MONDAY, 18 MARCH 2002 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:01

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr D S MAIMANE: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes with sadness the untimely death of Prof Sipho Maseko, a well- known political analyst, commentator and academic; (2) believes that Prof Maseko played a significant role in deepening our culture of democracy with his precise, insightful and enlightened political commentary, which enhanced our understanding of political developments both here and abroad; and

(3) mourns the death of Prof Maseko and sends its heartfelt condolences to his wife, Pam, and his daughters, Sandiso and Sibusisiwe.

Mr W J SEREMANE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the independent spirit displayed by Ms Brigalia Bam, Chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission, in her remarks concerning Zimbabwe underscores the importance of having elections organised and run by an independent body which is not directly beholden to the government; and

(2) records its thanks to her for her dignified response, which strengthens her own reputation for integrity and sets an example which must be followed by the IEC in ensuring that future South African elections maintain a standard which is acceptable to all people who support democracy and the rule of law.

Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) sadly notes that on numerous occasions tourists visiting Robben Island have been subjected to an unscrupulous credit card fraud scam, possibly by some Robben Island staff;

(2) realises that this alleged scam can ward off potential tourists resulting in dire consequences on our economy;

(3) believes that the historical and political importance of Robben Island might lose ground under these circumstances; and

(4) earnestly calls upon the island management to take drastic action against persons who might be implicated after an inquiry in order to uproot this unbecoming practice.

Mrs M M SOTYU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes the statement in the House by the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, the hon Gillwald, that 97 life sentences were handed down last year for violent crimes against children;

(2) believes that the abomination of violence against and abuse of children is a scourge that must be tackled by not only the criminal justice system but all sectors of society; and

(3) calls upon all members of our communities who have knowledge of instances of child abuse to come forward, to speak out and to support and fight for the rights of the children of our nation. [Applause.]

Mnr S SIMMONS: Mev die Speaker, hiermee gee ek kennis dat ek sal voorstel:

Dat die Raad -

(1) met onsteltenis kennis neem dat ongeveer 500 studente op Vrydag 15 Maart by die Zonderwater Opleidingsentrum gedwing is om hul eksamen in Engels af te lê;

(2) dit onaanvaarbaar ag dat die verkeerde inligting verskaf deur die Departement van Korrektiewe Dienste Parlementslede, die publiek en die Minister mislei het en veroorsaak het daar nie ingegryp is om te verseker dat die studente se grondwetlike regte beskerm word nie.

(3) dit verwelkom dat die huidige beleid hersien gaan word om reg te laat geskied aan al die amptelike tale; en

(4) ‘n dringende beroep op die Minister doen dat die aangeleentheid ondersoek sal word, sodat studente nie benadeel sal word nie en ‘n herhaling van die voorval vermy kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr S SIMMONS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with dismay that on Friday, 15 March 2002 about 500 students at the Zonderwater Training Centre were forced to write their examinations in English;

(2) finds it unacceptable that incorrect information from the Department of Correctional Services misled members of Parliament, the public and the Minister and brought to pass that no action was taken to ensure the protection of the students’ constitutional rights;

(3) welcomes the fact that the current policy is going to be reviewed in order to do justice to the official languages; and

(4) urgently appeals to the Minister to see to it that the matter is investigated so that students are not prejudiced and a repetition of the incident can be avoided.]

Mr L C MOTHIBA: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the UDM on the next sitting day of the House:

That the House -

(1) notes that the head of the body charged with planning a massive meeting of NGOs ahead of this year’s World Summit on Sustainable Development has been suspended and faces a disciplinary inquiry for alleged financial irregularities;

(2) further notes that the temporary CE of the Civil Society Secretariat has admitted that with only five months to go before the event it ``does not seem that any preparations have been made’’; (3) expresses concern about allegations by the former CE that she was removed because ANC-aligned civil society wishes to control the summit agenda.

[Time expired.]

Mrs B TINTO: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that High Court judges, magistrates and prosecutors will be visiting schools in the Western Cape to talk to children about human rights and children’s rights;

(2) confirms that children have a right to be cared for and adults have the responsibility to care for them;

(3) supports the call of the Justice Department to teachers to allocate at least an hour of their teaching time this week to educating children about human rights and their own rights as children; and

(4) calls on all members of this House to join the ANC in its volunteer campaign for the month of March to make our constitutional commitment to a rights-based society a reality for all our people.

[Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the PAC:

That the House -

(1) congratulates Mokhahla oa Thesele on holding a successful Moshoeshe’s Day in Bloemfontein last week;

(2) thanks the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology for allocating R30 000 for this event, but hopes for more allocation next year;

(3) notes that Mokhahla oa Thesele is a cultural organisation whose main objective is to promote the Basotho culture and to teach respect for all cultures of the African people in South Africa;

(4) further notes that Moshoeshoe’s Day is in memory of that great nation- builder, diplomat and statesman who accepted King Mohlomi’s political philosophy of peace, justice and oneness of the African people;

(5) believes that Mokhahla oa Thesele is part of nation- building in modern Africa and wishes it more progress; and

(6) thanks King Letsie III of Lesotho for his interest in this culture organisation.

Mnr C AUCAMP: Geagte Speaker, namens die AEB gee ek kennis van die volgende mosie:

Dat die Huis kennis neem dat -

(1) die rand vandag geval het tot onder die vlak van R12 per Amerikaanse dollar;

(2) handelaars hierdie daling toeskryf aan die dubbelslagtige verklaring van die hoof van die Suid-Afrikaanse waarnemingspan in Zimbabwe, dr Sam Mosenyane, dat die verkiesing in Zimbabwe legitiem was, alhoewel hy dit nie as ``vry en regverdig’’ kon verklaar nie;

(3) hierdie jongste val van die rand ‘n duidelike boodskap uitstuur aan president Mbeki dat ‘n dubbelslagtige houding, ten spyte van die oorweldigende getuienis van verkiesingsmisdrywe, Suid-Afrika en sy Nepad-plan onberekenbare skade sal berokken; en

(4) mnr Mbeki die geleentheid benut om Suid-Afrika in ‘n klas van sy eie en op die pad van voorspoed en internasionale statuur te plaas, deur gewoon eerlik volgens sy gewete te handel en Zimbabwe te help om van sy illegitieme president ontslae te raak. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the AEB at the next sitting of the House:

That the House -

(1) takes note of the fact that today the rand has fallen below the R12 mark against the American dollar; (2) also takes note of the fact that traders are ascribing this depreciation to the ambiguous statement made by the head of the South African observer team, Dr Sam Motsenyane, that the election in Zimbabwe was legitimate, although he could not declare it as free and fair;

(3) is of the opinion that this recent fall of the rand is sending a clear message to President Mbeki that an ambiguous attitude, despite the overwhelming evidence of election offences, will cause untold damage to South Africa and its Nepad plan; and

(4) makes an appeal to President Mbeki to seize the opportunity to put South Africa in a class of its own and to place it on the road of prosperity and international stature by simply being honest and acting in accordance with his conscience to help Zimbabwe get rid of its illegitimate president.]

Mr Z A KOTWAL: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the House - (1) notes that the International Conference on Financing Development opens today in Monterey, Mexico, and is attended by government leaders from rich and poor nations, including Finance Minister Trevor Manuel;

(2) recognises that the purpose of the conference is to find ways of preventing the crippling financial crashes and to manage the debt problem in the developing world, which is of critical importance for world economic stability;

(3) further recognises that alleviating poverty is a global responsibility, and depends on a global approach supported by both rich and poor nations;

(4) supports the call of the World Bank for wealthy nations to double their spending on foreign aid in order to cut extreme poverty in half; and

(5) wishes the conference every success in reaching consensus.

[Applause.]

Mr B G BELL: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with dismay that ANC MECs in Mpumalanga are being paid to live in their own homes, in contravention of the spirit of the Goldstone commission;

(2) further notes that the sports MEC has been paid at least R130 000 out of taxpayers’ money to live in his house over the past year and that the health MEC has been paid more than R122 000;

(3) expresses its concern at the Mpumalanga Speaker’s admission that taxpayers will have to pay for the housing of all provincial politicians who are not resident in Nelspruit; and

(4) believes that the ANC is ignoring the needs of the people of Mpumalanga when it squanders scarce resources to enrich ANC politicians.

[Interjections.]

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: 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) welcomes the opening, in Cape Town, of a facility with the capability of developing DNA tests for a host of inherited diseases among people predisposed to breast cancer, heart disease, deafness and other medical conditions that are difficult to treat;

(2) expresses its delight that now, in South Africa, Genecare Molecular Genetics Company will be doing DNA tests for inherited high cholesterol and blood iron overload and later a host of other tests, thus making genetic counselling possible and affordable, and opening room for insurance companies to access special testing for their applicants at an affordable cost;

(3) trusts that insurance companies will be circumspect in charging people who test positive and will not necessarily make them pay more exorbitant rates;

(4) requests the Minister of Health …

[Time expired.]

Mrs D G NHLENGETHWA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that Vuyani Sandile, a young man from an extremely disadvantaged background, graduated last week from the University of the Western Cape;

(2) further notes that Vuyani supported himself through his studies by selling goods from his shack, and walked 20 kilometres daily to attend classes at university;

(3) congratulates Vuyani on being awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree, and wishes him every success with his further studies towards a diploma in education; and

(4) calls on all ambitious school leavers to follow the example of Vuyani Sandile, who has overcome adversity through determination and hard work.

[Applause.]

Mnr J SCHIPPERS: Mev die Speaker, ek gee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag van die Huis namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) die multidissiplinêre taakspan wat in Kaapstad se hawe op 350 kg kokaïen beslag gelê het, gelukwens met hul puik ondersoekwerk;

(2) daarvan kennis neem dat die kokaïenvonds deel vorm van ‘n reeks suksesvolle beslagleggings op dwelms die afgelope tyd;

(3) verder kennis neem dat dwelmgebruik ‘n groot rol speel in die misdaadtendens in Suid-Afrika; en

(4) glo dat die enigste manier om dwelmhandel stop te sit, is om Suid- Afrika te vestig as ‘n land wat ‘n beleid van zero-toleransie teenoor dwelmhandel handhaaf, wat beteken dat daar onder andere strenger kontrole by hawens en lughawens ingestel en meer mannekrag aangestel moet word om dié sosiale euwel hok te slaan. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr J SCHIPPERS: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) congratulates the multidisciplinary task team which seized 350 kg of cocaine at Cape Town’s harbour on their excellent investigative work;

(2) notes that this cocaine find forms part of a series of successful drugs seizures recently;

(3) further notes that drug use plays a big role in the crime trend in South Africa; and

(4) believes that the only way to stop drug trafficking is to establish South Africa as a country which maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards drug trafficking, which means, inter alia, that tighter controls must be introduced at harbours and airports and more manpower appointed to combat this social evil.]

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the biggest drug bust to date in the Western Cape occurred over the weekend, seizing cocaine with an estimated street value of over R100 million;

(2) expresses the hope that the bust will be speedily followed by arrests and convictions of the perpetrators; (3) further notes the international co-operation that was a pivotal contributory factor leading to the success of this case; and

(4) calls on Government to create a national strategy to deal with trafficking and replace the current ad hoc approach, in order to stop the perpetrators from wrecking thousands of vulnerable lives.

                         NATIONAL WATER WEEK

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That the House -

(1) notes that this week is National Water Week which is celebrated under the banner: Our Water feeds our nation’s needs;

(2) recognises that it is appropriate that when we celebrate Human Rights Day we recall that millions of our people do not have access to clean, safe water, while millions are still without adequate sanitation;

(3) calls on all members of this House to encourage their constituencies to focus on the need to restore and preserve the integrity of this most precious resource, water; and

(4) calls on all South Africans to take responsibility to ensure that this scarce resource is managed in an effective and sustainable manner.

Agreed to.

                     CONGRATULATIONS TO PROTEAS

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mnr C H F GREYLING: Mevrou die Speaker, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:

Dat die Huis -

(1) die Proteas gelukwens met hul oorwinning en puik vertoning in die laaste wedstryd in die toetsreeks teen die Australiese krieketspan; en

(2) hulle ook alle sterkte toewens met die komende eendagwedstryde teen Australië. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)

[Mr C H F GREYLING: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) congratulates the Proteas on their victory and excellent performance in the last match in the test series against the Australian cricket team; and

(2) wishes them all the best in the upcoming one-day matches against Australia.]

Agreed to.

COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Madam Speaker, hon members, South Africa’s transition to democracy has confounded especially those whose thinking is dominated by stereotypes which associate the African continent with an innate propensity for failure.

When we assembled in this House on 8 May 1996, we once again made the point clear that our transition is not a miracle which happens despite the absence of human intentionality. On that day we took the momentous step of reaffirming that apartheid has passed into history. We adopted a Constitution which asserts a united, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa as a new cultural reality, a source of a new nationalism which is unificatory and emancipatory.

Section 185 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa enjoins us to enact a piece of legislation which provides for the establishment of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. The necessity for the Bill which is before the House derives from two realities, namely that our common nationhood will express itself within the paradigm of a nation state which is not one of ethnically, religiously and linguistically homogeneous entities. Secondly, that the majority of our linguistic and religious groups were historically subjected to suppression and consigned to varying degrees of obscurity.

Against that backdrop, this Bill cannot have any aim other than to take the logic of South Africa’s democratisation to its conclusion. Whilst it recognises and celebrates our diversity, the Bill also seeks to create conditions for us to overcome the legacy of division and inequality between communities. The mandate of the commission and that of the community councils revolves around these two imperatives.

A forward-looking undertaking such as this one is and will always be exposed to all manner of inertia. It is prone to fall victim to conservative elements of all colours, who are inclined to mobilise movements of ethnic identity which are based on reactions of fear. Such elements claim difference as a natural facet of society and use that thesis as a device to undermine society’s ability to mobilise for change.

The fact that the Bill is serving before the House eight years after the first democratic election and six years after we adopted our democratic Constitution is itself a reminder that we have not as yet become the rainbow people of God, at perfect harmony with each other. There are some amongst us who continue to feel that the new dispensation excludes them. This House is honour-bound to ensure that all our people are made to experience and enjoy equal access to national opportunities for development, individually and severally. The appropriate paradigm, therefore, for explaining this Bill is one which sees it not as an instrument for freezing the existing power imbalance, culturally and otherwise.

All of us, especially as lawmakers, must be uncomfortable in the face, for instance, of the persistence of a dispensation which privileges certain languages in parliamentary debates, as well as in the activities which take place in such realms as the public broadcaster. At the same time, we must guard against the emergence of many voices which demand autonomy in ways which undermine our collective development as a nation. As hon members know, there are other constitutional institutions and organs of state which also have the responsibility of promoting conditions which are favourable to the enjoyment of rights.

The commission visualised by this Bill is not a substitute for such other bodies, as they exist for that purpose. It will certainly work very closely with them. It will also have the responsibility, where appropriate, to assist cultural or other communities to initiate and establish a cultural or other council at the provincial or national level. This is subject to the proviso that such council or other body as may be established does not espouse a cause which is inimical to the values of peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among and within the different communities in South Africa.

The evolution of this Bill took a much longer time than was originally estimated. Care was taken to ensure that the Bill is a product of as extensive a process of consultation as is possible. A 15-person technical committee under the able leadership of Prof C N Marivate was established and charged with the responsibility of conducting consultations, which generated the material that will constitute and fortify the edifice which is about to rise on this site. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those 15 men and women who exhibited such impassioned dedication to our common country. I would also like to thank those officials in the Department of Provincial and Local Government who spent hours, weeks and months in the service of the technical task team, the Ministry and Cabinet. Last but not least, the portfolio committee, which has served all of us so well, deserves a special word of gratitude. As always, the committee proved adroit in its discharge of duty. I commend the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Bill to you. [Applause.]

Mr Y I CARRIM: Madam Speaker, Comrade Deputy President, comrades and friends, with the passing of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Bill, the last remaining institution supporting constitutional democracy provided for in the Constitution can now be established.

If the Bill has been a long time in coming, it is understandable. It deals, after all, with complex and sensitive issues relating to the expression of our diversity as part of our nation-building process. The Bill passed through an elaborate process in Parliament and, significantly, even before it was tabled before Parliament, the Ministry for and Department of Provincial and Local Government undertook an extensive three-year process of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. The process included consultative conferences, workshops, provincial public hearings and the establishment, as the Minister only a moment ago indicated, of a technical committee representative of key stakeholders to process earlier drafts of the Bill.

In fact, the process was so consultative that several key stakeholders decided not to participate in the parliamentary public hearings, because they felt that they had been given adequate opportunity to express their concerns.

The committee congratulates the Ministry and the department on the way they processed this Bill. Essentially, the role of the commission is to provide for the expression of cultural, religious and linguistic rights in a way that also fosters nation-building.

The commission can certainly serve to further consolidate our nonracial democracy. The significance of the commission has to be located in terms of the comprehensive and highly innovative negotiation process through which apartheid was overcome.

In order to ensure that a section of the Afrikaner community participated in the 1994 elections and the negotiations process, it was decided that the interim Constitution would recognise the rights of groups to seek territorial self-determination, and provided for a Volkstaat Council for Afrikaners specifically to pursue this through constitutional means.

Following two years of further negotiations in the Constitutional Assembly process, it was decided that the final constitution would, in addition to self-determination, recognise the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities and provide for a commission to further this as part of forging a sense of South African nationhood. This represented a shift in focus from territorial self-determination to community rights, and from white Afrikaners to all groups generally seeking community rights as part of a nation-building process. This can be seen as a shift from the divisive issues of race to the unifying issues of ethnicity, as was suggested a moment ago by the Minister himself.

Essentially, the commission is an outcome of two imperatives: firstly, of the need to take further the negotiations that brought a section of the Afrikaners into the new nonracial democracy; and, secondly, of the recognition that the ethnic and racial identities of the apartheid era cannot be attributed solely to the apartheid state’s social engineering, and that the nation-building process will have to take new forms of these identities into account. Fundamentally, then, this commission is as much for the Khoisan and Venda as for the Afrikaner, and for all as part of our overall nation-building process.

The essential features of the Bill include, firstly, that the commission, of between 11 and 17 members, be at least broadly representative of the main communities and gender, and collectively possess sufficient knowledge and experience of community rights and nation-building.

The second feature is that the commission is appointed by the President for five-year terms. The President appoints from a list submitted to him by an independent selection panel after it has considered nominations from the public. The third feature is that the commission gets a broad mandate from, and reports to, a national consultative conference held twice every five- year term. The fourth feature is that community councils may be established to promote the culture, language or religion of particular communities. Community councils make representations to the commission on their specific concerns.

In view of the nature of the issues being dealt with in the Bill and the fluidities of our transition, the portfolio committee sought to both provide greater clarity and avoid being unduly prescriptive. It sought to avoid either creating an overpowerful commission that manufactures issues to justify its existence, or providing an empty, symbolic, feel-good structure that is powerless to do anything effective.

Moreover, it is at the level of implementation that certain issues are best addressed. For example, how precisely will the community councils function? Community councils, moreover, will have to be constituted on the basis of cultural, religious and linguistic - not racial - criteria. How will this be ensured?

It would, in fact, seem more appropriate to place greater emphasis on the commission than on the community councils. Obviously, groups are free to form councils, but the commission will find it difficult to deal with too many councils, especially if they have overlapping constituencies.

Responding to councils based mainly on religion is likely to be particularly challenging. The commission and department might want to give consideration to providing guidelines on the formation and functioning of councils.

Further attention will also have to be given to the funding of community councils. The portfolio committee recognised that there could be overlaps between the powers and functions of the commission and other institutions, including the Human Rights Commission, the Pan South African Language Board, the National House of Traditional Leaders and the Commission for Gender Equality. The committee is also aware that questions are being raised about how productive and efficient some of these institutions are, and whether the country, with its limited resources and many challenges, can afford to have so many constitutional institutions. The portfolio committee believes that these issues should be carefully considered at some appropriate stage.

Within the prescripts of the Constitution, the portfolio committee sought to define a specific role for the commission and to encourage it to co- operate effectively with other institutions. However, it is in the practical implementation of the Bill that certain issues around the specific role of the commission, its co-operation with other institutions and its productivity and effectiveness will be addressed. We urge the department and the commission-to-be to ensure that these issues are appropriately dealt with. We will certainly be monitoring the process.

As I conclude, I would like to express appreciation for all the co- operation members of the committee, from all parties, offered in processing this Bill. Our appreciation also extends to the Minister, the Deputy Minister, Johan Beukman, Pietra Bouwer and Zam Titus, in his new role as ministerial adviser, in which we wish him well. Research assistants Chris Sibanyoni and Debhi Hene have also been very helpful.

In many senses, the proposed commission is unique. There are few, if any, parallels for it anywhere in the world. The commission will face many challenges. If the commission is effective, it will represent a significant further step in the consolidation of the process of our transition from a divided past to a common future that acknowledges both our diversity and unity. We wish the commission well. [Applause.]

Mnr G A J GROBLER: Mev die Speaker, dié konsepwetgewing wat vandag hier gedebatteer word, is die laaste van die hoofstuk 9-instellings soos vereis word ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Hierdie konsepwetgewing voor ons vandag sou ook heel waarskynlik in die kinderskoenetyd van ons jong demokrasie baie meer emosioneel gedebatteer gewees het, as wat die geval nou is toe alle belangegroepe die geleentheid gehad het om voorleggings aan die komitee te doen. Nie een keer het ek die gevoel gehad dat daar in die komitee deur ‘n enkele politieke groepering geïsoleerd na sy of haar groep se belange gekyk is nie. Wedersydse respek vir mekaar se kulturele, godsdienstige of taalregte het deurentyd soos ‘n goue draad deur die onderhandelings geloop. Daar was uit die aard van die saak klemverskille oor sekere aspekte. In sommige gevalle is toegewings gemaak en in ander gevalle was daar groter aanpassing. Wetgewing, dink ek, is daar om sake te orden.

Ek wil graag enkele gedagtes wissel rondom begrippe soos deur die Grondwet voorgeskryf, waaraan hierdie wet moet voldoen. Begrippe soos respek, vrede, verdraagsaamheid, niediskriminasie, vryheid van assosiasie is maar enkele hiervan. Respek moet verdien word. Ons kan nie ‘n wet daarvoor hê nie. Wat vrede betref, kan wette alleen nie vrede bevorder nie. Ons het gesien wat gebeur noord met ons bure.

Verdraagsaamheid word nie deur wette alleen gebring nie. Niediskriminasie en vryheid van assosiasie is twee belangrike begrippe. Hier kan mens net terug dink aan die drakoniese wette van die NP; wette wat eindelose ellende te weeg gebring het en mense se menswaardigheid aangetas het. Mense se gesindhede teenoor mekaar moet die hoeksteen vorm van dit wat ons met hierdie konsepwetgewing wil bereik.

Ek wil graag ‘n voorbeeld voorhou van ‘n positiewe gesindheid teenoor ‘n negatiewe gesindheid. Ek vat dieselfde situasie wat radikaal verskil, as die gesindheid nie reg is nie. Ek neem die volgende voorbeeld: Die een verkoopsman gaan na ‘n deel van Afrika om skoene te bemark. Hy kom in die gebied waar mense nie skoene dra nie. Hy skakel sy hoof en sê dat hy dadelik terugkom, want die mense daar dra nie skoene nie. Later gaan ‘n ander verkoopsman na dieselfde gebied. Hy skakel dadelik sy hoof en vra hulle moet nog ‘n besending van ‘n duisend paar skoene stuur, want die mense daar dra nie skoene nie. Dit is die verskil in gesindheid oor dieselfde situasie.

Die amptelike opposisie gee erkenning aan die reg van die individu om hom of haar te vereenselwig met die taal, godsdienstige of kulturele groep van sy keuse. Daarom is daar nie probleme met enige wetgewing wat sake wil orden nie. Vir die DA gaan dit meer om die vryheid van die individu en sy reg tot die vryheid van assosiasie. Wetgewing alleen kan nie sukses waarborg nie.

Uit hierdie drie fasette wat hierdie konsepwetgewing aanspreek, wil ek graag as gevolg van ‘n gebrek aan tyd miskien net een uitlig, en dit is naamlik die taal - en meer bepaald Afrikaans. Wat het gebeur toe die NP met wetgewing Afrikaans in mense se kele wou afdruk? Ek hoef nie eens daarop uit te brei nie. Die Huis weet wat die gevolge daarvan was in 1976. Vandag staan Afrikaans langs al die ander tien tale en kry dit die respek wat dit verdien. Afrikaans het ‘n konstitusionele reg om soos Zoeloe, Xhosa of Engels, om maar ‘n paar te noem, sy plek in die Republiek vol te staan. Soos my kollegas in die Parlement hulle eie tale in debatte gebruik, is dit vandag hier my voorreg en reg om my huistaal te gebruik.

So is dit ook die reg van ander tale. My plig as Afrikaanssprekende is om so teenoor anderstaliges op te tree dat ek respek afdwing en daardeur ‘n gesindheid kweek wat ten doel het om met die verskeidenheid van ons mense in hierdie land ‘n trotse Suid-Afrikaanse nasie te help bou. Ek wil ook ander voorbeelde natuurlik noem van ons Afrikaanse taal: Mooiheid. Ek wil dit aan die agb lede voorhou. Afrikaans is die enigste taal in Afrika wat die woord Afrika'' in sy naam het. Afrikaans het pragtige begrippe en uitdrukkings, pragtige woorde soos alle ander tale. Een so 'n woord is bedreigde spesie’’. Daar aan my linkerhand sit so ‘n groepie. Reddingsboei'' - hulle het hul reddingsboei, ons het 'n reddingsboei aangebied, maar hulle het besluit om af te spring. Hulle is nousoos visse op droë grond’’. Afrikaans as ‘n jong, dinamiese, lewende taal leen ook woorde uit ander tale, soos knopkierie'' entaxi’’.

Kom ons gebruik vandag ‘n nuwe woord in die Afrikaanse taal en dit is ``toffie’’. Dit is ‘n mooi Afrikaanse woord. Kom ons gebruik hom en ek wil net verduidelik hoe ek dit kan gebruik. As die leier van die groepie van 28 hom vir ‘n toffie wil uitgee, dan moet hy weet, hy gaan gekou word. Hulle moet miskien daaraan dink. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr G A J GROBLER: Madam Speaker, this draft legislation which is being debated here today is the last of the Chapter 9 institutions as required in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This draft legislation before us today would also most probably have been far more emotionally debated in the infancy of our young democracy than was the case now when all interest groups had the opportunity to make submissions to the committee. Not once did I get the feeling in the committee that a single political grouping looked at his or her group’s interests in isolation. Mutual respect for one another’s cultural, religious or linguistic rights consistently ran through the negotiations like a golden thread. Naturally, there were differences in emphasis with regard to certain aspects. In some cases concessions were made and in other cases there was greater adjustment. I think that legislation is there to organise matters.

I would like to share a few thoughts around concepts as prescribed by the Constitution, which this Act has to measure up to. Concepts like respect, peace, tolerance, nondiscrimination, and freedom of association are but a few of these. Respect has to be earned. We cannot have an Act for it. As far as peace is concerned, Acts alone cannot promote peace. We have seen what has happened to the north of us with our neighbours.

Tolerance is not brought about by Acts alone. Nondiscrimination and freedom of association are two important concepts. Here one need just think back to the draconian Acts of the NP; Acts which brought about endless misery and violated people’s human dignity. People’s attitudes towards one another must form the cornerstone of what we want to achieve with this draft legislation. I would like to present an example of a positive attitude as opposed to a negative attitude. I will use the same situation which differs radically if the attitude is not right. I am going to use the following example: One salesman goes to a part of Africa to market shoes. He arrives in an area where people do not wear shoes. He phones his manager and says that he is returning immediately, because the people there do not wear shoes. Later another salesman goes to the same area. He immediately phones his manager and asks them to send another consignment of a thousand pairs of shoes, because the people there do not wear shoes. This is a difference in attitude in the same situation.

The official opposition recognises the right of the individual to identify himself or herself with the linguistic, religious or cultural group of his or her choice. For that reason there is no problem with any legislation which wants to organise matters. For the DA the issue is more about the freedom of the individual and his right to freedom of association. Legislation alone cannot guarantee success.

Out of these three facets which are addressed by this draft legislation, as a result of a lack of time I would perhaps just like to highlight one and that is language - and more specifically Afrikaans. What happened when the NP wanted to force Afrikaans down people’s throats by way of legislation? I do not even need to elaborate on that. The House knows what the consequences of that were in 1976. Today Afrikaans stands alongside the other ten languages and receives respect which it deserves. Afrikaans has a constitutional right, as does Zulu, Xhosa or English, to mention but a few, to take its place in the Republic. As my colleagues in Parliament use their own languages in debates, it is my privilege and my right to use my home language here today.

In the same way it is also the right of other languages. My duty as an Afrikaans speaker is to behave in such a way towards those who speak other languages that I earn respect and in so doing nurture an attitude which aims to help build a proud South African nation with the diversity of our people in this country. Of course I would also like to mention other examples of our Afrikaans language: beauty. I want to present this to the hon members. Afrikaans is the only language in Africa which has the word Afrika'' [Africa] in its name. Afrikaans has beautiful concepts and expressions, beautiful words like all other languages. One such expression is bedreigde spesie’’ [endangered species]. There on my left side sits such a group. Reddingsboei'' [lifebuoy] - they have their lifebuoy, we offered them a lifebuoy, but they decided to jump off. They are nowsoos visse op droeë grond’’ [like fish out of water]. Afrikaans as a young, dynamic, living language also borrows words from other languages, such as knopkierie'' [knobkierie] andtaxi’’.

Today let us use a new word in the Afrikaans language and that is ``toffie’’ [toffee]. It is a fine Afrikaans word. Let us use it and I would just like to explain how I can use it. If the leader of the group of 28 wants to make himself out to be a toffee, then he must know, he is going to get chewed. They should perhaps think about that.]

So when we started deliberating the Bill on the Commission for the Promotion and the Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities some time ago, one was not sure how the attitude of members of the committee and the institution was going to be. This is one of the so-called emotional Bills. We all know that wherever cultural, religious or linguistic issues are debated, it can become very emotional. However, as we proceeded in our discussions and deliberations, it became very clear that all individuals, organisations and committee members realised the seriousness of this Bill. Not once did my colleague, Gloria Borman, and myself, as committee members, experience any animosity among any individual members or political parties.

As stated in our Constitution, the primary objects of this Bill are to enable the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities to promote respect for the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities, as well as develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural groups and other groups. A very important objective, according to the official opposition, is that it must be based on equality and nondiscrimination, and must accommodate freedom of association. It is not always possible to keep every individual or group satisfied with the Bill when it comes to the three most important aspects, namely language, culture and religion, that rule the lives of individuals in any community.

Since the beginning of the deliberations sacrifices had to be made by all political groupings on various clauses in the Bill. The DA is still not satisfied with the clauses on the appointment of the chairperson of the commission. As it stands now, it is in the hands of the President to appoint the chairperson for this commission, that is to be established, from the 11 to 17 members of the commission. We honestly feel that a chairperson must be appointed from one of the members of the commission.

Although we agree with Clause 12(2) in that the person appointed as the chairperson must be a fit and proper person to hold the office as chairperson, we are not of the opinion that this is the correct way to elect a chairperson. It will be a tragic day if none of the members of the commission elected is a fit and proper person to fill this role as chairperson.

The official opposition, although not a hundred per cent in agreement with every clause, nevertheless supports the Bill. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, the hon Ntombela is to give her maiden speech. [Applause.] Mftsn S H NTOMBELA: Sebui sa Palamente, motlatsi wa Mopresidente, mahatammoho, ka setshwantsho sena sa molao, Aforika Borwa e matlafatsa bomampodi ba yona kahong le ntjhafatsong ya setjhaba. Ke ka hoo ANC e amohelang setshwantsho sena sa nakwana ka matsoho a mabedi. Setshwantsho sena sa molao sa nakwana, se tswalwa ke karolo ya borobong molaong wa motheo wa naha. Ka hoo setshwantsho sena ke sa bohlokwa hobane se bontsha maikemisetso le boitelo ba mmuso ka setjhaba.

Motsotso wa jwale ke wa bohlokwa ho ba le maano ao re ka a sebedisang ho kopanya merabe e fapaneng naheng ya rona. Ke na le tshepo le bonnete ba hore ho fetisa setshwantsho sena tsatsing lena, e tla be e le tlotla e kgolo setjhabeng sa AforikaBorwa. Bonneteng, ena ke ketso e tla beng e aha setjhaba sa Aforika Borwa se kopaneng. Ka hoo ena ke teko e kgolo ho rarolla diphapang pakeng tsa ba hatelletsweng le bahlekefetsi ba bona.

He! re se lebaleng hle, the Colonial conquest naheng ya rona e tlisitse mathata a karolo di pedi. Ya pele, e kopantse merabe yohle naheng ya rona, ya bobedi, ene e sebedisa bahatelli ho tlisa phapang merabeng e neng e leka ho kopana, hore ho hang e se kopane. Ha re hopoleng dintwa tsa merabe tse neng di le teng, tse tlisitsweng ke ona moelelo ona. Re jere mehwabadi ya nako tseo re le tjena. Le ha re ba tshwaretse, empa ha re eso lebale, ebile re ke ke ra lebala. Moetsi oa lebala, moetsuwa ha a lebale.

Ke hopola ka nako e nngwe ha ke qeta lengolo la ka la bosuwetsana, ke ilo batla mosebetsi ke thabile, ha ke fihla ho mohatelli eo ya neng a tshwere ka nako eo, potso ya pele eo a ileng a mpotsa yona ke hore, o kena kereke efe?'' Ke ile ka makala hore jwale kereke e kena kae mona. A ba a e bea hantle ho nna a e netefatsa hore,ha o sa kene NG Kerk in Afrika, jy gaan nie die werk kry nie.’’ Ho ne ho sena seo nka se etsang, ke ile ka ba tlameha ho kena NG Kerk hore ke thole mosebetsi.

Hape ha o sheba ditulong tsa rona moo re neng re dula teng, ho ne ho ena le merabe eo re neng re fapantswe ka yona. Ho ne ho na le ka Mazulung, ho na le ka Basothong. Ho ne ho sa dumellwe le ka mohla o le mong hore o yo kena sekolo ka Mazulung ha o le Mosotho, le Mazulu a ne a sa dumellwe hore a yo kena sekolo ka Basothong. Le ya tseba he, lona ba nang le mehwabadi hore ho ne ho etsahalang ha o ka etsa jwalo. Bahatelli ba rona, ba mamiella, ba re arola ha bohloko, ba re etsetsa diBantu Stan, Mazulu Kwazulu Natala, Batswana Bophuthatswana, Basotho Qwaqwa, jwalojwalo ho ya ka merabe ho fapana.

Rona Basotho, re ne re fuwa dithothokiso tse neng re di rutwa re sa le dihlopheng tse nyane ho tloha dihlopheng tsa pele, tseo ho tsona re neng re bontshwa hore Qwaqwa ke lehae la rona batho ba batsho. Ho na le thothokiso e neng ere;

Ha e le tsotsi ha e yo Qwaqwa Dumela, Qwaqwa, naha ya Basotho.

Ke mang Mosotho ya neng a keke a rata ho ya moo ho se nang tsotsi, ke mang ya neng a ke ke a rata ho ya ho Qwaqwa e dumediswang ha monate hakana? Yona ntho eo, ba ne ba o fa yona o sa le monyane, hore o hole ka yona hore ha o le Mosotho, o tsebe hore Qwaqwa ke naha ya hao ya Mosotho.

Yona ntho ena, ke yona e bakileng temalo e kgolo setjhabeng sa rona, le kajeno ho na le masalla a merabe kelellong tsa babang, motlatsi wa Moporesidente. Ntho eo, e lemaditse batho ba Aforika Borwa dikelello.

Ntho eo ke e ratang ke hore ha mmoho le bona bahlekefetsi bana ba rona, le bona ba lemetse dikelello ke ntho eo. Re tshwanetse sebui ho dumela hore ho ya ka leano la rona la ho aha setjhaba, re tshehetse setshwantsho sena, re se amohele hore mahlong a Modimo re ntho ele nngwe. Mme re fela re tshwanetse ho dula Aforika Borwa bohle le ha re fapane ka merabe. Mohlala: o ka ba moZulu, moSotho, mo Afrikanere o wa Aforika Borwa.

O ka nna wa ba moHindu, wa dumela tumelong ya boHindu, wa ba moIndia wa dumela tumelong ya maIndia, hoo ha se letho, ebile ha se taba hobane o ntse o le moAfrika. Phapang ena ya merabe eo ke buang ka yona ke yona he, eo khomishene ena e tshwanetseng ho e fihlella.

Khomishene ena eo eleng phephetso ho rona hore re ananele, re e amohele ka matsoho a mofuthu, ho sa kgathaletsehe hore na o wa mokgatlo ofe, e hlahella karolong ya borobong ya molaotheo wa naha, eleng e nngwe ya ditshiya tse tsheletseng tsa demokrasi eleng tsena: Mosireletsi wa Setjhaba, Khomeshene ya Ditokelo tsa Batho, Khomeshene ya Tekano ya Bong, Auditor-general le Khomeshene ya tsa Dikgetho. (Translation of Sotho paragraphs follows.)

[Madam Speaker, Deputy President, colleagues, with this Bill South Africa is strengthening its potential in reconstructing and building our nation. That is why the ANC totally accepts this Bill. This Bill emanates from Chapter nine of this country’s Constitution. This Bill is very important because it shows the determination and sacrifice by the Government for the nation.

This moment is very important with regard to using all the methods of uniting different races in our country. I trust and believe that passing this Bill today will be a great honour for our South African nation. Truly, this Act will build a united South Africa. This is a great challenge to solve the differences between the oppressed and their oppressors.

Let us please not forget how the colonial conquest brought two problems to our country. Firstly, it separated the races in our country and, secondly, it used the oppressors to bring conflicts between races that were trying to be united, to ensure that they would never unite. We can remember racial wars that were brought about by this ideology and we are still bearing scars from those times. Even though we have forgiven, we have not forgotten, and we will never forget. The perpetrator forgets, but the victim never does.

I remember when I completed my teaching course; I happily went to apply for a job, but when I arrived there, the oppressor who was in charge at that time asked me this question, To which church do you belong?'' I was very surprised as to how relevant the church was in this. He explained to me and confirmed thatIf you are not a member of the NG Church, you are not going to get this job.’’ There was nothing I could do. I was then forced to join the NG Church in Africa in order to get the job.

If one can remember how we were separated in our black townships, there were Zulu sections, Sotho sections, etc. One would never be allowed to attend school in a Zulu section if one were not Zulu, and the Zulu people were not allowed to attend school in the Basotho section. Those who have scars from those times know what would happen if one were to disobey those laws. Our oppressors continued to separate us by making the so-called Bantustans, meaning that Zulu people went to KwaZulu-Natal, Tswana people to Bophuthatswana, the Basotho to Qwaqwa, and so forth according to different races. We, the Basotho, would sometimes be taught poems from lower grades in which we were shown that Qwaqwa was a homeland for us, black people. There was a poem that read:

Ha e le tsotsi ha e yo Qwaqwa. [There is no ciminal in Qwaqwa.] Dumela, Qwaqwa, naha ya Basotho. [Hello, Qwaqwa, the Basotho homeland.]

Is there any Sotho person who would not like to go where there is no crime, who would not want to go to Qwaqwa, the place that is saluted like this? This is what they would give one, from an early stage, so that it could be implanted in one’s mind that Qwaqwa is a homeland for the Basotho.

This is what caused the damage in our society; even today, racial attitudes still remain in some people’s minds. That has damaged South Africans’ minds. What I like is that even the perpetrators themselves have suffered mental damage as a result. We have reason to believe that according to our nation-building plan we must support this Bill and accept that in God’s eyes we are one. We must accept that we all deserve to stay in South Africa, irrespective of our cultural differences, ie whether one is a Zulu, a Sotho, or an Afrikaner, one is a South African.

One may be a Hindu and believe in Hinduism, or be an Indian and believe in the Indian religion; that does not matter because one is still an African. This cultural diversity of which I am speaking is what should be accomplished by this commission.

This commission, which is a challenge for us to endorse and accept wholeheartedly, irrespective of organisational diversities, is found in Chapter nine of the national Constitution and is one of the six pillars of democracy, the other five of which are the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Gender Equality, the Auditor-general and the Electoral Commission.]

The Bill specifically requires that this commission should co-operate with other constitutional institutions and other organs of state. The Bill provides that the composition and membership of the commission should broadly reflect the gender composition of South Africa, amongst other things. It further provides that any institution that sends more than one delegate to the consultative conference must give due consideration to gender balance in the selection of candidates.

These are very important provisions. But, for me, the critical provision is the one that requires that the nomination for membership of the commission and participation in the national consultative conference be supported by particulars of the nominee’s knowledge and experience.

Some consideration should be applied when interpreting this clause to avoid disqualifying women from participating effectively in this commission, because I know this can happen.

Although the knowledge and experience of women is, most of the time, not gained through formal education, it should be taken into consideration. Women gain knowledge and experience from being integral parts of their communities. Women were never affected by migratory laws like the migrant labour system that made blacks, and, in particular, African men, leave their families to find work far away from their homes. When this happened, most villages would be left in the care of women who would take care of the children, see to it that the fields were ploughed and the livestock looked after.

This, in essence, gives women special knowledge and experience that could add value to the work of this commission, and this includes the national consultative conference and activities in the community councils that the Bill envisages.

Sepheo se seholo ke ho elelliswa batho ba Aforikaborwa ho hlompha botjhaba le borabe ba ditjhaba tse ding, le ho tlisa kgotso, setswalle, lerato, mamellano, kopano setjhabeng. Re ne re ke ke ra tswella ha re so etse bonnete ba hore re lokisa diphapang tse teng Aforikaborwa yohle. Ke boikarabello he, ba khomishene ena, ho sireletsa botjhaba kapa borabe lebitsong la ho aha setjhaba ka kakaretso. Kgomo tseo le manamane a tsona! [Ditlatse.] (Translation of Sotho paragraph follows.)

[The main purpose is to make South Africans aware that they need to respect traditions and cultures of other national groups, as well as bring about peace, friendship, love, tolerance and unity amongst the people. We could not succeed without making sure that we address the differences that are dominant throughout the country. It is therefore this commission’s responsibility to protect culturalism or traditionalism for the sake of building the nation in general. [Applause.]]

Mr P UYS: Madam Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Minister and hon members, this Bill satisfies one of the last outstanding legislative obligations imposed by the Constitution, and represents a further step in our collective efforts to consolidate a culture of tolerance, democracy and human rights. The long expected tabling of this Bill is welcomed.

Hoofstuk 9 van die Grondwet maak voorsiening vir ‘n kommissie wat na die regte van die gemeenskappe moet omsien en gaan van die aanname uit dat die behoorlike akkommodering van kultuur, godsdiens en taalgemeenskappe ‘n grondliggende voorvereiste is vir ‘n demokratiese bestel. Die Kommissie vir die Bevordering en Beskerming van die Regte van Kulturele, Godsdienstige en Taalgemeenskappe soos vervat in die wetsontwerp kan ‘n sleutelrol speel in die uitbou van ‘n ware, verenigde Suid-Afrikaanse nasie wat saamgevoeg word deur ‘n lojaliteit vir ons land en sy mense. Die kommissie is onafhanklik en moet sy magte en funksies onpartydig, sonder vrees, begunstiging of vooroordele uitoefen. Die eienskappe van vrede, vriendskap, menslikheid, verdraagsaamheid en nasionale eenheid tussen en in die onderskeie gemeenskappe op die basis van gelykheid, niediskriminasie en vrye assosiasie moet bevorder word. Hier sal die gemeenskapsrade wat deur die kommissie geïnisieer en erken kan word en wat ook ‘n vrywillige assosiasie van persone of gemeenskapsorganisasies is, ‘n belangrike skakel met die gemeenskap wees.

Hierdie wetsontwerp handel primêr oor die totstandkoming van die kommissie en ook die verantwoordelikhede van hierdie kommissie. Kommissies in die algemeen kan waardevolle werk doen, maar hulle kan ook baie maklik plaasvervangers word vir die demokrasie en hierteen moet gewaak word. Die voordeel is egter dat kommissies, ondanks sekere beperkinge wat mag bestaan, kan help om die publiek en die polisie se aandag te vestig en te fokus op daardie sake wat moontlik andersins verwaarloos kan word.

Daar is egter geen waarborg dat die gees waarbinne die Grondwet en hierdie wetsontwerp opgestel is, in die praktyk sal heers nie. Dit wil voorkom asof veral die taalwaarborge van die Grondwet nie behoorlik gerespekteer word nie. Dit kan genoem word dat munisipaliteite gereeld die taalgebruik en voorkeure van inwoners ignoreer. Die planne byvoorbeeld van die Kaapse stadsraad en hul stadsbestuur om Engels as die enigste gebruikstaal in die stadsadministrasie te vestig, is kortsigtig om die minste te sê. Vir die oorwegend Afrikaans- en Xhosasprekende bevolking van die Wes-Kaap is dit ‘n growwe skending van hul taalregte.

Hierdie voorgestelde kommissie sal in die uitoefening van sy verantwoordelikhede ten minste die volgende breë benadering in ag moet neem: Kultuurgemeenskappe moet maksimum ruimte en geleentheid gegun word om hul identiteit uit te leef en hul tradisies te koester. Alle gemeenskappe se reg op gelyke behandeling moet erken en uitgeleef word. Alle gemeenskappe behoort aanvaar te word as gewaardeerde boustene vir die bou van ‘n oorkoepelende nasie. Nasiebou moet ‘n prioriteit wees. Simbole, gemeenskapswaardes en doelwitte waarmee almal hul moet kan vereenselwig, moet ontwikkel word as sement wat alle gemeenskappe bind. Suid-Afrikaners sal moet leer om na mekaar te luister.

Ons moet ‘n klimaat in Suid-Afrika skep waar geen kultuurgroep vervreem of bedreig voel in sy eie land nie. Ons moet in ‘n oop gesprek betrokke raak oor die uitdagings van ons taal en ‘n kultuurverskeidenheid aan al sy burgers.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Chapter 9 of the Constitution makes provision for a commission which should see to the rights of the communities and assumes that the proper accommodation of cultural, religious and linguistic communities is a fundamental prerequisite for a democratic dispensation. The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities as contained in this Bill could play a key role in the building of a truly united South African nation that is bound by a loyalty for our country and its people.

The commission is independent and should perform its powers and functions in an impartial manner, without fear, favour or prejudice. The qualities of peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among and within the different communities on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association should be promoted. Here the community councils who can be initiated and acknowledged by the commission and who are also a voluntary association of people or community organisations, could be an important link with the community.

This Bill deals primarily with the establishment of the commission as well as the responsibilities of this commission. Commissions in general can do valuable work, but they can easily become substitutes for democracy and we should guard against this. The advantage is, however, that commissions, despite certain limitations with regard to power, could help to draw the attention of the public and the police and to focus on such matters which could possibly otherwise be neglected.

There is, however, no guarantee that the spirit in which the Constitution and this Bill was drafted would prevail in practice. It does seem as if the language guarantees of the Constitution are not being respected properly. It could be mentioned that municipalities regularly ignore the languages spoken and language preferences of inhabitants. The plans, for example, of the Cape City Council and their city management to establish English as the only language used in the city administration is shortsighted to say the least. For the predominantly Afrikaans and Xhosa speaking population of the Western Cape this is a gross violation of their language rights.

This proposed commission, in exercising its responsibilities should at least take the following broad approach into consideration: Cultural communities should be granted maximum room and opportunity to live out their identity and to cherish their traditions. All communities’ right to equal treatment should be acknowledged and realised. All communities should be accepted as valued building blocks for the building of an umbrella nation. Nation-building should be a priority. Symbols, community values and goals with which everyone can identify should be developed as cement which binds all communities. South Africans will have to learn to listen to one another.

We should create a climate in South Africa where no cultural group will feel alienated or threatened in his own country. In an open debate we should become involved with the challenges of our language and the cultural diversity of all our citizens.]

South Africa’s successes and failures are going to depend on implementing efforts aimed constantly at reassessing constitutional democracy.

Die NNP wil die agb Minister en die lede van die departement wat hard gewerk het, geluk wens met die sensitiewe wyse waarop hulle oor die afgelope drie jaar gekonsulteer en hierdie wetsontwerp ontwikkel het. Voorspoed aan die ter stigte kommissie. Die NNP steun die wetsontwerp. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The NNP would like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the members of the department, who worked so hard, on the sensitive manner with which they consulted and developed this Bill over the past three years. Good luck to the commission to be established. The NNP supports these Bill. [Applause.]]

Mr J J KGARIMETSA: Madam Speaker, Deputy President, Minister Mufamadi and hon members, the ANC-led Government has made significant changes since 1994 and is still speeding up its efforts to restore the dignity of the people and communities of South Africa. The past policies of the colonial and apartheid regimes created divisions and inequality between the different communities by uplifting the cultures of the minority groups at the expense of other cultures. The White Paper on the role of the traditional leaders and institutions is to be released. The formalisation of the important issue of traditional leaders would be another milestone in restoring the lives and dignity of people and communities in South Africa.

The establishment of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities in the process of restoring people’s dignity and respect in our country adds meaning to the process of transformation.

One of the objectives of this Bill is to establish community councils that will work hand in glove with the commission in its promotion and protection of the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities. The creation of community councils and the advisory role declared in the process of promoting and protecting these rights should be seen in the context of participatory governance, which is the cornerstone of the democratic role of this Government.

The Bill envisages that such community councils will be representative. Communities are challenged by this Bill to form groupings that cut across diverse cultures in terms of religion, language and gender.

The Bill encourages the cross-cultural groupings at the community level and deliberately avoids ethnic-based structures, and this is done in the interests of nation-building, to which my colleagues have already alluded. Through cross-cultural community councils, the Bill hopes to provide space for the expression of different cultures while giving people an opportunity to experience other cultures and create harmony.

The participation of community councils in the national consultative conference is also provided for in the Bill. This is to ensure the effective participation of communities in decision-making processes, an important aspect of participatory governance. But what is significant is that communities will be afforded an opportunity to display and showcase their different cultures at the conference, while also experiencing other cultures of our society. This will be nation-building in action. It is emphasised that the conference will avoid an academic character of unending discussion and theorising. Instead, a people-friendly environment will be created. In essence, it is the commission that has to take major responsibility to manage diversity as part of the nation-building process. The work of the community councils has to be located in the context of the work of the commission as a whole.

Se monate se ingwaelwa. Dintswanyana di bonwa mabotobotong. Boleng ba komisi e, ke go leka go tlhotlhora dithole le go roka makgege a a kileng a nna teng mo ditsong tsa semorafe ka go farologana mo Aforika Borwa wa maloba, o o neng o tletse tlhaolele. Gareng ga tse dingwe, komisi e ikaelela go godisa tekatekano, go tlisa kagiso le go godisa kopano le kutlwano mo dikgatlhegelong tsa ditso go ya ka merafe e e farologaneng mo nageng ya rona ya Aforika Borwa. Kutlwano ke maatla. [Legofi.]

Keletso ya komisi e ke gore e nne le maatla godimo ga khansele ya bosetshaba, e be e kgone go diragatsa ditiro tsa yona e sa tshosediwe e bile e sa tsee letlhakore mo go rarabololeng mathata otlhe a a amang ditso tsa merafe ka go farologana. Ditiro tsa komisi e, re di bone sentle, e se re gongwe ra sugela kobo le leswe, ra fitlhela maleme kgotsa ditso tse dingwe di gatelela tse dingwe, e nna bogomang ka nna.

Ntlha ya boagi le yona e elwe tlhoko, gonne batho ba bangwe ba nna ngatana e le nngwe ka boagi. Selo seo se ka dira gore merafe e e palonnye jaaka Maindia ba iphitlhele e kete bona ga ba na kemedi mo khanseleng ya bosetshaba. Kemedi e emela botlhe le dintlha tsa bona mo khonferenseng e. Dintlha e nna tsa kakaretso.

Maleme a mangwe kgotsa merafe e mengwe yona e a bo e tlile go re sia, e ja maleme a mangwe ka dijabana. [Legofi.] Nnyaa, ga re dire jalo; ga se se se tshotsweng ke komisi e. Rre motlotlegi Tona Mufamadi o sa tswa go tlhalosa gore boineelo ka fa tlase ga khonferense ya bosetshaba bo kopanelwe. Go se ka ga nna le ba ba bonalang go feta ba bangwe. Re se ka ra patikana kgotsa ra gatelela ba bangwe, mme re akaretse botlhe ka gore mo khanseleng e ya bosetshaba re batla kemedi e e rileng mme e nne yona e tsayang ditshwaelo le dikeletso tsa merafe yotlhe e e leng foo.

Ke sa tswa go bua gore ga go na ope o komisi e ka mo latlhelang ka kwa ntle. Ga go na ope yo o latlhelwang mo dinakeng tsa kukama. (Translation of Tswana paragraphs follows.)

[It is good to do something for oneself. The objective of this commission is to enhance unity in different and diverse South African cultures which were riddled with discriminatory tendencies. Amongst other things, the commission aims to promote equality and to bring about peace and unity in the interests of our various cultures in South Africa. Unity is power. [Applause.]

It is in the interest of the commission to have more powers than the national council, in order to perform its duties without any intimidation, or without being biased in resolving the problems faced by our different cultures. We should guard against being biased as a commission, and avoid a situation in which some cultures oppress others.

We should also take the issue of ethnicity into consideration, because people are sometimes united by that. This may make minority races such as the Indians feel that they are not properly represented in the national council. This council represents all people and their interests at this conference.

Other languages and people will be pushed aside. [Applause.] No, that is not the right way to go. That is not in the interests of this commission. Hon Minister Mufamadi has just explained that dedication under the national council should be a shared responsibility. Some people should not be more visible than others. Let us not oppress each other, because this national council would like to achieve a certain representivity in order to represent the people’s recommendations and interests.

I have just mentioned that there is no one who will be sidelined by the commission. No one will be left on their own.]

It is also important to note that one of the important purposes of the national consultative conference is the evaluation of progress in South Africa. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, one of the objects of the Bill we are discussing today is to promote and develop peace and national unity among communities. I am of the opinion that this Bill is going to interfere with the peaceful co-existence that already exists among religious communities.

The fact that no religious community in this country has ever objected to, for example, the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, could change as a result of this Bill. What would happen if such objections started coming to the commission or any of its councils? Will this organ of state interfere in such matters? In the event of this, would Parliament not be creating an official platform for confrontation and conflict to develop in future?

On Wednesday, 12 March, I asked the Deputy President why a secular state would want to develop and promote unity among peaceful religious communities? I also asked him whether this was an attempt to form one universal religion in this country, as I cannot see what would necessitate such an objective. I wish to hear what the Minister is going to say about this.

The power to be granted to the commission to summons a person to give evidence is worrisome, as it is subject to abuse. Section 41(e)(ii) makes it an offence to refuse to answer any question asked by this commission. What about the constitutional right to remain silent?

It does not make sense that the police are required, by law, to tell any suspect they have arrested, even for a serious crime, that they have the right to be silent and warn them against incriminating themselves by their statements, whereas this commission is empowered to institute legal action against anyone who chooses to remain silent. Why is this commission empowered to monitor and investigate religious communities, among others?

The ACDP will vote against this Bill, as we see no advantage in it for churches, Christian leaders and organisations. We advise Government not to interfere in the legal and legitimate affairs of the churches, Christian organisations and NGOs. We also warn them against any form of intrusion that would violate their constitutional right to freedom of belief, opinion and expression. [Interjections.]

According to section 41(e), the commission can recommend … [Time expired.]

Dr C P MULDER: Mevrou die Speaker, agb Adjunkpresident, agb Minister. Die bepalings in die Grondwet vir die daarstelling van hierdie kommissie is destyds die VF voorgestel en so ook aanvaar. Die VF sal nie die instelling en werksaamhede van hierdie artikel 185-kommissie boikot nie. Ons sal ook nie die daarstelling van gemeenskapsrade boikot nie.

Maar as ek dit gesê het, beteken dit hoegenaamd nie dat ons met die wetsantwerp saamstem of dat die wetgewing nie fundamenteel gebrekkig is nie. Dit het met die amptenare niks uit te waai nie. Die wetgewing is fundamenteel gebrekkig, omdat die politieke leiers van die ANC nie daartoe in staat is om in te sien dat die verskeidenheid van Suid-Afrika as ‘n positiewe, konstruktiewe krag kan en moet gebruik word nie. Dit is ‘n krag wat politieke stabiliteit op die langtermyn sal verseker, wat tot ekonomiese voorspoed vir almal in die land sal lei. Die ANC kan maar nie verder as om lippetaal te lewer wanneer dit gaan oor die regte van gemeenskappe in hierdie land nie. Daarom sal die VF teen hierdie wetgewing stem. Daar is hoofsaaklik twee redes hoekom die VF hierdie wet nie kan steun nie: Eerstens, die samestelling van die kommissie en tweedens die totale afwesigheid van enige funksies of kompetensies vir gemeenskapsrade. Gemeenskappe het geen, maar geen, sê hoegenaamd in die samestelling van die kommissie nie. Die Minister, sy paneel en die President sal vir gemeenskappe besluit en namens hulle gemeenskap in die kommissie dien - ‘n vertrekpunt en resep vir mislukking. Gemeenskapsrade het die relevante funksie om die kommissie te adviseer, maar die kommissie hoef hom glad nie aan hierdie advies te steur nie. Daarna het die kommissie die funksie om aan die owerheid aanbevelings te doen, waaraan die owerheid hom natuurlik glad nie hoef te steur nie.

Die Verteenwoordigende Kleurlingraad van Althea Jansen het destyds meer bevoegdhede as hierdie kommissie in die gemeenskapsrade gehad. Daardie raad is natuurlik destyds deur die bruin gemeenskap verwerp. Wat die ANC nou hier instel, is niks anders as lolliepoprade om gemeenskappe mee besig te hou nie. Lolliepoprade: Het die ANC dan absoluut niks geleer nie? Ek los die lolliepop vir die Minister hier voor. Dit is die rade wat die Minister instel.

Die VF sal om strategiese redes van hierdie meganisme gebruik maak, maar dit beteken hoegenaamd nie dat ons tevrede is om dit te aanvaar asof dit die groot antwoord is vir minderheidsregte in hierdie land of om die belange van die gemeenskap in hierdie land te behartig nie. Ons sal teen die wet stem. Die lolliepop is vir die Minister. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Minister. The provisions in the Constitution for the creation of this commission were proposed at the time by the FF and had been accepted. The FF will not boycott the establishment and work of this section 185-commission. We will also not boycott the creation of community councils.

But having said this does not, however, mean that we agree with this Bill or that the legislation is not fundamentally flawed. This has nothing to do with the officials. The legislation is fundamentally flawed, because the political leaders of the ANC are unable to see that the diversity of South Africa could and should be utilised as a positive, constructive power. This power would ensure political stability in the long term, which could also lead to economic prosperity for everyone in this country. The ANC cannot get beyond the point of paying lip service when it deals with the rights of communities in this country. For this reason the FF will vote against this legislation.

There are primarily two reasons why the FF cannot support this legislation: Firstly, the composition of the commission and, secondly, the total absence of any functions or competencies for community councils. Communities have absolutely no say in the composition of the commissions. The Minister, his panel and the President will decide for communities and will serve on the commission on behalf of their communities - a departure point and recipe for failure. Community councils have the relevant function of advising the commission, but the commission does not have to heed this advice. Consequently, the commission has the function to then make recommendations to the authorities, of which the authorities also do not have to take heed.

The Representative Coloured Council of Anthea Jansen in those days had more competence than this commission in the community councils. That council was, of course, rejected by the coloured community in those days. What the ANC is now establishing here is, of course, nothing more than lollipop councils to keep the community busy. Lollipop councils: Has the ANC learnt absolutely nothing? I am leaving the lollipop here in front for the Minister. These are the councils which the Minister are establishing.

For strategic reasons the FF will use this mechanism, but it does not mean that we are satisfied to accept this as if this is the big answer with regard to the minority rights in this country or to deal with the interests of communities in this country. We will vote against this Act. The lollipop is for the Minister. [Interjections.]]

Mnr D A A OLIFANT: Mev die Speaker, ons sal nou nie by die lolliepop begin nie. Maar voordat ek aan die debat deelneem, wil ek graag van die geleentheid gebruik maak om ‘n skool hier te noem wat ‘n besondere plek in my hart het. Die skool is natuurlik in my geboortedorp Victoria-Wes aan die mees suidelike punt van die Noord-Kaap.

Victoria-Wes Sekondêre Skool is ‘n akademiese instansie met groot visie. Ek het hulle belowe ek sal dit hier noem. Die skool se integrasieprogram is met die grootste ywer aangepak, wat welslae behaal het, asook baie sukses op akademiese gebied meegebring het. Soveel so, dat hul matrieksyfer van 35% in 2000 tot 65% in 2001 verbeter het, met die skool se African leerders wat in Afrikaans tot 92% behaal het. Geluk aan die skool! Geluk aan die skoolhoof, Mev Keyser, en haar personeel! Nogmaals geluk en voorspoed vorentoe. Onthou ons wil 100% sien in 2002. [Applous.]

Ek wil hier verder groet in een van die tale wat totaal uitgewis is as gevolg van die vorige koloniale bestel. Tawede ta ge ra hoado tsi ta ge hkati hoado ne kai !Nae !Khais tses di gaenam! Gagus towa ra iikhoreiihare.'' Dit is Nama wat in Afrikaans beteken:Ek groet u en wil u almal graag verwelkom in vandag se uiters belangrike en historiese debat.’’ [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr D A A OLIFANT: Madam Speaker, we will not start with the lollipop now. But before I take part in the debate I would like to take the opportunity to mention a school that has a very special place in my heart. This school is in the town where I was born, of course, which is Victoria West, at the southernmost end of the Northern Cape.

Victoria West Secondary School is an academic institution with great foresight. I promised them that I would mention this here. The school’s integration programme was started with the greatest zeal, which succeeded, and they also achieved huge success in the academic field. So much so that they improved their Matric pass rate from 35% in 2000 to 65% in 2001, with the school’s African learners achieving up to 92% for Afrikaans. Congratulations to the school! Congratulations to the principal, Mrs Keyser, and her staff! Once again, congratulations, and we wish them every success for the future. Remember, we want to see a 100% pass rate in 2002. [Applause.]

I furthermore want to greet members here in one of the languages that have been completely destroyed owing to the previous colonial dispensation: Tawede ta ge ra hoado tsi ta ge hkati hoado ne kai !Nae !Khais tses di gaenam! Gagus towa ra iikhoreiihare. This is Nama for: “I greet you and I want to welcome all of you to today’s important and historic debate.” [Applause.]]

In opening the Second Parliament of our new democracy, our second democratically elected President, Comrade Thabo Mbeki said the following: The promotion and the protection of the cultural, linguistic and religious rights of all our people should occupy a central place in the work of the Government. It should not happen that any one of us should feel a sense of alienation. Whatever the sickness of our society, none should be driven to levels of despair which drive them to a peripheral existence at the fringes of the mainstream. Nor should we allow that those who were denied their identity, including the Khoi and San, continue to exist in the shadows, a passing relic and an object of an obscene tourist curiosity.

We consider the work of restoring the pride and identity of all our people of vital importance to the task of advancing the human dignity of all our citizens and ensuring the success of our efforts towards national reconciliation and nation-building.

The Deputy President went further at the Khoisan National Consultative Conference in Oudsthoorn on 29 March 2001, by saying:

I am proud to be here this evening to witness a defining moment in the history of our country in general and that of the Khoisan people in particular, the first indigenous people of our country.

Teen dié agtergrond wil ek graag fokus op die geskiedenis van die Khoisangemeenskappe. [Against this background I would like to focus on the history of the Khoisan communities.]

The Deputy President said further at this particular conference:

A lot of our history has been distorted and manipulated by people who, to a large extent, sought to hide grave crimes committed against the indigenous people.

Dit was dan juis die Khoisan aan die Kaap wat die eerste weerstandsoorloë gevoer het teen die koloniale aanslag in die sewentiende eeu. In hierdie periode van oorlogvoering was daar nie net totale menseslagting wat gelei het tot die amperse totale uitwissing van hierdie gemeenskappe nie, maar ook hul tale en kulture wat in die slag gebly het. Dit is natuurlik insiggewend dat nadat al hierdie menswaardighede van hulle ontneem is en hulle ook op die drumpel van uitwissing was, die Khoisan ‘n sterk drang om te oorleef gehad het. Dit is ongelooflik dat daar vandag nog vyf hoofgroepe oor is: die Khoi, die San, die Nama, die Griekwa en die Korana, wat, desondanks alles, ook sterk bou aan ‘n beter en sterker Suid-Afrika.

Toe ek in standerd drie was of, soos dit vandag bekend staan, graad 5, het ek vir die eerste keer met geskiedenis te doen gekry. Dit was ‘n geskiedenis met lofliedere wat helde soos Piet Retief, Steyn, Dick King en Jan van Riebeeck besing het. Trouens, daar is amptelik aanvaar dat Suid- Afrika in 1652 ontstaan het. Dit is aan mens opgedring. Watter absolute twak is mens nie geleer nie. En dit terwyl daar groot helde en heldinne in die Khoisangemeenskap bestaan het, soos Otjomatu, die leier van die Goringhaikonna, of Herrie soos die Britte hom genoem het. Hy is na Robbeneiland verban, omdat hy as ‘n veedief, ‘n kwaadstoker en ‘n luiaard bestempel is. In werklikheid was hy ‘n leier wat vir sy mense se grond en vee geveg het, asook vir sy eie identiteit. Hy het nooit die naam Herrie aanvaar nie. Hy was dan ook die eerste politieke gevangene wat na Robbeneiland verban is, ontsnap en oorleef het.

Gee ‘n taal dan nie gestalte aan ‘n kultuur en nasie nie? Om dit te illustreer, wil ek graag aan die Huis ‘n uittreksel voorhou uit die Mail & Guardian van 23-29 Mei 1997, die jare toe hulle nog goeie goed geskryf het. Eddie Koch skryf in dié uitgawe met die volgende opskrif, ``Last voice in an ancient tongue’’:

Elsie Vaalbooi is the last person on earth who remembers one of the most ancient languages. Encoded in her story and the fate of her language, a Bushman dialect …

Soos hy dit gestel het … known as Komani … that was spoken for up to 25 000 years before it became extinct in the 1970s, is a legacy … that has yet to be set right by South Africa’s new Government.

The thought is breath-taking: when this gentle and cultured woman dies she will take with her the codified remains of a culture that, in its heyday, possessed such an uncannily sophisticated knowledge of animals, plants, the soil, the weather, traditional medicine, human relations and moral values that one author has argued it was the very origin of science as we know it today.

Dit is duidelik dat ons beskaafd was lank voor die Europeërs hier aangekom het. Sterk pogings word tans deur die Nasionale Khoisanraad, asook die Departement van Provinsiale en Plaaslike Regering aangewend om hulle taal, kultuur, asook godsdiens te heropbou.

Verder wil ons ook van hierdie geleentheid gebruik maak om die Regering te bedank vir sy poging om ons grootmoeder, Sarah Baartman, se oorskot na Suid- Afrika terug te bring. Hierdie waardige vrou is Europa toe geneem om vertoon te word as ‘n natuurfrats, ‘n bespotting en dit was natuurlik om te bewys hoe minderwaardig die Khoisan en alle Afrikane in hierdie land was. Ons is ook bly om te verneem dat haar oorskot teen die middel van hierdie jaar in Suid-Afrika terug sal wees, waarna sy ‘n waardige teraardebestelling sal hê. Sodoende kan haar naam in ere herstel word. [Applous.]

Hierdie wetsontwerp maak voorsiening vir die stigting van ‘n kommissie om alle tale, kulture en gelowe op ‘n eweredige manier te bevorder en te beskerm deur gemeenskapsrade. Terloops, hierdie gemeenskapsrade is nie daar om toe te sien dat net een taal en een kultuur ontwikkel en beskerm word nie, maar dat tale soos die Khoisantale, Xitsonga, Noord-Ndebele, Siswati en vele ander tale wat nie dieselfde regte geniet nie, beskerm word en om te sorg dat dit respekteer word.

Hierdie wetsontwerp verseker dat die Nasionale Khoisanraad se kultuur, godsdiens en taal genoeg aandag sal geniet. Ek is seker hulle sal deel wees van die kommissie wanneer dit binnekort in die lewe geroep word. Was die beste voorbeeld van respek vir ander se kultuur nie juis ten beste vertoon toe ons eertydse president, President Mandela, die onthulling van die Danie Theronstandbeeld bygewoon het nie? Dit is tog jammer dat kortsigtige en oppervlakkige karakters soos die agb Aucamp so hewig ontsteld was oor die teenwoordigheid van die oudpresident. Dit noem ons respek en dit moet waardeer word.

Mnr C AUCAMP: Jy slaan die bal mis.

Mnr D A A OLIFANT: Afrikanerkultuur is nie meer ‘n eksklusiwiteit nie. Dit is deel van ons almal se erfenis. Ons wil trots wees. Ons wil identifiseer. Ons wil respek toon aan alle kulture, gelowe en tale wat deur al ons nasies gepraat word. Slegs deur middel van dit alles kan ons eenheid deur ons diversiteit bou, om sodoende ons weg na ons Afrika Renaissance te bewerkstellig. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[It was in fact the Khoisan in the Cape who had waged the first resistance wars against the colonial onslaught in the seventeenth century. During this period of warfare there was not only the total massacre of the people that had led to the almost complete elimination of these communities, but their languages and cultures also paid the ultimate price. It is illuminating, of course, that after they had been deprived of all these dignities and they were hovering on the brink of extinction, the Khoisan had a strong urge to survive. It is unbelievable that today there are still five main groups left over: The Khoi, the San, the Nama, the Griqua and the Korana, who, in spite of everything, are strongly engaged in building a better and stronger South Africa.

When I was in standard three, or, as it is known today, Grade 5, I had my first encounter with history. This was history with songs of praise for heroes like Piet Retief, Steyn, Dick King and Jan van Riebeeck. It was in fact officially accepted that South Africa came into existence in 1652. This was forced down our throats. What absolute nonsense one was taught. And that while there are great heroes and heroines in the Khoisan community, such as Otjomatu, the leader of the Goringhaikonna, or Herrie, as the British called him. He was banished to Robben Island, because he was branded a cattle thief, a trouble-maker and a slacker. He was actually a leader who fought for his people’s land and livestock, as well as for his own identity. He never accepted the name Herrie. Furthermore, he was the first political prisoner to be banished to Robben Island who had escaped and survived.

Does a language not give stature to a culture and a nation? To illustrate this I would like to read to the House an excerpt from the Mail & Guardian dated 23-29 May 1997, the time when they were still writing really good articles. In this edition Eddie Koch wrote the following under the headline: “Last Voice of an Ancient Tongue”:

Elsie Vaalbooi is the last person on earth who remembers one of the most ancient languages. Encoded in her a story and the fate of her language, a Bushman dialect …

As he put it -

… known as Khomani that was spoken for up to 25 000 years before it became extinct in the 1970s, is a legacy … that has yet to be set right by South Africa’s new government.

The thought is breathtaking: when this gentle and cultured woman dies she will take with her the codified remains of a culture that, in its heyday, possessed such an uncannily sophisticated knowledge of animals, plants, the soil, the weather, traditional medicine, human relations and moral values that one author has argued it was the very origin of science as we know it today.

It is clear that we were civilised long before the Europeans arrived here. Strong efforts are at present being made by the Khoisan Council, as well as the Department of Provincial and Local Government to reconstruct their language, culture and religion.

We furthermore want to take this opportunity to thank the Government for its efforts in bringing the remains of our grandmother, Sarah Baartman, back to South Africa. This worthy woman was taken to Europe to be displayed as a freak of nature, a laughing stock and this, of course, was to show how inferior the Khoisan and all Africans in this country were. We are also gratified to know that her remains would be back in South Africa by the middle of this year, after which she will be given a dignified interment. In so doing her name will be restored to its former dignity. [Applause.]

This Bill provides for the establishment of a commission to promote all languages, cultures and religions equally and for community councils to protect them. By the way, these community councils are not there to ensure that only one language and culture is developed and protected, but that languages such as the Khoisan languages, Xitsonga, Northern Ndebele, Siswati and many other languages that do not enjoy equal rights are protected and respected.

This Bill ensures that the National Khoisan Council’s culture, religion and language will enjoy sufficient attention. I am certain that they will be part of the commission when it is established in the near future. Surely the best example of respect for the culture of another was best displayed by our former president, President Mandela, attending the unveiling of the statue of Danie Theron. It is such a pity that short-sighted and superficial characters such as the hon Aucamp were so very upset by the presence of the former president. We call this respect and should be appreciated.

Mr C AUCAMP: You missed the point.

Mr D A A OLIFANT: The Afrikaner’s culture is no longer an exclusive culture. It is part of the inheritance of all of us. We want to be proud. We want to identify. We want to show respect to all cultures, religions and languages that are spoken by all our nations. It is only by way of all of this that we can build unity in our diversity, in so doing to make our way towards our African Renaissance. [Applause.]]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, it is ironic and sad indeed that at this point in time, eight years after the dawn of democracy in our country, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities is yet to be established.

There is reasonable consensus that South Africa is expected to assume a leading role in the development of Africa. It is, therefore, a catalyst of African Renaissance. The expectation has wide-ranging implications for South Africa. First and foremost it means that South Africa needs to promote her culture and civilisation. We define civilisation in this case as the sum of culture, religion, language, values, scientific knowledge, technology, art and other ways of doing things the African way.

It is clear, from the the above definition, that if we do not promote and protect the right of our cultural, religious and linguistic communities, the African Renaissance would remain a pipe dream. It would seem there is a huge gap between what the Constitution says and what is being done to realise community expectation as contained in section 32(1) of our Constitution, in as far as these cultural, religious and linguistic rights are concerned. The positive thing about ordinary South Africans is their expressed need to return to their roots by embracing cultural practices that are not foreign to their background.

We welcome the realisation of the Government by establishing the long overdue commission mandated to bring the provisions of section 31(1)(2) of the Constitution to life. The commission should also be composed of South Africans committed to the advancement of what is truly an African heritage as a matter of urgency, before we become the laughing stock of the world, risking the loss of our languages, spiritual belonging and culture. South Africa is an African country and has to advance African ways of doing things.

The UCDP will vote for this Bill. [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, the PAC supports this Bill. It gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Constitution on this subject. The African people in particular have suffered cultural, religious and linguistic imperialism.

African culture was disregarded by colonialism and much indigenous knowledge destroyed. Some of this knowledge was of a technical and scientific nature. It was also about economics, philosophy and science. Our ancestors, who had never been to university, knew how to eradicate poverty. They could identify the stone from which we made our farming tools and our spears. Our legal system on land is one of the best when properly applied. No one lacked land, which is the basic necessity of life.

We hope that this Bill will be taken advantage of by our scholars to retrieve some of the knowledge buried in the African culture. Africa has great civilisations behind her. Bodies were embalmed, not only in ancient Egypt. Many other African people knew how to embalm bodies with ordinary peanuts.

The Bill is in accordance with the 1966 proclamation of the general conference of Unesco, which, inter alia, affirms that each culture has a dignity and value which must be respected and preserved. Every people have a right and the duty to develop its culture.

What are called multiracial schools in this country are supposed to be multicultural. But they expose African children to European culture only. Pupils would be much enriched and become better future leaders of our country if they were exposed to all existing cultures of our communities. This would help to decolonise the minds of African children and make those Europeans who have decided to make Africa their homes, real Africans. The PAC will vote for this Bill. [Applause.]

Mnr J P I BLANCHÉ: Mevrou die Speaker, die ANC laat my as lid van ‘n taal, ‘n kultuur en ‘n kerkgroep twee minute toe om aan hierdie debat deel te neem, terwyl sy eie lede langer as 75 minute het. [Tussenwerpsels.] As dit ons erns is om taal, godsdiens en kultuur met hierdie wetgewing te bevorder en gelyk te stel, dan wonder ek of hierdie wetsontwerp die status quo gaan verander. Selfs in die ``Preamble’’, wat net in Engels beskikbaar is, word hierdie status quo nie aangespreek nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Madam Speaker, the ANC is allowing me, as a member of a language, a culture and church group, two minutes to participate in this debate, while its own members are getting more than 75 minutes. [Interjections.] If it is our dire concern to promote and achieve equality in language, religion and culture with this legislation, I doubt if this legislation will change the status quo. Even in the Preamble, that is only available in English, this status quo is not addressed.]

The Preamble goes as follows: Past policies have bequeathed a legacy of division between communities.

I want to say: So, what has really changed, because present policies of the ANC perpetuate that. [Interjections.]

Of is daar iemand wat wil argumenteer dat Engels in die Parlement nie al die ander tale se staanplek verskraal nie? Wanneer ‘n Minister ‘n lid van ‘n ander taalgroep se logiese standpunte nie met gelyke logika in hierdie plek kan aanspreek nie, dan is dit ons ervaring dat daardie Minister vaag is, die vraag met snedige aanmerkings antwoord in ‘n ander taal wat die vraesteller nie verstaan nie, wetende dat die lid as gevolg van gebrekkige vertaalfasiliteite nie daarop kan reageer nie.

Ons weet ook mos dat die ANC vir Mnr Mandela voorstoot wanneer hulle vroom wil voorgee dat hulle in pas is met eerbare wêreldopinie, maar dat hulle niks sal doen aan hulle vriende, die Ghaddafi’s, en die Mugabes wat ander kultuur-, taal- en godsdiensgroepe uit hul land verjaag nie. Daar is baie mooi ideale in hierdie wetgewing ingeskryf, maar dit wat hier ingeskryf staan, moet leef in die harte van Suid-Afrikaners en veral in die leiers wat hier sit. As die leiers van die onderskeie groepe moet ons dit besef. Die Christene in Suid-Afrika het met skok van sekere uitsprake van Asmal kennis geneem. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Or is there someone who wants to argue that English does not reduce the hold of other languages in Parliament? When a Minister cannot address the logical points of view of a member of another language group with more or less the same logic, then in our experience, the Minister is vague, answers the question with cutting remarks in a language that the person that asked the question cannot understand, in the knowledge that the member, because of poor translating facilities, cannot react.

We also know that the ANC pushes Mr Mandela to the fore, when they piously wish to pretend that they are in step with honest world opinion, but that they will do nothing to their friends, the Ghaddafis and the Mugabes who chase other cultural, language and religious groups out of their countries. There are many beautiful ideals entrenched in this legislation, but what is entrenched here should live in the hearts of South Africans and the leaders who are sitting here. As the leaders of the various groups, we must realise this. The Christians in South Africa learned with shock of certain of Asmal’s utterances. [Time expired.]]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, this Bill certainly serves the title that our nation has earned, and that is the ``rainbow nation’’. The Constitution has a Bill of Rights that instils this protection, respect and acknowledgement of individuality of both the minority and majority. This Bill serves sections 181, 185 and 186 of the Constitution and puts a commission in place to institute these clauses.

The MF is in full agreement that this body would be a key to instituting constitutional democracy in the Republic of South Africa, further to ensure that this is instituted, activated and utilised effectively and efficiently. A regulatory system is needed, which this Bill puts in place.

The aims and objectives of the commission are certainly promising and are supported by the MF. They will ensure democracy in South Africa. It is very important to ensure that this is carried out carefully, together with sustainable delivery. They are a key to instilling confidence in our Government as a Government which is here to serve the people. The MF, however, notes that the commission is faced with difficult tasks. Since we constitute such a diverse citizenry, it will be hard to satisfy all parties. The MF therefore calls on all departments and role-players to co-operate with the commission to assist in upholding this Bill as a key factor in delivering our main objective, namely democracy.

The MF supports the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Bill. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Agb Voorsitter, ek wil begin deur die agb Oliphant aan te raai om nie sy slurp in te druk in iets waarvan hy niks weet nie. Uiteindelik na ses jaar, het ons hierdie kommissie as die uitvloeisel van die onderhandelde skikking tussen die ANC en spesifiek die rolspelers in die Afrikaanse gemeenskap, en dit mag nie maar net ‘n luukse ekstra wees met ‘n bloot dekoratiewe funksie nie. Wat hieruit gaan voortvloei, is van kardinale belang vir ‘n vreedsame en suksesvolle Suid-Afrika waarin geen gemeenskap gemarginaliseer mag word nie.

Die wetsontwerp het baie gebreke en voldoen nie aan die verwagtinge wat die AEB daarvoor gekoester het nie. Ons het egter vir twee sake begrip. Eerstens, dat hierdie beperking eintlik in die Grondwet lê en nie in die wetsontwerp nie. Tweedens, het ons hier te doen met ‘n ongekarteerde terrein en ‘n evolusionêre proses waarvan die huidige wetgewing as ‘n vertrekpunt en nie as ‘n eindpunt gesien moet word nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Chairman, at the outset I want to advise the hon Oliphant not to interfere in something about which he knows nothing. Eventually, after six years, we have this commission as the result of the negotiated agreement between the ANC and particularly the role-players in the Afrikaans community, and we must not allow it to be simply an extra luxury with a merely decorative function. The consequences of this are of the utmost importance for a peaceful and successful South Africa in which no community may be marginalised.

The Bill contains many flaws and does not meet the expectations of the AEB. However, we appreciate two aspects. In the first place this limitation is actually in the Constitution itself and not in the Bill. In the second place we are dealing here with uncharted territory and an evolutionary process from which the present legislation should be regarded as a point of departure and not as the final result.]

The AEB also wants to recognise the open way in which the portfolio committee addressed this Bill, with special thanks to the chairperson, Yunus Carrim. He gave me far more liberties than the size of my caucus deserved. A substantial number of the proposals of the AEB have been accepted and are now part of the Bill. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to elaborate.

Die kern van die saak is die volgende: Hierdie kommissie en die gemeenskapsrade kan mettertyd aan die doelstellings daarvan beantwoord, mits twee dinge gebeur: Die politieke wil moet by die owerheid wees om werklik gemeenskappe maksimaal te bemagtig en nie die kommissie of die rade as ‘n politieke fopspeen aan te wend nie. Daar moet ‘n bereidwilligheid by die onderskeie gemeenskappe wees om hulle eie uit te bou en te koester op so ‘n wyse dat vrede, harmonie en respek vir almal in Suid-Afrika verdien kan word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The crux of the matter is the following: This commission and the community councils will eventually be able to reach their goals if two things happen: The authorities must have the political will to empower communities to the greatest possible extent, and not to utilise the commission or councils as a political dummy. The various communities must be willing to build and cherish that which is their own, and to do so in a way that will earn peace, harmony and respect for everyone in South Africa.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

In other words, there must be respect for the diversity by the commission and respect for the community by the councils.

Die antwoord hierop lê nie in die stuk papier wat vandag voor ons dien nie, maar in die wil en gesindheid van die owerheid, die mense en die gemeenskappe van Suid-Afrika. Die AEB wil hierdie wet gebruik om dit te bereik en steun daarom hierdie wetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The answer to this does not lie in the piece of paper before us today, but in the will and attitude of the authorities, the people and the communities of South Africa. The AEB wants to apply this legislation to achieve this, and therefore supports this Bill.]

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Chairperson, Azapo is convinced that the commission will help in restoring dignity to the marginalised languages and restoring the cultural diversity of our people. South African society, for many years and decades, has been organised in such a way that cultural, linguistic and religious activities centred around the Eurocentric dominant culture, with English as the main language for transmitting and receiving information.

If one wants to learn about the economic, political and social spheres of our existence in this society, one is expected to master the English language. This applies even to the study of indigenous languages. This situation cannot be left unchallenged. If, for instance, one wants a job in an industry or wants to buy a house, contractual obligations are entered into in English. In this way the majority of our people are alienated in these contracts. And, in fact, they only come to know what these contracts entail when there is a dispute about the contracts.

The cultural dimension is even worse. Our children are bombarded daily by and socialised into the cultural norms and values of foreign cultures. The majority of our people are therefore marginalised. One need only switch on one’s TV to notice what I am saying.

Ideally, national culture in a multicultural society is supposed to be a fusion of lifestyles of various groups, with the culture shared by the majority ultimately determining the broad direction taken by the joint culture. Sadly, this is not the case in South Africa.

Azapo supports this Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mrs S A SEATON: Chairperson, hon members, South Africa’s history is littered with examples where the rights of certain cultural, religious and linguistic communities were promoted and protected, to such an extent that the rights of other communities either did not exist at all, or existed only in name.

The situation was, of course, completely changed in 1994, with the advent of democracy. The rights of all cultural, religious and linguistic communities were entrenched in the Bill of Rights of our new Constitution in 1996. Sections 181, 185 and 186 of the Constitution provide the backdrop for the Bill we are debating today, as they provided for the establishment of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities as one of the institutions that are charged with strengthening constitutional democracy in South Africa.

At the heart of the commission’s mandate lies the requirement that it must promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among and within these communities, based on equality, nondiscrimination and free association. Importantly, the commission may also recommend the establishment or recognition of cultural or other councils for a community or communities.

The Bill charges the commission with a difficult task. Almost ten years of democracy have not obliterated discrimination of various types in South Africa, and it is unrealistic to expect that all forms of discrimination will soon be a thing of the past. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of all South Africans that proactive steps are taken to eradicate discrimination as far as possible. The establishment of the commission is an example of such a proactive approach. For that reason, the IFP will support the Bill.

However, tolerance of and respect for different cultural, religious and linguistic communities and practices are not going to be guaranteed by legislation, nor can they be guaranteed by the actions of any institution. Rather, it is the goodwill of ordinary people to accept that all individuals and communities enjoy equal rights and freedoms in the new South Africa that will make the difference. The President of the IFP, Dr M G Buthelezi MP, summed it up perfectly when he called for a revolution of goodwill to foster better understanding between people and more respect and acceptance of cultural, religious and linguistic differences.

The Bill provides that the commission may undertake a wide range of activities to achieve its objectives. Among these are conducting information programmes to inform the public about the objectives, role and activities of the commission; to develop strategies towards nation- building; to conduct research and to monitor the rights and positions of relevant communities.

In order to carry out these functions, the commission will be able to appoint its own staff within a policy framework determined by the responsible Minister. Its funding will be determined by Parliament and its financial management will be subject to the Public Finance Management Act,

1. In this respect, a note of caution must be expressed. It is absolutely vital that the commission must act independently of any political party or the Government of the day. Without this independence, the commission could be subject to political interference and expected to carry out a specific political agenda. There is enough evidence in South Africa’s history to suggest that such forms of social engineering are bound to fail and lead to the exclusion and discrimination, rather than to the promoting and protecting of rights.

The Bill further provides that the commission may call on any other constitutional institution to assist it in carrying out its mandate. This should be welcomed as it creates the opportunity for the commission to access expertise already built up of the SA Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector and others, and remove the danger of a fragmented approach. The commission may also co-operate with other constitutional institutions in cases where their functions overlap. This should also be welcomed as the promotion and protection of rights, clearly, should not be adversely affected by territorial, jurisdictional squabbles between organisations that are working towards essentially similar goals.

Very importantly, the Bill provides that the commission may recommend to a cultural or other community that it initiates and establishes a cultural council at provincial and at national level.

The IFP welcomes this provision, as the establishment of such councils will be beneficial to nation-building and fostering respect for cultural and other forms of diversity. South Africa is blessed with a rich diversity of culture and other differences. We should recognise and respect this diversity in an inclusive manner. Cultural councils can go a long way to achieving this aim.

We also welcome the fact that these councils will not be limited to cultural matters, but will also be available to religious and linguistic communities, to promote and to protect their rights. For instance, there is a great fear among certain linguistic communities that English is fast becoming South Africa’s de facto language. These communities will have the opportunity to promote their linguistic rights and aspirations, such as mother tongue education, in these councils.

While the IFP welcomes the establishment of the commission, we would like to point out that it should not be seen as a substitute for section 235 of the Constitution, which provides for limited self-determination for certain cultural and linguistic communities. The provisions of section 235 have not really been developed by a national debate and we, as a party, would like to suggest that the time has come now for this section to become the subject of an open and frank debate.

The IFP supports the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Bill. [Applause.]

uMnu B J NOBUNGA: Sihlalo, lomKhulu longangeliSekela laMengameli, malunga eSishayamtsetfo, lamuhla leNdlu icopha umlandvo ngekutsi ifezekise sigaba 185 semTsetfosisekelo walelive. Konkhe loku kukhombisa kutibophelela kwetfu singuHulumende we-ANC ekwakheni sive sinye lesingabandlululi muntfu ngelibala, ngebulili nangebuve. Lena yinselele lesibukene nayo sisonkhe njengebaholi sikanye netakhamiti takulelive. Kubandlululana ngekwebuhlanga kusitsa lekumele kwekutsi silwe naso nome ngabe ngukuphi lapho siveta khona inhloko.

Umzabalazo wekwakha sive ngeke ube yimphumelelo ngaphandle kwekutsi sitibophelele ekutseni sakhe lubumbano, kuvana, kubeketelelana kanye nekuhloniphana sitinhlanga talelive ngekwehlukahlukana kwato. Loko kufanele kwekutsi sikukhombise kakhulu kuleto tive letitsatseleka phansi, leto lekute kube ngulamuhla tingakanikwa kahle hle indzawo kanye nesitfunti lekudzingeke kutsi tiniketwe kona njengekusho kwemTsetfosisekelo walelive.

Letive lengikhuluma ngato nguleto letikhuluma letilwimi letilandzelako: siSwati, Xitsonga, isiNdebele kanye neTshivenda. Tikhona-ke letinye tilwimi lengingakatibali la ngenhla, kodvwa ngibala leti ngobe tinguletinye taleti letilishumi nakubili letivikelekile ngekweMtsetfosisekelo, kodvwa leto lekuze kube ngulesikhatsi lesi kutfutfukiswa kwato kusengakafezeki ngendlela legculisako.

Lamuhla nasikhuluma ngekuvikeleka nekuhlonishwa kwetilwimi nemasiko etive etintfweni letifana nabomabonakudze, leyo yintfo lengakenteki ngaletilwimi lesengitibalile la ngenhla. Nakwenteka, kwenteka tikhawana letifishane kakhulu. Lamuhla siyajabula ngekutalwa kwaloMtsetfosivivinyo lesikhuluma ngawo lamuhla lowenta kwekutsi sikhone kwakha lomtimba lotawubukana nalenselele, umtimba longuwona utasibukele kutsi siwakha sibuye siwavikele njani emasiko, tilwimi netinkholo tetfu ngekwehlukahlukana kwaletive letikhona la kulelive laseNingizimu Afrika.

Ngalokufanako, kufanele sicaphele labomagwaz’ifile kutsi bangasitsatseli loMtsetfo lomuhle nakangaka bese badala lutfutfuva kanye nekwehlukana emkhatsini wetive talelive. Labo labangakhoni kubeketelela lokushisa kwasedladleni, abaphume sisale tsine setame kwakha lelive.

LoMtsetfosivivinyo ugunyata kumiswa kwemitimba yemimango ngekwehlukahlukana kwayo, loku lesikubita ngekutsi, pheceleti, ngema-community council. Kodvwa kufanele sikubalekele kusetjentiswa kabi kwalemitimba kufezekisa tifiso tekwehlukanisa bantfu letingahle tidalwe ngulabo bantfu emimangweni. Lokunye lokubalulekile yindzima lekumelwe idlalwe lusha kulemitimba yemimango leyehlukahlukene ekufezekiseni tinhloso nemigomo yalekhomishana, khona kutekwateka phela, njengobe kushiwo, kutsi inkunzi isematfoleni. Ngako-ke lusha akukameli kwekutsi lusalele emuva etindzabeni letikhuluma ngekwakhiwa kabusha kwelive nekutfutfukiswa kwetilwimi njengekwehlukana kwato kulelive.

Sonkhe sibukene nenselele yekwenta lenchubomgomo iphumelele. Sisonkhe sibukene nenselele yekwenta buve nebuhlanga bakhe lubumbano. Asisebentiseni buciko betfu ekwakheni imphilo lencono kulomzabalazo wekwakha sive lesisha kulelive. Asisebentise kona lokwehlukahlukana kwemihambo nemasiko etfu. Ekugcineni asihlanganiswe lutsandvo lwelive letfu kanye nebantfu bakitsi. Sifuna kwakha siciniseko, sicinise lenkhululeko yetfu; sakhe sive lesingabandlululi muntfu ngebuve, ngebuhlanga nangebulili, kanye nalesinenchubekel’ embili.

Lamuhla-ke sitsi asesikhombise umhlaba wonkhe kutsi asizange siphumelele ngemlingo nga 1994 ekuletseni umbuso wentsandvo yelinyenti kulelive lokwenteka ngaphandle kwekucitseka kwengati. Kodvwa kwaba kutimisela kwetfu kwehlukana netindlela letindzala lekwakwentiwa ngato tintfo, kantsi futsi lokukhulu kakhulu kwaba buholi nebuhlakaniphi benhlangano ye-ANC, lekungiyo lekhombise kuba nekubona ngesheya.

Siyetsemba kwekutsi kuba khona kwaloMtsetfosivivinyo lesikhuluma ngawo lamuhla kutawudala kwekutsi sive saseNingizimu Afrika siphume sibumbene, sikhone nekwakhana kulokwehlukahlukana kwaso, sibe nemphumelelo lapho siya embili. Asitsatseni lomTsetfosivivinyo sigucule lelive letfu sentele kutsi kwakheke bunye nelucolo. Asenteni kwekutsi naleto tinhlanga letingabukelwa etindzabeni letifanana nekutfutfukiswa kwetilwimi tato nato tikutfole kunakekelwa nekwesekelwa nguHulumende.

Asipheleliseni lenjongo yekwakha sive setakhamuti letilinganako naletivikelekile ngato tonkhe tindlela ngaphansi kweMtsetfosisekelo, tona kanye netilwimi tato njengetakhamuti nanjengetinhlanga.

Ngembikwekutsi ngishence … (Translation of Swati paragraphs follows.) [Mr B J NOBUNGA: Chairperson, Deputy President, hon members of Parliament, today this House is making history by giving effect to section 185 of the Constitution of this country. This shows our commitment, as the ANC Government, to building one nation which does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of his or her skin colour, gender or ethnicity. This is a challenge that faces all of us, both as leaders and as citizens of this country. Racial discrimination is an enemy that we must fight wherever it rears its head.

The struggle for building a nation will not succeed unless we commit ourselves to building unity, reconciliation, tolerance and respect for the different races of this country. We must extend all this especially to those ethnic groups which have been marginalised and which until now have not been given their rightful place and the dignity they deserve as prescribed by the Constitution of this country.

The ethnic groups I am talking about are those who speak the following languages: siSwati, Xitsonga, isiNdebele and Tshivenda. There are other languages which I have not mentioned. However, I only mention these because they are amongst the 11 official languages of this country which are protected by our Constitution, but which until now have not seen a satisfactory improvement in their situation.

When we talk about the protection of and respect for the languages and the culture of our people with regard to television programmes, we find that this has not happened where those languages are concerned. When it does happen, it is in a very insignificant manner.

We are very happy to witness the birth of the Bill under discussion today, which gives us the opportunity to establish a commission that will be responsible for this challenge, a commission that will see to it that we promote and protect the culture, language and religion of the diverse ethnic groups that characterise the South African nation.

Be that as it may, we must be careful of those who seek to destroy us by ensuring that they do not use this wonderful legislation to cause conflict and division amongst the different ethnic groups of this country. Those who cannot stand the heat must get out of the kitchen, and those of us who are ready to do the job will stay and build our country.

This Bill provides for the establishment of what are referred to as community councils. However, we must try to avoid the abuse of these councils by certain individuals who wish to cause division among our people. Another important aspect of this legislation is the role that the youth is supposed to play in the different community councils in fulfilling the aims and objectives of this commission, because, as the saying goes, it is the youth from whom great leaders emerge. Therefore the youth must not be left behind when there are discussions about the reconstruction of our country and the promotion of its different languages.

We are all faced with the challenge of making this policy a success. We are all faced with the challenge of building unity among different races and ethnic groups. Let us use our skills to build a better life in the struggle for building a new nation in this country. Let us use the diversity of our customs and traditions to achieve our goal. Lastly, let us be unified by the love of our country and its people. We want to build certainty, stabilise our freedom and build a nation which does not discriminate against any person because of his or her ethnicity, race or gender, and one which is prosperous.

Today we want to show the whole world that our success in 1994 in bringing about democracy in this country without any bloodshed was not achieved by magic. It was because of our commitment in changing the old way of doing things and, most importantly, the wisdom of the ANC leadership, who demonstrated foresight.

We hope that the passing of the Bill under discussion today will create a united South African nation which will be able to achieve unity in its diversity and prosperity for the future. Let us use this Bill to bring about change in our country for the sake of unity and peace. Let us ensure that even those ethnic groups who have been marginalised with regard to the promotion of their languages also receive the protection and the support of the Government.

Let us fulfil the objective of building a nation of citizens who are equal and protected in every way under the Constitution, and whose languages as citizens and communities are also protected. Before I sit down …]

… I think it is proper that one responds to one or two things that were said. Firstly, I would like to say to Rev Meshoe that it would be good for the ACDP to teach themselves to attend meetings, because Rev Meshoe would then be able to test his understanding of the Bill in the committee itself rather than at the podium and embarrass himself by stating the opposite of what the Bill intends.

The Bill in no way intends to create one single religion in South Africa, but instead intends ensuring that other religions that did not enjoy protection from the government before get that protection. The intention is to ensure that those religions get a platform at least to show to South Africa and the world what they are capable of in ensuring that they build a united nation.

I would like to say to the hon member Mulder I think it would be proper that we start dispelling the myth that this is an Afrikaner commission.

It is in no way an Afrikaner commission. In 1955 in Kliptown the ANC said that everyone shall enjoy equal rights and protection under the law. What we are doing here is to fulfil that obligation. We are bringing into being a law which will protect the citizens, so that they should be able to promote and develop their own languages and cultures. We are in no way fulfilling what the FF or some Afrikaners in a certain corner wanted. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, Deputy President and hon members, I want to thank everybody who participated in this debate. I think it is remarkable that the debate was blessed with at least two maiden participants. I also want to note with appreciation that the overwhelming majority of the participants support the Bill.

The hon member Mr Grobler, in his intervention, spent some time criticising the New NP for the repressive laws of the past. Of course, he was talking like a jilted lover. But I think we need to remind him that his party’s estrangement from the New NP does not alter the fact that the DP, in its various names, was a co-worker in the factory which manufactured those pieces of legislation. [Applause.]

The hon member also spent some time parading his deep-seated fear for democracy. He is not satisfied with the process by which the chairperson of the commission will be appointed. He shares that fear with the hon member, Mr Mulder. They assume that the President will appoint someone who ``is not fit and proper’’. Of course, the assumption is wrong that elected representatives are inclined to do things which are inherently inimical to the interests of the community.

The hon Mr Grobler proceeds to prescribe a process of appointment which was not followed by the leader of his own party in the Cape Town Metropolitan Council when the mayor had to be appointed. Why prescribe it for us if it was not appropriate for the DP?

The hon Mr Meshoe also spent a bit of time on this podium trying to ignite the fires of fear and intolerance. He says that the Bill, by upholding the rights of all religious communities, promises to endanger the dominant position which his own religion has hitherto enjoyed. He is intolerant of other religions’ right to claim equity of treatment. Of course, we cannot expect a democratic state to be sympathetic to his religious intolerance. If he does believe that this Bill is a recipe for religious conflicts, which obviously will be running counter to the provisions of our Constitution, he is free to approach the Constitutional Court.

I also noted that the hon Mr Ditshetelo is unhappy about the delayed introduction of this Bill before Parliament. He expresses that unhappiness, notwithstanding the fact that the hon Mr Carrim gave a long outline of the process of consultation that was followed preceding the introduction of the Bill before Parliament.

All I can say to him is that we do things differently from the way they used to be done in the Bantustan legislative assemblies. We follow consultative processes in order to involve the masses of the people in deciding how the affairs of the country should be run.

Otherwise, once more, I want to thank all the participants for the useful insights which they shared with us. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (African Christian Democratic Party and Freedom Front dissenting).

               NATIONAL RAILWAY SAFETY REGULATOR BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson, hon Deputy President and hon members, the Bill before this House heralds a new dawn for rail safety in South Africa. It will place us in a position to bring to an end the situation in which the operator is both referee and player at the same time. Whilst safe rail operation is the responsibility of operators, regulatory intervention, oversight and monitoring safety practices can never be left to the service providers themselves.

I want to point out that this is the National Railway Safety Regulator Bill and not a rail safety bill. We are not just talking about things or operations but of people, because people come first. The Bill covers facets of safety of persons and is not limited to the safety of the steel rail that the train runs on. The Bill covers not only Metrorail and Spoornet, but other operators as well, for example the Heritage Railway Steam Clubs, Rovos Rail, traffic crossing our borders at six different locations and surface railways in mines. The Bill covers all of them.

The premise of the Bill is co-regulation. In short, railway operators will be responsible for managing safety. The proposed railway safety regulator will oversee safety.

We have drawn from international practice. Our team of South African and Canadian experts looked at safety regimes in North and South America, Europe, Scandinavian countries, China, Japan and Australia. We used the Canadian model as a benchmark in developing our legislation, but we have customised the Bill to meet the needs of our country.

I want to highlight five points. Firstly, the Railway Safety Regulator Bill intends to establish an independent regulatory and oversight body to ensure that the necessary rail safety framework is managed to the best of the country’s ability. Secondly, the railway safety regulator will work in close partnership with the industry to conduct audits, develop appropriate regulations and ensure that appropriate safety management systems are established and adhered to. Thirdly, the intention of the Bill is not to establish a vehicle for creating endless legislative requirements which cannot be enforced or monitored, but rather to create coherent regulations which can be implemented by operators within an overall safety framework and safety management plan.

Fourthly, the railway safety regulator will be empowered to conduct accident investigations and audits across the country in order to inform and establish realistic and practical measures to prevent accidents and to address, in a structured manner, any unsafe conditions in the rail system.

Fifthly, what South Africa needs most is a mechanism for creating and establishing a rail safety culture. This will require a process involving Government, operators, labour, communities and business which will, over time, instil understanding and sensitivity for caring when we deal with dangerous equipment and the lives of our people.

In order to promote the culture of co-regulation all operators will be required to be licensed. Once licensed, an operator will need to develop its safety management system in accordance with norms and guidelines that will be specified in the appropriate regulations and standards. The regulator will oversee safety by conducting audits of the safety management system by inspection and carrying out accident investigations.

It will analyse accident reports from operators and accident trends. It will benchmark operators and consult with interested and affected parties. It will oversee safety by ensuring that the industry regularly reviews its standards, and by issuing directives to limit operations should the operator fail to comply with a provision declared in its safety management system or should an unsafe situation exist.

Although the primary focus of the Bill is to address safe railway operations, the need to address the security of the travelling public on our stations and trains is recognised. Government is concerned about crime if its people are attacked, robbed and even raped on trains and at stations. Therefore, Government has recognised the need to create a division or wing of the SAPS to address crime on all modes of transport. The Minister of Safety and Security has been tasked by Cabinet to lead this process. The railway safety regulator will co-operate with the SAPS to ensure maximum effectiveness of such a transit policing wing from a regulator point of view.

There are also economic considerations. For the economy of the sub- continent to flourish, we need to ensure that the cost of transporting goods from the hinterland, including from our SADC neighbours, is kept to a minimum. Provision is made to promote the harmonisation of the railway safety regime of South Africa with that of SADC railways. In so doing, the opportunity will be created to have a seamless railway operation within the region which will contribute to the minimisation of costs.

I am mindful of the importance of rail transport in South Africa. The rail industry represents a major share of the total infrastructure coverage, economic activity and social impact in South Africa. South Africa is blessed with a 186 000km rail freight network and a 2 200km dedicated metropolitan commuter network with a total asset value of R63 billion. We find that 85% of all rail freight movement and 96% of all passenger journeys in sub-Saharan Africa are generated by the South African rail system. Rail transport and rail-related activities are increasing in South and Southern Africa, absorbing much of our economic and social structure, activity and interaction. The rail industry and the market it serves involve many role-players and affect the daily lives and safety of communities, passengers, customers and workers.

More generally, I want to emphasise that the Bill before this House must be seen in the context of a broader vision. Our vision consists, amongst others, of an attempt, firstly, to make rail transport, both passenger and freight, more attractive, reliable and affordable and also safe, so that more and more people move to use rail rather than road transport. We must do so without hurting our economy, because road transport also plays an important role.

The point is that there are many benefits like relieving road congestion, less pollution and less road accidents, something which will accrue if we can make rail transport more attractive.

Secondly, we must curb the number of private vehicles on our roads by making public transport more attractive. Thirdly, we must level the playing field between road freight and rail freight by acting effectively against overloading and requiring road freight to bear externalisation costs.

When we speak of railway safety, we remind ourselves of the terrible tragedy at Charlottesdale, KwaZulu-Natal, which claimed the lives of about 25 people. We must recognise that a better safety regime and better compliance would have prevented the tragedy and those lives would not have been lost.

Our Metrorail services currently serve our six metropolitan areas, but there are many complaints, eg unreliability, heavily laden trains on certain routes, ageing rolling stock, crime on trains and stations, and filthy trains and stations. We want to extend our rail system, but before doing that we must save the existing services and improve them. Instead, I must say with regret, we have seen our services cut from time to time.

We are determined to change that situation and to this end the state must accept responsibility because, for millions of people, affordable transport is a basic need. Recently Government and labour arrived at an historic agreement on rail restructuring. Part of the agreement relates to rail passenger transport. It has been agreed that our metrorail commuter service will be combined with the long distance mainline or Shosholoza Meyl service, and that the whole of the passenger service will remain state-run and subsidised.

We are currently finalising a total rail plan for South Africa, which also makes provision for institutional reform.

May I say in conclusion that we consider the issue of safety to be absolutely crucial: safety on rail, safety on our roads, safety at sea, safety in the air, safety at our airports and safety throughout our transport system. The step we are taking today is an important one in Government’s programme to transform transport in South Africa and make it safe for the people of our country. [Applause.]

Mr J P CRONIN: Chairperson, Deputy President, Mr Omar, colleagues, at his state-of-the-nation address in February this year, President Mbeki referred to the tragic train collision in KwaZulu-Natal which had claimed the lives of some 25 people, including many school students. The President extended on our behalf his condolences to the families affected, and as one of the early responses to this accident the President promised that legislation setting up an independent national rail regulator would be coming before this House. For all of these reasons the Portfolio Committee on Transport treated the Bill with a great sense of urgency and concern.

If we were a train and not a portfolio committee, I would suspect that there would have been times at which we were travelling above the safe limit. But while hurrying, we were anxious not to do a rush job on the Bill either. We had several substantial inputs from the national Department of Transport itself and its rail safety regulator task team headed by Mervin Panzero, a team that included Spoornet specialists. We also had major inputs from the two major trade unions active on the rail system, the Fedusa-affiliated Salstaff and the Cosatu-affiliated Satawu.

We heard from Transport Tech, the division of CSIR; the Rail Commuters Action Group, a group that established itself after the tragic murder on a train last year of a young Fish Hoek student; and strange, but true, from the Airlines Association of South Africa, who also had something interesting to say. We would like to thank all of those who made inputs and helped turn our committee hearings into popular forums in which the concerns of commuters, railway workers and railway technicians could be brought to bear on the sometimes abstruse law-making process that we involve ourselves in here in Parliament.

In the end we introduced a number of significant amendments to the original Bill that came before us. The trade unions were concerned about a number of issues. While accepting that the principal focus of the railway safety regulator was operational safety, they felt that there was insufficient reference to matters related to occupational health and safety. Unacceptable working hours and unsafe working conditions obviously also impact on operational safety, and we have accordingly written into the amended Bill direct references to existing occupation, health and safety legislation.

We have explicitly recommended that a representative of the Department of Labour should be on the board of the regulator.

The unions also felt that, in the original draft, the regulator’s inspectors were unduly hampered in their ability to carry out inspections of facilities and/or records held by railway operators.

We have now removed the requirement for warrants, to bring the powers of the regulator’s inspectorate into line with the powers enjoyed by, for instance, labour, health and occupational safety inspectors.

Satawu also expressed a concern that there were not enough legally binding safety requirements imposed upon railway operators, and that too much was left to the safety management systems that would be drafted by the railway operators themselves and then approved or not by the regulator.

We were not insensitive to this concern, but we were assured that our concerns would be adequately covered by the regulations that the Minister would proclaim in terms of this legislation. We might want, as members of the committee, to submit a report to Parliament recommending that the Minister should table, to Parliament, any regulations in terms of this Act so that we can reassure ourselves - and more importantly the public - that indeed our concerns are met in this regard.

A number of submissions, in particular those from the CSIR and the Rail Commuters Action Group, were concerned that not enough emphasis was being placed on security, particularly personal security on the rail system. The Rail Commuters Action Group recommended that we should add a new chapter to the Bill establishing a transit police service under the national Department of Transport.

Again, we were strongly in agreement with the broad principles of these concerns. For 2 million commuters who travel every workday on trains, the overriding concern is not so much that there would be a train collision or derailment, but that they would be mugged, robbed or interfered with by gangs, thieves and so on, who exploit the vulnerability of commuters on trains and at stations.

However, the core function and responsibility of the envisaged National Railway Safety Regulator is to ensure operational safety on the rail system, and it is important not to confuse roles. We do not want railway engineers to try and arrest criminal gangs on the Mitchells Plain station, and we do not want the SA Police deciding whether a signalling system meets the right technical standards.

However, rail operational safety and crime on the railway system are, in real life, deeply interconnected. The theft of signal cables or interference with the train driver is bound to impact on operations. Therefore, it is imperative that a Railway Safety Regulator connects dynamically with those responsible for safety and security, and we have introduced amendments to ensure that this happens.

We wish to tell the Minister that all parties are strongly in support of the call for some kind of railway, or better still, transit police. We are encouraged to hear reports that the relevant Cabinet cluster is now pursuing this idea. To add momentum to this important question, we are proposing, in the coming term, to have joint public hearings with the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security on this very matter.

We discussed the proposal from the Rail Commuters Action Group that we should legislate, in this Bill itself, for a transit police service under the national Department of Transport. While agreeing with their anxiety to see something like this happen, we felt that trying to push it into this Bill would actually slow the process rather than speed it up

Finally, among the more significant amendments introduced, we have taken on board the concerns expressed by the CSIR and Satawu in particular that, currently, information on railway incidents, accidents, fatalities, injuries and crime on the railway system in general is scattered, incomplete and often very difficult to find.

The CSIR recommended that the new Railway Safety Regulator should be given a key role in the collection, management and public dissemination of this kind of information. We agree, and we have included amendments to this effect.

In passing this legislation, we want to underline two key points. Firstly, this legislation and the National Railway Safety Regulator are not a panacea for all the problems on our rail system. They will establish an important component of improving our rail system by ensuring that operators, the players, are not themselves also their own referees when it comes to operational safety. However, there are many more other components that need to be addressed if we are to look at safety on the rail system. Much more adequate funding to ensure the extension and upgrading of the system and the introduction, as we have been saying, of some kind of transport police is essential.

The second point that we want to make is that, notwithstanding several serious accidents, including the recent one in KwaZulu-Natal, ageing equipment and other problems, the safety record on the rail system is remarkably good, especially when compared with other modes of public transport. Every weekday 2 million passengers travel on the rail system.

In the years 2000 and 2001 there were 286 fatalities, mainly from crime- related offences. That is far too many, but actually compares favourably with fatalities on the road system.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all members of the portfolio committee for their contributions, co-operation and understanding regarding the fact that we were sometimes travelling like a bullet train in our urgency to try to get this legislation done. Thanks also to the task team, the national Department of Transport and to everyone who made a contribution to the hearings.

The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr S B FARROW: Mr Chairperson, the recent spate of train accidents in our country is cause for concern. In a question put to the Minister recently, the SA Rail Commuter Corporation reported that 12 accidents occurred between 1 January 2000 and 5 February 2002 on its commuter network. These accidents resulted in the death of 30 passengers and the injury of 500. One of the most recent ones on 5 February at Charlottesdale, which has been referred to by previous speakers, is still under investigation by an independent board of inquiry and reports indicate that the accident was directly related to the theft of signal cables.

The SARCC further reports that between 1998 and 2000 some 25 major incidents or accidents involving Metrorail trains took place and that these are currently part of further investigations.

The causes of these accidents range from technical failure to systems deficiencies and human error. It appears, however, that the major cause of accidents which occurred over the period of investigation relates to human influence or error. Part of the current and ongoing investigations is to determine all intrinsic and extrinsic factors that contribute to the accidents, including the adequacy, competence, levels of skills, training and supervision of operating staff.

It is hoped that these reports will eventually be made public so that we can rectify any problems currently being experienced by these operators, in order to prevent or reduce any further accidents, injuries or loss of life.

The Bill was debated at length in the portfolio committee, as mentioned by the chairman, and numerous stakeholders participated in the public hearings. Clearly, a number of concerns came out from these hearings and many of these have been addressed and embraced in the amendments incorporated in the Bill before this House today. Be that as it may, we only saw the final form about half an hour ago.

However, let me focus on some of the concerns that were raised during these hearings, and in so doing bring these to the notice of the regulatory board for their future attention. The first relates to the whole aspect of public safety and security, including the staff of rail operators. For many years now we have seen a decline in Metrorail and Shosholoza Meyl passengers. This has been primarily brought about by the increase in crime, both at stations and on board our trains. From all accounts, present security is not coping with the problem and passengers fear for their lives when using our rail networks. It is sincerely hoped that with the introduction of the new Bill a serious effort will be made to reinstate a dedicated railway police force under the auspices of the SA Police Service. The working conditions and environment of the train operators and controllers also need to be seriously looked at if we are to avoid further accidents. My colleague, the hon Mr Pillay, will elucidate further on that.

The second issue relates to the upgrading and maintenance of the infrastructure and rolling stock of our rail network. For years this has been neglected and the continuing confusion relating to the management of this infrastructure, presently vested in the Minister of Public Enterprises, needs resolution and restructuring. Future operators or concessionaries will have to have assurances that this important partner plays its role in ensuring greater co-ordination and minimum duplication in its functions with the regulator. We can no longer accept accidents which have resulted in poor maintenance of our network, rolling stock or signal systems.

Finally, let me emphasise the need for the regulator’s independence. Without independence it will have no teeth and safety will be compromised. What is needed from the Bill is the assurance that the highest standards are adhered to and that a holistic approach is taken towards safety and security. Hopefully, the regulator will listen carefully to the voice of concerned commuters when formulating the high standards necessary, in order to encourage them back onto this most important public transport mode. The Minister should note that I also go along with our chairman in saying that when those regulations come through, we would very much like to scrutinise them.

The Democratic Alliance supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J H SLABBERT: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the National Railway Safety Regulatory Bill is aimed, as the title suggests, at creating a regulator to oversee railway safety in South Africa. Considering the number of accidents, deaths and injuries on the domestic railway system over the past few years, there can be little doubt that a safety regulator is urgently needed. For this reason the IFP will support it. Notwithstanding our support in principle, we have concerns about a number of aspects of this Bill.

The Bill purports to promote the safety of railway operations, including the safety of the public and railway personnel, as well as protecting property and the environment. These are indeed lofty ideals but will the Bill accomplish them? I want to highlight two related concerns on this point: firstly, the safety of commuters and secondly, the protection of property as it relates to commuter safety. It is commonly known that crime on our passenger trains has destroyed the confidence of commuters in public rail transport, particularly in urban areas. This phenomenon has led to dwindling passenger numbers and increased road traffic congestion.

In addition, the theft of cables and signalling equipment not only leads to delays and frustration but also further endangers commuters. Will the Bill effectively address the safety of commuters and railway property? I doubt it. To my mind, there is only one way of doing this and that is to immediately reintroduce a dedicated railway police service, answerable directly to the Minister of Transport. Such a police force will be solely responsible for the protection of passengers and railway property. The Minister of Safety and Security will probably not be too happy with a police force operating outside his jurisdiction, but the fact of the matter is that the SAPS simply does not have the resources to adequately handle railway safety. I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Safety and Security that he should welcome and support such a force, as it would free up valuable SAPS resources that he could employ in the fight against other types of crime.

A feature of the existing South African railway system is that the operators of the various services are driven by commercial considerations, in other words, profit. To my mind the Bill creates a situation where compliance by railway operators with the safety management system would in essence amount to self-regulation. The IFP would therefore like to see the regulator acting independently and aggressively to ensure compliance with safety standards, and not rely on the operators to police themselves.

A worrying fact is that an entire chapter of the Bill, namely Chapter 11, is devoted to providing that the Minister of Transport may, after consulting the board of the regulator, make regulations on an extremely wide range of matters. The role of Parliament is limited to, upon request, asking the Minister to what extent the public comment has been taken into account when the regulations were formulated. This is unacceptable. The Bill effectively sidelines Parliament as far as the regulations are concerned. The IFP believes that the Minister should at the very least table the proposed regulations before the appropriate committee of Parliament, which can then make its own inputs into the final regulations. It also concerns the IFP that the Bill does not make provision for the imposition of administrative fines in an event of the contravention of the safety standards.

The Bill does provide for criminal sanction, but the effectiveness of this is questionable as criminal enforcement can become very lengthy and very costly. In the meantime, the safety of the passenger is placed on hold, so to speak. We believe that a system of compliance and administrative fines strictly enforced by the inspectorate of the regulator will much more effectively and timeously ensure the safety of passengers. Where human lives are at stake, surely prevention is better than cure.

It is a pity the hon the Deputy President is no longer here, because I would have wanted him to hear this. The hon the Minister of Transport finds himself in a very difficult position, to my mind. On the surface he appears to be the line-function Minister responsible for all transport and related matters, but the reality is quite different. He has to, in fact, share his jurisdiction with the Minister of Public Enterprises, who is responsible for state ownership interest in Transnet Limited, the biggest railway role- player.

Furthermore, he has no jurisdiction or authority to deal with the safety and security of passengers and property, as they are the preserves of the Minister of Safety and Security. What is more, we even have the Ministers of Defence and Trade and Industry becoming involved for reasons of national security and economic performance. Clearly, this fragmented approach to transport matters causes confusion and a lack of direction. The IFP believes that the Minister of Transport should be allowed to decide on all transport-related matters and that this should be implemented as soon as possible.

I would like to raise one final point of concern. On Friday, 15 March this House approved a decision to suspended Rule 2531 (1), as it relates to the Bill. In other words the normal requirement that three working days should pass before the Second Reading of the Bill was circumvented. I am not suggesting that the Bill is not important or that railway safety is not an urgent issue. But the unseemly haste to debate the Bill today appears to me to have been unnecessary. I have only received the final form of the Bill in this House. Notwithstanding our concerns, the IFP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Ms N D NGCENGWANE: Chairperson, hon members, today in this House we are debating the National Railway Safety Regulator Bill, whose main objective or focus is safe railway operations. The Bill will cater for and protect all South Africans. This alone shows yet again the commitment of this Government to the safety and security of all the people of this country. This Bill enforces the principle of Batho Pele, because it focuses mainly on the safety of the railway industry personnel and of the public in general. It ensures compliance with the declared safety standards and moves beyond protecting commuters, but also touches on the protection of the environment.

The creation of the envisaged independent regulator will create an environment in which the railway industry will have to be accountable to an outside organisation, unlike the present situation, where the railway is accountable to itself. In others words, it is a referee and a player at the same time.

All members are aware of the problems facing this industry, and I hope they will agree with me when I say that the introduction of this Bill has come at a time when it was needed most. Actually, it is long overdue. Criminal activities in this industry are enormous, vandalism being the most common one. Theft of train doors and windows and using them for building shacks is more than just stealing, but the undermining of railway operators and the Government in particular. In such cases I think it is very important for the communities to work together with the police to identify the culprits, who own train doors without owning the trains. Maybe a toll-free number for whistleblowers could be introduced and rewards offered to discourage this act of barbarism.

There is also this high-profile crime of stealing cables and robots used for controlling the movements of trains. The stealing of cables causes train delays. It can also result in accidents caused by stampedes, as commuters targeting different trains tend to end up travelling on the first available train. Theft of robots that control the movements of trains is one of the most disturbing crimes. It once happened on one of the busiest railway routes in South Africa, namely the Soweto - Johannesburg line. Just imagine what could have happened to all those innocent people travelling between Soweto and Johannesburg had it not been discovered and reported in good time.

A call by all concerned South Africans for the return or reintroduction of the railway police needs to be looked into seriously. The railway police used to be the most efficient police force in this country. Why they were withdrawn from the railway industry and replaced by security guards one fails to understand. Another disturbing issue is the increasing number of head-on collisions of passenger and goods trains on the railway lines, something that rarely happened in the olden days.

This Bill is also going to address the growing number of shacks mushrooming along the railway lines, something very disturbing considering the number of deaths because of drunk pedestrians walking next to railway lines and members of the communities that commit suicide.

Measures taken to rectify the present situation include the appointment of railway safety inspectors. A suitably qualified person will be appointed and provided with a certificate of appointment signed by the Minister, establishing the safety regulator. For the first time operational railway safety will be managed through a safety management system.

This strategy will seek to manage safety and reduce risks. The regulator will have powers to oversee safety in the rail industry. The regulator will report directly to the Minister of Transport on all his activities. Any occurrence, regardless of the type of category, should be reported by the operator to the Chief Executive Officer. A suitably qualified person appointed by the board must, upon receipt of a directive from the Minister, investigate any railway occurrence for the purpose of preventing similar occurrences in future.

In conclusion, this Bill is meant to harmonise the South African rail industry. This will also contribute to the Nepad agenda by harmonising the South African safety regime with the SADC objectives and requirements for the operation of railways, so as to ensure the achievement of such objectives and establish a suitable regulatory system. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J J NIEMANN: Speaker, the Minister opened his speech by saying that he wanted to create a rail safety culture, and finished it by saying that he wanted to transform transport in South Africa and make it safe for the commuter.

Ek wil by daardie twee punte aan die begin en einde van sy toespraak vandag stilstaan. Dit is die reg van elke individu wat gebruik maak van openbare vervoer om die innerlike versekering te hê dat hy of sy veilig is, hetsy op die stasies of op die treine, en veilig by sy bestemming kom, veral as van die staat se vervoer gebruik gemaak word, Spoornet.

In hierdie sogenaamde demokratiese samelewing waarin ons ons bevind, is die veiligheid van die passasiers op ons stasies en op ons treine allesbehalwe gewaarborg. ÿf ‘n mens word gemolesteer of beroof of aangerand of met ‘n mes gesteek, óf erger, jy word net eenvoudig uit die bewegende trein gestamp. Selfs moord en verkragting is nie uitgesluit nie. As ‘n gereelde passasier van die staat se openbare vervoerstelsel het ‘n mens ook nie die sekerheid dat die trein betyds op die stasie sal arriveer nie. Nog minder het ‘n mens die sekerheid dat jy betyds by die werk sal opdaag.

Dit sal interessant wees as ‘n mens kon bepaal hoeveel manure in ons land verlore gaan as gevolg van die vrotsige openbare vervoerstelsel wat ons het. Die algehele verval en agteruitgang van ons spoorweë as openbare vervoermiddel is nie net kommerwekkend nie, maar maak ‘n bekommerde belastingbetaler selfs paniekbevange. Natuurlik is daar ‘n duisend en een redes vir die verval en totale agteruitgang. Een van die redes is vandalisme en gepaardgaan met vandalisme is diefstal.

Daar is haas nie ‘n ding wat in ‘n gewone passasierswa is wat nie gesteel word nie. Gaan kyk maar in die plakkerskampe hoeveel treindeure en treinvensters is in die plakkershutte ingebou. Van die gewildste dakbedekkings van plakkershutte is bokseile wat die eiendom was van die Suid-Afrikaanse Spoorweë.

Ek noem net die twee redes vir die agteruitgang, maar dié twee redes kos die belastingbetaler uiteindelik miljoene der miljoene rande. Daar is nog talle ander oorsake. So is daar byvoorbeeld swak en oorhaastige regstellende aksie sonder die nodige opleiding met gepaardgaande ondervinding en verantwoordelikheid.

Met die wegdoen van die destydse - en laat ek dit dadelik bysê - trotse spoorwegpolisie het die agteruitgang met die spoed van lig toegeneem. Al dié redes en tientalle andere het die Departement van Vervoer genoodsaak om met hierdie wetsontwerp na vore te kom. Die blote sigbaarheid van die polisie op ons stasies, op ons treine en ander spoorwegeiendom sal al geweldig baie bydra om die agteruitgang te keer. Wat veral belangrik is, is die mate van veiligheid wat die passasiers kan ervaar. Ek glo egter dat die wet nie die finale antwoord is op die probleem nie, maar dit is minstens ‘n beginpoging om orde te herstel en ons spoorweë te reguleer. Die NNP steun hierdie wetgewing. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[I would like to pause briefly at those two points at the beginning and end of his speech. It is the right of every individual who makes use of public transport to have the internal assurance that he or she is safe, be it on the stations or on the trains, and to reach his or her destination safely, especially if use is made of the state’s transport, Spoornet.

In this so-called democratic society in which we find ourselves, the safety of commuters on our stations and our trains is anything but guaranteed. One is either molested or robbed or assaulted or stabbed with a knife, or worse, simply pushed out of the moving train. Even murder and rape are not excluded. As a regular commuter on the state’s public transport system one also does not have the assurance that the train will arrive at the station on time. One has even less assurance that one will arrive at work on time.

It would be interesting if one could determine how many man hours are lost in our country as a result of the inefficient public transport system that we have. The general decay and deterioration of our railways as a means of public transport is not only alarming, but can even make a concerned taxpayer panicky. Of course there are a thousand and one reasons for the decay and total deterioration. One of the reasons is vandalism, and associated with vandalism is theft. There is scarcely an object in an average commuter coach which cannot be stolen. One simply has to look in the squatter camps to see how many train doors and train windows have been built into the squatter huts. Among the most popular roof coverings for squatter huts are tarpaulins which used to be the property of the South African Railways.

I have only mentioned these two reasons for deterioration, but these two reasons eventually cost the taxpayer millions upon millions of rands. There are many other causes. There is, for example, poor and overhasty affirmative action without the necessary training and the experience and responsibility that go along with it.

With the removal of the then - and let me add immediately - proud railway police, deterioration has increased at the speed of light. All these reasons and dozens of others have forced the Department of Transport to produce this Bill. The mere visibility of the police on our stations, on our trains and other railway property will already make an enormous contribution to preventing deterioration. What is particularly important is the degree of safety which the commuters could experience. However, I believe that the Act is not the final answer to the problem, but it is at least an initial attempt to restore order and to regulate our railways. The New NP supports this legislation.]

Mr D G MKONO: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the National Railway Safety Regulator Bill comes before us after a year characterised by many regrettable incidents in the rail sector, which have highlighted exactly how urgently we require legislation of this nature. We owe it to the families of the many people who lost their lives in the railway incidents and accidents in the past year to ensure that this Bill makes this form of transport viable and safe.

The UDM supports, in particular, the aim of this Bill to encourage the collaboration and participation of interested and affected parties in improving railway safety, as expressed in terms of clause 2(b). This aim, as elaborated upon in terms of clause 6 of the Bill, will, in our opinion, go a long way towards addressing the lack of co-ordination and integration which often lies at the heart of breaches in railway safety.

The UDM also supports the clear responsibility and accountability being placed upon rail operators, notwithstanding the above provisions, to ensure the safety of railway operations, given the necessity of managing and regulating these provisions and the other provisions envisaged by the Bill.

We agree with the establishment of a railway safety regulator. It is necessary and appropriate that such a body is created to bring under control the occurrence of accidents and incidents in the rail sector. An additional and vital task of promoting rail transport as a mode of transport is to reduce the growing and highly expensive burden on the South African road infrastructure.

The measures envisaged in chapter five of the Bill dealing with safety management are, in our opinion, appropriate and should, with proper implementation, create a safe and more effective rail sector in South Africa. Similarly, we endorse the concept of safety permits as captured in chapter four, believing that safety permits create a practical mechanism to regulate and enforce rail safety.

The UDM supports the Bill.

Mr M H FAZZIE: Chairperson, South Africa has a highly fragmented provision of public transport between the rural and urban areas. In most urban areas passengers have access to more than one mode of transport. On the other hand, people in rural areas experience poor transport provision or a lack thereof.

In rural areas the infrastructure backlog is a key barrier preventing access to transport. The roads in rural areas are in a bad condition in such a way that even buses and minibus taxis are reluctant to serve rural communities.

Given the fact that most roads in rural areas are in a bad condition, it can be argued that railway transport should be an alternative option for the rural communities. However, owing to the development which is biased towards urban areas, the rural areas suffer a huge infrastructure backlog with regard to both roads and the railway. Presently, the majority of rail passenger transport serves urban areas. As a result, there is a huge rail infrastructure backlog that the Government has to address in order for the rural community to have access to rail transport.

South Africa is currently confronted with the challenge of developing sustainable transport systems. The history of transport in South Africa has seen a continual increase in the use of road transport as a preferred means for most customers of the transport system. One of the causes for this trend is the fact that trains have poor safety and a high rate of accidents relative to road transport.

In order for South Africa to achieve a sustainable transport system, there is a need to improve, promote and subsidise rail transport. Road transport has been facing an increased demand, which results in overutilisation and congestion on the roads to many destinations.

On the other hand the railways are being underutilised. This can help address road congestion problems. Reliable and safe rail transport can make a positive contribution to the economy, by reducing the demand for oil imports. Environmental degradation owing to the emission of smoke by road transport can also be reduced when more people use rail transport because it uses electricity. These are some of the advantages of the use of rail as a primary mode of transport. Therefore, there are many potential gains for the communities and the country as a whole in the promotion of rail transport, especially for the poor rural communities.

Transport plays a key role in the socioeconomic development of the people. Access to affordable transport increases the chances for rural people to make a living. Transport infrastructure in rural areas is very poor, thus reducing the access of rural people to resources and their chances of making a living. There is a need for the Government to provide rail infrastructure for the rural communities. This is likely to increase access and employment opportunities for them.

In conclusion, I would say that inequality is still rife in South Africa. The rural communities still suffer as a result of an infrastructural backlog in all areas. The provision of rail transport is still urban-based, like many other services. There is a challenge for the Government to provide railway infrastructure for the rural communities. This is likely to increase their chances of survival. [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, the MF was quite perturbed by the number of railway accidents reported recently, the majority of which were the result of cable theft, which not only cost money but lives and injuries too.

The MF earnestly welcomes this Act. Railway transportation has been relied on for centuries and it is felt that this mode of transport can still be utilised confidently and reliably if managed efficiently. As mentioned, there has been a series of railway accidents recently. This has certainly caused a depreciation in the number of people who want to use this mode of transport.

The placement of the safety management system that this Act puts in place would certainly lead to a gain in confidence for its use. Railway transportation, though time-consuming, caters for people in the low-income group for travel at all times. It is the only means for persons from the outskirts of towns to get into the city. Railway transportation may be viewed as old fashioned, but it has been of service for many years. It is a viable means of travel.

The MF supports the implementation of the safety regulations put in place to ensure that railway travellers are made more safe when using public and private railways. The MF supports the National Railway Safety Regulator Bill. [Applause.]

Mr S PILLAY: Mr Chairperson, as my colleague stated, we support this Bill. I want to point out again that we should not view the passing of this Bill and our support for it as a final solution to all rail safety problems. This is the beginning of a process to put in place a system that, if implemented, would serve to assist in early identification and management of infrastructural problems more rapidly.

Coupled with any regulation resulting from this Bill, identification of passenger concerns and other interest groups should prove quite workable. Some elements that need urgent attention include the implementation of this Bill once it is passed. Timeframes must be adhered to to give meaning to the provisions contained herein.

The hon the Minister should note that some of the issues that affect employees include passengers smoking cannabis which, in turn, affects the train drivers, rampant crime on the trains and at railway stations; nonpaying passengers; operating staff, for example train drivers and train control officers, that work excessive hours, which leads to accumulated fatigue and stress; and a shortage of qualified and more skilled employees leaving the company, resulting in excessive hours of overtime being worked. We do find that in certain instances employees of Spoornet and even Metrorail work between 200 and 300 hours overtime per month.

The intended intervention by the legislature with the promulgation of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, namely to set minimum standards in terms of overtime work, has been rendered ineffective, to say the least. Variation agreements have been entered into to limit overtime and institute specific rest periods. These agreements are often violated, because of a shortage of staff and other factors. Company results are based on the above practices and current employee numbers. This situation makes it difficult, if not impossible, to change current practices, since it could have a drastic effect on the competitiveness of current rail operators.

From the year 2000 to this year there have been 13 train accidents, at huge cost to the commuters in terms of finance and confidence. Perhaps the hon the Minister would comment on the total cost of the 13 accidents that occurred in that period, and should the Minister not have that information readily available, it would be acceptable if he provided me with it at a later stage. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mev M P COETZEE-KASPER: Mnr die Voorsitter, Minister Dullah Omar, lede van beide kant, die ANC meerderheid en die ander kant. Die Nasionale Spoorwegveiligheidsregulasiewetgewing is die produk van verskillende belangegroepe se bydrae ten opsigte van die veiligheid van ons openbare vervoerstelsel. Ek wil net eintlik bylas: My stem is hees, omdat ek geoefen het om te fluit soos die koletrein van destyds en toe fluit ek my stem weg.

Die ANC-regering is ernstig omtrent die versekering dat passasiers en goedere hulle bestemming veilig bereik. Ons glo in ‘n geïntegreerde benadering ten opsigte van veiligheid op treine en daarom sal ander Ministers vir die Minister van Vervoer moet bystaan. Dit wissel van die versekering dat slegs bekwame mense aangestel word om die onderskeie masjinerie te beman, byvoorbeeld bestuurders moet ook oor die nodige kwalifikasies en vaardighede beskik, net soos bus- en motorbestuurders.

Hierdie stuk wetgewing beywer hom daarvoor om spoorvervoer as ‘n kostedoeltreffende opsie te bied vir passasiers en goedere in beide Suid- Afrika en die hele SADC. Omdat die meeste van treinongelukke aan menslike foute toegeskryf word, bepaal die wetgewing in besonderhede die stappe wat gevolg moet word met die vervoer van mense en goedere. Enige persoon of organisasie wat die veiligheidsmaatreëls ignoreer, gaan swaar beboet word.

Hier kan ons verwys na die vestiging van die spoorveiligheidreguleerder. Hierdie liggaam sal uitwerking gee aan die beginsels van samewerkende regering en verhoudings tussen die verskillende regeringsvlakke soos beoog in hoofstuk 3 van die Grondwet. Soos ek alreeds aangedui het, is die enigste manier om veiligheidstandaarde te verbeter met die samewerking van almal. Elkeen in ons gemeenskap moet seker wees dat as hulle met die trein ry, hulle veilig by hul bestemming sal aankom. Ouers moet hulle kinders op treine kan neem. Leerders moet treine veilig kan gebruik om skool toe te gaan en sakeondernemings behoort hulle goedere na naburige lande te kan vervoer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mrs M P COETZEE-KASPER: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister Dullah Omar, members on both sides; the ANC majority as well as the other side. The National Railway Safety Regulator Bill is the product of the contributions of different interest groups with regard to the safety of our public transport system. Actually, I would just like to add: My voice is hoarse, because I practised whistling like a coal train of old, and I whistled my voice away.

The ANC Government is serious about the assurance that passengers and goods arrive safely at their destination. We believe in an integrated approach with regard to safety on trains and therefore other Ministers will have to assist the Minister of Transport. This will include the assurance that only competent people will be appointed to operate the various types of machinery, for example drivers must also possess the necessary qualifications and skills, just like bus and car drivers.

This piece of legislation strives to present rail transport as a cost- effective option for passengers and goods, both in South Africa and in SADC as a whole. Because most train accidents are ascribed to human error, this legislation determines in detail the steps that should be followed with regard to the transport of people and goods. Any person or organisation that ignores the safety measures will be heavily fined.

Here we can refer to the establishment of the Railway Safety Regulator. This body will give effect to the principles of co-operative governance and relationships between the different spheres of government as envisaged in Chapter 3 of the Constitution. As I have already indicated, the only way to improve safety standards is with the co-operation of all involved. Everyone in our community must be certain that when they travel by train, they will arrive safely at their destination. Parents should be able to take their children on trains. Learners should be able to use trains safely in order to go to school and business enterprises should be able to transport their goods to neighbouring countries.]

Close monitoring of the safety of railway operations is at the crux of the matter. Without accurate monitoring and assessment of the system, the accident fund will be exhausted in no time. The monitoring system must be a priority, because this will provide a suitable framework for the improvement of safety performance in the railway industry.

The information that will be available from this exercise will oblige operators to adhere to acceptable safety standards. This shows our Government’s commitment to put right the years of neglect of this industry in which far too many lives were lost. This Bill will perhaps correct the notion that our communities are not safe when they use the trains, often preferring to take alternative means of transport that may often themselves be less safe.

The Bill also allows for fines for transgressions and for remedies and compensation to victims for damages suffered owing to an operator not complying with prescribed safety regulations. The Bill is very specific about the sentences that have to be meted out for contravention of safety benchmarks. The matter will then rest with the judiciary to implement the fines and sentences as prescribed by this Bill. This is an important fact that should be remembered in order to avoid rail tragedies and loss of goods through negligence. No one should be allowed to go free if they are guilty of transgressing the safety regulations.

Ons doel is om ons spoorweë die beste en veiligste vervoermiddel vir al ons mense te maak. Spoorwegvervoer is ‘n kostedoeltreffende manier om mense en goedere te vervoer, nie net in ons land nie, maar ook oor ons grense. Ons het reeds die ``Kom Veilig Aan’‘-veldtog vir ons motoriste. Laat dit ook vir ons spoorweë geld.

Van daar waar die suiker geplant is, tot daar by die fabriek waar hierdie lollie gemaak word, moet treine gebruik word om so die groot trokke op die paaie te verminder en ook werksgeleenthede te skep vir die mense van Suid- Afrika. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Our goal is to make our railways the best and safest form of transport for all our people. Rail transport is a cost-effective way of transporting people and goods, not only in our country but across our borders as well. We already have the ``Arrive Alive’’ campaign for our motorists. Let this also apply to our railways.

From where the sugar is planted to the factory where the lollipop is made, trains should be used to reduce the number of large trucks on the roads and also to create job opportunities for the people of South Africa.]

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson, hon members, I would like to express my appreciation to all members of this House who participated in this debate. I want to express my appreciation for the support for the Bill. I think all of us have been saying the same thing in different ways. All of us have said that we want our rail transport to be efficient.

Today we focus mainly on the commuter rail service, the public passenger rail service. Clearly, we need a rail service which does indeed do those things which members expect from a rail service but at the same time, we must also know that our rail service performs a very important economic role and therefore the conveyance of freight - cargo - by rail is also important. The latest accident in KwaZulu-Natal, which claimed so many lives, indicates that we must look at both, because this accident was caused by a Metrorail train running into a Spoornet coach - the freight coach and the passenger coach collided. Both are important.

We want to see good service. We want efficiency. We want people with skills who will conduct operations. We want safety standards to be maintained. As everyone has indicated, the security of our people is paramount. We must find a way to deal with the crime on our stations and on our trains. I think we are in total agreement on that, and therefore I need not detain the House on that at all.

I want to say to the hon member Mr Slabbert that this Bill does not provide for self-regulation. In fact, what we have done is move away from self- regulation. The present situation has always been that the operator is both referee and player at the same time. The operator is responsible for setting standards; the operator must implement; and the operator must also judge.

The weakness of the current situation is that the first investigation that takes place when an accident occurs, no matter how many people are killed, is conducted by the operator itself. I am not saying that the operator must not conduct investigations, the operator must do so. But, what we clearly need, as hon members have said, is an independent process, an independent mechanism to make sure that there is a proper and independent investigation so that proper steps can be taken to deal with the problems which arise. This is not self-regulation. It is the opposite of self-regulation.

What we have done is to create a body which will investigate, which will set standards, which will monitor, which will inspect and which will impose sanctions. Of course, this is a new concept for South Africa. What we have done is to look at best practice internationally and we have used the Canadian model as our benchmark.

If we see there are any weaknesses as time goes on, then as this House and Government we will put our heads together again to see how we can improve the Bill. I think we have a good product, but the test is always in practice and we will have to see how we are able to deal with this.

I would like to finally express a word of appreciation to the portfolio committee. The portfolio committee and its chair have played an important role in improving the Bill. The amendments which were brought about improved the Bill immeasurably, and I am very appreciative of that. It is a very important function of Parliament. Although we are here giving our views on the Bill, the committee work that was done, I think, was outstanding in this particular instance. I want to express my appreciation to the committee, to the task team which we set up, the international participants on that task team, and to my departmental officials.

Because we have started off with a new concept, we obviously are finding our way. I think that, by putting our heads together, we have emerged with a product of which we can all be proud.

I want to make a final appeal that we must make this Bill work. We must make the law work and make sure that the regulators have clout and that all role-players - the public, operators and all of us - play our role to make a success so as to ensure that rail transport indeed does become safe, efficient and attractive for all the people of our country. [Applause.] Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I have been informed that the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party would like to move a motion without notice.

                      HOURS OF SITTING OF HOUSE

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That, notwithstanding Rule 23, the hours of sitting for tomorrow, 19 March 2002, are as follows:

 10:00 to adjournment, subject to the availability of the report of the
 parliamentary mission to observe the Zimbabwean presidential election.

Agreed to. The House adjourned at 17:05. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Minister of Finance submitted the Wetsontwerp op die
     Verdeling van Inkomste [W 5 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76)
     to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 18 March 2002. This is the
     official translation of the Division of Revenue Bill [B 5 - 2002]
     (National Assembly - sec 76), which was introduced in the National
     Assembly by the Minister on 20 February 2002.


 (2)    The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs submitted the
     Wetsontwerp op Dieregesondheid [W 64 - 2001] (National Council of
     Provinces - sec 76) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 18 March
     2002. This is the official translation of the Animal Health Bill
     [B 64 - 2001] (National Council of Provinces - sec 76), which was
     introduced in the National Council of Provinces by the Select
     Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs at the request of the
     Minister on 5 September 2001.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the Pan
 South African Language Board for 2000-2001 [RP 38-2002].

1. The Minister of Finance:

 Report and Financial Statements of the South African Revenue Services
 for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
 Financial Statements for 2000-2001.

1. The Minister of Labour:

 Report and Financial Statements of the Health and Welfare Sector
 Training Authority for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
 General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 (1)    Third Report of the Working Group on the African Union, dated 18
     March 2002


     The Working Group was established to consider the implementation
     of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and recommends that:




          1.  The Working Group, as it has not finalised its task,
              should be mandated to continue with its work on the
              African Union, including the issues raised at the seminar
              of 1 and 2 March 2002.


          2.  The Presiding Officers should be authorised to expand the
              membership of the Working Group when required.


          3.  The Minister of Foreign Affairs should be requested to
              sign the Protocol on Pan African Parliament and table it
              in Parliament as soon as possible. The Protocol should be
              referred to the Working Group for consideration and its
              ratification should be finalised by the end of May 2002.


          4.  The National Assembly should interact with other African
              Parliaments and Parliamentary formations, in particular
              the SADC Parliamentary Forum, in order to promote early
              ratification of the Protocol.


          5.  As the Constitutive Act of the African Union provides for
              the participation of the African peoples and the Pan
              African Parliament in the activities of the Union,
              Parliament should engage the Executive, among other
              things, to establish a role for African Parliaments in
              the African Union Summit in July 2002.


          6.  Parliament should establish the response of the Executive
              to the second reports, dated 27 February 2001, of the
              Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Select
              Committee on Economic Affairs, respectively, on the
              Constitutive Act of the African Union.


     Report to be considered.


 (2)    Interim Report of the Task Group on Sexual Abuse of Children on
     the progress with regard to the hearings held on the sexual abuse
     of children, dated 18 March 2002:


     1. The Task Group on the Sexual Abuse of Children was established
          by the Speaker to give effect to the motion passed in the
          National Assembly on 14 November 2001. (See ATC dated 11
          February 2002.) This multiparty Task Group consists of two
          members each of the following committees: Portfolio Committee
          on Education; Portfolio Committee on Health; Portfolio
          Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs; Portfolio
          Committee on Safety and Security; Portfolio Committee on
          Social Development; Joint Monitoring Committee on the
          Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth
          and People with Disabilities and the Joint Monitoring
          Committee on the Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of
          Women.


     2. At the first meeting of the Task Group on 6 February 2002, Mr E
          Saloojee was unanimously elected as chairperson and it was
          agreed that he would take the responsibility of setting up the
          hearings. It was decided at this meeting that the hearings
          should be publicised as widely as possible and that the
          relevant government departments should be invited to brief the
          Task Group on their programmes aimed at combating the sexual
          abuse of children as well as the legislative framework within
          which these programmes operate.


     3. As a result, advertisements were placed in the Sunday Times and
          City Press on 10 and 17 February 2002 indicating a cut-off
          date of 3 March 2002. In addition, in the week of 11-15
          February 2002 approximately 150 letters were faxed and emailed
          to a range of organisations and individuals throughout the
          country who would be interested in the issue of rape and abuse
          of children. The five relevant Ministers and Departments were
          invited to make very brief submissions on the first day of the
          hearings. In addition, the South African Law Commission was
          invited to talk about their work on the Review of the Child
          Care Act and the Sexual Offences Act.


     4. Each Member of Parliament was given a batch of ten copies of
          the print advert with a covering letter asking them to
          publicise the hearings in their constituencies.
     5. The Chairperson also engaged the services of the Public
          Education Department at Parliament, which organised public
          information radio spots about the issue on 14 radio stations
          in all the official languages during the week of 23 February
          2002 to 3 March 2002. This was done using the resources of the
          Public Education Department.


     6. Notwithstanding the time constraints placed upon the TG by the
          deadline of 15 March 2002, 51 responses in terms of
          applications to make oral submissions were received. Through a
          process of careful selection, the Chairperson decided on which
          organisations and individuals would be accorded a time slot.
          It was decided to ask those who could not be accommodated in
          the programme to submit written submissions.


     7. The Task Group agreed to fund eight individuals who were not
          able to afford to travel to Cape Town so that people are not
          excluded due to economic reasons.


     8. In all about 76 submissions had been received. The Task Group
          agreed to accept written submissions in any of the official
          languages, and in cases where people are unable to write, to
          accept recorded submissions so that as many voices were heard
          as possible.


     9. The deadline confined the hearings to be held from Monday, 11
          March 2002 until Wednesday, 13 March 2002 from 09:00 to 17:00
          each day, and from 14:00 until 18:00 on Thursday, 14 March
          2002, thereby limiting the time for adequate questions to the
          presenters. The meeting on 14 March 2002, at which the Task
          Group heard submissions from a group of children, was not open
          to the public. This was facilitated by the Afrika Cultural
          Trust.This was done in order to protect the identities of the
          children, some of who were survivors of abuse including sexual
          abuse.


     10. The Task Group heard from the following persons and
          organisations:


          Monday, 11 March 2002


          *   Department of Social Development
          *   Department of Education
          *   Department Safety and Security
          *   Department Justice and Constitutional Development
          *   Department Home Affairs
          *   Department of Health
          *   South African Law Commission
          *   Chairperson of the NCOP (Ms N Pandor)
          *   Ms T Duze - Bultfontein
          *   Community Law Centre (UWC)
          *   Ms L Khoza - Newcastle


          Tuesday, 12 March 2002


          *   Cape Town Child Welfare Society
          *   It's Your Move Youth Action
          *   South African National Council for Child Welfare
          *   WACA Advice Centre - G A Rankua
          *   South African Human Rights Commission
          *   Childline
          *   UN Child Justice Project
          *   Ms F Dyanti (Rape Survivor)
          *   South African Catholics Bishops' Conference
          *   Domestic Violence Helpline (Durban)
          *   Shadow Pictures
          *   Rapcan
          *   Nadel


          Wednesday, 13 March 2002


          *   Molo Songololo
          *   Ms R Kadalie
          *   UCT Children's Institute
          *   Far North Regional Network on Violence - Pietersburg
          *   Professional Board for Psychology
          *   CIET Africa
          *   Palliative Medicine Institute
          *   Johannesburg Child Welfare Society
          *   Medical Research Council
          *   Child Protection Programme (UWC)
          *   National House of Traditional Leaders
          *   ACCESS/ Children's Rights Centre / Soul City


          Thursday, 14 March 2002


          *   Afrika Cultural Trust
     11.     The Task Group, having heard from the persons and
          organisations listed above, having examined the written
          submissions and in view of -


          *   the limited time available to the Task Group to carefully
            consider all the information gathered at the hearings to
            enable it to prepare its report;


          *   the complexity of the divergent issues raised during the
            public hearings, which require careful consideration for
            appropriate action;


          *   the myriad of legislative measures dealing with sexual
            offences against children that have been raised for close
            scrutiny by various parties at the hearings;


          *   the need for careful review in order to co-ordinate the
            roles and relationships of the various institutions and
            other role-players involved in combating the sexual abuse of
            children; and


          *   the need for detailed recommendations to be discussed by
            the various political parties individually prior to their
            inclusion in a final report of the Task Group,


          proposes that a final report be tabled in the National
          Assembly during the second parliamentary session, after
          careful consideration by all political parties, with full
          recommendations for appropriate action to be taken in response
          to those issues raised in the Report.


     To be considered.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Interim Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Powers and Privileges of Parliament, dated 18 March 2002: The Ad Hoc Committee on Powers and Privileges of Parliament reports as follows:

 1.     The Committee met on 12, 13, 15 and 19 February 2002 to consider
     the Fourth Draft of the Powers and Immunities of Parliament Bill.
     These deliberations led to several points being identified on
     which the Committee needed to make a final decision. The Committee
     requested the Parliamentary Law Advisers to prepare a fifth draft
     of the Bill, highlighting the clauses on which such decisions had
     to be made.


 2.     The fifth draft of the Bill was distributed to all the members
     of the Committee, to enable all political parties to consider its
     contents, and to generate some discussion on the subject. It is
     envisaged that the members will bring to the next Committee
     meeting the viewpoints of their respective parties.


 3.     The Ad Hoc Select Committee on Powers and Privileges of
     Parliament of the National Council of Provinces had to withdraw
     from the process at the request of its chairperson, due to the
     nature of the NCOP programming. The Bill was circulated to the
     provincial legislatures for comment, and to date only the
     following provinces have responded: Free State, Northern Province
     (Limpopo), Gauteng, Western Cape, Northern Cape and Eastern Cape.
     KwaZulu-Natal has not yet passed any legislation in this regard.
     The three provinces who have not responded, need to be urged to do
     so.


 4.     It is proposed that the Committee meets as follows:


     *  26 April 2002, to consider the fifth draft of the Bill, to
          exercise options on clauses where there is still uncertainty;
          and


     *  3 May 2002, to consider a sixth and final draft of the Bill.


 5.     The Ad Hoc Select Committee will be invited to attend these
     meetings.


 6.     It is hoped that the Committee will finalise and adopt the final
     draft of the Bill on 3 May 2002, for submission to the National
     Assembly.
 Report to be considered.