WEDNESDAY, 26 JUNE 2002 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
                                ____

The Council met at 14:06.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS see col 000.

                             NEW MEMBER

                           (Announcement)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! I have to announce that Ms R P Mashangoane, representing the Northern Province, has made and subscribed the solemn affirmation before me. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Ms Mashangoane to the NCOP where she will sit as a permanent delegate. [Applause.] RESCUE EFFORT IN ANTARCTICA

                         (Draft Resolution)

Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) wishes well the captains and crew members of three vessels on a mission of mercy to save 107 Russian scientists stranded in Muskegbutka Bay in Antarctica, namely:

   (a)  the German "Magdalena Oldendorff", currently stranded  in  pack-
       ice on the Antarctic coast;


   (b)  the Argentine ice-breaker "ARA Almirante Izar"; and


   (c)  last, but not least, our own "SA Agulhas";

(2) commends the exemplary way in which the three nations have made their resources available and are cooperating to rush to the aid of the stricken citizens of a fourth nation; and

(3) wishes our “SA Agulhas” and its crew Godspeed and a safe return to our shores.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

                         G8 SUMMIT IN CANADA

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the G8 summit is currently under way in Canada where our President is to put the case for South Africa and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development plans; and

(2) wishes him Godspeed and every success in his endeavours. Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

          PROGRESS REGARDING PROGRAMME OF LAND RESTITUTION

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) highly commends the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and her department on the progress they have made in the programme of giving land back to the communities who were dispossessed;

(2) notes that the programme contributes to building the economy through providing resources and assets that can generate employment and income, particularly in rural areas;

(3) believes that the success of the programme is testimony to the efforts being made by the department to be partners with the community, in the interest of the community and those that are entrusted to the department’s care; and

(4) therefore encourages the Minister to continue with the immeasurable contribution she is making to the building of a democratic society.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONDUCTING OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SITTING IN PLENARY IN THE EASTERN CAPE

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:

That the Council in terms of Rule 21(2), resolves that -

(1) in the interest of enhancing public participation as provided for in section 72(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996), the Council will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, 1 August 2002, and will sit in plenary on Friday, 2 August 2002 at the University of Transkei in Umtata in the Eastern Cape from 10h00 until the conclusion of the business of that day; and

(2) the estimated cost of effecting the change in venue and maintaining it for the specified period will be R 495 358.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

          MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs thereon)

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, on a point of order: It is my contention that the select committee sat as a joint committee with the National Assembly portfolio committee. It is further my contention that the Rules require both Houses to authorise such a resolution passed in the House.

In the light of the fact that the Constitution confers on us a role to review legislation, specifically section 75 legislation that comes before this House, we should maintain our independence and not condone lightly any abrogation of that by simply sitting as a joint committee when and if it suits people. I understand that the hearing of submissions or evidence may change the situation, but …

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! What is your point of order, hon member?

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, my point is that the select committee therefore has not sufficiently applied its mind to this independently of the National Assembly committee. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, please, let us hear the member. I will then decide whether I need to call Mr Moosa, Ms Dlulane or any other member. This is a democratic institution. Let us allow the member an opportunity. Proceed, Mr Lever.

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, despite the fact that a rushed meeting was held this morning to rush through the various chapters, and that there was a short briefing, chapter by chapter, by the department, it is my view and I respectfully submit that that is insufficient to say that the select committee has independently applied its mind to the legislation before this House.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Mr Lever, you did not refer to the particular Rules that you are addressing in this instance. You have made reference to joint meetings and that these should not be undertaken lightly. As far as I am aware, there have not been joint meetings sanctioned by this House. What has occurred is that I as the Chairperson have acted in terms of Rules 207, 208 and 209 of the National Council of Provinces. On that basis, on receiving the referral from the National Assembly of this particular piece of legislation, I have asked that it be placed on the Order Paper. In terms of section 75 legislation and the Rules of the NCOP - which are the rules that govern our sitting here; not the Joint Rules - I have taken those actions. I therefore call on the hon the Minister to address the House. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Madam Chair, hon members, I am here to let this House know that we have come this far in the process of changing our mining industry, and to request the support of this House to pass this Bill.

In my speech today, as I did in the National Assembly, I intend to communicate the willingness of my department to work with everybody with whom we have otherwise been seen to be quarrelling during the time leading up to this Bill. We believe that the building of this country, and particularly turning this industry into a sunrise industry, has always been a shared vision of all stakeholders, especially the tripartite. Making the mining industry a sunrise industry is our quest and it is a joint project that involves all stakeholders, including the members in this House.

Exactly 47 years ago on this day in 1955, in Kliptown, the ANC declared that ``the people shall share in the country’s wealth’’. Today once more we bring that clause of the Freedom Charter to life; we bring sharing in the country’s mineral wealth to small and established companies, artesian miners, small miners and all our investors, foreign and local. The wisdom of our leadership, as demonstrated in Kliptown, has once more shown itself to be timeless. It is still relevant today. It is a pity that we did not achieve this earlier, but it is not too late to submit.

Let me take hon members into our confidence about the road that we have travelled. Those who have eagerly and impatiently waited for decades have argued in their submissions that the Bill does not go far enough. Yet, those who feel that the Government has gone too far have objected to some provisions of the Bill. There are yet others who feel that this is a perfect piece of legislation. I include myself among those.

Even yesterday, Madam Chair witnessed how overjoyed the National Assembly was about the fact that we had tabled this Bill. The support and emotions that this Bill has aroused can never be erased from my mind. We have been able to get support from business, notwithstanding the fact that we have differed with some from the business sector. However, in general we believe that our business sector, which is very modern and experienced in operating in other economies, is by and large supportive of this Bill. Of course, we have the support of workers, NGOs, women, academics and our counterparts in other parts of the world, who have assisted us as we have travelled this road.

Between all these contradictions, I feel that we have reached sufficient consensus, which is typical of us in South Africa. It has taken us a long time to get here, from 1994 when the ANC released the discussion document on minerals and energy policy, to the time in 1998 when Minister Maduna tabled the White Paper on Minerals, which was then adopted. In November 2000, Cabinet approved the draft minerals development Bill, which was then released for public comment.

I am repeating all this because there are people who are trying to give the impression that this is something that we have just done overnight. Those who accuse us of rushing through this Bill have simply not been doing their work. It means that they have not been attending to the activities of the committees, or that in their party caucuses this has not been a priority. Maybe that is so because they did not have anything to change. Those of us who felt it a real imperative to bring about change, have paid attention to this for the past 10 years, which was a long period.

Those who have been excluded from meaningful involvement in this industry have waited for generations, over a century, for this day, and they think that it has been too slow. At the same time, those who had access and therefore dominated involvement in this industry still remain valuable contributors. So, this Bill is also meant for them.

The members of the committee in this House and the chairperson, together with their colleagues in the National Assembly, have worked very hard to bring us to this stage, and I would like to thank them. I would like to thank the leadership, Mr Mohseen who had sleepless nights, and the team which has made it possible for us to arrive at this day.

We remain convinced of the importance of the Bill, notwithstanding the public positions we have all taken at different points in dealing with the Bill. We are also dealing with experienced miners and mine owners who have already experienced the changes that this Bill seeks to bring about in other countries. Therefore, even though some aspects of the current dispensation may be preferred, the new dispensation is not strong. In fact, there is nobody who wants the new dispensation to stay as it is, just as much as there are people who want aspects of the new dispensation. Not everybody feels that they got everything that they wanted. But that is the nature of politics. We again submit that what we have here is something that everybody can live and work with.

All those issues that were generally identified as issues of consent, and which concerned most of the stakeholders, have been addressed in the Bill, to the letter, for example the issue of security of tenure and the issue of discretion, which in the end boils down to us having to define black economic empowerment and the social and labour plan. That is in the Bill, but in addition we are bringing a charter which we will be working on together with the industry, so that when we table it, it will be a launch not by Government alone, but something that we will be launching and bringing to the public together.

The debates have been shifting as we went along. As I just indicated, initially what was thought to be a problem regarding security of tenure was the number of years for which people would be able to have a valid licence. We were able to address that. In fact, we are now in an even better position than other countries that we compete with. Even what we proposed initially was quite competitive. So, the issue of the number of years for which people will hold a licence for prospecting and mining ceased to be an issue. Over the past few days the issue has simply been about the definitions. As I have said, we have included those definitions in the main body of the Bill, but in addition to that we also have the charter.

The other issue that came up during the hearings in relation to these two issues that I have referred to was quantification. Again, in the charter we are going to quantify what quantum of empowerment will be expected, because, as hon members can imagine, we want meaningful empowerment.

I would just like to make reference to some of the critical and key contents of the Bill. These include the principles that the mineral resources are part of the national patrimony which have to be developed for the benefit of all South Africans; that the state, as the sole representative of all the people of this country, is the custodian of the nation’s mineral resources; and that it is a universally recognised right of any state to exercise fundamental and permanent sovereignty over its natural resources, including mineral resources.

We have the use it or lose it'' principle, which is another mechanism that guarantees security of tenure, because as long as oneuses it’’ one will never lose it''. In fact, it is ause it and keep it’’ principle.

The Bill includes redress as a result of past discrimination. This also takes our constitutional responsibility further. The Bill will contribute to socioeconomic development and social upliftment by mining companies, who will be working together with the state in undertaking this task, so that we will never again have a situation in our country where there is enormous wealth that God has given to all of us on the one hand, but just behind the mine there is extreme poverty. This is the reality that we have today, and this Bill will work towards bringing that to an end.

This Bill also enhances respect for and the protection of the environment, not just the natural environment, ensuring that mining has no adverse effects on the community and employees. I do not have to remind hon members about the asbestos cases. We do not want that to happen in our country ever again.

The Bill provides for compensation in cases where there is any form of expropriation during or after transition. In fact, today, to tighten that up, members from the ANC will effect an amendment in order to make sure that that compensation is even tighter after transition. I can tell people who have argued about the constitutionality of the Bill that primarily it has been about what this Bill means for compensation. We have done everything we could to ensure that that is addressed. But there is already a judgment on this issue, State vs LMT, where the judge ruled that mineral rights were not propriety rights. Notwithstanding that, we are willing to pay compensation and we want to assure those colleagues, in the New NP and the IFP, who were worried about that, that we are just as committed and concerned as they are regarding this issue.

Maqabane, siwulungele lo msebenzi. Zonke izinto neenkqubo ezifunekayo, ukuze lo Mthetho uYilwayo ukwazi ukuqhubela phambili, sesizenzile. Iimbiza sizihlambile, abantu sibalungisile namaphepha, siwaqoqoshile kwisebe. Bayadlalisa abantu abathi senze umthetho esingasayi kukwazi ukuwumela ngesiphekepheke. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)

[Comrades, we are ready for this work. Everything and all the necessary programmes, that should enable this Bill to move forward, have been finalised. We have washed the pots, and the department has prepared people and the relevant documentation. People who say that we rushed the Bill through are just playing.]

We are ready to implement this Bill. We will be launching our cadastre system, which will show that we have put in place the systems, technology and administrative backup that will make sure that we can administer in the new way. We have a new organogram in the department, which is adding some of the posts which will make sure that the new responsibilities that this Bill assigns to us will be carried by people who exist on our payroll. It will not be done outside the department.

We are strengthening our regional offices. When members are at home, they can visit some of our regional offices. They will find that we have actually made provision in order to make sure that there will be assistance, in particular because there will be many SMMEs that will be coming into the fold. Those SMMEs will go to our offices and find staff members who are ready to deal with, assist and guide them.

We have also included beneficiation in this Bill, because, as many members will know, in almost all African mining economies we stop at mining, with very little effort to add value to our mineral resources, and therefore we simply export jobs. Many hon members have spoken to me, publicly and privately, about the need for us to do something about that. I am sure that this is something that all of us in this House, no matter what party we come from, would like to see succeeding. So, empowerment will also ensure that we stimulate beneficiation.

When people come and apply for licences and there are competing applications, the Bill provides for the Minister to give priority to those companies that have a plan for adding value. This will ensure that companies do take this seriously.

The Bill also takes on a number of social issues, such as the ghost towns in areas where there is no longer mining. In those areas, we will be able to use our royalties to go back and address the poverty and economic crisis that continue to exist there. The Bill also provides for areas that are host communities where mining is currently taking place, but where there is no plan to see to it that when mining is no longer taking place the economy will diversify so that people are not left high and dry. This Bill addresses this issue, by directing royalties to address that, and by working together with the mining industry to address the potential negative social impact of mining in those communities.

The Bill also accommodates what we call dense labour-sending areas, because, with regard to migrant labour, a lot of our miners come from places far away from the mines and, usually, and as we know historically, those areas have been left in poverty and underdevelopment. This Bill will go back to the dense labour-sending areas, which are communities which Teba once ravaged, and develop them. Now we are glad that Teba has also turned itself into a rural development agency, and we will be working with them to restore life and dignity to those communities.

As I have said, we are ready to do business. We are very much focused on the future. We are looking at how we will make sure that we take new entrants into the future dispensation. Local or international players - big or small - will all now only need to go to the department in order to make applications, instead of having to look for mineral rights from their competitors, as was the case in the past. They will be able to access much more easily the deposits that they could not use even though those who had those deposits in their possession did not intend using them. The ``use it or lose it’’ principle will make that possible.

People who were historically disadvantaged will be able to come to our institutions to seek assistance, especially when it comes to technology. The advice that we are talking about includes even the actual construction of mines, and Minister Ngubane has assured me that Mintek is one of the institutions that will be brought to the party in order to help. I thank the Minister for his kindness. [Laughter.]

Regarding small prospectors, hon members know that this is where the risk is much higher and that banks do not treat people who are prospectors very well. Our Council for Geoscience will hand-hold some of our small and new prospectors in order to assist them to reduce the risk. The Bill provides access to data that the companies are no longer using to be made public within a stipulated period so that other people who need that information can use it.

For established companies and bigger players, the security of tenure of 30 years is more than competitive. It is better that in Canada, Botswana and Australia. We are going to be doing good business here.

For big business there is also going to be a possibility for the retention of a licence if the need arises, as could be the case if market conditions are not favourable. The Bill allows the Minister to have that discretion - something people did not want - which they will need desperately if market conditions turn against them. The Minister will be able to be considerate and allow them to retain their licences even though they are unable to use them optimally at that particular point.

The paying of royalties to the state is definitely going to be a much more pleasant thing to do, because royalties will not be as high or as exorbitant as royalties paid to private owners, as has been the case in some instances. Of course, we are going to quantify the charter. People have been throwing around a figure of 25% empowerment that is going to be in the charter. What we can say as a department is that we want historically disadvantaged people to be minority owners in the existing mines. However, we want to see meaningful minorities in accordance with the Companies Act, which is 26%-plus.

We also want HDP’s to be significant players in general. Therefore when we issue licences for the new mines we expect them to position themselves as significant and majority players. They should be able to go around and identify international and local partners who will bring them the expertise and resources that they will need in order to utilise their licences effectively.

These licences are also going to be the one shield that small companies will have when they go to the banks to raise money. They will be able to indicate that they have these rights and the ore body and as a result they will be treated by the banks in a much better way than if they had gone without anything which can be regarded as collateral.

There are benefits for workers as well in this Bill. We have progressively redefined the employee in line with mine health and safety, in order to make sure that contractors do not abuse workers and that there are no workers who fall between the cracks in terms of the law. Of course, we are including a social plan which will ensure that the provision made for retrenchment is made right at the beginning of the work, and that there will be multiskilling so that no worker would stay for 20 years in the mines as a so-called unskilled worker.

A mining company which does not do all these things will simply not get a licence. If they do not train, multiskill and provide a social plan, then they simply do not deserve to be in this industry. It is very much labour intensive, therefore one cannot focus only on rands and cents, but also on people. We know the effects of not focusing on people.

In any case, we have the skills Act which has already been financed. Therefore companies do not need to look for new money; they simply must use the money in the kitty which they have not been using. We already have the Employment Equity Act, therefore as far as representivity in companies in concerned, we are not asking them to do something they are not already familiar with. This has already been provided for in the Employment Equity Act, they must simply put it into practice.

As far as communities are concerned, we hope that our traditional communities which are blessed with minerals are also positioning themselves, because they will be able to receive royalties continuously as long as they have a development plan which shows that they will be using the royalties for the development of the community. Therefore the chiefs will be able to continue looking after their people, and they will have something to show for it. I address these remarks to Kgosi over there.

When it comes to holding licences, they will also be encouraged to apply for licences in their own right. But, obviously, they will have to meet the criteria. For now, many of the traditional communities are satisfied simply to receive royalties. We are saying that in the new dispensation we want to assist them to organise themselves into proper companies, and to train people and invest in scholarships, which we will provide through the MQA, so that in those traditional communities one has a geologist yakwaMaretane nonjiniyela baBafokeng [from Maretane and Bafokeng engineers].

There is no reason why the Bafokeng do not have leading mining engineers in the country. They should know that if they had engineers they would be able to use them. For us that is the best prize that this Bill can bring about in this country and in this nation.

Laphaya emalahleni KwaZulu-Natal - uma esekhona - sifuna ukubona onjiniyela basemalahleni abangoDlamini noMaMkhize. [There in the coal mines in KwaZulu- Natal - if there are still any - we want to see mining engineers who are from the Dlamini and Ngcobo clans.]

We in the department will give extra attention to making sure that we bring about these benefits. Therefore empowerment in the case of this Bill is not referred to as BEE. We refer to it as broad-based socioeconomic empowerment

• BBSEE - because it covers ownership, affirmative procurement and compulsory operational involvement of black people.

Therefore to be a bona fide BEE company now you will have to come and say: Nampa abantu bami engizobathuthukisa: nguDlamini, nguNgcobo, nguNaidoo, nguKoekemoer, nguMkhize noGqumshe, futhi bese uthi: [Here are my people, whom I am going to develop: Dlamini, Ngcobo, Naidoo, Koekemoer, Mkhize and Gqumshe, and he must say:] These are the people that will be empowered and trained, and this is how they are going to be involved.

Uma umuntu eza yedwa ephethe incwadi yakhe yamasheke ehamba nge-4x4, akakhohlwe. [Ubuwele-wele.] [If one arrives all alone with one’s cheque book and one drives a 4x4, one can forget about it.] [Interjections.] We do not regard that person as a bona fide empowerment company, because we want to see the people that are going to be empowered as a result of such a venture. There must be a programme between that person and the company he or she will be working with which shows that such a person is actually going to be doing business with that company.

The economic and social security of the country is the biggest concern for all of us. Therefore we would like to urge members of Parliament, especially members of the opposition, to exercise restraint when they shoot down this Bill, because that would portray the country in an unfavourable light for a problem that does not exist.

This Bill has addressed all the issues that have been raised and issues of genuine concern. We regard the Chamber of Mines as an important employer, and therefore we would like to see it continue to play the role of organising employers in this industry and to continue to work towards the transformation of this industry through them. They have been able to demonstrate that they can do that, judging, for instance, by the role they played during the mining summit.

Therefore there is nothing to fear from this Bill. It is an inclusive Bill, it is the Bill of the future, it is a modernising Bill, and it is a Bill which all of us should be able to be proud of, because it has something for everybody. That is a result of the big balancing act which the ANC is known for in this economy. We tried to think about everybody.

I would like to thank my staff and drafters who have done a remarkable and amazing job in achieving this balancing act. Kha nisukumeni kwakhona. [Uwele-wele.] [Kwaqhwatywa.] [Please stand up again. [Interjections.] [Applause.]]

These are my young drafters who are determined to make the future a good one. They have a stake in this because they are going to be around for a long time. I would like to say that hon members know our department and that we have been around, and we have never done anything foolish. We have been very fair, we treat companies fairly, we give service to the best of our ability and we are the champions of this industry, whether the players are big or small, foreign or local. Our bona fides speak for themselves when it comes to that, and there is no way we will throw away all we have built through this Bill, because if we do that, we will also be out of a job.

Therefore this is a shared concern, and this is a shared future we are bringing here. Of course, I would like to thank the members of Parliament, the ANC study group, the two chairpersons who have also worked in leading members, and those representatives of the opposition, such as the UDM, who were very supportive in the National Assembly yesterday and who made brilliant points about the future that this Bill presents.

I would like to thank civil society, the churches, traditional leaders, academics, banks, the small and junior miners, all of whom have rallied behind us in order for us to go forward. Opportunities will be opened. I would like hon members to go back to their communities and alert them that the future in the mining industry is about to begin, and tell them that if they snooze, they lose. Uma belala, bayasala. [Ubuwele-wele.] [Ihlombe.] [If they sleep, they will be left behind. [Interjections.] [Applause.]]

Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, this morning some very arrogant party boss must have told our Adv Lever that he had better find a way to stop this Bill. Therefore as he fell out of bed he thought of the first rule that came into his mind, and that was Rule 111 of the Joint Rules. It is a good one, but I have said many times that Adv Lever’s legal opinions are a little bit suspect, and I am going to explain why I say so. Firstly, a Joint Rule was not used in order to have these processes take place jointly. If a Joint Rule is used, the House has passed resolutions. But for the past eight years we have had public hearings with the National Assembly committees, and never have we done it under Joint Rule 111. That rule creates a special committee which takes care of the DME Bill. There was no such committee in this process. Instead, there was the Select Committee on Economic Affairs and the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy.

And just to underscore this, and just so Mr Lever does not think we are fools, a letter went out to the Chief Whip a long time ago - early in May - and that letter said:

Approval is hereby sought by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs to participate in hearings to be conducted by the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy.

That letter is on record, if Mr Lever needs it.

There is another letter which was sent to Ms Ntlabati, the Chair of Chairs, which said:

Approval is hereby sought by the select committee to participate in hearings to be conducted by the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy.

There is another letter which went out with regard to public hearings in the provinces, and that one said:

Approval is hereby sought by the select committee to conduct public hearings during the period 5 to 12 June.

There are numerous others. Mr Lever must not take chances. When he is clutching at straws, he must admit that he is clutching at straws, and let the matter rest. He has lost this battle. This battle has been won for the people of the country.

On that note, I want to say that today is a very auspicious day. Today is 26 June, the day on which in 1955 the people of our country - delegations from all over the country - came in buses, trains and taxis to meet in Kliptown to draft a freedom charter. One of the things they did in that Freedom Charter was to say that the people must share in the wealth of the country.

And it is appropriate, whether by chance or not, that today is the day that the economy of this country is to change forever. Within the next five to ten years we will see one of the most widely and closely held bastions of the apartheid economy slowly turn around and change, so that we may have a true transformation of the economy of this country.

I want to say that there is a person who has a birthday on this very auspicious day; it is the birthday of our very hon Director-General of the Department of Minerals and Energy. [Applause.] We want to say to the Director-General that this is a gift to him, his department and the people that he represents as Parliament finishes this work today, and we also want to say to him, ``Take this flame and carry it forward for the people of our country’’.

When this Bill was tabled in Parliament early in May for consideration, we knew that there were basically three or four big stakeholders that had difficulties with it. We knew that industry had difficulties. We knew that Cosatu had difficulties. We knew that communities - the Bafokeng, the Barolong, the Bakgatla baMakgopa and a number of other communities - had problems with the royalty issues around this Bill. When we took this Bill on some of us took the approach that we would like to be balanced and fair; that we would like to give all sides the opportunity to present their case; that we would interrogate and unpack every concern that was raised and try and deal with it in an even-handed manner.

We were aware that the Bill and its contents had been a discussion that started as long ago as 1994. Two years ago a Bill was tabled in Parliament which was so controversial that it was eventually withdrawn. We were aware of the intense discussions, the intense lobbying, the high-level meetings and the lekgotlas that were taking place with regard to this Bill. We thought we understood all these issues. Then came the parliamentary process.

Over 88 written submissions were made. Over 50 oral submissions were taken, and hundreds of oral submissions were taken when we went to the remotest parts of the country - to our provinces. We went to a number of places, including Springbok in the Northern Cape. We went to Mangkweng in the Limpompo province. We went to Welkom in the Free State and Wolmaransstad in the North West province. What we learnt is that we did not understand the issues until we had spoken to everybody.

What we learnt was that the conflict and controversy was not about constitutionality and property rights, nor was the conflict about ministerial discretion. The conflict was not about uncertainty in this Bill. The controversy was not about security of tenure, and it certainly was not about judicial appeal. What we learnt, with dismay, in every single discussion we had, was that the controversy was about transformation. The more we discussed and debated with stakeholders, the more we learnt that although much had changed since 1994, in fact, nothing had changed at all.

I must say that after so many had given their lives, after so much bloodshed, after so much poverty, after so much hard work that we ourselves and many others had done to turn our destiny around since 1994, and after the compassion and the patience of our people and especially after Madiba, it was disconcerting that our largest companies that control over 40% of our economy and close to R1 trillion in total had no vision and no commitment to transformation. Over and over again they missed the whole point of the exercise. They continued to demand, like spoilt brats, that they be allowed to have their cake and eat it alone in their little corners.

They used almost every senior and experienced legal mind in the country to block this Bill. They threatened us. They falsely claimed that there were flaws in the Bill that did not exist. They misled us about little things and big things. Let me give the House just one example of this. On the first day of the public hearings the lawyers came to us and made a very big issue about a little matter - the definition of optimal mining. They said that this was completely unacceptable, that it was uncertain, that nobody understood this and so forth. One of them even went so far as to say that this was a constitutionality point because of certainty.

Two days later, when we asked the mine bosses and the departments if they understood what the words optimal mining'' meant, they said of course they did. Their bosses, the bosses who employed the lawyers, said Of course we understand what is meant by optimal mining! These words have been in the mining Act for decades and, in fact everybody in the industry knows what we mean when we say `optimal mining’.’’ Yet, these were the presentations that were made before the committee.

Similarly, there were other misleading criticisms, and I will deal with some of them, such as the constitutionality issue and the assault on property rights. I am sure my friend Mr Lever will try some suspect arguments again on this issue.

Clause 25 of our Constitution allows for the limitation of property rights provided that it is in the public interest, it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society and it is a law of general application. If property, in terms of our Constitution, is expropriated by the state, compensation must be paid. But that the Constitution gives the right to the state to expropriate is not in question. It is expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and we may do so if, as I said, it is in the public interest, a law of general application and so forth.

This Bill has clear compensation clauses. It goes further to expressly create a right of compensation. This morning the NCOP effected further amendments to make this absolutely clear. I wish to state categorically and assure my hon colleagues that in no way and in no aspect of this Bill is there a constitutionality problem as far as the legal minds that we have spoken to are concerned.

The second problem was the complaint about uncertainty around what economic empowerment means. An amendment was effected to the Bill to make absolutely clear what broad-based economic empowerment means by introducing a definition to this effect - the Minister mentioned it. It is a wonderful definition, and I ask colleagues to take the time to find this Bill and read that definition, because that, in effect, is where we are going when we talk about transformation.

We also asked the Minister to introduce a charter in terms of clause 100 of the Bill - to bring further clarity to the issue of economic empowerment and actually to indicate exactly what the industry is expected to do. So there was no uncertainty issue in the first place, but if there was it is even clearer now. There is a definition and there is a charter.

On the question of security of tenure, the transitional arrangements in this Bill have clear, definable criteria in terms of which old-order mining rights, that is existing mining rights, can be converted into new mining rights. It says simply this: ``You may continue to engage in mining if you play by the new rules, because the times they are a-changin’”. Once you understand and play by the new rules, you are as secure as you can wish to be. The Minister must give you your right to mine and must renew those rights.’’

Let me demonstrate how unfair the criticism has been against the Minister and against the department. Namibia, Canada, Australia, Tanzania and many other countries have periods of between 21 and 25 years for mining rights. In this Bill, the department introduced a period of 30 years, nine years more than that of most other countries. I will be 70 years old when the first mining rights expire, and many of the members in this House will be well over 100. Bless them if they live to that age. [Laughter.]

In many other countries the renewal periods with regard to mining rights are up to 15 years, some of them are 10 years, they are renewable only once, and so forth. In this country we have allowed them a further 30 years’ renewal period. In other words, if somebody has a mining right now, they can continue mining for 60 years. And if there are still reserves in the ground, they can continue to mine after that, and yet they had the audacity to attack this department for being unfair and for attacking their security of tenure. This is what we learnt in the public hearings process and that is what I am saying - the issue was not about anything else except transformation.

Let the detractors make us believe that they really believe in transformation. Yesterday, in the National Assembly member Ian Davidson said, ``We really believe in transformation. We really want black economic empowerment’’, but on every issue around transformation he stood in our way in the committee. On every issue they blocked transformation. On every issue they tried to represent only the interests of the minority - the rich and the wealthy - and let the country take note of this. Let this go down in the annals of history that there were certain individuals who refused to strike off those shackles of apartheid and who wanted to keep our people subjugated and poor, but after this day that era is over. [Interjections.]

In the end, we believe, and we sleep well, knowing that all stakeholders were heard and, to the extent that their concerns were legitimate, we took them on board and we addressed them. Cosatu’s concerns regarding the way in which mining houses have been treating mine workers have been addressed. The way in which they tried to get in through the back door around the Labour Relations Act, by employing independent contractors to bring labourers, has been addressed. We have also allowed Cosatu to adopt the position that labour plans for skills development and other issues are required in terms of this Bill.

We have reintroduced royalties to the communities, because the last thing that this Bill wanted to do was to deprive those who have been benefiting even in a meagre way from this mining industry. We say to those communities, ``Beware and be alert. We are not going to allow you to continue receiving royalties and sit back and relax. You, the Bafokeng, the Barolong, the Makgopa are expected to become the mining houses of the future. If you do not, you are probably going to be attacked from this Parliament.’’ [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr R Z NOGUMLA: Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues and guests, it is a great pleasure for me to speak today on this Bill, because in the future we will refer to the importance of this day, especially those of us who come from the liberation struggle. We also know that on this particular day, the people of this country made a declaration and in that declaration they also gave us a guiding light, which is led by the ANC today, of the Freedom Charter.

We understand that this Bill is an answer to the clarion call of our fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters who laid down their lives for the liberation of this country. It is important at this juncture to refresh our memories with a lesson in history. It is a little known fact that many indigenous South Africans actually owned and worked diamond claims, firstly on the Vaal River diggings and then in the four diamond mines operational in Kimberley prior to July 1872. In fact, available evidence shows that in mid-1872 at least 80% of all diamond claims at that time were owned and worked by indigenous people for their own account.

These exclude the minerals exploited before the arrival of Jan van Riebeck in 1652, on this very shore where Cape Town is located today. No compensation was paid to those blacks and coloured persons whose wealth and claims were seized.

In July 1872, the introduction of certain pass and other laws removed all mineral right ownership from the indigenous people and restricted their movement, thus curtailing their economic effectiveness. Cecil Rhodes’s laws, passed around 1887, it will be remembered, effectively reduced all black people to a life as a source of cheap labour, imprisoned by poverty and excluded from any resource ownership. Had all this never happened, I have no doubt in my mind, blacks too would have formed their own giant mining houses.

History has taught us that black people were great miners in the past. However, it is important for those who have very short memories to be reminded of the fact that it was the colonial and apartheid policies and practices that ensured that blacks today do not command the heights of our own economy. This is not a reflection of our innate ability to run and manage mines. This state of affairs and misconception definitely has to change.

We cannot continue to be mere labourers in the country of our birth. Our forefathers and foremothers fought for our complete and total freedom. We dare not fail them. Those who think that we cannot mine are in for a big surprise. Given an opportunity, and this Bill does do that, we will one day command the heights of our economy. A very good example of black people’s ability to manage and run their own mines is to be found in Ghana, where they have a company called Ashanti. If one visits their mines in Ghana one will see Africans at work in their own mines. Therefore, those who think that mining is beyond the reach of black people are wrong.

Although the creation of a world-class mining industry in this country resulted in the oppression of our people, there are certain aspects of that oppression and suffering which led to the liberation struggle for the economic and social emancipation of the masses of our people. The liberation struggle waged by the oppressed masses of our country, led by the ANC and its allies, was informed by the need to correct these social and economic injustices.

The rise of the trade union movement in the mining industry was a response by the mineworkers to the effective marginalisation of black workers as mere purveyors of cheap labour. The early struggles of black mineworkers were throttled by the apartheid regime. The mining sector, of course, sat at the heart of the apartheid state which denied black South Africans economic and political power in their own country.

This spirit which inspired early mining unions is captured in the Freedom Charter, drafted almost 47 years ago, by hundreds of ordinary workers, businesspersons, intellectuals, professionals, the youth and women of all national groups. The Freedom Charter declares that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. The same spirit found expression in the mass struggles of the 1970s and 1980s in the rise of the biggest mining union in the world, the National Union of Mineworkers.

We are excited as the ANC, because today everybody is going to see the new South Africa that is going to come. With those few words, the ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M J BHENGU: Chairperson, today we are perhaps debating one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever been debated in this Parliament, or passed in this Parliament. As a result, the Bill has been dubbed controversial in certain quarters.

The mining industry in this country actually formed the backbone of the South African economy, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs and provided the foundation for a modern, vibrant economy. However, it was unfortunate that the majority of South Africans were actually excluded.

Mineral rights are owned by private persons and the state. It is also a fact that private ownership of these rights is limiting opportunities for new entrants and new investors to gain meaningful access to the industry. The Bill before us today seeks to transform the mining industry in such a manner that it is brought into line with the realities of the new South Africa, particularly in respect of broadening the ownership base thereby empowering the historically disadvantaged.

Black economic empowerment is obviously vital to the long-term success of the economy and, indeed, to our democracy. But empowerment should mean meaningful participation for historically disadvantaged persons and, very importantly, for communities, in the ownership and management of mining ventures that will benefit all concerned. The Bill does actually address this to a very great extent.

The question of royalties currently received by communities from mining operations is a very sensitive one. The state should ensure that royalties are actually ploughed back into the communities from which they were derived. The current recipients of royalties will continue to receive them for a period of at least five years, if certain criteria are met. This amendment is very welcome.

The Bill provides, amongst other things, for the creation of a socioeconomic empowerment charter that will establish the framework, targets and timetable for the entry of historically disadvantaged persons into the mining industry. Again, as the Minister has clearly explained, the question of constitutionality is actually being addressed and has been a concern to quite a number of us, particularly the IFP. Therefore, we say to the IFP, regarding the fundamental philosophy and the principle of the Bill, that we fully support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, the hon Moosa has addressed procedural issues and I would like to answer him. Firstly, joint public hearings are one thing, but discussion and debate on the Bill jointly with the respective committees are another matter. Secondly, notice of joint meetings was not published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, the ATCs. The unreliable post in the Marks Building means that we tend to rely on the ATCs. Other members of the committee stated in my presence that they also did not receive notice, or received short notice, of these meetings. [Interjections.] On the day I received timeous notice, that is Monday this week, there was, besides the co-chair and myself, just one other member of the NCOP committee present at the time - the hon member from my province, I might add.

We should jealously guard our separate identity as a House of Parliament. We have an obligation as a House of review to reach an independent conclusion on a section 75 piece of legislation. Our processes should not simply mirror the debates in the NA portfolio committee. There is a danger of this happening if we simply sit with the National Assembly portfolio committee. If we allow this to happen, we simply become a rubber stamp and abrogate our responsibility to independently review section 75 legislation. [Interjections.]

In regard to the Bill currently before this House, the main objection of my party is that it does not take into account the capital cost of developing a mine, and does not sufficiently safeguard the security of tenure in that respect. It is primarily for that reason that the DP will vote against this Bill.

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, may I say that my party is not against the objects of this Bill, but we are uneasy about how these are to be achieved. My party believes in private property rights, small government and the minimum of ministerial discretion. I would like to say to the Minister that we do need to be careful.

May I say that I respect the way the hon the Minister has handled this matter and the sensitivity she has displayed. It is right that she should, because we are dealing here with an industry which is one of the great success stories of the world, a Rolls-Royce industry and the pride of the world. We should be doing everything to help them, and do nothing to hinder them or to create uncertainties or doubts where they do not exist.

Therefore, I am very glad that this Minister is going to take this matter before promulgation for a constitutional test, because if the Minister has doubts, what doubts can the industry not have? Let me also say, and the Minister would know, that if one starts a gold mine it takes R8 billion of investment before one sees an ounce of gold, and one does not know what the prices are going to be. The timeframes and the capital investment are huge, and the risks as one spins them out into the distance become so great. Therefore, we should do nothing to disturb that situation.

The hon member Moosa mentioned here Tanzania and Namibia. I have had experience of mining in Tanzania. I can tell the House that they give one a 20-year tax holiday to open a mine there. Their mining industry is in absolute chaos. Namibia has hardly got a mining industry. So to use those examples is not very good.

We are one of the great …

An HON MEMBER: There is Australia.

Mr K D S DURR: Well, Australia is a different kettle of fish. It is a different kettle of fish, because there are other incentives that they have which Mr Moosa did not mention. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the House that we mine at depths and in fractions … [Interjections.] If one had to start our mining industry today, one would not start it. That is the reality. We mine at depths and in fractions which nobody in the world would even dream about. As a matter of fact, we would not dream about it if we had to start today. Nobody would build those mines if they had to start today.

We have an underground electrified system under Johannesburg which makes the London Underground look like a pony. It is one of the great wonders of the world. I do not know if hon members realise that. But we would never do it today. If we had to start today, we would never develop it. If one started trying to do that today, one could not do it.

We have an impetus and a momentum which has come to us from the past. We have to maintain that momentum into the future. Once we lose that momentum, we will never put that humpty dumpty together again.

Hon members should look at the Zambian industry. I am not saying that the Minister is pretending to do what the Zambians did, but the Zambians nationalised their industry in 1974. They paid Anglo American $74 million, which they took and used to start Minorco. Today Minorco is the pride of South America, the pride of Australia, the pride of Europe, but Zambia’s mining industry is on its back and they cannot even give their mines back to Anglo American. So we have to be very careful, but we will support the Bill. [Applause.]

Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, bengicabanga kutsi lilunga lelihlon Durr liyakholwa njengeligama lelicembu lakhe. Kodvwa-ke kuyabonakala kutsi ligama nje kuphela, tento atihambisani naleligama. [I had thought that the hon member Durr was as Christian-like as the name of his party. But, it is clear that it is just a name, his deeds do not correspond with his party’s name.]

Those who succeed in life are those who dare to dream and have the ability to translate those dreams into tangible outcomes. It is always the path to the realisation of one’s dreams that has steep inclines and is fraught with difficulties, and that normally tends to discourage one from reaching for one’s dream. Those who ignore the pain and soldier on, run the race and reach for their dreams.

Today I am very proud to stand before the House to turn into reality a dream of those men and women who, on this day in 1955, gathered in Kliptown to adopt the Freedom Charter. The Freedom Charter embodies the dreams and aspirations of the people of this country. By the way, I want to wish the director-general a happy birthday.

These aspirations are informed both by our history and the vision for our future. It is this history that inspired and informed the conduct and form of the liberation struggle, led by the ANC and its people. Some of our comrades laid down their lives in order to translate the dreams of the Congress of the People into reality.

Our revolutionary ancestors must be smiling down on us, as it is a symbolic coincidence that this Bill, which translates their Kliptown dream’s into reality, is passed on the same day that those dreams were expressed by the Congress of the People.

I shall now proceed to paint in broad strokes the history that informed the dreams that inspired those men and women who adopted the Freedom Charter as the lodestar that would guide generations to come. The mineral discoveries in South Africa had a major impact on the South African socioeconomic sphere. In particular, the current developments that affect poverty, which characterises our rural areas, are to a large extent the consequences of the so-called mineral revolution.

Labour was required on the mines on a massive scale, and could only be provided by Africans. However, Africans could not be dislodged from their farms except by forceful means. Conquest, land dispossession, taxation and pass laws were therefore imposed to force black men off the land and channel them into the labour market, especially to meet the needs of the mines.

The integration of Africans into the emerging urban areas could have been the logical result of this development, but short-term recurrent migrant labourers suited the mine owners and the government of the day, which sought to entrench the system. The closed compounds pioneered on the diamond fields as a means of labour control were replicated at the gold mines. The preservation of commercial areas from which migrants could be drawn had the effect of lowering the wages, by denying Africans the right to be in urban areas and keeping their facilities and the subsidised plots on which they depended in the reserves.

The socioeconomic problems currently besetting our rural areas are a legacy of our past, and particularly of the mining industry. Those members of the opposition who object to this Bill addressing these problems, do so because privilege and wealth accumulated under apartheid insulated them from this reality. They have never experienced nor witnessed the hardship that the temporary divorce that the migrant labour system imposed on the families of miners caused. They have not seen the abject poverty afflicting these areas as a result of land hunger. It is for this reason that we take pride in the fact that this Bill has the objectives of promoting access to the nation’s mineral resources for all the people of South Africa; expanding opportunities for historically disadvantaged persons to enter the mining industry; promoting economic growth and development in the Republic; promoting employment and advancing the social and economic welfare of all South Africans; and ensuring that the holders of mining rights contribute to the socioeconomic development of the areas in which they are operating.

Our history has taught us that we cannot leave it to the mining companies to do this out of their goodwill. This Bill will therefore go a long way in addressing the legacy of the past. Women, including their own white women, were not allowed to work underground and elsewhere as mineworkers. They were only allowed to be teamakers and were excluded from seeing the amount of mineral wealth and achieving empowerment.

This Bill has enshrined the inclusion and empowerment of women in the mining industry. The department has realised the enthusiasm of women to participate in mining ventures. There are a number of women who are involved in artisanal mining. This Bill will facilitate assistance, be it financial or technical, through the IDC, the DBSA, the Council for Geoscience and Mintech, in order to meet the needs of such women.

The social plan also focuses on the regeneration of the local economy in respect of areas where mining is taking place. It is known that most mining activities take place in rural areas. The population in rural areas consists mainly of women and children. It is precisely these women who will benefit from the social plan initiatives.

Women have also been identified as capable miners within junior mining companies. An example is Mrs Brigette Radebe. The Bill, through the black economic empowerment charter, will ensure that they advance into large- scale mining. Women are the country’s pillar of strength and any activity that does not includes them, including mining industry activities, is unsustainable. If it does not work for a woman, it does not work for anyone.

The Bill heralds the beginning of a process in terms of which custody over our mineral and petroleum wealth will revert to public ownership. We believe this Bill will open the door to a massive process of transformation in the mining sector, which will see historically disadvantaged groups and individuals gaining access to the industry.

However, these things will not happen automatically. People need to be made aware of the potential benefits they can derive from this new legislation. This is a major challenge, particularly in our rural areas, where communication infrastructure has not yet reached all our people. Information is empowerment. Rural communities need to know that they can apply for mineral rights and can get financial assistance to start small- scale mining ventures. These small-scale mining ventures can act as a catalyst for employment and wealth creation, and can make rural communities self-reliant. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, hon Minister Mlambo-Ngcuka, and colleagues, it is not often that a piece of legislation evokes so much emotion as the one being debated today. The Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs, in joint sittings with the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy, put in long hours and literally burnt the midnight oil, so to speak, in an effort to finalise this Bill which has been, and still is, covered in a cloud of controversy, as can be observed in the daily press.

The overall objective of the Bill is to foster the development of mining in South Africa in a way which will create and expand opportunities for historically disadvantaged persons, but which will, at the same time, be consistent with environmental responsibility. The Bill provides for the exploitation and development of minerals in a full, fair and transparent manner, and supports the ``use it or lose it’’ principle in relation to large nonmine-related rights, and prioritises environmental issues associated with mine closures, the obligation to reclaim land where possible for future use, and ongoing post-closure development and empowerment of local communities.

The principal objective intended by the introduction of the Bill is the acknowledgement that South Africa’s mineral and petroleum wealth belongs to the nation, that it is part of the national patrimony of the state, and that the state is the custodian thereof - a principle which is almost universally recognised and applied in the international mining and petroleum industry.

The Bill provides for the expansion of opportunities for historically disadvantaged persons to enter and contribute to the development of the mineral industry, and to benefit from the exploitation of the nation’s mineral resources. It furthermore provides for security of tenure in respect of prospecting and mining operations, and the promotion of employment and advancement of the social and economic welfare of all South Africans. It is aimed at redress, and seeks to ensure the broader and meaningful economic participation of our previously disadvantaged fellow South Africans, particularly in the mining sector, and it entails ownership and the reduction of income inequalities by enhancing participation at all levels of the economy.

This Bill is a long-awaited revision of the mineral development draft Bill released in December 2000. That Bill generated an extensive amount of commentary, and I quote from the submission of one of the commenting parties:

… partly because South Africa is perceived to be creating a legislative template for other African states to follow and partly because the Bill departed radically from the familiar model of tenured and transferable property rights.

Hoe lofwaardig die beginsel van hierdie wetsontwerp, waarmee die Nuwe NP in beginsel heelhartig saamstem, ookal is, is daar tog aspekte wat bekommernis wek. Die belangrikste hiervan is bekommernisse ten opsigte van besitreg, en die persepsie van moontlike onteienings wat bestaan, asook die kommer of die voorskrifte, soos vervat in die wetsontwerp, aan die beginsels van die Grondwet voldoen.

Dit is daarom verblydend dat die Minister na gister se debat in die Nasionale Vergadering, en na aanleiding van die voorstel deur my Nuwe NP kollega Maans Nel, onderneem het om die President te versoek om die wetsontwerp voor ondertekening vir toetsing van die grondwetlikheid daarvan na die Grondwetlike Hof te verwys.

Ons in die Nuwe NP waardeer hierdie konstruktiewe benadering wat dit vir ons moontlik maak om saam te help bou aan Suid-Afrika, ook in terme van transformasie. Daarom kan die Nuwe NP vandag, ook in hierdie Huis, sy steun aan hierdie belangrike wetsontwerp, wat vandag ter tafel gelê word, verleen. Ons steun ook die wysiging ten opsigte van die uitbreiding van die reg op vergoeding in die geval van effektiewe onteiening. Dit bring mee dat vergoeding ook ná die oorgangstydperk van vyf jaar betaal kan word. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[However praiseworthy the principle of this Bill, with which the New NP in principle wholeheartedly agrees, may be there are still aspects which cause concern. The most important of these are concerns with regard to tenure, and the perception which exists of possible expropriations, as well as the concern as to whether the prescripts, as contained in the Bill, comply with the principles of the Constitution.

It is therefore heartening that, after yesterday’s debate in the National Assembly, and in consequence of the proposal by my New NP colleague Maans Nel, the Minister has undertaken to request the President to refer the Bill to the Constitutional Court before signing it, in order to test its constitutionality.

We in the New NP appreciate this constructive approach which makes it possible for us to help build South Africa, also in terms of transformation. Therefore the New NP can today, also in this House, lend its support to this important Bill which is being tabled today. We also support the amendment with regard to the expansion of the right to compensation in the case of effective appropriation. This means that compensation can also be paid after the transitional period of five years. [Applause.]]

Mr G A LUCAS: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, today marks the 47th anniversary of the Freedom Charter, a noble charter which represents the aspirations and interests of millions of people in our society. It is a fitting tribute to our heroes and heroines of 1955 that today, on the 47th anniversary of the Freedom Charter, we have before us such an important piece of legislation which will contribute to the transformation of our country’s economy.

The Freedom Charter we are celebrating today emphasises the issue of economic growth and development. It states, and I quote:

The people shall share in the country’s wealth.

It further states:

The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people; the mineral wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the people as a whole.

This is the spirit of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill, a Bill which emphasises that change must and will happen, whether big mining companies like it or not. Our people have mandated us to speed up change and that is exactly what we are doing with this Bill. This Bill seeks to create opportunities for the opening up of the mining industry, to ensure that it is no longer the domain of a privileged few. It is really explicit in its endeavour to create opportunities for market access for the previously disadvantaged communities. Clause 12, for instance, deals extensively with this matter, and also determines adequate measures for state involvement, through the Minister, to ensure that we assist the previously disadvantaged communities. It states that, and I quote:

The Minister may facilitate assistance to any historically disadvantaged person to conduct prospecting or mining operations.

It further states that:

The Minister must take into account all relevant factors, including -

(a) the need to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral resources;

(b) the financial position of the applicant; and (c) the need to transform the ownership structure of the minerals and mining industry.

Clause 100 further emphasises the need to empower historically disadvantage people, by reaffirming:

(a) to ensure the attainment of Government’s objectives of redressing historical, social and economic inequalities as stated in the Constitution. The Minister must, within six months of the date on which this Act takes effect, develop a broad-based socioeconomic empowerment charter that will set a framework, targets and timetable for effecting the entry of historically disadvantaged South Africans into the mining industry and allow such South Africans to benefit from the exploitation of mining and mineral resources.

Clearly, with this Bill in place, there is no way that our black economic empowerment initiatives can fail. With this Bill our agenda of deracialising our economy is gaining maximum momentum. Those who refuse to join us on this journey of change and the hope for a brighter future: the winds of change will wither them away, and they should never blame us when they find themselves on the periphery.

Here is an opportunity: the destiny of our mineral wealth will finally be in the hands of our people. Small-scale miners, black economic empowerment companies, community co-operatives, and women’s and young people’s companies are all fully supporting this revolutionary piece of legislation. They support it precisely because it presents them with an opportunity to enter this market, without any of the major barriers which have been there since we assumed our democratic order eight years ago.

For eight years we have been embarking on a process that will forever change our mining industry, to an industry which responds to the challenges of the new South African society. It is the duty of all of us to grapple with these new exciting challenges posed to us by the Bill before us.

For big established companies such as De Beers, the question is: How are they repositioning themselves to meet the new mandates? These are clear mandates, such as ensuring that new entrants into the market are getting in, control and ownership of mineral wealth by the state, and a better and improved revolutionary framework that ensures that we meet our constitutional obligations. It is not better for big capital to cry foul and complain forever. Let them join us on this exciting journey of change, because change is inevitable in our new democratic order.

All of us, including big capital, have a role to play in rebuilding our country’s economy in pursuit of our Reconstruction and Development Programme. We will not attain our RDP goals with a fragmented economy which only serves a minority in our society. For the majority of our people, who have been at the periphery of the mining industry, here is an opportunity qualitatively to improve the living conditions of our people by being active participants and not recipients, to change the ownership patterns within this industry to be reflective of our society as a whole.

What we should avoid is the establishment of front companies which will serve the status quo as it is today. We should not worry about those who complain, like the DA, that the Minister has too much power, precisely because their problem is not with the Minister’s power or with security of tenure, but with the changes that this Bill seeks to bring to them, and therefore it is a bitter pill to swallow.

We should forgive them, because they have imprisoned themselves in the racist jail of ``fight back’’, and now they are unable to escape or free themselves from this terrible jail. Therefore we must not take them seriously when they cry foul, as they represent no constituency but their own selfish interests.

Theirs is a campaign to ensure that Africans continue to live in abject poverty and underdevelopment. [Interjections.] They feel bitter when they see that we hold our destiny in our own hands and that we are crafting a future which means prosperity for all South Africans and not a select few. On this occasion we must therefore pardon them, because it is typical of them to cry like small babies. On this occasion of the 47th anniversary of the adoption of the Freedom Charter, it is appropriate for the ANC to support this Bill thanking our veterans of 1955 for the visionary leadership they provided to all of us.

The DA failed to raise substantial issues in the committee. The House must know that the hon Lever who is crying foul has not been participating in the committee deliberations. He knew from the onset that we had hearings. The DA was not part of those hearings. This clearly shows that their agenda is to serve the racist few who still continue to cling to the DA and believe that if one is black, one is unable to govern properly. [Interjections.] Therefore we must pardon them and request them to join the ship towards a better future, because racism in this country has no future. Those who cling to the racist past have no future. Please join us on this journey of change.

The MINISTER OF MINERALS AND ENERGY: Chairperson, I thank members for a very stimulating debate. Mr Lucas, who spoke so eloquently, happens to be my partner as well … [Interjections.] … in that we share a constituency office in Douglas. [Laughter.] Yes, there was a worried man in the gallery as I confessed! We also together grapple with the issues of the Xho and the Khoi who also have access to diamonds. So this Bill is also music to our ears, because we may address the issues that we are both concerned about.

The more I listen to members speak about this Bill, the more it actually sounds like a novel. It is such a nice Bill and such a nice story. I think that in time even the DA will be able to find it in the goodness of their hearts - if there is any goodness in their hearts - to accept the importance of the Bill and the liberation it brings to them.

There are a few lessons that we have learned in the process of debating this Bill. One of those lessons is that bad advisers can mislead themselves and their clients. The lawyers of the industry really did a terrible job, because, as members can see, we have tried to look at all the issues. Any sensible lawyer would not have created the kind of problems that we almost ended up with. But, of course these problems were averted, because as the mining companies took hold of the issues they became forward-looking, and as a result we ended this whole process on a very high note. Even though they did not get everything they wanted, they are very determined to make it work.

Another lesson that I have learned from this process is that the DA does not represent the mining industry. We always say that the DA represents big business and big interests. Big business wants to run away from the DA, because the DA is a burden and a millstone around their necks. [Interjections.] They should not speak to people who do not want the DA to speak for them. The industry speaks to us because they know who is in power, and because they know that we are concerned about their issues they can trust us.

We were supposed to have the biggest fight of the century with Angloplat, but as members can see, we are having cake with them. We are working together to find a solution for the problems that they are facing and they now understand that we could not have used this Bill to address a specific problem. So the DA should go and campaign for members; they should not lay claim to people who do not want the DA to represent them. [Interjections.]

They were so desperate that they even tried to pretend that they represented the traditionalists. Khawufan’ ucinge. Bathi bamele iinkosi. Ngoobani iinkosi? [Just imagine. They claim to be representing traditional leaders. Who are the traditional leaders?] The chiefs came here with their delegations in numbers yesterday to say: Hee bathong ha re ba batle batho bana; re a tseba go ipuella. [For goodness sake, we do not need these people; we can speak for ourselves.] So, as I stand here, I have a dynamic relationship, an understanding and co-operation with the traditional communities. The DA should go and look for other people whom they think they are representing.

The polarisation and the doom that were being prophesied are not going to happen. Not only are we, as the department, ready to run with the ball on behalf of everybody; not only, as I said earlier, are we known for taking into account everybody’s concerns, something that we will continue to do; we are also, with the assistance of the Minister of Finance, getting our ducks in a row in order to make sure that on day one when this becomes law we will be open for business. Hon members, the petrol price will come down, next week. [Applause.] When members are at home they should drive around and talk about this Bill. Compose songs about it, go to communities and let them understand that, ifikile inkululeko [freedom has dawned]. Let us get our people to organise around quarries, clay and all those other small resources in our communities. With this Bill we are going to make it possible for municipalities to play a role in assisting us to administer those small reserves, so that they can be used for local economic activity. There is no sense in municipalities buying sandstone and construction material from far away and transporting it for construction purposes when they can have quarries, participate and assist their constituencies to benefit. Members should therefore make sure that they know about that, although we intend to have a road show to bring them up to speed.

Regarding the issue of the money Bill, both the Minister and the director- general in the Treasury are working on it. As we work with them on finalising the empowerment charter and the social plan, they are also working with us. We will be bringing all these documents together, so members should not worry. There will not be a problem as far as the money Bill is concerned. I want to thank the hon members from the New NP for the eloquent way in which they have explained the advantages of the Bill. I also want to tell them, as one can see, we are not talking about black economic empowerment in this Bill but broad-based socioeconomic empowerment. This Bill will also benefit the small Afrikaner and white mine owners who must come together so that Ngcuka and Koekemoer can have a common mine. This is a new opportunity for everybody, for professionals to work together. So please let them know that there are opportunities for them as well and also for our international investors.

We have world-class deposits in our country, as the hon member from the ACDP indicated, but there are amounts needed to get into this industry. We understand that and we want our institutions to be part of the support, because we do not want to mess up the industry. As I said, if an empowerment company is not willing to be operational and to get training, we do not want them to participate, because then they are thinking that they are doing this as a get-rich-quick scheme. It is not like that in this industry. One needs to invest, one needs time and one needs to learn. That is why education is so central in this Bill.

I thank hon members, the presiding officers and staff for the support they have given us to ensure that on this day we are here to celebrate the Freedom Charter by giving back to our people what rightfully belongs to them. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting) (African Christian Democratic Party abstaining).

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

                (Consideration of Votes and Schedule)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, I have been informed that there will be questions regarding the Votes of Ministers present in the House. Members will therefore have an opportunity to ask the responsible Ministers questions.

Vote No 14 - Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I want to remind the hon the Minister that some time ago Cabinet referred the draft Bill on multilingualism back for a survey to be done on the cost implications. This has apparently been completed. In a reply earlier the hon the Minister mentioned that the legislation would be tabled as soon as some discussions with the hon the Minister of Education had been completed.

My question is: Have the discussions with the hon the Minister of Education taken place? Have they been completed and can the draft now be put to Cabinet? Has it been done already or when is it going to be done? I do not see any reflection of any implementation of the language legislation reflected in the budgets of departments. Does this mean that we will not see the implementation of this legislation soon? We have a three-year budget cycle, which means that if it is not reflected now, it will only be in full operation in three or four years’ time. What is the Minister’s opinion on this?

The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson, discussions with the Minister of Education have taken place. It has been resolved that by the end of August the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Pansalb and the Department of Education will have clarified various issues affecting specific departments, in particular the Department of Education. We have a task team established for this purpose. At this time, the national language plan and associated legislation will be submitted to Cabinet. This should not be surprising, because language is a hugely emotive and very practical, down-to-earth issue. There are many issues that have to be addressed, particularly in the education sector.

I would also like to correct the hon member about his understanding of the MTF process, which is deficient to say the least. The MTF is an evolving plan. We have every sector of our department within the MTF, but when we revise during this budget cycle, we might find that we prioritise something because it has become necessary to prioritise it, and for other things to be addressed later. There is always a window of opportunity to get prioritisation within the MTF.

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I thank the Minister for his reply, and especially for the information about the window of opportunity, because we will need that in the very near future. The Minister mentioned Pansalb. When I look at Pansalb’s budget, I do not see a large proportion of the budget being allocated for resolving language violations. Is that because the Minister is involved in amending the Pansalb Act to provide for more enforcement? Did Pansalb consult the Minister about this or does the Minister leave Pansalb to handle this on their own?

The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson, I would like to tell the hon member that we are not contemplating any amendment to Pansalb legislation at this stage. We believe the current legislation and the courts provide adequate mechanisms. Pansalb is obviously the body that looks after language interests - equity, as well as the promotion and development of each language. It is the duty of Pansalb to promote languages.

If there are complaints, as there have been, Pansalb does give a point of view. For instance, in the case of number plate registrations in the Free State, Pansalb gave a point of view, but unfortunately it is not binding on the provincial government or other institutions. The courts are there to refer Pansalb’s recommendations or views for litigation, if need be.

We have not yet established fully the commission on religious and language matters. In my view, that is where real processes will take place with regard to complaints, abuse and so on.

Vote 15 - Education:

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I would like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is his and his department’s intention to assist indigenous languages to develop to university level by giving this specific responsibility and financial support to specific universities. And to go with that, will the hon the Deputy Minister assist historically Afrikaans universities to be accessible to learners from other language groups, by specific funding for the implementation of parallel and dual-medium teaching where a university decides to alter or has already altered its approach in that direction? Will this also be available to English universities if they wish to implement this option?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, that is a mouthful. It is indeed the intention of the Ministry of Education to promote indigenous languages, to start with at school level. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient promotion and learning of indigenous languages in our schools. And, definitely, it is the intention, as part of the transformation of higher education, to ensure that indigenous languages are offered and provided for on a much larger scale than is the case at the moment. We know that there is a decline in the offering and study of indigenous languages at our universities.

In our policy documents, we have already declared that Afrikaans universities should offer parallel-medium instruction, especially in rare subjects such as engineering, medicine and so forth. We hope that in due course, when this process has been completed, we will have a situation where there is greater access to these universities by people other than traditional Afrikaans speakers.

As to whether English universities will also be required to do the same, this will be, as I have indicated, part of the process of transformation of the higher education system, which we are engaged in at the moment.

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I would like to ask just one follow-up question, and this is not a mouthful. Would the hon the Deputy Minister support the principle that there can be universities with a language other than English as the main language of instruction at undergraduate level?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, in principle, yes, I would support that. We are hoping that things will move beyond what we have had so far, where the universities where either English or Afrikaans, so that with the passage of time, indigenous languages will not only be offered as languages in their own right, but as mediums of instruction at our universities. We believe that this is possible, but for that to happen, all of us will have to change our mind-sets.

Many of us, while we might sometimes disagree with some of the reasons Afrikaans speakers are so adamant to have Afrikaans universities, also admire the fact that Afrikaans-speaking people stand up for their language. They want to promote it. We hope we can say the same for other languages in our country. The day we have people toyi-toying for various languages, that they should be taught at schools and universities, we will see the Department of Education moving faster to ensure that all our languages have a place in our education system, right up to universities, where we hope to create chairs for these languages in due course.

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I would like to ask a very short question. I thank the hon the Deputy Minister. I can assure him that from the Afrikaans community there is a lot of goodwill and a lot of knowhow, to assist in the process of helping the other languages, as we are doing with the lexicography already.

My question is: Does the Deputy Minister agree that the institutional character and language policy of a university should be determined by the university council, so as to adhere to their constitution, and should not be enforced from somewhere else?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, the university council will have a role, but we have to look at the national picture, where all of us want to go as a country. If we are going to allow each council to decide on such matters exclusively, then we might not be able to move in the direction in which we want to move as a nation and a country.

So, yes, I agree that the councils will have a role and a voice, and a good voice at that, but I do not think that they will have the exclusive right to decide on this question.

Vote No 1 - The Presidency - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr M I MAKOELA: Chairperson, in support of the Vote of the President, we know that succeeding an icon like former President Nelson Mandela was never going to be easy, but we are also aware that President Mbeki has spent almost his entire adult life in the ranks of the ANC, and was born into a family with a distinguished ANC pedigree, and we are therefore not surprised that he is taking our hardwon democracy and our continent to a breathtaking new step on the ladder of social, economic and political progress.

Very often people forget or simply fail to recognise the sheer breadth of the effort to repair the past, and the extent to which the President exerts himself to that end. The present progress in ensuring an improved system of governance and the promotion of peace on the continent are reasonably strong.

The President is noted for his achievement in engaging with different sectors of our society to strategise, plan and share ideas on the best possible ways of lending a hand in the national effort to push back the frontiers of poverty. In addition to the local partnerships, the President is astute in attracting members of the international community to participate in our development agenda. The creation of the International Investment Council and the Presidential International Advisory Council on Information Society and Development are positive outcomes of the political leadership of our President.

At the intragovernmental level, the President persistently gives effect to the principle of co-operative governance. The Presidential Co-ordinating Council, consisting of the Presidency, all the premiers, the SA Local Government Association and the Ministers of provincial and local government, is a strong indication of this. This has also brought about many positive results, including more efficient management of budgets as well as faster implementation of programmes and improvement in the quality of outcomes of Government work. The improved co-ordination between the different spheres of government, as well as among various departments, has brought about better policy alignment and proper collaboration on the delivery of projects.

The present vision for the renewal of the African continent is unprecedented. The citizens of this continent are no longer mere dreamers of a renaissance for our giant continent, but are able to observe the making of an African century. Therefore, the President’s foreign travels are not in vain, nor are they fruitless and without reason.

About two weeks ago the President launched an undersea fibre optic cable project, spearheaded by Telkom as part of our efforts to promote connectivity between Africa and the rest of the world. This project will link Asia, Africa and Europe, via South Africa, with landing points in 14 countries in West and Southern Africa, and will have the capacity to handle 5,8 million simultaneous telephone calls between Africa and Europe and 6,2 million calls between Africa and Asia. This will bring to an end the abnormal situation in terms of which, Africans telephoning one another, even connecting to neighbouring countries, were routed via one of the former European colonial countries.

Therefore, the ANC supports the budget. [Applause.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 2 - Parliament - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, members will agree that if one cannot put the case of one’s electors, one is severely constrained in Parliament. One’s liberty and therefore the liberty of those who elected one are affected. One needs a certain minimum period to put and motivate anything approaching a case in Parliament. Because speaking time is proportionally calculated, the ACDP is effectively precluded from putting well-motivated points of view in debate. We usually have two, three or four minutes to speak, when other parties have hours.

We would like to propose that all party spokesmen to any debate get a minimum of four minutes, and that the balance of the time be proportionally calculated. Parties smaller than the ACDP are even more constrained. In the Other Place, there are parties that get 30 seconds and one minute to speak in the Assembly. And I know that the Speaker in the Other Place is very concerned about that. It is clearly ludicrous. [Interjections.]

That hon member must remember that the history of the world is that majorities have so often been wrong. She is a good example of that, representative of a majority that is very often wrong.

I am serious about this, because I am trying to improve the liberty of our people. The situation is clearly wrong, undemocratic and ineffective.

Mr V V Z WINDVOëL: Chairperson, on a point of order: I really cannot see any significant and explicit relevance of speaking time to the Vote.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I think we should stick to the Vote, hon Durr. I thought somebody would raise that point of order.

Mr K D S DURR: If I may conclude, Chairperson, I ask you just to hear our arguments. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP [Mr M L Mushwana): Order! On the Vote, yes. [Laughter.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 3 - Foreign Affairs - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, we know that there is a saying - the hon the Minister of Finance would know this - that everybody agrees with general saving but particular expenditure. We cannot support this Vote because we feel that the department, although generally it has done a good job, in particular it has done rather badly. We think in particular of the way that effectively the department has turned a blind eye when it comes to the particular case of that rogue state Zimbabwe on our frontiers.

It is a state that, in the middle of a famine, closes down 60% of the production of its commercial farms, a country which has violated all the precepts of justice, press freedom and good governance, a state which has stripped $18 billion in private assets from its citizens over two years, cloning past injustice, when 83% of the assets which they stripped were created after independence in 1980, with government approval.

We are quick to comment on every development in Israel, Palestine and other parts of the world, where our judgment and our influence is small. However, in Zimbabwe where our influence is great, we continue effectively to shield a monster that is leading his country to disaster. On that basis we oppose the Vote. [Applause.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 4 - Home Affairs - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairperson, our opposition to this Vote is based upon the failure to produce a satisfactory immigration Bill and immigration arrangements, which are desperately required by our country, and the fact that we are concerned that the department is to receive R300 million less than was requested; I understand that nearly R120 million of those moneys are related to what they call critical service delivery.

I feel bad about saying this, because, in a way, I think that Parliament has let the Minister down badly. I apologise to the Minister. I sincerely do so. Parliament has let him down in that we have failed to produce a law which allows him to govern effectively in this important part of his portfolio, namely immigration. I am concerned about that. It is vital for our country to maintain the integrity of its frontiers as far as immigration is concerned.

On that basis we will not oppose this, but we register our objection to this Vote.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 5 - Provincial and Local Government - put. Declarations of vote:

Ms C BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, municipalities are in their infancy, yet they are now faced with a political situation which closely resembles infanticide. This is going to bring about major disruptions at prohibitive cost to the hapless ratepayers.

We will have changes, from mayoral committees to executive mayors, reappointment of municipal managers with attendant costs, and the breaking up of hardwon working relationships. This is alienating meaningful numbers of voters who may be permanently unwilling to get involved in what they see as the mercenary manipulation of mindless politicians.

Service delivery is bound to suffer again. This highlights the existence of an already very limited understanding of budgets and the tax base or, worse, cynical disregard of sound financial principles by councillors, if we look at the shocking figures issued by the department, that only 34% of municipalities have financial controls in place and only 29% have accounting policies.

Expenditure on personnel is rising much faster than expenditure on capital projects. Free State farm land is being valued and taxed on an ad hoc basis, in a process which shows no awareness of the link between service delivery and rates.

Against this background, I am very concerned about the sound application of the R30 billion allocated to municipal government over the next three years. How will the Minister ensure that the voter gets value for money? After all, it is us here who are really contributing to the tax which is funding local government expenditure. We want it to go towards the improvement of services and free basic services to the poor, not more perks for councillors or more executive mayors.

I think, with this background, the Minister realises that there is no way that we can possibly support the Vote, until such time as the Minister comes with measures to safeguard the debt situation which has developed in this country, which has apparently tripled to R22 billion in the past two years. It is as unacceptable politically as it is economically foolish to expect an ever-decreasing number of dutiful ratepayers to carry the cost of an ever-increasing number of defaulters.

Against this background it is, unfortunately, impossible for the DP to support this Vote.

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Mr Chairperson, the new system of local government is still evolving, but is well on track. Local government, in general, is performing fairly well under the system. The necessary systems in most municipalities are in place and the new free basic services are also in place but still evolving.

We must note that, in assessing the performance of municipalities and cities, it is not the net sum, the balancing of figures or the number of meetings that we should assess, but we should include the participation of the communities, and the quality of the meetings and all resolutions that are being taken. Because the system is so responsible, accessible and accountable, people are able to render this criticism we have just heard.

The intergovernmental relations system is intended as a support for local government, and is now obligatory since being enacted by legislation, rather than being an act of benevolence as was the case in the past. Intervention takes place in support of local government, in terms of section 155, and less and less in terms of section 139, which in a way was some sort of take-over.

We must realise that democracy has its costs, which are unavoidable if we are to have effective delivery and an accountable system of local government. We have no option but to support this evolving new system of local government. [Applause.]

Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, the New NP will support this Vote. Our new local government system has been in place for a year and a half. There were ups and downs, but in general it is going well with our local government.

I just want to put on the table that the Council must take note that political parties in their declarations talk about mindless politicians and the instability of local government, but this Council must take note that the DP/DA in this Council fired nine councillors in the unicity of Cape Town, creating instability in the unicity of Cape Town. [Interjections.] Further, the unicity cancelled their meeting because they could not have a meeting because they had fired their councillors. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon member, can you take your seat? Mrs Versfeld, on what are you rising?

Mrs A M VERSFELD: Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like the member to stick to the Vote, please. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES (Mr M L Mushwana): Mr Ackermann, speak to the Vote, please.

Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, I will speak to the Vote. I have been speaking on the Vote, but it seems to me that the hon member does not want me to speak on the Vote. The point is that in the unicity of Cape Town, a situation of instability has been created by the same party that talks about instability in local government in South Africa.

There is no government in the unicity, and Capetonians must live with this because of that party’s decision to fire councillors. Then they cancel their meetings, and they decide not to have them. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Yes, I can see members are becoming like popcorn now.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 6 - Public Works - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 7 - Government Communication and Information System - put.

Declaration of vote:

Ms B N DLULANE: Chairperson, I was expecting the DP to be singing the same song. As the ANC was saying, the aims of GCIS are to develop and implement marketing, media placement and distribution strategies for GCIS and Government, to develop a context strategy using key messages for information products producing Government for the South African public, and to develop information products that meet the communication needs of Government and the information needs of the South African public.

In the time scale of our young democracy, a department entering its fifth year must be counted amongst established institutions and it must be assessed as such, on the basis of its performance. It must be assessed not only by its success in breaking with the past, but by its responsiveness to the needs of the moment and its sensitivity to future trends. It must be measured by the degree to which our Government as a whole is communicating in a way that assists the people of South Africa to participate actively in improving their own lives, and in the governance of our country.

Indeed, it is precisely these directions that define the major communications initiatives in which the Government Communication and Information System has been involved during the past year, and which it is planning for the coming year. The list includes multipurpose community centres, the international marketing campaign Imbizo, the redesign of our national orders and multimedia mass communication campaigns.

These are all about Government and society acting together for transformation that eradicates the legacy of apartheid. They are about uniting a nation in pursuit of a better life for all South Africans, especially the poor. Bringing Government close to the people, and to the poor in particular means extending the infrastructure of Government information and services into previously neglected communities, as the Minister was saying yesterday.

The imperative of doing this in an integrated way is a central tenet of this Government’s programme. Public understanding of this need has deepened through media focus on the distress of families unable to access child support grants for lack of birth certificates and ID books, especially in my area. [Time expired.] [Applause.] Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 8 - National Treasury - put and agreed to in accordance to section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 9 - Public Enterprises - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, we have serious reservations, which are based upon the failure of this department to give momentum to its own and the Government’s declared privatisation programme. So often one hears of investors that wish to invest in South Africa, participate in South Africa, but the opportunities to do so are simply not there.

Given the fact that our infrastructure is beginning to creak at the seams and requires urgent investment - and I congratulate the Minister for applying increased management to capital expenditure programmes in South Africa; we are aware of that and we value that - the fact is that there are certain investments such as our ports, for example, that require huge amounts of capital, and we need to accelerate the process of investment. We can only do that by privatisation, and we find that this department is certainly not moving quickly enough.

Privatisation attracts capital and investment on a huge scale, beyond that which Government can sensibly expend. That is why the world has gone in this direction. The state cannot and does not create wealth; at best it can and should provide a climate, a structure and an infrastructure within which wealth can be created by the private sector.

Just one experience, which I shared with somebody the other day, is that in the UK an outright privatisation of their ports showed that the capital investment grew by 50% in a decade, turnover and tonnage of cargo grew by 20% each, labour costs fell by 40% and profitability grew by 220%. And, from being the sick ports of Europe, UK ports are now reportedly some of the most efficient in Europe.

If we look at the capital requirements we have in respect of ports such as Durban and Cape Town, we really think that Public Enterprises should do more in this direction. It is for that reason that we have reservations about this Vote.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Can I get that clear, Mr Durr. Is that a reservation or an objection?

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, it is an objection.

Mrs C NKUNA: Chairperson, before moving to Vote 10, the New NP was supposed to make a declaration on Public Enterprises.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I would ask members to raise their hands so that I can see them. Yes, hon member, you may proceed.

Mrs C NKUNA: Chairperson, I am not a member of the New NP. I am making a declaration on behalf of the ANC.

I would like to say that, as South Africa, we do appreciate investments coming into our country. We are also looking at privatisation, but we are not rushing into that, for the reason that we do not want to find ourselves in a situation in which our people are left unemployed. So, we are also looking at the question of ensuring that the playing field is being levelled.

I would like the House to note that Public Enterprises has made significant progress with regard to key sectoral policies such as telecommunications, energy, ming and ports. These policies and legal frameworks lay the basis for accelerated restructuring for the year 2001-02, and, to the ACDP, this is continuing. A culture of co-operative governance in state-owned enterprises and the strengthening of the boards, conclusion of shareholder compacts and a framework for managing shareholder interests are all on the department’s programme.

Allow me also to say that there was a budget decline as a result of once- off expenditure on special advisory services and marketing costs related to the Telkom initial public offering, which was finalised. We also appreciate that there has been an increase in the expenditure on professional and special services through performance monitoring and benchmarking. It is the department’s intention to increase its capacity to monitor and evaluate the performance of state-owned enterprises.

As the ANC we support the Vote.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 10 - Public Service and Administration - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 11 - Public Service Commission - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 12 - South African Management Development Institute - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 13 - Statistics South Africa - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 14 - Arts, Culture, Science and Technology - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on this side we have some records that got stuck on the word ``none’’. [Laughter.]

Although I know that multilingualism is only one facet of the hon the Minister’s responsibilities, it is true that multilingualism is an expensive exercise. But, peace, empowerment and a sense of belonging are very valuable assets to a nation. We must be careful not to put multilingualism on the list of priorities of the Government because it cannot compete with crime, poverty relief and others that are much more important. But multilingualism is at the heart of each of those priorities, and that is the way we must look at it.

I hope that the commission for the promotion and protection of culture, language and religious community rights will eventually be part of the Minister’s responsibility, because that, with Pansalb, forms a cluster in this regard. We will then have a talk on enforcement powers again. I must admit that I was astounded when the hon the Minister said that the recommendations from the Pansalb Board in connection with the enforcement powers for Pansalb were no longer on the table. I would really like to talk to the Minister about that later on. That was a bit of a shock.

With the commitment of the Minister and his department to making the conditions and spirit of the South African Constitution a reality, we cannot do anything but say: Ons ondersteun die begrotingopos. [We support the Vote.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 15 - Education - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr D M KGWARE: Chairperson, I rise on behalf of my party, the ANC, to declare our unequivocal support for Vote 15, an Education budget that reaches every ventricle of our country’s education system, namely reception to Grade 9, general and further education and training, and adult learning.

This country’s commitment to education is particularly reflected in the proportion of national public spending devoted to education. It is accorded the single largest portion of the national Budget of all sectors. Significant for us as the ANC, is the fact that education in this country is no longer racially segregated. Moreover, this budget is also geared towards the strengthening of systematic reforms which are aimed at greater accountability for performance across the spectrum.

This budget has met all the requirements for and expectations of an education sector in transition, and it is another step in removing the massive scaffolding of apartheid education, whilst we are at the same time tasting the sweet fruit of success and remarkable progress. It is therefore against this backdrop of unparalleled commitment in the spirit of Tirisano and Vuk’uzenzele that we support this budget in full.

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, the New NP voted against this Vote in the National Assembly because we could not get clarity or assurance on certain issues affecting Afrikaans and the other indigenous languages in education. [Interjections.] After the Deputy Minister’s replies to my questions and a private discussion earlier today with the hon the Minister, Prof Asmal, and his director-general, and with the assurance that the Minister’s language policy will be tabled very soon, even by the end of July, many of the aforementioned issues are being addressed. We not only hope, but we are fairly sure that when this policy is tabled and available, and becomes part of the department’s policy, we will be able to support the Minister. But until then, we will stick to our former position and we will vote against the Vote.

To stress how important this issue of the threat to Afrikaans and some of the other indigenous languages in higher education is to our party, it should be noted that this is the only Vote we voted against in the other House, and will vote against in this House, and we hope that the negativity around this whole issue of Afrikaans in higher education will be resolved soon and that the perceptions will be cleared, so that everybody can consolidate and really work towards quality education for all the people of South Africa.

Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson and hon Ministers, what my party cannot deny is that the Department of Education has taken many strides in putting into place a good policy framework for the promotion of education, from early childhood education to the higher education levels.

However, where it matters most, in the classrooms and many schools, conditions are not really conducive to wholesome education, this despite the yeomanly efforts of a hard-working, industrious and innovative Minister. In the Minister’s own fifth report to the President, the despair and frustration of the well-meaning hon Minister are eloquently captured when he decries the provinces for being guilty of not making optimum use of conditional grants.

At present, thousands of schools are overcrowded. Thousands of learners are still expected to produce results when they suffer from a shortage of basic needs such as textbooks, desks, laboratories, libraries, and even water and electricity.

Provinces are guilty of underspending on infrastructural development. And who suffers? It is the historically disadvantaged learners. Do we then question why some schools produce poor academic results? In the Eastern Cape, for example, critical shortages of textbooks have plagued schoolchildren, and continue to do so even at this present moment. In my province, KwaZulu-Natal, overcrowding is still a huge problem. In addition, the school feeding scheme, that is, the nutrition programme, is in a shambles. Lack of proper monitoring and allocation of funds, self-seeking principals and management personnel have resulted in fraud and corruption taking hold.

The DP cannot support the education Vote.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party, New National Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 16 - Health - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Chairperson, the DP does not support the health Vote. Our vote is a strong demonstration of condemnation of the department’s failure to provide health services in some provinces, where the Eastern Cape is the most telling example. By this vote, we call on the Minister to intervene in the province. [Interjections.] Excuse me, can I finish? We call on the Minister to intervene in the province to stop the collapse of health services caused by incompetence and indolent officials, including relevant MECs.

Ms L JACOBUS: Chairperson, on behalf of the ANC I rise in support of Vote No 16 - the Health Vote - because we believe that the Department of Health is on course. The budget demonstrates in no uncertain terms the seriousness with which this Government treats the HIV/Aids pandemic and the potential devastation it may cause our nation.

Proof of this lies in the strategic approach to budgeting for HIV/Aids developed and adopted by the Department of Health in collaboration with the Departments of Social Development and of Education, and the National Treasury. This enhanced response to HIV/Aids and sexually transmitted diseases is based on an integrated interdepartmental approach.

This, we believe, will allow for expenditure to flow through all nine provinces systematically, thus ensuring that programmes promoting preventive intervention, life-skills training, voluntary counselling and testing, prevention of mother-to-child transmission, and home-based and step-down care are well organised and effective.

The ANC also welcomes the reformulation of the Hospital Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Conditional Grant into the new Health Facilities Revitalisation Grant. We note that the provinces will rise to the challenge and take responsibility for ongoing maintenance, thereby ensuring that public buildings providing valuable health services are properly maintained and the community is appropriately cared for.

Our priority as the ANC has always been to make sure that our rural areas have access to proper health care professionals and quality health care services. Within the National Tertiary Services Grant and health professions and training grants, the department nationally and provincially will be able to recruit and train medical specialists to service especially those provinces where these services and professionals are most needed.

For all these reasons and many more the ANC supports Vote No 16. [Applause.]

Dr P J C NEL: Mnr die Voorsitter, die Nuwe NP steun die begrotingspos. My party het groot waardering vir die belangrike aksies wat oor ‘n wye terrein van MIV/vigs-bekamping van stapel gestuur word, asook die beduidende fondse wat hiervoor beskikbaar gestel word. Ons steun dan ook die hospitaalrehabilitasieprogram. Dit is ‘n goeie voorbeeld van waar fondse goed aangewend word. In die gebied waar ek vandaan kom, het hierdie vernuwingsprogram ‘n tasbare en merkbare positiewe effek, nie alleen op die estetiese vlak nie, maar ook op pasiënte en personeel se moraal.

Ons is egter bekommerd oor die skynbaar totale administratiewe ineenstorting in die Oos-Kaap se gesondheidsektor, veral in die chroniese hospitale. Ons is dankbaar dat die agb Minister ingestem het om môre persoonlik die streek te besoek, om haar te vergewis van wat daar aangaan. Dit is belangrik dat hierdie geval dringend aangespreek word.

Nog ‘n aspek wat kommerwekkend is, is die sogenaamde ``brain drain’’. Syfers dui daarop dat tot een derde van pasgekwalifiseerde dokters die land verlaat. Ons wil die Regering aanmoedig om hierdie probleem dringend aan te spreek.

Die Nuwe NP steun die begrotingspos. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr P J C NEL: Mr Chairman, the New NP supports the Vote. My party has great appreciation for the important actions that are being launched over a wide spectrum in the combating of HIV/Aids, as well as the significant funds that are being made available for this. We also support the hospital rehabilitation programme. This is a good example of where funds are being utilised well. In the area I come from, this renewal programme has had a tangible and visibly positive effect, not only at the aesthetic level, but also on the morale of patients and staff.

However, we are concerned about what would appear to be the total administrative collapse in the health sector of the Eastern Cape, especially in chronic hospitals. We are grateful that the hon the Minister has agreed to visit the area in person tomorrow in order to ascertain what is happening there. It is important that this matter should be addressed urgently.

Another aspect that is a cause for concern is the so-called brain drain. Figures indicate that up to one third of newly qualified doctors leave the country. We want to encourage the Government to address this problem urgently. The New NP supports the Vote. [Applause.]]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 17 - Housing - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 18 - Social Development - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 19 - Sport and Recreation South Africa - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, hon Ministers and members, I am proud to rise on behalf of my party, the ANC, in support of Vote No 19: Sport and Recreation South Africa.

Let me start by saying to the opposition that the issues of transformation and representivity are non-negotiable at this juncture in the history of our country. Some members are obviously very jealous of the achievements of the hon the Minister of Sport and Recreation and his department and have gone to great lengths to create a blurred picture in the minds of sportspeople in general.

It is these individuals and political parties, the DP especially, who have no idea of the frustrations of black sportspeople. However, the majority of sportspersons from the hitherto advantaged groups are in accord with us on the score and we value their contribution to the levelling of the playing field.

At the national level, the Ministry has put numerous programmes in place which are unprecedented in the history of this country, for example the youth in future, Siyadlala and television programmes dedicated to raising the profiles of our young sportspeople and getting the nation to play which has been run through the provincial departments. Also, what is significant is the announcement by Minister Balfour regarding his concerns about the slow progress of indigenous games and of women in sport.

All of us here, and the provincial delegates, know the extent to which sport and recreation are contributing to the betterment of the lives of our people. Moreover, we are at the coalface of the upgrading of the infrastructure and the erection of new facilities in our provinces and at local level. We want to put on record that we are indeed proud of the co- operation among the national, provincial and local governments on matters of sport.

As the ANC we have led the way in the normalisation of sport for all groups, regardless of gender, race or affiliation in this country, and we shall continue to do so. [Applause.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 20 - Correctional Services - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mof J L KGOALI: Modulasetulo, ha nke ke lebohe monyetla oo ke o fumanang. Ke ne ke rata ho beha fela ka totobalo hore mokgatlo wa ANC esale o nka Mmuso ona ka 1994, o entse diphetoho tse etsang hore ba bangata ba kgone ho bua, hobane ka nako yane e fetileng, ho ne ho thwe batshwaruwa ke ntho tsa ho lahlelwa ka teronkong di seke tsa eba le menyetla ya hore ba ka hlabollwa.

ANC e nkile bohato bono ba hore batshwaruwa ke batho, ba na le ditokelo, mme ba tlameha ho hlomptjhwa ba be ba etsetswe menyetla ya hore ha ba kgutlela setjhabeng e be batho ba amohelehileng.

Ka hoo, Kabelo ya Matlotlo, Lefapheng la Tlhabollo ya Batshwaruwa, e a amoheleha ho ANC. [Ditlatse.] (Translation of Setswana speech follows.)

[Mrs J L KGOALI: Hon Chairperson, I would like to say thank you for this opportunity. I would like to state categorically and clearly that since the ANC came into power in 1994 it has brought about changes that resulted in many people being able to air their views.

During the previous regime, prisoners were regarded as people who only deserved to be thrown into jail, without being given any opportunity of rehabilitation. The ANC has since decided that prisoners are people; that they have rights and that they deserve to be duly respected and provided with opportunities that will turn them into people who will be acceptable when they finally return to the community.

Providing the Department of Correctional Services with funds is therefore highly appreciated by the ANC. [Applause.]]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 21 - Defence - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr J L THERON: Chairperson, personnel expenditure, with the exclusion of the arms deal, constitutes an unsatisfactory 50% of the total budget of Defence, which is simply caused by too many generals and senior staff within the department. South Africa’s ratio of one general for every 245 privates competes extremely poorly with the ratios of other countries.

It is extremely ironic that in the new democratic South Africa, Defence spending has risen to similar importance to that of the previous dispensation. In fact, the Department of Defence has been allocated the second biggest budget, totalling R18,4 billion. We feel that the priorities are wrong and that much of this spending should have gone towards creating more jobs and increased economic growth. Social spending and education should also have received a cut of this spending on the wrong priorities.

Government has indicated to the public that the cost of the arms deal is R52,7 billion, whereas the figure can roughly be doubled owing to, inter alia, finance costs. In the 2002 appropriation Bill, Defence is getting R3,9 billion over the three-year MTEF period for currency depreciation. This clearly illustrates the consequences of spending on the wrong priorities. It is clear that the Department of Defence, with the assistance of the Minister of Defence, has made it impossible for the DP to support this Vote.

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Chairperson, Minister and Deputy Minister, we support this Vote because we believe the allocation given by Parliament to our national Defence Force will enable it to carry out its functions which are, firstly, to provide core defence capabilities for the defence of our country against any external or internal threat; secondly, to provide a military capability to participate in regional and international peace support operations; thirdly, to provide a capability to uphold peace and stability in co- operation with the SAPS; fourthly, to provide surveillance and enforcement support for relevant authorities mandated with the protection of our maritime marine resources; and fifthly, to provide emergency capabilities for the maintenance of essential services in cases of severe floods or draught.

I honestly cannot understand how the DP can oppose this Vote. Are they telling our young men and women who serve in the national Defence Force that they are not worthy of the amount of money that is being spent on them? Are they saying to these young men and women that they do not deserve to be equipped with the capability which will enable them to serve their country with pride?

One can ask the seamen at Simon’s Town naval base and they will tell one that our country is a maritime country which needs a maritime capability. There is no single major maritime country without a navy. They will tell one that our naval equipment is so old that it needs to be replaced. Our naval equipment has become more expensive to maintain and repair than would cost to replace it.

If those who oppose this Bill, such as the DP, could make a little effort to visit the various arms of our national Defence Force, they would realise the important role it plays in the reconstruction and development process. If they go out to the naval base in Gordon’s Bay here in the Western Cape, they would find that the navy is making an enormous contribution towards equipping our servicemen and servicewomen with excellent skills and knowledge. They would realise what a positive contribution our men and women are making in our communities, such as the installation of peepholes in the homes of the aged, or the raising of funds for NGOs involved in skills development for job creation projects.

Our National Defence Force has been through a very tough time over the past seven or so years. It has had to steer a very difficult integration process. During the same period it had to assist in emergency relief operations and embark on integration processes. Also during this period the Defence Force had to assist in emergency relief operations, peace support operations and assist the SAPS in crime prevention operations.

That they have done so without any complaints and with a limited budget is a lesson in real patriotism. It is a lesson that should be learnt by parties such as the DP and its members. [Applause.]

Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson, I would like to indicate that the UCDP has reservations about this budget and that that should be noted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): We will note your reservation, hon member. It is not an objection. It is your reservation, whatever that means.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting). Vote No 22 - Independent Complaints Directorate - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (United Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 23 - Justice and Constitutional Development - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, the DP supports this Vote, but there in an important concern that we need to place on record. This concern is that for the past three years this department has only received a qualified report from the Auditor-General. The DP has participated in constructive ways to try to rectify the situation or give ideas to rectify the situation. But unless the financial controls of this department show some serious improvement, we will have to reassess our support in the upcoming budget cycle.

Mnr P A MATTHEE: Voorsitter, die Nuwe NP steun hierdie begroting van die Departement van Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling, sowel as die begrotings ten opsigte van die ander departemente in ons strafregstelsel.

Die veiligheid en sekuriteit van die burgers van ‘n land is seker een van die mees fundamentele en hoogste verantwoordelikhede van ‘n regering. Alhoewel die Regering in hierdie begroting baie meer fondse aan hierdie departement toegeken het, is daar steeds groot tekorte aan mannekrag en toerusting in hierdie en ander departemente in die strafreg-``cluster’’ wat ook, volgens die betrokke Ministers, effektiewe dienslewering, en daarom die veiligheid en sekuriteit van ons burgers, negatief raak.

Ons glo dat selfs meer fondse aan hierdie departemente een van die beste beleggings is wat hierdie Regering kan maak in die toekoms van ons land, aangesien die dividende ten opsigte van ‘n besparing aan al die miljarde rande wat misdaad ons ekonomie kos, asook die groter aantal toeriste en meer direkte buitelandse investering wat ons sal kry, meer as sal vergoed daarvoor. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, the New NP supports the budget of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the budgets of the other departments within our criminal justice system.

The safety and security of the citizens of a country is certainly one of the most fundamental and highest responsibilities of any government. Although the Government has allocated far more funds in this budget to this department, there are still shortages with regard to manpower and equipment in this and other departments within the criminal justice cluster, which also, according to the respective Ministers, impact negatively on effective service delivery and therefore detrimentally affect the safety and security of our citizens.

We believe that even more funds to these departments would be one of the best investments that this Government could make in the future of this country, since the dividends in respect of saving all the billions of rands that crime costs our economy, as well as the greater number of tourists and more direct foreign investment that would come our way would more than compensate for that.]

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon member is talking about the next Vote, the Safety and Security Vote, not the Justice and Constitutional Development Vote, which we are on now.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): No, I thought he was talking about justice.

Mnr P A MATTHEE: Voorsitter, miskien verstaan die agb lid nie dat justisie ook te doen het met die strafregstelsel van hierdie land nie, en dat as justisie nie behoorlik funksioneer weens die tekort aan mannekrag nie, dit ook misdaad beïnvloed. [Tussenwerpsels.] Daarom wil ek net graag vir die Minister van Finansies vra, wanneer die Minister vir Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling en ook die ander Ministers in die strafreg- ``cluster’’ hom nader om … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, perhaps the hon member does not know that justice is part of the criminal justice system of this country, and that if justice does not function properly as a result of a shortage of manpower, then this also influences crime? [Interjections.] That is why I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, when the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the other Ministers within the criminal justice cluster approach him to …]

Ms C BOTHA: Chairperson, on a point of order: I am rising to establish which Vote it is that we are now on. Could you clarify that, please? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! The Vote we are dealing with is Justice and Constitutional Development.

Ms C BOTHA: Thank you very much, Chairperson. I hope Mr Matthee is also aware of that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): He is talking about the shortage of manpower - or personpower, or whatever you call it - and the like. Would hon members please just sit and listen? We are spending a lot of time on useless points of order. Please continue, hon member.

Mnr P A MATTHEE: Voorsitter, die onkunde van die agb lede van die DP is ongelukkig baie groter as wat ek selfs gedink het.

Ek sluit af deur te sê dat ons dus die Minister van Finansies versoek om, wanneer die Minister vir Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling hom nader vir meer fondse, tog simpatiek daarna te kyk, aangesien ons glo dat die dividende wat daaruit sal kom, baie meer as sal vergoed vir die geld wat daaraan bestee word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, the ignorance of the hon members of the DP is unfortunately even greater than I thought.

I want to conclude by saying that we therefore ask the Minister of Finance, when the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development approaches him for more funds, please to be sympathetic when looking at it since we believe that the dividends ensuing from it would more than compensate for the money spent on it.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 24 - Safety and Security - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, first of all may I say, through you to the Minister, that we are most grateful that he has prioritised Safety and Security, that we see an increase in expenditure and that 16 000 police are to be trained over the next three years. We think this is very good and we are grateful.

I read in the paper today that, interestingly enough, Scotland Yard are seeking to recruit 5 000 policemen in South Africa because they are short of police. That is a compliment to our police, but I do hope that they do not succeed.

We object to this budget for a very simple reason, and that is that my country, my province and my city - our city, in which we live - are neither safe nor secure. How can one vote for the budget of a department that has delivered so badly?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Chairperson, could the member take a question?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): No, there cannot be questions on the Votes.

Mr K D S DURR: I would be happy to take a question, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, I want to know if it is right for a Christian to mislead the House like that. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): No, that is not a point of order. [Interjections.] Hon members, would you allow Mr Durr to make his declaration?

Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, I wanted to know whether Mr Durr would like to be a bobby on the beat. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Mr Durr, would you finish your declaration?

Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, in our city a few days ago, five petrol attendants were assassinated, apparently so that someone could steal R500 or R1 000. I understand that the robbery of petrol attendants is a routine occurrence in Cape Town.

If one is a worker, one cannot get to one’s place of work without running the gauntlet in the train - of gangsters, perhaps, or of criminal elements of one kind or another. This is appalling.

Over the past year in our country, 900 farmers have been attacked and 140 of them killed - of all colours and cultures and in all parts of our country. Cape Town is becoming the heist capital of South Africa, and this form of crime - cash heists, that is - has increased this year by 300%.

These are alarming facts, and it is with regret, because I have a great respect and liking for individual policemen, that I have to say that because our city and province are neither safe nor secure, we are opposed to this budget.

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, the final score is Brazil 1, Turkey 0. [Interjections.]

The President made a call on all South Africans to join hands and went further to urge us to declare war against crime. The Minister made a similar call on politicians. If there were ever a time when we should speak with one voice, that time is now. Instead of opposing, let us bring forward proposals to the departments on how to tackle crime in our country. Political parties and politicians must be the ones who fight on behalf of these departments, so that they get more funding. This tendency of opposing for the sake of opposing must be discouraged.

Unfortunately the hon Durr has never attended a single meeting of this committee. Let us desist from using crime to make political mileage, if there is any. Let us not behave like chained dogs that, even when they are free, just move around the pole, not aware that they are free.

The ANC would like to appeal to all political parties to put their political differences aside and join hands and give support to these departments in their endeavour to fight crime. The election campaign will start in earnest some time next year, not now. We support this Vote. [Applause.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 25 - Agriculture - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Vote No 26 - Communications - put.

Declaration of vote:

Prince B Z ZULU: Chairperson, hon Ministers, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on behalf of the ANC in support of Vote 26 - Communications. We support this Vote because we believe that the allocation given by Parliament to the department will enable it to carry out its functions and its objective of ensuring that communication services are available to the people of South Africa, such as access to both traditional and electronic media communications and information technology.

We believe that the provision of these services will facilitate higher standards of living and accelerate economic growth and development. Furthermore, this budget will put South Africa on the world map of economic success and, through its initiatives, will bridge the global disparities. Through ICT, the objectives of Nepad will be met.

In a nutshell, this budget will enable the department to reinforce the development of the telecommunications infrastructure in underserviced communities, in particular the rural areas; to give support to schools in procuring IT equipment and accessing the Internet; to establish more telecentres and public information terminals; to provide a sound environment for conducting business over the Internet; to ensure continued access to mail services; and to upgrade the postal infrastructure in historically disadvantaged areas.

It is also expected to make it possible for financial institutions to roll out banking facilities to rural areas. Therefore, as the ANC, we acknowledge the challenges in terms of our transformation programmes placed before this committee. We congratulate the department and support this Vote wholeheartedly. [Applause.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 27 - Environmental Affairs and Tourism - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mrs A M VERSFELD: Chairperson, there are many reasons why the DP cannot support this Vote. I will mention only three. MCM - that is, Marine and Coastal Management - spent millions of rands on setting up a rights verification unit and a centre for anonymous tip-offs. Successes have been minute, if any. For the last eight months the same example has been used. Expensive court cases are now the order of the day and there are many more to come.

The second reason is this. Instead of giving the coastal communities of the West Coast the opportunity to benefit from the crayfish disaster in January and February this year, the state spent R129 597 on replacing or dumping mainly dead crayfish.

South Africa is hosting the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We are the first country outside Europe to be accredited to the Blue Flag campaign, but one of our own Ramsar sites and a world-renowned windsurfing area, Langebaan, is being ignored by this same Government, while the beach is being eroded and washed away.

These are only three reasons why the DP cannot support this Vote.

Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, it was in this very Chamber that many laws were made against the majority of the people of this country. [Interjections.] Today the very people who were making laws against us in this Chamber want to talk on behalf of our people who are impoverished. [Interjections.] This is not consistent. I think the DP has to make up its mind. If it carries on in this vein it will lose whatever support it has at this point in time, because we are moving in a particular direction.

I rise on behalf of the ANC to support this Vote, Environmental Affairs and Tourism. We believe that this Vote is indeed conducive to the wellbeing of all our people. It seeks to protect our environment for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures, namely the prevention of pollution and ecological degradation, the promotion of conservation, securing ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural resources while ensuring justifiable economic and social development.

Moreover, we are confident that it will deliver a successful World Summit on Sustainable Development which aims to achieve a global agreement to roll back poverty in the developing world. In addition, it also makes provision for the expansion of co-operation with all nine provinces. As the ANC we appreciate this Vote’s commitment to building on the present levels of our country’s position as a prime tourist destination. We are also encouraged by the achievements of the Minister and his department with regard to the transformation of fishing right allocations and the department’s sustained efforts to combat the high levels of crime affecting our marine resources.

Motswana a re nonyane e e mephuphutho megolo e iphatlha ka diphuka tsa yona. Ka go rialo ke raya DP. [Setshego.] [A person usually suffers for his evil deeds. I am referring to the DP. [Laughter.]]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 28 - Labour - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 29 - Land Affairs - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution. Vote No 30 - Minerals and Energy - put.

Declaration of vote:

Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, I rise on behalf of the ANC to support this particular Vote. The main reason we rise to support this Vote is that this year, after eight years, this department has made this country proud. This department has finally unlocked the economy for our people. This department has made the DP jealous with how many clever black people and geologists it has.

This department has proved to the detractors of transformation that this particular … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I see a hand behind you. [Laughter.]

Mr J L THERON: Chairperson, on a point of order: Could we ask Mr Moosa to hand in that speech he is reading from. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! That is not a point of order. I thought that Ms Botha also had her hand up. Mr Moosa, complete your declaration.

Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, the amazing thing about this particular Vote is that today the Minister gave us a clear undertaking that the department would have, from top to bottom, a shipshape administration, to set the wheels in motion for the people of this country to take control of the natural resources of this country.

This department is a trail blazing department and has started the process to stop the plunder of minerals on the whole continent of Africa. A start is being made here. The companies that operate in the DRC, Angola and other parts of Africa should know that the Africans are coming to take what is their own.

The ANC supports this budget. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Before I proceed, I want hon members to understand, with reference to those who said that they had reservations, that there is nothing like that in the Rules. One either objects or agrees. Therefore, while a member could have said that he or she had reservations, we will take it that he or she objects to that Vote. It will be recorded as such.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 31 - Trade and Industry - put.

Declarations of vote:

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I have never made a secret of my admiration for the excellent work that this Minister has done over the past year, and if I may say so, the same goes for our chairman. I think he has been very energetic and has led the committee very well. It is a problem for me that the meetings are often at the same time the finance committee meets, but we have an excellent team and they have done very good work, for which we are grateful.

We rise to object to this budget for a particular reason, and that is that my party is directly opposed to the gambling industry, and the money appearing on the budget expended by this department and the Government on the gambling industry. The ten chairmen and 274 officials who regulate that industry spend R127 million per annum, and we think the public is getting very poor value for its money. Not only do we have a moral objection to this, but we believe that gambling has been a poor investment, costly to regulate, disappointing in its ability to raise taxes, high in the social ravages …

Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, I just want to know whether the hon member will take a question.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Not on Votes, hon member.

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I will take it with pleasure if she wants me to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Can you continue?

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I can take that question … The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! You are eating into your time, Mr Durr. On what is the hon member rising? Is that a point of order?

Mr V V Z WINDVOëL: Yes, Chairperson. Is it in order for a member to have his shirt hanging out? [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! I am sure the hon member did not see that. Could the member finish, please! [Laughter.]

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

It is not only that we have a moral objection, but we believe that gambling has been a poor investment, costly to regulate, disappointing in its ability to raise taxes, high in the social ravages that it inflicts on our society and creating a climate that fosters crime, drug taking, prostitution, money laundering and gangsterism.

Indeed, the indirect social costs to Government and society are huge and negate any apparent benefits. Gambling undermines family life, savings, frugality and hard work, and it contributes to a worse life for all. We appeal to the Minister on this: Let us stop issuing gambling and casino licences and begin to roll back this industry, which is a cancer in our society.

Mr G A LUCAS: Chairperson, the ANC supports this Vote precisely because we believe that the department will be able to carry out its functions and objectives. Secondly, we believe that through the Government’s macroeconomic reform strategy, the department will be able to remove the impediments to growth, employment and equity, and sustain high levels of growth and development.

We acknowledge that since 1994 the department has been able to turn our economy around. Whereas in 1994 it was on the verge of collapse, today our economy is more stable and prospects of growth are high. We are convinced that this budget will help the department to lead and facilitate access to sustainable economic activity and employment for all South Africans through higher levels of investment and increased access to international markets for South African products. We believe that it will create a fair, competitive and efficient marketplace for domestic and foreign enterprises, as well as for consumers, and increase competitiveness and equity in the context of the global economy. Khula Enterprises, since its inception, has generated more than one million jobs. Two thirds of these went to black-owned enterprises and almost 40% went to women-only enterprises. Through the work of the MECs 28 000 jobs were created and 536 small businesses in the manufacturing sector have been assisted. Ntsika has supported more than 80 000 SMMEs and has trained over 100 000 entrepreneurs.

The ANC believes that the history of this department speaks for itself and that is why all of us must support this budget. There is nothing in the budget about the building of new casinos and so forth, and we hope that members of the ACDP will not mislead our communities and our people by stating things that are not in the budget.

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 32 - Transport - put.

Declaration of vote:

Ms P C P MAJODINA: Chairperson, the ANC supports this Vote. It is a pity that now we see an immature new alliance of the DP and the ACDP inside this House. We do not talk to impress the media or this House, but we talk on behalf of the masses that we represent.

We agree that there are serious challenges that are facing the Department of Transport. Road and rail infrastructure require serious capital investment, above current levels. However, some important progress has been made in this regard, especially with maintenance of the national road network, and we agree that there are serious challenges in respect of rural and provincial roads.

With regard to taxi recapitalisation, we had hoped that it would be rolled out in 2006. Nevertheless, important progress has been made in respect of legislation, formalisation and democratisation with the existence of Santaco. We expect an announcement before the end of this year.

As far as community rail safety is concerned, Cabinet has announced the intention to set up railway and transit police, and the ANC expects that this will be implemented as soon as possible.

Just one message to the ACDP: they seem to be jacks of all trades and masters of none. [Applause.]

Vote agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party dissenting).

Vote No 33 - Water Affairs and Forestry - put and agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

Schedule agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

 (Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Finance
                              thereon) The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Chairperson and hon members, I move. [Applause.]

Ms Q D MAHLANGU: Chairperson, I hope I will be forgiven for my hoarse voice; I have flu. Chairperson, Minister, Deputy Minister, members of the NCOP and special delegates present here today, I am going to disappoint people. I am not going to say, ``I so move’’. I just want to reflect on a few things that I think are important to be noted when we are passing the Appropriation Bill.

Parliament is once again asked to approve the Appropriation from the National Revenue Fund for the purposes of meeting the objectives of the state for the financial year 2002-03. This is in compliance with the Public Finance Management Act which was passed in 1999.

What is worth noting is that the quality of work and information contained in the Budget documents, both in the Budget Review and in the estimates of national expenditure, have improved beyond anyone’s expectations, and the Treasury and the Ministry in particular have to be commended on this aspect. The estimates of national expenditure content will be a living example in this instance, and, secondly, for the first time, I think members of Parliament have seen the tabling of the strategic plans by national departments and the parastatals that operate at national level. Those strategic plans are for the next three years, up to 2005. I think this is an important development for members, because it means that members of Parliament will be able to hold their respective departments to account, and those departments or parastatals will be able to assist members in executing their oversight role with the information which is contained in these documents, over and above what is reflected in the estimates of national expenditure.

Secondly, during the Vote debates members and some Ministers spoke about the fact that some of the resources allocated to their departments were not sufficient. In view of the above statement I would like to invite all members of Parliament, whether from the National Assembly or the National Council of Provinces, to reflect upon the need for the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework.

I think Minister Ngubane said that this was a very important planning tool which allowed priorities to be adjusted from time to time, as and when the need arose. I think this is an important element, that members must begin to use the MTEF in order to raise issues and priorities that they think must be reflected in those departmental priorities. It is also important that members should engage with the respective departments in ensuring that actual expenditure trends contained in the strategic planning for the next three years do reflect priorities in terms of expenditure levels. It is important to highlight that some departments and provinces continue not to spend all resources allocated to them.

I again call upon members as policy makers to make sure that we do not come back next year and complain that people need more money, without looking at what people have done with the money and holding them responsible by asking questions or raising motions. I think it is also important to use information that will be presented from time to time, as per the requirements of the PFMA, the quality reports and the monthly reports. So members should be able to assist the departments which are struggling, as these reports are released as part of the early-warning system.

It is important to highlight that South Africa is a developing country and therefore resources are not in abundance. There are limited resources that people are competing for. It is therefore important that prioritisation should take place from time to time and in this regard some departments in one particular financial year will experience a decrease while others will experience an increase. I think this is in line with the prioritisation by Government from time to time and this is a necessary point that should be made.

The last point I want to make is that South Africa and its leadership, from Cabinet to local government level, should be commended because our policies and budgets are our own creation. No one has come from the IMF or the World Bank to impose structural adjustment on us. This is a development which we must cherish and be able to value, because the leadership, the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, have taken those hard decisions in order for us as a country to be where we are today. We must try not to move to a stage where we do not live like other countries, where half of their budget is from donors and the donors dictate to those countries what the moneys should be used for. For that fact I would like to commend the leadership of the national Treasury and all the officials with whom we interact from time to time.

I call on all members to support the Appropriation Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Siyabulela kakhulu! [Thank you very much!]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                    TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL

 (Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Finance
                              thereon)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Mnr die Voorsitter, agb lede, ek stel hierdie konsepwetgewing met plesier voor. [Applous.] [Mr Chairperson, hon members, it gives me pleasure to move this draft legislation. [Applause.]]

Ms Q D MAHLANGU: Chairperson, Minister, Deputy Minister and members, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill before this House today seeks to effect the tax policy proposal put by the Minister when he tabled his Budget Speech on 20 February 2002.

I just want to highlight a few things, which I think members should be quite aware of by now, but I think it is important for the purpose of this debate to touch on them.

First of all, during the committee hearings and even when we met today to discuss the Bill, people raised the fact that in terms of this Bill the Commissioner seeks more powers. At the time it was stated that this might lead to corruption and many other things which might not be desirable for the kind of democracy we are building.

In my view, however, after thorough consideration, I believe what has been drafted in the Bill is quite adequate and responds to the reality of the day-to-day functions of the Commissioner. Also, these powers are not open- ended. From time to time the Minister will be able to publish regulations in the Gazette to regulate the powers of the Commissioner. I do not think the Commissioner will not be required to report, so there will also be reporting requirements which will be necessary.

Secondly, I want to highlight the weight incentives which were introduced by Government. The Bill speaks of the learnership programme. I think the learnership programme should not be viewed in isolation of the Government’s human resource development strategy, which seeks to build the skills levels in the country. This Bill proposes that companies should be encouraged to employ learners who are out of school in order to work and gain skills at the same time. In turn, companies will be able to get tax deductions. This is quite an important development, because not only do companies receive a tax benefit, but the country as a whole benefits, in line with the human resource development strategy.

Thirdly, I want to highlight that some of the transfer duties for certain amounts will be eliminated. For instance, if a person wants to buy a house of R70 000, he or she will have to pay about 1% in transfer duties. In my view and in the view of the ANC this is an important development, particularly for black people who were not able to acquire their own fixed property or housing because of the difficulty that they were required to pay these transfer duties.

With regard to buying a house of R100 000 or more, people will not be required to pay any transfer duties for the first R100 000. They only have to pay transfer duties for the amount above R100 000. In my view these are very important developments to people who did not own houses before. But even those who owned houses before will be able to use this tax benefit. This is a result of the efficiency of our tax collection and the management of the SA Revenue Service.

The last issue I want to highlight is clause 27 of the Bill, which refers to businesspeople who have been found by the SA Revenue Service to have resources abroad. By law people have to pay tax in South Africa on the interest they receive from resources abroad. This development is important in my view, because it will not only deal with people who have taken money out of the country illegally, but with a number of other factors and will further increase the revenue that the SA Revenue Service is able to generate.

These are just a few issues, but there are many other things that we can talk about. However, in the interests of time, I shall sit down. I call on members to support the Bill. [Applause.]

Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, hon Minister of Finance, hon Deputy Minister of Finance and colleagues, as I mentioned in my address to this House at a similar occasion last year, once in a while it becomes necessary to tie up neatly a collection of amendments to a variety of Acts, and more specifically so when these refer to tax matters.

The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill is of a technical nature and consists of no fewer than 84 clauses, each dealing with a different and specific amendment. The amendments are broadly categorised into those which encompass tax relief measures as far as direct and indirect taxes are concerned, and those which include anti-avoidance measures and simplifications concerning direct taxes and indirect tax measures. The topics covered range from customs and excise, stamp duties, value-added tax, transfer duty and income tax, to matters such as skills development levies, marketable securities tax and unemployment insurance contributions.

Under the income tax grouping, the following are but a few of the diverse range of subjects which are, inter alia, dealt with in this Bill: The introduction of a single rate of tax for trusts to address the current practice of income splitting through the use of multiple trust structures; the introduction of an accelerated depreciation for manufacturing investment, allowing the taxpayer to deduct 40% of the cost of the asset in the year during which that asset is brought into use for the first time; the provision for the deduction in respect of certain plant and machinery of small business corporations which comply with certain criteria; the provision that specific rules apply to transactions relating to liquidation, winding-up and deregistration of a liquidating company; provision for the deduction of donations made to certain public benefit organisations; and the exemption from income tax of public benefit organisations which carry on certain public benefit activities.

An interesting observation as far as the latter is concerned, and which should be of particular interest to political parties represented in this House, is that ``in order to underpin transparency in the political process’’ subclause (j) of clause 22 prohibits public benefit organisations from using any resources to support, advance or oppose any political party.

One subject which I have already briefly referred to and which is a very important concession, in view of the fact that small business development is a key element of Government’s strategy for economic growth and employment creation, is the provision for a deduction in respect of certain plant and machinery of small business enterprises which comply with certain criteria. These enterprises were subject to a graduated tax rate of 15% on the first R100 000 of taxable income, writing off investment expenditure in the year in which it was incurred. The amendment in this case raises the 15% level to R150 000 and increases the turnover limit from R1 million to R3 million to ensure that more small businesses enjoy these benefits.

As I mentioned right at the beginning of my address and taking into consideration the wide scope of amendments covered, it was necessary to tie these up in one Bill, a job neatly and expertly executed by the experts of the SA Revenue Service and the National Treasury. The New NP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J L THERON: Chairperson, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill is amending a lot of legislation to incorporate taxation proposals flowing from both the Budget for 2001 and the Budget for 2002.

The primary proposals in the Bill deal with the tax relief announced by the Minister of Finance in the 2002 Budget. However, there are also a number of additional proposals in this Bill, including the finalisation of the tax- exempt status of public benefit organisations and the introduction of a 9th schedule that categorises public benefit organisations.

The employment incentive announced in the 2001 Budget is given legal content. This is to encourage learnership, and we strongly support this initiative. Proposals around the streamlining of customs and excise are also incorporated in this Bill.

Hierdie wetsontwerp sluit ook die volgende element in wat belangrik vir die belastingbetaler mag wees, naamlik nuwe dispuutbeslegtingsmagte wat aan die kommissaris toegeken word. Ons vertrou dat hierdie magte met groot oorleg aangewend sal word, en dat dispuutbeslegtiging en/of arbitrasie meer vaartbelyn sal geskied.

Die Minister van Finansies moet regulasies uitvaardig om hierdie magte te reël. Dit gaan veral oor die verslagdoening oor die uitoefening van hierdie magte. Die Gesamentlike Staande Komitee op Finansies behoort na hierdie regulasies te kyk as deel van die toesighoudingsrol wat die komitee moet vervul. Die wetsontwerp, in ooreenstemming met voorstelle in die 2002- begroting, doen weg met belastingaftrekbare toelaes. Dit is om die belastingstelsel te vereenvoudig en groter onderskeid te bring tussen maatskappy- en persoonlike belasting.

Omdat die wetsontwerp hoofsaaklik te doen het met belastingtoegewings, werkverskaffingsinisiatiewe en ‘n totale nuwe belastingstelsel vir openbare weldaadorganisasies, steun die DP die wetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[This Bill also includes the following elements that may be important to the taxpayer, namely new dispute settling powers being given to the commissioner. We trust that these powers will be exercised with great caution, and that the settling of disputes and/or arbitration will take place in a more streamlined manner.

The Minister of Finance must issue regulations to regulate these powers. This concerns in particular feedback on the exercising of these powers. The Joint Standing Committee on Finance should examine these regulations as part of the oversight function that the committee has to fulfil. The Bill, in accordance with the proposals in the 2002 Budget, does away with tax deductible allowances. This is being done to simplify the system of taxation and make a greater distinction between corporate tax and personal tax.

Because the Bill deals primarily with tax concessions, job creation initiatives and a completely new tax system for public welfare organisations, the DP supports the Bill.]

We again want to congratulate the National Treasury and Sars on the work they are doing and we wish them well in the implementation of this legislation for the betterment of the whole of South Africa. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The hon M J Makoela is the next speaker.

Mr M I MAKOELA: Chairperson, it is M I Makoela. The big question is: Why do we have to have taxes? And the simple answer is that until someone comes up with a better idea, taxation is the only practical means of raising revenue to finance Government spending on the goods and services that most of us demand.

Setting up an efficient and fair tax system is, however, far from simple, particularly for economies in transition such as South Africa’s that want to become integrated in the international economy. Therefore, the ideal tax system should raise essential revenue without excessive government borrowing, and should do so without discouraging economic activity and without deviating too much from tax systems elsewhere. Moreover, tax policy is often the art of the possible, rather than the pursuit of the optimal.

The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill of 2002 guides us in this direction. Unlike individuals whose income determines their spending, Government first determines what expenditure it will incur and then decides how to obtain the necessary funds. Hence, every year on Budget day the national Government tables its tax proposals to meet its expenditure needs. Therefore, as members of the NCOP we have gathered once again to debate the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill for the financial year commencing on 1 April 2002. Every year members of this House debate to amend, amongst other things, the Income Tax Act of 1962, which is one of the objectives of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill of 2002. The government of any state needs funds to provide certain services, which individual citizens are unable to provide for themselves, such as the maintenance of internal security, the protection of the integrity of the borders of the state, the provision of welfare services, etc.

Members of this House will be keen to learn that income tax was first adopted in Great Britain in 1798. In the USA, income tax and death duties were effectively applied for the first time during the First World War. In South Africa, the Income Tax Act was first promulgated in 1914. Currently, the Income Tax Act of 1962 contains 112 sections and eight schedules, making up about 250 pages. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill currently before this House introduces an additional schedule - the ninth schedule. This schedule unambiguously defines public benefit activities.

The range of institutions that could receive tax-deductible donations is broadened, and Government has released a list of public benefit activities in which an organisation must be involved in order to obtain tax-exempt status. The list of public-sector activities is not static and will evolve to reflect the needs and realities of the nonprofit sector and to conform to the national Government social and welfare enhancement strategy.

I would like to deviate a bit by drawing the attention of the Minister away from the Chief Whip to the following remark I heard the other day by an ordinary taxpayer, who said: ``I believe we should all pay our tax with a smile. I tried, but they wanted cash.’’

While it is often alleged that globalisation could restrict our Government’s freedom to design tax and transfer programmes, we have done much to effect income distribution, improve the distribution of opportunity and access to education and health services, and institute well-targeted social safety nets.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned some of the benefits of this Bill, and I would like to go on by mentioning that it is consistent with our equity objectives. It should be noted that equity should not be viewed narrowly as an issue of equitable distribution of income only. Equity has many dimensions. Therefore, neither a single indicator nor a single best-policy prescription can address the multitude of equity concerns.

Economic and tax policy should be mindful of nonincome aspects of equity, such as educational achievements, health care and nutritional status. With those few words, we support the Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: How long should I speak for, Chairperson? [Interjections.] Chairperson, I would like to thank the members who contributed to this debate.

There is perhaps just one point I would like to clarify, and that relates to a point made by two members in respect of the powers of the commissioner. I think that members here would appreciate that it is important that the SA Revenue Service should be able to operate in an unimpeded way, or impeded only by the framework of the Constitution and the statute.

By virtue of its entire construction, the executive does not interfere in the work of the SA Revenue Service. Therefore, there is a tradition of a fair amount of discretion vested in the commissioner. Understanding this issue is a precursor to dealing with the amendments in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill before this House.

What is important, though, is that the commissioner should be held to account. Part of that accountability has to be in the form of regular reports to Parliament. In terms of the nature of those reports, it is important to recognise that the details of any individual taxpayer would be outside of the purview of Parliament, but the question as to whether the commissioner has operated within the framework and the spirit of the legislation is the one that needs to be answered on an ongoing basis.

Having said that, it is also important to recognise that as per the commitments made in the Budget this year, we have established an independent office to ensure that taxpayers know that their matters will be taken up. For the moment this is in the office of the commissioner, but going forward there might be an ombudsman moved outside of the office of the commissioner, so that taxpayers have the assurance that their matters are being dealt with earnestly and speedily.

Also, all taxpayers have recourse to the courts, especially to the special income tax courts. There is a very special provision, and it is that once an assessment is issued by the Revenue Service, taxpayers have 30 days to object. If the objection is not heard, taxpayers have recourse to the special income tax courts.

We must try to speed up the administration. It is important for base- broadening that we minimise the interference, minimise the bureaucracy and, at the same time, give all taxpayers in this country the assurance that their matters are being dealt with earnestly, with diligence and with all the protection that the income tax system provides for the secrecy of their matters of taxation.

I would like to express appreciation for the support from all parties in this House. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                HEALTH DONATIONS FUND ACT REPEAL BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Social Services thereon)

Mr F ADAMS: Chairperson, hon members, the Health Donations Fund Act Repeal Bill seeks to provide for the disestablishment of the Health Donations Fund and for the repeal of the Health Donations Fund Act of 1978.

The Health Donations Fund was established by section 2 of the Act in 1978 to receive and manage donations from the private sector to the Department of Health. Only three small donations were made to the fund in the past 24 years: one in June 1978 of R583; one in August 1979 of R432; and one in 1980 of R50.

The annual audit of the fund is costly, and for that reason the Standing Committee on Public Accounts advised the department to disestablish the fund. [Interjections.] I would like to ask the Chairperson or the House for protection because the hon member said that I must speak softly.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The hon member is protected. Carry on.

Mr F ADAMS: Thank you, Chairperson. The Bill makes provision that the unexpended balance of the money standing to the credit of the fund at the date of the disestablishment accrues to the National Revenue Fund. The Bill also states clearly that any liability of the fund which has not been met at the date of the disestablishment devolves to the state.

The disestablishment of the fund does not mean that no further donations can be made to the department. Other mechanisms are still in place through which donations can be made to the Department of Health. The only difference will be that the state will no longer incur any costs relating to the auditing of the fund when the Bill becomes law.

The Select Committee on Social Services considered the Bill and requests the House to approve it. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF FIRST REPORT OF WORKING GROUP ON AFRICAN UNION ON PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE AFRICAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY RELATING TO THE PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT

Order disposed of without debate.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE - JOINT INVESTIGATION REPORT INTO THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE PROCUREMENT PACKAGES

Order disposed of without debate.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS - JOINT INVESTIGATION REPORT INTO THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE PROCUREMENT PACKAGES

Order disposed of without debate.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

     CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

Order disposed of without debate.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

 CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
                ADMINISTRATION - RETENTION OF SERVICE

Order disposed of without debate.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - PROTOCOL ON ESTABLISHMENT OF AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS

Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, although the select committee would have liked to consult widely on this, we unfortunately did not have that opportunity, although we understand that the portfolio committee has consulted widely and has even obtained a legal opinion in this regard. We therefore, very briefly, wish to explain to the House what this is all about.

In terms of our Constitution, our Constitutional Court is and remains the highest court in the country in respect of all constitutional matters. In terms of article 50 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Commission can only deal with matters submitted to it, after making sure that all local remedies, if they exist, have been exhausted, unless it is obvious to the African commission that the procedure for achieving these remedies would be unduly prolonged. The jurisdiction of the African Court, when established in terms of article 1 of the protocol, shall in terms of the protocol extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the African Charter, the protocol, and any other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the states concerned.

In terms of article 2 of the protocol, the African Court shall, bearing in mind the provisions thereof, complement the protective mandate of the African Commission conferred upon it by the African Charter. It will result, therefore, in a complementary system of protection of human rights, one in terms of our Constitution, and the other in terms of the African Charter. Only the African Commission, state parties and African intergovernmental organisations have direct access to the African Court. Access to the African Court may be extended to relevant nongovernmental organisations and individuals in certain respects. The two systems that I have referred to will largely be complementary and mutually reinforcing of each other.

From a literal reading of articles 28(2) and 30 of the protocol, and in comparison with section 167(3) of our Constitution, it has been suggested that there might be a potential conflict. However, the possibility of such a conflict actually arising is remote within such a complementary system of protection of human rights. In terms of section 231(4) of the Constitution, international agreements only become law in the Republic when they are not actually enacted by national legislation.

We as a committee recommend that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said protocol. However, as a committee we have also resolved that if the executive at any stage makes a declaration in terms of article 34(6) of the protocol, accepting the competence of the court to receive cases in terms of article 5(3), such a declaration shall first be tabled in Parliament for approval, in other words if they should open it and make it accessible to NGOs and individuals.

We as a committee also recommend to the executive, where at all possible and practicable, to consult and interact with both Houses of Parliament, through their relevant committees, before the signing of international protocols like this one, so that the legitimate concerns which members of Parliament, as the duly elected representatives of our people and provinces, may have can be dealt with and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

                           POINT OF ORDER

                              (Ruling)

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I would like to make a ruling on the objection that was raised by the hon member Ms Botha during the policy debate on Environmental Affairs and Tourism in respect of the statement made by the hon member Mr Windvoël. After listening to the Hansard records, I satisfied myself that the statement, in the context in which it had been made, was unparliamentary. I therefore request the hon member to withdraw the statement.

Mr V V W WINDVOëL: I withdraw it.

The Council adjourned at 18:07. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    Assent by the President  of  the  Republic  in  respect  of  the
     following Bill:


     (i)     Land and Agricultural Development Bank Bill [B 12B -  2002]
           - Act No 15 of 2002 (assented to and signed by President  on
           8 June 2002).

National Council of Provinces:

1. The Chairperson:

 The vacancy in the  representation  of  the  Northern  Province,  which
 occurred owing to the resignation of Mr S L E Fenyane with effect  from
 1 May 2002, has been filled with  effect  from  20  June  2002  by  the
 appointment of Ms R P Mashangoane.

1. The Chairperson:

(1)     Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 26 June  2002:
      To be submitted to President of the Republic for assent:


     (i)     Appropriation Bill [B 4 - 2002] (National  Assembly  -  sec
             77).


     (ii)    Taxation Laws  Amendment  Bill  [B  26  -  2002]  (National
             Assembly - sec 77).




     (iii)   Health Donations  Fund  Act  Repeal  Bill  [B  20  -  2002]
             (National Assembly - sec 75).

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Council of Provinces:

1. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 26 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 26 June 2002:

   The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 26 - 2002] (National Assembly

   • sec 77), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Appropriation Bill [B 4 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 26 June 2002:

   The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Appropriation Bill [B 4 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

   The Committee reports further that the Democratic Party voted against the Bill.

3. Report of the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill [B 15B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 26 June 2002:

 The Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs, having considered
 the subject of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill  [B
 15B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it,  reports  the
 Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:


 SCHEDULE II


     1. On  page  53,  in  the  second  line  of  item  12(1),  to  omit
          "Schedule" and to substitute "Act".


     2. On page 53, in item 12(4), to omit "within five years  from  the
          date of commencement of this Act" and to  substitute  "in  the
          prescribed manner".


 The Committee further reports as follows:


 A.     Committee Process


     The Bill was introduced in the National Assembly on 19 April  2002.
     The Committee and the Portfolio Committee on  Minerals  and  Energy
     of  the  National  Assembly  (the  Portfolio  Committee)   received
     extensive briefings on the Bill from  the  Department  of  Minerals
     and Energy, both before and after its introduction in the  National
     Assembly.


     The  Committee,  jointly  with  the   Portfolio   Committee,   then
     proceeded to advertise for public comment  on  the  bill.  A  large
     number  of  submissions  were  received  (a  list  of   submissions
     received is attached as addendum A).  Based  on  these  submissions
     the Committee requested certain organisations  and  individuals  to
     present oral evidence before it during the public hearings  on  the
     Bill. The public hearings were held at  Parliament  from  4  to  11
     June.


     The Committee, jointly with the Portfolio Committee, commenced  its
     deliberations on the Bill on 12 June  and  has  worked  long  hours
     together with the Department and the State Law  Advisers  in  order
     to process the Bill. During these deliberations it  became  evident
     that due to the extensive nature of the amendments being  envisaged
     it would be feasible to present to Parliament a redrafted bill.


     In  addition  the  Committees  also  conducted  provincial   public
     hearings from 8 to 9 June. Reports on  these  public  hearings  are
     detailed below.


 B.     Provincial Public Hearings


     1. Northern Cape, Springbok


          Mr M Moosa from the NCOP and Prof I Mohamed and Ms  E  Ngaleka
          of  the  National  Assembly,  accompanied  by  Ms  F  Sotenjwa
          (Committee  Secretary),  attended  the  public   hearings   in
          Springbok. The following organisations were in attendance:


          *   Nama Khoi District Municipality
          *   Pula Transformation Committee
          *   Namakhoi Ward Committee
          *   Richtersveld Municipality
          *   Richtersveld Transformation Committee
          *   Nama Khoi Diamond Fund Trust
          *   Richtersveld CPA
          *   Alexkor
          *   Swanson Enterprise
          *   Nama Khoi Klein Myn
          *   Groenhoekies Myn
          * Black Mountain
          *   Trans Hex Group
          *   SAPD
          *   Provincial Department of Minerals and Energy


          The delegation also received  a  written  submission  from  Mr
          Niewoudt from the Pula Transformation Committee.


          Mr B van Wyk explained the background  of  the  Bill  and  its
          objectives.  The  three  delegates  from  Parliament  gave   a
          detailed briefing of  the  Bill  (clause  by  clause)  to  the
          audience.  They  also  explained  extensively  the  difference
          between prospecting rights, mining rights and mining  permits,
          which seemed not to  be  clear  to  the  communities.  It  was
          explained that the Bill intends to bring  the  small  and  big
          companies to work together, as well  as  how  this  should  be
          done.


          The following concerns from the communities of the region were
          noted:


          (a) General concern from municipalities


              The key concern from representatives of municipalities  of
              the region was the benefit  of  municipalities  from  this
              law. The small miners indicated that the  Bill  lacks  the
              financial provision for  the  government  to  support  the
              small miners to run their mines. Also,  the  State  should
              indicate  the  criteria  it  will  use  to   differentiate
              between the small and the big mine. It was noted that  the
              small miners were concerned about whether  the  government
              would make suggestions when small  and  big  miners  enter
              into  joint  ventures  contracts,  and   about   how   the
              government would monitor corruption  in  those  contracts.
              The  communities  felt  that   workers   should   be   the
              shareholders in companies. The  government  should  assist
              the communities  of  Namaqualand  to  add  value  to  many
              different minerals available in the region.


          (b) Clause 21 - application for renewal of mining right


              The concern from small miners  was,  if  the  first  miner
              mines and rehabilitates and the second miner  applies  for
              the mining right for the  same  mine,  whether  the  State
              would  consider  granting  the  permit   to   the   second
              applicant.


          (c) Clause 24 -  application  for,  issuing  and  duration  of
              mining permit


              The communities felt  that  the  two-year  period  of  the
              mining permit that the Bill makes provision  for,  is  too
              short. Due to funding problems the small miners would  not
              have prospered enough within two years.


              The  community  of  Namaqualand  showed  an  interest   to
              support the Bill.


     2. Limpopo Province, Mankweng


          Public  hearings  scheduled  to  take  place  in  Mankweng  on
          Saturday, 8 June 2002, did not materialise. It was found  that
          communication   between   Parliament   and   the    Provincial
          Legislature and between the Legislature and stakeholders  were
          poor. Traditional leaders and leaders of  civil  society  were
          not consulted. In addition, there was  no  feedback  from  the
          stakeholders  as  to  whether  they  would  be  attending  the
          hearings  or  not,  and  publicity  in  the  media   was   not
          sufficient.
          The delegation was deeply concerned by non-attendance  of  the
          Provincial Legislature's committee members, though the  matter
          was communicated to the  provincial  chairperson  and  to  the
          provincial Speaker. Provinces should note that  although  this
          piece of legislation is classified as a national competence in
          terms of section 75  of  the  Constitution,  the  implications
          still have a direct bearing on provinces.


          The delegation also noted that conducting public hearings on a
          week-end is problematic for a number of reasons. It  was  also
          clear to the delegation that  Mankweng  was  not  a  strategic
          place for hearings.


          The delegation recommended that the hearings for  the  Limpopo
          Province  be  rescheduled  for  a  later  date  and  that  the
          Legislature should identify two or three venues at a  time  or
          Pietersburg. Furthermore, the day for  hearings  should  be  a
          normal working day. The Regional Office of the  Department  of
          Minerals and Energy should also be engaged more effectively in
          administrative and support areas.  The  House  of  Traditional
          leaders in the province should also be directly consulted.


     3. North West and Free State


          The delegation consisted of Mr M Goniwe  (Chairperson),  Mr  J
          Nash, Mr S K Louw, Ms N Cindi, Ms B Tinto, Mrs M  M  Ramakaba-
          Leseia and Mr S Mongwaketse of the National Assembly and Mr  Z
          Kolweni of the National Council of Provinces.  The  delegation
          was accompanied by Ms N Hlasa (Committee Secretary).


          Public hearings in North West were held on 8 June and  in  the
          Free State on 9 June 2002. These hearings were advertised both
          nationally  and  locally  in  newspapers  and  on  radio.   In
          addition, an invitation was also extended  to  the  provincial
          governments as well as to the  relevant  provincial  portfolio
          committees, to attend the hearings and to give their views  on
          the Bill, if they deemed it necessary.


          The following  persons  made  oral  presentations  during  the
          public hearings:


          North West


          *   Bantom Digging W/Stad
          *   Itireleng Small Diggers Association
          *   Forever Diamond W/Stad
          *   Thapelo Korai
          *   Manyeli Diamond Mining CC
          *   SAWIMA
          *   Natalia Tsietso
          *   Ubuntu Development Consol
          *   Mogopa Youth Commission
          *   Mogopa Trust


          Free State


          *   NUM
          *   Harmony Gold Mine (Me Malaola)
          *   COSATU Welkom (Teleko Maloka)
          *   Z A Twala
          *   Gold Fields Free State (MK Jolly)
          *   Oupa Khoabane (Premier's Office)
          *   Molapo Qhobela
          *   Lerato Lengau
          *   Branshish Brandy
          *   ANC Elijah Baray Branch
          *   Matjhabeng Municipality


          The Committee also received the following written submissions:


          *   Manyedi Diamond Mining & Associates cc
          *   Simon Maroga


          The organisations and members of the public who  were  at  the
          public hearing recommended as follows:


          *   The Bill should also include a  timeframe  of  issuing  of
            licences


          *   Protect the rights of women in the mining business


          *   Educational capacity-building


          *   Health and safety of workers


          *   "Retrenchment Policy" - the number be reduced from 500  to
            maximum 200


          *   More clarity required on "Joint Venture", (Clear mechanism
            on how it should work and how people will be protected)


          *   "Social Plan" - a notice of at least  24  months  must  be
            given to implement the social plan. This requirement must be
            in the terms of reference


          *   Geological Report" should be made available before signing
            contracts


          *   Ownership" - are people not going to loose their lands?
          *   The bill must include more environmental issues


          *   Contractors should be monitored in terms of LRA and BCE


          *   Risk  Management  Programmes  be  developed  and  properly
            implemented


          With regard to definitions:


          *   "Employee" should be the same as  the  definition  in  the
            Mining Act


          *   "Historically disadvantaged" should  specifically  mention
            women


          *   "Development" - the host towns  should  be  developing  as
            part of Social Plan


          *   "Mining area" should be clearly defined in the bill


          The following concerns were also raised with the delegation:


          *   They received invitations to the public hearing very  late
            and as a result they did not have enough time to go  through
            the Bill


          *   The approach to the  hearing  in  future  should  be  that
            participants be grouped  into  three  different  categories:
            individuals, community and co-operations


          *   After the government has  taken  ownership,  it  must  not
            privatise the mining industry


          *   The security fee is too high


          Apart  from  all  the  recommendations  and  concerns  raised,
          organisations and members of the public were very  happy  that
          at long last the government is going to take  control  of  all
          resources of this country and therefore  the  wealth  will  be
          distributed equitably.


 C.     Majority Party view


     The ANC fully supports the Bill, in the belief that  it  is  wholly
     consistent with the policies of the current government, as well  as
     in the best interests of the country as a whole.


     The  ANC  views  the  Bill  as  a  milestone  in  the  process   of
     transforming the economy in order to undo  the  destructive  legacy
     of apartheid. Mining and related industries still  form  the  basis
     of the South  African  economy.  Any  piece  of  legislation  which
     attempts, as the Bill does, to significantly change  the  ownership
     and control of  such  a  sector,  will  arouse  significant  public
     controversy and opposition, especially  from  established  players.
     This  Bill  has  done  so,  and  sharply   divergent   views   have
     characterised the  extensive  public  hearings  and  deliberations.
     Nevertheless, the ANC regards the process of  deliberation  on  the
     Bill as thorough and in keeping with the exercise of the duties  of
     Parliament.


     During the  public  hearings,  various  alarming  allegations  were
     raised against the Bill, including  unconstitutionality,  violation
     of bilateral and multilateral  trade  agreements,  and  undermining
     security  of  tenure.  The  ANC  has  carefully  considered   these
     potential pitfalls in the Bill, and is of the  opinion  that  these
     are without substance. Where possible, amendments were made to  the
     Bill to accommodate substantive stakeholder concerns,  particularly
     with respect to  rural  communities  which  currently  own  mineral
     rights, and the inclusion of  a  labour  component  in  the  social
     plan. Other amendments were made to tighten up  certain  regulatory
     aspects  of  the  Bill,  and  to  lower  barriers  to  entry.   The
     fundamental principles of the Bill were  not  compromised  in  this
     process.


 D.     Minority views


     1. Democratic Party
          The Democratic Party cannot support this Report.


          Firstly, it believes that the process for passing the Bill  in
          the  Committee  has  been  rushed   and   totally   inadequate
          contemplation has been given to the 80-odd representations  to
          Parliament on the Bill. While some of the representations went
          to  the  principle  of  the  Bill,  many   were   constructive
          suggestions which addressed the structure and coherency of the
          Bill.


          Secondly, areas of the Bill which  have  not  adequately  been
          addressed, are the following:


          *   The Bill's direct assault on the property rights clause of
            the Constitution


          *   Security of tenure


          *   The Minister's discretion


          *   Lack of appeal to courts


          *   Smooth transition from old  order  rights  and  new  order
            rights


          *   Beneficiation


          It must be emphasised that the Democratic Party is  supportive
          of the broad empowerment and social objectives  of  the  Bill,
          but  believes  that  the  delicate   balance   between   these
          objectives and the need for the continued investment into  the
          industry has not been achieved.


     2. United Democratic Movement


          The UDM supports the Bill in principle,  and  recognises  that
          the Bill is in line with the transformation of the mining  and
          petroleum  industry.  The  UDM  further  recognises  that  the
          objects of the Bill are internationally accepted and that  the
          Bill seeks to address the inequalities and imbalances  of  the
          past and to promote equitable access to the  nation's  mineral
          wealth to all people in South Africa. There is no  doubt  that
          the Bill seeks to promote economic growth and  development  in
          South Africa.


          The UDM's concerns centre around the following:


          (a) Expansion of opportunities  for  previously  disadvantaged
              persons


              The UDM finds  it  irreconciliable  that  some  previously
              disadvantaged   communities    or    persons    to    whom
              opportunities are supposed to be expanded,  are  in  terms
              of the Bill going to be dispossessed of their mineral  and
              surface rights. The Bill does not give recognition to  the
              rights in  land,  inclusive  of  mineral  rights,  of  the
              communities who have occupied  and  developed  their  land
              for several generations and centuries, e.g.  the  Bafokeng
              and Mphahlele tribes.


          (b) Land surface rights


              Black  communities  were  harassed,  tortured  and   their
              leaders detained and dispossessed of their  land  by  both
              the colonial and apartheid regimes. They were made  aliens
              in the land of their  birth.  Black  South  Africans  will
              never forget apartheid's  forceful  removals,  which  were
              intended to deprive them of  their  ancestral  land,  e.g.
              King Makgoba,  Chief  Letsoalo,  King  Sekhukhune,  Matoks
              communities and Chief  Machaka  and  Chief  Ramokgopa,  to
              name a few. It will be unfortunate  if  black  communities
              will still find themselves subjected to  the  above  evils
              in terms of clauses 50, 51 and 52 of  the  Bill.  The  UDM
              believes and proposes that the provisions of clause  50(1)
              should not apply to previously  disadvantaged  people,  in
              particular those who were affected by the  obnoxious  laws
              of  forceful  removals  by  the  colonial  and   apartheid
              regimes. Alternatively a clause could  be  inserted  which
              will provide that  previously  disadvantaged  people  will
              not be subjected to forceful removals.


              The UDM proposes further that communities which  own  land
              or who are occupiers of land where prospecting and  mining
              operations are to be conducted, should not be affected  by
              the provisions of clause 51(1) and  (2).  The  communities
              should instead  be  assisted  to  obtain  prospecting  and
              mining rights, while the State remains  the  custodian  of
              the nation's mineral  rights.  The  Minister's  powers  to
              expropriate  in  the  present  format  of  the  Bill  will
              undoubtedly result in confrontation and  forceful  removal
              of a large number of communities, as was the  case  during
              the dark days of the  apartheid  regime.  The  UDM  agrees
              with the Legal Resource  Centre  (LRC)  that  one  of  the
              primary purposes  underlying  the  enactment  of  sections
              25(6) to 25(8) of the Constitution is the need to  redress
              the injustices flowing from the failure  of  the  colonial
              and apartheid regimes to afford  recognition  and  dignity
              to land  rights  held  in  terms  of  indigenous  law.  It
              further agrees with the LRC that the Land Restitution  Act
              gives  effect  to  the  constitutional  requirement  (i.e.
              section 25(7)  of  the  Constitution)  to  provide  either
              restitution or equitable redress to people or  communities
              dispossessed of their land after 19 June 1913 as a  result
              of racially  discriminatory  laws  and  practices  of  the
              past. The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs is  on
              course in implementing  this  constitutional  requirement.
              We strongly believe that the provisions  of  sections  50,
              51 and 52 of the Bill  will  defeat  the  object  of  land
              restitutions.
          (c) Constitutionality of Bill


              The UDM agrees that the Constitutional  Court  in  one  of
              its previous judgments found that it  was  extremely  rare
              to make  mention  of  mineral  rights  within  a  property
              clause in some other  Constitutions,  and  that  it  could
              certainly  not  be  said  to  be  a  universally  accepted
              fundamental  right.  In  case  of  Lebowa  Mineral   Trust
              Beneficiaries Forum vs. President  of  South  Africa,  the
              ruling by Judge J Daniels  was  based  on  the  fact  that
              mineral rights were not protected by  section  25  of  the
              Constitution. The UDM  believes,  however,  that  Judge  J
              Daniels  based,  with  all  humility,  his  finding  on  a
              misunderstanding  of  the   previous   judgment   of   the
              Constitutional Court. It is true that  the  Constitutional
              Court never found that  the  constitutional  drafters  did
              not intend to protect mineral rights in section 25.
              The UDM's information is that  the  Lebowa  Mineral  Trust
              Beneficiaries Forum still contend  strongly  that  section
              25(4) of the Constitution does not  restrict  the  concept
              of property to land  only,  but  that  whatever  the  wide
              scope of the constitutional meaning of  property  may  be,
              it would include the real rights in respect  of  land.  It
              is  for  this  reason  that  the  Lebowa   Mineral   Trust
              Beneficiaries   Forum   is   preparing   to    test    the
              constitutionality of the Abolition of the  Lebowa  Mineral
              Trust Act in the Constitutional Court.  The  UDM  believes
              that a land-owner remains owner until  such  time  as  the
              mineral is severed from the earth.


          (d) Royalties


              The UDM supports the view that provision  for  payment  of
              royalties should be made in the money bill,  and  proposes
              consequently  that  both  the   Minerals   and   Petroleum
              Resources Bill and the money bill  be  considered  by  the
              National Assembly concommittantly. The  UDM  proposes,  in
              conclusion, that royalties should be paid  to  communities
              in whose areas mining takes place.


          (e) Transitional arrangements


              The UDM's area of concern in this regard  is  security  of
              tenure over existing prospecting and  mining  and  mineral
              rights,   existing   agreements   between    mining    and
              exploration companies and holders of "old  order"  rights,
              and compensation for foreign investments made  into  South
              African minerals industry. The UDM's main concern is  that
              ambiguity and uncertainty which may exist upon passage  of
              the Bill may scare foreign investors and thus  defeat  the
              objects of the Bill.


              The UDM suggest therefore, in conclusion,  that  the  Bill
              be  sent  to  the  Constitutional  Court  for  concurrence
              before it is promulgated.


 E.     Conclusion


     The Committee wishes to  express  its  appreciation  to  all  those
     stakeholders who  made  submissions  to  and  interacted  with  the
     Committee during its deliberations on the Bill.


     Addendum A - List of Submissions Received (71)


     NO NAME


     [A]     MATTEW LOTTER
        SA DIAMOND PRODUCERS
        ORGANISATION


     [B]     PETER MEAKIN
        AIAVSA VALUER


     [C]     J KATZEFF
        LIME SALES LTD


     [D]     L V READ
        EXICO


     [E]     POST MOLOTO
        MINERAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION  OF
        INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN SA


     [F]     ANTON VON BELOW


     [G-G1]  FOREIGN INVESTORS
        PROSPECTING & MINING FORUM SA (A SAAD)


     [H]     RICHARDS BAY MINERALS


     [I]     KELGRAN AFRICA & MARLIN CORPORATION


     [J,J3]  NEW DIAMOND CORPORATION (NDC)
     [J1]    NAKA


     [K]     RIO TINTO


     [L]     PLACER DOME SA


     [M-M1]  TOTAL EXPLORATION SA (PTY) LIMITED


     [N]     FUEL RETAILERS ASSOCIATION OF SA


     [O]     JOHN HANDLEY


     [P]     ANDREAS SEEPI


     [Q]     BRINK, BONSMA & DE BRUYN


     [R]     M ROSENBERG ATTORNEYS


     [S]     NAMAQUALAND TRANSFORMATION COMMITTEES


     [T-T3]  PETROLEUM AGENCY SA


     [U]     PROSPECTORS & DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION
        OF CANADA (PDAC)


     [V]     BHP BILLITON


     [W-W1]  AGRISA


     [X-X3]  LEGAL RESOURCES CENTRE


     [Y]     WERKSMANS ATTORNEYS


     [Z]     CHAMBER OF MINES


     [AA-AA1]      ANGLO AMERICAN PLATINUM CORPORATION LTD


     [BB]    RUSTENBERG PLATINUM MINES LTD


     [CC]    POTGIETERSRUST PLATINUMS LTD


     [DD]    LEBOWA PLATINUM MINES LTD


     [EE-EE4]      DE BEERS


     [FF]    SAMREC (WEBBER, WENTZEL, BOWENS)


     [GG]    MAROTA MOHLALETSE TRIBAL AUTHORITY


     [HH]    AFC LIMITED
     [II]    CHIEF REGISTRAR OF DEEDS


     [JJ]    MICHAEL MARTINSON


     [KK]    PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES SA


     [LL]    FOREST EXPLORATION INTERNATIONAL
        (SA) (PTY) LTD


     [MM]    ANGLOGOLD LIMITED


     [NN]    AQUARIUS PLATINUM


     [OO]    RANGOLD & EXPLORATION


     [PP]    MINE HEALTH & SAFETY COUNCIL


     [QQ]    NORTON ROSE


     [RR]    ROYAL BAFOKENG NATION


     [SS]    ASIA MINERALS SA


     [TT]    JACOBA LANGLEY
     [UU]    FREE MARKET FOUNDATION


     [VV-VV1]      IMPALA PLATINUM HOLDINGS


     [WW]    J SCHEEPERS


     [XX]    F J KRUGER & G LEVIN


     [YY]    ENF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DEPARTMENT


     [ZZ-ZZ3]      OFFSHORE PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF SA (OPASA)


     [AAA]   LISA PLIT


     [BBB]   ANGLO AMERICAN


     [CCC]   HAROLD MOTAUNG (AFICAN MINERALS ASSOCIATION)


     [DDD]   DIAMOND DEVELOPMENT GROUP


     [EEE]   SA MINING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION


     [FFF]   RIGGERS DIGGERS MINING & EXPLORATION CO


     [GGG]   MMAKAU MINING


     [HHH]   BAKGATLA-BA-KGAFELA


     [III]   BAKWENA BA MOGOPA


     [JJJ]   MIKE BALL


     [KKK]   ADV BHEKI NDLOVU


     [LLL]   GEORGE KHUNOU


     [MMM]   PAT MKHIZE ATTORNEYS


     [NNN-
     NNN1]   WEBBER, WENTZEL, BOWENS


     [OOO]   COSATU/NUM


     [PPP]   PROF THOMAS WALDE


     [QQQ]   CNR


     [RRR]   KODUMELA MINING CONSORTIUM


     [SSS]   PAUL JOURDAN

1. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on Protocol on Establishment of African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, dated 26 June 2002:

   The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, referred to it, having consulted widely, including obtaining a legal opinion, and having noted that -

   1. in terms of section 167(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Constitution), the Constitutional Court is the highest court in the land in respect of all constitutional matters;

   2. in terms of article 50 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter referred to as the African Charter), the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter referred to as the African Commission) can only deal with a matter submitted to it after making sure that all local remedies, if they exist, have been exhausted, unless it is obvious to the African Commission that the procedure of achieving these remedies would be unduly prolonged;

   3. the jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter referred to as the African Court), when established in terms of article 1 of the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter referred to as the Protocol), shall in terms of article 3(1) of the Protocol extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the African Charter, the Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned (in terms of article 7 of the Protocol the African Court shall apply the provisions of the African Charter and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned);

   4. in terms of article 2 of the Protocol, the African Court shall, bearing in mind the provisions of the Protocol, complement the protective mandate of the African Commission conferred upon it by the African Charter;

   5. if adopted, the Protocol will result in a complementary system of protection of human rights, one in terms of our Constitution and the other in terms of the African Charter (in other words, a case relating to the protection of human rights in terms of the African Charter must be adjudicated through our court system in terms of our Constitution before it can be dealt with in terms of the African Charter by the African Court);

   6. it will not be possible to appeal on human rights matters from the Constitutional Court to the African Court or from the African Court to the Constitutional Court;

   7. in terms of article 5 of the Protocol, only the African Commission, State Parties and African Intergovernmental Organisations have direct access to the African Court;

   8. in terms of article 34(6) of the Protocol, access to the African Court may be extended to relevant Non-Governmental Organisations and individuals in certain respects;

   9. the two systems will largely be complementary and mutually reinforcing of each other (on the one hand, our Constitutional Court, in terms of section 39(1)(b), is compelled, when interpreting the Bill of Rights, to consider international law; in this regard the pronouncements of the African Court will have a significant bearing on the development of our human rights jurisprudence; on the other hand, the African Court will, in terms of the Vienna Convention and the practices of international tribunals of a like nature, be influenced by the pronouncements of our courts);

   10. from a literal reading of articles 28(2) and 30 of the Protocol and a comparison thereof with section 167(3) of the Constitution, it has been suggested that there may be a potential conflict (however, in view of the above, the possibility of a conflict actually happening is remote within such a complementary system of protection of human rights);

   11. in terms of section 231(4) of the Constitution, international agreements only become law in the Republic when it is enacted into law by national legislation;

   recommends that-

       the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of  the  Constitution,
       approve the said Protocol.
   

   The Committee further resolves that if the Executive at any stage makes a declaration in terms of article 34(6) of the Protocol accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases under article 5(3), such a declaration shall first be tabled in Parliament for approval.

 Report to be considered.