an environmentalist, my plea to all parliaments of the world with respect to intolerance, is to ensure that they have in place adequate and appropriate legislation to outlaw all practices that degrade our environment. Environmental racism is glaringly seen in the nonacceptance of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States. The pressure on the world’s parliaments has to be deepened. Added rather graphically is the use of terrorism to further particular causes.

Discussions and deliberations of the IPU and declarations such as the one we are discussing this afternoon should receive support from parliaments of the world, otherwise the exercise just becomes futile. We as parliaments should show a commitment to the declarations of the Interparliamentary Union to strengthen it. We find ourselves in the same globe and as neighbours we should do unto our neighbour as we would do unto ourselves. This is the basis of the civilisational dialogue from my continent Africa and my country South Africa, let the IPU be seized with it. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I ask for an opportunity for a personal explanation. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I will not allow it now during the debate. We will consider it.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I have four minutes of my speech that I did not use. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We will consider that, but not during the debate.

Mr J DURAND: Chairperson, the South African Constitution, passed in 1996, states as the core values of this country nonracism, nonsexism and equality. Our Constitution is a negotiated document between the former government and the liberation movements. It is a contract between South Africans. It is an instruction by the people on how they want to be governed. And as members of Parliament we are the guardians of the Constitution. We must make sure that it gets implemented in the lives of our people.

The Constitution attempts to remain true to the values of the Freedom Charter, and sentences from the People’s Charter are very clear on how South Africans want to live. South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and only a democratic state based on the will of the people …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, could you please lower your voices. Mr Durand, continue.

Mr J DURAND: … can secure to all their birth right without the distinction of colour, race, sex or belief.

All South Africans welcomed the speech by the then Deputy President, Thabo Mbeki, on 8 May 1996 when our Constitution was adopted. I want to quote from this masterpiece. The wonderful images of unity and diversity resonate through the speech, with the central theme being - We are all Africans:

I owe my being to the Khoi and the San … I am formed of the migrants who left Europe to find a new home in our native land. In my veins courses the blood of the Malay slaves who came from the East.

I am the grandchild of the warrior men and women that Hintsa and Sekhukhune led, the patriots that Cetshwayo and Mphephu took to battle … I am the grandchild who lays flowers on the Boer graves at St Helena, the Bahamas ..

As our future President then, he united all South Africans as one, as Africans, as equals. As a future leader of this country, he reassured us about the Constitution:

The constitution, whose adoption we celebrate, constitutes an unequivocal statement that we refuse to accept that our Africanness shall be defined by our race, our colour, our gender or our historical origins.

It seeks to create a situation in which all our people shall be free from fear, including the fear of the oppression of one national group by another, the fear of the disempowerment of one social echelon by another, the fear of the use of state power to deny anybody his or her fundamental human rights, and the fear of tyranny.

It aims to open the doors so that those who were disadvantaged can assume their place in society as equals with their fellow human beings without regard to colour, race, gender, age or geographical dispersal. It provides the opportunity to enable each and all to state their views, promote them, strive for their implementation in the process of governance, without fear that a contrary view will be met with repression. We come from a divided, racist and unjust past. As South Africans we have taken a conscious decision to change. We created a miracle when all Africans of the South, both black and white, got together and made a new, free, nonracial country possible. The world celebrated with us. We were happy. It is good to be South African - proud, loyal and patriotic.

We should learn from the past, not repeat it. What we need is a superhuman effort to be other than human, not seek revenge, though it might seem just, not be bitter, though it might be normal to be. What benefit will there be for Afro-Americans if they hate Africans for having sold them as slaves to the Europeans? It will not add an inch to their length, nor will it put the clock back.

The apartheid society did not only create hatred for each other, but also self-hatred. The limited range of opportunities open to blacks gave rise to rationalisation in favour of the status quo, self-doubt and self- accusations. We should not call each other coconuts'' or10% men’’, merely because our pigmentation or the shape of our noses differ slightly. We are Africans.

Dit bly egter van kardinale belang dat die diskoers rondom die konseptualisering en definiëring van die self, wie of wat ek as mens binne ‘n bepaalde groep is, binne die bruin gemeenskap een is wat hom beroep op nugtere en deurdagte dialoog. Dit is ‘n diskoers wat gevrywaar moet word van politieke opportunisme en moeisame, ingewikkelde artikulasies van selfgeprofesseerde intellektuele, soos baie keer in die Parlement gebeur.

Die kwessie rondom bruin identiteit is ‘n persoonlike keuse, ‘n keuse wat moontlik gemaak word deur die aanpasbaarheid wat inherent en onoplosbaar deel is van bruinwees, diep gewortel is en het sy oorsprong in ons afkoms. Hetsy die individu dus sy Europese afkoms of sy Afrikawortels besing, dit bly ‘n persoonlike saak.

Juis omdat die Grondwet, wat die basis van ons demokrasie vorm, ons toelaat om ons individualiteit uit te leef en toleransie as ‘n fundamentele beginsel beklemtoon, het geen persoon of groep die reg om ons daaroor aan te val of skuldig te laat voel nie. Dus, of ek myself as ‘n bruinman of as ‘n kleurling beskou, dit bly my reg. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[However, it remains of the utmost importance that the discourse around the conceptualising and defining of the self, who or what I am as a human being within a certain group of people, within the coloured community, is one that calls on level-headed and well-thought-out dialogue. It is a discourse that should be safeguarded from political opportunism and tiresome, complicated articulations of self-professed intellectuals, as happens many a time in Parliament.

The issue around coloured identity is a personal choice, a choice that is made possible by the adaptability which is inherent in and an insoluble part of being coloured, is deeply rooted and has its origin in our heritage. Whether the individual therefore praises his European or his African roots, it remains a personal issue.

Precisely because the Constitution, which forms the basis of our democracy, allows us to express our individuality and emphasises tolerance as a fundamental principle, no person or group has the right to attack us because of this or to make us feel guilty. Thus, whether I consider myself as brown or as a coloured, it remains my right.]

As parliamentarians we are aware of the particular role and responsibility that parliaments and their members have in the fight against racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance, for parliaments adopt laws, approve the national budget and oversee the executive branch of Government. Members of Parliament have a personal responsibility to use their influence on public opinion to promote the values of diversity and tolerance.

The controversy about who is or is not an African has turned vicious, racist and exclusive. The focus on pigmentation has befuddled the South African debate. Just this week the Algerian President spoke to us. He is very light-skinned but he is very African. The widow of Joe Slovo claimed that her exit from the Land Bank was part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing; the same reason why Hitler killed 6 million Jews and, recently, why hundreds of thousands suffered, and many died, in Eastern Europe.

We are assisting in a peace process in Africa where ethnic friction made priests and nuns forget their calling and the fundamentals of the Bible. They assisted in genocide of fellow Africans. Let us not forget the contract that we, as South Africans, entered into that South Africa belongs to all who live in it both black and white. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, the hon Mr Van der Merwe has requested to explain something to the House. [Interjections.] Order! I said I will consider that and I have checked the Rules. In terms of Rule 69 (2), I will allow Mr Van der Merwe only three minutes. He should confine himself to what he wants to explain with no debate! He should explain what he wants to explain, that is all.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity, it will be only one minute. My explanation is that at the state banquet or meeting in Havana, President Castro addressed us. I attended that meeting and did not leave when he arrived. After we had sat there for about an hour and ten minutes - and he was still speaking - my wife and I had to keep another appointment. I excused myself and we left. [Interjections.] We could not wait for two hours. I think, he spoke for more than two hours. [Interjections.] Therefore, any suggestion that I left the moment President Castro arrived, as a sort of an insult to him, is a lie. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, you have explained yourself but, again, you have repeated the unparliamentary word which I asked you to withdraw before. Can you please withdraw that.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, now that I have given my explanation I feel that the truth is out and I withdraw that. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, just withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Finally …[Interjections.] … I could have said it there on the podium. [Interjections.] I just want to say that Gwen should be ashamed of herself. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: No, no additions! Order! The following member of the UDM is going to give his maiden speech, that is, W G Makanda. [Applause.]

Mr W G MAKANDA: Mr Chairperson, hon members, the origins of racism in South Africa are well-documented and have been extensively covered in various fora where this vexing problem has been debated. It is deeply rooted in our society and pervades our entire social fabric. To rid our society of this scourge, we have to confront it squarely and honestly.

It is common knowledge that the present day economic disparities the resultant social stratifications correspond to the racial inequalities emanating from our history and perpetuate a divisive status quo which reinforces the racial animosities which still plague our society. Common sense tells us that the physical environment which breeds racism must be transformed in such a way that people can relate as equals, compatriots, humans, neighbours, colleagues, friends, brothers and sisters, bonded by a common patriotism and a commitment to a shared destiny.

To achieve this goal, each one of us must be prepared to give a little. That is a reciprocal process which places an obligation on all the stakeholders. To uplift our disadvantaged countrymen, to whom the much- vaunted freedom remains an elusive mirage, those who control the means of wealth creation must go the extra mile in rekindling the economy and redistributing the largesse ever wider. That includes the newly emergent black entrepreneurs who have joined the league.

All of us, in equal measure, must exorcise the demons of our past because they continue to haunt us in our thoughts, utterances, political strategies, social and political interactions. There are those who look to the past with nostalgia and even dream of recapturing those memories on distant shores. Yet others continue to blame their misfortunes, even those of their own creation, on the legacy of apartheid. These are mental aberrations, undoubtedly sourced from our history, which we nevertheless must discard because they shackle our progress.

South Africans have adopted a model Constitution for all those who cherish democracy. This document is binding on all people who live in this country, even those who never truly embraced its principles. It is the duty of all structures of governance, all private-sector institutions and civil society, to see to it that the Constitution is implemented and carried out to the letter. We cannot afford to allow a brazen flouting of the individual and community rights of people by recalcitrant pockets of resistance, whether it be on the farms, in traditional racist strongholds, in the entertainment industry, at the work-place, or in traditionally white or black institutions. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! [Interjections.] Order, hon member I wish to plead with the Whips to educate their members. [Laughter.] All Whips, you have just seen what has happened now. I hope you will do that. I educate your members. want to embarrass the member because he is quite new, but the Whips must educate their members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to extend a warm welcome to the hon member who has just preceded me. Chairperson and colleagues, the IPU declaration reads, and I quote:

It urges parliaments to adopt and monitor the implementation of laws that are consistent with their constitutions, and which are necessary for the purpose of eradication of racism, including, where required, measures of affirmative action and systems of redress for the victims of racist acts. We shall also strive to make sure that leading figures in society, including members of Parliament, along with educational institutions, such as schools, imbue current and future generations with a profound appreciation of the value of diversity in a world where we all share a common heritage and destiny.

That is the IPU Declaration of the Durban meeting of parliamentarians. There is no doubt therefore that we still have a responsibility to go beyond the speeches and resolutions of the many meetings and conferences on this subject.

When he opened the National Conference on Racism on 30 August 2000, President Mbeki pointed out that the discussion on racism, spearheaded by the Human Rights Commission, had exposed a discomfort among us in tackling this matter. He said:

It has been argued that those who point to the persistence of racism in our country are themselves racist. Those who propagate affirmative action are accused of seeking to introduce reverse racism, or more directly of resorting to antiwhite racism.

Hon members will have noted that the first extract I read was from the declaration, not only of this Parliament, but a declaration agreed upon by parliaments of about 50 countries whose members were at the World Conference Against Racism. So those who hold the view that affirmative action is reverse racism are totally out of step with broader humanity and must work hard to catch up.

It has been said before, but we must repeat it until we have rid ourselves of this disease. Racism must be discussed, understood and fought in order for us to eradicate it and create a truly equal society. Racism is an ideology that assigns inferiority and superiority to groups of people from different cultural backgrounds, resulting in maximum economic exploitation of the one by the other. This perpetuates the social, cultural and political domination of the one by the other. In the main, human experience of this phenomenon has been characterised by white advancement, supremacy and privilege on the one hand, and black underdevelopment, poverty and misery on the other.

As a young democracy that has committed itself to the transformation of our society, based on the Reconstruction and Development Programme, we need to always bear this reality about our society in mind and the challenge ahead of us in tackling our tasks.

The declaration urges members of Parliament to take personal responsibility, to exert their influence on public opinion and to promote the values of diversity and tolerance. In the preamble to the South African Constitution, we say we -

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

This, of course, is easier said than done. How many of us become literally irritated when another South African speaks a language we do not understand, especially an African language? Instead of accepting the right of the other person to speak their language, one’s irritation is an imposition of one’s preference on them. One adopts the attitude that one should not be inconvenienced by making an effort to understand them, by getting a translation, or in the longer term trying to understand their language.

I use this example advisedly, because I believe all of us as parliamentarians, me included, are guilty of perpetuating a hierarchy of languages in this Parliament which we inherited from our racist past. Over the centuries the cultures, traditions, religions and languages of dominated communities were devalued and those of the dominant groups overvalued and promoted through force. All of us public representatives committed to creating a new society must accept this as a historical fact. This must then inform our activities as we perform our duties that influence public opinion, as referred to by the IPU Declaration.

The South African Parliament is in the fortunate position of having passed the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill in 2000 in order to enable our society to create conditions for equality, especially in areas of life where most racist practices exist. Parliamentarians, as part of their oversight responsibility, must monitor compliance in our identified categories, and many others that they become aware of, through their work in portfolio committees and in their constituency offices.

I have been informed by the Department of Justice that although the Equality Review Committee has been formed, its functioning has been hampered by the perennial problem of a shortage of resources. I believe Parliament needs to prioritise resource allocation to the work of the machinery we have created, to ensure that we do deracialise our society.

If we do not, we will keep patting ourselves on the backs for having passed a good law, only to find it is gathering dust on some shelves because we cannot tell whether it is working or not. We cannot pick up areas that need to be revisited or tightened up, or whether there are totally new aspects we need to provide which we could have overlooked. If we neglect this, we neglect an opportunity to accelerate the healing of the divisions of the past, the creation of social justice and the improvement of quality of life, all of which are commitments contained in the preamble to the Constitution.

In the category of labour and employment, we must monitor that artificial barriers to equal access to employment opportunities by using certain recruitment and selection procedures are discontinued. In this regard I want to point out that the issue of experience and very unrealistic academic qualifications is a case in point.

We all know that in the past the majority of our people were not allowed to venture into certain areas of life. They were not allowed access to training or education, not even to employment in those areas. Does it mean they must never participate in those areas?

We as Parliament recently had to ask ourselves these questions when we had a process to employ an art curator. We could hardly find an African fit for consideration. The challenge to transform has led us to agree now that someone from the previously disadvantaged communities of our society must be given an opportunity to understudy the curator we have now employed.

The field of education continues to pose many challenges to our society. There is the question of school governing bodies, some of which perpetuate thinking from our racist past. Some communities use these structures not to promote unity in diversity and tolerance, but to perpetuate the domination of the previously privileged cultures. This is a challenge for MPs to influence the direction towards nation-building in their political and constituency work.

We continue to read about learners who have been unfairly excluded from institutions or from assistance by way of scholarships and bursaries on the basis of race. But most important of all is the content of what our children are being taught. We learned this past weekend that a child in Mpumalanga had a very traumatic exchange with a teacher who insisted on teaching the children that there are four provinces in South Africa and not nine. The family of that child had to intervene in the matter.

In the category of housing, accommodation, land and property, there continues to be enormous challenges and unequal distribution of resources. In the overwhelming majority of cases, whites are property owners whose rights to that property we have protected in the Bill of Rights.

In the case of farms, in spite of legislation we have passed, farmworkers continue to be illegally evicted and cynically transported by farmers to swell the ranks of the squatter camps, as opposed to helping in the eradication of these settlements. Other problems in this sphere come in the form of the redlining of so-called high-density areas. Those, of course, are areas which banks do not want to give loans to because many Africans have moved into them.

This weekend I will be seeing Mrs Wanda Stoffberg, the George woman who continues to be hounded by super racists who hate her for just being a normal human being who has an open attitude to fellow humans, including Africans and coloureds. Her neighbours have agitated that she should not to be allowed to run a butchery on her property, simply because many blacks come to buy from her. Some cowards assaulted her and carved the letter K'' on her breast to teach her a lesson for being a so-calledkaffir lover’’. Mrs Stoffberg is not an ANC member. In fact, she confesses to having been brought up in a racist environment, but she is a South African who belongs to the present and the future. I believe that we as members of Parliament have a responsibility to recognise such people, to encourage and support them as part of our campaign to create a non racial society. [Applause.]

I wish to comment on the matter of race and gender, and how the convergence of the two have shaped and produced this society. The discovery of diamond and gold in 1867 and 1886 respectively led to an increased need for cheap labour, which, of course, is cheap black labour in the areas around the sites of these discoveries. Of course, this cheap black labour was also needed on the white farms that were scattered all over South Africa.

The white colonial strategists developed a policy that ensured that African women remained in the reserves in order that they remained the backbone of subsistence economies that had to be maintained there to continue to reproduce the army of cheap black labour for the industrial economy that they were consciously marginalised from.

They looked after the children, the old and the sick in the reserves. I also want to tell this House about the kinds of passes that they were forced to carry in order to make sure that they were not allowed to come and develop a permanent black community in the urban areas.

They carried stand permits, residential passes, visitors’ passes, work seekers’ passes, employment registration certificates, permits to reside on the employers’ premises certificates to work on their own behalf, domestic service books, washer women’s permits, and entertainment permits, each of which cost money. They had to pay that money in order to be allowed to enter the urban areas. I am sketching this history to indicate to us that the transformation of this society is a very complex challenge because of the complexities that history has imposed on us.

I see that my time is up, and therefore all that I can say is that we as members of Parliament must look out, when we receive the report of the World Conference Against Racism, for the programme of action, the role of Parliament and, in particular, the IPU, and continue fighting the battle against racism. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, the ACDP commends Madam Speaker for placing this debate on the Order Paper.

During the last 50 years since the adoption of 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international community has made some important advances in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. National and international laws have been enacted and numerous international human rights instruments, particularly a treaty to ban racial discrimination, have been adopted. Progress has been made.

We witnessed the defeat of apartheid in South Africa, yet a dream of a world free of racial hatred and bias remains only half fulfilled. The UN has in the past taken various steps by way of resolutions to instigate a global action against racism, and there have been many conventions and declarations to defeat racism, starting with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, followed by the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I can go on throughout the various decades.

The first decade to combat racism started in 1973, and the second one was for action to combat racial discrimination, starting in 1983. The third decade to combat racism, of course, ended with the World Conference Against Racism right on our doorstep.

Despite all the conventions and international conferences, racial discrimination still persists. Why has it become so difficult for nations and parliaments of the world to exorcise this demon of racism? It is because racial discrimination and xenophobia are a sinful condition of the heart. Its origin is spiritual and unless there is true repentance, a public confession of the sin of racism and earnest concerted efforts by all political leaders, including all MPs, to promote the universal truth that all humankind has been created in the image of God and that we all have a common origin, unless we change our actions and attitudes, we will not be able to rid ourselves of the sin of racism. [Time expired.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members, while attending the one-day IPU conference in Durban, it dawned on me that people across the globe believed in the equality of man. Distinguishing people according to the colour of their skins is as abominable as it is unacceptable. It is this type of feeling that led to some people in this country calling themselves the master race, the opposite of which would be servant races which had to be subservient to their masters.

Racism has to be avoided by all parliamentarians at all levels. While I sat in that hall I was so surprised when I noticed that no country on the globe can claim to be free of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. We have to take solace from the fact that we are not alone in this mess and turn it inside out to make sure that we rid ourselves, our parliaments and society at large of all these vices.

Parliamentarians are known for the mirth in their speeches, but it is not acceptable to use expressions laced with racial slurs. On average, people take what they hear from parliamentarians as the way to speak and the way to conduct themselves. Parliamentarians have a responsibility to use their influence on public opinion to promote the values of diversity and tolerance.

Let us rise to the challenge and accept the invitation by the World Conference Against Racism to encourage debate, even action by parliaments, on legal measures to be taken against all levels of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance.

In the words of one songwriter, ``Let us make our little lights shine in each nook and cranny’’ in endeavouring to establish a world free from all kinds of discrimination based on race, colour, work, descent, national or ethnic origin.

We believe in the UCDP that parliamentarians must love, respect, serve, consult and be tolerant of their colleagues, constituencies and the whole country. A parliamentarian should not behave like an unguided missile and speak out of turn. [Time expired.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, unfortunately I do not have enough time to go into this important topic. Therefore, I will simply state our own position on this topic. I want to say that the PAC was the first political organisation in South Africa to have as one of its aims the overthrowing of white domination, the implementation and maintenance of the right to self- determination of the African people and the establishment of a nonracial and unitary state. That is why Pan-Africanism, the ideology of the PAC, is nonracial and why Pan-Africanism is today guiding the rest of Africa, as reflected in the Pan-African Parliament and the African Union.

Africanism was once denounced as racism by some leaders of this country. The PAC clearly stated that the colour of an individual did not matter. That is why at the height of the Algerian revolution, where our guerrillas such as Gen Kondlo trained, Patrick Duncan, whom the PAC had converted to its non-racial Pan-Africanist philosophy, was sent to Algeria to represent the PAC there. Duncan was the son of a former colonial governor-general in this country.

PAC members of Parliament find this declaration in accordance with our PAC teachings. The PAC has been fighting racism and its related intolerance for a long time. In May 1960, when PAC leaders appeared in a colonial court, charged with leading the Sharpeville uprising, their spokesperson, Mangaliso Sobukwe, said:

We believe in one race only - the human race to which we belong. The history of the human race is a long history of struggle …

The PAC, however, from its inception, declared that politics is not a matter of race or colour, but of vital material interests. The race question is subsidiary to the class question.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, may I also thank Madam Speaker for bringing this matter up for discussion.

The fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance is globally present. It is felt that the world conference hosted in Durban, as a global effort in tackling these hideous issues, has been beneficial to nations around the globe. Not only have we managed to share, but we have also managed to learn. Though many diversities make themselves known and however different efforts may be to eradicate these problems, the efforts deserve recognition and support.

The MF has taken note of the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s statement that voices the importance of parliaments in the success of this programme of putting into action resolutions that may serve to eradicate the matters at hand. The IPU has described parliaments as institutions that -

… oversee government action; enact appropriate legislation where needed; and decide on the allocation of the national budget. Moreover, parliaments and their members are the key participants in the creation of national policy and plans of action.

The IPU sentiments of parliaments is true. We do host these powers and abilities; we do share the need to eradicate the evils brought by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and since we share all this, it is clear that our abilities can be mechanised to eradicate these treacherous problems that plague our nation.

Our first success has already made itself visible in the Republic’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Parliaments are now going to be the tools to inculcate a strategy to eradicate the harsh and poisonous presence of these subjects.

South Africa has had racism and racial discrimination, but, most importantly, as reflected by the IPU, a parliament has a key to eradicate them. Let us embark upon this challenge together nationally and internationally. We can not only make a difference, but we can also destroy racism and its cousins as it has tried for many years to destroy us. [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, this is not a mere document on racism, but an introspective document for us parliamentarians. What are we obliged to do? In this regard, the declaration mentions our legislative, budgetary and oversight functions. But it also mentions our personal responsibility to influence public opinion to promote the values of diversity and tolerance.

Where do we stand in these matters? It is my opinion that in the first three aspects, the South African Parliament has done much to combat racism, but not enough to promote diversity. Some of the Bills we have passed do not take into account sufficiently the diverse nature of our society. A law that allows the Minister of Education to enforce a neutral multireligious ideology on our children, exhibiting religions like products one can choose from at random from a supermarket shelf blatantly disregard the real essence of diversity.

If the hon Mokaba calls tribalism a form of racism, it proves that we have a long way to go before the real value of diversity is recognised.

I quote from the opening speech of Dr Heptulla:

Parliamentarians need to reconcile the use of their most important tool in carrying out their mandate to represent the people by giving voice to their opinions, with their special responsibility to promote a society based on tolerance.

I make the statement that we parliamentarians of South Africa often, by our conduct, promote a society of intolerance. We do it when we call each other coconuts or when we make such a big issue of it; we do it when we play the race card so often or when we act so arrogantly that it is perceived as racism and we do it in our attitudes, our body language and our tone of voice.

Let us show the people of South Africa that in this House we can vigorously debate the issues of our country, but still treat each other - from different races, cultures and philosophies - with dignity and respect. [Applause.]

Ms N N MAPISA-NQAKULA: Chairperson, hon Deputy President and hon members, in order for us to move forward on the question of fighting racial discrimination, it is correct to reflect on the past. Discrimination in the form of racism polarised our country and our people. The remnants of the era continue to bedevil race relations in our country.

The situation we come from saw many families among the indigenous people of our land forcibly broken down. Children were separated from their parents, husbands and wives were separated from each other and from their children. There was a clear attack on the nobleness of love, following the promulgation by the racist regime of laws which were designed to stop love and marriage across the colour line. The majority of people were denied elementary human rights of equal citizenship, the right to vote and equal access to all and every benefit available to the citizens of our country.

The apartheid regime led to the assault on the right of our people to land, through their policy of land dispossession. Through this, they created conditions for the expropriation of land from the people of our country by land barons and industrialists.

Racial discrimination became the policy tool that determined the allocation and distribution of wealth. It also determined the provision of goods and services to the different social groups and communities. In its aftermath, we continue to experience the serious problems of poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and other deprivations.

Whereas racism still lives in our country, the 1994 democratic breakthrough has provided us with the legal instruments which we require to pave the way towards the establishment of the South Africa that is envisaged in the ANC’s Freedom Charter. This Parliament is one of those instruments that we can use to effect the change for the better that our people deserve. Through this forum, we must create the space we need to establish the South Africa that many of the freedom-loving people of this country were prepared to lay their lives down for, to secure, on the basis of democracy, peace, security and justice for all.

Democracy and human rights are crucial elements in the development of stability and prosperity for all our people. Parliament, therefore, has the responsibility to ensure that these concepts are recognised as fundamental values of our society and must, therefore, be respected by all people.

The greater majority of those who constitute this Parliament contributed tremendously to the fight against and the defeat of apartheid and its policies of racial discrimination. It was that struggle of the forces of progress and democracy that influenced the international community, through the United Nations, to declare apartheid a crime against humanity.

Assembled here in this Chamber are public representatives who are a mirror of our society. To a large extent, we represent the wishes and dreams of our people. We are also representatives of the orientation and tendencies that exist in our communities. These, at times, are evident in the manner in which we conduct ourselves in this House.

Some of these tendencies, unfortunately, are backward and inimical to the democracy we are building. These should serve as a challenge to us, because we have to change the mindset of our people. We must help them to break the barriers and overcome racial prejudice.

We want to do this, and we must do this, among other things, through the promotion of our languages and cultures, so that we instil a sense of pride in our children, for whom these are meant, without encouraging racial stereotyping.

Parliament therefore has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that all legislation that we pass is based on our Bill of Rights. That further affirms our people and entrenches our democracy.

There is no doubt that racial discrimination in our country gave birth to bitter contempt and hatred of white people by blacks. Racism also fanned racial prejudice, not only between whites and blacks, but also between African people themselves, arising from the process in which Africans were split by the racist regime into small, hostile and intolerant ethnic groupings. In other words, racial discrimination became the nucleus of all our problems.

South Africa and the world should mount a united and consistent campaign to fight racial discrimination. We need to co-ordinate our efforts to eradicate this scourge. This is a challenge to all political parties and other formations in our country and abroad.

On its part, this Parliament should truly be an assembly of people who carry on their shoulders the hopes and aspirations of our people as a unique creation of our democratic ideals. We should remember in this context the words of Chief Albert Luthuli in his message to the Congress of the People in Kliptown in 1955, when he said, and I quote:

Why will this assembly be significant and unique? Its size, I hope, will make it unique, but above all its multiracial nature and its noble objectives will make it unique, because it will be the first time in the history of our multiracial nation, that is, people from all walks of life, will meet as equals, irrespective of race, colour and creed to formulate a Freedom Charter for all the people in the country.

The Freedom Charter, therefore, is not a mere shopping list of demands, but it provides a firm foundation for democratic change. The Freedom Charter is a programme for the true unity of the people of our country. Our call, therefore, is that we should all unite behind the ideal of a united front against racism in all its forms. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

                    DEMOBILISATION AMENDMENT BILL

               TERMINATION OF INTEGRATION INTAKE BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I would like to call upon the Minister of Defence to address the House. [Interjections.] I am afraid, hon Minister, that the other speakers did not take up all their allocated time.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Chairperson, I should just indicate that nature called and … [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Order! The hon the Minister of Defence has his prerogatives right.

The MINISTER: Chairperson, this afternoon we table the two Bills, the Demobilisation Amendment Bill and Termination of Integration Intake Bill. These two Bills mark an important milestone in the history of the transformation of South Africa, and specifically in the history of the South African military.

As a result of the negotiation process, a new force, the National Defence Force, was created on 27 April 1994 comprising the old South African Defence Force, the TBVC states’ forces - TBVC being Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei - and uMkhonto weSizwe, the armed wing of the ANC.

At a later date the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, Apla, the armed wing of the PAC, took part in the process. The new Constitution established a single defence force to be the only lawful military force in the Republic.

The nonstatutory forces were identified by a certified personnel register commonly known as the CPR. This in essence is a register of the members of the liberation formations who had been verified by the liberation organisations. The completion of such a register was an achievement that has gone by and large unrecognised by the broader electorate.

The liberation formations kept their records in circumstances vastly different from those in which the conventional military forces operated. These sections of the liberation movement were based in many different countries and records were therefore not at any one time located in one central point. Part of the problem was that the liberation formations sought to avoid their falling into wrong hands and consequently contributing to the capture of valuable freedom fighters in the country in which they were fighting for freedom.

In addition, the levels of involvement in an underground illegal organisation differ widely. Whilst on the one hand there were combatants militarily trained, they were often accommodated and protected by civilians who had had no military training whatsoever. Nevertheless, had those civilians been caught and arrested, they would have been treated in the same way as if they had been trained military personnel and paid similar prices to the trained guerrillas for whom they provided accommodation.

In the process of integration, dealing with the unravelling of all of these puzzles became an involved exercise. Once settlement was made, it became an arduous and lengthy process for the liberation movements to bring all the records first of all into the country as well as into a centralised register. This explains the flexibility with which command structures of the South African National Defence Force treated the timeframes surrounding the intake and integration process. I made this point to remind the House and draw its attention to one of the aspects of the complexity of the process of integration, integrating different armed formations into a single, united military force.

The two Bills therefore before us, coming as they do seven to eight years since the start of the integration process, bear testimony that, to all intents and purposes, this process may now be concluded administratively. I am pleased to report to the House that with all the problems that can be imagined in carrying out this process, the SANDF has successfully managed this process and is now ready to move on.

The Termination of Integration Intake Bill seeks to bring to an end the process of taking in members of MK and Apla for integration purposes. There will be an intake next month of around 100 persons. A final intake will take place early next year before the final date, just to make sure that a door has been left ajar for any latecomers.

The Demobilisation Amendment Bill amends the definition of ``closing date’’ by providing that the closing date shall be 31 December 2002. This new date is fixed so as to allow members of MK and Apla who are unable to meet the employment requirements of the SA National Defence Force for various reasons to demobilise.

On behalf of the SA National Defence Force and the Department of Defence I would like to thank the Portfolio Committee of Defence, under the leadership of the hon Thandie Modise, for holding a public hearing on these two Bills. This gave the veterans’ associations of both MK and Apla a chance to raise issues of concern with the oversight committee. Recommendations coming from the committee will be accommodated by the department.

The successful integration of seven military formations into a single, lawful, loyal and professional military force is one of democratic South Africa’s most shining achievements. This National Defence Force unites young South Africans around the patriotic duty of defending their country and peoples. I am convinced that it will continue to fulfil this function for generations to come. I therefore urge members of the House to support these two Bills. [Applause.]

Ms T R MODISE: Chairperson, hon members, I will be nice. The Termination of Integration Intake Bill seeks to bring to a close the integration intake of former uMkhonto weSizwe and Apla combatants into the SA National Defence Force. The Bill also takes away the open-ended right to integrate within a reasonable period, as provided for in the interim constitution of South Africa. We believe that eight years has been more than reasonable.

The Bill recognises the right of those who have applied for amnesty to enlist within 90 days after the granting and receipt of such amnesty. The ANC supports this Bill. In so doing, we recognise that this Bill in no way stops integration within the Department of Defence, but merely puts a stop to a specific type of intake.

We support the Department of Defence for the smoother than expected integration process. The Phalaborwa, Tempe and Simon’s Town shootings were a sign of a process that is still frustrated by a lack of trust and appreciation of the many cultures, backgrounds, beliefs and customs. Phalaborwa, Tempe, Simon’s Town and Potchefstroom remind us of just how bad things can become when we fail to transform structures and influence beliefs, attitudes and habits.

I believe that Tempe, Phalaborwa and Simon’s Town could have been avoided had we dropped the know-it-all and dispenser-of-all wisdom attitudes and emphasised the richness of all our armed forces. Clearly, when the SA Defence Force and uMkhonto weSizwe were brought together there was the potential for tension and conflict.

Former uMkhonto weSizwe combantants were used to a commissariat that enabled them to voice opinions, to debate and to articulate their grievances. The hierarchy of the former SA Defence Force had no experience of this, and would indeed interpret any behaviour not conforming to their training to be insubordinate and ill disciplined. That is why the establishment of the Ministerial Committee on Civic Education was seen as a priority in the transformation of the Department of Defence.

Not only was the civic education programme expected to ease the transformation of relations, but it also expected to bring the South African National Defence force members up to speed on international laws, conventions and agreements. Sadly, Cemac has hardly met this year.

We want to congratulate the Equal Opportunities and Affirmative Division. They are doing well, especially in the policy formulation and advocacy fields. How much easier would transformation have been had the civic education programme not floundered.

The Demobilisation Amendment Bill brings to a close the demobilisation of members of Apla and uMkhonto whose names appear on both the CPR and or the personnel lists and who, for whatever reason, failed to exercise their right to be members of the SA National Defence Force. They then received a small gratuity.

Parliament adopted the Defence Review and agreed to force levels, doctrines and force structures. At the beginning of the integration process the SA National Defence Force stood at 101 000 members. Currently the force levels are between 80 000 and 79 000. In our own understanding, we are a mere 4 000 men away from our target force levels.

Stories that a further 10 000 personnel must leave the SA National Defence Force must be treated with caution because the justification that more people must leave so that there is more money has never materialised anywhere. Reduction in numbers does not necessarily translate into more money and more development.

Demobilisation of former members has actually been treated with little respect. Demobilisation has not yet been seen as part of a broader developmental challenge for South Africa. The service corps was identified as a vehicle for the reskilling of the former members of the Defence Force. Instead, the parliamentary committees have received reports that numeracy and literacy programmes were on offer. Recently a group of members from the service corps reported that what was on the top agenda for the service corps was to be given an opportunity to get a drivers’ licence. Clearly, we are far away from reskilling the nation.

The service corps needs to be relooked at. With the world market sliding and unemployment rising, we should broaden our programme of national reskilling. The defence industry is beginning to exploit military technology for commercial use. Why is it not exploiting military personnel in the same way? Joint ventures with civilian companies could help to absorb demobilised and rationalised members of the SA National Defence Force.

The civil corps should not only be given survival skills, but should be at the forefront of creating opportunities for former members the SA National Defence Force to be reintegrated into civilian life and into the civilian economy. It should make the transition of such members from military into civilian life its business.

We should not just be too willing to give the service corps into private and unknown hands because, thus far, it has had very little positive imaging. I submit that it would be irresponsible to continue to demobilise personnel without proper planning to retrain, reskill and provide them with marketable skills to ease their reintegration into society. I have yet to hear of psychological counselling that is being given to the potential demobilised or rationalised personnel of the SA National Defence Force. The lower levels of skills that the service corps conduct do not enable the members to survive and therefore we should be wary when such members use their military skills to survive in civil society.

We must remember that institutions like Khula and Ntsika can be approached to help fund small projects for former members of the SANDF. Management of such projects must therefore be supervised, so that they do not flounder. If we are to avoid problems of military veterans like those experienced in Mozambique and Zimbabwe, then we must be systematic in our planning.

I am sure that funding could be found from sympathetic donors if we revise the demobilisation strategy and plan accordingly. Some of the demobilising members are old and frail. The gratuity they are going to get will not last beyond two to three months. Most of them have health problems. The current demobilisation package does not consider this, and this country could pick up problems in the future.

The JMCC agreements recognise the services of the nonstatutory force members. This, then, should mean recognition of the rights of all military veterans. I would like to say to the Minister that we are still waiting for the veterans’ advisory board to report. Maybe they will make recommendations on the rights and privileges of all other military veterans.

The ANC supports both the Demobilisation Amendment Bill and the Termination of Integration Intake Bill. We see this not as an end, but as a beginning. It is the end of the identification with and loyalty to all ideologies; and the beginning of a new and nonpartisan, loyal and dedicated SA National Defence Force.

During the public hearings, both uMkhonto weSizwe and Apla veterans indicated that some of their members were not on both the CPR and personnel lists. They also described their frustration with the MK and Apla officers within the Department of Defence. These officers should have contributed to transformation, especially at the beginning of the integration process.

The Minister has powers to consider cases, on a case-by-case basis, that do not appear on the certified personnel register and the personnel lists. Clearly, there are members who, for one reason or another, did not find the opportunity to place their names on such personnel lists. Some, we were told, live in the rural areas where they did not have the opportunity to see the sophisticated media advertisements in order to place their names on such registers. Some of them did put down their names, but found that their surnames were left out. Some found that their first names were repeated, and some found that when they came forward for integration, other people had taken their places and their names. Surely, when we are told this we cannot just dismiss it?

The hon Kota recently returned from Tanzania, where she met with former MK members, who understood neither her explanations about CPR lists nor the deadlines. All they knew was that they had proudly served uMkhonto weSizwe, and that they had a right to serve in the SA National Defence Force. Clearly the Minister has his job cut out for him. I do not envy him. But we cannot cut corners, because we need to be fair.

It will not be right for me to finish my input without mentioning the unique problem of the SA Cape Corps. Whether these former members of the SADF are right or not, whether the perception they have of being kicked out of the Defence Force to make way for MK and Apla is right or not, I do not know. All I do know is that we have to get to the bottom of this. Just as it is undesirable for us to have both members of uMkhonto and Apla running around with lethal skills, unemployed and bitter, so it is that we do not have the right to leave members of the Cape Corps bitter, with grudges which are justified or unjustified. We need to find out exactly what happened. We need to get to the bottom of their problem. We need to make sure that at the end of the day we do not contribute to possible threats to the security of this country by default. [Applause.]

Adv H C SCHMIDT: Chairperson, the SA National Defence Force was constituted in terms of section 224 of the interim constitution. In terms hereof, members of the SA Defence Force, any defence force relating to the TBVC countries, as well as any armed force as defined by the Transitional Executive Council Act of 1993, and whose names were included in the the certified personnel register, or so-called CPR, were entitled to integrate into the SA National Defence Force.

Section 236(8)(d) of the interim constitution determined that members who wished to enter into an agreement for appointment within the SANDF should have done so ``within a reasonable time’’, as well as further provisos which are at present irrelevant. Members of the nonstatutory forces, being Apla and MK, therefore had to assert their rights within a reasonable time as provided for in section 236 of the interim constitution.

It is clear that nonassertion of these rights within a reasonable time, as provided, will lead to the termination of the rights of members of nonstatutory forces to assert their substantive rights conferred upon them in terms of that section. It is clear that after a period of approximately seven and a half years this reasonable time for members of Apla and MK to enter into agreement for employment has lapsed. This view is shared by the Chief of the SA National Defence Force, General Nyanda. We, as the Portfolio Committee on Defence, are in agreement with his view. Although the CPRs were initially required to be completed before 27 April 1994, the cut-off date was extended for MK and Apla members to 8 May 1996, thereafter to 23 August 1996 and then again to 11 October 1996, to enable them to bring their CPRs up to date.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, too many of you are making calls to your neighbours. It is still not callmore time, so will you please pay attention. Carry on, hon member.

Adv H C SCHMIDT: Chairperson, these extensions to the cut-off date led to the further updating of the list by the addition of 8 290 names, with MK adding 4 355 names and Apla an additional 3 864 names. Furthermore, it is clear that the present Constitution of 1996 prohibits any further names being added to the CPRs after 11 October 1996. Eighteen intakes of nonstatutory force members have taken place since 27 April 1994.

It is abundantly clear that the SANDF does not have the necessary budgetary resources to handle mass intakes of nonstatutory force members. The SA Army has, however, budgeted for a final intake of approximately 300 nonstatutory force members during 2001.

Volgens ‘n voorlegging aan die Gesamentlike Staande Komitee oor Verdediging blyk dit dat die gemiddelde koste verbonde aan die integrasie van nie- statutêre lede gemiddeld R69 991 per persoon beloop, terwyl die koste verbonde aan diegene wat demobiliseer, ongeveer R34 413 per persoon sal beloop. Sodanige koste sal verhaal word teen die werwingsbegroting vir die boekjaar 2001-2002. Die aanwending van fondse in hiérdie verband sal ongelukkig lei tot die vermindering van fondse vir die beoogde werwing van ongeveer 10 000 skoolverlaters, soos aangekondig deur die agb Minister van Verdediging.

Daar is dus twee prosesse wat gelyklopend geskied. Aan die een kant is daar die proses van integrasie van diegene wat se name op die gesertifiseerde personeelregisters voorkom, en geregtig is om aan te sluit by the SANW. Aan die ander kant is daar diegene wat nie geregtig is om te kwalifiseer nie, ingevolge die bepalings en vereistes van die SANW se indiensmeningsvereistes, asook diegene wat uit eie keuse besluit om nie te integreer nie, en wat, op voorwaarde dat hul name op die gesertifiseerde personeelregisters verskyn, geregtig sal wees op demobilisasie. Demobilisasie binne hierdie verband beteken die uitbetaling van ‘n bedrag geld, en, soos ek reeds genoem het, beloop hierdie bedrag ongeveer R34 000.

Die DP is ten gunste van die finalisering van beide hierdie twee bogenoemde prosesse ten einde finaliteit te bereik. Alhoewel die DP, sowel as die NNP, ten gunste was van ‘n vroeëre datum waarteen die demobiliseringsproses afgehandel sou moes word, naamlik 31 Maart 2002, soos voorgestel in die portefeuljekomitee, steun die DP beide hierdie wetsontwerpe. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[According to a presentation to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, it would appear that the average costs relating to the integration of nonstatutory force members average R69 991 per person, whilst the costs relating to those who demobilise will amount to approximately R34 413 per person. Such costs will be recovered from the recruitment budget for the 2001-2002 financial year. The application of funds in this regard will unfortunately lead to a reduction in funds for the envisaged recruitment of approximately 10 000 school-leavers, as announced by the hon the Minister of Defence.

There are thus two processes that are running concurrently. On the one hand there is the process of integration of those whose names appear on the certified personnel registers, and who are entitled to join the SANDF. On the other hand there are those who are not entitled to qualify, according to the provisions and requirements of the SANDF’s employment requirements, as well as those who, of their own free will, decide not to integrate, and who, on condition that their names appear on the certified personnel registers, will be entitled to demobilisation. Demobilisation in this regard means the payment of an amount of money, and as I have mentioned before, this amounts to approximately R34 000.

The DP is in favour of the finalisation of both of these above-mentioned processes in order to achieve finality. Even though the DP, as well as the NNP, was in favour of an earlier date by which the demobilisation process were to be completed, namely 31 March 2002, as suggested in the portfolio committee, the DP supports both of these Bills.]

Members of nonstatutory forces whose names appear on the CPRs, but who were unable to enter into an agreement with the SANDF due to their imprisonment for an offence which was associated with a political objective, and who have been granted amnesty in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision to grant them amnesty, enter into an agreement with the National Defence Force after the 31 March 2002.

However, in terms of the Demobilisation Amendment Bill, those members who cannot be integrated because they do not satisfy the employment policies, as well as the terms and conditions of the SANDF, may demobilise by 31 December 2002. Initially the date proposed by the department was 31 December 2001 for purposes of termination of integration intake. A decision by the portfolio committee to extend this date to 31 March 2002 could lead to the present figure of approximately 190 members who are entitled to integrate, to change substantially due to the extension.

Due to unnecessary delays regarding the acceptance of these two Bills, the initial integration date proposed by the Department of Defence being, and please note, 31 March 2000, has been amended to 31 March 2002. Due to these delays, the initial demobilisation date of 31 March 1999 was extended to 31 December 2002.

The legislation is therefore intended to bring an end to the intake of members of nonstatutory forces into the SANDF, as well as a demobilisation process with regard to their specific rights in this regard. Hopefully the termination of intake of members into the SANDF from various highly politicised groups such as MK and Apla will lead to a nonracialised SANDF and the disappearance of politically aligned groups in accordance with the different views of the various forces they emanate from, ultimately leading to a highly professional, successful and focused defence force of which all South Africans can be proud. [Applause.]

Mr V B NDLOVU: Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, these two Bills have to be adopted and passed by Parliament, because they are requirements in the interim constitution of this country. The interim constitution laid down the procedures to be followed in the integration process, together with the compilation of the names of members from the nonstatutory forces and former SA Defence Force. It is called a certified personnel register, CPR.

After seven years, the Department of Defence, together with the portfolio committee and the Cabinet, came to the conclusion that we should terminate this intake, because we believe that all those whose names appear on the CPR should have been integrated already. However, the KwaZulu self- protection forces were not integrated, although there was a Cabinet resolution/agreement to include them in the integration.

The fact that they did not receive the same privileges as MK and Apla is a source of great concern to the IFP. Therefore, the IFP appeals to the Minister directly to adhere to the request which I am forwarding to him about this matter, in order that Parliament should not be seen as favouring some forces above other forces.

The IFP supports the Termination of Integration Intake Bill, and urges all those whose names are on the CPRs to come forward and be integrated before the due date, because the IFP will not support an eighth extended date if there should be one. [Interjections.]

Cha, bengithi ngeke kuphinde kusenze ukuthi siphinde siluhlehlise lolu suku lomhla ka-31 March. [Ubuwelewele.] Pho manje abewubangelani umsindo lawaya malungu? [No, I thought the postponement of 31 March would never work. [Interjections.] Why are those hon members making a noise?]

Those whose age does not allow them to be in the force have a right to get out while the privilege is there. The Demobilisation Amendment Bill does give them that right, and time is still on their side.

Labo abaminyaka yabo ibonakalisa ukuthi amadolo awasavumi ukuthi bangaphatha isibhamu bayovikela izwe, - angifuni ukulinganisa ngelinye ilungu elikhona lapha endlini - kungakuhle ukuthi kube yibona abacelayo ukuthi bahambe bayohlala ekhaya. Kumhlonishwa ngithi-ke kuyoba kuhle kuqashelwe ukuthi lapho sebehlezi emakhaya, leya ngxenye eyavulwa okuthiwa yi-Service Corps, okufanele ngabe iyabaqondisa ibafundise ukuze bakwazi ukucosha izitifiketi ukuze bakwazi ukuthola idokwe, iyasebenza. Umhlonishwa angakhohlwa ukuthi le mali esayibeka ifuna ibe nabantu abazoyisebenzisa ukuze le Phalamende isethembe nakusasa uma isikhethile ukuthi sibheke izimali zabantu, ukuze bakwazi ukuthola okuya ngasethunjini ngokuthi bathole lezo zitifiketi ezifanele.

Kusemqoka futhi ukuthi laba bantu bonke abaphumayo babone kunzima ukuthi bacabange ukuthwala isibhamu uma befuna umsebenzi noma izimali abazozifaka emakhukhwini. Kunalokho kufanele babone kuhlakaniphile ukusiza umphakathi ukuze kuthi noma kufika izikhukhula noma yini eyehliswa yinkosi ezulwini iyehlisela kithina, bakwazi ukusiza umphakathi. Ngakho-ke le ngxenye ye- Service Corps kuhle ime ngezinyawo ukuze ikwazi ukulekelela ekuthini kungenzeki nangephutha ukuthi abantu bathi sebeqeqeshiwe baphume nolwazi lwabo bayohlala emakhaya, ngoba bacabanga izinto eziningi uma bengabantu abakwazi ukudubula. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.) [Those who are too old to carry guns and fight for the country I do not want to compare to the other hon members in this House. It would be better if they themselves applied for retirement. I would like to say to the hon the Minister and those who are now at home, that the service corps is operational and it can help them to get certificates so that they will be able to make ends meet. The hon the Minister should not forget that the money we saved should be used so that this Parliament will trust us in future when it appoints us to look after the public finances, so that people will be able to get food by obtaining suitable certificates.

It is important that those who left the army should see that it is difficult to carry guns when they are looking for jobs or money to put in their pockets. Instead, they should find it easy to help the public when floods come or there is any act of God. Therefore, this part of the service corps should be on standby to assist so that people will not receive the training and find themselves staying at home with skills. When they are at home and find themselves unable to use their shooting skills, they think a lot of things.]

Therefore, I would urge all our people in the SANDF to use the facility, because the date that has been agreed upon would not change and nobody will allow them to demobilise after the date which has been agreed upon. The IFP supports the Demobilisation Amendment Bill and the Termination of Integration Intake Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M E MABETA: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the UDM, in its consideration of the proposed amendments to the two Bills, has taken into consideration a number of issues. Firstly, the integration of members belonging to the NSF was inevitable and justifiable on the grounds just outlined by the Minister here, that is, the difficulties involved in the integration process of seven military forces.

Secondly, practical aspects of the Bill are adequate because the provisions of 31 March 2002 as the cut-off date for the termination of the integration intake process allow for the initiation of all possible communications by the department to interested and affected members in preparation for the Demobilisation Amendment Bill cut-off date of 31 December 2002.

The Department of Defence, in conjunction with the organisations of affected groups, should ascertain that there are no additional categories of nonstatutory members left out if they qualify to be added to the class covered by the provisions of clause 4(1)(a) to (c).

It is absolutely crucial that affected members should be adequately informed about these amendments and provisions so as not to prejudice anyone. A compelling argument has been made in some of the submissions that there is no effective communication infrastructure in the rural areas and thus unavoidable limitations may be placed on members wishing to apply from such areas.

It is because of this reality that every effort must be made to establish effective administrative measures to facilitate these processes so as to eliminate the already widespread perception that whereas statutory force members were able to enter into agreements for integration or exit, their counterparts, who have made so much sacrifices in fighting for our liberation and democracy, have not been afforded equal opportunities.

Indeed, Phalaborwa and Tempe become relevant reminders to what misgivings about an administrative process may lead to. The Demobilisation Amendment Bill extends the windows of gratuity to NSF members who, because of political circumstances as outlined, were forced into the army at great sacrifice and therefore at this point, in our country, have no chance of a new life for a lack of skills in the employment market or simply due to old age.

Numerous administrative problems have undermined this process in the past. We must recognise and accept the fact that this process takes place at a time when high unemployment is a problem that affects the wider society of South Africa. Therefore the assessment of gratuities must take into account the special circumstances of affected persons who had no opportunities to attend courses, thus becoming non-promotable, or those whose promotions were not remunerated, though granted, and who, for the most part, served in command positions in the nonstatutory forces, but not in the SA National Defence Force. These are critical considerations that will adversely affect their exit gratuities and they cannot be ignored. The UDM supports these Bills.

Mphathiswa, makhe ndimenze nje utshe omfutshane. Ndiyavumelana nosihlalo wekomiti le esikuyo xa esithi kukho ubungozi bokhuseleko lwendlela oza kuqhutywa ngawo lo msebenzi wokulungiselela izimali zaba baphumayo nokwamkelwa kwabanye abafuna ukungena ngaphakathi.

Ndivumelana, kananjalo, nohloniphekileyo uBawo uNdlovu xa esithi le nkqubo ayinakho ukuhamba nje umphelo, ze iphele apho ithanda khona. Likhona ithuba apho kuya kufuneka kuthiwe iphelile, akunakho ukuqhutyelwa phambili.

Andivumelani nomnu Schmidt xa esithi … (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)

[Hon Minister, I would like to say something briefly. I agree with the hon chairperson of the committee that we serve on when he says that there might be problems related to issues of security in the way in which payment of the ones that are leaving and the acceptance of those that would like to join in, would be done.

I also agree with hon Mr Ndlovu when he says that this programme cannot go on for an unspecified period. At some point it would have to end, and nothing more would be done. I do not agree with Mr Schmidt when he says …]

… the issue of a reasonable time has not been taken seriously. Although I agree with his assessment here of what a reasonable time is, the historical conditions of the people involved, and what these people have been subjected to, including problems related to issues of security and what would happen to them and unavoidable problems, such as not being accessible enough in order to receive information, were not their problems.

I do agree with him that we need to take strict cognisance of the budgetary implications of this process if we are committed to a young, professional and voluntary force in South Africa, rather than opening a endless window that allow people to move in and out. We support both Bills.

Mr G C OOSTHUIZEN: Mnr die Voorsitter, die twee wetsontwerpe wat voor ons dien, is in ‘n sekere sin profeties. [Mr Chairperson, the two Bills before us are in a certain sense prophetic.]

These are the Termination of Integration Intake Bill and the Demobilisation Amendment Bill. Terwyl ek na die agb Schmidt geluister het, kon ek nie help om vir ‘n vlietende oomblik te dink dat die integrasie van die DA ook tot hul demobilisasie aanleiding gegee het nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Indien ek korrek na die woordkeuse van die agb Schmidt geluister het, het hy eers gesê die DP steun die wetgewing, later sê hy die DP en die Nuwe NP steun dit, en hy het geëindig deur te sê die DP steun dit. Ek sien die Nuwe NP praat nie. Hulle is waarskynlik besig om te demobiliseer uit die integrasieproses. Ons aanvaar dat hulle die wetsontwerpe steun, maar ons sal definitief nie ‘n blaadjie uit hul boek neem oor hoe om te integreer of te demobiliseer nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Die integrasie van nie-statutêre magte is ‘n belangrike proses wat in hierdie land moes plaasvind. Dit is ‘n proses waarvolgens opponerende magte, vanuit ‘n baie hartseer deel van ons land se geskiedenis, één moes word om nie net ons gebiedsintegriteit te beskerm nie, maar ook om te verenig in ons nasionale doelwitte. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[While I was listening to the hon Schmidt, for a fleeting moment I could not help but think that the integration of the DA also gave rise to their demobilisation. [Interjections.]

If I heard choice of words of the hon Schmidt correctly, he first said that the DP supported the legislation, later he said that the DP and the New NP supported it, and concluded by saying that the DP supported it. I see that the New NP is not speaking. They are apparently in the process of demobilising out of the integration process. We accept that they support the Bills, but we will definitely not take a page from their book about how to integrate or demobilise. [Interjections.]

The integration of the nonstatutory forces is a very important process which had to take place in this country. It is a process whereby opposing forces, from a very sad part of our country’s history, had to become one, not only to protect our territorial integrity, but also to unite in our national goals.]

The challenges of the integration process still have to be overcome. The building of an esprit de corps for our National Defence Force, sharing a common pride which culminates in achieving the goals of nation-building, is one of the challenges that we know have been overcome. In fact, we want our armed forces to know that we are not only proud of them, but that we will do whatever we can to assist in overcoming whatever challenges they may face in future. We welcome the final date, 31 May 2002, for final intakes. We also urge the SANDF to ensure that the final date will be well- advertised and well-canvassed, so that all people are aware of it.

As far as demobilisation is concerned, it is a necessary but also a very sensitive issue. I want to offer a little history to those members who will be demobilised and say to them: winning is not never having fallen, but how many times one can stand up again. One should compare oneself to this man: He lost his job in 1832; was defeated for the legislature in 1832; failed in business in 1833; lost his sweetheart to death in 1835; had a nervous breakdown in 1836; was defeated for Speaker in 1838; was defeated in a bid for Congress in 1843; was elected to Congress in 1848 but rejected for land officer in 1849; was defeated for Senate in 1854; lost nomination for the vice-presidency in 1856; was again defeated for Senate in 1858 but was in 1860 elected the 16th President of the United States. This is the track record of Abraham Lincoln, one of the great presidents of the United States. [Applause.] I am offering this to those who will be demobilised to say: We know it is painful and sensitive, but stand up. We will be there to support you.

The SANDF will have to overcome certain challenges relating to demobilisation. It is in this regard that we wish to draw their attention to the lessons of the past. What we are requesting is a well worked out plan for the people who will be demobilised. Our opinion is that the Public Service Commission should be engaged to assist in forwarding a clear plan as to how demobilisation will be approached. The objective and aim of the plan must be to take unemployment and joblessness into account.

The possibility of interdepartmental transfers should be explored. The SA Police and the Department of Correctional Services could benefit from this pool of skills and resources we have there. What we are saying is that the skills of those who will be demobilised must be taken into account. Depending on their age, the possibility of redeploying some for peace initiatives should be explored. Their skills and manpower should be secured for the reserve forces. We trust that some of those who will be demobilised will become respected veterans in our communities. We urge them to assist Government in curbing crime, in building our nation and in creating a better life for all.

Gister het ons gesit en luister na baie goeie en breedvoerige voorleggings van die kommandos. Hulle het ‘n tekort aan geld om mense op te lei. Op grondvlak integreer hulle reg, maar ‘n tekort aan geld maak dat hulle nie kursusse kan kry om mense in die leierskapskorps van die kommando te kry nie. ‘n Tekort aan geld is die probleem. Ek wil vir die kommandos vandag vra: Gryp die geleentheid van demobilisasie aan. Daar is offisiere wat reeds opgelei is. Daar is mense wat hulle kan vat en in die proses in leierskapsposisies plaas. Dit is op daardie pad alleen wat Suid-Afrika die wenland sal bly wat hy is. Die ANC steun hierdie wetsontwerp. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Yesterday we sat and listened to very good and detailed submissions by the commandos. They have a shortage of money to train people. At grassroots level they are integrating properly, but a shortage of money consequently does not allow them to present courses to as to get people into the leadership corps of the commandos. A shortage of money is the problem. I want to say to the commandos today: Grab the opportunity of demobilisation. There are officers who are already trained. There are people who could take them and in the process place them in leadership positions. It is only on that road that South Africa can stay the winning country it already is. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]]

Adv Z L MADASA: Chairperson, essentially these two Bills constitute the final fulfilment of the constitutional legal requirements for the establishment of one united South African Army.

The two Bills once and for all confirm and affirm that we now have one SANDF. But do we, in fact, have a united army? This is the question we pose to the Minister and the Government. A lot has been done, but much more can be done.

During a presentation by the Office for Equal Opportunities and Affirmative Action to the Portfolio Committee on defence, the researcher from that office reported that as many as about 61% of the soldiers interviewed expressed concern about racism in the army.

How will unity be achieved in the present circumstances? The department must encourage the white component of the army to be loyal to the Government and the Constitution by mixing skill, experience and new blood sensitively when promotions are considered.

Transformation in the middle management and command structure must be hastened. The veterans’ associations and political parties which have access to the army should play a role to encourage soldiers to remain in the service of the department and the country.

Unity between the so-called statutory and nonstatutory forces must continue to be encouraged. Any means of distinction between these former forces must be stopped immediately. Let us all work to unify the army.

The ACDP supports both Bills.

Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Voorsitter, ná 1994 het baie dinge in Suid-Afrika verander en verskillende mense het dit verskillend beleef.

Na my mening is een van die terreine waarop die meeste veranderings ná 1994 plaasgevind het, dié van verdediging. Ná 1994 moes sewe verskillende verdedigingsmagte in der waarheid saamgevoeg en geïntegreer word. Die realiteit was dat diegene wat as vyande beskou is, skielik kamerade was, mede-soldate in die stryd teen ‘n nuwe vyand.

In baie gevalle was dit vir baie mense traumaties. Sommige het gevoel hulle sien nie kans daarvoor nie. Uiteindelik het ons ‘n punt bereik waar ons kon sê die sewe verskillende verdedigingsmagte is suksesvol geïntegreer.

Ander dele in die wêreld het soortgelyke probleme ondervind. In Duitsland het die ooste en die weste byvoorbeeld geïntegreer en weer een geword. Ook dáár moes verskillende weermagte geïntegreer word. As ‘n mens ‘n vergelyking tref, sien jy dat die SANW goed gedoen het.

Die VF verwelkom dié twee wette omdat daar spesifieke sperdatums gestel word vir die beëindiging van integrasie en demobilisasie. Die sowat agt jaar was genoeg tyd. ‘n Fase in die lewe van verdediging word afgesluit wanneer dié sperdatums aanbreek.

Baie ander probleme moet nog opgelos word. Daar is egter nou finaliteit. Ek stem saam dat dit behoorlik geadverteer moet word sodat almal daarvan weet.

Die VF steun die wetsontwerpe. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, many things in South Africa changed after 1994, and different people experienced it in different ways.

In my opinion one of the spheres in which most changes took place after 1994 is defence. Seven separate defence forces had to be amalgamated and integrated after 1994. The reality was that those who had been regarded as enemies were suddenly comrades, fellow-soldiers in the struggle against a new enemy.

In many cases this was traumatic for many people. Some felt that they could not do that. Ultimately we reached a point where we could say that the seven different defence forces were successfully integrated.

There were similar problems in other parts of the world. In Germany, for example, the east and the west integrated and became one again. There different defence forces also had to be integrated. If one draws the comparison one sees that the SANDF did well.

The FF welcomes these two Bills because specific deadlines are set for the finalising of integration and demobilisation. The period of approximately eight years was long enough. A phase in the life of defence will be concluded when these cut-off dates come into effect.

Many other problems still have to be solved. However, there is finality now. I agree that it should be advertised properly so that everyone can be aware of it.

The FF supports the Bills.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, these Bills seek to bring to a close a very difficult process. Our country has negotiated a revolution, a truly historic undertaking in human history.

We have used extraordinary methods, with very little precedence elsewhere in the world. To bring back to normal a war situation is not easy. It requires patience, determination and extraordinary resources which some of the nonstatutory forces did not have at their disposal. The PAC supports these Bills.

After extensive consultations with representatives of our Apla forces, as well as discussions at the hearings of the portfolio committee, we appreciate that a wide consensus involving Apla, MK and even the hitherto unknown Cape Corps is necessary and that a later and mutually convenient date must be fixed. The portfolio committee asked Apla and MK to have their 500 names each submitted for the final inclusion in the final list. We hope that the spirit that obtained at the hearings of the portfolio committee will be present when this termination and demobilisation are implemented.

Some of the people involved are still in prison and others are returning from exile. We need to be compassionate with these categories of people so that they do not feel discriminated against in comparison with their fellow comrades in arms who have already been demobilised and integrated. The naked truth is that too many trained people who are presently unemployed are feeling desperate. We need to channel their training and experience positively within the regulated and disciplined atmosphere of the SANDF. We need close co-ordination and co-operation between the leadership of the SANDF and that of the parties from where the statutory forces come from. We support both Bills.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chair, it is agreed that the six years given to complete the integration of members of nonstatutory forces was sufficient and so the cut-off date is supported.

The accommodation of those members of the nonstatutory forces - Apla and MK

• who were detained for political reasons; and as a result granted amnesty, need more time to be integrated is supported and agreed to.

However, it is a concern as to how this accommodation is to be made since the department has noted that it does not have the capacity or budget to handle mass intakes of nonstatutory force members, and has planned for approximately 200 of these members, when having identified 262 who may still be considered for integration. However, there appears to be a budget accommodation through money allocated to the recruitment of Grade 12s.

The MF hopes that the views of all parties be carefully taken into consideration, and that the final decision will be the result of thorough planning as to how these gains are to be used.

The MF supports the Termination of Integration Intake Bill and the Demobilisation Amendment Bill.

Siyavumelana noMthetho wakhe. [Ihlombe.] [We support these two Bills. [Applause.]]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Voorsitter, die agb mnr Oosthuizen het leedvermakerig verwys na die DA wat geïntegreer en toe gedemobiliseer is. Ek weet van iemand wat geabsorbeer is. Hy sit vandag in die ANC.

Die AEB steun dié twee wetsontwerpe. In wese is dit iets wat moes gebeur om sake tot ‘n einde te bring. Ons is dankbaar dat dit nou kan gebeur. Iets moes gebeur. Mense moes in die weermag geïntegreer word, dit kon nie anders nie, al het dit aanvanklik vir ons baie moeilik geklink. Dié wet sê egter dit kan nie vir altyd gebeur nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, the hon Mr Oosthuizen gloatingly referred to the DA that was integrated and then demobilised. I know of someone who was absorbed. Today he is in the ANC.

The AEB supports these two Bills. In essence this is something which had to happen to bring matters to an end. We are grateful that it could happen now.

Something had to happen. People had to be integrated into the defence force, it was the only way, even if it sounded very difficult to us initially. However, this legislation says that it cannot go on forever.]

In other words, what we have here is a sunset clause on the integration of these people into the SANDF. There comes a time when things must get back to normal.

My vraag is vandag: Wanneer kry ons ‘n ``termination of affirmative action Bill’’? Is dit nie ook ‘n saak wat só ver gevorder het dat ons ‘n stadium kan bereik dat dit ook beëindig kan word nie?

‘n Sensitiewe maar belangrike saak is die talle voormalige Apla’s wat nie nou nie, en ook nie ná 31 Maart 2002 in die SANW geïntegreer gaan wees nie. Daar is baie sterk aanduidings en vermoedens dat van dié selle nog ernstig betrokke is by die vlaag plaasmoorde in die land.

Ek kan baie tekens daarvan aandui. ‘n Rukkie gelede is voormalige Apla- guerrillas gevang met 38 semi-outomatiese weermagwapens wat vir taxi-geweld bestem was. Wat van plaasgeweld wat dit wat na aan die hart lê, bedreig?

Ons vra dat daar gekyk word na, of dat ‘n oudit gedoen word van die voormalige Apla’s wat nie in die Weermag opgeneem is nie, sodat sake beveilig kan word. Ons weet daar is nog baie interne spanning, ons sien dit in die Weermag.

Ons wens die Minister sterkte toe met die verdere harmonieuse integrasie van die Weermag. Ons steun die ``sunset clause’’ op die invoer van die Apla’s in die Weermag. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Today my question is: When will we see a ``termination of affirmative action Bill?’’ Is that not also a matter which has progressed to such a point that we can reach a stage where it can also be terminated?

A sensitive but important issue concerns the numerous former Aplas who are not going to be integrated into the SANDF now, or after 31 March 2002. There are very strong indications and suspicions that some of these cells are still seriously involved in the wave of farm murders in the country.

I can indicate many signs of this. A while ago former Apla guerrillas were caught with 38 semi-automatic defence force weapons which were destined for taxi violence. What about farm violence which threatens that which lies close to our hearts?

We want to ask that this be looked at, or that an audit be done of the former Aplas who have not been integrated into the defence force, so that matters can be safeguarded. We know that there is still a great deal of internal tension, we see it in the defence force.

We wish the Minister all of the best with the continued harmonious integration of the defence force. We support the sunset clause on the importing of Aplas into the defence force.]

Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Chairperson, I am sure that I detected a deep sense of nostalgia in the hon Oosthuizen’s voice when he mentioned his old political home. I wish that I could say to the hon Oosthuizen that he would be welcome in the DA, but we do have our reputation to think of and his integration would be terminated there immediately. [Laughter.]

The year 1994 was one of miracles for South Africa. Besides the first inclusive democratic elections, the SA National Defence Force embarked on an endeavour that would transform it forever. The integration of seven separate entities, some of which were former enemies, was and is by no means an easy task. It was, however, a task that was crucial for the democratic future of the country.

The problems that were experienced with the integration were predictable and, to a large degree, expected. In evaluating this process, the following should be taken into account. Firstly, the entities that integrated had diverse military cultures owing to the nature of their training and their former missions and deployments.

Secondly and flowing from the first point, was the question of staffing and placement of former nonstatutory force members, many of whom did not have conventional training. Thirdly, former hostilities, prejudices and perceptions had to be eradicated and managed in order to ensure that they did not undermine this process. Incidents and allegations of racism did occur and led to a great deal of conflict within the SANDF. This is still an issue of dissent and dissatisfaction.

Frustration and administrative command and control structures also played a part in this process. These and other problems eventually led to tragic incidents in which members of the SANDF lost their lives. I think of the tragic incidents at Tempe, Simon’s Town and Phalaborwa that are still fresh in our memories.

The time has now come to end this chapter in the history of the SANDF and to move forward to face the many challenges that the new millennium promises to bring. The Termination of Integration Intake Bill and the Demobilisation Amendment Bill seek to do exactly this. Although the outcomes of these Bills are strategically connected, it is the Termination of Integration Intake Bill that I will concentrate on today.

Section 236(7)(d) of the interim constitution makes provision for members of the various forces to enter into an agreement with the SANDF within a reasonable time. I think and, indeed, the committee, the department and the veterans’ organisations of the two former nonstatutory forces, MK and Apla, agree that seven and a half years for integration has been reasonable and that the SANDF should now move forward. Delaying this process further implies an ongoing process, with the inevitable personnel and financial implications.

It has therefore been decided that 31 March 2002 is a reasonable time by which former nonstatutory forces have to enter into an agreement for temporary or permanent appointment within the SANDF, provided ``such agreement shall be in accordance with normal employment policies and terms and conditions of service’’. Furthermore, this Bill will allow individuals who are on the certified personnel register or personnel list and who have been granted amnesty in terms of section 21 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, to enter into the same agreement.

In respect of the implementation it is necessary to commend the SANDF Integration Committee for the role that they have played since September 1994, with attempts to ensure that the process runs smoothly. I think the status of the integration of the former Cape Corps should, however, be reconsidered by this committee.

With the implementation of this Bill the following aspects will impact on the capacity of the SANDF, and will have to be managed. Firstly, the age of the average members of the SANDF is increasing and is already over 30 years in some instances, meaning those who qualify may be beyond the age of integration; secondly, the cost of integrating a single person is about R69 991 per year, and 300 people could cost up to R21 million, excluding logistics, uniforms, food or training; thirdly, members will have to receive bridging training to make them productive; and fourthly, further reviews of ranking, medals and other related aspects will have to take place.

The committee has been generous in extending the date for final integration on a number of occasions. The MK and Apla veterans’ organisations must now finalise the issue by the legislated date. It is already doubtful whether the SANDF has the capacity to accommodate large numbers of new members. It must also be remembered that the integration will imply that fewer matriculants, whose youth is greatly needed in the organisation, will be able to join the SANDF. The SANDF is and should remain a national asset, one that must continue to be moulded into a force that the citizens of this country can be proud of - a force that will meet the challenges of the new millennium with efficiency, effectiveness and vigour.

In closing, I think it appropriate to remember those who lost their lives during the conflicts before 1994, and were not able to reap the benefits of either integration or demobilisation. Some lost their lives in the struggle against apartheid, while others still lie buried in shallow graves in Angola and elsewhere. These brave souls and their families should be remembered. [Applause.]

Mrs Z A KOTA: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, comrades and colleagues, it is a great honour to participate in this important debate. But please allow me to address myself to two hon members who have raised issues of concern.

Dr Mogoba should note that we in the committee did not say that MK and Apla should each come up with 500 Defence Force members. They have indicated to us that they might come up with 500 members, subject to verification. The names of those members should appear on the certified personnel register. If they do not appear on the certified personnel register, the Minister may view that matter on an individual basis - that is, on a case by case basis.

Mr Jankielsohn should note that the process of integration will take place in the same vein as that of other members in 1994. We are not going to put any conditions on that integration. All members felt that they have been integrated equally before the law.

Let me now come to my speech. The Bills before Parliament are of great significance as they deal with a most important component of our country, namely our Defence Force members. I will focus mainly on the Demobilisation Amendment Bill and its implications.

We are having this debate at the time of a changing environment when the spirit of new patriotism is calling upon all South Africans, from all walks of life, to make a difference in the lives of our people. This presents a challenge to those members of the SANDF who will be demobilised for, like all of us, they will continue to contribute to the efforts aimed at creating lasting peace and prosperity on our continent and the world over. As members will be entering the new area of deployment, they will be expected to lead our democracy to new heights. We urge them to give their best in those tasks they choose o perform.

The challenges upon us, as organs of civil society, Government and the private sector, are to create an enabling environment that allows these combatants to unleash their individual potential.

These former members have a tremendous role to play in our society. In a number of debates in this House, as members of the defence committee, we have raised the importance of an exit plan for the demobilised members of the SA National Defence Force.

The idea we had in mind was an integrated plan in terms of a number of departments that are in dire need of this expertise. We mentioned, among others, Police Services and Correctional Services, as Comrade Gert Oosthuizen has said. This is a matter that we urge the Minister to revisit.

There was a ministerial committee that was mentioned in one of the briefings that we received from the Department of Defence, which was meant to take up this matter. The security cluster has to look at this as a matter of urgency.

Mr P J GROENEWALD: Mnr die Voorsitter, op ‘n punt van orde: Is dit toelaatbaar vir ‘n agb lid om van kameraad Oosthuizen te praat, aangesien hy nooit ‘n kameraad was nie? [Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member to talk about Comrade Oosthuizen, seeing that he was never a comrade?] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: It has been conferred upon him since then.

Mrs Z A KOTA: Mr Chairperson, when the members are demobilised, the service corps is meant to play a central role in assisting members in their new careers. The point is whether the service corps is able to rise to this challenge or not.

We did receive a report from the service corps and it is clear in our minds that it is not able to deliver on this mandate. The question still remains: How many …

Mr V B NDLOVU: [Inaudible.]

Mrs Z A KOTA: Ndlovu, yima. [Wait, Ndlovu.] The question still remains: How many of these members have been trained and how many of them have been able to get jobs, and why?

Imbangi yokuba nditsho kukuba maninzi ekuhlaleni amadela-kufa aqeqeshwe yile `service corps’, kodwa bahleli ezilokishini, abenzi nto. Ke, abazali bayasibuza into yokuba ingaba sicinga ukwenza ntoni na ngalo mba. Kunzima kuthi ukuphendula, kuba nathi asazi ukuba kwenzeka ntoni na, kuba baqeqeshwa, beqeqeshelwa into yokuba bakwazi ukufumana imisebenzi, okanye bazizamele ezinye iindlela zokuphila, ze bakwazi ukukhulisa uqoqosho lweli lizwe. Kodwa akwenzeki oko. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[The reason I say this is that there are many of these recruits in the community who have been trained by these service corps but who are sitting idly in the townships. On the other hand, their parents are asking what we are planning to do in this regard. It is difficult for us to respond to this because we also do not know what is happening as they were trained in order to make it possible for them to get jobs or to enable them to devise their own warp of making a living so that they could also contribute to the economy of the country. Yet this is not happening.]

The challenge, therefore, is to revisit the content of training provided by this entity, and determine whether the certificates they give to members after these courses do have accreditation or not. Do members get assistance when they are seeking jobs? This is the practice internationally. Do members who want to open small businesses get assistance? If not, why not? That is why we want interdepartmental assistance in this process of demobilisation.

We also urge demobilised soldiers to join the ranks of the reserve force. There should be no restrictions on members who want to serve our country in this capacity, as this is in line with our one-force policy, which says that the SA National Defence Force is an all-volunteer force comprised of relatively small and regular forces backed up by a large reserve force.

In light of the public hearings that we had yesterday, which echoed with one voice that there are no funds available to train new recruits, the demobilised members will, therefore, save the department money, as we are referring to people who are already trained militarily … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, you are continuing with your caucus, which started early this morning. Let us now attend to the caucus at hand here. There is a great deal of caucusing going on. Carry on, hon member.

Mrs Z A KOTA: The demobilised members would save the department money, as we are referring to people who have been trained militarily, some of whom are officers in their own right. The challenge that remains is to ensure that the reserve force gets attention, as far as civic education and the equal opportunity programmes are concerned.

That will go a long way in addressing the concerns of people. However, we do recognise the good work that has been done by these courageous sons and daughters of our soil.

In conclusion, we need to use the expertise of these demobilised members in the peace initiatives which are taking place in our communities in terms of the CPF forums in other parts of Africa, as well as in the UN.

Andiyivumi mna Gatyeni into yokuba la madelakufa ahambe, nokuba anamadolo abuhlungu, aye kuhlala ekhaya. Mabancedise abantu basekhaya njenge … [Personally, I do not agree, Gatyeni, that we should dispense with these recruits and let them stay at home. They should go and help the communities as …]

… ambassadors of this democracy. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, I hope that this time the call of the Chair has precedence over the call of nature! [Laughter.]

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Chairperson, I agree. I noticed that Messrs Mulder and Aucamp are plotting a coalition there. [Laughter.]

Firstly, may I express the department’s gratitude for the support that all the parties have expressed and given to the Bills. There are a few question which have been raised during the course of the debate, which are receiving the ongoing attention of the department. They include the question of the KwaZulu Self-Protection Units, the Cape Corps and similar issues.

With regard to the dissatisfaction that continues to emerge from the former forces, whether it is the Ciskei or Bophuthatswana Defence Force, the Cape Corps etc, I would like to urge hon members to recall the atmosphere around which this process began. Once an indication was given that people could demobilise and immediately access certain large amounts of money, many members of all these units and forces were tempted to take advantage of demobilisation in order to immediately access money, without taking the period that lies ahead into account.

In the transition period there were stories that abounded, and many of the people were misled by some of these rumours. Today we continue to receive delegations’ complaints, and when we look into the records, we are able to show that most of the people who are complaining actually took demobilisation and accessed money without realising what they were doing. Many of them have made that mistake. Nevertheless, every case that comes before the SANDF command structures is given very thorough attention. Documents and records are produced, and we will continue to do so, so that no single individual suffers unfairly.

The hon Aucamp raised the question as to when a Bill will be tabled to terminate affirmative action. I would just like to say that in so far as this Parliament is concerned, the National Defence Force must be representative of the country’s populace, so we will continue to focus on achieving that objective. Once that objective is achieved, there will be no need for any affirmative action or a Bill, because it will just fall off in so far as the command structures will have fulfilled the policy demands as dictated by this Parliament.

I would like to proceed, finally, to thanking my colleague the Deputy Minister for her contribution. But, more importantly, I wish to take this opportunity to thank my predecessors, Joe Modise and Ronnie Kasrils, who had no immediate precedent to follow in initiating the process that this legislation is dealing with, but were nevertheless able to lay foundations which have made the process flow as smoothly as it did. I take this opportunity to do so, alive to the fact that the health of my predecessor, Joe Modise, is not so well. We would like, before and together with this House, to express our gratitude to him on behalf of the people of our country, and to wish him well. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bills read a second time.

The House adjourned at 17:22. ____ ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 18 October 2001 in terms of
     Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as a section 75
     Bill:


     (i)     Labour Relations Amendment Bill [B 77 - 2001] (National
          Assembly - sec 75).


 (2)    The Minister of Trade and Industry submitted the
     Wysigingswetsontwerp op Loterye [W 81 - 2001] (National Assembly -
     sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 18 October 2001.
     This is the official translation of the Lotteries Amendment Bill
     [B 81 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), which was introduced
     in the National Assembly by the Minister on 16 October 2001.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly:

Papers:

1. The Speaker:

 Dr N B Pityana gave notice on 28 September 2001 of his resignation from
 the South African Human Rights Commission with effect from 31 December
 2001.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Interim Rationalisation of Jurisdiction of High Courts Bill [B 44 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 8 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Interim Rationalisation of Jurisdiction of High Courts Bill [B 44 - 2001] (National Assembly

   • sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 44A - 2001].

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security on the Security Industry Regulation Bill [B 12 - 2001] (National Assembly - 75), dated 16 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, having considered the subject of the Security Industry Regulation Bill [B 12 - 2001] (National Assembly - 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, presents the Private Security Industry Regulation Bill [B 12B - 2001] (National Assembly

   • 75).