TUESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2001 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:04.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms S K MNUMZANA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that African leaders gather in Nigeria today for the launch of the New Africa Initiative;

(2) further notes that the launch of the New Africa Initiative will be spearheaded by the architects of the plan, South African President, Thabo Mbeki, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika and Senegal’s Abdoulaye Wade;

(3) believes that the launching of the New Africa Initiative represents a significant milestone on the road to the economic development and prosperity of the continent and the realisation of the African Renaissance;

(4) welcomes the launch of the New Africa Initiative; and

(5) calls on the people of the continent and the international community to support the New Africa Initiative.

Mr D K MALULEKE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) expresses its concern at the latest evidence of xenophobia in Zandspruit informal settlement in Honeydew;

(2) condemns the intolerance of South African residents towards their neighbours of Zimbabwean origin;

(3) regrets the destruction of property and displacement of people; and

(4) calls on all people involved to show restraint and respect for the rights of others.

Mr M A MZIZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move: That the House -

(1) notes that the chief magistrate at Giyani Magistrate’s Court was arrested on 17 October 2001 for allegedly stealing R73 000 in maintenance money and beer worth about R10 000;

(2) congratulates the team of investigators who conducted the investigation that led to the arrest of the chief magistrate;

(3) strongly condemns such alleged behaviour, especially from a person in a position of authority; and

(4) recommends that, should the magistrate be found guilty, he be ordered to repay the alleged stolen money to the recipients with interest.

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

(1) notes the reports that Zimbabwean nationals were attacked by South Africans in Zandspruit informal settlement in Honeydew;

(2) further notes that South African nationals alleged that the Zimbabweans were responsible for taking the jobs of locals and for the high crime rate;

(3) believes that these violent actions against Zimbabweans are a reflection of xenophobic stereotypes and must be condemned;

(4) rejects these unwarranted attacks on foreign nationals; and

(5) calls on the police to bring the perpetrators to book.

Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move: That the House -

(1) notes with dismay the irresponsible remark made by Smuts Ngonyama, spin doctor in the office of the President, that the side-effects of antiretroviral drugs are just as bad as the illness;

(2) further notes that -

   (a)  it is accepted worldwide that antiretrovirals change the face of
       Aids from a certain  death  sentence  to  a  chronic  manageable
       disease; and


   (b)  antiretrovirals enhance the quality of life of HIV  victims  and
       can prevent mother-to-child transmission of the HI Virus; and

(3) calls on Mr Ngonyama not to abuse the new international guidelines for antiretroviral drugs to promote his own agenda and to defend the Government’s unjustifiable refusal to make antiretroviral drugs available in the public health system.

Prof L M MBADI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with disgust the ongoing maladministration, corruption and fraud-related crimes in the Department of Justice;

(2) further notes that over the past 2 years and 10 months an identified amount of R16,3 million has been stolen, plus another 32 cases involving unknown amounts, and only R1,08 million has been or will be paid back;

(3) expresses its concern at the fact that 1 049 person days were lost in the September strike by State Attorneys;

(4) calls upon the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to swiftly and mercilessly eradicate corruption in Government, thereby preventing the further disruption of justice and the exploitation of victims of crime; and

(5) further urges the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to get his house in order to enable the Department of Justice to play a positive role in fighting crime.

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

That the House -

(1) notes with grave concern the recent decision by the United States government to lift the ban on the use of political assassination as a weapon in its war on terrorism;

(2) notes also the alarming record of more than two hundred assassination attempts carried out by United States security services against one particular head of state before the imposition of the ban;

(3) further notes the dangerous environment that could be generated if other states followed the example of the United States; and

(4) therefore calls upon the government of the United States to reconsider its decision and to re-impose the ban on all political assassinations.

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

That the House -

(1) notes with horror that while the world focuses on fighting terrorism the bigger enemy of the human race escalates its diabolical activities with virtually no opposition;

(2) condemns the actions of Planned Parenthood in New York and the United Nations Population Fund, who are advancing their unscrupulous agenda in the name of charity, taking advantage of people when they are at their most vulnerable - in the wake of the collapse of the World Trade Centre, Planned Parenthood is offering free abortions to New Yorkers, and the UN is offering free abortions to Afghan refugees;

(3) notes that Planned Parenthood International is the world’s biggest nongovernmental abortion provider and has helped lobby for the legalisation of abortion in South Africa;

(4) acknowledges -

   (a)  that while the democratic world's  fight  against  terrorism  is
       understandable,  home-based  terrorists,  largely  sponsored  by
       American money, that is Planned Parenthood and the UN,  tally  a
       death toll second to none; and


   (b)  Planned Parenthood alone has killed more New Yorkers than  Osama
       bin Laden has and that these figures pale in comparison with the
       children they have murdered in Africa, Asia and  South  America;
       and

(5) calls on South Africans and the people of the world to recognise their most insidious enemy, thriving in their midst and protected by their own legislation, and to rally to eradicate this enemy who murders the unborn children of the world in broad daylight with the approval and encouragement of our governments.

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

That the House - (1) notes the current outbreak of violence in Zandspruit north west of Johannesburg between Zimbabweans and South Africans, which was sparked by allegations of Zimbabweans’ involvement in criminal activities and torturing of locals;

(2) calls on both parties to desist from further loss of life and spilling of blood, and to resort to an amicable resolution of their differences;

(3) calls for these allegations to be investigated to establish the truth because this situation has the potential to spread to other areas, fuelling xenophobia amongst South Africans and urban terror against innocent people; and

(4) recognises that it does not follow that if a person has been in South Africa illegally for ten years that the person qualifies to be a South African as is the case in Zandspruit.

Ms O R KASIENYANE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the National Female Farmer of the Year awards function was  held
       on 16 October 2001 at Kyalami in Johannesburg; and


   (b)  the National Female Farmer of the Year awards function was  held
       for the third time since the award's inception;

(2) believes that this serves as an incentive to encourage women to participate fully in farming;

(3) acknowledges that at present there are many obstacles to be overcome if women are to participate fully as equals in agriculture;

(4) calls on all women, particularly African women, to get involved in farming and agriculture;

(5) commends the Department of Agriculture for encouraging women to play their rightful role in agriculture; and

(6) congratulates the award winners and especially the overall winner, Ms Lumka Witbooi.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes the increase in the number of cases of child pornography under investigation;

(2) further notes that most Internet child pornography sites require credit card details before access is allowed; (3) welcomes the policy of at least one credit card company not to authorise such transactions; and

(4) calls on -

   (a)  all credit card companies to implement similar policies;


   (b)  Internet service providers to formulate a policy to identify and
       eradicate child pornography websites; and


   (c)  all South Africans to act to eradicate  child  pornography  from
       the Internet.

Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with extreme delight the manner in which five South African beaches fared in the Blue Flag Campaign thus getting the recognition of the International Blue Flag Jury for the 2001/2002 season;

(2) congratulates the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism on this venture;

(3) further notes that the history and profile of these beaches, namely the Lookout, Humewood, South Beach in KwaZulu-Natal, Margate Main in KwaZulu-Natal and Willard Beaches, will never be the same again as they will be centres of tourist attraction in terms of their cleanliness, scenery and tranquillity; and

(4) calls on the touring public to visit these beaches and to maintain their profile so that they remain a major financial and spiritual resource to all humans.

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

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the executive mayor of  Tshwane,  Father  Smangaliso  Mkhatshwa,
       handed over the completed phase one of the Stanza  Bopape  Sport
       Complex on 19 October 2001 to the Stanza Bopape community; and


   (b)  the handing-over ceremony was a significant gesture of honouring
       a stalwart of the liberation struggle of  the  people  of  South
       Africa, Comrade Johannes Maisha Stanza Bopape; and

(2) commends the City of Tshwane Metropolitan and Gauteng governments in joining forces to honour this icon of resistance.

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mev die Speaker, ek gee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis - (1) die ANC-regering regstreeks verantwoordelik hou vir Suid-Afrika se slegte paaie;

(2) daarvan kennis neem dat slegs 10% van die jaarlikse inkomste van R26 miljard uit padheffings en brandstofbelastings aan die instandhouding van paaie bestee word;

(3) verder kennis neem dat 10% van die 520 000 padongelukke jaarliks regstreeks deur slegte paaie veroorsaak word terwyl dit onregstreeks tot ‘n verdere 20% van alle padongelukke bydra; en

(4) die ANC-regering versoek om -

   (a)  sy begrotingsprioriteite opnuut te  rangskik,  meer  fondse  vir
       Suid-Afrika se vervoerstelsels te bewillig en die vermorsing van
       miljarde rand op mislukte  onderwys-  en  gesondheidstelsels  te
       staak; en


   (b)  spesiale regeringsuitgifte te oorweeg wat geoormerk sal wees  om
       die agteruitgang van Suid-Afrika se padstelsel te stop. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr W A ODENDAAL: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) holds the ANC Government directly responsible for South Africa’s poor roads;

(2) notes that only 10% of the annual revenue of R26 billion from road and fuel levies is being spent on road maintenance;

(3) further notes that 10% of the 520 000 road accidents per year are caused directly by poor road conditions, whilst these also contribute indirectly to a further 20% of all road accidents; and

(4) requests the ANC Government to -

   (a)  rearrange its budgeting priorities, vote more  funds  for  South
       Africa's transport systems and halt the wastage of  billions  of
       rands on failed education and health systems; and


   (b)  consider special state expenditure that  will  be  earmarked  to
       stop the deterioration of South Africa's road network.]

                     WELCOMING OF UN DELEGATION

The SPEAKER: Order! Before we proceed, I would like to ask hon members to acknowledge the presence in our midst of members of parliament from Botswana, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mauritius, Seychelles, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda who are sitting in the gallery. [Applause.] They are preparing for the UN Summit next year, and I am sure we will see them again. You are most welcome.

                             XENOPHOBIA

                         (Draft Resolution)

The ACTING CHIP WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes with concern the attacks on citizens of other countries who live in South Africa;

(2) further notes that xenophobia is an intolerance which was addressed at the World Conference against Racism;

(3) believes that as a rights-based constitutional state we are obligated to protect the human rights of all within our borders, including those who seek refuge from war, famine and oppression;

(4) recalls the support that we received from and the hospitality we were given by other countries when our people were fighting for democracy and transformation under apartheid;

(5) recognises that Parliament and members of Parliament have a special responsibility to address racism, xenophobia and related intolerance;

(6) commits itself to fighting xenophobia; and

(7) condemns the actions of those who take the law into their own hands and victimise citizens of other countries living within our communities.

Agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments that have been expressed and thank this House. … [Interjections.]

Mrs C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I had my hand up. The SPEAKER: Are you objecting?

Miss C DUDLEY: No, I have a motion.

The SPEAKER: No, I am still addressing the House. I will call for other motions.

Members will recall that in the debate last week I stressed the importance of Parliament and members not only addressing the issue of xenophobia and racism, but also conducting themselves and our debates in a manner that sets a national example. I thank you for this.

       RECOGNITION OF WORK DONE BY SOUTH AFRICA CARES FOR LIFE

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) applauds South Africa Cares For Life, which has served since 1996 as a nationwide networking body for pregnancy-care centres and homes for pregnant mothers in South Africa;

(2) notes that their concern for people in the community, especially many abandoned, orphaned and HIV/Aids babies and children in need of care resulted in Abba Baby Projects being founded in 1999 to provide babies and children with safe and loving care;

(3) recognises the exceptional vulnerability of these babies and the fact that they are entitled to special care and assistance;

(4) recognises the right of every child to a family and home they can call their own; and

(5) commends South Africa Cares For Life on the excellent work it is doing.

Agreed to. RECOGNITION OF THREAT POSED BY BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) recognises the real threat posed by biological terrorism, particularly the use of anthrax;

(2) notes that the latest death from anthrax in the United States was that of a postal worker handling post destined for the US Congress; and

(3) calls on the South African Government to -

   (a)  take all possible steps to limit the risk to postal workers  and
       Government employees handling departmental postal items; and
   (b)  ensure that hoaxers are dealt with very firmly indeed.

Agreed to.

 SECOND READING DEBATE ON VETERINARY AND PARA-VETERINARY PROFESSIONS
                           AMENDMENT BILL

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That, notwithstanding Rule 253, the Second Reading debate on the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Amendment Bill [B 66 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) be conducted on Thursday, 25 October 2001.

Agreed to.

               ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That, in accordance with Joint Rules 142 to 146 and subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, a Joint Budget Committee be established as follows:

(1) Composition : The committee to consist of -

   (a)  15 Assembly members of whom 9 must be from  the  majority  party
       and 6 from the opposition parties; and


   (b)  8 Council members of whom 5 must be from the majority party  and
       3 from the opposition parties.

(2) Functions: The committee to -

   (a)  analyse and debate the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement  that
       is to be tabled;


   (b)  conduct hearings on the Medium-Term  Expenditure  Framework  and
       the Division of Revenue Bill; and


   (c)  engage in the budgeting process throughout the budget  cycle  in
       order to allow Parliament to have an input during  the  drafting
       stage of the budget.

(3) Powers: The committee to exercise those powers in Joint Rule 32 that may assist it in carrying out its functions.

Agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF FACT-FINDING MISSION TO ISRAEL AND PALESTINE FROM 9 TO 19 JULY 2001

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, the National Assembly, this House passed a motion on 28 February this year resolving to send a multiparty parliamentary delegation to Palestine and Israel. This mission took place between 9 and 19 July 2001. The aim was to engage with public representatives, NGOs and CBOs in Palestine and Israel, to gain insight into the issues that are central to the conflict, to observe issues on the ground, to explore ways in which the South African Parliament could contribute towards a peaceful resolution of that conflict, and to present the report we have presented and its findings to this House.

This report reflects the views, opinions and information that we received from documents, on-site visits to areas of conflict and discussions at meetings with Palestinians and Israeli representatives, NGOs, CBOs and individuals. The report is written in a very simple, easy-to-read style. It includes a short historical background that covers the period from the end of World War I to the period of July 2001. It recognises that the issues that were identified in 1967 by UN Security Council Resolution 242 are still the central issues of that conflict today. These were and still are: Opposition to and rejection of the establishment of Jewish settlements on occupied territories, opposition to and rejection of Israel’s actions to change the status of Jerusalem, the right to existence within secure, internationally recognised boundaries of all states within the region, the attainment of the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

The report traces the various peace initiatives that have been undertaken, for example, the one in Madrid in 1991, Washington DC, which is also known as Oslo 1 in 1993, Oslo 2 in 1995, the Wye River Memorandum in 1998 and the Sharm Al’ Sheikh Memorandum that led to the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territories and the partial release of political prisoners. The report also takes a look at the 22% of the original Palestine which is now occupied by Israel and has been divided into areas A, B and C, very reminiscent of the Venda, KwaNdebele and KaNgwane Bantustan splinter area system.

Having stated the reasons for the first Intifada in 1987 - Intifada simply refers to Soweto-type uprisings; it is a popular uprising of the people, which is not planned, but comes about because people have grievances - the report then puts the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives and the reasons for this latest Intifada and the breakdown of the peace initiatives. We then look at international law practices and express a view on the rampant abuse of human rights. We reflect on the impact on the economy, women and children. As parliamentarians we also look at the impact the conflict has had on the Knesset and the PLC, and suggest the role parliamentarians should play to strengthen democracy in both Palestine and Israel.

We make recommendations. One of them is that, given that there is no military solution, and that the economies of Israel and Palestine have suffered, South Africa urges both parties to return to the negotiating table and to stop the violence. Furthermore, South Africa urges the immediate implementation of the Mitchell Report, the Egyptian-Jordanian Proposal, and the Tenet Plan under international supervision. These should supersede the proposals such as that of former President Clinton, the Taba Talks and Resolution 242 as the basis for future negotiation. South Africa encourages humanitarian aid by our Government and our civil society to Palestine, especially to the refugee camps. We also propose that people-to- people contact and dialogue be encouraged through trilateral relations between Palestine, Israel and South Africa.

Due to the high number of casualties that we witnessed, I would appeal that the South African Government investigate the possibility of voluntary service of South African medical interns in the region; that South Africa, through Parliament, invest in the development of democracy and democratic processes in Palestine and Israel; that the Speaker of the National Assembly be encouraged to foster and develop dialogue between the Israeli, Palestinian and South African parliaments; that the Parliament of South Africa express support for and encourage the resumption of the peace talks and also encourage the Nonaligned Movement to use their position on the Security Council; and that we encourage African countries as a collective and as individuals to do what they can for a peaceful resolution of the problem of Palestine and Israel.

As we table this report, we want to thank the Jewish Board of Deputies for the abundance of material they contributed to Parliament yesterday. We are very clear that we have not gone out there, spent taxpayers money, to go and write a historical masterpiece, neither did we say in any way that we were journalists and would come up with a journalistic prize-winning article. We wrote what we wrote because of what we saw and what we heard.

The report also draws a parallel between apartheid South Africa and the situation that is obtaining now in Palestine. I want to assert our position on this, and say that as people who have been oppressed, as people who believed in the freedom of the individual and of a people, there is no way that South Africans, those of us who profess to understand, to love and to fight for democracy, can keep quiet, when we have seen abuse of human rights, children deprived of their rights, women in despair, old people living under tents and having no place to stay. It would be very wrong and amount to what Dambudzo Marechera refers to as ``silence perjured’’, if we keep quiet.

I table this report for consideration and in so doing, I wish to thank Mr Max and Ms Booyseen Magdi, Simon Cardi and Dr Leon Gabriel. [Applause.]

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, when Parliament voted in February of this year, to send a fact-finding delegation to the Middle East in order to better understand the escalation in the violence there, a distinguished fact- finding mission was already at work. It was set up by President Bill Clinton and Secretary-General Kofi Annan on behalf of the participants at the second Sharm Al’ Sheikh Peace Summit held last October. That fact- finding committee included the EU’s Mr Javier Solana and Senator George Mitchell after whom its report is named.

The Mitchell Report is considered authoritative, it is fair and even- handed, and I intend to address the two main problems it identifies for this speech. They are terrorism and settlement, because the delegation’s report remains skewed towards the standard pro-Palestinian position, citing the usual charge sheet of infringement of human rights by Israel, while omitting any serious treatment of the lynchings, suicide bombings and so forth which prompt the closures, curfews and restrictions in the first place. [Interjections.] In fact, the report puts the words ``terrorism’’ in inverted commas. That is obscene and we will not lend our name to such a thing.

The taking of innocent life is forbidden in all three of our Abrahamic religions and there is no difference that I can see between doing so in Manhattan, a Jerusalem pizzeria or a Tel Aviv discotheque. [Interjections.]

An HON MEMBER: Or in Afghanistan.

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, when the delegation had an audience with Mr Arafat in Gaza this July, he told us that he would expect something concrete from us. No doubt the report is that concrete thing. But, the rich irony of it all is that this report now works, I think, against the current position of Mr Arafat following the exposure of the true contours of the problem in the Middle East and beyond.

I think that Robert Fisk must be right when he says that for Osama bin Laden, the terrorist onslaught is primarily about Saudi Arabia. For his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, however, speaking first on the Al Jazeera tape, which was screened after the 11 September attack, it is far more pointedly, and I quote directly the translation during the first broadcast, about the existence of Israel, which he called: ``A continuous crime for 50 years, in whose creation and support America is implicated.’’ Now, Ayman al Zawahiri was himself implicated in the assassination of his President Anwar Sadat for making peace between Egypt and Israel. For both of them it is also about much more, it is about the way the West brought the Ottoman empire to a close, in the case of Bin Laden, and it is about the end of Islamic rule in Andalusia in 1492, for Al Zawahiri, on Fisk’s analysis drawing on that of academics.

One can pick up transcripts of sermons with the same theme broadcast on Palestinian TV anytime on the Internet. Here is just one sample from Gaza a few weeks ago and I quote: ``We are not expecting a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. We are heralding an Islamic caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital.’’ This report refuses to address incitement. One can believe Mary Robinson, the UN Human Righs Commissioner, as I do, that Palestinian TV broadcasts incitement to kill Jews, or one can decide to question, as the report does, the many Israeli peace leaders who expressed their shock to us at the injunction, also broadcast on Palestinian media, to throw away their toys and become suicide bombers.

It is truth time for Mr Arafat, it is time to choose between those organisations and factions who are serious about settlement and those who continue to conduct terror, because they continue to want to destroy Israel. Now that it is truth time, what the Mitchell Report said in April, is that there is not a 100% effort by the Palestinians to condemn, prevent and punish terrorism. I believe that Mr Arafat himself clearly sees that it is truth time, making it clear both verbally and by donating blood, that his heart bled for the USA and he did the right thing.

Palestinian police reportedly now shoot live ammunition at his own stone- throwing opponents in Gaza, rendering the treatment of the Israeli response to the same phenomenon not academic but part of the debate which especially humanrights based societies, which Palestine is not, now all need to engage. How does one effectively engage religious fundamentalism without ruining human rights?

I am always ready to accept the judgement of Prof John Dugard, who chaired a United Nations Human Rights Commission of inquiry a year ago and who concluded that Israel uses excessive disproportionate force. I accept his judgement. [Interjections.] But, I wonder if his commission would today still rule in the same way on the question which caused it in its own words equivocation and doubt, before deciding against Israel. It is whether there is a noninternational armed conflict, defined in the Tadic case as protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups. Israel argues that the threshold for armed conflict has been met and that Palestinian violence is organised and orchestrated. Palestinians say that the Intifada is an uprising of civilians instigated by loosely organised elements not properly organised groups. I have to ask, how can they be not properly organised groups when Islamic Jihad runs schools for young suicide bombers in Gaza?

It is because this is the legal question on which the human rights verdict rests that the disputed version of the origins of the current violence is so central. The first Intifada, as we know, was the stone-throwing and spontaneous uprising of Palestinians living for the first time under Israeli occupation after the Six Day War in 1967. Palestinians did not rise up, however, for self-determination when they were living under Egyptian occupation in Gaza or Jordanian occupation in the West Bank following the 1948 war. [Interjections.] That was a war which they all waged together unsuccessfully against the one-day old infant Israel. I asked Palestinian MPs in Gaza, with whom it is possible to discuss these matters on a more rational basis than with my colleagues, how they explained this. [Interjections.] They said that the Arab kings had cheated them.

Now, I have no doubt that the first Intifada was a genuine assertion of the Palestinian self, as opposed to the Pan-Arab identity. And, I have no doubt that the Palestinians today feel humiliated by their miserable conditions, and justifiably so. But I do not doubt that the conditions today are shaped, at least partially, by the sniping, the mortar and suicide bombs which now accompany the stones and, indeed the Mitchell Report accepts that. [Interjections.]

The second or Al Aqsa Intifada, following Mr Sharon’s symbolic police- escorted visit to the Temple Mount to outflank the challenge from Benjamin Netanyahu, is said to be spontaneous by all the Palestinians whom we questioned on this matter … [Interjections] … despite the fact that two of Mr Arafat’s own Ministers have said that it was planned from the moment Mr Arafat caused negotiations for the final stages of the two-state solution to break down last July. [Interjections.]

One of the many Palestinian intellectuals who gave us a nuanced interpretation of events over many small cups of the Turkish coffee to which I have now become addicted, told us that``Sharon had wakened sleeping horses’’. The question is, what sort of horses? I was struck by an account in Ha’aretz, while we were there, of the very last interview given before his death in May by Faisal Husseini, late of Orient House. He said that, like the Greeks who hid inside the wooden horse in Troy, the time had come for Palestinians to emerge from the wooden horse of Oslo. The exit from the horse, he said, was the Intifada, and its goal the liberation of all historical Palestine from the river to the sea, even if it took 1 000 years.

The PLO was founded on the principle that it would never recognise Israel. The Oslo Accords reversed that position and that, of course, is where Mr Arafat’s problem lies. He has always united divergent Arab factions around opposition to the existential rights of the Israelis. Will he be the Arab personality who finally legitimises the Jewish state? That is the question, the Israelis told us.

The Oslo principles have been under halting implementation since 1994 and they include the creation of the Palestinian Authority itself, which has full control of certain towns and areas, and has civil and police but not security control of others and no control of the so-called C areas. It is this negotiated fragmentation that is often described as a Bantustan arrangement - it is a negotiated arrangement. Its success has been bedevilled by, among other factors, the second main problem that Mitchell identifies and that is Israel’s ongoing settlement activity. It must be frozen, as president after American president has told Israel, while Israel went on building and expanding, and as Mitchell also tells Israel.

Land lies at the heart of the matter in the Middle East. Nearly 20 years after its creation, the Jewish state suddenly found itself in possession of the whole of the historic lands west of Jordan. Its victory in the Six Day War, once again, was provoked by the Arab states mobilising to sweep the Jewish state into the sea. [Interjections.] Why deny what they said? This time, the war swept Jordan out of the West Bank and Egypt out of Gaza instead.

In the view of the writer Thomas Friedman, Israel spent the next 20 years avoiding settlement and in paralysis, at least partially, because much as they hoped that the Arabs would negotiate land for peace, they fell in love with especially the West Bank, the real historic homeland Jericho, Hebron, and the old Jerusalem. They are not the same as Tel Aviv and the coastal plains.

The Oslo Agreement, of course, started the break-up at that heartland. Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton tried to bring the final status issues to closure at Camp David last July but failed because Mr Arafat turned down an offer including more than 90% of the occupied lands. [Interjections.] The risks that Ehud Barak was prepared to take, and the quality of the leadership that he was prepared to exercise are now lost. [Interjections.]

Here is the question: Will Yasser Arafat rise to the occasion this time with the whole anti-terrorist world ready to help him choose sides in favour of the peaceful organisations? [Interjections.] Because, when all is said and done, the issue is still the recognition of Israel. The beast slouching towards Bethlehem is causing things to fall apart on a scale none of us thought we would live to see and the Middle East is vulnerable to it in quite a unique way. [Applause.]

Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, hon members, the representatives of the DP, the New NP and the IFP who were on the delegation to Israel and Palestine have all objected to the report before the House today on the basis that it is biased. We stress that it is the representatives of these parties who hold this opinion because I am not convinced that they necessarily convey the views of all or even the majority of the members of certain parties. [Interjections.] Their parties will have to pronounce for themselves at the end of this debate where they stand on this matter. [Interjections.]

If by bias, these hon members mean that the report approaches the Israel- Palestine conflict from the point of view of a principled support for the national liberation of peoples, a desire to see a lasting peace and stability in the Middle East, and opposition to gross violations of human rights then, certainly, the report is biased towards these ideals.

Because the ANC has consistently said that the struggle of the Palestinian people is a struggle for national liberation, it is very similar to the struggle of the South African people for national liberation against apartheid colonialism. [Interjections.] And this lies at the heart of the conflict, not the issues that Ms Smuts has tried to place before the House, that is issues of incitement, who has incited so-and-so more than the other, and questions of Pan-Arab identity. Those are not the matters that lie at the heart of this conflict.

The delegation observed, and the report reflects these observations, that the Palestinian people face all-round social, economic, cultural and racial oppression and discrimination. From the South African perspective it is, indeed, very difficult to avoid seeing parallels between this oppression and the oppression of the black South Africans under apartheid.

This perspective is in keeping with international consensus that has developed in international law and the decisions of international multilateral organisations. As far back as 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied after 1967, and called for the termination of all claims or state of belligerency and respect for, and acknowledgement of, the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats and acts of force. [Interjections.]

In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly resolved to confer observer status on the PLO and reaffirm the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty and the right of refugees to return. [Interjections.] I can write, unlike that member. It is not a problem at all. [Interjections.]

Now, likewise, many of the demands that have been made regarding adherence to humanitarian law find their basis in international law, the resolutions of international bodies and international governance. The fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 clearly deals with the matter of how an occupying force should conduct itself in an occupied territory. It is clear from the report that that is not being complied with by the Israeli state.

I would just like to say, in conclusion, that the perspectives that are put forward in this report and its recommendations are not anti-Israel. Neither this report, nor the policy of the South African Government nor that of the ANC is anti-Israel. We recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist, inter alia, on the basis of the fact that we recognise the suffering of the Jewish people, just as we recognise the fact that the Palestinian people are suffering.

It is on that basis that we appeal to this House to adopt this report, and to adopt the very constructive recommendations that it makes, and we also direct an appeal to the South African people to come together and demonstrate solidarity with the people of Palestine, but also to reach out to both the Palestinian and the Israeli people and to share the experiences that we have accumulated in our struggle for national liberation to try to reach a lasting peace in South Africa. [Applause.] Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the members of the delegation, as well as the officials, for an extremely interesting exercise. Especially Mama wethu [our Mother], our leader, who is a real Mama, full of wonderful stories. We travelled like a close family together, and the only regret we had was that most of us, especially myself, ate too much.

I wish to deal with the report, which is a good product and contains useful information. In my opinion, the report should have been guided by three main principles, namely that we are not to side with any one of the parties, we must urge them to stop the violence and, we must urge them to negotiate.

The report, unfortunately, tends to take sides, and we saw the petticoats showing from the previous two speakers, Ms Smuts, no matter how much she wanted to hide it by giving the impression that she favoured the Israelis, and the ANC member favouring the Palestinians. [Interjections.]

We feel that we can agree with some of the recommendations, but some of them we cannot accept. However, as the report is only one small part of a very massive exercise, disagreeing with some recommendations does not prevent us from agreeing with other recommendations and most other issues.

The report contains ten recommendations, and I could live with about half of them. Recommendations two to ten deal with the introduction of the international monitoring group. The Israelis reject this proposal and the Palestinians support it. Therefore, should we support that idea, we will be seen as taking sides. I therefore cannot support this. [Interjections.] I will never be on the side of that, hon Minister.

Recommendation three deals with the humanitarian aid by South Africa to Palestine only. Again, we cannot be seen to take sides. However, if the recommendation was that humanitarian aid was to be extended to both parties, we would certainly support that.

Two of the recommendations deal with assistance in the peace process by international bodies such as NAM, the IPU, the CPA and SADC. Although one, naturally, encourages all forms of assistance, I must point out that the Israelis all blame NAM for siding with the Palestinians. Also, the IPU passed a resolution in Jakarta last year against Israel, and is seen as siding with the Palestinians. Therefore, these international bodies can, no doubt, play a very crucial part in the peace process, but then they should not contaminate the process by taking sides.

The delegation spent four to five days each with the Israelis and the Palestinians. We conducted interviews with all of them, Foreign Minister Peres, Mr Arafat and many others. We travelled to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah and Gaza and were inundated with information, allegations and documents.

We were told that the Middle East problems were thousands of years old and started in the days of Father Abraham, who had two sons, Isaac and Ismael, who, I am given to understand, are the fathers of the Palestinians and the Israelis. However, what confused the issue was that each side appeared to have perfect answers. When one asks the one side, they give one a perfect answer, which is refuted by the other side. Let me give members some examples.

The Israelis say they have made a wonderful offer to the Palestinians, by returning 97% of their land to them, but, they say, this very generous offer was rejected by Arafat. One then tends to agree that the Palestinians are wrong. They should have accepted this wonderful offer. One then asks the Palestinians why they refused such a good offer, and they immediately explain that it was not a good offer, but a bad one. Firstly, they say, it was not 97% of the land, but less. Major roads and strategic areas were kept out. So, that brings one back to confusion.

In Hebron, the Palestinians asked us what a few hundred Israelis were doing in Hebron, which is a Palestinian town. One tends to agree with them. Then we asked the Israelis why they had a few hundred people in Hebron, a Palestinian town. They said wait a bit, their King David lived and ruled in Hebron, and he wrote some of the Biblical psalms in Hebron. So, what right do the Palestinians have to keep them away from Hebron?

Looking at the issues as both sides have told them, in my opinion there appears to be about six main problems. Three of them are: independence for the Palestinian state, security for the Israelis, and withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Palestinian areas.

Israelis will agree with one that Palestine should be independent but, in return, they demand security. They say that once Israel feels safe and secure, it would withdraw its troops from the Palestinian areas. The basic requirement, therefore, appears to be security. Israel is extremely concerned about security and alleges that an average of 13 incidents of violence occur per day. Until such time as the violence stops, there cannot be movement towards peace.

Problem number four is the return of the Palestinian refugees. There are around four million Palestinians who have fled the area since the late 1940s. UN General Assembly Resolution 242 permits them to return on certain conditions, but some of those conditions are rejected by the Israelis. The main reason seems to be that if millions of Palestinians return to Israel, and there is an election, the votes of the Palestinian people will be far more than those of the Israelis, and they will lose their state.

Problem number five concerns the Israeli settlers who settled in Palestinian areas, especially after the Six Day War. The United Nations resolved, in Resolution 242, and in subsequent resolutions, that these settlers should return to Israel. I gained the impression from talking to some of the settlers that they may leave Palestinian territories. It seems as if this is not an insurmountable problem.

The sixth problem concerns Jerusalem and the holy places. Who is to occupy what part of Jerusalem and under what conditions? Who is to control the holy places? Many wise men of the world have tried to find a solution for this. I am certainly at a loss to suggest any solution. [Interjections.] Of all the attempts in the last decade to secure peace in the Middle East … [Interjections.] I will ask women what the answer is. As the hon member can see, there is no answer! [Laughter.]

Of all the many attempts in the last decade to secure peace in the Middle East, the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Proposals published earlier this year, achieved significant success, because they were accepted by both sides. Mitchell and Tenet made three main recommendations, namely to end the violence, rebuild confidence and resume negotiations.

In conclusion, the question before us today is how this Parliament could be of assistance in encouraging a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, and the answer, in my opinion, is contained in the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Proposals. Accordingly, I suggest that this Parliament should, with respect, do the following: Firstly, encourage both parties to stop the violence; secondly, give them time to rebuild confidence, and thirdly, encourage both parties to resume negotiations.

I wish to add a fourth rider to this. We must not take sides, because if we do side with one group, we alienate the other and that contaminates the peace process. That is exactly, with due respect, the mistake I think that the ANC and the DP are making because, by siding with one group, they are alienating the other and they will contaminate the negotiation process.

Therefore, finally, we recommend that as both the Israelis and the Palestinians have accepted the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Proposals, but are not implementing them, the appropriate thing is for both parties to implement those proposals. And if any of us really want to do something for the Middle East, there is only one thing that I suggest: Let us pray for them. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, there is a serious debate going on in the House. Would you please not have your private meetings here!

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, the fact that the Middle East conflict needs to be resolved is an understatement. The mere fact that the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon took place on exactly the same date as the day on which Palestine was placed under British mandate in 1917 speaks for itself.

South Africa and the South African Parliament are well-equipped to facilitate peace in the area and should indeed take on this responsibility. Israel is South Africa’s biggest trading partner in the Middle East, oil excluded. The governing party in Parliament has a long-standing relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Both conflicting parties trust South Africa and told the fact-finding mission that they wanted to learn from our experience. However, in order to retain the trust of both parties, and to facilitate peace effectively in the area, South Africa will have to demonstrate its impartiality. We have, thus far, dismally failed to do so.

Hon Minister Asmal’s statement during a reception for President Arafat that South Africa cannot be neutral in order to facilitate peace, and the ANC equating Zionism with racism on its website are cases in point. Unfortunately, the report under discussion follows the same trend, which makes it impossible for the New NP to support it. Although Dr Gabriel worked hard and put much effort into it, the report was compiled incorrectly.

One section should have reflected, objectively, the viewpoint of the Israelis without any comment. Another section should have reflected the viewpoint of the Palestinians objectively, again without any comment. A third section should have contained the conclusions by the mission, whilst the last section should have catered for the recommendations made by the mission.

Instead of doing this, the report leans heavily in favour of the viewpoint put by the Palestinians whilst the Israeli point of view is constantly subjected to comment by the compilers of that report. Let me quote only one example, although there are many others. On page 27 of the report it says, and I quote:

The Mayor of Jerusalem indicated that public opinion polls consistently showed that Palestinian Jerusalemites preferred to be governed by Israel rather than by the Palestinian National Authority.

Then follows the comment by the compilers, which was supposed to reflect the Israeli point of view:

In subsequent meetings with the Palestinians this was reported to be disputed by people on the ground.

Israel’s nonadherence to international humanitarian law and their abuses of human rights are overplayed, whilst those of the Palestinians are hardly mentioned. Initially the report was silent on contraventions by the Palestinians of the first protocol of the 4th Geneva Convention which strictly forbids any attacks on soft targets in times of war or conflict. Fortunately, the amendment put by the DA to rectify this omission was accepted by the fact-finding mission. To equate what the report calls the oppression experienced by Palestinians with apartheid is also invalid and an open attempt to isolate Israel internationally because apartheid has already been condemned as a crime against humanity.

The conflict in the Middle East, and Mr Van der Merwe pointed the same issue out, is extremely complicated. It emanates from religious, political and cultural events which took place thousands of years ago. Therefore, it is impossible for a fact-finding mission which spent only 10 days in the area to pass judgment. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the report is doing - it is passing judgement.

Demonising either Israel or the Palestinians is counterproductive and will not help the peace process. Parliament should instead go out of its way to encourage people-to-people contact and dialogue through trilateral relations between Palestine, South Africa and Israel, as recommended in the report. Naturally, this would not be achieved without being impartial. As stated in the report, there is no military or violent solution to the problem.

The South African Parliament must encourage both parties - this has also been pointed out by the hon Smuts and the hon Van der Merwe - to implement the Mitchell Report and the Tenet plan which, inter alia, provide for: Firstly, a comprehensive cease-fire; secondly, a cooling-off period, perhaps something that the DA also needs at this point in time … [Laughter] … thirdly, there should be a denouncement of terrorism by the Palestinian National Authority; fourthly, pre-emptive operations against terrorists by the Palestinian National Authority; fifthly, freezing of all settlement construction by Israel; sixthly, lifting of closures on Palestinian areas by Israel; and, lastly, the transfer of all tax revenues owed to the Palestinian National Authority. Implementation of the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Plan will pave the way for further negotiations with a view to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 242, with an independent Palestinian state and the right of the state of Israel to exist in peace, as its core elements. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Negotiations could continue where the Taba Talks left off. Believe it or not, a Taba series of principles were established for the settlement of the refugee problem which, till then, seemed to be insurmountable. The two sides even grew closer to each other on sensitive issues such as security, borders and the position of Jerusalem, which clearly demonstrates that a permanent peace settlement is possible.

An alarming discovery made by the fact-finding mission was that the politicians on both sides failed to prepare the electorate for the sacrifices needed for a peaceful settlement. If Mr Arafat should make concessions, he runs the risk of being replaced by a Hamas extremist. If an Israeli prime minister should make concessions, he also runs the risk of either being outsted during elections like Mr Barak or even assassinated, as was the case with the late Mr Rabin.

In South Africa’s case, both constituencies were well prepared for the sacrifices that had to be made. Sacrifices will have to be made by both Israelis and Palestinians. This is one message that we as South African parliamentarians must convey to our counterparts in Israel and Palestine.

The leader of the fact-finding mission, the hon Thandi Modise, conducted our deliberations on the report in a fair and just manner. She also gave us ample opportunity to move amendments. If more of these amendments had been accepted in order to balance the report, we could have supported it. Unfortunately, we will now have to do the opposite.

Mr E I EBRAHIM: Madam Speaker and hon members, in July this year, on the final day of our fact-finding mission to Israel and Palestine, we came face to face with young children who were part of a mock election at a school. Even at that tender age, children were thrust into the political debates and realities of war that consume their daily lives. A young girl of eight years gave us a message and asked that it be relayed to the South African Parliament on our return. Some three months later, I stand here as a humble messenger of this young girl, who pleaded for her voice to be heard. Today she has a platform and I want hon members to hear the message for themselves. All she asks for is the right to sleep, the right to live and the right to dream.

When children go to bed in Palestine they experience nightmares and wake up screaming as they hear the Israeli helicopter gunships and B52 bombers pound their towns at night. As demonstrated last week, little children are easy targets for the mighty Israeli defence force. I can remember the days when our own children were also asking for the right to dream. They were making such pleas in similar circumstances. Let members cast their minds back to those dark nights when gunfire pierced the night skies and women’s screams paralysed children with fear in their beds. Teargas and live ammunition ripped through our neighbourhoods with chilling consequences. Those days of terror are easy to forget in times of peace and reconciliation.

It was in those dark days that we knew who our friends were. We relied on their solidarity and depended on them to make our voices heard on the international stage. It was their loyalty and active commitment that helped to rid this nation of the scourge of apartheid. Now that we sit here in this Assembly with our freedom, our young democracy and all the opportunities that our African Renaissance presents, we cannot turn a blind eye to the immense suffering of our Palestinian friends.

No amount of documentation or testimonial could have served as adequate preparation for what was witnessed on this mission. There are simply no words to describe the suffering of entire families who live under virtual house arrest in areas of Palestinian occupied territories. By house arrest I mean 24-hour curfews that last for an indeterminate period of time. We have heard about the imposition of curfews before but, to see what it means to be confined to one’s home for weeks on end, with no respite to buy groceries, seek medical treatment, go to school or earn a living, is a shocking reality check.

Children who dare to run into the street to get fresh air and expend pent- up energy risk being shot in the back without any questions asked. If one walks into a section of Hebron, and if one casts one’s eyes about, one sees the abandoned and desolate marketplace and small balconies crowded with children. Outdoor games consist of flying makeshift kites made of shopping bags tied to strings. The fear in the children’s eyes was evidenced by the trauma of a young girl, barely a few years old, who emerged from a house out of curiosity to see what was happening whilst we were there. On seeing an Israeli soldier, she ran back into her house in panic and fear.

The use of excessive force, against little Palestinian children in particular, must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It is unacceptable that Israeli forces retaliate against Palestinian stone- throwers with rubber-coated metal bullets, teargas, live ammunition, heavy machinegun fire and rockets. Recent statistics have now shown that 83% of injuries sustained by children are in the upper half of the body. The percentage of injuries sustained from live ammunition has also risen from 20% to 82%. Such naked force cannot be exerted against any civilian population, least of all young children.

In a Palestinian rehabilitation centre we witnessed little children maimed and brutalised, many in wheelchairs. X-rays show that they were wounded by Israeli bullets that fragmented on impact, thereby causing maximum damage to bone and tissue. Various x-rays showed that even with external orthopaedic fixation devices, no bone regeneration or formation could be achieved.

The current situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has an enormously negative impact on the Palestinian education system. Schools have been closed or are unable to operate due to Israeli-imposed closures. The Israeli military has taken over schools in Hebron to use them as military posts.

As we interviewed officials and civil society representatives on both sides of the divide what became clear is that Israel is an apartheid state and it is time that, as people with a conscience, we begin to call a spade a spade. The same vestiges of our own apartheid system that we fought so hard to dismantle are being implemented with a vengeance in an area of the world that has been called the place on earth which is the shortest route between humans and God. Nowhere has racism reared its ugly head so viciously and a system of apartheid been exercised with such precision.

The world is familiar with the tenets of Israel’s total strategy against Palestinians, which includes rage communities, extrajudicial killings, torture, curfews, detention without trial, passes and excessive force. These are the same tactics that were used in apartheid South Africa. If the Palestinian people are to realise self-determination, as is supported by numerous UN resolutions, the issue will have to be internationalised as a human rights issue, not a Muslim-Jewish issue. Religious leaders we spoke to in Jerusalem themselves insisted that the conflict was not a religious one, but rather a struggle between Palestinians and Israeli’s over land, which has led to the gross violation of human rights.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered Palestinians the most generous offer ever by an Israeli prime minister at Camp David in July 2000. The Palestinian refusal defied logic. Palestinians did not see the Israeli offer at Camp David as even a basis for negotiation. Prime Minister Barak had, in fact, offered 87%, and only under pressure from President Clinton did he adjust it to 91%, with the land swop of 1%.

The Israeli proposal was that Israel would control the borders with Jordan in the east and Egypt in the south, and control Palestinian airspace. Israel would also maintain military bases along the eastern border with Jordan. Israel also insisted on controlling bypass roads running through Palestine, something that would effectively divide the territory into three cantons. This would have failed to leave the consolidated Palestine area as a contiguous landmass.

Had these stipulations been accepted, Palestine would hardly have considered itself a sovereign state according to international norms and standards. At best, it would have been viewed as a protectorate or a glorified Bantustan. Yasser Arafat himself stated that had he accepted such a deal, the negotiators would be dancing on his grave.

Israel is implementing a shrewd military strategy of destroying Palestinian property and establishing Jewish settlements in a systematic land grab. During our visit, 12 Palestinian homes in Jerusalem were bulldozed to the ground by the Israeli army, and in Gaza about 14 houses were similarly destroyed. Palestine is littered with detroyed family homes. As one travels through the West Bank and sees the wide condominiums and town houses of up- market Jewish settlements, one can see how these have spread across the hilltops like a cancer.

The situation in the Palestine areas has become increasingly desperate in recent months, with the economy having been brought to a virtual standstill as a result of Israeli-enforced curfews, roadblocks and the withholding of revenue. Israel has instituted a policy of internal closure, effectively sealing off Palestinian population centres and restricting movement from one locality to another. It is clear that the Israeli policy of internal closure has devastated the Palestinian economy, and it constitutes a form of economic warfare in Israel’s attempt to undermine the Palestinian uprising.

Laws have been designed to reduce the Arab population in the Holy City, to the extent that if a Palestinian man who lives in Jerusalem marries a woman from Ramallah, he will not be allowed to have his wife come and live with him in Jerusalem. Those who lived under apartheid would know what that means. If he subsequently moves to Ramallah, he loses the legal right to live in Jerusalem.

As part of their efforts to demoralise the Palestinians, the Israeli government has engaged in wanton destruction of olive trees in the Palestinian area, many of which were planted during Roman times hundreds of years ago. The Palestinians sell the olive oil to most Arab countries, although in recent years Israel has bulldozed and destroyed 70% of the olive trees.

The method of torture used by Israelis in detention echoes the stories of those who walked out of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission of sleep deprivation, starvation, beatings, being drenched in hot and cold water, being tied to a chair, rape and all sorts of methods of torture that continue to be documented by human rights organisations.

As was the case in apartheid South Africa, Israel’s institutionalised system of racism is not only destructive internally, but also destabilises the entire region and poses one of the greatest threats to world peace and security. Recently this threat has become more acute, and the need for international action has become even more urgent, because of Israel’s escalation of its unilateral war on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories. This form of racism constitutes a crime against humanity and must be combated.

The defining difference between the ANC and the DP-led opposition is our recognition of the fundamental right of people to resist military occupation of their land, and we make no apologies for that. Talk of Israeli security is a pretext, like that of the old apartheid state, to commit horrendous crimes against the Palestinian people. The only threat to Israel security is its wanton destruction of Palestinian property and its economy, and its total onslaught to destroy the Palestinian people.

When we speak of agitation, we must note the comment made by an Israeli mother in the documentary Judgment Day shown last night, when she revealed how six-year-old Israeli children are taught to hate Arabs because they say Arabs smell, and, according to them, a good Arab is a dead Arab. Israeli children too should have the right to live and the right to dream, but Ariel Sharon makes this impossible.

In the abovementioned documentary shown last night, an Israeli mother who lost a very young child in a recent suicide bombing was asked about her feelings, and in her reply she said she did not blame the suicide bombers. I hope Ms Dene Smuts is listening to that. [Interjections.] She does not blame the suicide bombers, but she blames the Israeli government for creating conditions for such suicide bombers to exist. What a different response from a mother who lost a child than from Ms Dene Smuts!

The editorial of The Sunday Independent last week said and I quote:

Just as Hector Petersen has come to symbolise a generation of black youth committed to liberation, so has Mohammed Al-Dora, the twelve-year old Palestinian boy shot by Israeli soldiers while being sheltered by his father in Gaza in September last year come to symbolise a generation of Palestinian youth determined to achieve statehood and end Israeli occupation of their land.

The greatest favour that the Israelis could do for humanity is for them to pack their bags and leave Palestinian land altogether with their army and their settlers. It is only then that peace will reign for all the people in the Holy Land, and little girls will once again have the right to live, to sleep, to play and to dream. [Applause.]

Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Speaker, hon members, the report before us reflects one of the most intractable and controversial areas of conflict in the world today.

The UDM is firmly of the opinion that the solution to this conflict lies in the recognition and acceptance, by both Israel and Palestine, of the reality and legitimacy of each other’s claim to exist as a sovereign state. The seeds of this dispute are strewn along the troubled course of the region’s history, and both groups trace their claims to the land back over many centuries.

The UDM rejects the abuse of human rights for any cause, and therefore believes that South Africa must make its voice heard loud and clear that we do not support the domination of any group by another in the Middle East. South Africa must commit itself to a truly international mediated peace settlement that will guarantee the sovereignty, independence and self- determination of all the people in the Middle East. The UDM believes that the current forum for implementing and monitoring agreements involving only Palestine, Israel and the USA must be expanded.

Section 4 highlights various issues of contention between Israel and Palestine. It appears to us that both sides claim that the other is provoking them into taking actions relating to the other’s actions. It is clear from the varying perspectives of the two sides that there is a huge disparity in their views of the dispute. Blame and retaliation seem to characterise much of their relationship, which lies at the heart of the difficulty in finding a peacefully negotiated solution to the dispute.

However, the UDM regards matters pertaining to violations of international humanitarian law, as noted in the report, in a very serious light. We unreservedly condemn the occurrence of woeful and extrajudicial killings, torture, unlawful confinement of protected persons, unjustified military destruction of property, the use of illegal ammunition, excessive use of military force against innocent civilians and collective punishments. As far as the report notes, these transgressions are committed by one stakeholder. The UDM is of the opinion that no country or nation is justified in using these means and, in so doing, committing crimes and violating human rights.

In addition, the report notes that Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the occupied territories have committed violence against each other. However, the weight of historical evidence suggests that there exists a relationship of political and military inequality between the two sides, with Israel imposing, by military force and brutality, a sociopolitical dispensation which is completely unacceptable to the Palestinians. The implementation of these abusive measures cannot be condoned. It is reminiscent of political and military tactics that were used in this country and that we have recently bid farewell to.

As as far as section 7 of the report is concerned, regarding women in the Intifada, we support the assertion that the issue of women’s participation is not the question but rather an answer to the situation. Only the hard- hearted will not be able to sympathise with the sentiments of mothers on both sides of the conflict who watch in despair as their children die not knowing that no permanent solution can be reached through violence.

It is vital that today we recognise the strong South African ethnic links to both sides in this conflict. We must not allow our ethnic sentiments to cloud our objectivity in evaluating the situation and the suggestions as encompassed in the report. A partisan approach will widen the gap.

Although this report contains certain flaws, nothing in life is perfect, but it reflects the situation that is currently prevailing in the territory. As a result, the UDM will support the recommendations in this report. [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, although the ACDP was not part of the delegation that went to Israel and Palestine, it is clear that the delegates that were there do not agree on the report.

The report seems to have some omissions and biases. One serious omission is that there is no mention of the historical and religious Jewish link with the land of Israel. Instead the historical overviews begin in 1922, as if there was no Jewish connection to Israel/Palestine prior to this date. Nowhere in the report is it stated why the land of Israel has been and continues to be of such significance to Jewish people all over the world.

The history of Israel that we read about in the Bible relates to events that took place hundreds of years before 1922. The report should have recognised that important fact. The issue of Jerusalem, for example, is linked in the Bible to Israel and Juda. This fact has also not been acknowledged. If we want to succeed in promoting peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine, then all the historical and archeological facts must be taken into consideration, including those pre-1922. [Interjections.]

Mr M T GONIWE: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to know whether it is parliamentary to quote verbatim from a document without acknowledging the source?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not think it is unparliamentary, but it is the honourable thing to do, if one is quoting, to actually acknowledge the source one is quoting from. [Interjections.] Rev K R J MESHOE: We agree that there must be intensive efforts by both Israelis and Palestinians to exercise measures for the cessation of violence, provocation and incitement, and to embark on confidence-building measures to lay the foundation for, and charter the road toward, meaningful and lasting peace.

The ACDP cannot support all the recommendations in the report, but we support the following: Firstly, that the Parliament of South Africa urges both Israel and Palestine to stop the violence and return to the negotiating table; secondly, that the Parliament of South Africa encourages humanitarian aid to both Palestine and Israel by our Government and civil society, particularly in refugee camps; thirdly, that people-to-people contact and dialogue should be encouraged through trilateral relations between Palestine, Israel and South Africa; and fourthly, due to the high number of medical casualties, that the Government of South Africa investigates the possibility of voluntary service of South African medical interns in the region. [Applause.] Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, when one reads the Bible, the Old Testament speaks of an eye for an eye''.An eye for an eye’’ is exactly what is happening at the moment in the Middle East. The peace activist from India, Gandhi, said:

If you practise an eye for an eye, you end up with the whole world blind.

‘n Oog vir ‘n oog lei daartoe dat ‘n mens eindig met die hele wêreld blind. Israel en Palestina is vasgevang in ‘n spiraal van geweld waaruit nie een van hul leiers kan kom nie. Dit gaan geen probleem oplos soos wat dit nou gehanteer word nie.

Agb lede sal weet die VF staan op die beginsel van selfbeskikking om sulke probleme op te los. Israel het in 1948 selfbeskikking gekry toe die moderne Israel tot stand gekom het. Een van die eerste lande wat Israel in 1948 erken het, was Suid-Afrika. Die Israeli’s behoort daarom te verstaan dat die Palestyne ook selfbeskikking en ‘n eie staat behoort te kry. Ek weet egter dit is nie so eenvoudig nie. Suid-Afrika is egter nie sterk genoeg om die rol te speel van internasionale polisieman, soos wat ons hier probeer doen nie. Daarom wil die VF waarsku teen enige poging van die Suid-Afrikaanse Regering of die Parlement om kant te kies in hierdie geskil. Hierdie verslag, soos ek hom gelees het, neig telkens om kant te kies teen Israel vir die Palestyne.

Die Palestyne het ‘n goeie saak en baie internasionale steun en druk aan hulle kant. Dit is nie nodig om dit só te doen nie. Die VF het egter ook simpatie met Israel. Ek het Israel reeds twee maal besoek, en ek dink as Israel se voortbestaan en veiligheid nie gewaarborg word nie, sal ons nie oplossings kry nie.

Ek moet ook bysê, as die Jewish Board of Deputies vir my hierdie boekie stuur waarin daar gesê word hoe die Jode kant gekies het in die struggle, maak ek ook beswaar daarteen. Hier is geen Percy Yutar of Tony Leon in nie. Ek sal ook so ‘n boekie kon uitgee oor Jode se rol in die NP aan die ander kant. [Gelag.] Dit sal egter ook nie help nie. Die ANC verstaan presies wat selfbeskikking beteken as oor die Palestyne gepraat word, maar as Afrikaners oor selfbeskikking praat, verstaan die ANC skielik niks nie. Moenie dat ons selfvoldaan dink ons probleme is alles opgelos en ons kan niks leer by hierdie konflik nie. Kom ons leer daaruit en ons sorg dat dieselfde nie in Suid-Afrika gebeur nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[``An eye for an eye’’ causes one to end up with the whole world blind. Israel and Palestine are trapped in a spiral of violence from which none of their leaders can escape. No problem is going to be solved the way the matter is currently being handled.

Hon members will know that the FF supports the principle of self- determination to solve such problems. Israel achieved self-determination in 1948 when the modern Israel came into being. One of the first countries which recognised Israel in 1948 was South Africa. For this reason the Israelis ought to understand that the Palestinians also should achieve self- determination and an own state. However, I know that it is not that simple.

However, South Africa is not strong enough to play the role of international policeman, as we are trying to do here. The FF therefore wants to warn against any attempt by the South African Government or Parliament to choose sides in this dispute. This report, as I read it, time and again, tends to choose sides against Israel in favour of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians have a good case and a great deal of international support and pressure on their side. It is not necessary to do it in this way. However, the FF also sympathises with Israel. I have visited Israel on two occasions, and I think that if Israel’s continued existence and security cannot be guaranteed, we will not find solutions.

I must also add, when the Jewish Board of Deputies sends me this booklet in which it is explained how the Jews chose sides in the struggle, I also object to that. There is no Percy Yutar or Tony Leon in it. I could also have issued such a booklet on the role of Jews in the NP on the other side. [Laughter.] However, that would also not help.

The ANC understands precisely what self-determination means when one talks about the Palestinians, but when Afrikaners talk about self-determination, the ANC suddenly understands nothing. Let us not smugly think that our problems have all been solved and that we cannot learn something from this conflict. Let us learn from it and let us see to it that the same thing does not happen in South Africa.]

``An eye for an eye’’ makes the whole world blind.

Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, the PAC, although regretting that it was not part of the delegation, nevertheless is appreciative of this report of the visit. It is a fairly thorough and balanced report.

Let me try to cut through the mountain of words and arguments and make some comments. Firstly, there are striking parallels between the South African apartheid problem and the Palestinian problem, particularly the useless debate on the ownership of the land, who came first and who must be evicted, etc.

Secondly, the South African problem became soluble when there developed a realisation that it was clearly unwinnable by one group. The element of self-interest became an important factor. This was not a win-lose option. Therefore, all parties started working for a win-win situation, while the recommendations of the fact-finding mission are about the presence of an international monitoring body in Israel. This is the only way forward. My only amendment is that such a monitoring body must be a joint peace-keeping body, with an international peace corps, working with an equal number of Palestinians and Israelis, with an international command structure and exposed daily to the full glare of the electronic media.

Thirdly, the Palestinian question brings back the debate on co-existence. Can the Palestinians and the Israelis co-exist in one nation and one land? In the light of the recent Nigerian conflict, can Islam co-exist with Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism? If they cannot co-exist, is there any future in a world that is daily becoming more pluralistic?

Fourthly, this crisis also raises the question of the UN. Can the world survive without the UN? What type of UN do we need? Sentimental concepts such as the sovereignty of national states, and respect for territorial integrity of states, even if horrendous violations of human rights occur, belong to the past.

We need a UN that has real teeth and muscle. Nation states must be allowed to enjoy sovereign status only if they uphold democratic and civilised standards and if they do not themselves endanger the future of other states or the whole world. Terrorism of any kind is a danger to world peace. [Time expired.]

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Madam Speaker, and colleagues, hon Dene Smuts and hon Boy Geldenhuys blame the victims. Substitute from their speeches Israel for the old apartheid government, substitute Palestinians for the ANC liberation movement and we get a playback of their support in justification of the past for racist Pretoria and for apartheid South Africa. [Applause.] I challenge them, take their speeches, make the substitutions and one will hear what these hon members were saying pre-1990 during the 70s and 80s in particular, blame the victims. Israel is being invaded by a Palestinian state and power. That is exactly what one will hear.

I am going to read a statement on this conflict, which I have written with an ANC member in the provincial legislature, Max Ozinsky. ``Successive Israeli governments and the world Zionist movement have consistently denounced their critics as anti-Semites and blamed the Palestinians for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement. We emphatically reject these assertions. We do not dispute that sectors of the Palestinian population have resorted to terror and we condemn indiscriminate killings of civilians from whatever quarter, as we did in our country when we fought against injustice. The point is, this is not the root cause of the ongoing violence. The fundamental cause of the conflict is Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the suppression of the Palestinians’ struggle for national self-determination.’’

If members want to listen to the voice of Israeli government, listen to me, I am going to quote. ``In November 2001 the Israeli cabinet considered a document prepared by the Prime Minister’s office on alleged transgressions by the Palestinians. The acting Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, opposed the distribution of the document, on the grounds that no one would be surprised that a people under occupation had failed to honour its agreements with its occupier.’’ He said:

Accusations made by a well established society, such as Israel, about how a people it is oppressing - the Palestinians - is breaking rules to attain its rights do not have much credence.

Accusations made by a well established society about how a people it is oppressing is breaking rules to attain its rights do not have much credence. They do not have much credence with us in the ANC but they certainly have with hon members on the other side of the House.

Henry Siegman, former executive director of the American Jewish Congress, no less, observed correctly that this statement of Shlomo Ben-Ami ``goes to the very heart of the conflict and extracts the poison buried there’’.

The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 inflicted a great injustice on the Palestinian people, compounded by the subsequent Israeli rule of the occupied territories and denial of the legitimate claims of the Palestinian refugees.

A recognition of the fundamental causes of the ongoing violence does not - and I say this as a South African of Jewish descent - constitute anti- Semitism nor does it amount to a denial of Israel’s right to exist. Rather, it constitutes an urgent call on the Israeli government to redress injustice and satisfy legitimate claims, without which - and this is the point - peace negotiations will fail.

All Jews live in the shadow of the Holocaust. I grew up in the 40s and I know what that meant to a young Jewish boy in Yeoville. For some of them, though, the overriding lesson is that survival is the highest morality. They seek to justify Israel’s intransigence in peace negotiations and the application of excessive force against the Palestinians on those grounds. Other Jews - and they live in this country and they are many, they live in Israel and they are considerable, and they live in many countries in the world - believe that the Holocaust compels them to support justice and freedom from persecution for all people, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity or religion. [Applause.] As a South African of Jewish descent and a proud member for all my adult life of the ANC and the Communist Party, I stand firmly in this camp. [Applause.]

After the suffering experienced by Jews in Europe during Nazism, I am utterly appalled at the ruthless security methods employed by the Israeli government against Palestinians, much of which smacks of the way Fascism in Europe dealt with people that they considered to be nonpeople. And I am not using the icon of the concentration camps and those dreadful chimneys belching the smoke of those who went into the gas chambers. I am not making that comparison. One does not need to. Israel is not doing that, but Israel is doing plenty of other deplorable and disgusting things. These include the deployment of bulldozers, machine guns, tanks and helicopter gunships and the use of lethal force, as a matter of policy, even against civilian youngsters armed with stones and slings, targeted assassination of opponents - over 50 in this last year - the doctrine of collective punishment - did we ever hear of that during the Second World War? - against Palestinian communities - and we have heard very eloquently about that from this report and from hon member Ismail Ebrahim, my close brother and comrade in arms of over 40 years, a Jew and a Moslem and in South Africa that is what our struggle brought together … [Applause] … the demolition of homes and olive groves; the stringent curfews and roadblocks making normal life impossible, which all amount to a ritual of control and humiliation.

These intolerable strategies are coupled with a growing number of provocative Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Hon Dene Smuts and hon Boy Geldenhuys should ask themselves where the provocation for the Intifada comes from, where the provocation for the resistance comes from. And they will know where the provocation of Minister Tshwete and my dear comrades came from when we first sought to change apartheid by peaceful means. [Applause.] Those provocative settlements in the West Bank undermine the legitimacy of the Israeli government and its negotiating position and give rise to intensified resistance, and as South Africans from the liberation movement we know very well that that would give rise to intensified resistance that will continue to grow.

I take note of this Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Israel and Palestine by our MPs who visited the Middle East in July 2001. This report observes that:

It becomes difficult, particularly from a South African perspective, not to draw parallels with the oppression experienced by Palestinians under the hand of Israel and the oppression experienced in South Africa under apartheid rule.

We are committed to justice and freedom for pragmatic as well as ethical reasons. Oppression always gives rise to rebellion and thereby threatens the security of the oppressor. That is what hon Boy Geldenhuys and hon Dene Smuts and their parties are so worried about - the record of the apartheid years. Resistance threatens the security of the oppressor. Repression and reprisals in response to rebellion provide no relief. [Interjections.] I will take no questions.

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: No questions?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Yes, hon member, no questions.

The MINISTER: Repression and reprisals in response to rebellion cannot succeed. World history shows it and the struggle of Jews for an Israeli homeland against the British mandate showed it very well too, including a very large amount, by the way, of terror tactics by the likes of Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang. The notion that security can be achieved through reliance on force is demonstrably false, as the struggle against apartheid here testified.

We understand the fears of Jews in Israel and their longing for security. I have been writing to my nephew and his family in Israel, after they had seen my letters in the press, to tell them that I am not against them. I have made it clear to them that we are worried about their security. As we know in South Africa, the point is how we gave the hon members on my left their security to live in this country. [Interjections.]

The security of Israelis and Palestinians, however, is inseparably intertwined. Neither group will be secure for as long as the other is insecure. I am talking about the interests of Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. There is, consequently, no viable alternative to a negotiated settlement that is just, recognises both Palestine and Israel as fully independent sovereign states, and provides for peaceful co-existence and co-operation between these states.

We want to see an independent Palestinian state successful and flourishing. We think that the better the Palestinians will have it, the better neighbour we shall have. That is what no less a figure than their foreign minister, Shimon Peres, has said recently. We fully agree, but it is incumbent - and this is the point because one cannot equate the victor with the oppressor - on Israel, the dominant force and power over the Palestinians, to demonstrate its serious intent in this respect.

What is more, if Israel is to become a respected society, and I am now talking about Israel as a state within its borders, it must grant full equal rights to all who dwell within its borders, namely Christians, Muslims and nonbelievers as well as Jews, because those minorities within Israel are victims of discriminatory treatment and laws as many a document will testify.

Israel carries a great responsibility to improve the dangerous state of affairs in the Middle East and as we now see, post 11 September, no one can say that those desperate and dastardly deeds were unconnected with the anger and frustration over what is being denied to Palestinians. So, Israel carries a great responsibility for our planet by recognising the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and creating the basis for peace and stability.

We fully support the joint call to the international community by President Bouteflika of Algeria and our own President Mbeki in October 2001, a week ago, to ensure that peace is restored to the region through dialogue and negotiations. We support their call for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Palestianian territories.

We call on South Africans of Jewish descent, and Jews everywhere, to raise their voices and join all governments and people in support of justice for Palestine, peace and security for all in the Holy Land. This is a vital step towards reducing the grave threat of international disorder and anarchy.

As an immediate step towards peace, we call on the government of Israel firstly, to resume and sustain negotiations with the Palestianian Authority in good faith; secondly, to conduct negotiations within the framework of the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, Resolution 242 in particular; thirdly, to conduct its security operations with restraint and in accordance with international humanitarian law; and fourthly, to work in partnership with the Palestinian leadership to build a lasting peace on the basis of reconciliation.

I have said that I am drawing up a statement with Comrade Max Ozinsky, a member of the Western Cape Legislature. We are issuing this statement publicly to call on all South Africans of Jewish descent to join us in signing this statement.

Finally, I would like to say that members have received this particular booklet. It is a very fine booklet entitled: Looking Back: Jews in the Struggle for Democracy and Human Rights in South Africa. It is published by the Isaac and Jessie Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research. It has lovely photographs and a whole litany of heroes and heroines in this country who are of Jewish descent and who were involved in the struggle against racism and apartheid in this country, and for democracy for us all.

The point about this particular document is that it provides lessons for all people, all Jewish people, and for those that are in Israel. [Interjections.] Because, the point about it is that well over 95% to 96% or even more of the minority, a fraction of whites in this country, and a fraction of those from the community which I hail from, were involved in the struggle. The majority of whites in this country acquiesced in apartheid and grew fat on its riches.

This is the lesson: What then motivated the Joe Slovos and Ruth Firsts, Sonia Buntings, Raymond Suttners, Dennis Goldbergs …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: In terms of the speakers’ list that has been given to us, the Minister is supposed to speak for 12 minutes. [Interjections.] He has now spoken …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, the hon member who is at the podium still has time. [Interjections.]

Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, I would like to hear your ruling, but I cannot hear you because members are making a noise. Would you please repeat that? [Interjections.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order? You are saying that the … [Interjections.] Order! Hon member, are you talking about the amount of time that this hon member has?

Dr P W A MULDER: Yes, Madam Speaker. In terms of the speakers’ list, the hon member is supposed to speak for 12 minutes, but he has now spoken for more than 15 minutes. I would like to know … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, this hon member actually has 20 minutes. [Applause.] He still has time. Could you please take your seat, hon member. [Interjections.]

Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, may I please address you on your ruling? [Interjections.] I accept that the hon the Minister has 20 minutes. Could I please ask that in future the other parties are also informed about the changes in time? [Interjections.]

The MINISTER: Yes, 20 minutes. Twintig minute. [Twenty minutes.] [Interjections.] I still have a minute to go. Let me end with a lesson. I think the lessons are very clear. Everybody here knows the lessons. Let us hope that the other side, for once, will listen with their ears and not their mouths. [Interjections.]

This honourable group of anti-apartheid fighters, who were in fact anti- Zionists and rejected Zionism because they believed in a common humanity and that there should not be an exclusive state, stood up against oppression. They showed that they were not afraid to speak out in their communities, even though they were such a minority and, for years, were outcasts from their particular tribe. They stood for justice for all, for everybody, because freedom and justice are indivisible. That is the true message of Joe Slovo, Ray Alexander, Sonia Bunting and scores and scores of others. Thank you. Sibonga kakhulu. [Thank you very much.] Shalom, Salem Aleichem. [Peace be with you.] [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, for years reports on the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine have been the focus of newspapers, television, and other media. This battle has cost the lives of many and, to date, has not resulted in peace and agreement.

Children, mothers and the aged, regardless of their religion, have lost their lives. The loss has been suffered on both sides and each day the losses increase. It has become a way of life, to battle. It reminds us of the struggle we once fought and overcame, although we still bear the scars. We have learned to be one people. Unity is comprised of diverse people who share, accept and respect one another.

We certainly cannot watch such bloodshed and conflict as a nation is torn in two, and the battles lead to the destruction of its people. The delegation sent on this mission has certainly assisted to create a better understanding of the battle that has fallen on such a pious land. Further, this understanding will assist us in attempting to offer assistance in drawing this bloodshed to an end, and restoring a nation of people that could live together, no matter the diversity, as we do.

The aim is not to take sides but rather to assist, enough being enough. How many more deaths do they need? How many innocent babies are to be murdered and how much more would battle serve to destroy people whose veins are filled with the same blood?

Whatever it takes, guns, murder and missiles, killing are not the answer. It is hoped and prayed that the land, rich in piety to both faiths, will see an end to this destruction, and that South Africa will be able to offer both guidance and assistance in achieving such peace. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mev die Speaker, eers net ‘n formele saak: Ons sal dringend in die Parlement moet kyk na die gebruik dat minderheidsopinies van verslae nie opgeteken word nie. In hierdie dokument wat vir die nageslag bewaar word, staan die name van die agb Boy Geldenhuys, Koos van der Merwe en Dene Smuts, en die ou van buite sal dink hulle ondersteun hierdie dokument, en dit terwyl dit nie die geval was nie. Ons moet net asseblief weer hierna kyk.

Die verslag probeer so hier en daar objektief wees en ‘n balans handhaaf, maar die Palestynse onderrok hang wel deeglik uit. Baie stellinge wat gemaak word, word ingelei met woorde soos, It has been reported'', It is said that’’, en ``unverified so and so’’. Die dinge wat deur Israel genoem word, word met die teendeel beskryf en die argument weerlê. Israel se optrede word telkens in die verslag beoordeel asof dit vredestyd is in Palestina, asof daar normale omstandighede is en nie ‘n noodtoestand heers nie.

Kyk mens na die aanbevelings, dan kon die aanbevelings van hierdie verslag net sowel deur mnr Jasser Arafat persoonlik onderteken geword het. Die groot aanbeveling, wat ons ook steun, is dat daar vredesamesprekings gehou moet word. Solank as wat die Palestynse terroriste aangaan en mnr Arafat nie terrorisme kan beheer nie, kan daar nie samesprekings oor vrede wees nie. Mnr Arafat kan honderd pinte bloed skenk, maar as die terrorisme nie ophou nie, dan sal daar nie samesprekings kan wees nie. Op 11 September het mnr Arafat en Israel bymekaargekom. Ons het gedog daar gaan nou vrede kom. Hoekom het dit weer ontplof? Dit is te wyte aan die terrorisme vanuit daardie gebied.

Ons moet weer logies hierna kyk. As iemand nog gedink het dat hierdie verslag enigsins objektief kan wees, dan het die toesprake van mnr Ebrahim en Minister Kasrils nou ‘n streep daardeur getrek. Dit is vir my baie duidelik dat ons nie in ‘n posisie is om ‘n oordeel uit te spreek oor daardie lande nie. Ons eie situasie en ons eie geskiedenis is nog te rou. Hierdie dinge krap net eie wonde oop, en ons moet liewer nie probeer skeidsregter speel in die stryd tussen ander lande nie. Dit is nie tot voordeel van Suid-Afrika nie.

Die AEB sal nie hierdie verslag kan onderskryf nie. (Translaiton of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, first of all a formal matter: We in Parliament will have to look urgently at the custom of minority opinions not being noted in reports. In this document, which will be conserved for our descendants, one finds the names of the hon Boy Geldenhuys, Koos van der Merwe and Dene Smuts, and the person out there might think they supported this document, and that while this is not the case. We should please look into this again.

The report makes an effort to be objective here and there and to maintain a balance, but the Palestinian petticoat shows clearly. Many statements start with words to the effect that it has been reported'',it is said that’’ and ``unverified so and so’’. The things mentioned by Israel are described to the contrary and the argument refuted. Israel’s actions are time and again condemned in the report, as if there is peace in Palestine, as if circumstances are normal and there is not a state of emergency.

Should one look at the recommendations, then the recommendations of this report might just as well have been signed by Mr Yasser Arafat himself. The major recommendation, which we also support, is that there should be peace talks. As long as the Palestinian terrorists continue and Mr Arafat cannot control terrorism, there cannot be negotiations about peace. Mr Arafat could donate a hundred pints of blood, but if the terrorism does not stop, there cannot be negotiations. On 11 September Mr Arafat and Israel got together. We thought that peace would ensue. Why did it once again explode? This is due to the terrorism in that area.

We should look at this again logically. If anyone had thought that this report could be in the least objective, then the speeches made by Mr Ebrahim and Mr Kasrils have just cancelled that out. It is very clear to me that we are not in a position to utter judgments in respect of those countries. Our own situation and our own history are still far too raw. These things are only opening up old wounds, and we should rather not try to be the referee in a struggle between other countries. It is not to South Africa’s advantage.

The AEB will not be able to support this report.]

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, the hon Meshoe is, as usual, as shallow as we expect. He should thank the Jewish Board of Deputies for having quoted them, because what he said came verbatim from their document.

Nobody disputes the relationship that Israel has with the land of Palestine. If the hon member’s Bible is correct, and if he has read it as thoroughly as I did when I was detained, then he could not come up with more than 70 years of occupation in the holy land, by Israel.

Now, the hon Ebrahim Ebrahim stood here and spoke about olive trees thousands of years old, which were uprooted. They were uprooted, not because they were offensive or they were in a bad spot, but because the tenure of the people of Palestine in that land was taken away from them.

No, the ANC cannot afford to walk the tightrope which the hon Van der Merwe is trying to walk. He and I are too fat, in any case, to balance on any rope. [Laughter.] [Applause.] I think that there is only one fact which is under discussion here. That fact is that Israel is illegally occupying the land of Palestine. [Applause.]

If, tomorrow, Israel gets the hell out of the 22% of land which they are illegally occupying, then we will talk about a new Palestinian nation, we will talk about children who can sleep, we will talk about children who can learn, we will talk about children who say that they want to dream and they want to develop. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, what does the hon member say about the fact that young children are trained, in Palestine, to be suicide bombers? We saw it on TV there. They then go and destroy places, like they did in Tel Aviv, where they killed 22 people. Is that okay?

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I will address that. In a meeting of women, from which the hon Koos van der Merwe ran away, he would have heard, if he had attended, that we put that question directly to the women of Palestine. We asked them why they were allowing their children to be suicide bombers. They said that, like all other women in the world, they loved their children. If people, the world through, cry when their pets are killed, why do we think that they would allow their children to become suicide bombers?

The question we are not addressing is: Why do children take their own lives? And that brings me back to the question of the right of the Palestinian people to fight for their freedom, the way we did. I would like to tell the hon Dr Geldenhuys that I do dare to draw a parallel between that and apartheid. I dare and do not have to justify incitement. I am saying that if one removes the cause of the conflict, which drives people to become desperate, one removes the reason for children having nothing to live for and going to fight. [Applause.]

I do not justify it. [Applause.] Yes, as a teenager, I took up arms against them. [Interjections.] That is the same position which a Palestinian child finds himself and herself in.

Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I will do so when I finish my speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! She will do take a question when she is done.

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I am saying that the child in both Palestine and Israel does not know what it is to be a child and cannot learn neighbourliness. Maybe one of the reasons that those members could not sympathise is that, in South Africa, they themselves could not learn to be neighbours with black children. [Applause.] They could not because they lived under the threat and the insecurity that there was always this myth about the swart gevaar''. In Palestine and Israel, thegevaar’’ are the Arabs. [Interjections.] I do not care to respond to the hon member. I will be talking on this. I am not going to be persecuted by him.

The Women’s Affairs Technical Committee reported in an open letter to the Queen of Sweden saying that, and I quote:

… we are traumatised by the fact that we cannot protect our children at the time when the slaughter occurs daily.

And I am saying that, if this does not touch hon members, maybe it is because they have never been to the townships. Maybe it is because they were not there in Sharpeville, and Soweto, and because they were so protected even against the truth that they still cannot appreciate the right of people to self-determination.

There are reports, and I am drawing another parallel to apartheid, about women giving birth at check points. There were reports about young soldiers examining pregnant women to ascertain as to whether they were really in labour or not. I stand here, as one who has given birth under the eyes of young white boys who referred to me as ``die vrou wat kalf’’. Can the hon members blame me when I draw the parallel? When I get a report at a meeting of women Palestinian prisoners being tortured, can hon members understand that I cannot help but draw the parallel to my own experience. [Applause.]

When one walks around east and west Jerusalem and one sees the distinction

• the provision of services in the Israeli-occupied part of Jerusalem and the nonprovision of services in east Jerusalem - cannot one think of Sandton and Alexandra? [Applause.] When one walks in the streets and see queues of men - young able-bodied Palestinians who are made to queue and the body searches and the groping in the groins - do hon members think that we would not make that parallel to our brothers and fathers in the 60s and 70s, running away from the police?

When we went to Rafah, we arrived at a place which was once a proud residential area. We met old women, who must have been in their late 70s and 80s. They were sitting on the rubble. And if one looked down at that rubble, one could see pieces of their furniture still there. They were sitting under old tents made from their old clothing. And, of course, all that the hon Dene Smuts was worried about was her wit skoentjies''. [Laughter.] She said:Dis mos vir sekuriteit.’’ She had seen rubble before. She did not have to be brought there. And what did the hon Koos say? He said: ``I have seen poverty and devastation before, so what are we doing here?’’ He was right. The hon members have seen poverty and devastation in South West Africa, Namibia, Angola and the townships of Soweto. [Interjections.]

Ms M SMUTS: [Inaudible.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Are you rising on a point of order or do you want to ask a question, hon Smuts?

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, does the hon member wish to take a question? I rise to … [Interjections.]

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I do not need to take this question. There are members who were part of that delegation and who will confirm that what I am saying is true.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, please take your seat.

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, is the hon member going to take my question?

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I will not take her question. I am sorry but I will not take her question. Perhaps one should be thankful for this trip because there, at Johannesburg International Airport, I think that was the first time that she spoke to me since 1994. And that says something about the hon Dene Smuts because, as we left as a South African delegation going to look at the problem of conflict up there, we were carrying our past with us! [Interjections.] Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: What on earth is the hon member talking about? She is not dealing with the subject on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, can I have some order! Hon Smuts, is your point of order what the hon member is talking about?

Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, I was saying that the hon member is not addressing the subject. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hon member is going to proceed with her speech. Can you please take your seat.

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I was saying that, as we left this country to go on a fact-finding mission, some of us then discovered that in fact we were carrying our past with us, and that we had not changed and that there is a myth about black-white reconciliation in this country. If it was a reconciliation we all believed in, we would all have been honest and objective about what was obtaining materially in Palestine. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: There is a subject which is being discussed here, and the speaker is not addressing the subject. She is talking about South Africa. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Gibson, please take your seat. The hon member is addressing the issue of the trip to Palestine and Israel. She is talking about that experience. [Interjections.] Please take your seat and let the member finish! [Applause.]

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, I am drawing this parallel between Palestine and South Africa deliberately. When the people of Palestine …

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker …

Ms T R MODISE: You are wasting my time, Douglas.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr D H M GIBSON: The subject which is being discussed …

Ms T R MODISE: You are wasting my time. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, may I please have some order so I can hear what the hon members are saying. [Interjections.] Yes, hon Gibson?

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, the subject which is being discussed …

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Gibson, I know the subject which is being discussed. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, please allow me to address you. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon member.

Mr D H M GIBSON: We are considering the report, Madam Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know that, hon member. [Interjections.]

Mr D H M GIBSON: We are not considering who spoke to whom at the airport in Johannesburg. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Gibson, please take your seat.

Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, are you refusing me the right to address you on a point of order? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am refusing you the right to continue to undermine the Chair. That is what I am refusing you the right to do. Please take your seat. Take your seat, hon Gibson. Hon member, please finish your speech.

Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, when the NP took over power in this country in 1948 and started relieving us as black people of 87% of our land, in Palestine people were preparing for war. Israel took and occupied more than 78% of the original Palestine.

The Palestinian people have the right to return to their ancestral land. Nobody can arbitrarily decide to take this right away from them. When Jewish people state that to allow Palestinians the right to return would be to dilute the Jewish character of the state, we must then ask ourselves: Where is this democracy which people profess they believe in and support? Where are these values which people say they have stood for for years?

When the Israeli state institutionalises discrimination, and when Palestinian residents of Jerusalem go out and are declassified and given passes, or when families who are mixed, a Palestinian married to a Jew, find that they are declassified, where is democracy? Where is fairness? Where is this religion Rev Meshoe is speaking about? Clearly the people of Palestine must be allowed to return.

Lastly, when Israel takes hungry Ethiopian and Cameroonian youths to Palestine and Israel and trains them as soldiers, and then deploys them against Palestinians, does this not remind us of 1976? [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The Acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the report be adopted.

Question put.

Division demanded.

The House divided:

AYES - 209: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Booi, M S; Buthelezi, M N; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chohan-Kota, F I; Cindi, N V; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Duma, N M; Dyani, M M Z; Ebrahim, E I; Erwin, A; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gillwald, C E; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Gxowa, N B; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hlaneki, C J M; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kati, J Z; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabe, L; Mabena, D C; Mabeta, M E; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G; Mahlangu, G L; Mahlangu, M J; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W G; Makasi, X C; Malebana, H F; Maloney, L; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Maphoto, L I; Mapisa-Nqakula, M N; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Maunye, M M; Maziya, A M; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mkono, D G; Mnandi, P N; Mndende, O N; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Moeketse, K M; Mogoba, M S; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; Mongwaketse, S J; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse, S D; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembi- Mahanyele, S D; Mudau, N W; Mutsila, I; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncube, B; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, N E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V J; Ngwane, L B; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nobunga, B J; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, S B; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Pahad, A G H; Pahad, E G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Rajbally, S; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Saloojee, E; Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, E A; Scott, M I; September, C C; September, R K; Serote, M W; Shabangu, S; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sigwela, E M; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, S V; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Xingwana, L M T; Zondo, R P.

NOES - 63: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Beukman, F; Blaas, A; Blanché, J P I; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Camerer, S M; Clelland, N J; Da Camara, M L; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Dowry, J J; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gaum, A H; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Groenewald, P J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Lee, T D; Lowe, C M; Maluleke, D K; Meshoe, K R J; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Ntuli, R S; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Rabie, P J; Rhoda, R T; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Smit, H A; Smuts, M; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Taljaard, R; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A (Anna).

ABSTENTIONS - 18: Baloyi, O; Bhengu, G B; Biyela, B P; Buthelezi, M G; Douglas, B M; Ferreira, E T; Hlengwa, M W; Lucas, E J; Mars, I; Middleton, N S; Ndlovu, V B; Roopnarain, U; Seaton, S A; Sibiya, M S M; Slabbert, J H; Smith, P F; Van der Merwe, J H; Vos, S C.

Question agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

                PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM KNESSET

                           (Announcement)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I wish to announce that the Speaker of the National Assembly has advised the Speaker of the Knesset in Israel that we would be happy to receive a parliamentary delegation next year from themselves, because they had written to us requesting to visit our Parliament. This, I think we need to note, is in keeping with one of the recommendations in the report, which suggests that the Speaker of the National Assembly of our Parliament is encouraged to foster and develop a dialogue between the parliaments of Palestine, Israel and South Africa through interparliamentary exchanges with Speakers and members of parliament. In keeping with that, we have agreed to receive a delegation, and the members will be informed of the details in due course.

              PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY REGULATION BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Madam Speaker, hon members, when the Government came into power in 1994, it clearly expressed its commitment to addressing broad issues relating to transformation. As part of this transformation process, there was a need to review legislation … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister! Hon members, you are making a noise. I do not know who told you that the House has been adjourned. I see every one of you moving out. Could you continue, hon Minister.

The MINISTER: Thank you, Chair. As part of this transformation process, there was a need to review legislation that was passed during the apartheid era in order to bring South African legislation in line with the new democratic and constitutional dispensation which we have today. One of the legislative reforms was the passing of the Security Officers Amendment Act of 1997, which required me as the Minister of Safety and Security to reform the regulatory framework. In terms of this amending Act, I was required to draft a new Bill, which we have before us today.

As part of drafting the new Bill, I took into account various factors, including the fact that the existing Security Officers Amendment Act of 1997 has become outdated given the changes in the nature of the industry. The industry has changed significantly, and it is no longer confined solely to the guarding and protection of persons and premises. These changes have resulted from the growth and proliferation of new sectors of the private security industry such as the providers of security equipment, private investigators and highly technologically advanced service providers; the capacity of private security companies to procure arms; and concerns that the industry possibly contains some elements that have the potential to engage in abuse, and the implications of such abuse for the security of the state.

The industry has shown phenomenal growth. According to statistics supplied by the Security Officers’ Interim Board, there were in excess of 6 000 active private security businesses registered with the board by the year

1. Of these 3 232 were actively registered guarding businesses, 609 actively registered cash-in-transit businesses, and 878 actively registered armed response businesses. It has been estimated that there are approximately 652 persons involved in private investigations and 844 in other categories. During this period, there were approximately 165 300 actively registered security guards employed by the industry. This figure excluded security guards who are employed as in-house security personnel, and who are not currently registered as security guards. The estimate for in-house security personnel varied from 60 000 to 100 000. The Private Security Industry Regulation Bill now brings in-house security providers under the regulatory framework.

A further consideration was that the industry was fraught with in-fighting, competing interests and allegations of wrongdoing. There was a perception that the inclusion of representatives of employers and employees from the private security industry in the regulatory board did not contribute to proper and effective regulation of the private security industry because of vested and competing interests. These had serious implications for the credibility of the board. All these concerns needed to be addressed, and I believe that the Private Security Industry Regulation Bill has been crafted to do exactly that. The Bill expands on the objects and functions of the future regulatory authority to enable it to regulate the industry, and to exercise effective control over security service providers, both in the public and national interest as well as in the interests of the security of the industry itself. The future regulatory authority is tasked to encourage ownership and control of security businesses by persons who are historically disadvantaged, as well as to promote their empowerment and advancement. In addressing the need for proper and effective regulation of the industry, the Government felt very strongly that those entrusted with the task of regulating the industry should not have any interest in the private security industry. The reasons for this are obvious.

Indeed, the Bill provides for such a regulatory authority, which will act through a council that is independent of the industry. The Government is convinced that such independence will contribute immensely to better regulation in the interests of all concerned. We would like to underscore the pertinent point that the voice of the industry will not be ignored. Indeed, provision to listen to the voices of the private security industry through committees, which the council is empowered to appoint, is captured in the Bill.

National security and the protection of individuals are the highest priorities of any government. The Government is acutely aware of the sensitive nature of the private security industry, and the need to avoid and eliminate the dangers associated with the involvement of irresponsible persons in the industry. It is in this context that the Bill provides for strict entry requirements. One of the entry requirements is that any person who wants to be registered as a security service provider must be a citizen of South Africa or have permanent residence status in the country. Since the advent of our new democratic order and our country’s entry into the international community of nations, as well as the implications of globalisation, there has been a renewed interest on the part of foreigners to invest in various business ventures in the country, including the private security sector.

This interest manifested itself in the past few months when several South African businesses were purchased by foreign businesses for amounts ranging from approximately R400 million to R630 million, with more interest shown by other companies. The decision to allow foreign investment in the security sector does not in any way compromise the security of our country, given the fact that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill itself to ensure that this is the case. The decision allows the use of the capital and expertise from foreign sources to the best advantage of South Africa as a whole.

The advantage of such foreign shareholding and investment would be the bringing in of skills, expertise and technological know-how which will benefit not only the security industry but the broader South African economy. In addition, one such obvious spin-off of the foreign shareholding element will be the enhancement of black economic empowerment. As a matter of fact, this specific issue was widely canvassed by the department and the leading companies from abroad that are currently involved in the industry.

I have no doubt in my mind that this commitment by these companies will translate into the consolidation of the emerging of black businesses in this sector. Indeed, the future regulatory authority has, as indicated earlier, identified the important object of encouraging ownership and control of security businesses by historically disadvantaged persons and promoting the empowerment and advancement of such persons. This aspect of the transformation and empowerment agenda must be vigorously pursued.

As part of the protection of our national interests, the Bill further provides that any applicant who is a former member of any military, security, police or intelligence force or service in South Africa or elsewhere must submit a prescribed clearance certificate from his or her previous employer. It also clearly prohibits persons who are employed by the South African Police Service, the South African National Defence Force, the Scorpions, the NIA, Sars and Correctional Services from moonlighting as security service providers. Moonlighting is frowned upon and will be a criminal offence.

The Bill further provides for a code of conduct for both the security service providers and inspectors. The inspectors have been given powers to ensure that security service providers comply with the requirements of the Bill. The private security industry has acquired capabilities and is undertaking operations which may infringe on every person’s right to privacy and, as such, infringe upon constitutional rights. These practices need to be limited by regulation so as to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Constitution continue to be protected.

I am confident that the Bill contains sufficient provisions to regulate the private security industry in the interests of all stakeholders. I would like to believe that the changes introduced at the portfolio committee level were intended to bolster this idea of regulating the security industry objectively and in the interests of all concerned.

Whilst the regulatory authority is tasked to regulate and control the private security industry, this authority itself will not be above scrutiny. The regulatory authority will be accountable to the Minister and ultimately to Parliament.

I know that the process of drafting this Bill has been a difficult one. I am grateful for the contributions from all. I want to take this opportunity to thank the various people who assisted during this process. I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Mluleki George, the chairperson of the portfolio committee, for guiding the finalisation of the Bill in the portfolio committee, members of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, the National Secretariat for Safety and Security and the legal division of the South African Police Service, the interdepartmental workgroup which contributed to developing the policy from which this Bill flows, and the foreign companies which have invested in South African security companies for the responsible and constructive manner in which they dealt with the issue relating to their shareholding and investment. [Applause.]

Adv P S SWART: Mr Chairperson, the Private Security Industry Regulation Bill before the House aims, and I quote:

To provide for the regulation of the private security industry; for that purpose to establish a regulatory authority; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

All the parties in the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security had consensus about the need for proper regulation of this industry, an industry filled with problems, businesses not registering with the Interim Security Industry Board, fly-by-night operators, noncompliance with labour laws resulting in non-adherence to minimum wages and many other problems. As a result, there are often many questions asked about the quality of service which is provided to clients.

This industry must be seen in context. The South African Police Service has approximately 121 000 members. The private security industry has in the region of 190 000 employees. It is often stated that there are more firearms in the industry than in the South African Police Service, which I believe to be the case. Thus, all parties supported the desirability of the Bill, as well as the broad principles stated in the policy document.

However, before I deal with the Bill itself, allow me to thank the members of the portfolio committee, all parties included, in particular the chairperson, the hon Mluleki George, for the productive way in which we were able to handle this Bill. Although the ANC often failed to heed suggestions based on the presentations during the public hearings, at least the opposition was never denied the opportunity to put these on the table. Also allow me to thank the drafters of the Bill from the department, assisted by the Secretariat, for the hours and production they have put into this Bill.

While giving thanks, I need to put into perspective what took place surrounding possibly the most controversial part of the deliberations on the Bill, namely foreign investment. I am very thankful for what the Minister said here today.

When the Bill was tabled the first time, clause 20(2)(a) stated that, and I quote:

A security business may only be registered as a security service provider -

(a) if all the persons performing executive, controlling or managing functions … are registered as security service providers …

The word controlling'' had a direct relevance to ownership of such a business and, in the case of companies, shareholding. In this regard the wordcontrolling’’ must be associated with foreign shareholding where foreign investment is concerned. Clause 21 indicates that each director must register and clause 22(1)(a) indicates that any natural person applying for registration must be a citizen of or have permanent resident status in South Africa.

At the time when this Bill was tabled, an international company, ADT, was in an advanced stage of acquiring a South African security company, Sentry Security. The international lawyers, as a result of the Bill and this control in the Bill, put this deal, involving R650 million in foreign investment, on hold. As a result of this, I facilitated a meeting with the national director of Tyco, who flew to South Africa, and arranged a meeting with the chairperson of the committee. The matter was discussed at length and after the ANC’s study group considered it, the foreign investors were assured that the portfolio committee would ensure that this Bill would not prohibit foreign investment. As a result of this assurance, the deal went through.

This particular clause only came up late in September when, all of a sudden, it was stated that the ANC had changed its mind and that all foreign investment would be prohibited. On asking questions about this change of heart, we were informed that Cabinet was adamant that the industry should be 100% under the control of South Africans, with an add-on of ``it is time that black empowerment in the industry takes place’’. A member of the ANC informed the portfolio committee that the ANC would ensure that banks in South Africa finance such people to buy out these foreign companies.

The House must note that within the last couple of years somewhere between R1,5 billion and R3 billion was invested in the private security industry. One can imagine the consternation this caused within the industry and abroad. I personally find it a bit strange and it left a sour taste in my mouth - I must be honest about this - that members of Parliament from the ANC within the portfolio committee were not allowed to make up their own minds but were forced by Cabinet, apparently under the instigation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Fortunately, this changed when the Minister of Safety and Security, either under pressure from business or possibly from the more sensible members of his Cabinet, the Minister of Finance or of Trade and Industry, reconsidered. But, in this regard, I want to thank the hon the Minister of Safety and Security. I trust that this will minimise the damage, as well as what the Minister said here today, although negative signals were sent out to investors.

Now, I would like to talk about problems that remain unresolved. The original Bill included locksmiths, polygraphers and private investigators, thus including them within the ambit of regulation. The ANC members agreed on the exclusion of polygraphers, but remained adamant that locksmiths and private investigators be included.

Regarding private investigators, the definition was changed in such a way that the problems stated by the Banking Council and Telkom regarding in- house investigations are no longer valid, and we are thankful for that. But, locksmiths remained a problem, and even after the definition was changed, it did not solve the problem. During the public hearings the Locksmith Association indicated that for a long time legislation was pending to regulate them, a preferred option to being included in this very broad industry. This went unheeded by the ANC.

Although there was consensus by all parties that the intention is not to include the person or small business who cuts keys while also repairing shoes, the definition does include them, where it states that a locksmith means a person who, for the benefit of another person, engages in any activity or business which is related to the opening, closing or engaging of locking mechanisms. This correlates with the addition to the definition of security equipment'' by adding subsection (f) stating that security equipment means, inter alia, a specialised device used to reproduce or duplicate keys’’. This means that those people who are cutting keys at those little shops in the shopping malls will now have to register as security service providers, pay levies and be open for inspections on the whole ambit of this Bill. We cannot agree with this.

However, the biggest problem with this Bill, and I heard what the Minister said, is the composition of the council which will govern the authority. Initially the Bill made provision for the chairperson, vice-chairperson, three additional councillors appointed by Minister as well as the director of authority who, in practice, would be the CEO, to serve on the council. No provision was made for any representation by the industry itself, be it employees or employers.

During the public hearings employer organisations as well as all the unions involved in this industry stated that representivity would be a necessity. The DA never argued for a majority representation on this council. In other words, the independence of the majority would have been safe. But, we argued at least for councillors representing the employees and the employers. This proposal was rejected by the ANC by stating that section 13 makes provision for committees to be appointed. That is indeed the case, but only that the council ``may’’ appoint one or more committees.

My own proposed amendment was to amend section 13 to include that the council ``must’’ appoint standing committees for employees and employers, those two standing committees, and make provision for their chairpersons to serve on the council. But, although I asked the ANC study group to consider if they do not want the chairpersons to be on the council, they should, at least, consider the obligatory appointment of those two standing committees. But it was without any success.

Now, it means that section 13 remains ``may’’ appoint committees and there is thus no insurance that the industry will be represented at any level or involved in any decision-making of the council, which will be funded by levies paid by the people within the industry, employers and employees alike. The DA find this an untenable situation. The crux of this Bill is the regulation of the industry and the DA will fail its constituency if it supports a Bill that denies any democratic involvement in the regulating of the industry. This denial is by itself sufficient to oppose this Bill. The other problems to those I alluded to, as well as the ones which my colleague will deal with, only strengthen this resolve.

Furthermore, in addition to all the powers given to the Minister in terms of the industry and its authority, section 11 empowers the Minister with specific interventions if he is not satisfied that the council maintains an acceptable standard and the fulfilment. These include issuing a directive, which is fine, assuming responsibility for the relevant functional duty by the Minister himself or dissolving the council. The DA proposes an amendment to this section to allow for the dissolvement of the council only under specific circumstances or that that should be a last step after the issuing of directives took place. Although the ANC and the portfolio committee indicated that they regarded this as a last step, section 11 is clear that it is not a last step, but rather an and/or'' option. We find it untenable to allow the Minister to do this as an or’’ option or to assume responsibility. My colleague will deal with this further.

The portfolio committee managed to tone down some of the powers of inspectors whilst inspecting members of this industry and various other draconian parts of the Bill, and for that I want to thank the ANC for showing sensible judgment. A last problem of section 25, my colleague from the IFP will deal with, regarding the suspension of membership of a registration of a business pending the conclusion of investigation by the authority itself. My time does not allow me to do that.

To conclude, apart from the specific problems indicated by me, I am of the opinion that this is a reasonable Bill and will go a long way to regulating the industry. If it were not for the lack of representation from within the industry on authority, whilst funding it, as well as the inclusion of locksmiths, the DA could very well have been in a position to support this Bill. And the House will hear this afternoon that even the opposition parties supporting this Bill do so with reservations. Unfortunately, the DP cannot support this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M E GEORGE: Chairperson, hon Minister, and members of Parliament, I welcome the opportunity to present this Private Security Industry Regulation Bill on behalf of our portfolio committee. The aims and objectives of this Bill is to close loopholes in the previous Security Officers Act, as amended, which proved to be unable to contain the lack of professionalism, accountability, and trustworthiness which are prevailing in the private security industry.

The Bill provides for the proper and strict regulation of the industry, which is very sensitive and also necessary for the adequate protection of fundamental rights to life and protection of persons and property. It must be borne in mind that the responsibility to protect the citizens and property lies with the security forces of the state, especially the SA Police Service. While appreciating the complementary role played by this industry, I must state from the beginning that this industry thrives on the high levels of crime. Its growth can therefore be seen as both positive and negative.

This Bill creates a new supreme regulatory authority as a separate legal persona replacing the present interim Security Officers Board. This authority must consist of independent persons who have neither a financial interest in the security industry or representing neither employees nor employers in this industry. Probably that is where we differ with my colleague Paul.

It is important that the Minister must appoint people of high integrity to serve in the regulatory authority. The sensitivity of this industry cannot be over emphasised, and people must remember that some of the people who formed this industry are people who resigned from the SA Defence Force and the SA Police because they were against or not happy with the present dispensation, hence it has been associated with elements of the third force.

There are about 22 security associations in the country, reflecting the diversity and fragmentation of the industry, which would make it difficult to form a representative council even if we were to compromise with the DP, New NP and IFP. Up to now, even today, I was hoping that my friend Paul will convince us as to how this representative body would be formed under these circumstances. He has failed to do that. We have also not forgotten the past. The present Security Officers Board consists of representatives from the industry and it collapsed many times because of infighting and all those things. So, I still want to know how on earth, even if one wanted to compromise, one could have done what they wanted.

It has been established that this industry has more personpower and firearms than the whole SAPS put together. Besides having more personpower and firearms, it has more vehicles than the SAPS. For example, this industry has 80 000 vehicles as opposed to the 30 000 vehicles of the SAPS. The infighting within the present board, which is representative, though not the main reason, it has contributed to us making sure that the authority is completely independent.

There was never a more appropriate time than now to make sure that this industry is properly regulated and properly monitored. Events in other parts of the world have shown that this industry can be a threat to the security of the state if not watched closely. Periodic renewals of licences and highly empowered inspectors are the key to the success of this Bill.

It has been argued that the powers of these inspectors are excessive, especially by my colleague who has just spoken. That is something which is far from the truth. These inspectors will not be dealing with ordinary citizens or businesses that have nothing to do with the security industry. Even security industries that run their businesses in a professional and trustworthy manner should not worry about these inspectors. These inspectors will be subjected to a code of conduct that operates within the law and cannot abuse their powers. The main purpose of this Bill and therefore the inspectors is to ensure that all security providers act in the public and national interest in rendering security services.

This industry is notorious for not looking after its workers. That is why I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister and the Minister of Labour to make sure that the minimum wages envisaged in the Bill will not only be reasonable, but very good and that the inspectors will see to it that they are adhered to. Linked to the minimum wage is the proviso that the security service providers must be properly trained, and clause 34 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make regulations which will make training obligatory.

Guards working in the private security industry have historically been badly paid and often work long hours. Working conditions within the private security industry are a matter of serious concern and the authority must address these concerns. We must remember that here we are not talking of people working in Shoprite Checkers or a bakery, baking bread and cakes, but we are talking of trained people who sometimes carry firearms.

It is on this basis that this Bill allows the Minister to make quick interventions in the event of things not going right. This Parliament, through this Bill, must make sure that this industry does not get involved in political and criminal destabilisation. The authority will be able to collect money from the security service providers through the Act of Parliament which will be passed soon, and which is called the private security industry levies Act.

There have been arguments that the state must pay for the functioning of the authority especially because they will not be represented. It is difficult to understand why the Government should pay for an industry which is making huge profits. There are many problems in this industry which also necessitate regulations, and it is in the interests of the industry that this is done. Therefore, there is no good argument why they should not pay as the administration done by the authority will be for their own good. Any attempt not to pay, as I have heard, will be regarded as illegal and can lead to serious consequences, like withdrawal of the licence.

Let me end by addressing the issue of foreign involvement in the industry. Foreign shareholding will be allowed, as was agreed. What we envisage is that the foreign companies will be able to allow black empowerment groups and South Africans in general to participate in their companies.

We must also add that the issue of foreign involvement must, from time to time, be reviewed. We welcome foreign involvement, but it must also be in the interest of the country. The directors and managers managing this industry must still be South African citizens or permanent residents of South Africa. This is to make sure that the people who run this industry are directly accountable to the authority or the Minister of Safety and Security.

Private security providers should have limited powers and be strictly regulated. They should not see themselves as providing the same service as the police. Their access to firearms must be properly monitored to comply with the Firearms Control Act.

I wish to thank the legal team of the Department of Safety and Security - led by Adv Koch, and the Secretariat - led by Mr Rasegatla - for their sterling work. Without their support and hard work it would have been very difficult for the portfolio committee to finish the work.

Lastly, I must thank the members of the portfolio committee for their support and even in respect of those who are opposing this Bill, I still welcome their contribution. That is why we believe in multiparty democracy. Even though they will be opposing the Bill their contribution to the Bill was very much appreciated. [Applause.]

Mr E T FERREIRA: Chairperson, the IFP acknowledges the urgent need for legislation for the private security industry. The industry is in turmoil, with fly-by-night security operators doing irreparable harm to the name of the industry. Workers are often exploited in this industry, and are often not even paid the already too low minimum wages.

Many people will be shocked to know that thousands of security guards and officers in our country are paid just over R1 000 per month for working 12- hour shifts at a time. That much stricter legislation is needed is not in dispute. As far as this Bill in front of us is concerned, however, the question can, very rightly, be asked whether it is not going to create more problems than it will be solving.

If I can use soccer terms, there have always been red card and yellow card issues in this Bill, the red card issue being the involvement or not of foreigners in the industry. There was a time during deliberations in the committee that the ANC was completely adamant that under no circumstances will foreigners be allowed any involvement whatsoever in the industry, not even minority shareholding.

That attitude was completely puzzling, to say the least, as major overseas companies have invested between R2 and R3 billion in this industry in South Africa. Telling them that they must sell and go was always going to send the worst possible signals to investors from abroad.

The theory that some rich, crazy overseas persons could come and build themselves a military organisation in South Africa, under the pretence of being a security company, never held much water, as I am confident there are enough rich and crazy people in this country who are capable of doing exactly the same and who would, maybe, like to do so.

When one looks at the companies from abroad that have invested here in our security industry, and the ones that are interested in still doing so, there can be no doubt whatsoever that we are dealing here with bona fide major companies who are clearly in it purely for business reasons.

Fortunately, some people in Cabinet saved the day for us in this regard, and the ANC study group were called to order. We believe that one of the better finance Ministers on the planet had a major role in this. We are extremely thankful and relieved that sanity has finally prevailed in this matter.

Now that the red card issue has been resolved, we can support this Bill, although we have many reservations still, and subsequently voted against several paragraphs at the committee level. The Bill covers too wide a spectrum of people that will eventually have to register as security providers. A locksmith and any other person who cuts duplicate keys will have to register, so too will the person in a shop who sells one a safe and explains to one how to operate it. It is debatable whether it was the initial intention of this Bill to include all these kinds of people. It is an open question whether the authority will ever have the money for the bureaucracy that this could create.

Interpreted down to the letter, one could eventually have half of South Africa’s population having to register as security providers, because the effect of this Bill is that, say, I go on holiday for three weeks and I get a relative or a friend to come and look after my house for that period, if that person does it for any benefit or reward, it will mean that they will have to register as a security provider. I cannot believe that it was ever the intention of this Bill to include all those kinds of people.

The composition of the council of the authority is very problematic. Although it has been improved to an extent, so that the Minister will appoint the council in consultation with Cabinet, the Bill still specifically prohibits industry representation on the council.

We are now sitting with the situation where the security industry has to fund the security authority, but is prohibited by law from having representation on the council of that authority, taxation without representation, in other words. We simply cannot support this.

The chairperson of the committee, the hon Mr George, suggested just now in his speech that the parties opposing this particular issue did not come with any suggestions, and I would like to submit that that is simply not true. The IFP specifically proposed that the five-person council should be increased to an eight-person council and that there should be three representatives from the security industry.

We even said that it would be in order if they did not have voting rights, but that at least the industry should be given some representation on the council that they are expected to fund. So, what Mr George told us is not altogether true, and I do not believe that that particular suggestion of ours was a suggestion which could not have been taken on board.

At one stage the Bill was going to ensure the employment of the staff of the current security authority by the new authority. We are disappointed that this has been removed from the Bill. We still believe that the new authority will have to be much bigger than the current one in order to fulfil its mandate. Under the circumstances, we do not see a problem in securing the jobs of the staff of the current authority. The last issue that we are concerned about is that of the powers that the authority is given to withdraw the registration certificates of security providers, effectively closing their doors. We do not have a problem with a security company’s doors being closed pending a criminal investigation where prima facie evidence is presented. We do believe, however, that the authority’s power to close the doors of a security company on a mere authority investigation is excessive and dangerous in the extreme. We are also convinced that the powers of the inspectors of the authority are rather excessive.

Having said all the above, we will give this legislation the benefit of the doubt and trust that it will generally improve the private security industry, and not cause more problems than we already have in the industry.

Ms D M MOROBI: Chairperson, in the seven years of our young democracy, the Government of South Africa has shown its commitment to justice for all. Its commitment ensures that all citizens of South Africa, irrespective of colour and creed, are entitled to the same rights - the right to life, the right freely to choose an occupation, the right not to be deprived of their property and the right to peace, safety and security.

This bears testimony to the consistency of the ANC’s constant reference to the Freedom Charter, which states that ``there shall be security’’. This Bill before us intends to achieve and maintain a trustworthy, regulated and legitimate private security industry, of which all South Africans will be beneficiaries.

Focusing on the private security industry regulatory authority, we must emphasise that the aim here is to address and explain the need for a regulatory authority that is completely independent from the industry. In the past, the Security Officers’ Interim Board consisted mainly of representatives from within the industry. This raised concerns about the board’s ability to act as an independent regulatory body. It also created tension within the industry, as board members who run private security companies posed serious concerns around conflicts of interest. It is absolutely clear to all of us that one cannot be a referee and a player at the same time. These problems necessitated a Bill aimed at regulating South Africa’s private security industry and protecting the public from unscrupulous fly-by-night firms.

The protection of the public interest and the private security industry itself is seen as the primary reason for the independent regulation of this industry. Those entrusted with the regulation of the private security industry must be persons without any connection with or vested interest in the private security industry.

With this Bill we have an opportunity, as representatives of our people and as legislators, to disallow the potential for practices such as corruption and conflict of interest. It provides us with a prime chance to move away from apartheid-style management and governance, where an industry was left to its own devices, and could make or break its own rules without any fear or intervention from the government, without corruption in its ranks being exposed, investigated and prosecuted.

In line with the ANC’s tough stand against corruption in the public and private sectors, the Bill before us addresses the progressive notion of disincentives for potential corruption, and it is an important one too, since it stresses the implicit independence of the regulatory body. Such disincentives will begin to deter immoral or illegal acts, as we take charge of restoring the moral fibre of our society.

The main objectives of the authority are to regulate the private security industry, and to exercise effective control over the practice of security service providers, both in the public and national interests, and in the interests of the private security industry itself.

The industry should operate in a professional, transparent and accountable manner, and should promote equality and accessibility. We expect the industry also to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law, to adhere to the principles of transformation and to be seen to be acting in both the national and public interests. Accountability should take place through the regulatory authority.

The industry must advance and give concrete expression to the policy of black economic empowerment, to ensure the advancement of persons and companies from previously disadvantaged communities and sectors of the economy. The industry should not be seen to be acting in a discriminatory manner, which contravenes the principles of the Constitution of our country and other legal instruments.

The requirement of the Bill is that control of the industry be exercised on behalf of the public, through the body of the regulatory authority, as well as through the organs of the state. The Minister of Safety and Security shall have oversight authority over the independent regulatory authority, which is required to report to the Minister.

The council of the independent regulatory authority will consist of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson and three councillors, all of whom will be appointed by the Minister of Safety and Security, in consultation with Cabinet. Each of these persons must be in a position to demonstrate that they have no connection whatsoever with the private security industry. They will be subjected to full clearance by the National Intelligence Agency.

The council may appoint one or more committees, consisting of one or more councillors or one or more persons, to assist the authority in relation to matters referred to it by the council, and to report on the matter to the council. Committees may be established by the council to represent different sectors. A person may be designated by the council to be chairperson of the committee, if the committee consists of more than one person, and the council is not legally bound to accept any recommendation made by the said committee, in terms of clause 13 of the Bill. The accounting records and annual financial statements of the authorities must be audited by persons appointed by the council and should be registered in terms of the Public Accountants and Auditors’ Act 80 of 1991.

In closing, I would like to thank the Secretariat, Mr Rasegatla and his team, and Adv Louis Koch and his team. A word of praise also goes to the chairperson, Comrade Mluleki George, for the way in which he handled the portfolio committee meetings. Lastly, I would like to thank the ANC study group and members of the opposition parties, with whom we differed, agreed to disagree, and then reached consensus and, ultimately reached our goal. [Applause.]

Adv A H GAUM: Chairperson, it is a pity that, despite the laudable aims and legitimate intentions of this Bill, a faction in the ANC decided to surround it with so much entangling controversy by attempting to ban all foreign investment in the industry. This sent shock waves through the security industry and the investor community, the aftereffects of which will still be felt for a long time to come. It was an irresponsible and tragically short-sighted move, greatly damaging South Africa’s image.

The reasons why the ANC embarked on this ill-considered journey are still not clear. Originally, the Chairperson of Committees cited increased security worries after the 11 September attacks. When it became very clear that this excuse would not fly, by mistake another reason - possibly the true one - was given, namely empowerment. This wishful thinking was that foreign owners could be bought out and replaced by South African owners. However, it soon became clear that South African banks would probably lack the capacity to provide all the necessary funds and this would mean the collapse of an industry worth billions of rands and the loss of tens of thousands of related jobs.

I can well imagine that the hon George and his fellow crusaders initially thought that this financial difficulty could be sidestepped due to an expected fall in the rand value of foreign-owned companies when the threats of the ban on foreign shareholding became fact. As investors were forced out, the shares would be easy pickings. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the country, this possibility faded away when we reminded them of the bilateral agreement between the Government of South Africa and Britain aimed at the promotiom and protection of investments. If such investments are put at risk by South Africa or Britain, the agreement requires compensation from the guilty country, amounting to the genuine value of the investment expropriated immediately before the expropriation became public knowledge, whichever is the earlier.

I believe that Minister Tshwete started backing off when this agreement was brought to his attention by us and when it became clear to him that Britain, rightly, would insist that South Africa keep to this agreement, and would not allow him to make a nonsense of South Africa’s international obligations. Fortunately, Minister Tshwete eventually came to his senses and forced the hand of the bewildered ANC portfolio committee members who had fought so vehemently for the proposal. Ironically, it had originated from Minister Tshwete and his fellow cowboy and cowgirl comrades such as Minister Penuell Maduna and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nkosazana Zuma.

At the same time that President Thabo Mbeki and Ministers Trevor Manuel and Alec Erwin were visiting Japan to secure increased future investments and to convince the Japanese that our country was a safe destination for business, the cowboys were wrecking those investments that had already been made. One cannot help but ask oneself whether the one hand knows what the other hand is doing in this Cabinet. Do the Ministers not talk or listen to one another?

There are further worries about the ANC’s handling of this matter. While we advanced sound arguments in an endeavour to convince portfolio committee members of the right course to take and to persuade them that they were horribly off-track, we were accused of acting in the interests of foreigners and of not having trust in South Africans. I really believe that we cannot tolerate a situation in this Parliament where members accuse each other of being unpatriotic when, by trying to protect and encourage foreign direct investment, they were in fact acting in the interests of all South Africans. The DA has the interests of all the people at heart and not specific or foreign interests. I detest this kind of insult and really hope that it will cease. [Interjections.]

Apart from helping to terminate the ludicrous plan to chase away investors, we have also contributed, through constructive engagement, to improving various other aspects of the Bill. At our insistence, the definition of private investigator was watered down to ensure that auditors, advocates, attorneys and forensic scientists were not accidentally required by the Bill to register as security service providers. We prevented polygraphists from being covered by the Bill. We managed to ensure that the council of the regulatory authority is not only accountable to the Minister, but also to Parliament, by requiring the council to table a copy of the annual report in Parliament and to present further reports as Parliament may request. We agreed upon a code of conduct for inspectors to ensure that their important and wide-ranging powers are not open to abuse. These are examples - and there are many others - where, through our thorough and committed work, we have accomplished improved legislation.

Tog is daar veral uiteindelik drie redes waarom ons nie die wetsontwerp kan steun nie. Eerstens, terwyl die ANC-lede aanvanklik met ons saamgestem het dat slotmakers nie binne die reikwydte van die wetsontwerp behoort te val nie, hierdie lede, soos met heelwat ander kwessies, ook hier bollemakiesie geslaan het. Ons dink egter steeds dat dit belaglik is om slotmakers, ``locksmiths’’, as sekuriteitsdiensverskaffers te beskou en in die proses aan die verreikende regulering van hierdie wetsontwerp te onderwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[There are ultimately three reasons in particular why we cannot support this Bill. Firstly, whilst the ANC members initially agreed with us that locksmiths should not fall within the ambit of this Bill, these members, as with many other issues, are now also turning a somersault in this regard. We still, however, think that it is ludicrous to regard locksmiths as security service providers and in the process subject them to the far- reaching regulation of this Bill.]

Firstly, this is nothing less than overkill and will negatively impact on the small businessman who will now be subjected to stringent regulations. Secondly, we are also flabbergasted by the unwillingness of the ANC to allow representation for employees and employers on the council of the security industry’s regulatory authority.

Nie eens Minister Asmal sal dit doen met sy rade nie. [Not even Minister Asmal will do that with his councils.]

We cannot see how those who provide the funds for the authority to operate can be disallowed representation on its council. We take particular interest in the fact that unions such as Cosatu can allow the ANC to get away with this bizarre exclusion. If I remember correctly, the hon George said something about him not wanting unions to hold the council to ransom. It seems as if the ANC is learning many lessons, because this Bill also has the unprecedented provision that the Minister may only allow consultants - I want the hon Asmal to look into this matter - if absolutely necessary. This is an invention of the hon George which, this time, is strongly backed by the DA. But we do believe that the hon George went too far by excluding workers from the council.

Our third objection relates to the powers of the Minister, particularly his draconian power to issue directives to the council or the authority and even to assume responsibility for functions of the council or the authority if a so-called acceptable standard in the fulfilment of a function is not met. These kinds of interventionist provisions have become the rule rather than the exception in recent legislation. It is unacceptable to us that the Government uses every opportunity to enable itself to intervene in areas of activity where it does not rightly belong.

The DA maintains that the private security industry needs to be properly regulated. But we also stress, and we have done so for some time now, that it is the failure of the Government to ensure the safety and security of its citizens that has resulted in those that can afford it turning to the private sector for the protection of their families and possessions. The large majority of South Africans cannot afford private security, and the ANC Government is failing to equip the SAPS to do the job. Now that they haved stopped trying to chase away foreign investors, they must start catching criminals.

In die finale instansie wil ek ook baie dankie sê aan ons regsadviseurs wat hier agter sit, vir die groot rol wat hulle gespeel het en die hulp wat hulle aan ons verleen. Ek dink werklik dat ons portefeuljekomitee tog wel besonder goed saamwerk. Die ANC laat ook die opposisie toe om standpunte te stel en dit ten minste te oordink en dan na ons terug te kom daaroor, soos duidelik geblyk het ten opsigte van verskillende aspekte van hierdie wetsontwerp. Dit is egter nie die ervaring wat ek gehad het in Minister Asmal se onderwyskomitee nie. In daardie geval het ‘n mens ongelukkig ‘n situasie van mense wat nie werklik luister na ander standpunte nie en wat uiteindelik net doen wat hulle wil. Mnr Mluleki George moet bedank word dat dit nie die situasie is in die Komitee oor Veiligheid en Sekuriteit nie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[In the final instance I would also like to thank our legal advisers who are sitting at the back here for the great role which they played and for the help they provided. I really think that our portfolio committee does indeed co-operate exceptionally well. The ANC also allows the opposition to offer viewpoints and then at least considers them and comes back to us on them, as was clearly seen with regard to the different aspects of this Bill. This is, however, not the experience I had with Minister Asmal’s education committee. In that case unfortunately one has a situation where people do not really listen to other people’s viewpoints and eventually just do what they please. Mr Mluleki George should be thanked for the fact that that is not the situation in the Committee on Safety and Security. [Applause.]]

Mr A M MAZIYA: Chairperson, Minister Tshwete, hon Ministers, hon members, representatives of the department, the Secretariat and members of the public, according to research conducted, the need for regulation of the private security industry is universally accepted by the majority of stakeholders. This is not only within the industry, but also in the public sector. A regulatory authority which is independent from persons who have an interest in the industry was found to be the most appropriate and suitable vehicle for regulation.

Before I dwell much on this topic, I want to make one thing clear to both the industry and Parliament. Our position as the ANC in relation to foreign participation is very clear. It is our belief that the security infiltration of any country is easy when one has foreigners involved in security matters. We therefore suggest that the position adopted in allowing foreign participation should be a matter that we will continue to discuss, unless we have a way of dealing with security checks of foreigners.

The decision to exclude foreigners from the industry was a correct decision. We have weighed our security interests against the economic interests of the country and we are of the view we will be able to balance the two. I want to inform the Minister that this position is not influenced by any pressures. It is because of our long history of reasoning that we were able to arrive at this decision.

The Bill makes provision for the establishment of a private security industry regulatory authority to replace the existing Security Officers’ Interim Board. The role of this regulatory authority is not merely limited to the protection of the public against unscrupulous operators in the industry. It is extended to the protection of state interests, the protection of consumers and the protection of the occupation of security service provider. The primary objective of the authority is to provide for the regulation of the security industry and to exercise control over the occupation of security service providers in the national interest, which is both the public and private interests in the security industry. A council consisting of persons who are independent of the private security industry will govern the regulatory authority.

There have been some rumblings that the industry, the union and the community are not represented. Our view as the ANC is that it is not only people who pay subscriptions who are expected to participate and legislate for the country. This Government must be responsible for regulating and ensuring that the laws of the country are respected, irrespective of whether people participate. We want to make it clear that we have a mandate. Our mandate is to ensure that we govern and do so properly.

We would want the community to come to Parliament and share in our deliberations. The authority will not be able to govern this industry. Our expectations are to influence the industry and have it in our sights, and be involved in the day-to-day activities of the authority. Provision is therefore made for the industry and other role-players to participate at various levels. Decisions will be arrived at at these levels and it will be possible for them to make inputs on how they need to be regulated. We feel this is fair enough and adequate.

Provision is made in the Bill to ensure that the authority is able to achieve its objectives. These provisions relate, amongst others, to members of staff of the authority. The main pillar in the staff component is inspectors. They form part of the law enforcement division within the authority. The law enforcement division is the primary mechanism for monitoring compliance with the Bill and the overall enforcement of it. These inspectors are tasked with the duty to carry out inspections of the affairs of the security service providers and to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are complied with.

Inspectors are given powers to enter premises occupied by security service providers, or another person who employs security officers, for purposes of inspection. They can also search, and seize any record, document or object which can serve as evidence at proceedings of improper conduct against that security service provider.

Considering concerns which have been alluded to by previous speakers, it cannot be denied that the industry is quite sensitive and must be dealt with cautiously. The capacity of private security companies to procure arms and the concern that the industry might possibly contain some elements who have a potential to engage in abuse, and the implications of such abuse for the security of the public, the state and the industry itself, are a few indicators of the sensitive nature of this industry. It is on this basis that the inspectors are given powers of arrest in instances where such arrests will serve the purposes of this Bill. There has been a lot of argument put forward against these powers. Some people argue that these powers are excessive and need not be given to inspectors. We are, however of the opinion that inspectors will be dealing with security service providers who are potentially dangerous due to their capacity to procure arms and the involvement of some private security companies in dishonest activities. There is also the potential threat it poses to state security and the public, and the size and scope of this industry. Therefore, it is imperative that inspectors be properly equipped to execute their duties effectively.

However, these powers have not been given without any safeguards. The inspectors will function under the direction of the director, who will in turn be acting under the direction of the council. The council is accountable to the Minister, who is in turn accountable to Parliament. These accountability structures ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances to guard against the abuse of power by the inspectors.

The Bill also makes provision for the drawing up of a code of conduct for inspectors. The code of conduct will contain rules relating to the minimum standards of conduct to which the inspectors will be obliged to adhere in the exercise of any of their powers conferred on them by the Bill. It will also provide the penalties for contravention of the code. We in the ANC believe that there will be no obstacles to the enforcement and implementation of this Bill. Therefore, we support the Bill. [Applause.]

Ms A VAN WYK: Chairperson, the Bill before the House aims at regulating an industry with an annual turnover of more than R12 billion, employing in the vicinity of 182 000 private security officers.

In an increasingly crime-infested environment, private citizens and business entrust this industry with their lives and property, and they pay good money to do so. It is in the public interest that Government takes responsibility to ensure that this industry is properly regulated and controlled. The aim of this Bill is not to stifle the industry but to ensure that the public gets the service that they have paid for, and that the industry itself is protected against bad elements that appear on the scene from time to time.

A very important reason why the industry needs proper regulation is the conditions of service of the employees. There have simply been too many reports of employers exploiting employees in this industry. Many of us in our constituency work have to deal with security officers who are disgruntled and disillusioned. Not only is this exploitation unacceptable within the framework of our Constitution, but it also impacts negatively on the quality of service that the public receives.

History has clearly indicated to us that we cannot leave the industry to regulate itself. The Security Officers’ Interim Board was characterised by infighting and accusations of prejudice against certain companies, and it lacked accountability. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, no cross-bench conferencing, please.

Ms A VAN WYK: In 1999 the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security invited the board to engage with the committee regarding its work. It was only when we started the public process on the Bill that they came to the party. We need to learn from the past. One of our strongest criticisms still remains that the Bill excludes the industry from the council.

However, we have indicated that we would like to see the inclusion of representatives of the industry and employees on the council, but without any voting power. It is clear that the industry cannot regulate itself, but there is no representation at all from the industry and that is also not an ideal situation. We call on the Minister and the council, once it is appointed, to seek industry involvement and input. There are enough mechanisms in the Bill that allow for that. They just need to be actively pursued.

A great responsibility rests with council and its staff. It will have to ensure that private security companies and private security officers register. It will have to ensure that the training of security officers is adequate and that training institutions are legitimate. We all remember the exposé on a number of so-called training institutions that issued false training certificates. This must stop. It not only endangers the public, but also the life of the person who bought this qualification. [Interjections.]

Prof L M MBADI: Chairperson, on a point of order: That is Ms Van Wyk from the UDM, not the New NP.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The hon member is referring to the screen denoting that Ms Van Wyk belongs to the New NP, and he is correcting that. She belongs to the UDM.

Ms A VAN WYK: It will also become clear once we say whether we support the Bill or not.

The council will have to ensure that the training of security officers is adequate and that training institutions are legitimate. We all remember the exposé on a number of so-called training institutions that issued false training certificates. This must stop. It not only endangers the public, but also the life of the person who bought this qualification. This is the responsibility of the new council.

The new council will have to ensure that the public knows about the role of the council and the services that the council provides. They need to ensure that they are accessible to every citizen who is making use of a private security service. They will be the point that the public will turn to, not only when they experience problems, but also before they enter into a contract with a private security company. It will be the council that will have to give the assurance to the public that they are dealing with a legitimately registered company.

It will not be good enough to say, as the previous board did, that this can be checked on the website when nobody knows about the existence of the website. The new council will have to embark on a public awareness programme reflecting the current status of the industry, the responsibilities and the security of the council.

I would also like to call on the industry to co-operate with the new council. They must not see this as an obstacle in their way, but rather as a tool that can improve their sometimes somewhat battered image. It is only those who are working with their own agendas that will have reason to fear the Bill. The UDM will support the Bill. [Time expired.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, the protection of every person’s right to life and security of the person, as well as the right not to be deprived of property, is fundamental to the wellbeing and social and economic development of every person.

It is the responsibility of Government to ensure that the rights of citizens to life, safety and security are protected, and to punish those that undermine and violate such rights. It is an indictment against any government for citizens to turn to private security companies for protection while they are paying taxes to a government that should be protecting them from criminals. The increase of private security companies in a country means that citizens have lost their confidence and faith in the police that should be protecting them. The escalating crime in this country is forcing concerned citizens to spend more on their security because the Government has failed them. As a result, private security companies are mushrooming throughout the country, and hence the need to regulate this industry.

The ACDP fully supports the regulation of the private security industry in our country, and therefore we will support this Bill, albeit with some reservations. Although I was assured in the committee that clauses 31 and 32 will not be abused, and will also not result in individuals using security officers being victimised by the inspectors, I nevertheless want to register my concerns about the inclusion of the words ``any other person who employs a security officer’’ in clauses 31 and 32, since this may have unintended consequences.

I believe clauses 31 and 32 are too broad, open to abuse and will be successfully challenged in the Constitutional Court. I still maintain that it is not individuals who employ personal security officers or bodyguards who should be inspected by security service providers. The aim of the Bill is not to target any businessman or politician who has a personal assistant looking after his or her security, or any other individual who may need that extra protection of a bodyguard.

I believe that it would be an infringement of our constitutional right to privacy for any inspector to enter and search any private home or individual whose only crime would be to use the services of a personal security officer, without prior notice, as clauses 31 and 32(a)(1) suggest. We nevertheless trust that with the passing of this Bill, the abuses and exploitations that are currently experienced by security guards will become something of the past. We will support the Bill.

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, the original title of the Bill was Security Industry Legislation Bill''. This title was not appropriate. It was not clear whether this was a reference to a Government or private body. The PAC welcomes the titlePrivate Security Industry Regulation Bill’’.

The security industry is a sensitive matter. When infiltrated, it can endanger a country and the very thing that it purports to secure. The PAC is unhappy that the Bill does not forbid foreigners taking part in the private security industry. The industry risks being infiltrated by agents working to undermine this country’s security. The PAC considers this a sensitive industry, and it should be in the hands of the citizens of this country whose patriotism is not in doubt. It is also important that political power is translated into economic power. Political freedom is void without economic power.

The security industry is the kind of industry where local investors in this country should play an important role and thus speed up the economic empowerment of African people, who are being marginalised economically at an alarming rate throughout the country. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I do not think that members can hear the hon member. Order, please!

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, the PAC goes beyond this security industry issue. The PAC would like to see African governments formulating a foreign investment policy. Africa is a market which offers high profits to foreign investors. Capital owners in search of high profits do not always invest in industrial sectors which strengthen the economic fabric of African countries. [Time expired.]

Mme M A MOLEBATSI: Modulasetulo, Ditona tse le maloko a a tlotlegang a Ntlo e, mokgatlo wa ANC ka moono wa Freedom Charter wa re, ke a o nopola:

There shall be security and comfort …

O ya go sireletsa baagi ka kakaretso tota le ba makokokganetso. (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)

[Ms M A MOLEBATSI: Chairperson, members of this honourable House, in accordance with the sentiments expressed in the Freedom Charter, the ANC says, and I quote:

There shall be security and comfort …

And we will protect all citizens, including members of opposition parties.]

Why the need for a new law? There are many small fly-by-night types of security companies that provide a cheap, substandard service, thereby punishing the image and reputation of the industry as a whole. Through proper regulation the likelihood of misconduct by members of the security industry or members violating or threatening the public’s interests will be lowered significantly.

With the passing of the Security Officers Amendment Act of 1997, Parliament expressed clearly that regulatory reform of the private security industry was necessary. There are a number of key provisions of the amending Act that give expression to the need for a regulatory system. It is clear that the existing Act has become outdated, especially as the nature of the industry has changed. There were also concerns that the industry possibly contained some elements which had the potential to engage in abuse, given the nature of activities conducted by some members of the industry, not to mention the implications of such abuse for the security of the state.

The nature of the industry has changed significantly and it is no longer confined solely to the guarding and protection of persons and premises. The regulation of the private security industry is necessary to protect the national interest. Furthermore, there are also significant issues with respect to state sovereignty.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, no standing in the aisles.

Ms M A MOLEBATSI: South Africa is a sovereign state with a democratically elected Government. One of the key obligations of the Government is that of national security. National security is in itself a key factor in the realisation of the national interest and the objectives of the Government. As such the state therefore cannot afford to contest issues of national security with the private security industry.

The private security industry can participate in matters of national security only at the request of the state and on a very limited scale. However, this involvement in issues of national security pertain specifically to the sphere of crime prevention. Furthermore, the nature of this competition should be such that it does not contradict or negate the sovereign mandate of the Government. It should rather be complementary to the national interest and to the objectives of the Government.

It should be noted that there is an inherent contradiction between the interests of the private security industry and those of the state. While the state aims to achieve a stable and secure environment in which all threats to national security are either neutralised or contained, the private security industry thrives and grows in conditions in which threats proliferate and manifest themselves in diverse forms. As such, levels of crime should remain and a general sense of fear should prevail for the private security industry to grow and thrive, and to realise significant financial returns. It is this inherent contradiction which underpins the need for and importance of the regulation of the industry and, even more significantly, the independent regulation of the industry.

Regulation of the private security industry is necessary to protect the public’s interest in respect of ensuring that, firstly, the providers of security deliver a professional service to their clients, secondly, employees of security companies are adequately and appropriately trained, and thirdly, no member of the private security industry at any time presents a danger to members of the public.

Furthermore, it must be noted that South Africa is a constitutional state in which the Constitution is the highest law of the land. There is an obligation on both the Government and society at large to uphold and defend the Constitution. The private security industry has acquired capabilities and is undertaking operations which may infringe on every person’s right to privacy and, as such, infringe upon their constitutional right.

Their practices must be limited by regulation so as to ensure that the right enshrined in the Constitution continues to be applied and protected. Security organs of the state are subject to very strict measures with regard to their conduct in respect of their core business, more especially in terms of dealing with ordinary members of society.

In conclusion, the private security industry plays a role in the country’s economy. The industry has to create employment, thus reducing the effects that unemployment may have on society in general. The industry also contributes to a reduction in the levels of crime and towards infusing a sense of security for persons and property. The interests of the industry should, therefore, be protected through proper regulation. [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, the establishment of a security industry regulatory authority will offer a great service in terms of ensuring and overseeing the security industry. It will certainly assist with transparency, efficiency and the effective running of the sector.

The broadening of defined categories of the security industry, and the strict necessity for those that fall within this ambit to be registered or deemed as practising illegally will provide a system that will be able to keep ahead of all matters within the industry, but will also ensure the proper incorporation of agencies that are often used by villains as a tool to mastermind their operations.

Noting the wisdom of instituting such a body to oversee the industry, the hope exists that competent persons will be awarded positions to uphold its aims. The code of conduct presented by the Minister would also appear to assist in the proper running of the industry. There is fear, however, that although the task of the authority appears to be to the advantage of the industry the power awarded may be too vast. What provisions will be in place to avoid the extravagant use or abuse of such power? Who, in turn, will oversee the proper running of this authority?

Furthermore, what has happened to those bodies already in place to secure the smooth running of the industry? The issues of funding and the broad definition of ``industry’’ should be examined a bit closer, although there is this wise inculcation to introduce such provisions to manage the vast and expensive security industry that operates in both the private and public sectors. The MF supports the Private Security Industry Regulation Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, it is with a troubled mind that I take part in this debate today. [Interjections.] I am serious today. The AEB tries to be constructive and positive. Personally I was quoted somewhere in a newspaper urging Afrikaners to be more positive, to work together for the benefit of all South Africans. But, I must state clearly today that after what we have experienced during the debate on the Palestine issue, I have my doubts whether it is all worthwhile.

Hardly ever have I experienced such animosity, such a clear message that whatever we do, we will be contaminated forever. We can smile and socialise together, but as soon as something controversial is on the agenda, something is cutting through to the core of the different backgrounds we represent in this House and country. One gets the impression that words such as nation-building'', inclusivity’’ and ``reconciliation’’ are cheap talk. Today only proved to me that we still have a very long way to go, not only through what was said, but also the venom and animosity with which it was said.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member I have allowed you quite a degree of latitude, I must call you back to the topic that is in front of us.

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, back to the Bill is the next sentence, if members will only listen. The need for the regulation of the security industry is universally accepted by the majority of stakeholders not only within the industry, but also in the public sector. This is also common practice in a lot of countries. It is understandable that an industry that can have a force 50% larger than our own Police Force cannot be left unattended. The recent events in America also provide proof of this. Die vraag bly natuurlik staan: Waarom is hierdie industrie so groot in Suid- Afrika? Is dit nie ‘n refleksie op die wyse waarop die Regering sy primêre verantwoordelikheid, naamlik die veiligheid van sy mense, nakom nie? Die AEB is dankbaar dat die kortsigtige voorneme om buitelandse beleggings in hierdie industrie te verbied, laat vaar is. Die skade wat dit aan ons beeld en ons ekonomie gedoen het, sal nog ‘n ruk neem om te genees. Dit is ook ons standpunt dat dit bisar is om sleutelmakers onder hierdie bedryf in te sluit. Die AEB erken die noodsaak … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The question, of course, remains: Why is this industry so big in South Africa? Is it not a reflection on the way in which the Government is fulfilling its primary obligation, namely the safety of its people? The AEB is grateful that the shortsighted intention to ban foreign investment in this industry has been abandoned. The damage this has caused to our image and our economy will take a while to mend. It is also our contention that the exclusion of key figures in this industry is bizarre. The AEB acknowledges the need …]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your time has expired.

Mr C AUCAMP: As gevolg van die magte van die Minister sal ons nie dié wetsontwerp kan steun nie. [Because of the powers of the Minister, we will not be able to support this Bill.]

Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, hon Minister, members of the portfolio committee and my hon colleagues, today we are asked to pass a particular Bill which is very crucial to the lives of South Africans. It is a Bill that is going to go a very long way towards stabilising some parts of our society. But, we must say that there has been quite a number of issues that were raised by a number of members, which we have been able to debate and took members through within the portfolio committee. It is important and crucial for me to respond to these issues, because I have been quite vocal on some of these issues. But, we must say that right through the portfolio committee process, the ANC always said that we needed to find a balance between the security of the country and the investors. There is no way that one can compromise the security of the country only for investors, because as we have said, and we will continue to say, there is quite a number of lessons to be learnt and a lot of fear that has been created by the situation in America.

So, it is in the interests of the country that one always takes one’s security as a priority. That is why, whenever foreign participation has been debated, the ANC has been saying give us the balance of how they want us to protect South Africans, the citizens of this country. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Carry on, hon member.

Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, the opposition has not been able to provide us with a solution. We are quite aware, and we are not wavering on this, that globalisation is creeping in and over every aspect of life. And within the security companies the market forces are dominant. Ten years ago market forces were not interested in private security companies.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Mr Abram, can we have your attention please?

Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, private companies were not interested in the past 10 years, but today the private security industry is listed on the JSE. Now, what does that prove? It quite clearly explains to us that the market forces, though they are interested in profit, are the ones that are beginning to govern the security industry. I know all of those who have an interest in protecting those people who, as Meshoe said, feel that they are embattled by crime. That is not what the debate is about. What we are saying is that those that are beginning to take over the market, such as Fidelity Guard and Chubb, are clearly interested in making money within the security industry.

And we are asking: Should we not protect our own people against this type of crookery that is beginning to come in because it has an impact? There are those that had businesses before 1994. Those small business companies that surfaced then, today one cannot find them. Khulani’s are growing more than anything and this is what the ANC has been saying. We cannot protect our people against private companies so that they can be able to find a role for themselves, but we must say it has been quite problematic.

It is just that Gaum is not here, because he continues to insist that hon members have not been able to reflect on what exactly is happening. He has not been in any contact with the Minister. Everyone, including the chairperson of this committee, has been interacting and trying to find a solution. We were able to provide leadership. But, because Gaum is looking for tension between Cabinet and Parliament, he is always trying to see to it that we as the portfolio committee, from the side of the ANC, have not been able to listen to our Cabinet Ministers. We are quite clear about what we want to do. We are quite clear that we would want Parliament to have strength within it. We know the role of Parliament and that is where we are sticking our guns. But at the end of the day what we are looking for is how to provide leadership on very crucial issues.

Aucamp has just moved away from here. He says there is no leadership being provided. And we are saying that the chairperson of our portfolio committee has been providing leadership on a very crucial Bill, where there has been corruption and third force involvement, and even the Goldstone commission indicated that there is corruption and third force involvement.

These are experiences that have been happening within South Africa and building on that particular history, it is quite important that whenever one is interacting and trying to find solutions, one is able to build by taking one’s history, bringing one’s past and building a better future for oneself. There is no way that the present and the past could be separated just like that. What I am saying is that Gaum has not been able to understand that when leadership is provided, it is because of one particular reason - how does one find the balance between the investors and the security, because there is no way that one can compromise the security of our people for the sake of investors to flow in? In the past four to seven years no majority of investors has been flowing in the way we have been promised. And that experience is the one that we have been relating to.

And I continue to say that we do not blame anybody. If we could blame anybody, we would have loved to blame the DA, and more specifically, I would have loved to blame the New NP, because they have already spent R1 million more to be able to kick out Marais. We continue asking ourselves: How much more do they want to spend to kick out Van Schalkwyk, because he is struggling to come to Parliament today? He is not sitting here, he is not finding a job for himself, now they want to do that again.

I am just saying Gaum should be very careful of how he continues to relate to these matters, because they are of interest to us and are about our security. So, saying that we have not been listening to the Ministers, it is not like that; we will continue relating positively to our Ministers. There is nothing wrong with that; it is within the law.

But, what we are saying is that Tony Leon has shown disrespect to his own party and people. They have gone down even to local government where they are meddling in the affairs of local government. They have messed up. When we voted …

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, on a point of order: When I delivered my speech you stopped me and said I should get back to the Bill. Can we ask the same from this speaker?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Yes, hon member, confine yourself to the topic.

Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, I am going back to my topic. It is just that I know Aucamp is regretting today and he is not having a good day. But, it is not my duty to make his day.

However, what we are saying is that, with the involvement of the employers and employees and Gaum in his desperation looking for members and trying to create a division within Cosatu and the ANC - that is not what this case is all about. We are saying that this industry, in the way it is being formulated, would always go and look for the best South Africans who have skills to be able to rise and run the industry properly.

There is no way that one could continue to say that because that one has been appointed by the Minister, there must be somebody within the industry who is going to come with his constituency and hold the chairperson to ransom. We do not agree with that. We are saying that the chairperson should be allowed the authority to be able to run the industry. Allow the chairperson the authority to make decisions on how the industry has to be run.

There is no way that we could allow private companies to continue determining regulations and to continue saying that they will withdraw their money if ever they do not get what they want. This is what we are trying to be against and this is why we are saying that we have done this presentation and have been able to influence the situation. So, we are saying, let the authority be constituted by credible South Africans from all walks of life, be they judges, politicians, or whoever is interested in running the industry. But the point is that they must not be held to ransom by certain private companies or unions, because unions are fragmented.

It is not only Cosatu that we should be talking about. There are a lot of unions that are involved in the industry. It is in our interests that we should be able to protect the chairperson who will be having the authority, in whatever they might begin to do, so that one does not allow a person who has been appointed by the Minister to be told by somebody else that, if ever the chairperson does not do this and that, that person will call his union to come and organise a strike because the chairperson does not register a particular company.

We are fully aware and informed, as we are standing here, about the involvement of different unions in the business sector. We are saying that we should not create an authority that will continue to be held to ransom. That is why we have been able to stick to our guns and say that we are not going to allow that authority to be controlled by these types of people. We cannot open that loophole.

We are fairly aware that the business community they are talking about says we must be able to find ways of regulating them, because it is not only one businessperson that we are regulating. We are regulating a number of businesspeople who have different interests. One needs to provide us with evidence to prove that these businesspeople are homogeneous and that, in their homogeneity, they will be unanimous in whatever they will be voicing. We are saying that they should be careful, it has never happened in any society. It will not happen - unless they have scientific proof of whatever they want to bring to the table.

So, these are the bases on which the ANC has been saying that we will continue rejecting what they have been trying to insinuate, namely that we are able to the reject unions and the involvement of other people. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Mr Chairperson, hon members, the first point that I would like to make in my response to what has been said by hon members is to thank those members who have made very constructive comments about what this Bill contains. I would particularly like to commend the hon Van Wyk and the hon Adv Swart for their constructive approach to this difficult problem of placing on the table a Bill like the one in front of us here, for the first time ever in the history of this country.

We anticipated, even as we were formulating the policy document, that the road we would be following was going to be one full of potholes, steeps and descents, and that it was never going to be a straight one altogether. It is in that spirit that I accept the criticisms that have been made by the people that I have mentioned.

I am deliberately not including in that category people like Gaum who are totally lost to the cause of good sense in this House.

An HON MEMBER: He is the hon Gaum!

The MINISTER: The hon Gaum is totally lost to the cause of good sense in this House. He has made a number of wild statements and talked about irrelevant things. He is still trapped in the oxwagon era of cowboys. That is the favourite pet word on his lips time and time again. [Interjections.] There has been an indication, as has been said several times, that he is not going to be talking of cowboys in the absence of crooks. In the first instance, that crook is himself. [Interjections.] He has shown that very well. He has spent a lot of time talking about how the ANC component in that portfolio committee threatened foreign investments. That is an issue which has long since been resolved. Today, he is making it the centrepiece of his address precisely because he has no sense of responsibility at all, and there are no indications right now that he is going to grow after so many years in this Parliament. [Interjections.]

The British High Commissioner handled this matter far better than he has tried to handle it. The members of the private companies from abroad with whom we have had a series of discussions, together with other members of the Cabinet, like the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, have handled this matter in a far more responsible and patriotic South African way than these infantile aberrations that we have been listening to today from the hon André Gaum. [Laughter.]

They understood this matter in a very responsible way and that we were dealing with a very sensitive industry. They themselves made the point that the Government’s concerns about how to regulate this industry were well understood by them. The issue of foreign investment being jeopardised was never at the top in their discussions.

They discussed the issue with us and said that they were interested in involvement in the security industry for a number of reasons. They explained the issues just like the High Commissioner was explaining. There was never any issue of a binational commission being brought to the fore or the issue of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Industry being involved in those discussions.

The hon member is spinning all those things in his little mind because he is influenced by the situation in his own party, and he is extending the political problem that they are having right now to other areas. There is nothing of that kind. I have actually commended publicly, in a press conference, the way those British companies handled this matter.

I also want to commend the hon Adv Swart for a typical South African response to the situation. He went on his own, like he was saying here, to discuss the issues with the relevant people. He never sought the kind of bankrupt publicity that that member wanted to boast of here today about the existence of the security industry. Thanks to Rev Meshoe for supporting us. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Democratic Party, New National Party and Federal Alliance dissenting and Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging abstaining).

              DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, since the promulgation of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act in 1989, South Africa’s international relations - that is, diplomatic and consular relations - grew extensively, not only between states, but also with the United Nations, its numerous specialised agencies and other international organisations.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members who are leaving the Chamber, would you please do so quietly and unobtrusively!

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Since 1989, when the Act was promulgated, 110 diplomatic missions and 46 consular offices had been established in South Africa, and 18 offices of international organisations and specialised agencies have also been opened. With the extension of our diplomatic relations with states and organisations, it became clear that the 1989 Act was totally inadequate and outdated.

Since 1994, South Africa has also hosted several major conferences including the United Nations conferences. All of these conferences required the conferment of immunities and privileges to the participants. This is an aspect that was not provided for in the existing Act, and we were forced to follow time-consuming administrative processes to confer specific immunities and privileges to the participants. In this regard, the Act was in dire need of attention.

The present Act was also found to be in non-compliance with our international obligations. South Africa is a party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. However, the present Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act of 1989 incorporates only some of the provisions of the Vienna conventions.

Recently, Parliament approved South Africa’s accession to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies. In terms of these conventions, South Africa, as a party thereto, is under an obligation to give legal effect to the provisions thereof.

Another major shortcoming of the present Act is the ad hoc manner in which the granting of immunities and privileges to international organisations and specialised agencies is done. This gives rise to a situation where not all international organisations are treated in the same manner. This lack of uniformity in treatment makes the administration and regulation of the international organisations and specialised agencies in South Africa very problematic. Therefore, it is necessary to bring the Act in line with South Africa’s international obligations under these conventions. It became abundantly clear that the present Act had to be repealed and replaced by the proposed Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill of 2001.

Extensive research into the position regarding the granting of immunities and privileges in other countries had been undertaken before the Bill was drafted. The proposed Bill was also submitted for consultation to the relevant national departments. These departments all indicated that they had no objection to the Bill.

We will achieve four objectives through this Bill which will enable us to conduct our international relations in line with the accepted international rules and practices. These objectives are: firstly, the Bill must give effect to South Africa’s existing international obligations; secondly, the Bill must synchronise the ad hoc practices that exist at present when it comes to the regularisation of international organisations; thirdly, the Bill must lessen the time-consuming administrative processes that currently hamper the effectiveness of the administration of immunities and privileges; and fourthly, the Bill must deal with the outdated South African legislation.

It is our contention that the proposed Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill of 2001 that we are discussing here today will finally place South Africa in line with international practice concerning the granting of immunities and privileges to diplomatic and consular missions, their members, to the United Nations and its specialised agencies, and to other international organisations. Through this Bill, South Africa will also have complied with its international obligations under the various conventions to which it is a party and which prescribe the way in which immunities and privileges are to be conferred to the various subjects of international law. I hope that there will be no objections to this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr C W EGLIN: Chairperson, the Bill was originally introduced by the hon Minister as an amending Bill. It amended the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act of 1989, and the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Amendment Act of 1992, and added to them various international conventions to which are referred. The original form has been introduced …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I do not think that you are giving the speaker an opportunity to be heard. And I think that it is imperative that we should have a degree of order in the House. It is pointless my having to repeat time and again that the House should come to order, and that you continue blatantly to ignore the request of the Chair. Even now, as the Chair is talking to you, you are continuing to have your own conversations.

Mr C W EGLIN: Chairperson, the original text, in the form of a series of amendments, was difficult to follow and, to an extent, confusing. The portfolio committee sent the Bill back for redrafting and the redrafted Bill that is now before the House is a great improvement. We now have a straightforward 17-clause new Bill, plus four schedules, incorporating international conventions that have already been ratified by Parliament, and they are the Vienna Convention of 1961, 1963, and the Convention of the United Nations of 1946 and the Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies of 1947.

In addition to these conventions, there is clause 4, which enables the Government to enter into agreements and confer immunities and privileges on heads of state, special envoys and certain representatives of other states and organisations. In addition, clause 7(2) enables the Minister to confer immunities and privileges on persons and organisations where this, and I quote: ``… is in the interest of the Republic’’.

As a consequence of South Africa’s decades of isolation from the mainstream of international organisations and their activities, conventions relating to the United Nations and to its specialised agencies were never ratified by the old Parliament and South African law was never adjusted to reflect them.

The Bill before us, with its annexed conventions, makes fascinating reading. It takes one to the other world of international diplomacy with its do’s and do nots, its privileges and responsibilities, its old-world courtesies, and its subtle yet firm rules for managing inter-state diplomacy.

Let me just reflect on or two of these clauses. The conventions and the Bill together provide for the procedures for the establishing of embassies and consulates, for the appointment of diplomatic representatives, for regulating their staff, for determining precedence and protocol. The privileges and immunities included are extensive. For instance, the Vienna Convention makes the premises of a mission inviolable. Nobody from the home state can enter diplomatic or consulate premises without the permission of the other country. It makes the archives of the documents inviolable. It makes the persons inviolable. No diplomat or consul official may be arrested or detained.

What is more, the Vienna Convention says that the premises of a mission are exempted of all national, regional, municipal dues and taxes. What is interesting is that the loss to the municipality is made good by the revenue for Parliament. Very few people are aware of this.

The Vienna Convention further says that a diplomatic agent is immune from criminal jurisdiction. He or she may not be arrested or detained. He or she is not obliged to give evidence as a witness. He or she is immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in respect of private property, professional or personal activity. However, the sending state, the state to which the diplomat belongs, may waive the immunity in respect of that person. There are occasions where this has happened.

Secondly, our own Minister may withdraw immunities if the immunities of persons in South Africa are less than the immunities accorded to South Africans who are representatives abroad. In order to protect South African citizens who are precluded from instituting civil proceedings for damages against diplomatic agents, clause 13 states that the Minister of Foreign Affairs must prescribe by regulation liability insurance requirements which have to be met by the persons. So, in fact, South African citizens at least have a claim on the insurance liability, even if they have no claim against that person.

We believe that this Bill is necessary in order to cast in law South Africa’s obligations in terms of the relevant covenants that Parliament has already ratified. The DP therefore supports the Bill. Ms F HAJAIG: Chairperson, Deputy Minister and colleagues, I rise to support the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill. The democratisation of South Africa has created a historic opportunity for South Africa to play its rightful role on the world stage for the first time in the history of our country. Indeed, what we have achieved is recognised by the international community as a model which serves as an example, not only in troubled and repressive parts of the world, but also in the havens of democracy.

We participate as equal partners in various multilateral forums such as the UN, the Nonaligned Movement, the African Union and so forth. Currently South Africa has diplomatic relations with 139 countries, and 196 diplomatic and consulate missions are established in South Africa. Our obligations to the international community have indeed increased significantly since 1994, and thus we need to have the tools to ensure the safety, dignity and integrity of foreign nationals who are representatives of their various governments when they are in our country. This Bill makes provision regarding the immunities and privileges of diplomatic missions and consular posts and their members, of heads of states, special envoys and certain representatives of the United Nations and its specialised agencies, and other international organisations, and of certain other persons.

It also makes provision regarding immunities and privileges pertaining to international conferences and meetings. The previous Diplomatic Privileges Acts of 1989 and 1992 are now repealed to make way for the full incorporation of the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, and further to incorporate the conventions on privileges and immunities of the United Nations and its specialised agencies.

South Africa regularly hosts international meetings and conferences. Where the United Nations and its specialised agencies are involved, they normally require that specific immunities and privileges, as set out in the conventions, are applied during such meetings to the participants. With the passing of this Bill the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be authorised to confer such immunities and privileges to foreign nationals and functional immunities to South Africans who are employed as officials of the United Nations and its specialised agencies.

All conferments must be published by notice in the Gazette. The Minister must keep a register in which there must be registered the names of all persons who enjoy a) immunity from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic and b) immunities and privileges in accordance with the conventions. This register must be published once a year in the Gazette. Reciprocal obligations must exist between the parties which confer and accept the privileges and immunities, that is, the extending state and the accepting state.

What was the purpose of the Vienna conventions which will now have the force of law in our country? The 1961 convention’s preamble says the following, and I quote:

Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognised the status of diplomatic agents,

Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of states, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

Realising that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing states …

The Vienna Convention has 52 articles that govern the behaviour of the extending and receiving states in such a way that the interests of both states are protected and people can work creatively without fear of persecution or imprisonment. In all these conventions there is an article which spells out what should be done if there has been an abuse of privilege.

Lastly, I would like to enumerate the various UN specialised agencies which are governed fully or in part by the UN Convention, namely the International Labour Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Health Organisation, the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union, the International Refugees Organisation, the World Meteorological Organisation, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, the International Finance Corporation, the International Development Association, the Governing Council of the International Fund for Agricultural Development and, lastly, the United Industrial Development Organisation.

With the passing of this Bill South Africa will be in line with the rest of the world, providing adequate protection for the diplomatic community. [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson …

An HON MEMBER: Koos, jy moet mooi praat. [Koos, you must speak well.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Ek sal baie mooi praat, hoor. [I shall speak very well.]

An HON MEMBER: Dankie, Kosie. [Thank you, Kosie.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, the IFP supports the Bill before the House, and as we have heard the hon the Minister and two other speakers so far eloquently explaining the background and objectives of the Bill, I do not aim to repeat their contributions. Rather, I want to focus briefly on the outstanding work of the UN and its specialised agencies. The UN and its agencies, such as the World Food Programme, the UN Development Programme and the High Commissioner for Refugees, play a vital role in addressing some of the most pressing political, economic and social problems facing the world community. Poverty relief, relief from hunger, medicine, providing humanitarian assistance to displaced peoples and putting an end to conflict are only some of the areas on which the UN is focusing.

Much of the UN’s efforts are directed towards Africa, a continent where poverty, conflict and disease are rife. There are many historical and even current reasons for the situation, but I do not want to dwell on them today. Rather, I want to argue that our African reality requires us to recognise, now more than ever, that the continued efforts of the UN are vital to the long-term improvement of the quality of life of African people.

We should therefore do everything in our power to make it easier for the United Nations and its specialised agencies to operate to its maximum potential in Africa, particularly in South and Southern Africa.

It is therefore our wish that the Bill before us today will achieve exactly this, by streamlining administrative arrangements between South Africa and the United Nations and its personnel and by removing bureaucratic obstacles that may frustrate the good work of the United Nations.

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, because I still want to go and watch The Magnificent Seven on television, which starts at seven, I will be very brief. [Laughter.]

In terms of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Bill, the immunities and privileges reserved for diplomatic personnel will now be extended to certain representatives of the United Nations and its special agencies. The New NP supports the Bill because it relieves the department of an enormous administrative burden in terms of procedures to be followed to confer immunities and privileges on participants in conferences hosted, for example, by the UN. I think the recent conference on racism is a case in point.

The Bill, inter alia, also enacts into law certain conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. Now my question to the hon the Deputy Minister is: What other conventions have thus far been enacted into law, more specifically, as the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilian persons in times of war, and specifically Protocol 1 to this convention, which strictly forbids any attacks on soft targets in times of conflict, been enacted into law in South Africa?

Ek verstaan nie klousule 12 nie en ek hoop die Minister sal dit aan my verduidelik. Dié klousule bepaal dat buitelandse missies wat veranderings aan die gebou wil aanbring waarin hulle gehuisves word, skriftelike toestemming van die direkteur-generaal moet kry. Ek verstaan dit nie. In baie gevalle koop buitelandse missies eiendom in Suid-Afrika vir die huisvesting van ambassades of konsulate. As hulle veranderings aan dié geboue wil aanbring wat hul eiendom is, waarom moet hulle toestemming van die Direkteur-generaal van die Departement van Buitelandse Sake kry? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[I do not understand clause 12 and I hope that the Minister will explain it to me. This clause provides that foreign missions wanting to effect alterations to the building in which they are accommodated should get written permission from the Director-General. I do not understand this. In many cases foreign missions buy property in South Africa to provide accommodation for embassies or consulates. If they want to make alterations to these buildings, which belong to them, why should they get permission from the Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs?]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member! I hope you enjoy The Magnificent Seven. [Laughter.] Mr M E MABETA: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister and members of Parliament, this Bill amends the old Act as it relates to special unit agencies and other organisations operating in South Africa. It includes all international protocols and thus aligns us with all the conventions that were ratified.

Our Constitution requires us to enact these conventions into law because they are applicable and therefore we, the UDM, fully supports the Bill as necessary. The proposed Act that will govern diplomatic offices and international conferences. The new regulations include a comprehensive insurance which all diplomatic offices must take. Further, it extends liabilities to include enough insurance requirements to deal with accidents and criminal activities.

As our country embraces the challenges emanating from its pioneering vision and mission with regard to the African Renaissance and African diplomatic initiatives it is bound to enter into various international partnerships and agreements with other states and nonstate actors. Inevitably, representatives of these bodies will locate in South Africa, and therefore this Bill makes the privileges and immunities they are entitled to operable in terms of our laws. This Bill provides an operable framework for the protection of people engaged in partnerships and relationships who enter into guarantees of noninterference, which are very important for both sides.

In conclusion, I would like to say thanks to those who struggled for our status in the international community of free people, and to the international community for the much-needed support so that South Africa can view old Acts as inadequate and outdated. This gives credence to the confidence that many South Africans have that we are destined to play an important role in the international community. And, our role on the continent and in the world at large is bound to reflect that our struggle and the efforts of many who helped us through the United Nations were not pointless.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF acknowledges the pressure endured by and imposed upon South African diplomats around the globe. They serve to represent and put forth our country in many aspects and relations, and especially make their mark as global marketers in the scenes of investment, marketing and trade.

Noting the pressure that accompany these tasks, it would be wise to inculcate certain international diplomatic protocols into our system of law, as this Bill sets out to do. The clause clearly expands in order to make available provisions for the many circumstances that our diplomats might find themselves in, and in turn institute a more compliant relationship between South Africa and the globe in terms of diplomatic norms and procedures.

The adoption of certain provisions from the Vienna Convention and Convention of the United Nations would be the way to achieve this, since these host global influences.

The MF supports this Bill. [Applause.] The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson and hon members, I must thank you for your unanimous support for this Bill. My only fear is that it might reflect that there are many potential ambassadors in our ranks and, therefore, everybody supported this Bill. I hope that that is not true. We will answer some of the questions at a later stage. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

     INTERIM RATIONALISATION OF JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, in terms of item 16 of Schedule 6 to the Constitution, every court existing when the Constitution took effect continues to function and exercise jurisdiction in terms of the legislation applicable to it, subject to any amendment or repeal of that legislation. A provincial or local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa or a Supreme Court of a homeland becomes a High Court without any alteration to its area of jurisdiction, subject to any rationalisation.

All courts must be rationalised with a view to establishing a judicial system that is suitable to the requirements of the Constitution, and the Minister responsible for the administration of justice, acting after consultation with the Judicial Services Commission, must manage the said rationalisation. The principal object of the Interim Rationalisation of Jurisdiction of High Courts Bill is, therefore, to confer on the Minister the power to alter the area of jurisdiction of any High Court where this is necessary, after consultation with the Judicial Services Commission.

Before I conclude, I would like briefly to refer to the comments submitted on the Bill by the hon Judge President Pickard of the Bisho High Court, who said the following:

I regard the amendment as absolutely essential and something that should be promoted in great haste in order to put an end to numerous wellknown problems and anomalies in the High Courts. I specifically wish to commend the approach that rationalisation of the High Courts is a comprehensive process which will require a considerable period of time to bring to its conclusion and that the first steps in this regard cannot be left until all issues have been resolved.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee and the departmental officials for facilitating the passage of this Bill. I would now like to propose the Bill to the House.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 18:52. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

                       FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2001

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 19 October 2001 in terms of
     Joint Rule 160(2), classified the following Bill as a  constitution
     amendment Bill (section 74):


     (i)     Constitution of the  Republic  of  South  Africa  Amendment
          Bill [B 68 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 74).


 (2)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 19 October 2001 in terms of
     Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as  a  section  75
     Bill:


     (i)     Lotteries Amendment Bill [B 81 - 2001]  (National  Assembly
          - sec 75).

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 The following papers tabled are now referred to the relevant committees
 as mentioned below:


 (1)    The following paper is referred to the  Portfolio  Committee  on
     Finance and to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:


     Written Explanation by the Minister of Finance in terms of  section
     65(2)(a) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act  No  1  of
     1999) setting out reasons why the  South  African  Revenue  Service
     could not table its Annual  Report  and  Financial  Statements  for
     2000-2001 in time.


 (2)    The following paper is referred to the  Portfolio  Committee  on
     Transport. The Report  of  the  Auditor-General  contained  in  the
     following paper is referred to the  Standing  Committee  on  Public
     Accounts for consideration and report:


     Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Transport  for
     2000-2001, including the  Report  of  the  Auditor-General  on  the
     Financial Statements of Vote 33 - Transport for 2000-2001 [RP  159-
     2001].


 (3)    The following paper is referred to the  Portfolio  Committee  on
     Justice and Constitutional Development:


     Report and Financial Statements of the Special  Investigating  Unit
     for 2000-2001.


 (4)    The following paper is referred to the  Portfolio  Committee  on
     Justice and Constitutional Development. The Report of the  Auditor-
     General contained  in  the  following  paper  is  referred  to  the
     Standing  Committee  on  Public  Accounts  for  consideration   and
     report:


     Supplement to the Report and Financial Statements  of  the  Special
     Investigating Unit for 2000-2001,  including  the  Reports  of  the
     Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for  2000-2001  and  on
     the achievements by the Special Investigating Units for 2000-2001.


 (5)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee  on
     Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. The Reports of the  Auditor-
     General contained in the following  reports  are  referred  to  the
     Standing  Committee  on  Public  Accounts  for  consideration   and
     report:


     (a)     Report and Financial Statements of  the  National  Research
          Foundation for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
          General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.


     (b)     Report and  Financial  Statements  of  the  Human  Sciences
          Research Council for 2000-2001, including the  Report  of  the
          Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001  [RP
          102-2001].

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology on the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 46D - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 16 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, having considered the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 46D - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 76), amended by the National Council of Provinces and referred to the Committee, reports that it has not accepted the amendments to the Bill, and therefore recommends that the House reject this amended version of the Bill, in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b).

 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the proposed Fund for Victims of Crimes Bill, dated 10 October 2001:

   The Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, having considered the proposed Fund for Victims of Crimes Bill, submitted by Mr D H M Gibson and referred to the Committee, and having consulted the Portfolio Committee on Justice and /Constitutional Development, recommends in terms of Rule 235(4) that permission to proceed with the proposed legislation be refused.

 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the proposed Corruption Amendment Bill, dated 10 October 2001:

   The Standing Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions, having considered the proposed Corruption Amendment Bill, submitted by Ms R Taljaard and referred to the Committee, and having consulted the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, recommends in terms of Rule 235(4) that permission to proceed with the proposed legislation be refused.

 Report to be considered.
                       MONDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2001

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:

 (1)    Report and Financial Statements of the Foundation for Education,
     Science and Technology for 2000-2001, including the Report  of  the
     Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.


 (2)    Report of the Africa Institute of South Africa for 1999-2001 and
     Financial Statements for 2000-2001.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Communications on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill [B 65 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 18 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Communications, having considered the subject of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill [B 65 - 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 65A - 2001].