THURSDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2002
                                ____

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:07.

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 G L MAHLANGU: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the recent  spate  of  arrests  of  poachers  of  marine  living
       resources;


   (b)  with approval the recent moves in dealing with the rampant
       plunder of flora and fauna in Pondoland by self-enrichment
       seeking criminals; and


   (c)  that poaching of marine resources has become an organised crime
       committed and organised by well-resourced criminal syndicates;

(2) applauds these initiatives and calls for the formalisation of co- operation between the SAPS and marine and coastal management; and

(3) pledges its support in protecting the pristine area designated to be the Pondoland National Park;

(4) commends MEC Godongwana and his team for their diligence in dealing with this issue and urges the concerned communities and the South African public at large to join the Letsema campaign by playing an active role in protecting our marine resources and heritage; and

(5) calls on the residents of Pondoland, Port Elizabeth and the Eastern Cape to join the Vukuzenzele campaign by playing an active role in protecting our marine life and coastal resources.

[Applause.]

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 -

   (a)  Minister Tshabalala-Msimang's comments to the  media  to  change
       their understanding  of  how  the  Government  is  handling  the
       HIV/Aids pandemic;


   (b)  that instead of focusing on proactive solutions to the pandemic,
       she chooses to visit mother-to-child transmission sites  in  the
       Western Cape, looking for nonexistent problems; and


   (c)  that the hon Peter Mokaba, a senior official at the  ANC's  head
       office, has stated publicly this week that the HIV virus has not
       been discovered to date and that ARV causes Aids;

(2) suggests that the Minister gives a clear message on how exactly the Government is handling the pandemic and, secondly, that she takes cognisance of the fact in the Health Systems Trust report that HIV/Aids treatment programmes were most successful where political leadership is strong; and

(3) calls on the Minister and the ANC to stop playing games and to get on with the job at hand.

[Applause.]

Mr D V BLOEM: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order for a member of this House to quote a party that is not represented in this House? The hon member has just spoken about the DA, instead of the DP. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I am very tempted to refer to the absence of fact behind a lot of statements in this House.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I certainly intend to ignore that rather pathetic point of order, but I rise on another one:

Despite your ruling in this House before, when the hon Kalyan was speaking this afternoon, there were yet again, from that side of the House, cat calls and other noises. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to make that party over there understand that that kind of behaviour is absolutely unparliamentary.

The SPEAKER: I have repeatedly said so, and all what I can do is appeal to the Whips to ensure that members understand this. Can we now proceed with the IFP notice of motion.

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

(1) has over a long period been keenly observing the rate of rail accidents and has noted that -

   (a)  such accidents are caused by people who steal the signalling
       cables on the rails;


   (b)  there are no monitoring procedures to safeguard the rail cables;
       and


   (c)  such theft and absence of the said procedures cause huge losses
       to the state in terms of indemnity and loss of human lives; and

(2) therefore calls upon the Ministry and the Department of Transport to work out a mechanism that would speedily bring back the railway police to, among other things, prevent crime in trains, theft of cables, save human lives and eliminate costs on accident claims.

Miss P S SEKGOBELA: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  Deputy President Jacob Zuma recently addressed a rally to launch
       a volunteers' campaign  against  crime  in  Vosman,  Mpumalanga,
       organised by all community structures of Vosman and attended  by
       thousands of people; and


   (b)  the theme of the rally was ``Reject and report stolen goods'';

(2) believes that this historic rally shows the positive response of our people to President Thabo Mbeki’s call for ``Vukuzenzele’’, and the readiness of our people to fight crime and corruption and to join the Government in building a peaceful and secure country; and

(3) commends the people of Vosman for responding positively and throwing their weight behind the fight against crime.

[Applause.]

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 that -

   (a)  during Question Time yesterday, the Minister of Health stated
       that the Department of Health had no policy regarding
       antiretroviral treatment for rape survivors; and


   (b)  the superintendent of a state hospital in Mpumalanga was
       dismissed after applying universally accepted rape treatment,
       and in doing so, delivering a service to the community;

(2) acknowledges that incidents like these facilitate health professionals leaving the country;

(3) agrees it would appear that we are back in the dark ages where people were burnt at the stake for being ahead of their time; and

(4) in view of the absence of any policy regarding antiretroviral treatment for rape survivors, calls on the Minister and the Department of Health to intervene and to rectify this obvious travesty of justice.

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

That the House -

(1) welcomes the Health System Trust’s study, which has found that nevirapine is safe and nontoxic in single doses;

(2) condemns the Government’s continued refusal to provide HIV/Aids treatment, in the face of large-scale deaths and suffering;

(3) asserts that the Government has no excuse left, and should immediately implement a national plan of action to deal with HIV/Aids;

(4) notes with disgust that the finances of some provinces, in particular the Limpopo Province, are in a shambles owing to the failure to curb wastage of public funds aimed at providing for the health needs of people; and

(5) challenges the Government to join all South Africans and in particular the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, in their fight against HIV/Aids, by actively encouraging and assisting provinces to roll out HIV/Aids treatment programmes.

Mr M T GONIWE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes the destructive and misleading article which appeared in the latest edition of Newsweek about the stature of President Mbeki; (2) believes that -

   (a)  President Mbeki is a statesman of exceptional ability and has
       made a major contribution in leading the fight against poverty,
       the creation of a more humane, caring society and in forging
       world peace; and


   (b)  these attacks are unwarranted and typify sensationalist
       journalism that seeks to generate false perceptions and divert
       the attention of the world from the strides that this country is
       making in deepening democracy and transformation, and building a
       better life for all; and

(3) condemns this irresponsible, biased reporting without reservation.

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

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the decision by  the  Commissioner  of  Police  to  destroy  all
       vehicles that are stolen, recovered and  not  claimed  by  their
       owners; and


   (b)  the efforts and work done  by  the  police  to  close  down  all
       avenues used by criminals to break the law; and

(2) calls upon all political parties to support the Commissioner of Police and the crime-busting measures.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the MF on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  it  has  been  estimated  by  Molo  Songololo,  a  child  rights
       organisation,  that  there  are   approximately   28 000   child
       prostitutes in South Africa;


   (b)  it had been claimed in a recent article that child  prostitution
       is rife in Durban and is being promoted by a number of hotels in
       the Durban CBD; and


   (c)  police in the area have claimed that no charges  or  reports  on
       this have been made; and

(2) calls for a thorough investigation into this matter, whereby offenders should be seriously dealt with; and

(3) victims of child prostitution be recruited into a Government programme for assistance and protection.

Mr J D ARENDSE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that in the by-election in Ward 9 at Grabouw in the Theewaterskloof Municipality, Western Cape, the ANC won a resounding victory, to take this ward from the DA, the now Dead Alliance;

(2) believes that this victory is clear evidence of the confidence of the people of the Western Cape in the newly formed provincial government of the Western Cape;

(3) recognises that the voters will not be fooled by the hollow promises of the DA to represent all the people, when it is increasingly apparent that they serve only the needs of the privileged few; and

(4) commends ANC councillor, Phakamile Makaza, on his victory which gives outright control of the Theewaterskloof Municipality to the ANC.

Mr V C GORE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  South  Africa  recently  celebrated  10  years  of  leased  line
       internet connectivity; and


   (b)  the majority of South Africans still do not have access  to  the
       internet, primarily because of unacceptably high Telkom costs;

(2) expresses its concern that some services cost up to 60 times more in South Africa than in developed countries; and

(3) calls on the Government to -

   (a)   get  serious  about  making  South  Africa  part  of  the   new
       technological age; and;


   (b)  open up the telecommunications market to  increased  competition
       to give people real choices.

[Applause.]

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That this House:

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the Minister of  Health  frequently  claims  that  her  greatest
       challlenge is decentralising health services;


   (b)   all  provinces  have  established  pilot   sites   to   provide
       nevirapine;


   (c)   different  provinces  have  a  different  capacity  to  deliver
       services;


   (d)  that the Minister fought a court case to enable her  to  provide
       compulsory licences for  people  to  import  generics  to  treat
       HIV/Aids; and


   (e)  constitutionally provinces are entitled to  decide  how  to  use
       their health budgets and should not be hamstrung by co-operative
       governance; and   (2) calls on the Minister to encourage all provinces in a state of
   readiness to roll out the nevirapine programme.

Ms L MABE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that in the by-election in Ward 4 in the Kgetleng Municipality in the North-West Province the ANC won with an overwhelming majority;

(2) believes that this victory once more underscores the fact that the confidence of communities in the ANC as an agent of change is growing by leaps and bounds; and

(3) commends the ANC councillor, Gilbert Sefanyetso. Viva ANC!

[Applause.]

Mnr J W LE ROUX: Speaker, ek stel voor: Dat die Huis -

(1) die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens gelukwens met die welslae van Operasie Neputunus die afgelope week -

   (a)  dat die stropers in hegtenis geneem is en dat voertuie en
       toerusting, sowel as 2 700 krewe en 4 500 perlemoene
       gekonfiskeer is;


   (b)  dat 10 mans, insluitend 'n inspekteur van Mariene Kusbestuur en
       'n lid van die polisie, in hegtenis geneem is weens beweerde
       diefstal van R4 miljoen se gekonfiskeerde perlemoen;

(2) dat die samewerking van die publiek grootliks bygedra het tot hierdie suksesse; en

(3) dat die Minister van Finansies genoegsame fondse moet bewillig om die euwel van stropery van ons mariene bronne eens en vir altyd uit te wis. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr J W LE ROUX: Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House -

(1) congratulates the South African Police Service on the success of Operation Neptune in the past week in view of the fact that -

   (a)  the poachers were apprehended and vehicles and equipment as well
       as 2 700 crayfish and 4 500 abalone were confiscated; and


   (b)  that 10 men, including an inspector of Marine Coastal Management
       and a member of the police, were apprehended on account of the
       alleged theft of R4 million's worth of confiscated abalone;

(2) realises that the co-operation of the public contributed to a large extent to these successes; and

(3) requests the Minister of Finance to vote sufficient funds in order to eradicate once and for all the evil of the poaching of our marine resources.]

            SA PARLIAMENTARY OBSERVER MISSION TO ZIMBABWE

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House -

(1) notes-

   (a)  that Parliament has sent a delegation  to  Zimbabwe  to  observe
       Presidential elections which will take place on 9 and  10  March
       2002; and


   (b)  hon Deputy President Jacob Zuma's meeting with his Zimbabwean
       counterpart, Mr Simon Mudzenga, and initiatives by the South
       African Government to contribute to free and fair elections in
       Zimbabwe;

(2) reiterates its support for the parliamentary delegation for the work it is doing in assisting to build and strengthen democracy in the country; and

(3) encourages them to continue their good work. Agreed to.

           RETIREMENT OF MR C J P LUCAS AND ADV A M MEYER

                         (Draft Resolution)

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY moved:

That the House noting the retirement on 15 February 2002 of Mr C J P Lucas, General Manager of Parliament, and Adv A M Meyer, Chief Law Adviser of Parliament, wishes to place on record its deep-felt gratitude to them for their loyal service to Parliament and wishes them well in their retirement.

Madam Speaker, we are informed that Mr Lucas has tendered his apologies. However, we will continue with the good wishes which we want to bestow upon him.

Today we say farewell to two people who have played key roles in the transformation of this Parliament, Adv Anton Meyer and Mr Chris Lucas.

Adv Meyer has made a contribution to this institution which is not always apparent, even to the members of this House. His counsel has provided us with guidance and expertise to ensure that in our work we are effective and within the framework of the Constitution.

Adv Meyer came to Parliament as legal adviser after a long career with the Department of Justice. But what many people sitting in this House do not know is that Adv Meyer’s role in transformation extends far beyond his work in this House. He played a key role in the negotiation process that was the foundation of our transition to democracy, serving as one of the legal advisers at Kempton Park and Codesa. As we drafted the Constitution, he was part of the technical team. He was also legal adviser to the transitional authority in Walvis Bay, prior to its incorporation into Namibia.

Mr Meyer has not only worked for our country, but also for our region and continent. He played a significant role in the preparation of the constitution of the SADC Parliamentary Forum, as well as the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Protocol on the Pan-African Parliament. Since moving to Parliament, he has further showed his commitment to forging a new democratic culture. He has always been eager to assist members, particularly the Whips’ office, when we have sought guidance. His calm, dispassionate legal mind has sometimes been an island of calm in the stormy waters we sail on our political journey. And coming from a legal background, the antics that are sometimes displayed by us as politicians must surely have caused him to raise an eyebrow. But ultimately we serve the same cause - the betterment of the lives of the people of our country.

Adv Meyer will be sorely missed. But his legacy will remain with us through his opinions, which will be here for us to consult, and for his less visible contribution in defining how this Parliament functions in the constitutional context.

We also bid farewell to Mr Chris Lucas, the General Manager of Parliament. Mr Lucas has served Parliament since before some of our hon members were born - if I am correct, for a total of 33 years. Indeed, Mr Lucas is so much part of this institution that when I tried to obtain his CV, I was told that one is not available - no doubt because he predates the human resources department in this Parliament.

Mr Lucas has worked in almost every division of Parliament. He embodies the true meaning of the term ``civil servant’’, here to serve whenever needed, whether by staff, the unions or politicians. Mr Lucas has always been available for all of us -ever courteous, calm and helpful.

For the past 10 years, he has worked as the right-hand person for successive Secretaries to Parliament, and the modernisation and transformation of this institution has been Mr Lucas’s passion in recent years.

For an institution such as Parliament, the transformation to a new dispensation has not always been easy. Mr Lucas stood at the forefront of transformation, easing the way of those who came here for the first time, and reassuring those who came from the old order.

Mr Lucas, too, will leave behind a remarkable legacy, the manuals and codes he has drafted and the systems he has put in place, providing us with the basis for an effective, efficient institution. His contribution will not be forgotten.

To both Mr Lucas and Adv Meyer, we offer our best wishes for the future. We know that their expertise will not be lost to us, and we wish them every success for the future. [Applause.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege this afternoon on behalf of the DP to say goodbye to two gentlemen who have played a significant role in the history of this Parliament.

There is no doubt that their histories are very different, but both have been very influential in helping to change and transform this Parliament from pre-1994 to the democratic institution it is today.

Mr Lucas, as my hon colleague Mr Doidge has said, joined Parliament a long time ago - in fact in 1969, as a relatively junior member of staff. He retired a week or so ago as the General Manager to Parliament after 33 years of dedicated service. As hon members well know, in pre-1994 there were about 200 employees in Parliament, today there are more than 800.

It is he who built the management board concept for Parliament, which has been a significant development. In addition he also worked closely with the members’ support committee and the internal arrangements committee, a role for which we, as members of Parliament, are indeed very grateful, because he has been invaluable in this area of work.

He is, of course, a highly respected man. He is respected for his insight into parliamentary procedures, and his knowledge and capabilities remain invaluable. I sincerely hope that both this Parliament and legislatures throughout the country would be willing to call upon him for his assistance, because he is an unassuming but dedicated professional and his skills and knowledge will certainly be sorely missed.

On the other hand, Mr Meyer’s skills and knowledge would also be sorely missed. He has been involved with Parliament since the Kempton Park talks, and has made his mark as a person who always has time for other people. He built the law advisers’ office up from a staff of one to a team of seven. However, we are also very mindful of the very meaningful role he played during the drafting of the interim constitution at the multiparty talks and then in the drafting of the 1996 Constitution. He is a master in the field of legislative drafting.

We are aware that Mr Meyer could have left the job of Government law adviser for more lucrative pursuits at any chosen time, but he stuck it out and he has been at the forefront of the work of this Parliament because, we believe, of his love for it and his commitment to the evolution of law and procedure since 1994. I want to say to Mr Meyer that he is a leader in his field. I am not quite sure where he is sitting. He leaves here knowing that he is much respected by all of us and he, like Mr Lucas, will be sorely missed, as much for his professional advice and knowledge, as for his willingness to help both members of staff and members of Parliament alike.

Both Mr Lucas and Mr Meyer have played a leading role in managing the growth and change in Parliament from 1994 until today. As Mr Doidge has said, their expertise will be sorely missed and we sincerely wish them well in their futures.

The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Meyer is seated in the gallery, in the back rows rather than in the front.

Mnr J H VAN DER MERWE: Mev die Speaker, die IVP steun die voorstel wat verskyn in die naam van die Hoofsweep van die Meerderheidsparty. Ek wil baie graag saamstem met elke woord wat mnr Doidge en mnr Ellis gesê het. Dit is ‘n baie verfrissende geleentheid om met mnr Ellis te kan saamstem. Ek stem saam met elke woord!

As ‘n mens gaan sit en dink en jouself afvra: Wat kan ‘n mens sê oor Chris Lucas en Anton Meyer, dan dink ek ‘n mens moet kyk na watter testament hulle vir ons nalaat. As ons kyk na hul testament dan sien ons in klousule 1 dat hulle vir ons, as parlementslede en amptenare, integriteit nalaat. Agb lede weet dat ons baie min van hulle te sien en gehoor gekry het, maar ons het hulle gevoel. Ons het hul integriteit gevoel en hul integriteit was die waarborg dat die sake van die Parlement professioneel bestuur word. Ons eerste erfporsie is dus hul integriteit.

Tweedens, hulle het die hele konsep van werksetiek vir ons nagelaat. Werksure het nie vir hulle bestaan nie. Hul deure was altyd oop vir ons. Hulle het nooit nee gesê nie. Jy kon hulle na-ure by die huis skakel. Hulle het ‘n pragtige erfenis van werksetiek vir ons nagelaat.

In klousule 3 van hul testament het hulle egter ook lojaliteit vir ons nagelaat. Hulle het onberispelike lojaliteit getoon, nie net teenoor hierdie Parlement nie, maar teenoor elke LP en elke amptenaar. Dit bied aan al hul meerderes ‘n pragtige voorbeeld, ‘n wonderlike erfporsie.

In klousule 4 van hul testament het hulle die hoogste graad van professionaliteit vir ons nagelaat. Dit is hulle erflating aan ons as parlementslede en as amptenare. Dit is ons plig om ons erfporsies met waardigheid te aanvaar en dit uit te leef.

Baie dankie, Anton! Baie dankie, Chris! Ons sal julle sekerlik mis.

Nou wil ek graag die volgende aan Anton sê, siende dat hy ‘n regsgeleerde is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, the IFP supports the motion which appears in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party. I would like to agree with every word which Mr Doidge and Mr Ellis said. It is a very refreshing opportunity to be able to agree with Mr Ellis. I agree with every word!

If one were to sit and think and ask oneself: What can one say about Chris Lucas and Anton Meyer, then I think one should look at the testament they are leaving us. When we look at their testament we will see that in clause 1 they leave us integrity as members of Parliament and officials. Hon members know that we got to see and hear very little of them, but we felt them. We felt their integrity and their integrity was the guarantee that the business of Parliament was being managed professionally. Our first inheritance is therefore their integrity.

Secondly, they have left us the entire concept of a work ethic. Working hours did not exist for them. Their doors were always open to us. They never said no. You could phone them after hours at home. They have left a lovely heritage of a work ethic for us.

However, in clause 3 of their testament they have also left us loyalty. They have showed impeccable loyalty, not only to this Parliament, but to every MP and every official. This offers their superiors a lovely example, a wonderful heritage.

In clause 4 of their testament they have left us the highest degree of professionalism. This is their legacy to us as members of Parliament and as officials. It is our duty to accept and to live our inheritance with dignity.

Thank you very much, Anton! Thank you very much, Chris! We will surely miss you.

I would now like to say the following to Anton, seeing that he is a lawyer.]

Anton, be careful! They say old lawyers like you never die, they only lose their appeal. [Laughter.] I also believe that Anton may be going into practice, and I want to warn him about fees. He must be careful about his fees. He must bear in mind what one lawyer once said, namely: ``My client is innocent, and will remain innocent until such time that it is proved, beyond doubt, that he is broke!’’ [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mnr I J PRETORIUS: Mev die Speaker, die Nuwe NP groet twee besondere mense van die Parlement. Chris Lucas en Anton Meyer het die Parlement, en in die proses ons land, oor baie jare met groot toewyding en bekwaamheid gedien.

Chris Lucas het met sy aftrede op 15 Januarie vanjaar, 33 jaar se diens agter die rug gehad. Dit is inderdaad ‘n leeftyd van diens aan ‘n instelling wat gegroei het van die wetgewende liggaam vir slegs ‘n gedeelte van die Suid-Afrikaans bevolking, tot die wetgewende en beleidmakende liggaam vir alle Suid-Afrikaners, wat dit geword het in 1994 en daarna.

Baie mense het ná 1994 teruggedeins vir nuwe uitdagings, maar nie Chris Lucas nie. Hy het die nuwe uitdaging met entoesiasme aanvaar en deel gebly van die instelling. Hy het al sy kragte, fisiek en intellektueel, ingespan om van die nuwe Parlement en sy werksaamhede ‘n sukses te maak. Hy is inderdaad ‘n kenner van die funksionering van die Parlement, en het verskeie handleidings daaroor opgestel.

Die provinsiale wetgewers put ook landwyd uit sy kennis oor administrasie en die funksionering van ‘n wetgewer. In die jongste tyd het hy ook ‘n aandeel gehad in die herstrukturering van personeel en die administrasie van die Parlement. ‘n Spesiale woord van dank aan Chris Lucas vir die vriendelike wyse waarop hy almal, lede en kollegas, met raad en daad bygestaan het.

Chris Lucas het verskeie parlementêre poste beklee gedurende sy lang loopbaan, en hy het dit met groot onderskeiding gedoen. Ons glo egter dat die pos van Algemene Bestuurder van die Parlement, wat hy die afgelope tyd beklee het, die kroon gespan het op sy loopbaan van diens.

Ek wil ook graag die volgende sê oor Anton Meyer wat in die openbare Galery sit. Anton Meyer se loopbaan strek oor 40 jaar. Gedurende dié tydperk was hy ‘n landdros, ‘n staatsaanklaer,’n dosent by die Departement van Justisie, ‘n staatsregsadviseur en, sedert 1994, hoofregsadviseur van die Parlement. Hy is in 1989 as staatsregsadviseur oorgeplaas om behulpsaam te wees met die totstandbrenging van ‘n oorgangsregering wat gelei het tot die verkiesing en uiteindelik die onafhanklikheidwording van Namibië. Anton was ook, soos ons reeds gehoor het, betrokke by die ingewikkelde proses van die oordrag van die Walvisbaai grondgebied na ons buurland Namibië. Hy was ook, soos ons weet, betrokke by die opstel van die finale Grondwet. Ek dink ons sal hom egter in besonder onthou vir sy besondere kundigheid in die opstel van wetgewing. Daarvoor sal hy inderdaad lank onthou word. Anton Meyer se onpartydigheid, takt, aanpasbaarheid en vermoëns het hom in staat gestel om die Parlement, in die tydperk ná 1994, te lei volgens suiwer regsbeginsels.

Ons beste wense vergesel Chris Lucas en Anton Meyer, asook hul gesinne, op die pad vorentoe. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr I J PRETORIUS: Madam Speaker, the New NP is saying goodbye to two special people from Parliament. Chris Lucas and Anton Meyer served Parliament, and in the process our country, with great dedication and competence for many years.

When Chris Lucas retired on 15 January this year, he had performed 33 years service. That is indeed a lifetime of service to an institution which has grown from the legislative body for only a portion of the South African population, to the legislative and policy-making body which it became for all South Africans since 1994 and thereafter.

After 1994 many people shied away from new challenges, but not Chris Lucas. He accepted the new challenge with enthusiasm and remained a part of the institution. He exerted all his powers, physical as well as intellectual, to make a success of the new Parliament and its activities. He is indeed an expert on the functioning of Parliament and has compiled various manuals on this subject.

The provincial legislatures throughout the country are also drawing on his knowledge of administration and the functioning of a legislature. Recently he also participated in the restructuring of staff and the administration of Parliament. A special word of thanks to Chris Lucas for the friendly manner in which he assisted everyone, members and colleagues, by word and deed.

Chris Lucas filled various parliamentary posts during his long career, and he did this with great distinction. However, we believe that the post of General Manager of Parliament, which had recently held, was the pinnacle of his career.

I also wish to say the following about Anton Meyer, who is sitting in the public Gallery. Anton Meyer’s career extends over 40 years. During this period he was a magistrate, a public prosecutor, a lecturer at the Department of Justice, a state law adviser and, since 1994, Parliament’s chief law adviser. In 1989 he was transferred as a state law adviser to assist in the establishment of a transitional government, which resulted in the election and finally Namibia’s independence.

Anton was also, as we have heard, involved in the complicated process of transferring the Walvis Bay territory to our neighbouring country Namibia. He was also, as we know, involved in drafting the final Constitution. However, I think we shall remember him primarily for his exceptional expertise in drafting legislation. For that, he will indeed be remembered for a long time. Anton Meyer’s impartiality, tact, adaptability and abilities enabled him to lead Parliament, during the period after 1994, according to strict legal principles.

We extend our best wishes to Chris Lucas and Anton Meyer, as well as their families, on the road ahead. [Applause.]]

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, the UDM associates itself with the motion. After four outstanding tributes to the two former officials concerned, there is very little left for one to say.

Chris Lucas was born approximately 52 years ago, at Piketberg in the Boland. He worked for and served this Parliament for 33 years, one month and one day. During this period he rose from an ordinary clerk, starting off with a salary of R150, right up to the position of General Manager of Parliament. He says that there were some very exciting developments which he gregariously followed, and one of these is the transition to democracy in 1994.

Chris Lucas is married to Karin and the family has two sons who, incidentally, have both followed the law route. One has a BCom and is now studying for an LLB, and the other is doing a BCom-LLB.

We want to pay tribute to Chris Lucas, who is also a sportsman and very keen on cycling. He apparently cycled, last year, with the Minister of Defence.

Anton Meyer was born 60 years ago, at Uniondale in the Southern Cape. He is married and has three children. One of the legacies that he has left behind is that he has three children who, today, are all independent: a daughter who is a medical doctor, a daughter who is an optometrist and a son who is a civil engineer.

Anton Meyer says that he will still be available to plough back into the community that which he has received since January 1959. He will be serving at the Rand Afrikaans University, and his services to all of us will still be available. [Time expired.]

Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, the ACDP wishes to align itself with the draft resolution of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party.

We concur with the motion that both Mr Lucas and Adv Meyer have been great assets to Parliament. We have come to know them as diligent, hard-working and committed men who did more than was required of them. These are the unsung heroes of Parliament, the parliamentary officials who, day after day, without complaint continued to produce the very best for this nation.

We are today taking leave of two very productive parliamentary officials who, after many years of sterling service, have decided to go on retirement. We want to assure both Mr Lucas and Adv Meyer that we shall miss them greatly. They served Parliament well and deserve a pleasant retirement. Let me assure both gentlemen that long after they have left Parliament, we will still benefit from the input they made in transforming Parliament.

I thank Mr Lucas for his excellent service record and Adv Meyer for sharing his extensive knowledge of the law with us at a time when we needed him most. May God bless both of them with a very pleasant retirement. [Applause.]

Dr C P MULDER: Mev die Speaker, dit is vir my ‘n voorreg om my namens die VF ten volle te vereenselwig met die voorstel wat vandag voor die Huis dien, naamlik die voorstel waarin die Huis sy diepe dankbaarheid te boek stel vir die lojale diens aan die Parlement en ons beste wense uitspreek teenoor mnr Chris Lucas en adv Meyer.

Kollegas wat voor my gepraat het, het in detail gepraat oor die twee here, hul loopbane, hul familiegeskiedenis en alles wat daarmee saam gaan. Ek wil nie daarop uitbrei nie. Van ons kant af, wil ek net sê: Baie dankie vir die werklik uitstaande gehalte van diens, die professionaliteit waarmee die Parlement oor baie jare en deur baie moeilike tye tot en met hul aftrede vandag gediens is. Hul optrede was altyd professioneel en altyd korrek en het inderdaad ‘n voorbeeld gestel vir almal wat ná hulle sal kom. Ons sal hul insette baie mis. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to fullly associate myself, on behalf of the FF, with the motion tabled before the House today, namely the motion in which the House records its deep appreciation for loyal service to Parliament and extends our best wishes to Mr Chris Lucas and Adv Meyer.

Colleagues who spoke before me spoke in detail about these two gentlemen, their careers, their family history and everything associated with that. I do not wish to expand on that. From our side, I would just like to thank them very much for the truly exceptional quality of service, the professionalism with which Parliament has been served for many years and through very difficult times until their retirement today. Their conduct was always professional and always correct and, indeed, they set an example for everyone who will follow in their footsteps. We will dearly miss their inputs.]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, we also concur with the motion. The saying goes: There are those who come into our lives to achieve certain purposes and there are those who come and change our lives for the better. The latter statement describes those who have unselfishly pursued a career that saw them serve their country with pride and zeal here in Parliament. They have discharged unconditionally their knowledge of this institution and served us to the best of their ability, ensuring that we meet our democratic mandate.

Without them we would not have been in a position to navigate our way in this seemingly unfriendly institution from a distance. They have walked with us all the way by rendering a professional service. Without any exception, they have served everyone, including those who came before us. They made us feel wanted and at home here in Cape Town. We say farewell, as they look forward to a well-deserved retirement. We are proud of them and their achievements. They personify patience, perseverance and hard work.

It is hard to say goodbye. However, they should know that we treasure what they have done for the country, and that their contribution in this institution is highly appreciated and acknowledged. Tsela-tshweu! [Farewell!] [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, I always find it difficult to understand the logic of some English words. The prefix re'' in words like regain, return and re-read meansagain’’.

Retirement is one of the English words which puzzles me. It sounds like tire again.'' I do not think that the General Manager of Parliament, Mr C J Lucas, and the Chief Parliamentary Law Adviser, Adv A M Meyer want to tire again.’’ They have experienced how being tired feels during their many years of hard work and distinguished service. I think what they need and deserve is to rest and not to being ``tired again.’’

Therefore, the PAC wishes them a very good rest and peace of mind. We know that they have had many problems to solve, for a long time, so that this Parliament could function efficiently. Re ea leboha, Ria khensa, Siyabulela, Siyabonga, Merci beaucoup, Asantesani. [Thank you very much.] [Applause.]

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Mev die Speaker, ek vereenselwig my met die voorstel wat voor ons dien ten opsigte van die hulde aan mnr Lucas en adv Meyer. Dit getuig van toewyding oor baie jare aan hierdie instansie waarvan ons almal deel is. Hulle integriteit in hul optrede oor baie jare en veral hul lojaliteit teenoor die Parlement, nie net teenoor hierdie Parlement nie, maar ook dié van die vorige bedeling is ‘n voorbeeld vir amptenary. Dit is eintlik soos wat ek hulle mettertyd leer ken het, naamlik as mense wat ontsaglik hard kan werk, en met toewyding. Ons sal hulle mis en ek weet net dat die mense wat hulle opvolg, baie moeilike voetspore het om vol te staan. Ons wens hulle alle voorspoed toe en dat dit goed sal gaan in die lewe wat nou opnuut vir hulle sal begin. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the motion tabled before us with regard to the tribute to Mr Lucas and Adv Meyer. It attests to many years of dedication to this institution that we are all part of. Their integrity in their conduct over many years, and especially their loyalty towards Parliament, not only towards this Parliament, but also under the previous dispensation, serve as an example to officials. In fact, this is how I came to know them over time, namely as people who worked extremely hard and with dedication. We will miss them, and I know that their successors have very difficult footsteps to follow in. We wish them all the best and hope that all will go well in life, which is now about to begin anew for them. [Applause.]]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, today we say farewell to Adv A Meyer, who had honourably served us as Chief Parliamentary Law Adviser, having crossed over to us from the Office of the State Law Advisers. Adv Meyer is one of the key role-players who advised us on law during the transformation from the old regime to the new. His contributions have not only been renowned, but have also served as major assets to Parliament.

We are also saddened to have to say farewell to Mr C J P Lucas, who had honourably served Parliament for about 33 years, more recently in the position of General Manager of Parliament on policy administration. The job descriptions themselves exhibit the important role they played at Parliament, and they have certainly been major assets to the running of Parliament.

The MF extends its heartfelt gratitude for their contributions and wishes both of them a happy retirement filled with lots of relaxation and happiness, after so many years of long working hours.

As great assets of Parliament they shall be missed and we wish both of them the very best for the near future.

Mr C AUCAMP: Mev die Speaker, Jurie Els se bekende liedjie lui, ``hoe sê mens dankie, na soveel jare’’. My probleem is vandag: Hoe sê mens dankie in een minuut se tyd? Ek wil dit doen deur alles te onderstreep wat die vorige sprekers oor mnre Lucas en Meyer gesê het. Mnr Meyer en Mnr Lucas het vandag dalk nog hul grootste prestasie behaal. Hulle dra die onderskeiding dat hulle vandag daarvoor verantwoordelik is dat tot die DP en die NP vir ‘n slag saamgestem het. Namens die AEB wil ons hulle bedank vir die toewyding, lojaliteit, integriteit en professionaliteit waarmee oor lang jare hier diens verrig is. Mnr Meyer was as regsadviseur die veilige kontrolepunt tussen al die politieke emosie oor sake in die Parlement. Hy het altyd die kalmte en sekerheid van die reg gebring. Mnr Lucas is ‘n toonbeeld van deeglike en effektiewe bestuur. Albei het nou ‘n mooi en lang kolfbeurt hier gesluit verklaar, maar ons is oortuig daarvan dat in die omgewing waar hulle hul ook al gaan bevind, hulle nog baie vir die gemeenskap gaan beteken en baie honderdtalle gaan aanteken.

Namens die AEB wil ek hul bedank vir voortreflike diens. Hulle is ‘n voorbeeld vir ons almal. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, a line from a very well-known Jurie Els song goes: ``Hoe sê ‘n mens dankie na soveel jare’’. [How does one say thank you after so many years.] My problem today is: How does one say thank you in one minute? I would like to do this by underlining everything the previous speaker said about Mr Lucas and Mr Meyer.

Mr Meyer and Mr Lucas today have perhaps attained their highest achievement. They carry the distinction that they were responsible for the fact that even the DP and the NP agreed today. On behalf of the AEB we would like to thank them for their dedication, loyalty, integrity and professionalism with which they rendered their service over these long years. As law adviser Mr Meyer was the safe control point between all the political emotion about matters at Parliament. He always brought with him the calm and security of the law. Mr Lucas is an example of thorough and effective management. Both have declared a beautiful and long innings now ended, but we are convinced of the fact that in whichever environment they are going to find themselves they are still going to mean a lot to the community and still going to score many centuries.

On behalf of the AEB I would like to thank them for outstanding service. They are an example to us all. [Applause.]]

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Speaker, Azapo wishes to add its voice to the voices of other parties in wishing Mr Lucas and Adv Meyer a best times in retirement. Although I do not know their specific ages, I hope that they will live longer to witness the changes that are still to come and also participate in those changes.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, the Deputy Speaker and I wish to associate ourselves with the comments that have been made. I will not repeat them. Mr Lucas and Adv Meyer were amongst the staff of Parliament when the first democratic Parliament came into being. As Speaker, I have worked closely with each of them and have appreciated the contributions that they have made.

Adv Meyer, as has been indicated, was seconded to us, but chose to resign and join Parliament. He loyally took on board my request that the law adviser should not focus on telling us what we could not do, but should instead give us advice on how we could do what we wanted to do - but to do it legally and constitutionally. The development of the Rules and Procedures of this House in accordance with our new Constitution has been crucial in the transformation of this institution. Mr Meyer’s expertise was drawn on by many members, including the executive. As it has already been indicated, he was a pillar of support and assisted both our region and the continent in drafting a number of protocols.

Members will personally miss Adv Meyer in addition, not least because in order to expedite the process, he always helped draft the proclamation on members’ salaries. [Laughter.] I trust that he has ensured that that particular skill has remained and been transferred to the office that he leaves behind!

Each one of us, individually and all of us, can recount examples of the very many occasions when, totally frustrated by parliamentary bureaucracy, we appealed to Mr Lucas to untangle the web and get information for us, or to show us the way ahead and get action taken. In the few days since his retirement, I know we all have had cause to miss him.

Amongst his earliest contributions was the famous pink document which set out options and made recommendations on the organisation and management of Parliament. Regrettably, none of us have followed up on it and it remains on our dusty bookshelves. We have ourselves to blame. Mr Secretary, perhaps we should now take it off those shelves, dust it off and reopen it, so that we can look at some of the solutions proposed.

For all the loyal support and the tremendous hard work Adv Meyer and Mr Lucas have given and have put into making this institution function, we thank you. For the support you have always provided to me, to the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker’s Office, I want to express our very sincere appreciation.

Both the Lucas and Meyer families have, I am sure, been extremely tolerant of the very long hours they have devoted to this institution. We thank them for that and I am sure they will appreciate having you with them, as well as you having the time to be with them. The Deputy Speaker and I wish both of you well in your future careers. I am convinced neither of you will be able to keep away from Parliament, and we look forward to seeing you in the public Gallery. Once again, our very sincere thanks. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Motion agreed to. The SPEAKER: Order! Before we proceed, when we were giving notices of motion, an hon member raised a point of order which, I am afraid, I did not address. His objection was to notice of a motion being given on behalf of a party that is not represented in this House. I will check the Hansard on that and if that is in fact the case, the notice will not stand.

                      DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, hon members, I have the permission of Madam Speaker to deliver this address in /x:am/, so I invite all members to wear their ear pieces.

The Division of Revenue Bill is the embodiment of co-operative governance at the heart of our Constitution. It must be measured not only by allocations to each sphere, but also how decisions have been reached.

Firstly, the Budget process is and must be driven by policy priorities. Secondly, given our three-year budgeting system, we build on the allocations already made for 2002 and 2003 in last year’s MTEF, which is our starting point for this budget.

Soon after the 2001 Budget, Government initiated consultations on the Budget process by reviewing the medium-term priorities of all three spheres of Government. These deliberations shaped decisions on the allocations of resources for the Budget tabled last week. The division of revenue set out in the Bill gives expression to Government’s policy priorities. It reflects the recognition by Government that our frontline provincial and local governments need to be strengthened in the fight to reduce poverty and vulnerability within our communities. These are the governments that our Constitution vests with implementing service delivery obligations to our people.

In order to determine the division of revenue between the three spheres, national Government has taken into account the recommendations of the FFC and has consulted with provinces and organised local government. This consultation involves the Budget Council, which includes all nine provincial MECs for Finance, and the budget forum, which includes Salga and its provincial local government associations. A joint Minmec with local government MECs and organised local government was also held and premiers were invited to an extended Cabinet meeting. An interministerial task team also assessed allocations to the local sphere. The 2001 Intergovernmental Fiscal Review also provided solid information on budget trends in the provincial and local spheres of government, and the pressures to be addressed when deciding on the divisions of revenue.

We have also taken on board the recommendations of Parliament to publish this Bill earlier, by publishing it in draft form on 6 December 2001. Early publication, which included frameworks for each grant, and allocations by province, provided legislatures and the public with a near complete picture of intergovernmental fiscal flows and an opportunity to make their inputs before Budget Day. It also ensured more certainty for provincial governments as they finalised their budgets and enabled them to plan for the spending of all funds available to them.

This Bill gives effect to section 214(1) of the Constitution and the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act. The spirit and intent of this Bill is similar to the one we did last year. It is important that this Bill be read alongside Annexure E of the Budget Review. The annexure outlines Government’s response to the proposals of the FFC, the assumptions we used and formulae applied in order to arrive at the final division of revenue between the three spheres.

This budget increases provincial transfers from R121 billion in the current fiscal year to R132 billion for the new year, rising to R152 billion in the third year.

The provincial share grows at 7,9% per annum over the next three years. The local government share increases from R6,5 billion this year to R8,5 billion in the new year, and to R10,9 in the third year. Local share rises rapidly at 18,3% per year. The schedules to the Division of Revenue Bill provide a summary of these transfers.

This year’s Division of Revenue Bill provides R13 billion more for additional spending. This represents a major boost to real spending across all spheres. Over the next three years both the provincial and local shares of national revenue rise much faster than inflation. These increases reflect the Government’s commitment to delivery of basic services and to reduce poverty and vulnerability. The increased allocation to provinces will result in greater spending on increases to old age pensions, child support grants and other grants, as well as provincial infrastructure.

The 2001 Budget provided for significant increases in infrastructure allocation to provinces. The new budget maintains its strength with the allocation rising from R1,9 billion to R2,8 billion over the three years. As a result provinces will receive R7,3 billion from this grant over the next three-year period - an increase of about 25% over the 2001 Budget.

It is anticipated that provinces will use this grant effectively to deal with infrastructure backlogs in schools, health facilities, provincial roads, etc. The three-year allocation of R392 million is also provided to improve hospital management and the quality of health care. The programme started as a pilot and will gradually be expanded to other hospitals. The appointment of CEOs for hospitals and the delegation of management powers to these CEOs should herald a period of real improvement in the running of our major hospitals.

The changes to the hospital tertiary services and training grants will extend funding for tertiary services to 27 hospitals from the current 10 in all nine provinces. It will also support extending training of specialists and other health professionals to poor provinces to improve the distribution of such professionals between the provinces. The challenge facing our medical schools is to take advantage of the greater funding for new specialist posts in poor provinces. All provinces should increase their tertiary and training budgets in real terms of the MTEF.

Looking at local government, the substantial increase in the local government share also provides for municipalities in need to receive their equitable share. The institutional grant is increased to enable municipalities with relatively weak capacity to receive funds and assist them with the cost of governance, councillor salaries and administration costs.

The S component of the grant will enable municipalities to extend basic services to the needy at a faster rate. These funds are additional to allocations to the Departments of Water Affairs and Minerals and Energy to roll out water and electricity. Municipalities must also prioritise their own revenue towards these priorities.

The equitable share allocation also includes the further allocation of R632 million over the next three years towards the 13 rural and eight urban nodes prioritised by the Government.

We shall be introducing greater certainty for fiscal transfers in the local sphere to assist them to develop more credible integrated development plans to guide their 2002/3 budgets. The Ministry of Provincial and Local Government will be completing its work on the powers, functions and formulae, enabling the National Government to publish three-year allocations by municipality. We hope to do this very shortly.

The information that accompanies this Bill goes beyond what is required by both the Constitution and the relevant statutes. The objectives of the Bill are to enhance predictability, transparency and accountability in all three spheres of Government.

As I said in my introduction, the Bill not only makes allocations to the provincial and local spheres, it also lays the basis for making these allocations per province and per municipality. More importantly, it further deepens co-operative governance in the budget allocation process. [Applause.]

Mr K A MOLOTO: Chairperson, hon members, South Africa is an unitary state with three spheres of Government and the fiscal system based on a revenue sharing approach.

The division of revenue, across all spheres of Government, strives to intensify the struggle against poverty, diseases, illiteracy and to speed up the general reconstruction of all areas of our people’s lives.

It is worth noting that most Government pro-poor programmes are driven by provincial and local governments. Therefore, it is critical that every ounce of our strength and natural resources should be focused on these two spheres of Government. Provinces have minimal revenue-raising powers and the national Government compensates for this limitation by allocating a larger share of nationally raised revenue to provinces. It is also important to point out that there are economic and demographic disparities between and within provinces, and the Government ensures that there is redistribution towards poorer provinces and municipalities. The wealth of this country belongs to all South Africans and will be utilised to advance the development of all. The perpetuation of uneven development will prove disastrous in the end. This Bill takes a step in addressing the challenge of poverty in the provinces and municipalities.

The 2002 Budget indeed does indicate a strong shift of resources towards provincial and local governments. Transfers to provinces grow by 7,9% and local government’s transfers grow by 18,3% a year over the MTEF period, thus underlining the crucial role to be played by local government in the fight against poverty, diseases and illiteracy.

In the provinces programmes that would not assume prominence include social security grants, early childhood development and a special focus on HIV/Aids programmes. At the local government level there will be a particular focus on the provision of basic services such as water, sanitation, electricity and waste management. The ANC, the champion of the poor, takes pride in its unwavering … [Interjections] … commitment to creating a better life for all our people.

I am quite pleased that the Government is taking all steps to ensure that programmes are targeted correctly. The Government is fully conscious of the causes of underspending, and I am glad to realise that proper project management skills are acquired to speed up delivery. The greatest challenge is for provinces to make significant strides in the generation of their own revenue to supplement the allocation from national Government. Such efforts will assist in the provision of social services.

Lehumo la naga ye ke la Maafrikaborwa ka moka, ka gona le swanetše go hlabolla badudi ba naga ye ka moka. Bao ba ilego ba buša naga ye ba tlogetše hlakantswiki, matlabotša, mahlabišadihlong le masetlapelo fela. Ba le šomisitše go ihlabolla ba le noši.

Mopresitente wa naga o re bašomedi ba mmušo ka moka ba swanetše go šomela setšhaba ka potego gore bodiidi bo gapeletšwe go tšwa motseng. Mokgatlo wa batho ka moka, wo o emelago ditokelo tša bahloki bao ba ratago tšwelopele, o re bolwetši le bodiidi di swanetše go tšwa motseng. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)

[The wealth of this country is for all South Africa’s citizens, therefore we should uplift all the citizens of this country. Those who were in power left this country in confusion, chaos, a shambles and a heartbroken state. They used it to enrich themselves only.

The President of this country says that all public servants must serve all citizens honestly to get rid of poverty in communities. The organisation for all people, which represents the rights of the needy people, would like to make progress and say that illness and poverty must be got rid of.]

The ANC indeed remains the champion of the poor. It has an unbreakable record, which is far beyond the reach of federalism and liberalism that is advocated by my friends on this side of the House. [Applause.]

Mr C M LOWE: Chairperson, the Portfolio Committee on Finance only held a short briefing on this section 76 Bill, where they obtained comment and useful input from both the Financial and Fiscal Commission and from the National Treasury.

Our consideration of the Bill today has thus been cursory, and the DA’s opinions are therefore, in some respects, subject to the detailed hearings and discussions that will take place in the NCOP.

There are many reasons for South Africans to stand tall and welcome our new democratic order. For despite the criticisms of the Government, many of which are well-founded and warranted, there can also be no doubt that we live in a far better country than at any time in our history.

We have all seen fundamental change for the better. We have much to be grateful for and good reason to be proud. One of these reasons is the way that we now account for public revenues and expenditure, how we manage our finances as a nation, and the systems and processes introduced to ensure a more comprehensive record of how we allocate national resources to ensure that funds are equitably distributed, vertically between the three separate spheres of government, and horizontally across the provinces and municipal structures.

Together with our Constitution, the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act establishes the division of revenue legislation, which signals the culmination of a long process, all bearing testimony to a comprehensive, largely inclusive and transparent process, that ensures, to a very real degree, that objectively and with purpose, we spend and account for moneys entrusted to us by the taxpayer. In the same week when the integrity and the objectivity of other parliamentary institutions are under siege, it is reassuring to note that this Bill reaffirms the commitment to the principles of transparency and accountability.

Our support is nonetheless tempered by concerns that I shall raise in the time left to me. Too many of them still relate to delivery, something that Government is so often short on. Despite continued assaults on the powers of the provinces, it is clear from this Budget and from the Bill that Government still intends to use them as the major conduits of Government spending and service provision. The DA welcomes this, for despite the validity in some quarters calling for increased capacity-building in provinces before greater powers and functions are delegated, it is still too often simply used as an excuse for not spending.

Capacity-building must be related to accountability. We spend so much on it, often as a result of losing experienced and highly skilled men and women who have been forced out, yet we never seem to ask how much capacity we have in fact built with all our capacity-building.

Another concern is that the provincial spheres anticipate to shift back into deficit this year, a reflection of spending pressure on provincial social services and, most importantly, a declining importance in own revenue collections such as gambling taxes, vehicle licensing and hospital fees. To counter this reduction, provinces need incentives to encourage a focus on raising more of their own revenue, and substantial real powers to hire and fire and better manage financial budgets. Hospital fees that often and increasingly go uncollected, from people who can easily afford to pay the cost of their treatment, is a case in point that bleeds millions of rands from provincial coffers each year.

Once again, we have a real decline in the allocation to the integrated nutrition programme, a decline that indicates for the second year in succession that underspending and poor delivery continues to bedevil the primary school feeding scheme. What more tragic reminder of this Government’s ability to overpromise and to underdeliver? Not only is this a disgraceful situation that is unacceptable, it is a shameful waste of money that contravenes the basic human right upheld by our Constitution, and it makes a mockery of Government’s commitment to addressing poverty. Last year, we urged that this problem be urgently addressed. Our pleas on behalf of those who need nutrition the most appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

Substantial increases in funding for an integrated health, education and social development strategy to combat HIV/Aids are commendable, but in the face a Presidency, a Minister of Health and a Government that still refuses to acknowledge that HIV causes Aids, that intervened and prevented the Gauteng Premier from carrying out his promise of providing antiretroviral drugs to all HIV-positive pregnant women, yet stands by while the Mpumalanga Health MEC fires superintendent Thys van Mollendorff for allowing the provision of free antiretroviral drugs to rape survivors, is not just bizarre and surreal, but, frankly, it is a crime against humanity.

HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister of Finance is often at great pains to tell us that the fundamentals are in place. Well, here is one glaring example of where they are not. It is incomprehensible that this is so in the face of the human tragedy, and is a political farce of such appalling proportions that more and more South Africans, many of them supporters of the majority party in this House, are calling it genocide.

Annexure E(1), the Framework for Conditional Grants to Provinces, outlines the key areas considered for each grant. The measurable objectives contained therein are interesting, but remain relatively meaningless in the absence of any predetermined parameters or results with which to measure and compare subsequent actual outcomes. This requires attention if the annexures are to be a useful tool to measure results that have been achieved. One final matter is the comprehensive review of the equitable share formula that will be undertaken once the 2001 Census results are available. We welcome the review, but note that, in many quarters, doubts still exist about the accuracy of the latest population count. Admittedly, much of the evidence is anecdotal, but problems may nevertheless exist. This formula is a good one that works well. It is not perfect, but it is a huge improvement and we cannot allow its effectiveness to be undermined by the possibility of unscientific and inaccurate census information.

In conclusion, too often we have seen underspending when moneys are readily available. Lack of capacity is too frequently used as an excuse when there is in fact none except poor planning and weak management. The challenge is there, and we have much to be proud of and grateful for. What is needed now is strong and visionary leadership. Despite our concerns, the DA will continue playing its role in bringing hope to millions of South Africans who deserve a better life. We support the Division of Revenue Bill in the National Assembly. [Applause.]

Mr H J BEKKER: Mr Chairman, the Division of Revenue Bill, apart from dealing with the division of revenue between national and provincial spheres, now also takes on board the very important matter of the division of revenue to local government. According to the South African Constitution, the Financial and Fiscal Commission is required to make recommendations to the Government on the equitable division of nationally raised revenue. The FFC must then submit its recommendations timeously, ahead of the end of the financial year, to the Minister of Finance, Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

The FFC has a national responsibility to manage economic and fiscal affairs, to determine the tax basis, the level and cost of servicing the national debt, and the overall borrowing requirements. Government in general is supportive of the recommendations of the FFC, and has noted the important statement that any changes to the existing equitable formula should reflect current priorities as determined by a political process regarding the division of revenue.

The FFC insists that provincial and local governments must prioritise their spending on constitutionally mandated obligations, including the provision of basic services. The IFP realises that it will be difficult to demonstrate that vertical and horizontal divisions are inequitable between and within the spheres, particularly the provincial divisions of the equitable share formula. The IFP appreciates that Government will undertake a comprehensive and fundamental assessment of the equitable share formula once the 2001 Census results become available, in order to make the formula more forward-looking for future MTEF estimates.

The equitable share ratio to the province of KwaZulu-Natal has improved slightly over the last few years. We trust that the census results will bring the differences in demographics to the fore to a greater degree as far as KwaZulu-Natal is concerned. Many breadwinners from KwaZulu-Natal are being counted in Gauteng and the northern Free State, whilst their families remain in KwaZulu-Natal. Particularly the welfare dependency and education budgets are being skewed by these facts. Just think about the additional requirements for conservation purposes in rural and traditional areas, and the funding of the House of Traditional Leaders and other traditional structures. The majority of the other provinces do not need funding for these sectors. Think also about the topography of the mountainous regions and the costs of bridging the many rivers in KwaZulu-Natal. The IFP can only trust that these realities will be addressed in future.

I will now deal with an aspect of revenue division and the division to local government. Three broad types of transfers from national to local government are provided for in the Division of Revenue Bill. The three types are the equitable share for local government and related transfers, the conditional transfers for municipal infrastructure, and conditional transfers for current municipal expenditure.

Of course, local government, and particularly the individual municipalities, are responsible for the supply and the distribution of water. This brings me to the aspect of free basic services. Inkatha, as early as 1994, pleaded for free basic services for the truly indigent. We suggested at the time that applications could be made for credit coupons which would be utilised against water, electricity and service accounts. Therefore, the IFP is in full support of the provision of free water and electricity to the poor. However, we are totally against the distortions and untrue propaganda that the ANC is supplying free basic services. Not a single cent of the ANC’s money has ever gone into this assistance. In fact, this has either been paid from municipal budgets, funded by rates and taxes, or by increases in water and electricity rates of the more affluent part of the population. he previous speaker stated that they were indeed the champions of the poor. I can only say that it is easy to be the champions of the poor if this is done with other people’s money.

The Division of Revenue Bill is endeavouring to slice the revenue cake in fair and equal proportions. I have listed the IFP’s concerns and hope that these can be taken on board in future. However, for the present we accept the proposals as set out and the IFP will vote in favour this Bill.

Ms S B NQODI: Chairperson and hon members of the House, the Bill before us is a product and the culmination of an extensive and in depth consultative process that brought together the key stakeholders and experts responsible for our national fiscal policy. These are the Budget Council, Salga, the Budget Forum, the Financial Fiscal Commission, the national Cabinet, an extended Cabinet involving Cabinet Ministers, premiers and MECs responsible for provincial finance departments and, last but not least, this very House, Parliament.

The aim of these long fora of consultation was to discuss the new Budget priorities and the division of revenue collected nationally amongst the three spheres of Government for the current fiscal year. Subsequent to these consultations, in December 2001, a draft Division of Revenue Bill was gazetted for public comment in line with the dictates of the Constitution, which seeks to promote participatory democracy, founded on the principles of openness, transparency and accountability.

Therefore, the Bill undoubtedly articulates the needs and aspirations of both the Government and the people it represents. It is a well and intelligently crafted piece of legislation that seeks to put in place a politically informed Budget plan of a fair and equal distribution of our resources, so as to benefit all the people of our country.

However, in doing so, the Bill is sensitive to the widening gap of the poor and the rich communities and provinces that this Government inherited seven years ago. In its endeavour to strengthen the intergovernmental system based on co-operative governance, the Bill also seeks to link policy-making to fiscal and financial management across all spheres of government. This will definitely help in improving the co-ordination of programmes and will accelerate service delivery, thus saving millions of rands which the Government could easily have lost. These are lessons learnt from our oversight functions of the different spheres of Government, as members of provincial and national legislatures.

The division of revenue amongst the three spheres of Government clearly reflects and illustrates that commitment to a people-driven and an integrated, sustainable, coherent sociopolitical policy framework - which we all know to be the RDP - is the cornerstone of this Government.

The different budgetary allocations of the different spheres of Government brilliantly take into consideration the socioeconomic disparities and inequities of the past. Both in the provincial and local governments, equitable share is calculated on the basis of the size and demographics of the different provincial populations, also taking into account the size of the rural communities and their poverty levels. This is greatly appreciated not only by the Finance Committee, but also by the people at large.

The objectives of the Bill, which are clearly outlined in part 1, illustrate the Government’s loyalty and obligation to the electoral mandate of the voters. Furthermore, the Bill provides checks and balances in the process of its implementation by setting the general norms and standards of all allocations and outlining the duties and responsibilities of accounting officers and treasuries, the director-general and the Auditor-General.

The provincial and local government’s equitable share formula used for this current year, is quite impressive and exceptional. As already stated by the Minister, it empowers and enables both these spheres of Government to accelerate the delivery of their constitutionally mandated basic services such as education, social security and primary health care. The formula also considers the infrastructural backlog and the priority needs of the different provinces.

The vertical division of revenue anticipates real growth in spending of 3,5% by all spheres. The provincial equitable share of 55,8% and the local government equitable share of 3,6% from national Budget during the current year, will definitely enhance the role played by these spheres of government in implementing the social programmes which will target the poor, create jobs and enhance economic growth.

In a nutshell, the division of the revenue of the national Budget for the current fiscal year reflects a strong shift of resources towards the provinces and municipalities. These two spheres are the delivery arms of the Government.

In conclusion, as a committee, we wish to call upon all spheres of government to act swiftly in ensuring that the funds allocated are accessed and utilised within this financial year. We also appeal to the Treasury to continue to give guidance and support wherever needed, so that the much- needed services, especially in our rural communities, are not delayed. We hope that the word ``roll-overs’’ will belong to the vocabulary of the past during our oversight function as Parliament. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Dr P J RABIE: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, this Bill provides for the equitable division of revenue raised nationally amongst national, provincial and local spheres of government. A formula is used to determine an equitable share of each province. The equitable share formula was adopted and the full phase will be implemented in the 2003-04 financial year. Seven factors are taken into account. These are education, which has a share of 41%, health, 19%, and social security, 18%; as well as a basic share of 7%, a backlog share of 3%, an economic share of 7% and an institutional share of 5%.

There has been growth in the financial year 2002-03. About R6,6 billion was allocated at the national level, R5,3 billion at the provincial level and R1,6 billion at the local level. The national share includes the restructuring of the South African Post Office, unemployment insurance funding and the fight against crime. Provincial priorities include security grants, education, capital investment and so on. Local government, which I am going to concentrate on, includes infrastructure and capacity- building.

Local government raises more than 90% of their own revenue. Two thirds of this is user charged for services. Between 1997 and 2001 an average of 8% of municipal expenditure was funded from intergovernmental grants. However, what is significant about these grants is that they refer to basic service grants that will target poor households that share earnings of below R1 100 per month. All municipalities qualify for this particular grant.

During its submission this morning, Idasa mentioned that it was estimated that 26,9 million people live below the absolute poverty line, which is defined as R400 per month per adult within a household. It is extremely important that all spheres of government do their utmost to provide basic services and, in particular, access to free water to this particular segment of our population.

Adv Pierre du Toit, in a submission to the Portfolio Committee on Finance, said that he was listening to a radio programme in Mpumalanga when a woman phoned and said that she was profoundly grateful that her living conditions had improved tremendously. In the past it took her 12 hours to get clean water for her household. This period was lately shortened to two hours.

I still think that this particular situation is untenable. I think we owe it to our communities and our Constitution owes it to us. We have to give all our people - all the members of our community, irrespective of where they come from or their income groups - access to free water. In fact, our Constitution stipulates that. Emphasis on this fact is, therefore, extremely necessary with regard to expenditure on poverty relief and poverty reduction, in particular.

Section 21 of this Bill is important because it relates to the delaying of payments; section 22, the withholding of payments; and section 23, the reallocation of grants between the different spheres of government. The requirements for the municipal accounting officers to report are also clearly stipulated within this Bill. They have to have an official bank account which is open to scrutiny, and monthly reports on the receipt as well as the expenditure of each grant programme must also be submitted no later than the fifth working day of each subsequent month.

The New NP is of the opinion that this Bill is extremely important. We support this particular Bill. [Applause.] Dr G W KOORNHOF: Mr Chairperson, Minister and hon members, it is encouraging to note that the Government is committed, especially in the Division of Revenue Bill, to increase spending on public infrastructure development. Everyone agrees that it is a step in the right direction. The question is whether it will create employment. In the Budget Review the following statement is made, and I quote:

Efforts to promote accelerated investment in infrastructure have not turned the employment trend around.

We believe that part of the problem is that provinces and municipal governments will undertake the majority of the infrastructure spending, instead of central Government. It is reported that provinces had spent less than half of the capital expenditure budgets by the end of December 2001, leaving an unspent amount of R5 billion which was meant to fund infrastructure. A similar trend occurs within many municipalities.

From the total infrastructure-related expenditure for 2002-03, spending by national departments will be less than 0,8% of GDP. We believe that there is an argument to be made for a substantial increase in spending on infrastructure by the central Government, especially in the poorer provinces and the weaker municipalities. This should be job creation infrastructure spending. It should provide for and improve the allocation, quality and monitoring of spending. Parliamentary committees - committees in this Parliament - can then monitor that the money is spent effectively.

Increased infrastructure spending by the central Government on roads, harbours, power stations and infrastructure for communities, will result in more money actually being spent and employment creation will become a reality. Simultaneously, the poorer provinces should be assisted to become stronger and the weaker municipalities helped to develop their capacity to handle large budgets.

Jobs are the number one priority of South Africans. National Government cannot escape its responsibility to create jobs. Infrastructure spending can create the jobs that people need and stimulate business and economic growth. The UDM supports the Division of Revenue Bill. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson, the main objectives of this Bill are, firstly, to provide, amongst others, for the equitable division of revenue raised nationally amongst the three spheres of government; secondly, to provide co-operative governance, which we support; and, thirdly, to promote better co-ordination between policy, planning and budget preparation. There are, of course, other objectives of the Bill, but these are what we want to highlight.

The Budget makes provision for the advancing of provincial and, especially, local government capacity by allocating more funds to improve on delivery of the constitutionally mandated basic service responsibilities. The ACDP commends both the Western Cape and the Gauteng provincial governments for showing good initiative by making social delivery count where it matters, especially in its fight against HIV/Aids by providing antiretroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Their current budget allocations for the coming financial year show a strong intent to continue improving the lives of ordinary people.

There is, of course, a growing awareness throughout most provincial legislatures to employ meaningful and effective services to the nation. Provincial governments are also improving on their attempts to cut down on mismanagement and corruption, and we want to commend them for this.``Charity begins at home’’ is a lesson we all learned from our mothers’ lips. In other words, the more we are able to commit ourselves to moral governance, the sooner we would discover a fresh wave of social renewal and economic stability that would flow through our towns and cities.

On local government spending the great limitation is on underdelivery. With the increase in local government capacity- building to about R548 million, the need for efficiency in service delivery is the benchmark.

The ACDP hopes that we will get the processes of local government up and running successfully, where we will witness the steady improvement of the socioeconomic conditions of our people. The ACDP supports this Bill. [Time expired.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairman, our country is one nation living in the present nine provinces. It is very important that the revenue of this country is equitably distributed. It is a logical thing and the principle of natural justice demands it. It is a good thing for the oneness and equal upliftment of all its citizens. The PAC supports the principles contained in this Bill. We hope that it will not be short on implementation.

The Division of Revenue Bill is intended to provide for the equitable division of revenue raised nationally among the national, provincial and local spheres of government for the financial year 2002-03. The Bill aims to provide for reporting requirements for allocations pursuant to appropriate revenue division; to provide for the withholding and the delaying of payments; and to provide for liability for costs incurred in litigation on the principles of co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations.

Clause 2 states the objects of this Bill once it has become law. Among these objects are to promote better co-ordination between policy, planning, budget preparation and execution processes; to promote accountability for the use of public resources by ensuring that all transfers are reflected on the budget of benefiting provincial and local governments and are subjected to an audit; and to promote predictability and certainty in respect of all allocations to provincial and local governments, to enable such governments to plan their budgets over a multiyear period. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for shortfalls and access to revenue. The PAC supports this Bill and will vote for it.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the time of year has dawned once again in which revenue is divided geographically, to permit the running of our state efficiently. The MF expresses its satisfaction with the promotion of co- operative governance in the intergovernmental budgeting. This would certainly inculcate a mechanism of assurance in view of the utilisation of revenue, as well as perhaps ensure a system of checks and balances by parties other than those appointed to do the task.

Having viewed the Bill, the MF acknowledges a display of equitable share allocations of revenue between the different spheres of government and the sectors within them. Duties prescribed to the accounting officers and treasuries appear intact and will hopefully inculcate efficiency and effectiveness.

The Bill appears to, in detail, set out a revenue plan that will ensure sustainable utilisation towards the varying sectors. The MF is especially satisfied with the share allocation made to the KwaZulu-Natal province. Noting the escalating problems encountered in this province, such as the high rate of HIV/Aids infection, the MF is certain that this allocation will be utilised beneficially towards sustainable development and the eradication of the many problems there. In respect of the province, the allocations to health, agriculture and the National Treasury appear intact.

The MF is also pleased by the allocations made towards education in this province, as well as other sectors.

The MF supports the Division of Revenue Bill. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Agb Voorsitter, laat my toe om te konsentreer, in die beperkte tyd aan my toegestaan, op een aspek van hierdie wetsontwerp, naamlik die groter toekennings aan munisipale owerhede.

Plaaslike regering se toekenning is van R6,6 miljard verhoog na R8,6 miljard en na R10,9 miljard vir die 2004-2005 begroting. Dit is ‘n saak waarvoor die AEB by herhaling gepleit het, en ek bedank die Minister dat hy na goeie raad geluister het. Plaaslike regering staan bekend as derdevlakregering. Dis eintlik verkeerd. Dit moet genoem word eerstevlakregering, aangesien dit die naaste eerste vlak van regering is waarmee elke burger te doen kry vir die voorsiening van sy strate, sy dienste en sy onmiddellike leefwêreld. In die finale instansie is dit op plaaslike vlak waar armoede aangespreek en uitgewis moet word. Mag die Minister my lied vandag hoor: As plaaslike regering in duie stort, stort Suid-Afrika in duie.

Plaaslike regering is sedert die 2000-verkiesing met veel groter verantwoordelikheid en ook met groter fiskale magte beklee. Ons kan die beste nasionale begroting opstel en die Minister kan die mooiste belastingafslag gee, maar as dit weer deur die grootste persentasie van die belasting ingesluk word dan help dit niks nie. Daarom is die AEB verheug oor hierdie groter toekenning aan plaaslike owerhede.

Daar is egter ‘n lelike slang in die gras. Volgens syfers van Januarie beloop die bedrag van bestaande skuld deur verbruikers aan munisipale owerhede R15,6 miljard - dubbeld soveel as die nasionale toekenning. ‘n Syfer van R19 miljard is ook genoem. Indringende ondersoek het aangetoon dat die grootste rede vir hierdie uitstaande skuld geleë is in die totale chaos in munisipaliteite se finansiële en kredietbeheerstelsels. Om die boeke van plaaslike regerings te laat klop, is daaglikse vinger-op-die- polskontrole uiters noodsaaklik.

Artikel 16 van die wetsontwerp spel die pligte van die rekenkundige beampte van ‘n plaaslike regering uit wat ‘n toekenning uit die nasionale begroting ontvang. Die AEB vra dat dit streng toegepas word, met spesifieke kontrole oor die kredietbeheerstelsels van plaaslike owerhede. Hierdie R8,6 miljard is noodsaaklik, maar om dit in ‘n bodemlose put te stort, sal onverantwoordelik wees. Ons is verheug oor die Minister se fiskale kontrole, maar as dit nie op plaaslike vlak geskied nie, sal dit niks help nie.

Die AEB steun hierdie wetgewing en vra dan ook dat ons munisipaliteite hierdie nuwe verantwoordelikheid eerbaar sal beantwoord. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Chairperson, allow me, in the limited time at my disposal, to concentrate on one aspect of this Bill, namely the larger allocations to municipal authorities.

The allocation for local government has been increased from R6,6 billion to R8,6 billion and R10,9 billion for the budget of 2004-05. This is something which the AEB has repeatedly requested, and I thank the Minister for having listened to good advice.

Local government is known as third-tier government. This is actually incorrect. It should be called first-tier government since it is the nearest, first tier of government which every citizen deals with as far as the provision of his streets, his services and his immediate environment are concerned. It is at the local level that poverty must ultimately be addressed and eradicated. May the hon the Minister listen to my song today: When local government collapses South Africa will collapse.

Since the elections of 2000, local government has been given much greater responsibility as well as increased fiscal powers. We can draw up the very best national Budget and the Minister can grant the very best tax rebates, but if this in turn is swallowed up by the largest percentage of the tax it is of no use. For this reason the AEB is delighted about this bigger allocation for local authorities.

However, there is a snake in the grass. According to figures for January, the amount of existing debt owed by consumers to municipal authorities is R15,6 billion - twice as much as the national allocation. A figure of R19 billion was also mentioned. In-depth investigation has shown that the main reason for this outstanding debt is the total chaos in the financial and credit control systems of municipalities. In order to balance the books of local governments it is of the greatest importance to keep a finger on the pulse on a daily basis.

Section 16 of the Bill enumerates the duties of the accounting officer of a local government which receives an allocation from the national Budget. The AEB requests that this be applied strictly, with particular control over the credit control systems of local governments. This R8,6 billion is necessary, but it would be irresponsible to let it disappear into a bottomless pit. We are delighted by the Minister’s fiscal control, but if it does not apply at the local level, it will be of no use. The AEB supports this legislation, and also requests our municipalities to react in an honourable way as regards this new responsibility.]

Mr N M NENE: Chairperson, hon members, having heard the objectives of the Division of Revenue Bill, it is clear that this ANC Government is serious about bringing a better life to all South Africans. When the Minister of Finance presented the Budget on 20 February 2002, he gave effect to what the President had outlined in the state of the nation address - pushing back the frontiers of poverty and working together as a nation in the spirit of Letsema and Vukuzenzele.

It is through this division of revenue that the national Budget is allocated to the different spheres of government. In terms of section 214 of the Constitution and section 9 of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act of 1997, the Financial and Fiscal Commission is required to make recommendations on the equitable division of nationally raised revenue. The FFC presented nine proposals relating to provinces and 13 relating to local government. It is after consideration of these recommendations that this division of revenue is arrived at. When the FFC appeared before the committee during this week it was clear that the commission was satisfied with Government responses to its recommendations, all in the name of transparency and accountability. The formulae have been adjusted in order to place emphasis on social services and infrastructural development. The Integrated Rural Development Strategy is accelerated tremendously by increasing the allocations, as we have heard speaker after speaker reiterating. Over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework period, additional allocations totalling R20 billion are proposed for provinces, in order to assist child support grant programmes and other social programmes. A further R6,8 billion is also proposed for local government, mainly to address the provision of basic services to the poor, which the hon Bekker said is not true.

Izabelo-ke ngokwezifundazwe nazo zikhushuliwe ukuze kubhekwane nezinhlelo zokuthuthukisa, ikakhulukazi izindawo zasemakhaya nokuvuselelwa kwamadolobha. Ingxenye enkulu yalezi zabelo izobhekana ikakhulukazi nezidingo zezenhlalakahle, ezemfundo ngokunjalo nezempilo.

Angithandi ukulibazisa le Ndlu ngezibalo ngaphandle nje kokugcizelela ukuthi izincomo zekhomishana le ye-FFC engikhuluma ngazo ziphakamisa okuningi okwenza ukwabiwa kwemali ngemikhakha yohulumeni bobathathu kume ngononina bangempela.

Ohulumeni basekhaya nabo babhekelwe ngokuthe xaxa ukuze bafeze izidingo thina njengoKhongolose esazethembisa abantu, njengogesi inani elilingene kanye namanzi isilinganiso leso esifanele labo abadla imbuya ngothi. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)

[The budget that has been given to the provinces has been increased in order to enable them to face the costs of developments, especially in the rural areas, and the renovation of cities. The greatest part of these budgets will be focused on welfare, education and health needs.

I do not want to waste time in this House giving the statistics, except to emphasise that the recommendations of the FFC which I am talking about highlight many things to be done by the budgets at three government levels, and that they should be seen in the proper perspective.

The local governments have been given an increase so that they will be able to meet the needs that we, the ANC, have promised to people, like electricity and a reasonable amount of water for the poor.]

The recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal Commission further emphasise the need for consultative budgeting and the pressing need to consider the trends in the provision of constitutionally mandated basic services by provincial governments, and review some issues relating to socioeconomic disparities between provinces.

Our main focus remains the delivery of a better life for all, and we will not be deterred. Together with our communities, we will make it happen.

The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson, hon members, I have two brief points to make. The first one is to express my appreciation to all parties for supporting the Bill, and the second one is to wish Barbara Hogan, who is at the moment not in the House, a very happy birthday. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                         ANIMAL HEALTH BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Chairman, the Bill before the House is here for the second time now after having made its stance in the NCOP.

Actually, this Bill is, systematically, part of a broader system of food safety and in that system, perhaps also part of a system of food security. I would like to talk about this broader context today. To my mind, food safety and food security should be placed at the top of the political priorities of the Department of Agriculture. We actually need quite an exhaustive plan of action to make our legislation more coherent and comprehensive. I would like to make a plea today that consideration be given to the establishment of an independent Southern African food security and safety authority, with particular responsibility for both risk assessment and communication on food security and safety issues.

This Animal Health Bill before us is an essential development, and I regard it as a milepost. We have to broaden our vision for the future. What is the way forward for food safety? The history of animal diseases and animal health in South Africa is very interesting. Actually, we sit today at the end point of over 100 years of development. It actually started as a quite nasty incident in 1896, when the rinderpest struck South Africa and almost the whole national herd was destroyed.

Fortunately, Paul Kruger, who had made a lot of bad decisions, like attacking King Sekhukhuni and deciding on the Anglo Boer War against the good advice of people like President Steyn and Gen De la Rey, made one good decision regarding Dr Arnold Theiler who arrived here from Switzerland to work on the rinderpest situation.

After the war, enough money - and that is a crucial point - was given to start Onderstepoort under the leadership of Dr Theiler in 1908. That decision dominated and decided the future of animal husbandry in South Africa. It made it possible for South Africa in the 20th century to develop a very strong animal husbandry system in which diseases were checked, and at certain stages it reached international stature as well. Now we have to go further. All that we have in South Africa at the moment is, to a large extent, the result of that system which was developed in 1908.

Three years ago already, the Directors-General of Agriculture and Health agreed on a national food control system. Unfortunately this initiative got stuck, and it should be revived now. The position is that currently we have a number of Acts and a number of authorities working in the field of food safety. We have duplication, overlapping, multiple use of scarce resources and multiple decision-making. We have a lack of co-ordination and in general we cannot say that we have reached a point of optimal protection of health and safety as a public.

With that came, in 1994, provincial functions and responsibilities. It was a purely political act of the old NP in the negotiations to get agriculture diversified into the provinces, a decision which I still regret. I am saying that we need a major overhaul of our food security and safety systems, as well as of the way in which scientific advice fits into the systems.

The Bill before us is a great achievement and a major signpost on the road to food safety in South Africa. I think it is a showcase for the effectiveness of our animal health institutions. But we must go further in addressing the serious concerns of consumers and the public about food security and safety. I believe that a food security and safety control authority should be the cornerstone of the future strategy of South Africa and SADC, to ensure the success of both sufficient and safe food supplies.

Why I am linking food safety to food security is for the very simple reason that food security - to have enough food - is a health question. Too many people are still going hungry in southern Africa. A key element of this strategy should be the responsibility of food and feed businesses to ensure that only safe food and feed are placed on the market and that unsafe food and feed are withdrawn. I will also encourage a debate in Parliament on these issues. Parliament’s views should be heard on this major strategic issue for southern Africa.

I think we should start planning now and I will encourage the department to do this, ie to plan where we are going for the next 20 years or so. We need a vision now. Huge demands will be placed on government, as well as on research, to ensure the safety of consumers. The likelihood is that new emerging food-borne problems will present further challenges to mankind and that the importance will increase rather than diminish. Populations will continue to grow and the movements of people, food and animals across international borders will increase. Development, new husbandry techniques, industrialisation and urbanisation will continue to change lifestyles, health and environments.

The proportion of the global population that can be regarded as immune- compromised is steadily rising. The problem of all developing countries is that scarce resources are often directed to urgent national priorities like health, primary health, education, housing, sanitation, food procurement and defence. That is necessary, and it should be done. But in the process food control issues are often insufficiently appreciated and receive a low priority, leading, of course, to a neglect of food control issues. I have no doubt that an optimal infrastructure must be created to effectively recognise and deal with food-borne diseases, including new or emerging problems as well as food security. In the end, as I said, food security is a health problem, but the lack of infrastructure includes human and monetary resources, as well as a lack of laboratory and training facilities. What we need is food legislation, personnel, surveillance data and food monitoring data. This is a global issue and we need a unified and joint approach within the global context.

Regarding a national food control system, the control of foodstuffs in South Africa is at present fragmented between a number of authorities and components at the national, provincial and local levels, as well as between several other organisations. We have to work on these problems. I think a national system for the delivery of food control and food inspection services should meet some of the following criteria.

Firstly, the system must be able to satisfy the food safety objectives of the country and the region in which we live, to guarantee the required level of protection of plant for purposes of human and animal health. Secondly, the system must be able to render production support, ie facilitate and promote trade. It must be able to provide for the needs of the country, and not inhibit production and trade, while protecting our own markets. Thirdly, it must be able to satisfy international norms and standards. Further, it must ensure the effective utilisation of resources, with a clear policy on private versus public goods. And then, of course, it must abide by international criteria in the sense of being scientifically justified.

The ideal solution, I believe, must be and should be the development of a single food control Act, and the Bill which we are currently considering must eventually grow into a more comprehensive legislative situation. We have the basic elements of disease control and animal health at the moment in the Act. We must now move to a system based on the principle of co- operative governance. In general, the preferred option should be to improve the ability to meet the Government’s objectives for food security, food safety and administration.

The priority, I think, is for food safety to be placed at the top of agricultural health and health priorities in this country. What we need is an exhaustive action plan, which we should start developing now that we have this Animal Health Bill in place. What must we do? We must keep the public’s confidence in its food supply, its food science, its food law and in strong food controls. If that is not there any more, we must re- establish it.

The problem is that food safety measures have been, over the history of South Africa, mostly developed on a sectoral basis. Today we sit with a situation of a far-reaching integration of economies. There are far- reaching developments in farming and food processing, and there are new handling and distribution patterns which clearly require a more integrated approach.

So, we need a comprehensive range of actions which are based on clear principles, so that we can ensure that only safe food is placed on the market, and that there is sufficient food for all our people.

To get to that point, it must be clear what the responsibilities of the various players in the food production chain as a whole are. We have to take account of all economic operators in the system, and the state should be in charge of monitoring and enforcing these responsibilities through a national surveillance and control system.

What will this, eventually, result in? We must have a policy covering all sectors of the food chain, including feed production, production on the farm, food processing, storage, transport and the retail sector.

Nutrition is the basic subject on which we are working. A consumer should not only be offered safe food, but also healthy food and that should be taken into consideration as well.

Secondly, risk analysis should be part of this situation. It should consist of both risk assessment and risk management. Other legitimate factors should be brought into this action plan, for example environmental considerations, animal welfare, sustainable agriculture and consumers’ expectation. We should approach this problem on a holistic basis, thinking of the whole chain, as I said, from the farm to the spoon, or from the farm to the table.

Fair information is a right of the consumer and it should be built into the essential characteristics of the system. To reach that situation and that future position, the importance of the transparency of all stakeholders in the process is important. It should not just be a passive transmission of controls, it should be a two-way process. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr B A RADEBE: Mr Chairperson, hon Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, the ANC supports this Bill. The meticulous work done by the Ministry in preparing this Bill is highly commended. No stone was left unturned in closing the loopholes which existed in the Animal Diseases Act of 1984 and the Animal Diseases Amendment Act of 1991.

The portfolio committee members must also be praised for improving the Bill and passing it unanimously in the portfolio committee. This unity in action of the Ministry and the portfolio committee shows that the frontiers of poverty and disease can be effectively pushed back faster and efficiently.

The walkabout which the portfolio committee undertook in January in the departments and various agencies of the department was very important because it gave us, as the decision-makers of the country, first-hand information of what happens in these institutions. What we saw there left a lot to be desired.

However, what we also saw there, again, gave us an assurance that we have a dedicated team of South African patriots who are willing to turn the wheel, so that is why, in my speech, because this Bill was adopted unanimously, I will deal exclusively with the support structures which are needed to sustain this Bill.

The support structures which are of paramount importance are the agencies like the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute or OVI, Onderstepoort Biological Products and the Agricultural Research Council. These institutions are the ones which can ensure that we continuously have a healthy herd of animals in our country.

This Bill is tabled at a time when the country is reeling from the devastating effects of the foot-and-mouth disease which occurred in KwaZulu- Natal and Mpumalanga in the year 2000. We saw that the resources of the state were stretched to the limit, but we must be thankful that we had a team of dedicated veterinary surgeons, departmental officials, farmer soldiers, police and communities who were eager to help and comply with the stringent conditions for movement of cattle which were applied during that time.

The total effects of all these efforts led to the containment of the disease within a reasonable period of time. Overall, the country lost a herd of 1 628 cattle, 198 sheep, 810 goats and 4 002 pigs, at a cost which totalled R604 million. The loss of animal products like milk, animal feed, eggs, bones and skins totalled R740 000. An amount of R1,9 million was used in the purchase of vaccines to control the disease.

However, what is important here is that the payouts which were made by the department to the people who lost their animals totalled an amount of R9 million. What was very interesting in the whole saga of the FMD is that no one was held accountable by the courts of law for the damage which was done to the economy of the country and to the confidence in our products by the external market.

So, it is very important to appreciate that this Bill is trying to tie up those loopholes which exist in the other laws. So what is of paramount importance here is the unsung heroes who helped during the time of foot-and- mouth disease. These are the skilled and dedicated scientists, technicians and specialist workers at Onderstepoort Biological Products. All the vaccines which were used during that time were prepared by these scientists. They were prepared in large numbers so as to be able to be used on time. So that is why we say that we have to protect these institutions.

We want to give a brief history of Onderstepoort Biological Products. That company is a biotechnological company which was formed when a directorate of the department was commercialised, so that it could respond to the needs of the department. What did this company do?

Since its existence in 1992, this company has been able to produce 44 vaccines, nine of which are unique to Africa, ie it is the only company in the world that can produce those vaccines. So, what does that mean? It means that those vaccines which are used to curb the diseases that are unique to Africa give us a chance, as Africans, to be able to solve African problems in our own way, so that we should not always depend on external sources.

What is of paramount importance is that the other vaccines which are being sold abroad in the Mediterranean countries, the Middle East and even Europe, generated an income of about R130 million per annum for the country. This is very good indeed. So that is why we, as Parliament, must always give support for such institutions. But the institution which is under threat is the Agricultural Research Council. The ARC receives its grant from Parliament.

In 1998-99 it received a total grant of R302 million, but in 2002-03 it is going to receive a grant of R275 million. There was a down slide in the provision of this allocation to the ARC. Why is this a tragedy to the security of the country? These allocations provided by Government can hardly cover the salary bill of the staff members of the ARC. If it can hardly cover that salary bill, it means that the work which is supposed to be done has to depend upon sponsors from outside.

When a person sponsors any project, he expects certain results. What we are thinking of is that countries like the EU can come in and sponsor the ARC. In the process, what is going to happen? The research that would be undertaken there would be more biased towards the diseases which are found in the Middle East or in the European countries. At the end of the day, we as Africans are going to suffer. We as Parliament have to help the Ministry and urge the National Treasury to give viable allocations.

Apart from this little allocation to the ARC, it is experiencing a huge brain drain. Each and every such institution of note must have researchers who must have at least PhDs. What we experience here is that the private sector and companies from abroad lure these people out of the country. In the process we end up preparing researchers who are then taken by other countries. We as Parliament must, in terms of what the President said regarding Vukuzenzele, stand up and protect these institutions. If they are not protected, this wonderful Bill in front of us might not even be implemented. It is the duty of each and everyone in this House to do that. [Applause.]

What is important is the various provisions in this Bill, for example the creation of a national executive officer who will be able to give a health certificate to any person who sells animal products both here and abroad. Why is that so important? After the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, the quality of our meat was questioned abroad. That can even be seen in our exports. In 1999 South Africa exported 31 000 tons of red meat, but in 2000, in the year in which foot-and-mouth disease struck the country, we only exported 26 000 tons. One can imagine the amount of revenue which we lost because of that epidemic. What is important is that we are able to meet that challenge. In 2001 we were able to export 67 000 tons of red meat. If we can have that unity in action, we can be able to turn around the economy of the country and get revenue from our product.

While we get this revenue from our product, it means that the jobs of 1 million farmworkers will be guaranteed. If their jobs are guaranteed, each and every one of them will be able to have food on the table. When they have food on their table, the frontiers of poverty will have been pushed back by this Bill. What is of paramount importance is the issue of the involvement of the provincial executive officers, who must ensure that at the local level there are programmes for dipping and vaccination, so that the herds are in good health. At the end of the day, our communities will consume healthier animals. When they consume healthy animals, they will have healthier lives, thereby ensuring that the slogan of the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, namely that agriculture is life, is really true. What is of paramount importance is that this vaccine, which must be produced before 2004, must be used to resuscitate the animals which are in the intensive care units. If we can get that vaccine before 2004, the death alleviation will be our life.

Dr O BALOYI: Chairperson, the IFP will support the Animal Health Bill which we are debating today. The IFP supports the Bill for three main reasons.

The first reason is that the Bill will bring South Africa’s animal legislation in line with our Constitution, by repealing the Animal Diseases Act of 1984. The IFP supports this move, as it is obviously necessary to bring old-order legislation in line with our constitutional framework.

Secondly, the Bill will provide a new system for the control of animal diseases and for measures to promote animal health, keeping in mind the practical lessons that have been learned over the intervening years.

The third reason is that the Bill includes provisions that devolve certain administrative functions to the provinces, as well as assigning executive authority to the provinces for implementation of certain provisions.

The effective legislative control of animal diseases is fundamental to the economic wellbeing of South Africa’s agricultural sector. It is an economic sector that provides employment for thousands of people and provides various foodstuffs for the nation, including numerous animal products and by-products. In addition, the exportation of animals and animal products provides South Africa with valuable foreign exchange earnings, thereby boosting domestic economic growth.

Recent international and local experiences with animal diseases point clearly to the need to have a practical and strict legislative and regulatory framework in place. The loss of income and the destruction of assets associated with the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak in KwaZulu-Natal are still clearly remembered by the farmers and communities in that province. We believe that this Bill will go a long way in preventing, or at the very least containing future outbreaks.

The IFP applauds the fact that the Bill provides for proactive steps to promote animal health in South Africa. The control and containment of animal diseases are, by their nature, reactive steps but the proactive steps introduced by this Bill, including strict import controls, the establishment of animal health schemes and the adherence to international norms and standards are welcomed.

The IFP has long been a vociferous advocate of the principles of federalism, that is the devolution of powers and functions from national Government to the provincial level. Schedule 4 of the Constitution provides that animal control and disease is a concurrent functional area between national and provincial governments.

We are therefore very pleased that the Bill provides for provincial executive officers to administer the Bill at the provincial level. We also welcome the provision that executive authority is given to the provinces to control animal diseases by issuing directives that have to be complied with, and to control land and animals in order to prevent the spread of animal diseases. The IFP believes that our experiences with animal diseases over the last decade or so clearly indicate that our provinces are best suited and resourced to deal with them timeously and effectively.

As far as the question of provincial resources to implement the Bill is concerned, the IFP is extremely pleased with the provision in the Bill that allows the national Parliament to appropriate additional funding to make up for any deficit experienced by a province, if the assignment of certain functions to the province is suspended by the Minister. Clearly, if the national Minister considers such a step necessary, the national level of Government must be held financially responsible.

Finally, the IFP acknowledges the consultation efforts by the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs before this Bill came to Parliament. We commend the department for consulting such a wide range of stakeholders to elicit their views and concerns. Such inclusive consultation can only make for better legislation and better control and promotion of animal health. [Applause.]

Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mev die Speaker, agb Minister, agb Adjunkminister en kollegas, as ‘n boer verwelkom ek hierdie wetgewing wat vandag hier gedebatteer word. Dit is goed dat sekere pligte op die provinsiale vlak uitgeoefen word. Sekere pligte kan beter op provinsiale vlakke uitgevoer word. Daar is egter ‘n groot voorwaarde. Die koördinering tussen nasionale en provinsiale vlakke moet sonder haakplekke uitgevoer word. Elke owerheid moet presies weet wat sy verantwoordelikheid is. Wanneer byvoorbeeld bek-en- klouseer in ‘n provinsie uitbreek, moet elke owerheid presies weet hoe om op te tree. Daar mag nie leemtes ontstaan tussen die verskillende owerhede nie. So mag daar ook nie verskillende owerhede by die operasionele punt op verskillende maniere optree nie en sodoende in botsing kom met mekaar. Ons het nie genoeg geskikte mense en kan vermorsing van kennis en kragte nie bekostig nie. Wet 64(d) van 2001 probeer om die leemtes wat in die praktyk ontstaan het, aan te spreek.

Dit het tot gevolg dat internasionale grense en die nodige magtiging rondom dit in die hande van die nasionale departement geplaas word. Ek het al in die verlede vir die agb Minister gesê dat Suid-Afrikaanse boere opsien na die Minister om dit vir hulle moontlik te maak om hulle taak in Suid-Afrika te kan verrig, byvoorbeeld om voedselsekuriteit te waarborg. Dit kan net gedoen word indien Suid-Afrika se landbou in ‘n posisie geplaas word om met die wêreld te kan meeding.

Daar is ‘n groot behoefte dat ons gesondheidsregulasies ten opsigte van vleis en ander invoerprodukte aan internasionale vereistes voldoen. Ons moet sorg dat ons huis hieromtrent in orde is. Dit is van die uiterste belang dat die vleisbedryf sonder gesondheidsbeperkinge moet kan meeding. Die Regering moet ook seker maak dat ons nie onnodig afgeknou word nie. Ons weet dat die departement nog nie in staat is om die nodige inspeksies te kan doen nie. Ons weet die poste is nie genoeg om die bedryf op internasionale standaard te bring nie. Ons weet mos dat die huidige poste nie gevul is nie. Daar moet ‘n rede voor wees. Ons lei veeartse op en baie vertrek oorsee. Ek weet hulle salarisse is baie hoog, maar ons moet die uitvloei stopsit. Ons moenie toelaat dat die geleentheid wat daar vir die landbousektor is om uit te voer, vertraag word nie. Landbou in Suid-Afrika moet die geleentheid gegee word om markte oorsee te vestig en om landbou binnelands te balanseer.

Prof Kassier het gesê dat die kleinboerontwikkeling nie in Suid-Afrika kan slaag nie. Hy het nog nooit oplossings vir ons gebied nie; nog net klippe in die bos gegooi. Dit is vir die kleinboerontwikkeling noodsaaklik dat uitvoer gestabiliseer word. Dit sal ook vir die kleinboer hoër pryse tot gevolg hê. Dit is ook die staat se plig om te waak oor enige invoere. Wat geld vir die Suid-Afrikaanse boer om te kan uitvoer, moet geld vir invoerders. Dit is noodsaaklik dat ons land se boere beskerm word teen siektes van buite. Hierdie wetgewing sal help dat ons land op internasionale gebied kan meeding en daarom steun die Nuwe NP hierdie wetgewing.

Aan die Adjunkminister wil ek net sê: As hy nie saam met ons vra vir reën in die mieliedriehoek nie, gaan die mielieprys nog ‘n keer styg. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister and colleagues, as a farmer, I welcome this legislation which is being debated here today. It is good that certain duties are being performed at the provincial level. Certain functions can be better performed at provincial levels. There is, however, an important condition. The co-ordination between national and provincial levels must take place without obstructions. Each authority must know exactly what its responsibilities are. When, for example, foot-and-mouth disease breaks out in a province, each authority should know exactly what action should be taken. No shortcomings should arise among various authorities. Similarly, there may not be different authorities at the operational point, acting in different ways and in so doing, end up in conflict with one another. We do not have enough suitable people and we cannot afford any waste of knowledge and labour. Act 64(d) of 2001 tries to address shortcomings that arose in practice.

That resulted in international borders and the necessary authorisation in connection with that having to be placed in the hands of the national department. I have already in the past said to the hon the Minister that South African farmers looked up to the Minister to make it possible for them to perform their task in South Africa, for example, to guarantee food safety. That can only be done provided that South Africa’s agriculture is placed in a position of being able to compete with the world.

There is a great need that our health regulations with regard to meat and other imported products should comply with international requirements. We must ensure that our house is in order in this regard. It is of the utmost importance that the meat industry should be able to compete without other limitations in health. The Government must also ensure that we are not bullied unnecessarily. We know that the department is not yet in a position to do the necessary inspections. We know that there is an insufficient number of posts to be able to bring the industry up to the international standard. We know that the present posts have not yet been filled. There must be a reason for that. We educate veterinary surgeons and many of them go overseas. I know that their salaries are very high, but we must stop the outflow. We must not allow the opportunity that exists for export by the agricultural sector to be delayed. Agriculture in South Africa should be given the chance to establish markets abroad and to balance agriculture domestically.

Prof Kassier said that the small farmers’ development in South Africa cannot succeed. He has never yet offered us any solutions; only set the cat among the pigeons. It is essential for the development of small farmers that exports should be stabilised. That may result in higher prices for the small farmer. It is also the duty of the state to keep watch over any imports. What applies to the South African farmer to be able to export, should also apply to the importers. It is essential that farmers in our country should be protected against diseases from outside. This legislation will help our country to compete internationally and that is why the New NP supports this legislation.

To the Deputy Minister, I just want to say: If he does not pray for rain together with us in the maize triangle, the price of mealies is going to rise once more.]

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, the Animal Diseases Act of 1984 historically provided for animal health or animal disease control. Regulations contained in that Act conform to international standards with regard to the measures to control and prevent the occurrence of animal diseases.

The OIE, Office International des Epizooties, is an international organisation which gives guidance on all animal health issues. The organisation draws up minimum standards, guidelines and procedures for the control and prevention of animal diseases. It also guides countries on the measures which need to be followed when trading with one another. The OIE serves as a standard-formulating body to the World Trade Organisation. These international standards serve as guidelines for animal health in South Africa.

This Bill, the Animal Health Bill, was drafted in order to bring animal health legislation in line with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Animal health is a concurrent function shared between national and provincial governments. The current Act does not make provision for the interaction between the national and provincial spheres of Government on animal health or disease control issues.

The Bill proposes to retain the following provisions contained in the Animal Diseases Act: principles of disease control measures as per international norms and standards; establishment of quarantine stations; import control aimed to prevent the introduction of exotic animal diseases in South Africa; establishment of animal health schemes to eradicate certain diseases; declaring certain animal diseases that have a detrimental effect on the animals, or livestock and game industries and those control diseases that are then controlled on a countrywide basis. These are some of the provisions as contained in the principal Act, which provided the framework for the containment of animal diseases in South Africa.

We must, naturally, feel nostalgic about our country’s contribution to the maintenance of animal health. About 106 years ago, rinderpest decimated our cattle population. As the old adage goes: ``Necessity is the mother of invention’’, so our veterinarians, particularly the legendary Arnold Theiler, and farmers had to come up with solutions, which eventually led to the establishment of the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute and subsequent laboratory facilities which eventually became internationally renowned. Today this facility, now a company called Onderstepoort Biological Products, annually produces 90 million doses of vaccines which are also exported to many parts of the world.

Today we pay tribute to all those who laboured tirelessly to place on the map Onderstepoort and the international veterinary vaccine facility, which Caswell Makama, the Chairperson of the OBP board and the youthful yet energetic Dr Linda Makuleni, Chief Executive of OBP, have taken to greater heights.

We want to thank the Minister and the Deputy Minister for their enthusiasm with regard to this particular Bill, and Dr Mogajane and her team from the department for piloting this matter through.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, this Bill, which provides measures for the promotion of animal health and control of animal diseases, affords broad powers to officials, which is a matter for concern. However, in the aftermath of the recent foot-and-mouth crisis the necessity for adequate measures is a reality.

Although the ACDP approves this Bill, as did the committee, on the basis of the input we had, we would like to request that the department continue to monitor the implications of the Bill and consider possible amendments, in the light of concerns raised by vets who will be affected. The following concerns have been expressed: section 7(1)(a), it seems, will prohibit a vet from treating an animal with certain products. For example, if a vet decides to use fish oil as a treatment for arthritis in old dogs or use a biological product used in human medicine on an animal, they would need a permit from the national executive officer.

As it is not the intention of the Act to interfere with the day-to-day treatment of animals by vets or animal owners, it is suggested that the words ``with regard to notifiable diseases only’’ be inserted to rectify the situation.

Section 12(6)(a), which allows the state to charge a landowner for a fence if the state deems it to be an advantage to the landowner, should only be possible where the landowner agrees that it is an advantage.

Section 15(5)(f) which gives the state power to co-opt privately owned land for the control of a disease in the district and to destroy all animals in a larger area, requires the owner of the land used to pay whether the animals are his or not and whether or not he was responsible for the outbreak, and this is a heavy penalty to pay when one is not at fault.

The ACDP will not oppose this Bill in the interests of national security, but appeals to the department to open these issues for discussion with vets and where relevant changes are agreed on, to amend the Act as soon as possible.

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a welcome move that the Animal Health Bill has been introduced to ensure that our animals’ health is not compromised. Our animals are often neglected and denied access to health care for a variety of reasons that cannot be justified. We need these animals more than we seem to realise. We view the Animal Health Bill as providing a clear and unambiguous mechanism for tackling diseases that threaten to wipe out our animals.

For example, the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak was well handled because of the existing infrastructure and well thought-out strategy from the Government’s point of view. It is for this reason that we need to consolidate our achievement in this regard with instruments like this Bill.

The implementation of clause 10 of this Bill is very important and can serve as a deterrent to wrongdoers. Strict control of the importation of animals will minimise the importation of animal diseases. The importance of the establishment of animal health schemes cannot be overemphasised. Prompt action in the event of an outbreak of an animal disease is imperative to limit the spread of diseases. We need also to popularise the slogan ``Animal health equals human health’’. This, in a way, will sensitise decision-makers at the executive level of our Government to allocate sufficient resources, specifically for research on animal disease prevention.

It is the responsibility of every South African to ensure that our animals’ health is our top priority. It is our submission as a party that we are satisfied that the Bill, of course, in its current form, is in a position to address and meet the stated objectives. The UCDP therefore supports it.

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Animal Health Bill is to provide for measures to promote animal health, control animal diseases, assign executive authority regarding certain provisions of this Act to provinces and to regulate importation and exportation of animals. It is very obvious that without such legislation, creating wealth in this country through keeping animals would be impossible. The Bill protects especially the wealth of pastoral farmers.

With the control of animal diseases, more animals can be reared in the country. This, of course, would, inter alia, make this country self- sufficient with regard to meat. More wealth derived from healthy animals also means more employment.

The Bill has many helpful definitions, making it easier to understand. For instance, animal'' means any mammal, bird, fish, reptile or amphibian which is a member of the phylum vertebrates.Parasite’’ means any organism that is detrimental to the health of any animal. ``Quarantine camp’’ means any quarantine camp so declared under clause 11. Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the restriction on exportation and the restriction on animals or things imported respectively, while clause 13 deals with the disposal of straying animals.

The Bill protects confidentiality. Clause 25 states that ``No person may disclose any information that relates to the business or affairs of any person, acquired by him or her through the exercise of his or her powers or performance of his or her duties in terms of this Act’’.

The Animal Health Bill is a very necessary piece of legislation for our country, and the PAC will vote for it.

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, I think there is general agreement that this Bill is necessary and that it is a valuable addition to that which will help agriculture to succeed.

The animal products form a most essential part of the economy of the world. This is the case in every country. In South Africa animal products are the largest source of income for farmers. So animal products are an important asset and are worth many millions of rands.

Daar is verskeie siektes waarmee ons te doen het, behalwe vir klimaatsvereistes wat moeilikheid in die dierewêreld veroorsaak het, siektes wat epidemies raak, soos bek-en-klouseer, en perdesiekte, wat internasionaal probleme skep. Dan is daar ook nog dieresiektes wat mense ook raak wat endemies is, soos brusellose, Maltakoors, en masels. Daar is ‘n hele klomp fasette wat die interaksie tussen die dierewêreld en die menswêreld raak, ekonomies enersyds en andersyds in terme van sy eie gesondheid. Hierdie wetgewing is dus noodsaaklik om Suid-Afrikaanse binnelandse dieregesondheid te hanteer, asook om die handel internasionaal te help bevorder. Dit is ook noodsaaklik.

Ongelukkig sit ons in Suid-Afrika met politieke strukture en siektes erken nie politieke strukture en politieke grense nie. Ons het nege provinsiale ministers en ‘n sentrale Minister wat dit moet koördineer en ‘n Grondwet wat sekere toedelings gemaak het wat nie heeltemal tred hou met die verpligtinge en die verskillende vereistes vir monitering nie. Iewers moet ‘n mate van koördinering plaasvind.

Die oplossing kom deur dié wetsontwerp deurdat die sentrale Minister dus sekere kundige persone aanstel en dan in samewerking met die provinsies die hele struktuur op die ou einde in plek kry om te monitor en vinnig te kan reageer, om aan die nodige internasionale vereistes te kan voldoen. Hierdie koördinering is dus die taak en verantwoordelikheid van die sentrale Minister van Landbou en daarom word hierdie wetgewing dus goed en reg ontvang en ek dink dit is nodig. Op grond hiervan stel die Minister die verantwoordelike persone aan en dit is die taak van hierdie amptenare om alle fasette van dieregesondheid te monitor en ook terug te rapporteer. Indien ‘n probleem ontstaan, is dit ook absoluut noodsaaklik dat daar vinnig en doeltreffend opgetree kan word, anders kan dit verreikende gevolge hê. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[There are various diseases that we encounter, except for climatic requirements that caused trouble in the world of animals, diseases that become epidemics like foot-and-mouth disease and horse distemper that create problems internationally. Then there are animal diseases which are endemic and also affect humans, like brucellosis, Malta fever, and the measles. There are a whole number of facets that affect the interaction between the world of animals and the world of humans - economic on the one hand, and in terms of one’s own health on the other. This legislation is therefore imperative to handle South African animal health domestically, as well as to promote the industry internationally. That is also essential.

Unfortunately we in South Africa are lumped with political structures and diseases know no political structures or boundaries. We have nine provincial ministers and one central Minister who must co-ordinate this and a constitution which made certain allocations which do not keep pace with the obligations and the various requirements for monitoring. Somewhere a measure of co-ordination should take place.

The solution comes through this legislation because the central Minister appoints certain experts and, in conjunction with the provinces, gets the whole structure into place to monitor and react quickly in order to comply with international standards. This co-ordination is the duty and responsibility of the central Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and therefore this legislation is received well and correctly and I think it is necessary. On the basis of this the Minister appoints the responsible people and it is the duty of these officials to monitor animal health in all its facets and also to report back. If a problem arises, it is also imperative that action should be taken quickly and efficiently; if not, it may have far-reaching repercussions.]

We should think back to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in KwaZulu- Natal and the fact that we responded slowly when we could have acted with speed and the implications of that in respect of later outbreaks. There is a big difference between how it was handled and how it could have been handled. As ons kyk na die uitbreek van bek-en-klouseer in Brittanje, waar besluit is om alle besmette diere te verbrand, teenoor Suid-Afrika, wat besluit het om diere in te ent, is daar ‘n duidelike verskil in optrede. Die een het implikasies. In Brittanje kon hulle baie vinniger terugkeer tot internasionale handel omdat die uitbreek weggeslag is, terwyl ons hier sit met langer kwarantynperiods as gevolg van inenting, wat ander implikasies het. Dit is nie ‘n eenvoudige proses nie en vinnige besluite moet geneem word. Die belangrikste is die koste implikasie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[When we look at the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain, where it was decided to burn all infected animals, as opposed to South Africa, which decided to vaccinate animals, we see that there is a definite difference of action. This method has implications. Britain could return to international trade much quicker because they slaughtered the outbreak away, while here we have longer quarantine periods because of vaccination, which has other implications. This is not a simple process and decisions need to be made quickly. The most important is the cost implications.] The cost implications of any action taken, for instance in regard to foot- and-mouth disease, are huge. One should not underestimate the fact that one has to react promptly, quickly and decisively. However, if there is a herd which has been affected and one does not have the money to compensate people, they will not consent to animals being killed or taken out.

Die vraag aan die Minister is: Is goedkeuring vir sulke fondse, wat selfs miljarde kan beloop, vinnig genoeg bekom om dit doeltreffend te kan hanteer? [The question to the Minister is: Is approval for such funds, that could amount to billions, obtained quickly enough to handle it effectively?]

Does the hon the Minister have ready access to R100, R200, R400 or even a million rands from Treasury during a crisis? If a crisis is not countered, then international, retail and all sorts of implications come to the fore. That is where the problem starts.

Dit is waar die probleem gewoonlik ontstaan, wanneer dit gehanteer moet word en daar kan nie vinnig genoeg opgetree word nie weens ‘n gebrek aan fondse. Sulke uitbrake kan dus geweldige implikasies tot gevolg hê en al ons handel met die buiteland stopgesit kan word, aangesien ons nie aan die nodige vereistes voldoen nie. Die staat het dus ‘n verantwoordelikheid.

Waar hierdie siektes uitbreek as gevolg van nalatigheid, dink ek die persone wat dit gedoen het, moet ten volle tot orde geroep word. Daar waar dit as gevolg van omstandighede buite beheer gedoen word, moet die staat intree, aangesien dit finansiële implikasies het.

‘n Ander faset in die wetgewing is die kwessie dat skemas ingestel kan word. Ons is bekend met brusellose, tuberkulose, masels, slenkdalkoors en ander virusse. As iemand vleis iewers in ‘n slaghuis koop en dit is daarmee besmet, dan is dit moeilik om dit te identifiseer. Dit het ‘n implikasie vir die mense se gesondheid. Daarom is dit belangrik om hierdie siektes in die kudde uit te roei, maar dit het ook koste-implikasies. Die vraag is dus: Is die departement van plan om hierdie skemas weer in te stel, wat in die verlede bestaan het om brusellose, tuberkulose en masels uit te roei? Of gaan die bestaande skemas verder uitgebrei word? Dit is absoluut noodsaaklik dat hier ernstige aandag gegee moet word aan hierdie siektes in die diereryk, en onder hierdie wetgewing nou beter beheer kan word, as gevolg van verantwoordelike persone in die verskillende provinsies wat dit kan hanteer. Die koste op die lang termyn ten opsigte van bevolkingsgesondheid sal groter wees as die koste om die siektes uit te roei en maatreëls in plek te hou om die verspreiding daarvan te keer.

Die internasionale handel in enige produk word gereël deur sekere protokols of ooreenkomste tussen invoer- en uitvoerlande. As dit nie in plek is nie, dan is daar probleme. Tydens die reël van so ‘n invoer- en uitvoerooreenkoms tussen twee lande, word daar van veral die uitvoerland verwag om sekere dinge ingestel te kry. Ten opsigte van vleisuitvoere is daar protokols wat die Suid-Afrikaanse Regering definitief in stand moet hou, anders sal die invoerland nie van Suid-Afrika invoer nie.

Die onlangse debakel rondom die uitvoer van volstruisvleis is nie iets waarop die Ministerie baie trots kan wees. Hulle sal hieraan moet aandag skenk. Die wetgewing bevorder instandhouding van sulke protokols en die uitvoervereistes en behoort aan die Minister die nodige ondersteuning te gee, om vinniger en met groter sekerheid aan hierdie vereistes te voldoen. Die lande wat vir Suid-Afrika ‘n gunstige uitvoermark is, is meestal ook die lande wat die strengste vereistes stel. In die algemeen dus, is hierdie wetsantwerp goed aanvaar deur die portefeuljekomitee. Die bespreking van die definisies van ``besmette dinge’’ het nogal interessante kommentaar opgelewer. Die FA steun die wetgewing. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[This is usually where the problem arises, when it must be dealt with and action cannot be taken quickly enough owing to a lack of funds. Such outbreaks can have tremendous implications and all our international trade could be stopped because we do not comply with the necessary requirements. The state thus has a responsibility.

Where these diseases break out owing to negligence, I think the people who did it should be brought to book. Where it is done owing to circumstances beyond one’s control, the state should step in, because it has financial implications.

Another facet of the legislation is the issue that schemes can be implemented. We are familiar with brucellosis, tuberculosis, measles, Rift Valley fever and other viruses. If someone buys meat somewhere in a butchery and it is contaminated with any of these viruses, then it is difficult to identify. It has an implication for people’s health. That is why it is important to get rid of these diseases in the herd, but this also has financial implications. The question is thus: Does the department plan to reimplement these schemes, which in the past existed to eradicate brucellosis, tuberculosis and measles? Or are the existing schemes going to be expanded further? It is absolutely essential that serious consideration should be given to these diseases in the animal kingdom and that under this legislation they could be better regulated because of responsible people in the various provinces who can take action. The cost in the long term regarding the nation’s health will be greater than the cost of eradicating the diseases and keeping measures in place to stop their spreading.

The international trade in any product is ruled by certain protocols or agreements between import and export countries. If these are not in place, then we have problems. During the drafting of such an import and export agreement between two countries, it is expected, especially of the export country, to implement certain measures. Regarding meat exports there are protocols that the South African Government should definitely uphold, or the import country will not import from South Africa.

The recent debacle concerning the export of ostrich meat is not something of which the Ministry can be proud. They must give consideration to this. The legislation promotes the upholding of such protocols and export requirements and should provide the Minister with the necessary support to adhere to these requirements with greater speed and certainty. The countries that are favourable export markets for South Africa are mostly also the countries which set the most stringent conditions. In general then, this legislation was well received by the portfolio committee. The discussion of the definitions of ``contaminated things’’ produced interesting comments. The FA supports the legislation.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, as Government we do not only have duties towards South African citizenry, but to South Africa as a whole. That includes our environment - all flora and fauna - its heritage, animals, and all South Africa.

The Constitution governs as supreme and it protects all these just as it protects us. The Animal Health Bill sets out to bring the Animal Diseases Act in line with our Constitution. Noting the many animal diseases such as rabies and, mad cow disease, among others, this Bill appears to execute a mechanism that not only aims to protect us from importing infection, but also from exporting such infected animals.

The Bill sets out a planned method that will ensure the efficient and effective control of animal disease and parasites, as well as the extension of the quarantine camps. The MF is glad that the seat of the national executive officer should be filled by a person in the field of veterinary science, as the aim here is not just to manage a project, but to have a proper knowledge of the field. This would give us a better chance of completing or rather running this system effectively.

The restriction set appears necessary and satisfactory, however the power that may be taken over land, animals, etc, is questionable: What methods shall be used to establish when such a power may be exercised sustainably? The MF supports the Animal Health Bill. [Applause.] Dr E A SCHOEMAN: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister and hon colleagues, the health status of the animal population impacts, firstly, on its productive and reproductive capabilities, which in turn, as the Deputy Minister quite rightly said, affect both food security and safety.

Certain animal diseases, however, have a far more profound impact on human health and agricultural imports and exports. An awareness of these diseases has been created by recent outbreaks such as firstly, the occurrence of BSE or mad cow disease in Britain and Europe, which causes the Cleutzfeldt- Jakob syndrome in humans. This led to a ban on the export of beef from the affected countries which, in turn, had an adverse effect on income. Market penetration was also lost permanently, or semipermanently, because of its manifestation in humans and the negative publicity in the media.

Secondly, the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South Africa, the UK and Europe, and the consequent curbs on animal movement; the blanket killing of all cloven-hoofed animals within demarcated areas; and the resultant ban on the exportation and the importation of products originating from such animals, also highlighted the importance of effective control measures. Of significance was our ability, despite many aggravating circumstances, to contain the disease in KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. This serves as a great credit to our Ministry and to our department.

Thirdly, the anthrax scare after the September 11 attacks in New York also highlighted the potential danger of an animal disease which is endemic to this part of the world.

Recently, a ban was imposed on the movement of horses and related species into the Western Cape, because of an outbreak of African horse sickness in Gauteng. Any occurrence in the Western Cape would have put a stop to the lucrative export of race horses from South Africa.

Animal health can be enhanced by applying preventative measures as well as thorough control measures, should outbreaks of disease occur. This Bill endeavours to provide mechanisms to achieve these goals.

Of importance too is the fact that the Bill allows for the monitoring of all imported and exported animals and animal products.

The Bill also brings animal health legislation in line with the Constitution. It is welcomed that this Bill was drafted according to international norms and standards set by the Office International des Epizooties, in consultation with the provinces.

As animal health is a concurrent function, it is of the utmost importance that the national executive officer works hand in hand with the provincial executive officer. The responsibility of the national Department of Agriculture is to provide policy formulation, which the provinces must implement and to ensure that norms and standards are maintained. The implication thereof is that those provinces which are lacking in capacity will have to make a concerted effort to improve their infrastructure, as well as human resource capacity. If this is not done, it could have disastrous consequences for our country.

We welcome the fact that clause 4 of this Bill makes provision for Government to assign certain functions to private institutions or private companies, under certain conditions. Such allocation can only be done by the Minister, who may withdraw any designated powers, be it from the national executive officer, the provincial executive officer or any official performing functions under the Act.

Of great importance also is that clause 7 stipulates that no one should be allowed to perform any investigation, experiment or research, or evaluate any product such as vaccine, serum, toxin, etc, without the written permission of the national executive officer. Substances controlled by other Acts are, of course, excluded. This ensures that the necessary responsibility is maintained when such experimentation is done.

Of importance are the provisions in clause 8 ensuring health guarantees for all animals exported. This ensures that all animals and animal products exported from South Africa will not pose a health risk to the importing country. The outbreak of African horse sickness in Spain, after the importation of zebras a few years ago, is a case in point, and also the fact that it was our veterinarians who were sent to Spain to eventually eradicate and curb the disease there.

Clause 9 places certain important restrictions on animals or related products which are in transit. The fact that South Africa, by virtue of its infrastructure, provides a transit route for many African countries, poses an animal disease threat in itself. Due care must be taken to avert potential catastrophic consequences.

Clause 10 provides for the effective detention and disposal of such animals or material, while clause 11 provides for the erection of quarantine stations or camps, if required. Clause 12 enables the national executive officer to erect temporary or permanent fences for the purpose of controlling animal disease. This is of particular importance in view of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in southern Zimbabwe. The present state of the border fences and the relatively unhindered crossing of both wild and domestic animals is cause for concern.

A responsibility is also placed on the owner of land to isolate and report any stray animals which are suspected of originating from outside the Republic, to the national executive officer. Certain far-reaching powers are given to the national executive officer regarding land, landowners and animal owners in clause 14, while clause 15 sets out the procedures which the national executive officer must follow to take over land for the purpose of the control or the prevention of the spread of animal disease. These are widespread powers indeed, but they are necessary when a crisis such as an outbreak of some contagious disease occurs.

In clause 16 the Bill makes provision for establishing animal health schemes. This will enable the continuation of present schemes such as the national pig health scheme, as well as the establishment of new schemes if so required.

Die ANC is van mening dat hierdie wetsontwerp nie alleen ‘n verbetering op die huidige wetgewing is nie, maar noodsaaklik is om wetgewing in lyn met die nuwe grondwetlike bedeling te bring. Dit is gevolglik ‘n voorreg om ons volle steun aan hierdie wetsontwerp te verleen. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The ANC believes that this Bill is not only an improvement on the present legislation, but is essential for bringing legislation in line with the new constitutional dispensation. It is therefore a privilege for us to give our full support to this Bill. [Applause.]]

The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, thanks to the portfolio committee for their participation in ensuring that this Bill comes before us. I also want to thank the members of the NCOP and the various provincial MECs and their teams for having interacted with us in ensuring that the product that we deal with today is of a good quality. I want to thank the Deputy Minister for the leadership he has given, because this is an area under his responsibility, as well as Gabi Mugajane and the team that has worked to ensure that this Bill comes before this House.

I want to isolate some of the issues that were raised by hon members, which I think are issues that we need to take on as members of this legislature, the various executive councils and national Cabinet. One of these issues, which was raised by hon Radebe, was around resource allocation. I think here the critical question is to what extent we are resourcing those matters which the state needs to provide. He raised the issue of scientific work, particularly for the AFC and OBP, and I think hon members would be able to support our proposal that indeed it is necessary to finance these institutions appropriately.

But more important is the issue raised by the hon Dudley on the question of monitoring and evaluation. I would like to thank her for her input. We will look into those issues, as well as issues that hon members think we need to review in consultation with some of the stakeholders, who might have raised some of these issues after the Bill had gone through the process. We are open to engaging and finding a better solution to dealing with those issues.

Another issue that came to the fore clearly was the issue of capacity in various departments, provinces and at the national level to ensure that the various people entrusted with this task carry it out appropriately.

But, there is a challenge for all of us. If indeed, as the Bill says, there are certain obligations that farmers and farming communities have in ensuring proper animal health care, it is our responsibility through the use of our constituency offices to explain to various communities and farmers what their obligations are in relation to this Bill. What are they expected to do? This is because for animal health to be the standard which all of us want, it will depend on the responsibility of the owners as well as Government.

I am citing this to deal with the issue raised by hon member Mr Van Niekerk. If one looks at the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in KwaZulu- Natal and even in Mpumalanga, it was, to a large extent, the way in which the owners managed their own enterprises. I would not want to go into the detail of that matter, because we all know that the reason that it took time is because the owners did not report to the relevant authorities when the disease occurred. They tried to hide the reality, and that was damaging.

I also want to say to hon Mr Van Niekerk that he knows as well as I do the way the Government, at the provincial, national and Cabinet levels, acted very decisively and swiftly. That is why we were able to deal with the disease. As opposed to the choices that we took and which Britain, in particular, took, I think South Africa did very well.

The question of the elimination approach of all animals, in terms of which Britain has been able to get back its disease-free status, is a matter we want to challenge in South Africa, because, in terms of the criteria of the OIE, they were supposed to have done this surveillance of all the herds. In terms of the report we received from the committee the only animals that were surveyed were the pigs, and not all the livestock. I think this raises the question of multilateral institutions which are given responsibility for standard-setting.

To what extent do we apply the same measures across the board? For developing countries, this is a matter which, in our view, we need to challenge. I would not be quick in applauding Britain on getting back their disease-free status.

More importantly, one of the issues that will arise for all of us with regard to rural and urban renewal is how we are going to deal with issues of communal areas, as part of the problem is the lack of grazing land. I think we need to deal with the issue of decongestion in the context of land reform and agricultural development.

How do we ensure that communities in traditional areas are supported as we would support our commercial farmers with regard to veld management and animal husbandry, in order to ensure that the quality of herds that one finds in rural areas and on commercial farms is of equal standing? We also need to assist our municipalities in order to apply the bylaws. If one looks at a number of our areas, particularly the Western Cape and, I would say, across the country, one will find many animals loitering in the streets, posing a threat to animal health and human health.

And, more importantly, instead of applying bylaws and removing those animals, how do we create conditions through commonages, which is one of the things that we did in the past, to ensure that communities around urban areas, who would want to engage in some agricultural production, can have adequately managed places in which they can do so, instead of keeping the animals in their back yards? This is a challenge, not just for Government but for all of us as members of Parliament - helping our communities to deal with these issues.

Issues of animal health are a challenge for both the state and the owners. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, if you will round up, I will give you another half a minute or so.

The MINISTER: Thank you, Chairperson. As Government we would want to do what we said we ought to do and, in the spirit of Letsema, it is our view that through working with our farmers, the industry and the members of this legislature, we will indeed be able to ensure that the animal health status of South African livestock will make all of us proud.

To this extent, I would like to thank our scientists, who have worked tirelessly with the little resources at their disposal to ensure that the state of our animal health remains the best. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                ANTICIPATION OF QUESTION TO BE ASKED

                              (Ruling) The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: During the debate in the House on Thursday of last week, the hon Mr Aucamp raised a concern regarding a ruling that I had given relating to the member who was speaking at that time anticipating a question that another member was going to ask, even though that member was not afforded an opportunity to ask the question he had in mind. I had promised to look at my ruling and come back to the House on it. I have had an opportunity to check the ruling, and the concern raised by the hon Mr Aucamp. I wish to confirm that a member speaking may refuse to take a question, and is fully entitled, in the course of his speech, to, within the scope of the debate, comment on what he or she anticipates was going to be asked, even if, in so anticipating, the thrust is different to what might have been asked if permission had been given to put the question. This forms part of the normal cut-and-thrust of political debate.

The parliamentary process of debates is continuous, and members can and do respond as and when the opportunity to speak arises. As such, there is no intrinsic denial of the right to put a question or to make a comment. That right is there, but it must be exercised at that time when a member is entitled to address the Assembly. THE IMPORTANCE OF A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION IN ZIMBABWE

                      (Subject for Discussion)

Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Chairman, the concept of the African Renaissance enjoys universal support. Africa’s own architects have now concretised it into the New Partnership for Africa’s Development - Nepad, in terms of which African leaders also take joint responsibility for promoting and protecting democracy and human rights in their respective countries. On the African continent, nothing has highlighted the need for a commitment to Nepad’s democratic ideal so much as the developments of the last two years in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is important to us in South Africa, not only because it is one of our neighbours and an important player in the region. Zimbabwe is important because, in a sense, it represents a test case for democracy on our continent, with many similarities to South Africa. These include building a stable new state against the background of historically bitter racial divides, the issue of the extension of land ownership, making the country attractive to foreign investors, and addressing poverty and unemployment. But, unfortunately, one man, after a relatively good start after independence in the 1980s, and his accomplices got their hands on the levers of power, and decided to never let go. Whilst the opposition does little to inspire confidence, it does not convey an image of a coherent political force with a clear programme.

Zimbabwe has confronted the African continent with many questions that cannot be avoided. One question that cannot go unanswered is how Africa’s leadership will, in future, deal with their own, if their commitment to democracy and democratic institutions is simply ignored or dismissed.

The point of departure was formulated by President Mbeki, just more than a week ago, when he said: ``National sovereignty can no longer be used by African leaders as an excuse for wrong-doing in their own countries’’. This is the kind of approach that we would have liked SADC to have taken much earlier and with much more conviction. The artificial way in which the Commonwealth has up to now avoided the issue has also not done much to instil confidence in the continuing relevance of that institution. The meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government starting on Saturday in Australia should display the courage to substantially address this issue.

The fact of the matter is that the South African Government committed itself to the importance of a free and fair election. This was voiced as follows by the President’s special economic advisor at the World Economic Forum in New York, and I quote:

Neither the South African Government nor SADC, of which Zimbabwe is a member, would recognise the Mugabe government if the presidential election is not free and fair.

The most pressing question now is how free and fair this election in Zimbabwe will be. The Electoral Institute of South Africa defines requirements for, firstly, a free election as follows: ``freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement and freedom from fear’’.

Almost every single requirement has already been violated. A network of repressive legislation gives wide discretionary powers to the police to cancel meetings of political parties. Although the surprise judgment late yesterday by the supreme court and high court of Zimbabwe, which gave judgments against President Mugabe’s government with regard to some of the repressive electoral Bills, is, without doubt, a victory for the democratic process, it may already be too late. To date, more than 80 meetings of the main opposition party have simply been cancelled by the police.

Let me quote from just one leading international publication, just one example amongst the many that are reported every day.

Shepherd Ngundu, a schoolteacher, was beaten to death for reading a newspaper. A group of militiamen loyal to Robert Mugabe caught him leafing through the pages of the Daily News, a journal whose writers are often rude about the government. The militiamen ÿ.ÿ.ÿ. marched into his house and ransacked itÿ.ÿ.ÿ. dragged him to a crossroads market where, before startled shoppers, they hammered him with iron bars and lashed him with chains until he died.

The requirements for, secondly, fair elections are defined as follows by the Electoral Institute, and I quote:

A transparent electoral process, a system which grants no special privileges to any party or person, an independent and impartial electoral commission, equal access to public mass media and no misuse of government facilities for campaigning.

Almost all of these conditions have also already been violated. The run-up to the election proves the dictum that says, ``only an amateur tries to steal an election on election day.’’ I just want to give one example of how these conditions have already been violated. Seventy-two senior army officers, including a number of major-generals, have been seconded to the electoral supervisory commission that is supposed to ensure an independent and an impartial election. This is from the same defence force that became embroiled in party politics when it issued an extraordinary warning on 9 January this year saying that, and I quote:

We will therefore not accept, let alone support or salute, anyone with a different agenda that threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and our people.

One of two issues requiring our attention is, when should we take a final decision on Zimbabwe? The second one is the issue of contingency plans.

With the regard to the final decision, South Africa has sent two high- powered observer missions to assess the situation. One of them is to report to this Parliament. The head of the SADC observer mission said yesterday, and I quote:

I am shocked by this and some other things I have seen here. The political situation in Zimbabwe, as of today, is not free.

In the light of this judgment and other recent developments, the New NP calls for an interim report to be urgently submitted, containing the provisional observation about the freeness and fairness of the election process. The counting process will be as important as the run-up to the elections. But a fair counting process cannot repair all the damage that has been done in the preceding months. It is vital that election observers be allowed to escort ballot boxes to the counting offices, and they should not at any time be prevented from monitoring the integrity of the process.

The final decision for South Africa, on whether to recognise the government that emerges from that election, should only be taken after the final reports of the observer missions have been submitted.

The effects of Zimbabwe on South and Southern Africa should not be underestimated. The American Chamber of Commerce estimated that our country has lost foreign investment to the value of $3 billion in 2001, whilst the region may have lost as much as $36 billion according to other reports.

South Africa needs contingency plans to deal with an unstable situation where one of the parties to the election may decide not to accept the outcome. This includes contingency plans with regard to dealing with, firstly, the increasing number of refugees and, secondly severe domestic food shortages in Zimbabwe. In this regard the first responsibility lies with SADC. But two UN agencies are also vital, ie the UN High Commission for Refugees and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Secondly, there is the issue of security in the region, specifically internal unrest in Zimbabwe and the possible spill-over into neighbouring countries. Thirdly, there is the question of protecting the economies of Southern Africa - our own as well - by convincingly distancing the region from any undemocratic practices in Zimbabwe, and by taking decisive and co- ordinated action on a regional basis.

In conclusion, Zimbabwe is a very expensive and tragic reminder of what can happen in a country which perverts democracy into yet another tool of repression. It is the duty of South Africa and SADC to closely monitor the situation over the few remaining days of campaigning, as well as the voting and the outcome, and only then take a decision on whether or not to recognise the winner as legitimate. As a region we cannot allow rogue leaders to undermine one the pillars of the African Renaissance. [Applause.]

Ms G L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, never before have a people had within their grasp so great an opportunity to develop a continent endowed with so much wealth.

Individually, states of Africa - some of them potentially rich, others poor

• can do little for their people but together they can achieve much.

The economic development of the continent must be planned and pursued as a goal. Only a strong political union can bring about full and effective development of our natural resources for the benefit of our people.

Therefore, democratic values as a basis on which African nations conduct their affairs is a principle we must defend at all times, and it must apply throughout the continent to ensure that we as countries of the continent move together in the fight against poverty, diseases and underdevelopment.

Since the end of colonial rule in Zimbabwe, Zimbabweans have had an opportunity to elect their leaders through the democratic process of free and fair elections. South Africa’s interest in the upcoming election is to ensure that those democratic values are safeguarded. If South Africa could translate the political tension prior to 1994 into the success story of a rainbow nation that we all are part of today, despite what prophets of doom said, why should we be pessimistic about the Zimbabwean situation? Why can we not leave it to the Zimbabwean people? I thought after the response of the Deputy President yesterday there would be a lot of wisdom in this House today.

It is in our interest that the coming elections bring political stability to the country, which will give birth to the prospects of economic prosperity. Since Mozambique laid down its arms and resorted to a peaceful transition towards the prevailing undisturbed democracy, tranquillity and economic generation have become eminent.

We remain committed to stable democracy. We respect Zimbabwe as a state. I think I must repeat that we respect Zimbabwe as a state, and that we should understand that as such, Zimbabwe is not part of the provinces of South Africa. We also respect President Mugabe’s commitment to having free and fair elections. He once again echoed these sentiments at the last meeting of the SADC heads of states in Malawi.

There is a perception, if not a foregone conclusion, from certain sections of our population, that these elections may not be free and fair. We want to distance ourselves from that dangerous conclusion. We have an observer mission and families in Zimbabwe. My husband spent 11 years of his exile life in Zimbabwe, and many of my colleagues and comrades here have families there. Let us not interfere. Let us give the Zimbabweans the respect and honour they deserve to conduct their elections.

I do not know who will win the elections in Zimbabwe. Ruling parties and the opposition have either won or lost elections in many parts of the world, and this was never a factor in determining whether those elections were free and fair. If a leader of a country makes an undertaking that elections will be free and fair, and even goes further to invite independent election monitors, then we must take him at his word. The attitude of the Official Opposition in this country towards the problems of Zimbabwe comes as no surprise. A patriot is a patriot, and is patriotic towards the whole country and not only towards certain sections of the population.

Black people in Zimbabwe have been landless for far too long, and Ian Smith and his South African friends, who are now making a noise here, never raised a finger in attempting to solve that. [Interjections.] However, I am committed to the fact that the issue of land needs to be resolved in a responsible manner [Interjections.]

I am patiently waiting for the day in this Parliament when the DP would boldly raise concerns over wrongs committed in other parts of the world against non-European victims. I am looking forward to that day [Applause.] That day would, indeed, linger in our memories for a very, very long time. [Interjections.]

There are, of course, lessons to be learnt from the Zimbabwean experience. People went to Lancaster and entered into agreements, and 22 years down the line they still remain landless. Hence the explosive situation in Zimbabwe, which could have been avoided with the help of a simple human attribute, honesty.

The struggles for freedom in Africa have, by and large, been about political rights, access to land and economic emancipation. The agreements at Lancaster about the land question were not honoured, and we can learn a lot from that.

Critics of African unity often refer to the wide differences in culture, language and ideas in various parts in Africa. This is true, but the essential fact remains that we are all Africans. And I know that the hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk and I are Africans. I cannot say the same about the other people. I know that he is raising these sentiments as a responsible citizen of our country, and together we can find solutions to them. He must forget about the people to my left. [Applause.]

The greatest contribution that Africa can make to world peace is to avoid all the dangers associated with inherent disunity by creating a political union which will, also by its success, stand as an example to a divided world. We now have that union, the African Union.

Zimbabwe is one of the most important economies of SADC and the continent. Therefore, this election is crucial to economic emancipation, the fight against poverty and underdevelopment in this region and on the continent.

Chairperson … [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Deputy Chairperson! Ms G L MAHLANGU: Deputy Chairperson! Thank you very much for that correction. I am sure that is all you know. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]

I want to address the hon Van Schalkwyk. He has made a dramatic change and helped a lot of people in this country. I am saying, we know that he is honest. We know that he is a true South African …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Did I hear a word on my left, that is rather unparliamentary? [Interjections.] Did someone use the word ``prostituting?’’

Ms G L MAHLANGU: Mr Chairperson, they may call it anything, they may call him anything, but the truth of the matter is that he is helping to build this country. [Interjections.] He does not have three or four passports like them. He is a true South African. His interests are here and we are going to help him build this country. We need people like him, men of integrity. We need men and women of integrity. He has displayed that, and we want to work with him to make sure that the elections in Zimbabwe are going to give us the stability that we need in this region and this continent. Our freedom - those of them who do not know what freedom is - from colonisation and slavery came at a high cost. Lots and lots of people died in the process. They all had a dream to be free from hunger, diseases and illiteracy. Let us not fail them. We wish all the parties in Zimbabwe well in the coming elections. [Applause.]

Mr C W EGLIN: Mr Chairman, the subject for discussion before the House is ``The Importance of a free and fair Election in Zimbabwe”, and I do not intend to be misled or diverted by the previous speaker from dealing with this specific subject. [Applause.]

Zimbabwe is in the final phase of an election that is of critical importance to the people of Zimbabwe, to the countries of the Southern African region and to the economic development of Africa.

It is against this background that this House, including the DP, unanimously passed a resolution last week that said it believed that it is in the interests, not only of Zimbabwe, but of all the people in the Southern African region, that the people of Zimbabwe should have the opportunity to elect their President in an atmosphere free from violence and intimidation and through an electoral process that is genuinely free and fair.

That, I believe, is the expression of most of the members of this House. One may ask why an election in Zimbabwe at this stage is of critical importance to the development of Africa? It is simply because the failure of Zimbabwe to produce an election that is free and fair at this stage will undoubtedly be a setback for the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, and will undo much of the hard work of Presidents Mbeki, Obasanjo and Wade. On the other hand, if it produces an election that is free and fair, it will inspire confidence in Nepad and strengthen the development for partnership between Africa and the countries of the north.

I quote from an important statement by Minister Lekota at a briefing on behalf of the Cabinet earlier this month:

The foundations for the programmes of Nepad have been laid, and Africa must send a very firm signal to the international community that it is serious about prioritising the development of the continent.

It is a matter of top priority for us that the region of southern Africa and the continent must be seen to be firmly supporting the credible processes of elections.

Guided by resolutions of SADC and the OAU, no one who seeks to accede to government without going the democratic path can expect acceptance or recognition from the continent, from the countries of the region or from ourselves.

If a Nepad plan was presented to the G8 meeting in Canada on the back of a flawed Zimbabwean election, to the extent that we are seen not to be serious, we would not be able to inspire the countries of the north to contribute, as we are trying to do. To the extent that we are seen to be serious, we can expect a greater commitment.

And so this is critical to the success of Nepad.

Secondly, an election in Zimbabwe that is not free and fair will have far- reaching social, economic, financial and political consequences for South Africa, Zimbabwe and other SADC neighbours. [Interjections.] I do not have time to dwell on that. I think we can imagine what is going to happen if there is an unfree and unfair election and an illegitimate government is brought to power.

Zimbabwe is moving rapidly towards a socioeconomic crisis of massive proportions. Inflation is running at more than 100%; the Zim Dollar has devalued by 200%; close to 700 000 people are dependent on aid for their very existence in life; many thousands more are facing starvation owing to the shortage of food; unemployment is soaring; and millions of Zimbabweans have already crossed the borders into neighbouring states.

After the elections, irrespective of who wins, Zimbabwe will be faced with a mammoth task of social, economic and political reconstruction. In this task Zimbabwe will need the support of its neighbours. It will need assistance from the international community, and will need a strong and legitimate government reflecting the will of the people expressed at a genuinely free and fair election.

And so it was that this House has sent a mission to Zimbabwe to observe, and in due course there will have to be an evaluation made domestically, regionally and internationally as to whether the election was free and fair. Our Parliamentary Observer Team will have to play a part in this process. This will not be easy. But fortunately our team has a clear mandate in terms of the criteria in order to come to its critical decision.

The first mandate is to be found in the norms and standards for elections approved by the SADC Parliamentary Forum, of which we are an integral part. These relate, inter alia, to the question of voter registration, voter secrecy, counting of votes, the freedom of association and expression, the unfettered freedom to campaign throughout the country, equal access to state-owned media, a government not aiding or abetting any party to gain an unfair advantage, and to security forces acting impartially and professionally.

The second mandate is to be found in the resolution passed by this very House last Thursday in which it expressed the belief that the adherence - if there it is going to be any adherence - to the undertakings given by the Zimbabwean government to SADC on 14 January 2002 should form part of the basis on which the freeness and fairness of the elections will be determined.

What were these undertakings? And have they been upheld? The observer team will have to satisfy itself on the following questions. Has he undertaken to have full respect for human rights, including the right to freedom of opinion, association and peaceful assembly for all individuals? Has he committed himself to investigate fully and impartially all cases of alleged political violence in 2001? Has he undertaken to have a Zimbabwe Electoral Supervisory Commission which is able to operate independently? Has he undertaken to give accreditation and registration to national monitors in good time for the elections? Has he undertaken to ensure timely invitations to the accreditation of a wide range of international election observers?

Has the commitment to the freedom of expression been adhered to? Has the practice of allowing national and international journalists to cover important national events, including the elections, been adhered to? Has the commitment to uphold the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law been adhered to? While it may seem to be so at this stage, the indications are no. But I do not believe we should prejudge the final outcome.

The answers to these questions, together with an evaluation of the SADC Parliamentary Forum norms and standards, will have a direct bearing on our team’s assessment as to whether the elections were free and fair.

This is a tough assignment. By knowing that the credibility of the Parliament of South Africa is at stake, I believe that the members of this parliamentary team will in fact behave with impartiality, responsibility and integrity. [Applause.]

Mr J P CRONIN: Chairperson, in the late 1980s I was based in Lusaka, Zambia, in the ANC headquarters and my ANC work frequently took me into Zimbabwe. It is a beautiful country and it was evident in the late 1980s that in the few years after the 1980 independence, many very important gains had been notched up in health care, education, housing and even land reform.

But things were quite tense in Harare at the time. South African apartheid era assassination squads were operating there. A Zimbabwean friend, a bookshop owner married to an ANC colleague, had been grievously injured in a car bomb attack. Father Michael Lapsley had his hands ripped off in a parcel bomb attack. Other exiled South Africans were less lucky: they were killed, poisoned, choked, car bombed, or booby trapped by apartheid regime operatives.

In 1989 I was part of an ANC delegation that met with Afrikaans writers at the Victoria Falls. I remember Breyten Breytenbach and Antjie Krog being in that delegation of writers. The ANC delegation was led by Comrade Steve Tshwete. And it is one of the numerous number of meetings that were happening at the time that really began to lay the basis for our eventual negotiated settlement a few years later.

What has never become public about that particular meeting at the Victoria Falls was that as the ANC were to meet these Afrikaans writers, the SADF dispatched a special operations squad to assassinate ANC delegates at the meeting and Comrade Steve in particular was the prime target. Fortunately for us, the Zimbabwean government’s Central Intelligence Organisation, CIO, was highly effective. It arrested several members of the squad as they came across the border with explosives. One other operative who came in through a different route was allowed to travel to the hotel at which our meeting was taking place. His moves were carefully monitored. I remember him well, he was white, 30 years old at the time, blonde and slightly built. He mingled with the hotel guests as if he were a tourist.

It was thought advisable not to inform the Afrikaans writers’ delegation, but the Zimbabwean CIO carefully briefed ANC delegates and our rooms were quietly vacated as we shifted to other rooms. I have no doubt that the Zimbabwean CIO saved some of our lives. Why do I raise that now? It is because I think I do not want to forget about that.

Almost exactly a year ago I met Ephraim Tapa, who is the president of the Civil Service Employees Association in Zimbabwe. It is an affiliate of Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, ZCTU. I met him here in the Old Assembly dining room. He spoke soberly, but with an undertone of deep concern, about the growing social, economic and political crisis in his country. He was not brazen about it, but it was clear that he was an MDC supporter. Last week Comrade Tapa was travelling in the union van with his highly pregnant wife and his two brothers in Mashonaland East. They were attacked by the so- called war veterans. The two brothers managed to escape but Ephraim, his wife and the van have not been seen since. I hope that they are both still alive. I have no direct evidence that this episode is connected to the forthcoming elections, but it is hard not to draw that conclusion.

I have told these two contrasting anecdotes to underline a basic point. When we speak, as ANC members and as South Africans, I hope that we do so as friends of the Zimbabwean people and of the Zimbabwean liberation struggle. It is a struggle that does not belong to any particular organisation or individual; it belongs to the Zimbabwean people. It is the Zimbabweans who must and who will decide their own destiny, not South Africans.

However, friends also have responsibilities and at this moment the most important responsibility is to say loudly and clearly, that it is imperative that the presidential elections occur in conditions that enable the will of the Zimbabwean people to be expressed.

The Zimbabwean government and the ruling party, precisely because it is a ruling party, has a special responsibility in this regard. Governments enjoy a preponderance of coercive power, even though we are often privatising some of that nowadays. The temptation for a ruling party will be to abuse that power.

All parties, all sectors of Zimbabwe, must play their part in fostering the conditions that will allow Zimbabweans to express their will. The ruling party, however, not only has a special responsibility, but also a special interest in ensuring democratic elections. If President Mugabe is re- elected as president, but in circumstances that are thoroughly unsatisfactory, then that election victory will be domestically unstable, internationally illegitimate and historically hollow.

We, looking on from the outside, also have our responsibilities. There is a tendency in some quarters, not only here in our country, but also in certain European capitals, to make it a foregone conclusion that the elections will not be substantially free and fair. Of course, even from these quarters, there is some hesitation. If their preferred outcome occurs, then their foregone conclusions will be quietly buried. In short, their acceptance of the elections depends on the outcome. If one candidate wins, then the elections will be declared free and fair because he has won. If another candidate is returned, then, by definition, the elections will be illegitimate. To send out a message of that kind, that it is a foregone conclusion that the elections will not be free and fair unless, of course, one particular candidate wins, is extremely unhelpful in these last days before the election. It is likely to foster an attitude of ``Damned if you do, damned if you don’t’’.

Equally, it would be extremely irresponsible to convey an impression that it is a foregone conclusion that, out of self-interest as the ANC, the South African Parliamentary Observer Group, or South Africans, we are simply going to declare the elections free and fair regardless of what happens. That is not and cannot be the message that we want to send out from here today, from this Parliament. We are watching very carefully what happens, and there can be no foregone conclusions one way or the other. It is very important to send out that signal.

Too often when we discuss Zimbabwe in South Africa, we do so as if Zimbabwe were a parable for South Africa - an allegory. We say Zanu-PF'' when we actually meanANC’’. We say ``MDC’’, but we are thinking of Cosatu. That is neither accurate nor helpful. However, the current situation in Zimbabwe does provide us with the opportunity to be thoughtful about many things. Building democratic institutions, nation-building, modernising one’s economy - these are not easy tasks. Before we become demoralised or excessively judgmental about our own region, consider the so-called established western democracies.

France’s 1994 democratic breakthrough was in 1789. It unleashed more than half a century of extreme turbulence within France and throughout Europe - coups d’ état, civil wars, invasions and other national liberation struggles inspired by what happened in France and foreign destabilisation by conservative and neighbouring powers.

I am not saying that here in South Africa we should now resignedly look forward to half a century of turmoil. We cannot afford it. But we need to understand the historical dimensions of the process in which we in Southern Africa, are embroiled. What do we mean by democracy? In the latest edition of the ANC publication, Umrabulo, there is a stimulating, but, I think, quite wrong article by Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. He is writing about South Africa, but he is thinking about Zimbabwe: The litmus test of democracy is whether a ruling party, having lost elections, is prepared to hand over power. Until this has happened, a democratic dispensation has not achieved maturity, and cannot be pronounced ``democratic’’.

In the interests of obtaining the Van Zyl Slabbert stamp of democracy approval, he calls on Cosatu and the SACP to break with the ANC and set up some kind of MDC. The ANC must then gracefully lose the next elections. [Applause.] This is political metaphysics. For us in the ANC, democracy is rooted in the notion that ``the people shall govern.’’ Yes, in our situation that certainly means a vibrant multiparty democracy, regular elections and acceptance of the outcome by all, whatever it is.

But it also means the democratisation of everyday life, the ability of ordinary people to have a real say in how their schools are run, how the police conduct themselves, and whether working conditions are safe and rewarding. The prerequisite for these things is major and an ongoing reconstruction, redistribution and development programmes, so that nominal citizens can become real citizens with skills, information, jobs, land, adequate health care, transport and housing.

To realise those things, in turn, we require the ability to exercise national sovereignty, as South Africans, to stabilise our own new-born national democratic institutions. In this context, a strong, progressive and massively supported ANC is, in principle, a huge asset for stabilisation and democracy, and not a threat.

However, these things cannot be achieved by the ANC alone. South Africa requires the active involvement in transformation by all our people, including minorities and parties that aspire to represent those minorities. Without renouncing their identities, they need to be active within transformation and not hang loose, defining themselves like an Ian Smith, being outside of things, and in radical opposition to change.

I have moved off in this direction not to distract from the immediate challenge in Zimbabwe in the coming days, but in order to remind ourselves that the struggle to advance, deepen and defend democracy in Zimbabwe is not just one forthcoming event. Regardless of the outcome in Zimbabwe, as South Africans we will have to shoulder an important responsibility to our neighbours over a protracted period. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Before you leave, Mr Andrew, the Chair takes a dim view of your referral to the hon Van Schalkwyk by his first name. It is not the way of the House. We would like hon members here to show respect to others.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I agree with Mr Cronin that Zimbabwe is a beautiful country. I have hunted in the Zambezi Valley on many occasions and it is an area that I will never forget. [Interjections.]

Mr Van Schalkwyk tabled examples of disturbing events in Zimbabwe, which raised question marks over whether the election will be free and fair. I do not intend to dwell on those matters, save to say that we are entering a very challenging period in the history of Southern Africa and we are going to need much wisdom. I agree with Ms Mahlangu that we must give the Zimbabweans a chance to conduct their elections themselves.

Some of the most important issues at stake in that election are the following. There must be stability in Zimbabwe; there must be peace, law and order; respect for the law and security of land ownership. Confidence in that country has to be restored, poverty fought and jobs created. There must be a better life for all in that country. These are the important issues at stake in Zimbabwe.

The IFP believes, like Ms Mahlangu, that South Africans should do everything in their power to assist Zimbabwe to hold elections that can be justifiably termed to have been free and fair. Only then will stability and the other objectives return to Zimbabwe and only then will the dream of development and prosperity be on track.

There are many criteria for a free and fair election, such as the following quote from the UN Human Rights Committee, which was made in 1995:

Citizens should be free to vote for any candidate or against any proposal submitted. They should be free to support or to oppose the government without undue influence or coercion of any kind which might distort or inhibit the free expression of the electors’ will. It is a matter of democracy. Democracy forms the foundation stone of a free and fair election. This principle is emphasized in article 25(2) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

The most fundamental principle of democracy is that all the citizens of a state must be allowed to vote for the representatives of a party of their choice.

In the third issue of last year’s The Parliamentarian, there is a very interesting quote:

The real danger to democracy is not that someone will burn Buckingham Palace and run up the red flag, but that people will not vote. If people do not vote, they destroy, by neglect, the legitimacy of the government who have been elected.

Of importance, therefore, is that Zimbabwean people must have the right freely to elect their own president.

Secondly, Africa needs democratic success stories to convince the developed world that democracy has a future on our continent. Africa without democracy cannot expect a sympathetic hearing from the developed world on debt cancellation, debt relief and development aid.

Thirdly, President Mbeki’s Nepad has the promotion of democracy and human rights as one of its core preconditions for African development. A Zimbabwean election that is not free and fair will be a tremendous setback for Africa’s revival and the future success of the African Union. The problems experienced in Zimbabwe have already had a significant impact on South Africa. Many thousands of Zimbabweans have been arrested for illegally entering our country. Some say around 2 million have slipped over the border undetected, thereby adding to our illegal alien population that is straining South Africa’s scarce resources.

However, the greatest impact on South Africa by the Zimbabwean problem has been the creation of negative perceptions in the developed world and in global financial markets. These perceptions are hurting us where it hurts most - in foreign direct investment and in the devaluation of our currency. Moreover, the problem systematically erodes international confidence in South Africa, our democracy, our Government and our economy. The manner in which the ANC-led Government has remained silent on the events in Zimbabwe has been criticised by many. Many believe that the situation in Zimbabwe could have been better today had the Government devised a clear stand against wrongs committed in that country. In fact, if the election in Zimbabwe is eventually not free and fair, the South African Government may well find that many will say that it has contributed to that.

In conclusion, we assume that our Government has contingency plans in place to cope with events that may occur after the election.

Dr G W KOORNHOF: Chairperson, on a lighter note, I know now why some people refer to Mr Koos van der Merwe as the last big white hunter of Africa.

Zimbabwe needs a free and fair presidential election at this crucial stage of its history, not only for the benefit of its own people, but also in the interest of the SADC region. The eyes of the world are on this election and how it is conducted. A free and fair election will benefit Zimbabweans and the region, but a flawed election will bring massive human and economic suffering in Zimbabwe and damage the image of the region. Indeed, the stakes are high.

The world has to witness large numbers of people turn out to vote, that nobody is disenfranchised by means of the confiscation of their IDs and voting documents, and that no vigilante groups, from whichever side, are out on the streets and in rural areas intimidating the people.

Local and foreign media coverage of the election is important. What Zimbabwe can do without is alleged murder plots, treason charges, blatant intimidation of voters and political violence in the run-up to the election. Both presidential candidates and their parties have to commit themselves to a free and fair election on a practical level.

We as South Africans should know better than any other nation that conflicts are resolved when people negotiate. In this House today we sit as free men and women, having participated in the political miracle of South Africa. We have a deep understanding of the peaceful resolution of conflict. And instead of taking sides and accusing one another, we should be asking how we could share our experience with all the people and groups of Zimbabwe.

The important point about Zimbabwe is not whether Zanu PF or MDC or their supporters in this House are more right or more wrong than their counterpart. The question to ask is: How can these parties and all the people of Zimbabwe participate in society peacefully?

Today too many South Africans are suffering from a myopia born of long exposure to debates in favour of or against political opponents in Zimbabwe. This shortsightedness will lead to the major issues being overlooked or, even worse, turn the major issues into insignificant punchlines and catch phrases in party-political arguments between members of this House. The tragedy of Zimbabwe is that, irrespective of the outcome, the country is facing a severe economic crisis. Inflation is 112%, unemployment is 60% and the interest rate is 65%.

In conclusion, the overwhelming challenges that will face Zimbabwe after the presidential election will be achieving good governance, international acceptance, regaining a sound economy and human development. Adv Z L MADASA: Chairperson, if ex post facto the elections in Zimbabwe are judged to be free and fair, the Nepad programme and the African Union will benefit, but the opposite will be a setback to the development of the region and its people.

Of concern to us is when a legitimate government, as is the case in Zimbabwe, which has gone through many elections in the past without any problems, resorts to ingenious tactics to retain power willy-nilly when faced for the first time with the real prospect of losing power.

Will the elections be free and fair in Zimbabwe, taking into account the events that are preceding them? That is the question. We must remember that elections must be free and fair, not just on the day of voting as some want us to believe.

The Zanu PF-led government passed a law that requires political parties to obtain permission from the police before holding a meeting, but so far that law has been invoked only against the opposition. We have heard no reports of President Mugabe being denied permission to hold a rally. The law requires a full day’s notice before a meeting can be held. The MDC officials report that many of their rallies have been cancelled, owing to having to comply with this stringent requirement. This is not an atmosphere of fair elections. I am not saying free, but ``fair’’ elections.

It is mainly the responsibility of the government in power to create an enabling political climate for free and fair elections to take place. Thus far the government in Zimbabwe has failed in this regard. Intimidation and political violence observed and monitored by the police over the past few months have cast serious doubt in this regard.

The fact that observers from the region have been attacked also does not bode well. However, we thank the Government for having sent observers to Zimbabwe, but it has a responsibility to continue to monitor the situation. [Time expired.]

Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, this debate on the importance of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe has unfortunately come too late. There will be no free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. If Mr Mugabe wins, the international community will not recognise his government and they will declare that the elections were not free and fair.

If Morgan Tsvangirai wins, the elections will be recognised and accepted by the international community. It will be accepted that he won, despite the fact that Mr Mugabe and his government were responsible for very unfair elections. Let us just hope that South Africa’s position will, this time, be in line with international opinion.

The President’s brother, Moeletsi Mbeki, said on Tuesday this week that the Government’s policy of quiet diplomacy towards Zimbabwe has failed. He said further that we are quite naive to send observer missions to observe a few rallies, and then to make a judgment on whether the elections were free and fair.

The fact is that the international community is sick and tired of Mr Mugabe and his government. One could ask why. How did it happen? [Interjections.] Well, the fact is that there is a saying that goes: If you stay out there long enough, there is no place to hide.'' That is what has happened to Mr Mugabe and his party, Zanu PF. The Time magazine of 25 February writes: Once the breadbasket of Southern Africa, Zimbabwe is now a basket case.’’ Inflation is running at more than 100%, unemployment is at 60%, the economy has shrunk by one-fifth in the past three years, and on the parallel market one US dollar will buy more than 300 Zimbabwe dollars. Zimbabwe is on the verge of economic collapse. And that after 22 years of Mugabe and Zanu PF rule. So, whose fault is it?

Who should accept responsibility? Mr Mugabe tried every trick in the book to stay in power. Does the MDC have equal access to television? No! Does the MDC have equal access to state funds? No! More than 80 MDC rallies have been cancelled. It is quite clear that there can be no free and fair election under these circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr N J GOGOTYA: Chairperson, one understands why it has been said that dinosaurs refused to change. That is the reason they became extinct.

The debate today on Zimbabwe is an eye-opener, because suddenly one has instant democrats. A statement issued by the South African observer mission that, and I quote:

We are committed to working harder to make sure that the Zimbabwean people succeed in their endeavour to hold free and fair elections. To that extent, we are going to work very closely with both national and international observers in order to enhance, not only free and fair elections, but also a stable political environment.

The last part of that statement, namely ``stable political environment’’, is problematic. A stable environment can only be brought about by actions that are taken - positive actions - to ensure such results.

The Lancaster agreement and arrangement, which people have forgotten about, gave birth to a document for Zimbabwe that sought to address the questions of transformation, reconciliation, peace, promotion of democracy and sustainable development. Regarding transformation, it was transformation from colonial oppression to freedom; from a divided nation to one united against suppression; and from denigration to freedom and dignity.

That agreement also said that it was wrong to turn people into brutes through the fiendish, crafty stratagems of the colonialists. It was wrong to rob the people of their inheritance, of their land, in the name of God and the queen; and it was wrong to make people work for no wages. Surely, that which is inhuman, created by the colonialists, in the name of God and the queen, cannot be divine.

This agreement also sought, among other things, not only transformation of a country ravaged by war and colonial greed, but also reconciliation. Reconciliation and the will to reconcile were lacking in Zimbabwe. What happened after 1980 was that the constituency of Ian Smith continued to send their children to schools, churches and institutions in apartheid South Africa, which was alien to the situation that persisted and existed in Zimbabwe. They chose to send their children to apartheid South Africa, which was alien to democracy and freedom of movement.

The other issue that was raised after the Lancaster agreement was the question of the promotion of democracy. The hon member Van Schalkwyk asked a question as to how Africa would deal with its own. Let me remind that hon member of Parliament that over the past four years there have been 49 democratic elections in Africa and all were adjudged to be free and fair. But during that period there were also four military coups. These were immediately /isolated and condemned by the OAU. These new leaders of Africa were told in no uncertain terms that no government coming to power through undemocratic means would be recognised on the continent. This has been the position of the South African Government and this Parliament, that everything must be legal and above board. This has also been the view of our President. Of course, the issue of patriotism is critical in ensuring a maturing, vibrant and all-embracing democracy.

The question of land has been raised time and time again. The hon Colin Eglin quoted a whole lot of statistics for us, but it is unfortunate that he forgot to quote the following statistics. I am quoting an article published in the Washington Post of 21 February 2000, and this is what they said about the land question:

It is unfortunate that land reform has come to have such a negative image inside and outside Zimbabwe. Owing to the country’s history, about 0,6% of the population in Zimbabwe owns 70% of the land.

Therefore, crucial to the development of rural Zimbabwe, where 65% of Zimbabweans live, is meaningful land reform. I quote again:

Land reform, if planned and implemented properly, would not threaten the country’s export process.

The same sentiment was echoed by the World Bank, which said in its magazine, the Development Indicators of 2000: ``Unfortunately for rural Zimbabweans, banks and financial institutions have been unwilling to fund the country’s land reform process.’’ [Interjections.] The member can say that, the same thing is happening with the banks in South Africa. I am glad that the member said that.

Peace is part of the package to ensure a future in Zimbabwe. It is critical if we are to ensure democracy, development, and free and fair elections. Obviously Zimbabwe faces problems, but these are not unique or insurmountable. These are not problems that Zimbabweans cannot solve. Therefore, Zimbabweans need to be assisted to ensure that they nurture a democratic process. The future of Zimbabwe is in the hands of the Zimbabweans alone. Therefore, we cannot prejudge and prejudice the outcome of the elections in Zimbabwe. [Applause.]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, while we acknowledge that Zimbabwe is a sovereign state worthy of and able to administrate its own affairs, we also acknowledge that no country in itself is an island. It needs friends and outsiders to survive, advance and legitimise its course of actions in the international arena. The international community’s observers are therefore in Zimbabwe to help monitor the elections, and, indeed, the results, so that no one else … [Interjections.]

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

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, the international community’s observers are therefore in Zimbabwe to help monitor the elections and, indeed, the results, so that no one else feels cheated. President Mugabe is already being accused of creating an environment that is inimical to holding free and fair elections.

It is said that it is difficult for the opposition candidates to canvass support in the run-up to these elections, and that the task of the observer mission is made difficult, as witnessed by a recent incident, when they were attacked, as shown on our television screens.

The overall situation has resulted in the implementation of targeted sanctions imposed against Zimbabwe’s top administrators amidst accusations levelled at them that they are unable to bring to an end violence in Zimbabwe. However, this action does not assist in creating a climate conducive to free and fair elections either.

On the other hand, the Government feels that it has done everything from its side to ensure that the election will be free and fair, hence they announced its dates. It is therefore in the best interest of Zimbabweans that an environment conducive to a free and fair election is created and maintained, so that … [Time expired.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairperson, the PAC holds that there must be free and fair presidential elections in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean government must ensure that the police protect all citizens of Zimbabwe and all election observers in the country. It must be established which political party has been attacking observers. They must be exposed and punished. It is clear in this situation that there will be hired hooligans, either to discredit the MDC or ZANU PF. The observers must be alive to this, so that their judgment of the Zimbabwe elections will not be tainted.

The media must be professional, objective and ethical. They must not fake imprisonment by the Zimbabwean government, as one did recently. Journalists must avoid being tools of ZANU PF or the MDC. Only Zimbabweans must campaign in these elections, not outsiders. Partiality by non-Zimbabweans will cause bloodshed in that country and will destabilise the whole of Southern Africa.

To the PAC the behaviour of Britain and the European Union is unacceptable. Their selective morality demonstrates that they want Zimbabwe to serve their own interests. They never imposed sanctions on apartheid leaders in this country, even when the United Nations declared apartheid to be a crime against humanity. They had dealings with Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire for 30 years, despite his gross violation of human rights and his extremely corrupt government. They did nothing to Idi Amin when he butchered the people of Uganda. Britain preferred Amin to Milton Obote. Belgium was involved in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of the Congo. What does the EU say about this? The PAC calls upon the European Union to re-examine itself, and look at the crimes of its members against humanity. This is in the context of the slave trade and the colonisation of Africa, through which America and Europe enriched themselves. The PAC wants the true friendship and partnership of all the nations of the world, but it must not be a partnership of horses and riders, in which Africa’s people are the horses. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I take part in this debate with the time at my disposal.

Dit is noodsaaklik dat daar ‘n demokratiese verkiesing in Zimbabwe moet plaasvind. Demokrasie beteken eintlik dat daar ‘n opposisie moet wees en een van die probleme in Zimbabwe is juis dat die opposisie vernietig is, in sy oorspronklike vorm deur die regering ingesluk is en op die ou end bestaan daar niks. Zimbabwe is nou op pad terug na die demokrasie toe, waar die mense weer soek na die alternatief wat nie vasgevang is in die eenpartystaat wat dit was nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die geskiedenis van en die aanloop tot hierdie verkiesing is nie baie bemoedigend dat dit baie vry kan wees nie. Wat ook al die uitslag gaan wees, die nuwe president, wanneer hy eers verkies is, sal moeilikheid hê, want hy sit met ekonomiese omstandighede en met mense wat verskillende gesindhede het. Die belangrikste is dus dat daar ‘n gesindheidsverandering by die mense van Zimbabwe moet plaasvind om te begin om die probleme by wyse van demokrasie op te los in ‘n debat waarin verskillende standpunte verdra word en nie teen mekaar afgespeel word of deur ‘n geweer afgedwing word nie.

Daar is dus duidelike uitsprake en leiding nodig van Suid-Afrika, wat deur hierdie proses gegaan het en waarin daar ‘n groot gesindheidsverandering plaasgevind het wat ons op ‘n manier daar moet projekteer. Ons kan nie onverskillig staan daarteenoor nie, want sou Zimbabwe nie slaag nie, vervaag die droom van ‘n Afrika-renaissance, want saam met Zimbabwe word die lande óm Zimbabwe, en ook Suid-Afrika, se kanse op ekonomiese groei vernietig.

Dit is waarom ek ‘n beroep doen dat ons in gesprekke, waarin ons baie maklik voortdurend na die verlede verwys, daarvan vergeet en werklik met die hede begin werk, want hier is geweldige probleme ten opsigte waarvan ons ‘n bydrae tot die oplossing kan lewer, en ek dink ons kan dit doen as ons werklik Afrika se vooruitgang op die hart dra. [Tyd verstreke.] [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follow.)

[It is necessary for a democratic election to take place in Zimbabwe. In fact, democracy implies that there should be an opposition, and one of the problems in Zimbabwe is that the opposition has been destroyed; in its original form it has been swallowed up by the government and ultimately nothing more of it exists. Zimbabwe is now back on the road to democracy, and the people are again seeking the alternative that is not caught up in the one-party state that it has been. [Interjections.]

The history and the run-up to these elections are not very encouraging in terms of these being free elections. No matter what the result, the new President, once elected, will have problems, because he will be saddled with certain economic circumstances and with people who have different attitudes. Therefore, what is most important is that a change of attitude must take place among the people of Zimbabwe in order to start solving the problems by way of democracy in a debate in which different standpoints are tolerated and not played off against one another or enforced at gunpoint.

Therefore, clear pronouncements and leadership are required from South Africa, which has gone through this process and in which a major change of attitude has taken place that we have to project in some way to Zimbabwe. We cannot be indifferent to this, because if Zimbabwe does not succeed, the dream of an African Renaissance will have failed, because, together with Zimbabwe, the countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and also South Africa, will have their chances of economic growth destroyed.

This is why I am making an appeal that in our discussions, in which we very easily and frequently refer to the past, we should forget about this and really begin to deal with the present, because there are some tremendous problems here which we can make a contribution towards solving, and I think we can do this if we really have Africa’s progress at heart. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, for months now the situation in Zimbabwe has filled our newspapers. It was the subject of many a discussion, and according to many claims, the situation there was one of the main causes of the fall of the value of our rand. Now the situation has worsened, and today we are asked what the importance of a free and fair election in Zimbabwe is.

Firstly, we have to be aware that we are not just South Africa. We belong to a larger entity, and that is Africa. So, all concerns within this geography are our concerns and therefore the situation in Zimbabwe is our concern.

Secondly, we know the hardship encountered through an autocratic system of governance. We have sacrificed lives during years of struggle to rid ourselves of such a government. It is therefore proposed that a free and fair election is not just necessary, but a right. A government is put in a place not just to ensure the efficient running of the country, but to ensure the wellbeing of its citizenry. That citizenry has a right to decide who they want to take the responsibility of looking after their destiny. It is their right to vote into place a government that they feel will best represent and preserve their rights and needs.

The MF feels that this is the core reason to hold a free and fair election in Zimbabwe, and we, as South Africans, know the difference that a free and fair election can make. It is what is right, it is their right as people, as a nation and as individuals.

The MF supports a free and fair election in Zimbabwe and wishes them well in the coming election. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mr Aucamp, when you have finished, I have a ruling for you.

Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, I have heard your ruling on the monitor in my office. I listened to it while I was wrestling with Mugabe. Thank you for the ruling.

The topic of the debate today, the importance of a free and fair election in Zimbabwe, could just as well have been the importance of the Pope winning the lotto. [Laughter.] I make this statement, because we are not debating the improbable, but the impossible. [Interjections.] The fairness of a race cannot be determined by making sure that no one cheats at the winning post. A race must be monitored from the starting blocks, around the corners and at every stage. What has already happened during the Zimbabwe presidential race?

Op die platteland besluit stamkapteins en hoofmanne wie hulle as kiesers mag laat registreer. Militante groepe keer mense lukraak voor, en dié wat nie ‘n Zanu PF lidmaatskapkaart kan toon nie se identiteitsdokumente word weggeneem sodat hulle nie kan stem nie. Op die kieserslys verskyn boonop die name van sowat twee miljoen mense wat reeds dood is. Kan u raai vir wie hulle gaan stem?

Die enigste onafhanklike koerant, Daily News, se drukpers is in ‘n bomontploffing beskadig. Straatverkopers wat eksemplare van die koerant te koop aanbied, word aangerand. Drakoniese veiligheids- en mediawette is van krag. Die regbank is sy onafhanklikheid kwyt weens Mugabe-aanstellings. Die opposisiekandidaat, Morgan Tsvangirai, is twee keer hierdie week vir polisie-ondervraging aangehou op ‘n hoogverraadklag waarvan die bom net te toevallig juis nou voor die verkiesing gebars het. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[In the rural areas tribal captains and chiefs decide who they want to register as voters. Militant groups stop people at random and those who do not have a Zanu PF membership card have their identity documents confiscated so that they cannot vote. The names of approximately 2 million people who are already dead appear on the voters’ roll. Can you guess who are they are going to vote for?

The only independent newspaper, Daily News, had its printing press damaged in a bomb explosion. Street vendors who offer copies of the newspaper for sale are assaulted. Draconian security and media laws are enforced. The judiciary has lost its independence as a result of Mugabe appointments. The opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, has been apprehended twice this week for questioning by the police on a charge of high treason, about which the bomb only too incidentally exploded just before the election.]

We used to talk about helping Zimbabwe to solve its problems. That is the wrong goal. Zimbabwe must be helped to get rid of its problem, Robert Mugabe. [Interjections.] Bearing in mind that it is the government of Zimbabwe that is both referee and player, that creates the unlevel playing field, the AEB hopes that the people of Zimbabwe will turn up at the polls in their masses … [Interjections] … so shocked by the atrocities of the dictatorship that, even against the odds, against the flood of victimisation and intimidation, their elections, without being free and fair, will produce a fair result, a new president and a new dawn for our closest neighbour. The alternative is too disastrous to contemplate. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Chairperson, a delegation of the Azapo leadership visited Zimbabwe between 13 and 16 February 2002 to familiarise itself with the situation in that country. Nothing that our delegation saw or heard approximated what the media in South Africa continues to paint about Zimbabwe. Azapo holds the view that one does not choose his or her own neighbours. Zimbabwe will remain South Africa’s neighbour, irrespective of who the president of Zimbabwe is, and our duty as a responsible country is to promote peace and stability together with our neighbours.

Azapo continues to hold the view that the only reason why Zanu PF, and President Mugabe in particular, are being targeted for vilification and sanctions by the European Union and the American government is because they have embarked on a decolonisation process in the form of an irreversible and radical land reform process. Changes and questions relating to President Mugabe being in power for too long can only be decided upon by the people of Zimbabwe. The government of Zimbabwe has provided this opportunity to the people of Zimbabwe by holding elections.

Azapo calls on all non-Zimbabweans to leave it to the people of Zimbabwe to decide who their leaders will be and how long these leaders should be in power. [Applause.]

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Chairperson and hon members, in his speech introducing this motion, the leader of my party described the Zimbabwean election as a test case for democracy on our continent. I do believe that most of what has been said here today actually underlines and very strongly supports that view.

As has been said today, the test being faced in the Zimbabwean election applies on a number of levels. But I would submit that a major element in determining the freeness and the fairness of the outcome will be the extent to which the media - local, African and international - can report and comment on the electoral process and debate.

I would like to submit as well that the current situation in Zimbabwe in this regard is not only most disturbing, but also unacceptable. In fact, it is preventing Zimbabweans from actually deciding their own destiny, as other speakers have already pleaded for in this debate.

There is more than ample proof for all to see. But I want to refer specifically to the views of an important and credible media body, the Media Institute of Southern Africa, which is based in Windhoek. Called Misa, it was formed and created by Southern African journalists in late 1994, and has 896 individual and 134 institutional members in 11 SADC countries. In a letter a month ago to the President of Malawi, in his capacity as chairman of SADC, the regional director of Misa appealed to SADC to take a strong stand against media freedom violations in Zimbabwe. He said the following:

Violations of media freedom in Zimbabwe have been escalating for some time and have reached the point where an unambiguous stand must be taken to restore the basic tenets of democracy and human rights.

He also brings to the attention of SADC the state-sponsored systematic attacks on the free flow of independent information. He says recorded incidents clearly indicate that the situation on the ground is worsening and that in spite of public statements and agreements by the government of Zambia.

In fact, Misa issued no less than 33 alerts on different forms of media violations against the independent media in Zimbabwe during 2001. These range from a bomb attack on a news organisation to the arrest and detention of individual journalists, verbal and possibly even physical threats of violence and incarceration against news organisations and individual journalists.

It can also be said that these have served to psychologically cripple the news media in that country. What is beyond dispute is that, in Zimbabwe, this has resulted in two extremely negative outcomes, and they deprive the voters of that country of freely receiving facts and opinions through the media. The first is the abuse of state media, which is beyond dispute, and secondly, the intimidation and harassment of local and foreign journalists, which has even been attempted outrageously, I would say, in respect of South African journalists.

It is our view that all the South African observers and also other observer groups should be giving very specific attention to the role of the media and the Zimbabwean government’s actions in this regard in the short period that is left. There are very specific guidelines they can follow that have also been given by the United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and they include a whole range of topics. We say that it is the inescapable duty of the South African Government, but also civil society here, and also of SADC, to exert maximum pressure on the government of Zimbabwe to allow the media to play its legitimate role in the election campaign, which I am sure is the view shared by the members of this House. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, members of the House, I think when we discuss an important issue such as Zimbabwe or any similar issue, we must be a bit more serious about how we tackle such crucial issues. We all must start at some basic understandings. Firstly, we must avoid practising selective morality. If Zimbabwe is criticised, let us also criticise many other countries where things are happening that are much worse. Secondly, we must accept that Zimbabwe is a sovereign country, and it is not the tenth province of South Africa, or a colony of any other country. Therefore, it is the right of the Zimbabweans to determine their own destiny.

However, we all know that Zimbabwe is important in the whole body politic of Southern Africa and, indeed, of Africa as a whole. Therefore, what happens in Zimbabwe impacts on the region generally but, most specifically, on South Africa. Therefore, how we deal with this issue must enable us to ensure that what we achieve there helps the stability of the whole region and indeed of South Africa itself. The most immediate challenge that faces South Africa and indeed the international community is to ensure that the Zimbabwean people are able to exercise their democratic choice through the ballot box. The question then is: How do they achieve this immediate objective?

The next thing we cannot disagree with, and I do not know why we keep posing the question, is that when some people say that the results must be accepted by all, I sometimes get the feeling that what they are saying to us is that if Mugabe wins, then there might be a problem, but if Morgan Tsvangirai wins, then Mugabe must accept the results. They do not say that if Mugabe wins, and it is declared a free and fair election, then the same duty rests on the shoulders of Tsvangirai to accept the results. It is not an issue that is only applicable to one of the two.

In this respect, the role of the military keeps being raised, and I keep saying that if SADC’s position is the OAU position, then under no circumstances will we allow the interference of the military in any country in political matters. I do not know why we keep discussing what the chiefs of the army said and what has since been contradicted.

The next thing we must all agree on is that regardless of whoever wins the presidential elections - and sometimes we forget that this is not a national election, but a presidential election - our task in South Africa, as a region and as an international community, must be to ensure that we assist all Zimbabweans, across party-political lines, across racial lines, and across ethnic lines, to deal with the fundamental challenges that some of my colleagues here have referred to - the economic crisis and the meltdown. They are not giving us any new information. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe today released information that indicates the nature of the economic crisis that the Zimbabweans are facing, including the food crisis.

Whatever the result of the election and whoever wins - and we must stop already making choices about who we think must win, but put it in the gourd of the democratic process - they are going to need to work together as Zimbabweans with the support of South Africa, specifically the region and the international community, to deal with the challenges.

Sometimes it is sad that discussions on Zimbabwe evoke, in the ranks of some of our colleagues, more hot air than anything else. But I want to believe that what we see regarding discussions in Zimbabwe is not just a test case for democracy, but that it has also become a test case of fear to some of us in South Africa who believe that ``if it happened in Zimbabwe, it will happen in South Africa’’. And, I do not want to believe that we can have a serious argument by letting out hidden fears without putting that out in the open and saying that our fear is that it happened in Zimbabwe and it is going to happen in South Africa. I believe that this has prevented us, in South Africa, from having a reasoned and constructive debate about how we could help resolve the situation in Zimbabwe.

I do not believe, with due respect to some of my colleagues on the left, that terms such as ``rogue leaders’’ are helpful to the debate, because once one determines a leader as a rogue, how can one begin to accept, as a possibility, in a genuine free and fair election, that that person can become a president at the will of the majority of the Zimbabwean people? I think that it is wrong for us to work like that.

There are problems in Zimbabwe, but this situation is not unique. We do not condone it, and we must work to try to help resolve it. But I do not believe that the selective, exaggerated listings of violations - fundamental violations of human rights, as has been listed here and elsewhere - is helping us to come to grips with that problem. I think that the tendency to use selective media reporting to prove a point in a very exaggerated way is not becoming of the importance of a House such as this one.

The issue of the pre-election processes has been raised and many have already asked why we should bother about this election when the pre- election process has already determined it as unfree and unfair. I reject these notions. Those of us who come from South Africa know that before the 1994 elections the dice were loaded against what is the majority party today. We had a greater number of deaths in that period than we had in the entire apartheid era. I would like to remind those who have forgotten that train violence, black-on-black violence and third-force violence were rampant in the pre-election process. We were confident of keeping our eye on the ball and said that those who wanted to disrupt us could continue to do so, because we were confident that if the majority of the people had an opportunity to vote, they would vote for us. Our own experiences and those of many countries in the world have not indicated the sort of election and pre-election processes that were fundamentally in favour of the opposition. So, let us not just choose one country and then say that the election process is already flawed.

I would like to say that there have been some very important developments even during these trying times. The hon Van Schalkwyk referred to the Supreme Court ruling against the General Laws Amendment Act. This is a fundamental decision overthrowing a law of the Government and saying that it is not according to the Constitution. I would like to tell the hon Mr Van Schalkwyk that it is not just a small victory, but a reflection of elements within Zimbabwean society that are very healthy and are able to carry out some of these aspects that we refuse to acknowledge. I do not know why the newspapers said this is a blow to Mugabe'' rather than saying,this is a victory for democracy’’. This is what I call selective morality or the wrong way of dealing with things.

We have been told about the Media Bill, that it is a problem, etc. We conveniently forget that this Media Bill was hotly disputed in Parliament. In fact, elements of the Zanu PF hotly debated the Media Bill in their parliament. In the end, the Media Bill was passed unanimously and, indeed, the opposition said that they were very happy, as the changes that were made in the Media Bill were acceptable to them. This is an example of what is possible even within what some regard as a situation of gross violation of human rights.

I want to say that it is sad. Sometimes it is bad reporting and sometimes it is inaccurate reporting. I did not necessarily want to tackle this at the moment, but I will refer to it. As members probably know, allegations of treason have been levelled at the presidential candidate for having plotted to assassinate President Mugabe.

Yesterday Tsvangirai, Ncube and Gasela, three leading members of the MDC, were called in for questioning for two hours. They were then informed that the investigations would continue and it would be decided whether to charge them or not. Yet everybody, including our newspapers, are already talking about Tsvangirai and the other two being charged. This already gives an image that is totally wrong. Whether this is conscious or unconscious, is for members to decide.

This view is absolutely wrong and does not allow us to be genuine about wanting a free and fair election for the people of Zimbabwe. It also means that we have decided who must be in power and who must be the loser. It is not our duty to decide on who should be in power or not in power in other countries, as long as we are satisfied that the procedures are created for the people to cast their votes. We talk a lot about the equity of the media. I am not saying this is wrong or right, but why are they not, in the same breath, honestly saying that radio stations broadcasting from London and the Netherlands into Zimbabwe are by and large regarded by the government of Zimbabwe, rightly or wrongly, as being hostile to them. This is also in violation of the democratic principles of equal opportunity in the media. We have to be clear about what we are discussing.

Of course violence and intimidation is unacceptable and regrettable, but we must not speak as if violence and intimidation is the monopoly of only one. It is being undertaken across the board, not by only one party. We must try to ensure through the observers and the presence of other people to bring down the levels of violence and intimidation. We must do this.

Those members who try not to read selectively might have seen the newspapers talking about a robust campaign going on in Zimbabwe. In fact these newspapers were critical of the fact that instead of addressing political issues both parties have resorted to personal attacks and missing the political issues they should be dealing with. This is a reflection of the robust campaign that is going on. Therefore, we must be a little more objective. The trouble is that selective morality is not going to help us.

I welcome the recommendations about what our observers must do and so on. But, I am really concerned. Obviously, although we all have people in the parliamentary observer team - a multiparty South African observer team that represents the spectrum of South African opinion, from agriculture, religious leaders, trade unions, big business and black business - we have not bothered to check what they say in their daily reports. Many allegations of violence have been investigated.

The Government and the security forces have been approached to raise these very issues. When we make recommendations to observers we should rather understand what the role of the observers is and what they have been doing. If one is critical and claim that they have not been carrying out their mandate in terms of their terms of reference to ensure a democratic election, then these matters should be raised. It is useless always to say that this and that must happen, when it is already happening. It is all part of a process to come to the conclusion our observers are practically useless, because the elections have already been prejudged. I think that is wrong.

Let me deal with the ballot boxes being escorted. This has been raised by other observers jointly with the Commonwealth, led by General Abubakar, a very senior Nigerian and former president of that country. Undertakings have now been given that the ballot boxes may be escorted. It does not help to come to a debate on the eve of the election and raise as a problem what our observers have already managed to solve. I think that this is a problem and a serious concern. If we all accept that the role of South Africa and the international community is to help the Zimbabwean people to go and cast their vote, then let us be serious about this.

I want to remind some of our colleagues that during the referendum period and during the last elections many people said that there was much intimidation and that those elections were not free and fair. That showed that these people did not understand that people have the capacity to decide in their own way who they will vote for. People know who they are going to vote for. And when that election showed such a close result, all those who had already declared it unfree and unfair did not know how to deal with the issue, because the group they were supporting, very selectively, suddenly received many more votes than they expected. They did not understand what motivated the people to act the way they did. So they do not have confidence in the people. We have confidence in the people, and, therefore, we say, if we can create conditions for the people to express their will, let us do so, and let us allow them to decide who they want. It is in this respect that I challenge the European Union’s decision. [Interjections.]

I have at least another 10 minutes. [Interjections.] The hon members on that side of the House talk of the European Union’s decision without knowing the facts. Indeed, nine countries of the European Union, except the six identified, were asked to send observers. I do not know why the six who were not identified were sent in. In my thinking, that was a wrong tactical decision. Is the European Union not confident that nine of their members could go there with hundreds of observers and carry out the instructions that would enable the European community to be happy with the decision? So, I think the European Union …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Deputy Minister, I am not going to increase your speaking time, but seeing that this is an important matter, at my own discretion I am going to give you three more minutes.

The DEPUTY MINISTER: The European Union’s decision is wrong, and we must accept its wrongfulness. In our view, imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe on the eve of the elections, knowing that those sanctions are meaningless, means that somewhere a tactically wrong decision was made to influence the elections. That is gross interference in the internal affairs of another country. We are saying so and we will continue to say so. [Interjections.]

Let me then conclude, because time is running out. I want to stress the issue that we as South Africans have a nation to build and that we have a contribution to make towards a vision. Let our unfounded fears of what the majority would do to the minority, sometime in the future, not make us blind to the need to work as a nation in the interest of the nation and the vision. Because, if hon members continue to have these kith and kin fears, we will never be able to mould the South African nation.

Lastly, therefore, regarding victors, winners and losers, there is no problem about this. I do not know why hon members that side keep asking us this question. We have said that if the elections are declared unfree and unfair, whoever wins them will not be recognised, and logical consequences will follow. So …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?

Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, is the Deputy Minister prepared to take a question? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER: That would be more than interesting, considering the things the hon member said.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Deputy Minister, are you prepared to take a question?

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Yes, yes! Let the hon member ask the question in English.

Dr C P MULDER: I will try. The hon Deputy Minister is saying that if the elections are declared free and fair, the Government will accept that result. May I ask the Deputy Minister as to who will have declared these elections free and fair? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER: Look, there is a Commonwealth team there; there are about 20 other countries who have observers there; there is the parliamentary forum of SADC; there is the South African multi-task team and, indeed, there is the whole world, as somebody said, watching the election process. There is a multiplicity of people who will come to a conclusion whether or not it was free and fair.

I have great confidence in the South African multi-task team, and I have said to the portfolio committee that they should look at the names of people and not just talk. Some people have already judged the elections unfree and unfair, and, therefore, they cannot look sensibly at what is going to happen. Our task now, I must honestly say, in the 10 days that remain, is to work together and not to prejudge the process. South Africa cannot prejudge who the president of another country will be. They cannot do so in our case.

Let us rather work together to give the Zimbabweans an opportunity to exercise their democratic right in a free and fair manner. The DA, the party - they are no longer an alliance - talks of democracy, about which it understands nothing. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The House adjourned at 18:40 ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The following Bill was introduced by the Minister  of  Transport
     in the National Assembly on 28 February 2002 and  referred  to  the
     Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of  Joint
     Rule 160:
     (i)     National  Railway  Safety  Regulator  Bill  [B  7  -  2002]
          (National Assembly - sec 76) [Explanatory summary of Bill  and
          prior notice  of  its  introduction  published  in  Government
          Gazette No 23100 of 6 February 2002.]


     The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Transport
     of the National Assembly.


     In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
     the Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
     within three parliamentary working days.

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 (1)    Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:


     Bills, subject to proposed amendments, passed by National Council
     of Provinces on 28 February 2002 and transmitted for consideration
     of Council's proposed amendments:


     (i)     Basic Conditions of Employment Amendment Bill [B 70B -
           2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) (for proposed amendments,
           see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p 129).


     (ii)    Labour Relations Amendment Bill [B 77B - 2001] (National
           Assembly - sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see
           Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p 129).


     The Bills have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Labour
     of the National Assembly for a report on the amendments proposed
     by the Council.