THURSDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2003 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:02.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

            MEETING OF HOUSE ON TUESDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2003

                         (Draft Resolution)

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

That, notwithstanding Rule 23(2), the House meets at 10:00 on Tuesday, 25 November 2003. Agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Order! Are there any objections? There are none. The motion is agreed to, and you’ll all be here I’m sure promptly at 10:00 on Tuesday.

Agreed to.

CONGRATULATIONS TO SPEAKER ON WINNING NORTH-SOUTH PRIZE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE FOR 2003

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the Speaker of the National Assembly, Frene  Ginwala,  has  been
       awarded the North-South Prize of the Council of Europe for 2003;
       and


   (b)  the prize is awarded annually to a person from the global  North
       and a person from the global South who have demonstrated  strong
       and visible commitment  and  outstanding  achievement  regarding
       human rights protection;

(2) believes that this is a great honour and congratulates the Speaker with this exceptional achievement.

The SPEAKER: Are there any objections? [Laughter.] I thank you, hon member.

Agreed to. [Applause.]

         GOOD WISHES TO MUSLIMS AS RAMADAAN DRAWS TO AN END

                         (Draft Resolution)

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, I think I would also be failing in my duty if I didn’t congratulate you on your achievement. Congratulations.

I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) wishes all Muslims well now that their holy month of Ramadaan is drawing to an end;

(2) expresses the desire that their sacrifice, endurance and patience will be met with showers of blessings from the Almighty;

(3) notes that tomorrow night marks the celebration of Laylatul Qadr, a night of great significance for Muslims, as it is on this pious night that man received the completed Holy Quran;

(4) wishes all Muslims well on this momentous night when they will humbly sacrifice and pray; and

(5) expresses the wish that Ramadaan may conclude with a joyous Eid Mubarak, filled with great feasting and the presence of loved ones, for all Muslims.

Agreed to.

RECOGNITION OF FIRST GROUP OF SCIENTISTS FROM PREVIOUSLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES

                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Order! Before I take Members’ Statements, hon members, I’d like to ask you to acknowledge the presence amongst us of the first group of scientists to be recruited by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism from previously disadvantaged communities. [Applause.] We welcome all of you. We are sure your contributions will assist this country and this nation. We thank you.

FIRST GROUP OF BLACK RESEARCHERS RECRUITED BY MARINE AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT

                        (Member's Statement) Mrs R A NDZANGA (ANC): Madam Speaker, the ANC is immensely proud to have  in its midst today the first group of black researchers, male and female,  that have been recruited by Marine and Coastal Management.

South Africa is truly a maritime nation. The research establishment has, in the past, been dominated by historically advantaged scientists. Today, previously disadvantaged individuals constitute 40% of the staff complement of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

Now, to the young men and women that are visiting us, today we are proud of you. We congratulate you in the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, in particular on recruiting such young scientists in the age group of 25 to 34 years. Empowering young people puts our country in a better position to compete with the best in the world. We have acknowledged that these young people carry responsibilities that are not beyond their expertise. I congratulate you, and thank the senior scientists for training and mentoring this growing group of young marine scientists.

In conclusion, I am happy that our painful years of the struggle are now yielding fruits and I am extremely proud to be associated with this. I am proud of this progress in my lifetime. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

             DEPUTY PRESIDENT ZUMA AND ARMS DEAL SCANDAL

                        (Member's Statement)

Adv H C SCHMIDT (DA): Madam Speaker, the shocking display of political partisanship by the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests in clearing Deputy President Zuma at all costs deserves condemnation.

The fact is, though, that this was a sideshow just like the Hefer Commission is a sideshow. The real crux is the investigation into the arms deal. Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC MP, says the ANC received $35 million, that Numsa received a huge amount of money and that gifts were made to important persons near the top of the ANC.

It may be that the Swedish parliament will investigate these serious allegations against BAE-Saab, who are alleged to have bribed their way to the granting of the contract for the Gripen aircraft.

It is not enough that the Swedish parliament should act. Why is the South African Parliament so silent? Why is the ANC silent? Why does the President say nothing, and why does the Deputy President hold his tongue? Until these issues are properly investigated, the arms deal scandal will not go away. I thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

             ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM AGAINST CRICKET COACH

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr M S M SIBIYA (IFP): Madam Speaker, former South African cricket captain Kepler Wessels has been suspended as a coach for the Eastern Province following allegations of racism. His suspension comes after the United Cricket Board of SA gave instructions for Wessels to be suspended on full pay pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. These allegations follow those of an alleged racist assault on a black pupil at a school in Cape Town. We sincerely hope that the investigations into both these cases reveal the truth.

We are fast approaching 10 years of democracy in South Africa, and there are still allegations, claims and incidents of racism. Many people have fought and given their lives to free South Africa and to rid it of racism and racist elements. We cannot allow racism to rear its ugly head. It has to be stamped out if we want to progress as a free and fair country. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

    MESSAGE OF SYMPATHY TO PEOPLE AFFECTED BY VRYBURG HAILSTORMS

                        (Member's Statement)

Rev A D GOOSEN (ANC): Madam Speaker, the ANC shares the grief of the Taung and Vryburg communities who this past weekend were hit by devastating hailstorms and gusting winds. As a result of this hailstorm four people, among whom was a three-year-old girl, lost their lives, while flash floods and winds led to extensive damage to infrastructure and property and killed livestock.

The ANC commends the speedy action of the North West government which has immediately made available R1 million to assist those who have lost family members and property.

The ANC further commends the police, traffic officials, emergency services and disaster management officials on manning a joint operation centre to monitor and prevent further losses to affected communities.

The ANC conveys its deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who lost their lives during this hailstorm. I thank you. [Applause.]

               THE NEW NP AS MOST REPRESENTATIVE PARTY

                        (Member's Statement)

Dr B L GELDENHUYS (New NP): Madam Speaker, allow me a few remarks in connection with the latest opinion poll conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council. Anyone who still thinks that the DA will become the next government must also believe that the story of Little Red Riding Hood is true.[Laughter.] With only 10,5% of the vote, the DA has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming the next government, so stop promising people the moon. It is not going to happen.

Maar die DA se aanspraak om die Wes-Kaap te verower, lé ook aan skerwe, want die peiling toon aan dat die Nuwe NP met 40% van die steun die sterkste party in die Wes-Kaap is. [Tussenwerpsels.] Doemprofete skryf die Nuwe NP gereeld af, maar met 8,7% van die steun is die Nuwe NP, naas die ANC, die snelgroeiendste party in Suid-Afrika. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.) [But the DA’s claim to win the Western Cape has also been shattered, because the poll shows that the New NP, with 40% of the support, is the strongest party in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] Prophets of doom write the New NP off regularly, but with 8,7% of the support, the New NP is, after to the ANC, the fastest growing party in South Africa.]

But most of important of all, according to the survey, is that the New NP is the most representative party in the country. So if any member wants to belong to a party which truly reflects the rainbow nation, feel free to join the New NP. [Interjections.]

En ten slotte wil ek net aan die DA sê: In die verkiesing volgende jaar gaan ons julle opfoeter tot by oom Daantjie in die kalwerhok. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[In conclusion, I would just like to say to the DA: We are going to beat you from here to eternity in the election next year. [Applause.]] THE RIGHT TO VOTE

                        (Member's Statement)

Mrs R M SOUTHGATE (ACDP): Madam Speaker, the ACDP has welcomed the proposed amendment to the Electoral Act to allow persons temporarily overseas on holiday, for business trips, studying at tertiary institutions or participating in a sports event, to vote in next year’s elections. The ACDP has been at the forefront of the campaign to allow overseas citizens to vote. We were the first party to raise the issue in the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs and have elicited petitions from South African citizens in various countries supporting their right to vote, especially in the UK where the ACDP has an active support base. At all stages we took legal advice regarding the constitutionality of the amending Bill.

The ACDP welcomed the initial amendment to the Act, allowing certain categories of South Africans temporarily overseas to vote, and shared their disappointment when there was a dramatic about-turn in the home affairs committee rejecting this amendment. We are therefore pleased that the President decided to allow an amendment to the Bill, permitting holiday- makers, business travellers and students to vote.

We nevertheless maintain that it is the right of all South Africans to vote, regardless of their geographic position at the time of the election. South Africans are operating in a global environment and there is no reason why South Africans working for South African companies overseas or those temporarily overseas on a two-year working permit should be denied the opportunity to vote. Whilst we believe that all South African citizens overseas should be given the chance to vote, we believe that the Government’s stance to ensure that these categories of voters can vote is a step in the right direction.

                SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS' WASH CAMPAIGN

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr D S MAIMANE (ANC): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House that partnerships between Government and the people of South Africa are leading to a healthy, productive nation. On Thursday, 16 October 2003 at the Morekolodi Primary School in Mmakau, near Ga-Rankuwa, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, led by Minister Kasrils and Unilever SA’s CEO Doug Baillie, launched the schools’ initiative for the South African WASH Campaign. We promote the simple act of washing hands with soap as a means of saving lives.

It is known that most endemic diarrhoeal diseases are not simply waterborne, but transmitted because of poor hygienic practices. International research presented at the World Summit on Sustainable Development indicated that as many as one million lives could be saved worldwide by washing hands with water and soap. Proper washing of the hands reduces the risk of diarrhoeal diseases by up to 47%.

The private sector’s involvement with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry in the South African schools’ programme offers an ideal opportunity to make a difference to the communities in which the company operates. The joint partnership between DWAF and Unilever will see the WASH Campaign rolled out in schools around the country, in conjunction with the Vaseline children’s television series and radio inserts on the country’s vernacular stations.

The Department of Health and the Department of Education are also involved through their integration with the WASH Campaign. I thank you. [Applause.]

                     INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr G T MADIKIZA (UDM): Madam Speaker, the UDM has consistently championed the need for infrastructure development to form a central part of socioeconomic growth in South Africa. Infrastructure development improves social conditions for everybody, especially the poor. It also makes business easier and cheaper to conduct. Many new jobs and small business opportunities could be created during the large-scale infrastructure development programmes.

This is a responsible way for the Government to actively contribute to job creation. It seems that the Government has realised that this is a policy option that makes sense or that it makes sense to promise such a policy. We were sceptical when infrastructure development was announced at the beginning of the year under the auspices of Transnet. It now transpires that Transnet is being strangled by a R33 billion debt burden which effectively cancels any possibility of wiping out the infrastructure backlog, never mind embarking on a new one.

Similarly, local government has been announced as a driver of public works programmes that will supposedly create a million jobs. This is despite the well-known debt burden and financial trouble of most municipalities. It remains to be seen if these promises will materialise. I thank you.

             CALL FOR PROMOTION OF INTERNSHIP PROGRAMMES

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr M F CASSIM (PJC): Madam Speaker, the hon Minister of Education recently, on two occasions, informed the House of a glut in BCom graduates from our different universities. At the same time, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, publishing the results of a survey undertaken by the University of Cape Town Graduate School, found that men in South Africa below the age of 45 were lacking in confidence to become entrepreneurs.

Clearly, in view of the above situation, something needs to be done to support internship programmes that would allow all unemployed graduates, male and female, to acquire technical and practical experience to become new entrepreneurs in line with the goals and vision of Nepad.

Let us also remember that the burgeoning opportunities in the field of tourism, hospitality, generation of renewable and clean power, information technology with particular focus on the use of open source code which the Government has now adopted, and transport, need to be matched by the entry of qualified young people to take up the challenge.

I therefore call on the Government to investigate financial, other legislative and practical support for internship programmes with established businesses and industries in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. If such programmes exist, let us explore the expansion of the programmes. [Time expired.]

           LINE FISH PERMITS IN CAPE AGULHAS MUNICIPALITY

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr J D ARENDSE (ANC): Madam Speaker, the fishing villages of Arniston and Struisbaai, located in the Cape Agulhas Municipality, are governed by the DA. Many of the historically disadvantaged people in these communities have been unsuccessful in their application for line fish permits. This was of great concern to the ANC leaders in the area, who then met with the community to address this matter. As a result of the ANC’s intervention, additional permits have now been awarded to these communities. The community and the ANC are very pleased with the outcome.

However, the fact is that Arniston and Struisbaai are located in a DA municipality, but at no point did the DA-controlled council even discuss this matter. Despite this, the leader of the opposition, Mr Tony Leon, saw fit to pose on the boat of one of the applicants, Mr Van den Berg. Unbeknownst to Mr Leon, Mr Van den Berg was once in fact one of the unsuccessful applicants. He had handed his line fish application to one of Mr Leon’s NCOP members, Antoinette Versfeld, who in turn did not even bother to submit this application to the department. Mr Van den Berg eventually came to the ANC, who intervened and ensured that he was granted a pernmit.

Perhaps if Mr Leon wants to score political points by attempting to piggyback off the ANC’s hard work on the ground, he should check his facts first and ensure that his own members are doing their work. [Applause.]

                ROLL-OUT OF ANTIRETROVIRAL PROGRAMME

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr M WATERS (DA): Madam Speaker, Cabinet’s approval of the Government’s antiretroviral programme is long overdue. We welcome it despite the shameful delays. While the ANC hesitated, over 1 million South Africans died of HIV/Aids and 500 000 children were orphaned. This tragedy cannot be undone.

Yesterday’s statement that the fall in the price of drugs over the last two years has made the roll-out possible is misleading. The truth is that the ANC has always had the power to reduce these drug prices just as Brazil did some five years ago by licensing generic drugs. The announced roll-out is just a promise at this point. The ANC will be judged on its actions. It is vital that the Government announce specific target dates and list the clinics which will be part of the roll-out programme. Only then can the people judge whether the Government is able to deliver on this promise.

                   PRESIDENT'S CUP GOLF TOURNAMENT

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr E T FERREIRA (IFP): Madam Speaker, this week the top golf players of the world have descended on South Africa to participate in the President’s Cup Tournament, which starts today and runs until Sunday.

The tournament is the best thing that has ever happened in the history of golf in South Africa. It is also a very significant tournament in the sense that we have two top golf players, rated number one and number two in the world, who happen to be black and who are an inspiration to our young people out there in the townships and rural areas who aspire to being great players of golf in the future. Seeing players like Woods and Singh in this tournament is an inspiration to us in this country, as it shows that there is a lot of potential among people of colour to do well and even excel in this kind of sport, which has long been viewed as a white elite sport.

This tournament will also showcase our country to the world in that we are now changing steadily but surely in as far as the integration of all races is concerned as more people of colour are showing interest in this sport. We hope that this tournament will have an impact on the young people of this country to show more interest in golf and speed up programmes that are designed to attract people, especially those from previously disadvantaged communities, to play golf. We wish all the participants in this tournament all the best.

             WORLD SCIENCE DAY FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT

                        (Member's Statement)

Mr S L DITHEBE (ANC): Madam Speaker, 10 November marked World Science Day for Peace and Development. In the words of the Director-General of Unesco, Koichiro Matsuura, the greatest challenge of our time is to create a world where all citizens live in dignity and peace in a hospitable environment that they have learned to care for.

He goes on to warn about growing unease and mounting concern in certain quarters about the adverse consequences of science, its daring exploits notwithstanding. He calls on scientists to welcome these developments in the context of proper functioning democratic processes, and they must work hard in educating policy-makers, opinion-shapers and the general public about science, its purposes, its principles, its methods, its critical and questioning spirit and its accomplishments.

The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, so far, manages 33 signed international agreements, and invests R13 million per year in 177 research and development projects in order to facilitate interaction between South African scientists and scientists in international partnership institutions.

Our role in the promotion of science in Nepad is further testimony to our 1999 manifesto predicated, among other things, on the resolve to achieve a better Africa and a better world. The ANC Government, too, believes that without global science there can be no sustainable development, without sustainable development there can be no global peace. To this end, we look forward to marking National Science Week in our country in May next year - an exciting moment for our youth and an opportunity to explore a career in science. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

                     PROTEST MARCH AGAINST CRIME

                        (Member's Statement)

Ms C B JOHNSON (New NP): Madam Speaker, on Monday a meeting took place between the Minister of Safety and Security, the hon Charles Nqakula, a delegation from the New NP and Mrs Lind Vins Jennings of the Arrive Alive campaign. As members of this House may know, Mrs Vins Jennings’s son was killed in a hijacking in Edenvale earlier this year. The Arrive Alive campaign, which is being led by Mrs Vins Jennings, is planning a protest march against crime on 30 November.

At the meeting the New NP and the Minister pledged their support for the campaign and said that we would endorse any initiative taken by any sector of the population to mobilise people against crime in South Africa. Crime affects all South Africans, it cuts across all communities and across political party differences. Therefore we hereby call on each and every political party in this House to join in the march, to show their support and to unite as a nation against crime.

We call, in particular, on the DA, and we say: “Let’s set politics aside for this one day. Let’s rise above party-political differences, show our support as a nation and, as concerned South Africans, let’s all march together.” I thank you. [Applause.] The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, I’m having some difficulty. There were two statements that were directly involved in education. I ask your permission to respond on a cluster membership basis in relation to the Government’s roll-out programme on HIV/Aids.

The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, we are quite strict; there are no cluster responses. You may certainly speak on your two proposals.

“WASH YOUR HANDS MESSAGE” TO SCHOOLCHILDREN; AND MEETING THE SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY

                        (Minister's response)

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Well, the DA lacks grace and they should be reminded of the extraordinary roll-out programme.

In relation to the Mmakau school, the hon member is quite right that Minister Kasrils inaugurated this programme with Unilever - the “WASH partnership” - which shows, again, that the Government is committed to creating innovative ways of doing things. The creativeness is here first of all in the partnership with Unilever. The roll-out programme there is to bring the fundamental message of “Wash your hands” to all the schoolchildren. This is a very important element in the Government’s programme.

The second part is that it raises consciousness among children about the relationship between disease, health and washing. And, since this plays a very integral part in the programme for Grades R to 9 - that is the life- skills programme - it is important that even those communities that have water are able, in fact, to learn the message. Regarding the third part, in the particular situation of Mmakau - Minister Kasrils was there - the community has organised itself. So when there’s no water in the school, there are dry pit latrines.

Again, this shows the resilience and the extraordinary capacity of our people to take fate in their hands and not to rely on the provincial government and the national Government. So, on behalf of Minister Kasrils and on behalf of the Department of Education, I’m bringing to the attention of the House that this programme with the private and state sectors together shows how we in South Africa can innovate and create.

The second question is Mr Cassim’s question. Yes, there are three elements in response. First of all, I have emphasised the fact that we are producing graduates and people with diplomas for whom there is not sufficient work. On the one hand, I look at the DA’s document on liberation and education and see that we must strengthen autonomy of institutions.

At the same time, as every government in the world is doing, universities will have to learn that courses provided for the purpose of subsidies from the Government are not an adequate response to the social needs and the intellectual needs of our country. That is the first part. We have to grapple with the idea - not tattered 19th century notions - that in the 21st century there must be a reaction from all social institutions to meet the training needs of our country.

The second point, Mr Cassim - and as a well-informed person you should know

• is that we have internship programmes. We have internship programmes. Now you say that we should create internship programmes, and that if they are there we must expand them. Well, that’s like having your cake and eating it too. We have internship programmes and, in fact, government departments are now obliged to 5% of their recruitment being through internships. So we are on the way. We don’t have to invent them; we’re on the way.

With regard to the learnerships, they fall under the Department of Labour and we work together on learnerships. The Further Education and Training colleges will be making a particularly important contribution to using the learnership for on-the-job training. The important thing is that it’s not so much that there are no jobs, because the jobs are there as the President has said again and again, but that what we need are trained personnel for them. Therefore, I agree with you very much that the whole approach to be taken is to bring in the skills.

Over the weekend the international council, or the ICT, and development people met in Cape Town, and only this Government can bring the leading 15 people of the computer industry from all over the world to South Africa. They emphasise the relevance of ICT and training. No one should leave any educational institution without being proficient in computers. That is the beginning of the whole process of training. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, you are going to have your cake and eat it, because I am advised by the staff that the Rules do make provision for you to respond from the same cluster.

                  ANTIRETROVIRAL ROLL-OUT PROGRAMME

                        (Minister's response)

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are some small victories for ordinary members of this Assembly in relation to the Speaker. [Laughter.] Thank you very much, Secretariat.

I think we must recognise that we have spent since the programme of action on HIV was adopted … All the evidence shows that a systematic process of training personnel is vital, because you see that is the problem. If you are not in Government, you can rely on slogans. We can’t rely on slogans. You have to train people … [Interjections.] Listen young pup, you have to train people.

Secondly, you must make sure that institutional arrangements are there on the ground. Thirdly, if there is a break in the treatment, different forms of immunities may arise which the Minister of Health will educate you on. We have worked very closely with the foundation in the United States, the Bill Clinton Foundation, for the past two months to ensure that we start a roll-out programme in the 56 districts which are at an advanced stage. We’ll build up the other districts that are not at an advanced stage. In this way we can assure, in a systematic way, that those who are undergoing treatment carry on with the treatment. Now, as an example, we know that those who have asthma don’t use their inhaler and that their asthma deteriorates. Here, it’s life-threatening if you don’t carry on with the programme.

So I’ve said that you lot lack grace. It is something you have to learn with greater maturity, but everyone, including the TAC, has welcomed the Government’s proposals. The Department of Health has been instructed to implement them. [Interjections.] One day, not in my lifetime, the DA may learn that the Government’s job is to ensure adequate protection for everyone, and that there is free consent, by the way, because no-one can be compelled to have treatment for HIV. [Interjections.] This free consent is vital. The baying wolves outside the caravan - as Smuts said - won’t understand a thing. The caravan will move on and leave you very far behind. Thank you very much. [Applause.] The SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members!

SIXTEEN DAYS OF ACTIVISM: SOUTH AFRICA TO UNITE IN FIGHTING VIOLENCE
                     AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

                      (Subject for discussion)

The SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the first speaker, I just want to make one comment. The item on the Order Paper is “South Africa to unite … “ I am very sorry to see that the men, with only two exceptions, have decided that only women will speak on this subject. I think you need to ponder what that title means, and parties who put up such lists need to seriously consider this. I’m not saying which parties. It’ll be obvious to everybody here what is going to happen.

Ms L M T XINGWANA: Madam Speaker, let me start off by paying tribute to all the victims of violence and abuse, most of whom are women and children in South Africa. I also want to commend our singers, South African singers, who came up with a song for this campaign of 2003 that calls on all of us to stop the violence and abuse of women and children. I trust that all artists and all sectors of our society will also contribute to and participate in this campaign.

The Sixteen Days of No Violence Against Women and Children Campaign was initiated by the UN and it has been adopted as an annual programme by the South African Government since 1998. Before I dwell on the campaign, I would like us to turn our attention to the report that has been tabled today by the Joint Monitoring Committee on the Status of Women, the Unifem report `` Women, War and Peace’’.

It is important that the House takes note of the report, and of Resolution 1325 which addresses the safety and security needs of women in wartime and in peacetime.

On 16 May 2003 the hon Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, the Minister of Women’s Affairs and Child Welfare in Namibia, together with the hon Dr Frene Ginwala, the Speaker of the South African National Assembly, and Miss Noeleen Heyzer, the Executive Director of Unifem, launched the report entitled ``Women, War and Peace’’, which was written by Elizabeth Rehn and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf here at our Parliament. The choice of venue and partners involved was inspired by the activism of African women in the run- up to the successful passing of Resolution 1325 by the UN Security Council in October 2000, under the chairship of Namibia.

Some of the women involved in this campaign include the hon Thandi Modise, who is the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, as well as Ms Alison Lazarus of the Centre for Conflict Resolution at UCT, to mention just a few.

The Unifem report was closely followed by a feedback session on a report entitled “Human Security Now” by the UN Commission on Human Security, on which the Speaker, Dr Ginwala, served as a commissioner. The report-back session to civil society groupings in Africa was held from 26 to 27 May 2003 in Pretoria, and was hosted by the Speaker and other commissioners under the auspices of the Africa Institute. Let me, once again, congratulate the Speaker on representing our Parliament, as well as the women of South Africa, in this regard. [Applause.]

I would like to urge hon members to read this report. It is quite a thick document, but I think it is very important. It raises crucial concerns for women not only in our country, but throughout the continent. I would like, therefore, to read to the members the resolutions that have been adopted out of this report, which I think are very relevant to the subject of the day.

The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women, having considered the report of the independent experts on the Women, War and Peace report, endorses the recommendations contained in that report, in particular, the following: firstly, the Secretary-General of the UN should give priority to achieving gender parity in his appointments of special representatives and envoys; secondly, that gender equality be recognised in all peace processes, agreements and transnational government structures; thirdly, that a UN trust fund for peacekeeping by women be established; fourthly, that Unifem and the department of political affairs ensure that gender issues and women’s full participation are incorporated in peace-building and postconflict reconstruction; and five, that peace negotiations and agreements have a gender perspective through the full integration of women’s concerns and participation in peace processes.

I have said before that there have been concerns around the fact that in Burundi and the DRC, for instance, women have not been fully represented at the peace table. Therefore these resolutions need to be implemented immediately by us, our governments and also by NGOs.

The UN and donors should invest in women’s organisations as a strategy for conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peace-building. They should also exercise flexibility in responding to urgent needs and time-sensitive opportunities, and foster partnerships and networks between international, regional and local peace initiatives.

With regard to national electoral laws, I hope we are going to look at our own electoral law quite urgently. There should be international electoral assistance to establish quotas in order to achieve gender parity, ensure voter registration and education, increase the ratio of women in electoral commissions and observer missions, and to provide training for women candidates. A lead organisation should be designated with the United Nations for women’s education and training in conflict and postconflict situations. This lead organisation, together with Unesco, the UNHCR and Unicef should ensure that all education programmes for displaced persons provide for women as well as girls. The International Labour Organisation should expand vocational and skills training for women in postconflict situations, including in the nontraditional, public and private sectors in a manner that is sustainable and responsive to the local and national economy.

It was also recommended that we have a TRC for Africa, in which women who have gone through wars can come and share their experiences, as was the case during the TRC process that we had in South Africa. We are also calling on our Government to have a TRC for women, because we found that during the TRC process women were only there to share experiences as a result of the suffering, the imprisonment and killing of their husbands, sons and brothers, not to share their own pain.

Further, we recommend that domestic violence be a criterion against which countries will be reviewed in the African Peer Review Mechanism process.

We also proposed that a council for African women mediators be established, comprising women who are not in active, formal politics, who will be available, who may be utilised as special envoys and who, as a council, will have a special status with the peace and security council.

We also urge our governments to accelerate or speed up the setting up of the peace and security council of the African Union and to make sure that it engenders that there be equal numbers of men and women. I will therefore urge our members to go through this important report and also to make sure that we take it to our constituencies and to our provinces.

Coming back to our campaign, I would like to say that our Government has gone a long way towards addressing the question of violence and abuse of women and children. We all know about the legislation that has been passed, namely the Domestic Violence Act, the Maintenance Act of 1998, etc. Right now we have in Parliament the Portfolio Committee on Justice deliberating on the Sexual Offences Bill, which is an urgent Bill that we would like this House to pass as soon as possible.

I just want to raise an objection on behalf of women in this House and, I also know, of women in NGOs and outside, to the proposal that the age of consent to sex be lowered to age 12. We all object to this because we are facing high rates of child trafficking, high rates of abuse, rape and violence against our children. [Applause.]

The joint monitoring committee also supports the Compulsory HIV Testing of Alleged Sexual Offenders Bill, which will ensure that a victim of rape is given a report of the test of the offender and ensure that she has the right to demand that the offender be tested. We also support all the other Bills that are before the House. We want to urge the Department of Justice to fast-track these Bills and make sure that we pass them. We have been waiting for them for a very long time and we believe that they will assist in ensuring that we have effective sentences for abusers.

We also want to commend the Department of Safety and Security for the sterling work that the police are doing and also for the training that has been given to police officers. We can see that transformation is taking place.

We want to commend the Department of Justice, but we are also saying that more needs to be done in terms of training our magistrates, our judges and our prosecutors on domestic violence issues and on how to deal with victims, as well as how to deal with gender issues. We demand that all the criminal justice officials undergo the necessary training.

The campaign will be organised in all provinces. It will be launched by the Government, the National Gender Machinery and the Department of Justice in Kimberley on 25 November 2003, and will be opened by the Deputy President. All our departments have a particular niche in the campaign that they are addressing and we have activities in all provinces. We urge all members to participate in their constituencies and in their provinces.

Let me also say that there will be a “Good Men’s March” on 25 November here in Cape Town, and we urge all the good men from this House to participate in that march in the city. We will also have a closing ceremony here in Parliament on 10 December and the President will participate. We hope that all political parties and leaders will participate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Ms J A SEMPLE: Madam Speaker, the DA strongly supports the call for all South Africans to unite in fighting violence against women and children. Perhaps the most horrific form of violence is that of rape. It is used to break and humiliate women, men, families and communities.

In a study entitled “Combating Sexual Violence in the South of Johannesburg”, Andersson and Mhatre point out that 20% of teenage girls and 13% of boys living in the southern parts of Johannesburg have experienced sexual abuse by the time they turn 18 years of age. They believe that constant exposure to sexual violence has forced these teenagers to choose between humiliation and survival. The teenagers see themselves as survivors, but this comes at a cost: the development of a culture of a sexual violence.

This is not unique to South Africa, but Andersson and Mhatre maintain that one of the legacies of the apartheid era is that Soweto, and what they call “the deep south” informal townships of Johannesburg, have become known as the rape capital of the world. They go further and say:

The endemic violence characterised in these areas has become highly sexualised and turns against community members with bitter effect. White and black, male and female, children and adults are the victims of sexual violence as frustrations and feelings of inadequacy are vented in what has been called “a sexualised culture of violence”.

Violence is not only committed by men, but what is alarming is that out of the 3 000 men interviewed in streets and shops, one in three said they could be violent towards women. Even worse was the opinion of teenage girls: 10% said that they did not have the right to be protected from sexual violence, while 27% said forcing sex with someone you know did not count as sexual violence.

In a presentation to the JMC on the Improvement of the Quality of Life and Status of Women, Lisa Vetton, gender co-ordinator of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation tells of a woman of 65 who was raped. She is now HIV-positive. She was not getting any drugs at the time of the interview. When she was raped, her doors were broken and her bed was broken. She sleeps on the floor now, and she is very frightened because she cannot lock the door. The man has not been arrested, and she has lived in fear for two years that he will come back. She cannot work because she is ill and cannot travel to her local welfare office to get her pension. This has had an effect on her HIV status because she cannot afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables in order to eat properly.

Rape victims often do not go to the police, they are not using health care services and they are not going to court. They keep quiet out of shame and fear of stigmatisation, or because they do not know about the services available to them. If we want to encourage women to break the silence, Government will have to put an enormous amount of money into fighting violence against women, because if women cannot get to these services, or when they get there the services are overloaded, we are just victimising women further.

A social worker, working in an organisation dealing with violence against women, went to court three days in a row. She gave up because she got so tired of going back each day and being told: “We cannot help you today, you must come back tomorrow.” She had already taken three days’ leave to get a protection order. This gives you a sense of how women are being excluded from assistance, and how much effort will have to be spent in order to offer women the services they need so much.

All of us must take hands to support this initiative, not just for the 16 days of activism, but every day, until this terrible cycle of violence comes to an end. [Applause.]

Dr U ROOPNARAIN: Madam Speaker, hon members, the IFP wishes to express its full support for this debate and campaign. I want to begin by paraphrasing from Gandhi, who said that women are greater at self-sacrificing, women have a greater power of endurance, they have greater courage and have greater moral power. How apt are these words, yet they ring hollow for many thousands of women who have not recognised their immense power. It is these women who are helpless and have to face the abhorrent abuse of power.

How many times have we read of incidents and acts of violence against women? How many times have we asked questions like: “Why doesn’t she leave? Why does she let this continue?” The answers are always the same: “I am dependent on him.” or “Who will look after my children?”

South African women are not safe in their homes, in their places of work, on the streets and even in their own cars. We as MPs need to condemn the pervasive nature of this type of violence which allows women to live in a kind of entrapment. There can be no legal, social, economic or any other justification for what continues to occur in many homes.

Trying to find research and actual stastistics on violence against women is a mammoth task. More often than not, statistics are discrepant, with dockets missing and thousands of unreported cases. According to CSIR research on violence against women, it has been estimated that between one out of four and one out of every six women in South Africa are in abusive relationships, and that one woman is killed by her partner every six days.

Research also shows that an average of 80% of rural women are victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence and violence against women and children are not private matters. This is not terror kept behind closed doors. It takes place in a pattern and an area of confusion and intimacy; mixed with hope, fear, isolation and intimidation. It affects women and children and those around them.

The children of violent families often end up as criminals themselves. The human impact of this type of violence cannot be quantified. The effect on children is most profound. Statistics show that 90% of children in a domestic violence situation are in the same room or in the next room during the attacks or assaults. A third of these children try to intervene to protect their mothers. Here, again, one cannot quantify the emotional trauma.

We need to look beyond the picket fence, beyond the front door, and remember that for many women the home is not a safe place. Their partners are not safe. Women who seek redress often face abuse from police officers who are indifferent or hostile, medical examiners who are ill-trained and inaccessible and prosecutors who are inexperienced and at times biased. There are judges who doubt women’s credibility as survivors and who often hand out lenient sentences.

This has to change. We need to get tough and tougher and say:

“No more lenient sentences; no more slaps on the wrist.” As MPs and legislators we need to ensure that the safety and security of our children and women is paramount and that it is a priority. If domestic violence is one wave in the broader sea of violence and is allowed to continue to take its toll on this nation, then all of us indirectly sentence future generations of South Africans to fear, misery, isolation and shame.

But legislation will not change the imbalance of power between men and women. Much more work is needed to educate men on the destructive impact of violence. This is a long-term challenge. Changing attitudes is key. Males in this House need to take the lead. It is men who beat their wives, and it is men who teach boys about women. Attitudes are formed at a very young age. There must be a strategy to foster behaviour to ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect.

It is critical that men stand at the forefront of this campaign, like the many males who stood outside the steps of Parliament today. We also need to get rid of taboos that tend to immobilise women and make them stagnant and helpless, while men are left free and enterprising in the outside world.

The IFP denounces the widespread violence and calls for stronger protection for women and tougher sentences for the perpetrators. I also want to state at this juncture that many of my male colleagues tell me that it is not just women who are being abused, it is also males who are being abused. I do concede, yes, hon males, there are males who are being abused. But, yet again, there has to be this change of attitude. I cannot emphasise this enough. The stereotypical attitudes and expections have to change.

In closing, I pay tribute to all those women’s organisations and to the many men who work tirelessly to campaign and lobby on behalf of the voiceless. South Africans cannot continue to close the shutters on violence. Let’s come together and put aside party-political persuasions and party ideologies. Let’s come together in solidarity and say no to violence. Let’s come together as men and women of this House to honour the female of the species.

I have also been reassured that next time there is a debate on gender, most of the males in my party are going to be at the forefront of the debate. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr S L DITHEBE: Madam Speaker, the way to begin, is to begin. So, let me begin by taking a moment in my speech and expressing my heartfelt condolences to the hon Zunaid Kotwal and his wife Ruwaidah on the tragic loss of their son, Mohammed, in a drowning accident in Pelican Park, recently. The lesson we draw from this incident is that all children must, at all times, live in a safe and secure environment.

Having said that, I would like to focus on the topic of the day. Clearly, this topic is an injunction to all South Africans to unite in their multitudes, singlemindedly, in the fight against violence against women and children. Cognisant of and conscious of this mammoth task, the ANC believes that it is not the shouts and plaudits of the throng during this period that will bring an end to the shameful scourge of violence against women and children, but rather single and collective steps that all of us take to eradicate violence against women and children.

We know it will take a radical change in the attitudes of many in our society who still prey on the weak and vulnerable women and children, and for purposes of my speech, children in particular. Since 1994, our dream has been to bring about a better life for all, including the children, and to date, we have invoked several measures through projects, programmes, policy and legislation to protect our children against all forms of abuse and neglect. Our synthesis report towards a 10-year review speaks for itself.

In June, last year, this Parliament received a detailed and comprehensive report from the task group on the sexual abuse of children, which made numerous laudable and lucid recommendations. It is, therefore, heartening to note that some of the draft Bills recommended for speedy passage in this House, such as the Child Justice Bill, Children’s Bill and the soon to be amended Sexual Offences Act, are being fast-tracked in order to create a comprehensive child protection regime.

Parliament has also ratified some new UN conventions and optional protocols that are concomitant by-products of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The list of recommendations contained in the June report referred to earlier is elaborate and goal-driven, and required the relevant committees to report to the National Assembly within 12 months after the adoption of this report. Have we done that?

Even if it means revising the time schedules, the urgency and importance of the report-back process is critically important or cannot be overemphasised. Accordingly, we welcome the 2004 MTEF that provides for the cost of extending the child support grant to children in the age cohorts of 11, 12 and 13, and ultimately 14, in the next MTEF period.

We also welcome a provision that has been made during the current MTEF period to implement the Children’s Bill and the Child Justice Bill, aimed at establishing child justice centres whose function it is to divert children away from prisons and towards more rehabilitative programmes, as well as the roll-out of sexual offences courts, the appointment of family advocates and councillors, and dedicated maintenance officers whose role will be to improve the quality of services to vulnerable groups and our children in particular.

We also welcome the provision for the significant growth in the base-line budgets, among others, in the Integrated Nutrition Programme and the transfer of the integrated nutrition grant to the Department of Education from the 1 April 2004.

To the Minister of Education, Minister Asmal, I would like to make this call that he take steps to ensure uniform quality nutrition standards once this grant has been transferred to his department because, in the past, we have seen many inconsistencies in terms of the nutrition standards required for this particular programme in schools.

In addition, a ban on corporal punishment must be strictly enforced in schools and children must be taught their rights and responsibilities, in terms of our law, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

I want to reflect briefly on the results of a study conducted in America in

1. The results were published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The results of the study were startling, if not shocking. They established that children exposed to abuse are more prone to obesity, heart disease, cancer, depression and other chronic health problems as adults.

One of the ways of mitigating this disaster is for families to allow paediatricians to do regular genital checks on children, to determine whether they have been abused. Abuse takes many forms. It can be a mother or father who physically or emotionally abuses their child or even sexually abuses them. One thing is clear: There can be no excuse for the abuse of children. The Masai of Africa’s greeting goes thus: How are the children? The 16-day campaign must be an everyday campaign in which we do not only seek to know how the children are, but rather what we can do to save the children.

In conclusion, I dedicate this poem by a certain Cindi to those who have suffered abuse. It’s titled The real me.

I’ve been stuck what seems like forever in the dreary arena of my abusive life. I’ve drowned my sorrows, hurt, fear, pain and shame, felt so much anger and rage. I questioned: Why? What did I do?

In therapy for years, trying to learn why these things happened to me, but it’s impossible to totally understand. I finally know through hard- fought battles, the whys are no longer important. My self-blame is fading away. I have worth. I have value. I deserve good, not bad. I was the innocent victim. He was an extremely sadistic man.

In my own mind, I’m a survivor, I’m strong. I will live on to be the owner and keeper of my own mind and body. In me is courage, determination, a will to live and feel again. I deserve to survive, to love, to feel free, to bring out the happiness residing within reach just inside the real me.

[Applause.]

Mrs ANNA VAN WYK: Madam Deputy Speaker, terrible violence in many forms against women and children is a fearful everyday reality. I would like to challenge the male members of Parliament to accept joint responsibility for gender matters. Males have a gender too. Mention the word ``gender’’ to the average person and watch his eyes glaze over.

There is a variety of politically correct instruments - with little to show for the time, effort and cost invested in them but until the males in this Government decide to take active ownership, the situation on the ground will not improve. Die Nuwe NP wil graag voorstel dat mans ten minste 50% van al die geslagsgerigte instrumente moet uitmaak. Daar is dikwels werkswinkels en opleiding vir vroue, maar feitlik niks vir mans nie. Deur die samestelling van hierdie liggame te verander, ontvang mans daarmee onmiddellik reeds die amptelike erkenning wat hulle meer sekerheid kan bied. (Translations of Afrikaans paragraphs follow.)

[The New NP would like to propose that males should comprise at least 50% of all gender-centred instruments. There are often workshops and training for women, but almost nothing for men. By changing the composition of these bodies, males would immediately receive the official recognition that would offer them greater certainty.]

The transformation of South African society brings great insecurity on many fronts. Modern young men are confident in their role in the home, workplace and society. Those that have not transformed find it harder to come to terms with the new realities. This insecurity is now manifesting itself in a backlash against women, the vulnerable and the defenceless.

Hierdie Parlement, sowel as die leiers daar buite moet help om hierdie situasie om te draai. Lewensvaardighede moet meer gespesialiseerd in opvoeding- en opleidingsinstansies aangebied word. Ouers word nie gebore nie en mans is ook ouers - hulle moet opgelei word. Ouervaardigheidsopleiding moet ‘n verpligte deel van leerplanne word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[This Parliament, as well as the leaders out there must assist in turning this situation around. Life skills need to be presented in a more specialised fashion in education and training institutions. Parents are not born and men are parents too - they need to be trained. Parental skills training should become a compulsory part of syllabi.]

The same applies to conflict resolution, negotiating skills and anger management.

Elke kind en student moet hierdie opleiding doeltreffend ontvang en geleer word om dit te beoefen. [Each child and student should undergo this training effectively and should be taught practice it.]

There are obviously some deeper issues underlying our societal problems. The first is the moral decay in South Africa. The leaders of a country set the tone. Here and there one finds commendable initiatives and they need to be encouraged. The Moral Regeneration Launch that so many in this Government and Parliament attended has so far shown little life.

Die leiers hier en in die sakesektor moet hand in eie boesem steek en huis skoonmaak. Die hebsug en materialisme in die staat en sakesektor neem onrusbare afmetings aan. Opvoeding en algemene ordentlikheid wat ten grondslag van ‘n suksesvolle samelewing lê, is aan die kwyn. Die vereistes van inbors, betroubaarheid, pligsbesef en bedagsaamheid is nie net goeie maniere nie; dit is dinge waarsonder ‘n administrasie en ‘n regering nie behoorlik funksioneer nie. Dienste kan nie gelewer word nie en die kwesbares kan nie beskerm word nie. Kinders en vroue voel dit die eerste - in Suid-Afrika tans die ergste. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The leaders here and in the business sector must search their own hearts and get their houses in order. The greed and materialism in the state and the business sectors are taking on alarming proportions. Training and decency, that form the foundation of a successful society, are on the decline. The requirements of integrity, reliability, sense of duty and consideration are not only good manners, they are things without which an administration and a government cannot function properly. Services cannot be rendered and the vulnerable cannot be protected. Children and women feel it first - currently the worst in South Africa.]

Economic growth, education and training, job creation and an efficient criminal justice system all obviously need to be improved and expedited. But, very important and lastly, the New NP would like to propose most specifically that Government set up a task team to investigate the effects on South African society of the popularisation of violence by the media and entertainment industry, and that it advise the Government and Parliament on what needs to be done in this respect. I thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]

Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the 16-day activism campaign against the abuse of women and children is commendable. However, we must be aware that the 16 days of activism is only a part of the process to combat the abuse of women and children.

This year’s campaign focuses on participation between businesses, parastatals, NGOs and CBOs and includes the active participation of men and boys. Once all sectors of society realise the value and significance of women and children, the protection of their Constitutional rights will enjoy greater relevance.

However, we must identify some of the core causes that contribute to the abuse of women and children. One such focal area points to the sex industry. Here, I find it contradictory that the ANC women group is actually going to object to the lowering of the age of consent with reference to the Sexual Offences Bill, whereas we are saying to them: “Use your power in this House.” If you are saying that you - women - make up 52% of the population, then we can vote against this clause or against this Bill. So, please don’t stand up here and try to make political speeches when you know you can use your power.

Recent research has shown that exposure to pornography causes damage to women and children in a variety of ways. Linked to pornography is the brutality of prostitution. This House will have to acknowledge that it played into the hands of those who promote and thrive off negative economics by adopting legislation that permits the abuse of women and children through prostitution, sex trafficking and gambling. The ACDP calls for a review of all of these laws, with immediate effect. I thank you.

Ms N C NKABINDE: Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, only last week we debated in this House the report detailing the critical problems facing the proper implementation of the Maintenance Act and the Domestic Violence Act.

Parliament had recognised that a problem existed and sought to address it. As a result, these two Acts came about as the central pillars of our effort to fight violence against women and children. As the violence continues we can only conclude that the legislation is lacking, or that it is not being implemented properly.

I would submit that it is more the latter than the former. Implementation is insufficient because the attitudes of many people remain stuck in the rut that views women and children as inferior servants, little more than domestic animals of burden that can only perform a limited number of tasks. This is why most of the violence and abuse against women and children is perpetrated by a person that they know or by a person they are related to.

I am not saying that every man in South Africa is a violent beast, neither am I claiming that there are no women or children who commit horrific acts of violence. In fact, we should salute the many men who not only avoid violence, but who are also actively opposing it, for example the annual Men’s March that is scheduled to take place soon.

What we cannot avoid is the fact that the majority of the perpetrators of violence against women and children are men. Perhaps an even more difficult fact to face is that these men are somebody’s son, brother, uncle and father. They live amongst us and, as long as the myths of the patriarchy are perpetuated, they will continue to abuse, molest and murder women and children. Myths and fallacies, an example being that a husband is entitled to discipline his wife physically, still pervade many communities.

A shocking example of this recently transpired in which a provincial government official beat and kicked his wife in broad daylight in front of a court building whilst other people were looking on; or the high-ranking diplomat who keeps his job in the face of more than 20 charges of sexual harassment. This is because some people still believe that a male authority figure is somehow entitled to do despicable things to those over whom he has authority.

The law is explicit on this point: third parties can report domestic violence. In fact, witnessing a crime and not reporting it is a serious offence. Complacency is our biggest enemy. As much as we expect prosecutors, magistrates … [Time expired.]

Mr M F CASSIM: Hon Deputy Speaker, South Africa must indeed unite and muster every resource in fighting the abhorrent crime of violence against women and children.

Activism is a proven method for engendering a climate in society where violence against women and children is denounced for what it is: a crime and, in respect of a man, an abnegation of that man’s masculinity and the emasculation of his humanity. The levels of tolerance for violence in our society can only be reduced through sustained activism, education and co- operation by all.

Violence was in-built in the previous political order, where thuggery was the modus operandi for conduct of politics and social activities. The new political order, with a focus on human rights and the rights of individuals, is well placed to see a tidal wave of change in attitudes.

The progress towards a gentler and more humane society, however, requires that we do more to tackle the abuse of drugs and alcohol. The activism which will soon begin should therefore not forget to target, in the most concentrated form, the abuse of drugs and alcohol.

I give my full and unstinted support for the 16 days of activism. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs M L NGWENYA: Madam Deputy Speaker, today we are spreading the message of 16 days of activism for no violence against women and children. This campaign assists our Government to generate increased awareness about violence directed at women and children, how it manifests itself in our society, and the negative impact it has on the development of these vulnerable groups.

Lehono re boledišana ka ga kgatelelo le tlaišo ya badimo ba rena ba go ja bogobe - ke ra bakgekolo, bao ba bangwe ba bona ba phedišwago ka go bethwa ke ditlogolo tša bona, e le ge di nyaka ditšhelete tša bona tša motente. Ga ba fiwe dijo gabotse; ga ba fiwe meetse a go hlapa; ba robatšwa ka mapai a ditonkana gomme e re gola ba robetše boroko bjo bogolo, e be gona ba rekelwago mapai a maswa, go thwe ba felegetšwa ka wona gore ba se ke ba bolawa ke phefo mo ba yago gona - badimong. Ga se nnete. Motho o direlwa tše botse a sa phela.

Ee, go na le bokoko ba bangwe bao ba hlokometšwego gabotsebotse. Re kopana le bona megolong ya bona, dikerekeng, malapeng a bona ge re ba hlola matsogo ka go ba etela ntlo-ka-ntlwana. Ke moo re hwetšago bothakga bjo bo dirwago ke bana le ditlogolo tša bona. O tla hwetša ba dutše gabotse ditafoleng, gomme ba bangwe ba adile magogo a bona fase meriting, ba e ja dijo tša go fepa mebele. Ge o tsena lapeng la baagišani, o tla hutsafala ge o bona tlhophego ya koko yo a golago R700 ka kgwedi, efela a tšhaba le go bolela gore o swerwe ke tlala, ka baka la go tshaba go bethwa.

Ge re e ya mafelong a bolefelo bja motente, o tla hwetša bomashonisha le bona ba tlile ka šiši go koleka ditšhelete tšeo ba di adimilego bakgekolo gare ga kgwedi, e le ge ba gapeletšwa ke ditlogolwana tša bona gore ba khothose bokoko’abona. Ka mo le gona ke ba diburial society, bao ba ipitšago ba polokano. Ba tšeiša bakgekolo menwana gore ba tle ba hwetše ditšhelete tša bona ka distop order. Re leka go bolela le bona, re ba laetša gore se ba se dirago ke bohodu, efela ka ge re se na molawana wa go ba thibela, re a palelwa.

Motlhomphegi Zola Skweyiya, Tona ya Tlhabollo ya tša Leago, o boletš e le diputswa kua East London ka la pele la Oktoboro a re setšhaba se swanetše go bona gore diputswa tša rena di fiwa tlhompho ye e swanetšego ka go boloka le go kgatha tema ye kgolo go bona gore setšo le meetlo ya rena di bolokegile, di bile di a phethagatšwa.

Diputswa, se feleng pelo gobane Tona le kgoro ya gagwe ba tla tla le molawana wa go le šireletša gore go se sa hlwela go e ba le motho, le ge e ka ba ngwana wa gago, go dira boithatelo ka bophelo bja gago. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)

[Today we debate about the oppression and abuse of our living ancestors - I am talking about our grandmothers, some of whom are always beaten by their grandchildren, as they want their pension money. They are not given enough food, they are not given water to wash, and they are made to sleep with low- quality blankets; and when they have passed away, they are bought new blankets, with the thought that they need not get cold where they are going to - the afterlife. Yes, there are those grandmothers who are well cared for. We meet them at the pension payout points, at churches, and in their homes as we visit them from house to house. This is where we find the good work done by their children and their grandchildren. You would find them well seated at tables, while some are sitting on mats under the trees, eating nutritious foods. When you get to the family next door, you will be hurt when you find difficulties encountered by a grandmother who gets R700 monthly but is afraid to ask for food when she is hungry, because she is afraid of being beaten.

When you go to pension payout points, you will find moneylenders collecting monies borrowed by grandmothers in the middle of the month, having been forced to do so by their grandchildren, who are bent on misusing their monies. On the other hand, you find burial societies, who say they bury each other. They take fingerprints of grandmothers so that they will be able to get their money by stop order. We try to talk to them, indicating to them that what they are doing is theft, but we fail as we do not have a Bill that can prevent that. Honourable Zola Skweyiya, Minister of Social Development, talked to the aged in East London on 1 October and said that the community should ensure that the aged get the respect they deserve and play a big role in their lives by safeguarding and implementing the various cultures and our way of life.

Old people, be patient because the Minister and his department will come up with a Bill to prevent any person, even if it is your child, from doing as they please with your lives.]

After everything I have said, let’s quote our hon Minister of Health, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who said at the International Day of Older Persons on 1 October 2003:

There is now a realisation in the world that older persons are an asset and a resource that contributes to the development of our society.

She said further that as the number of people aged 60 or more increases, we begin to see a shift in the pattern of chronic illnesses such as heart disease, hypertension, cancer and depression. That is why it is important for our children and grandchildren to take good care of the old persons because the longer they live, the better the chances for survival of their families financially. This is because in poor communities the same older people make valuable contributions to households as carers of children, people with disabilities, and those affected and infected by HIV/Aids.

Lastly, hon Minister Skweyiya made a strong call and said, ``We call upon older persons to take the lead in our country’s moral regeneration campaign’’. He also had a message for young people who ill-treat their elders, saying:

``Hlompha mmago le tatago gore matšatši a gago a tle a atišwe lefaseng!’’ [“Respect your mother and father so that your days can be added on earth.”]

He said Government aimed to improve the payment of social grants so that the elderly did not have to stand in long queues and travel long distances. A social grant is our constitutional right and must be paid in conditions of dignity and respect. I thank you, Deputy Chairperson. [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Deputy Speaker, the PAC appreciates the awakening of this nation and expresses shock at the violence against women and children as evidenced by the Sixteen Days of Activism campaign. The PAC has noted with deep concern the endemic violence perpetrated on the women in our country. Crimes such as rape and murder against women and children have reached alarming proportions. They are listed as some of the SA Police Service’s nine policing priorities.

The question the PAC is posing regarding the Sixteen Days of Activism concerning violence against women and children is: Where is the budget for the fight against this violence?

As early as 1999, the National Police Commissioner indicated that he would ask for extra funds for police to implement the Domestic Violence Act. If the alarming figures of violence against women are to be reduced, the PAC believes that there must be a percentage levy imposed on each SAPS programme and allocated to the development and implementation of a women’s safety plan.

An explicit budget must be sustained and used to roll out a comprehensive women’s safety plan. This will contribute to a faster response time from the police and effective implementation of the Act. It will improve police skills in investigating and documenting domestic violence, in order to decrease the number of cases rejected by the courts owing to inadequate or incorrect information.

The explicit budget should focus on rural areas and improve access to police stations where women can lay charges. An explicit budget for domestic violence is critical. To reject this proposal is to continue to victimise women and children physically, emotionally and economically. Having said all this, it is important to state that the nation’s development is judged by how its menfolk treat women and children. It is an indictment on our country that, 10 years after the demise of apartheid colonialism, violence against women and children has escalated. Of course, one of the causes of violence against women is their dependency on men. There must be a massive and rapid programme of education for women. They must be armed with skills which will liberate them economically, so that they are not dependent on men economically. Thank you.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I, firstly, compliment the men taking part in this debate, especially the hon Pheko who never fails to take this podium whenever issues of women and children are addressed and discussed. I also thank hon Nefolovhodwe of Azapo for honouring me by giving me two minutes of his time, giving me four minutes.

The MF strongly supports the Sixteen Days of Activism campaign for nonviolence against women as part of an international effort to create greater awareness of the abhorrent violence against women that is rife in so many societies. We are proud of this effort embarked upon as a result of the department’s determination to stop violence against women and children.

The negative effects and statistics of such violence are too horrifying to go into, but reality is that greater awareness will assist immensely. The campaign strategy for this year, reaching a variety of role-players, Government, NGOs and the private and public sectors and from the urban to rural areas, promises to leave no stone unturned. The MF is pleased by this determination, and joins wholeheartedly in this campaign to end violence against women and children.

We have to reach out to our constituencies and our communities and stamp out all violence against women and children. The MF also supports the campaign involving white ribbons. Violence against women and children is a contravention of their human rights that are stipulated by law in the Bill of Rights in our national Constitution. A contravention of these rights is a crime in terms of the law. While the criminal is to be punished, our women and children need to be protected. We need to ensure that their rights are upheld.

At this stage may I take this opportunity and convey this very special message that comes from the leader of the MF, Mr A Rajbansi. He sends this message, conveying his fullest support for this very important debate on violence against women and children. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr M WATERS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Sixteen Days of Activism campaign, which opposes violence against women and children, is an opportunity for us as members of Parliament to reflect upon whether we have done enough to help combat the scourge sweeping our country.

Yes, we can all say that Government is doing something, but is Government doing enough? Are we, as the people’s representatives, doing enough? Do we ourselves know the conditions in which the police and court officials have to work, and do we understand what the problems are in our criminal justice system? Or do we prefer to turn away and say that the campaign of Sixteen Days of Activism is the best the Government can do?

Are we placing enough pressure on Government to allocate the necessary resources? Consider the following points: One, every single police unit established to investigate child and women abuse cases is understaffed. Two, the average number of cases each investigating officer has at one time is 62 when it should be 18. Three, only half of these officers working at child protection units have received training in child abuse. Four, only a handful of officers receive any counselling or psychological support. Five, police officers do not have the basics, like their own telephones, to conduct an investigation. Six, 87% of all police officers working at CPUs have not had a psychometric test in order to determine their suitability for working at child protection units. Seven, child protection units are used as a dumping ground for police officers who are under internal investigation - in one case an officer raped one of the very people he was supposed to protect. Eight, the lack of staff and of vehicles means that in some areas the child victim and the perpetrator ride to court in the same car. Nine, rape victims have to wait in hospital queues for up to five hours before being examined by a doctor. Ten, some state doctors refuse to examine children who have been raped. Eleven, there is a shortage of at least 1400 social workers whose role is crucial in providing support to victims, children and women - thank you hon member September. Twelve, that at least 412 scientist posts are vacant at the two DNA laboratories, causing excessive delays in court cases. Thirteen, 60% of sexual offences courts do not have basic security measures, such as metal detectors, and that 75% do not have x-ray machines. Fourteen, the Minister of Justice stated in a reply to a parliamentary question that the minimum security measures I have just mentioned would only be implemented in his courts in the year 2007. Fifteen, some prosecutors and magistrates working in the sexual offences courts do not have basic facilities such as an office. And lastly, that according to the Minister of Justice, who admitted in another parliamentary reply, 24 sexual offences courts fail to meet the department’s blueprint and in order for them to do so it would cost the taxpayer a mere R30 million, yet these courts remain nonblueprint compliant.

I have mentioned 16 examples of where this ANC-led Government can make a difference. If the ANC-led Government started to address one of these issues every day during the Sixteen Days of Activitism campaign then, yes, I would say that they were making a difference. Otherwise, these Sixteen Days of Activism will become yet another expensive ANC public relations exercise.

What we need from the President and the Government is not for them to keep signing pledges, stating that they are against child and women abuse. We all know the President and his Cabinet are against this disgusting crime. We are all against it. What we need from our President is for him to sign a contract with the people, which will commit him and the ANC-led Government to specific targets with deadlines, and where the people can hold him accountable. We need to improve the pathetic 6% conviction rate for child rape. Only 1 300 out of 22 000 child rapes per year end up in a successful conviction.

Aids is another disease that affects women and children in a profound way. The DA welcomes what seems to be another U-turn for the ANC in rejecting the denialist theories and embracing mainstream thinking by announcing the roll-out of antiretrovirals yesterday.

Hundreds of thousands of South Africans are asking themselves why they should vote in next year’s election. What is the point? I say that registering and voting against child and women abuse is the best reason to do so. [Interjections.]

It is high time that ordinary South Africans took charge to show this ANC- led Government that we need more than fancy speeches, monotonous debates in Parliament, and unimplementable laws owing to the lack of allocated funds, such as the Domestic Violence Act. We need action on the ground.

I say it is time to show the ANC that it is time for change. Instead of spending R60 billion on arms, rather spend it on the war being waged against our women and children. [Interjections.] An amount of R400 million for one arms deal helicopter could have been spent on making sure that court cases don’t drag on for years, as is currently experienced by children.

Instead of spending R600 million on a luxury plane for the President, spend it on equipping our police officers and prosecutors with basic equipment, not luxury equipment. We need 365 days of activisim, not 16. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr M S BOOI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say that this is an interesting debate but it’s bony and reflects the history of the country. This is a very crucial debate in that we, as South Africans, have to reflect on how we move forward rather than yapping and haggling over the negatives.

As the ANC, when we took the decision to initiate this debate, we took it on the basis that we were serious about how to transform society and to better the lives of our people. Within that context, our history has proven us correct. The men and women who are seated in this House have made tremendous contributions towards this particular debate.

When Comrade Thandi Modise got arrested I was still young. She was not arrested because there was something different that she was doing. She was making her contribution within the organisation and within society regarding how to help with the transformation of this particular society. So, whatever you raise regarding what the present Government is doing, you need to do that within the context that the women we have within the ANC are women that have made tremendous contributions.

They have never been backbenchers or sat on the fence in terms of the way things happen. They contribute by participating within the organisation, and by being at the forefront of the battles. So, to us, our contribution is not one of coming here, as Helen Zille did - her own history - of going to Kenya and saying to people that the main thing about the majority of women in the ANC, as they sit here, is that they are not using their majority vote to push for change.

Our women have done it totally differently. They have contributed; they have made us gender-sensitive in the organisation; and they have genderised even the democracy that we are busy participating in. So, they have played a very significant role. It is in that context that whatever you say as Government, or as the opposition, you’d always want to reflect on that, rather than running parallel to what society is expecting you to do.

Now, regarding complainers, we do have complainers in society who call themselves the opposition of the ANC. I usually continually warn them that I don’t think this is the platform for them to win votes. You have to go out and make sure that you win votes outside. Here, you need to be able to explain to us what you expect us to do to be able to meet the needs of society. As Waters walked away from the podium, I kept on asking myself: Hon Waters, what do you expect us to do?'' We have been raising these issues together and you have been saying these things, but what is crucial for us is what the DA has learnt from the process of going from court to court and going from police station to police station. What is your contribution? What do you do as the opposition? Do you come here to just sit and complain or do you continually say,in partnership with the Government this is what we are supposed to be doing”? This is very important. [Interjections.]

I appreciate what you are saying because, to us, the issue of the abuse of children and women has been quite central in our agenda. We need to be able to overcome it, and we need to be able to make sure that it doesn’t happen. That’s why when we met today, the ANC asked itself: What type of men are we talking about? What type of human beings are we talking about that are able to help these women to genderise society? What contribution is expected of men, the men that the hon Waters and others have been complaining about that are not able to implement the laws that give them power? Are those the type of men that we are talking about in this society? Is that the expectation of Government? Is that the expectation of our different parties regarding those men that are not doing what Government is doing? What do we say about them?

The ANC has been quite clear that we need to change ourselves. We need to be very emphatic about the type of men we are and that we do recognise that society is transforming. As society is transforming, our contribution has to be totally different. We should be the first ones who say, ``Beside the emancipation of women, what else can we do?’’ As you go to the different marches that are being arranged in the country, what else is expected of men?

As cross-cultural activities impact on ourselves, when you practise your religion or whatever you do in society, you need to be able to consider that as a man, what is going to be my contribution to the progressive programmes that have been outlined by women in front of me, and to the progressive programmes that the ANC has been able to outline so that, as a man, you see yourself totally different from what you used to be because you have to make a contribution? That is a contribution that is unashamed.

You have to revisit your own soul and think about yourself and say, ``Is it correct what I’m doing?’’ Because, with due respect to all the good words you say, if you don’t give recognition to the fact that without the respect that we have to go through ourselves, respecting the different women that we are talking about will not happen. It’s in our interest that, as men, we should be able to help in transforming our society.

Now, what have we been able to do since the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act in 1998 and all those things that have been introduced? What have we been able to do as men to assist with changes within our society, because that is a challenge that we are confronted with? What are we able to do? How do we continue to assist our women with the power they have to be able to make sure that, regarding the issues that we talk about within Parliament, they are able to implement those issues?

At this particular moment, what Government is looking forward to is finding a lot of activists who are gender-sensitive, who could co-operate and who could work together with our women in the gender units to ensure that our contribution doesn’t just end in articulating statements, but that we come down and get involved in the various issues that are confronting our society.

The society that we are talking about is the society that has gone through tremendous hardships, and it doesn’t mean that those individuals are outside of South Africa. It’s those issues that are confronting me and you. We need to be able to help. This is what we are called on to do, hon Waters. That contribution is expected from me and you regarding what we are doing. Are we helping each other? Are we helping to fight the conservatism within our society? Are we applying our minds, because at the heart of the problem of domestic violence is a conservative man who just continually thinks that he has to abuse his wife?

That is very difficult to police but that responsibility is the responsibility that every man in this House has to take care of because it is within yourself to be able to assist society to transform, and I don’t hear that from your side. That is the issue that we are supposed to be looking into rather than continuously wanting to refocus and change focus and start blaming Government. You are supposed to do those things. You are supposed to contribute so that when society looks upon you and expects you to have done something positive tomorrow, they are able to say that, within the justice system, this is what this man has been able to do.

You talk as if you don’t have DA members that work within the Police Service. You talk as if there are no DA members that are working in the justice system. Now, the question that we pose to ourselves is: What do you say to those men? Do you have policies that are ready to transform those men so that they are able to contribute to society? You don’t have them and that’s why you spend most of your time attacking the ANC. Your attitude is not able to move things forward. That’s why you think and contextualise the contribution of our women in that way in the DA. You always look at issues from a narrow perspective. You don’t understand that they have done quite a lot of work. They have contributed to the type of Bills that we’ve been able to pass.

When we dealt with the Firearms Control Act, we were the first ones to say that domestic violence has to be at the top of our agenda. Now, I don’t hear you saying that you have been able to achieve that within your party. You’ve stayed away from issues; you’ve stayed away form reflecting what the needs of society are. It’s not about the ANC. The ANC will continually defeat you in the elections but sometimes we say, ``reflect on society’’. These debates of this nature are not debates where you come and look for votes but they are debates that reflect how serious you take society; how serious you take dealing with child abuse; and how serious you take dealing with abuse and domestic violence. Because, if you have the answers to that I would really appreciate listening to them. But, definitely, I’ve never heard that you have been able to achieve that. [Interjections.]

The ANC has been very positive and has made a good contribution. That’s why we are able to debate today. [Interjections.] That’s why we are able to talk about issues that are confronting women. The point is that you have been absent for the rest of your life. You have not understood the issues. [Interjections.] You are not reflecting our policy. What I’m saying is: talk amongst yourselves. Talk to the men amongst yourselves. Talk to them and don’t shout at me. Talk to them and ask them the same question you are asking me, ``What are they doing about society?’’ What are they doing to help change the society? [Applause.] What are they doing to fight the rape scourge? What have they ever done? What have they presented so as to be able to fight domestic violence? They’ve not done anything. [Interjections.] You come and shout and shout. We are seated and transforming the Police Service. We are seated and transforming the justice system to enable itself to confront the decision that we have taken. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon members, stop shouting at each other, please. Can the hon member just continue to address the House.

Mr M S BOOI: Madam Speaker, I know that it’s always difficult when members can’t understand. It’s our responsibility, as the ANC, to make them understand where we are going. So, what I’m saying is that, as the ANC, we continuously say that you call on everybody as you go on these marches during this campaign. It is not just the sixteen-day campaign. There are quite a lot of issues. There are quite a lot of things that we’ve been doing to highlight the plight of abused women and children. That commitment we have shown.

I’ve just addressed many prisoners at Pollsmoor and I talked to them about what the expectation of society is and how society is looking at them. I’m not seated here and shouting at members. I’m doing my work and I’m picking up the responsibility of saying, ``How do we, as individuals and men within the ANC, readdress ourselves and relook at ourselves so that whatever we say and whatever we talk about - which is called moral regeneration - our contribution becomes quite significant? It assists in changing society from what it is. Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND SECURITY ON PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AGAINST TERRORIST AND RELATED ACTIVITIES BILL

There was no debate.

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

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted. PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AGAINST TERRORIST AND RELATED ACTIVITIES BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Madam Deputy Speaker, no country is exempt from terrorists’ threats and attacks. Elsewhere in Africa such acts have been committed with devastating effects, notably in Kenya and Tanzania. Here at home, despite the advent of democracy, we experienced firstly the bomb explosions intended to derail democracy during 1993-1994. The urban terror campaign in the Western Cape included pipe bombings, drive- by shootings, hand grenade attacks targeted at restaurants, court buildings, magistrates, a prosecutor and police investigators, and the Boeremag activities culminating in the ongoing trial in Pretoria.

As explained in the discussion paper of the South African Law Reform Commission, published in July 2000, some 200 criminal explosions occurred between 13 April 1994 and 24 December 1999. In addition to our international responsibilities to combat terrorism, the Government has a responsibility to protect and defend democracy and our Constitution. The Constitution guarantees every possible lawful means of waging politics. There is no reason, excuse or justification in this country to revert to violence or threats thereof so as to bring about any political, social or other change.

The Government will not allow its territory to be the stage for such acts and threats emanating from anywhere. The Bill before this House is an extraordinary one in more ways that one. Firstly, it deals with “terrorism”

• a concept with such high political content that there is no single universal definition for it. We all know about the huge debate on the phrase ``one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’’. This debate has even more significance in South Africa, where the struggle for liberation against racism was internationally recognised as a legitimate one.

This aspect has been dealt with in the Bill by striking a balance, on the one hand, by recognising the legitimate struggle by people for their liberation, including the armed struggle against colonialism, aggression and domination by foreign forces. This struggle was waged within the confines of international law, specifically international humanitarian law, and excluded it from the definition of a terrorist activity. This was balanced, on the other hand, by stating that political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other motives shall not be a justifiable defence against any terrorist activity.

This approach is in line with the African continent’s approach, as set out in the African Union’s Algiers Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, and the position of the Nonaligned Movement. In terms of definition, the Bill defines the concept of ``terrorist activity’’ and creates an offence of terrorism in line with our international obligations. The Bill can be regarded as an omnibus of legislation, dealing with a number of amendments to other laws administered by a number of departments.

This called for co-ordination and co-operation at numerous levels. At an official level, the respective drafts and inputs were co-ordinated through an interdepartmental counterterrorism working group, where all relevant departments are represented. In Parliament, the extraordinary route taken was that five portfolio committees were involved in the draft legislation, namely, Safety and Security, Justice and Constitutional Development, Foreign Affairs, Finance and the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. The Bill bears testimony to co-operation and a joint effort, which sets an example.

The fact that the subject content of the Bill raised debates on issues such as constitutionality, the freedom of the press and detention without trial made it especially controversial. In addition, accusations were made that the Bill was only drafted to please countries such as the United States of America. It was realised years ago that there must be sensitivity when one deals with legislation on terrorism. The legacy of our past - marred by detention without trial, third degree interrogation and deaths in detention

• is just too fresh to ignore. For that reason, the South African Law Commission was approached by the then Minister for Safety and Security in November 1995 to review the laws relating to terrorists. This was done with the assistance of the SA Police Service.

When the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, they sparked off a number of resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, as well as the adoption of counterterrorism legislation worldwide. The Law Commission report was by that time almost finalised. It was decided to look at best practice in this regard. In finalising the report and draft legislation, cognisance was taken of draft model legislation of the Commonwealth, such as in the legislation of countries like Tanzania, Uganda, Mauritius, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain, France, the Russian Federation and numerous others.

Furthermore, there are specific obligations stemming from international instruments adopted way before September 11, 2001, in terms of which South Africa was under obligation to enact specific offences, to create an extended jurisdiction in respect of those offences and to deal legislatively with certain aspects of extradition. The need for legislative reform was clear. Our review of legislation in this regard is also obligatory in terms of the African Union Convention and Resolution 1373/2001 of the Security Council of the United Nations. South Africa is still not party to all international conventions and protocols dealing with terrorism.

This Bill paves the way for ratification of section 2, the last three remaining conventions on terrorism. In drafting the Bill, cognisance was taken, not only of the twelve international conventions relating to terrorism, but also of the other conventions on terrorism, as well as the instruments of the European Union in combating terrorism. The volume of research and debate that went into the Bill over a number of years, reflect the effort that went into the drafting of the Bill.

The timing of the project since November 1995, the terms of reference of the SA Law commission, namely to review the legislation pertaining to terrorism, to address the Republic’s international obligations and to align it with the Constitution, shows clearly that the allegations of improper motives behind the Bill are totally unfounded.

Our hard-fought struggle for democracy needs to be defended against terror and other unconstitutional means aimed at political and other changes.

Lastly, the process of public consultation which preceded the finalisation of the Bill was extraordinary in that the SA Law Commission published a discussion paper as far back as November 2000 for public comment. The comments received were taken into account before a final report was published by the SA Law Commission.

The portfolio committee allowed adequate time for public hearings where nongovernmental organisations, religious organisations, media organisations and other interested parties were heard. Thereafter, further written submissions on the Bill were considered. We have invited interested parties not only to criticise the Bill, but to participate in the process, and we are thankful for the numerous inputs made.

The Bill before this House is not only needed, but overdue in order to meet our national and international responsibilities in respect of the prevention and combating of terrorism. There is no place in our nascent democracy for unconstitutional violent activity, and South Africa will in this respect honour its commitments, as clearly expressed in the United Nations, the African Union and the Nonaligned Movement.

The purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Bill in short is: to align the national laws of the Republic in order to meet its international and regional obligations in respect of the prevention and combating of terrorism, and to ensure that the Republic has the necessary legislative tools to address terrorist threats of a local character.

The salient points of the Bill are as follows, in addition to a general offence of terrorism, which comprises the commission of any terrorist activity, the Bill creates offences in respect of acts associated or connected with terrorist activities. The following are convention offences derived from the international instruments of the UN and the AU, referred to above: offences associated or connected with the financing of specified offences, offences relating to hijacking of aircraft, offences relating to endangering the safety of maritime navigation, offences relating to the taking of hostages, offences relating to internationally protected persons, and offences relating to destroying or endangering the safety of fixed platforms.

By definition, the convention offences in the Bill include existing offences in our national legislation which have been adopted in the past to give effect to international instruments pertaining to civil aviation.

Other offences created in the Bill to supplement the main offences are offences relating to the harbouring and concealment of persons related to terrorist activities, the duty to report the presence of persons suspected of intending to commit or having committed an offence and failure to report such offence, offences relating to hoaxes, threats, attempts, conspiracy, and inducing another person to commit offences.

The penalties provided in the Bill are sufficiently deterrent and could result in a penalty of imprisonment for life, or a fine of a R100 million. Prescribed sentences are provided for in the Bill in cases where, for example, the offence endangered the life or caused serious bodily injury to, or the death of any person, or caused the destruction of, or substantial damage to any property, natural resource, or the environment or cultural heritage, or caused a major economic loss or extensive destabilisation of an economic system, or devastation of the national economy of the Republic, or created a serious public emergency situation or a general insurrection. The Bill further provides for both civil and criminal asset forfeiture to combat the financing of terrorists and related activities. These provisions are supported by appropriate amendments through the Bill to the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. Provision is made in the Bill for the President to publish, in the Government Gazette, the names of entities so identified by the Security Council.

The Bill deals with jurisdiction and the surrender of persons suspected of commission offences where the state has jurisdiction and no prosecution is intended in South Africa. The Extradition Act is also amended by the Bill. The Bill provides authority to the SA Police Service to cordon off and search areas on the basis of a warrant issued by a judge.

The Bill will ensure that the Republic has the necessary legislative tools to address terrorist threats of a national and local character. I move that the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill be adopted by the House. [Applause.]

Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, Deputy Minister Matthews, hon members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, in 1994 South Africa proudly became a legitimate democratic state, and has since been formulating transformative laws that would continue to sustain the hard-fought and won democracy. But it must be acknowledged that in any legitimate democratic country, such as South Africa, laws are not just passed randomly for the sake of being progressive. Each law that is formulated by this Parliament is only passed if it is, first and foremost, constitutional and relevant to the country’s citizens’ needs.

I then humbly welcome, and take this opportunity to commend, this Bill as constitutional and relevant towards transforming security apparatus of safety and security for all the peoples of South Africa. The relevance of this Bill started way back in 1995 when the then Minister of Safety and Security, Comrade Sydney Mufamadi, requested the SA Law Commission, in terms of the South African Law Commission Act, Act 19 of 1973, to investigate and review South Africa’s security legislation.

We all know how the notorious apartheid Internal Security Act, Act 74 of 1982, was systematically and extensively used to shame and humiliate our comrades through torture. We do not want to dwell too long on the well- known brutality and inhuman exploitation which the security branch and the military intelligence of the SA Defence Force inflicted on anyone who was against the racist apartheid system.

When the ANC then came to power in 1994, this Government vowed that never again would a citizen of this country, or anyone for that matter, be subjected to this terrible and racist abuse. As we introduce this Bill to Parliament, I want to reiterate and echo the sentiments which were expressed in 1994. Various processes were undertaken to make sure that South Africa adopts security legislation that would be of national relevance, that would be of constitutional adherence, and that would be of international standard.

The first turning process was in 1996 when this Government found it necessary to initiate a research of antiterrorism legislation. This governmental initiative was of national relevance due to a spate of bomb attacks that were launched against innocent civilians and against the police and police stations in the Western Cape. What had started as vigilantism against drugs and gangsterism, became a political conflict omnibus. All of a sudden the ANC-led Government was accused of collaborating with imperialist powers.

Clearly, the hard-fought and won democracy was under seige as one police officer, Mr Benny Lategan, investigating these bomb attacks in the Western Cape, was assassinated. Mr Piet Theron, a presiding officer in a number of these bomb trials, was also assassinated outside his home. From this we learnt that this country was not immune from terrorism.

The SA Police Service drafted the first Bill on antiterrorism and submitted it for further amendments to the SA Law Commission, in 1999. This draft Antiterrorism Bill was, for the first time, officially tabled in this House in 2000.

We have been reminded by critics that this is the fourth time this House is introducing the Bill. A curious question might then be posed: Why? Many people had alluded to so many things in trying to answer this critical question. On the one hand, some critics commented that the previous Bills had to be withdrawn because no new law was necessary to curb the Western Cape bombings. They claimed that the SA Police Service had successfully used the existing legislation to crush and suppress the urban terror in the Western Cape and the right-wing bombings across the country.

This could easily sound true to the ear of some listeners here. However, the terrorist bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 have taught South Africa that the face of terrorism is drastically changing. Terrorist activities know no boundaries. Thus, terrorism can never again be just a national or domestic issue. As witnessed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, international terrorism often hits the innocent civilians. South Africa, then, is obliged to be part of the global arena that seeks to combat international terrorism through international instruments, conventions and protocols.

The previous draft security legislation against terrorist activities obviously had shortcomings when it came to international terrorism. On the one hand, cynics have tried to respond by saying that the process of formulating this Bill was actually a forced one. These cynics claim that since 11 September 2001 the ANC-led Government has fast-tracked legislation on terrorism to fulfil the American imperialists’ and their self-interest aims on security.

Some newspapers even proclaimed that the Government was interested in formulating legislation on terrorism solely because it wanted to ban a certain organisation. The Daily News even screamed, I quote: “Government manoeuvres for legislation to ban Pagad.” That was on 11 September 2000. It must be said here and right now that this Government is not interested in banning or fighting against certain organisations or sector of people as many critics have tried to suggest.

This legislation, as the title shows, puts more emphasis on a holistic objective. It is mostly keen on protecting our democracy and our Constitution against terrorists and related activities both in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. Indeed, it had to take four draft Bills before Parliament could come up with this final legislation. This is so because this Parliament refuses to pass laws that are short-term coercive responses. This Parliament has also been responsible enough to consider human rights-related discussions made during recent public hearings in respect of the previous certified Anti-terrorism Bill.

The ANC-led Government should, then, pride itself by duly reamending the previous certified Bill in order to address the several core areas of human rights concerns that were raised by the public. The process was complex and at times pitted comrades against each other due to the painful history of suffering inflicted by the apartheid Internal Security Act. In contrast to the previous certified Bill that was introduced in March 2003, and which mostly concerned itself with a reactionary question of How much of our freedom should we give up?'', this current Bill obliges us to ask the question,How can we protect our democracy and Constitution against terrorists and related activities?’’

If the previous certified Antiterrorism Bill violated the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, the right to silence and presumption of innocence until proven guilty, then this Bill restores these fundamental liberties with immediate effect. For instance, the infamous section of investigative hearings, a section that was the hottest debacle during the public hearings due to its alleged oppressive and unjust provisions, has since been scrapped and replaced by the new Chapter 4 - in the new Bill - and powers to investigate or to prevent terrorists and related activities. Clauses 22, 23 and 24 of Chapter 4 have been carefully reformulated to align them with the spirit of the Bill of Rights. The provisions that evaded much of the constitutional protection afforded to the accused and the wide powers that had been given to the police have now been completely done away with in this new Bill. In this new Bill, the police now have no right to institute an investigation. Instead, this power is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Also, the judge has no right to issue a warrant of arrest. The judge may, now, only issue a warrant for cordoning off, stopping and searching vehicles and persons - with a view to preventing terrorist activities - to an under-oath police officer.

The Bill has also refrained from making membership an offence because this is against the spirit of our Constitution, section 18, which grants a person the right to freedom of association. Instead, a definition of entity has been included in clause 1(3) to target, combat and prevent, specifically, terrorist activities or active supporters of terrorist activities as opposed to terrorist organisations. By focusing on activities and active supporters of terrorist activities rather than on membership, the Bill is also making it easier for the relevant law-enforcement authorities to seize assets of persons acting in terrorist activities.

This Bill successfully harmonises the country’s domestic laws with the international instruments of counterterrorism in the process of obliging South Africa, which is a member state of both the OAU and the United Nations, to comply with international standards without compromising our sovereignty as a democratic state. For instance, the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 137 compels South Africa to formulate legislation that would provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction, broaden the offence of terrorism and address the financing of terrorism.

At the same time, the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism has made it possible for this Bill to distinguish terrorists and related activities from legitimate liberation struggles against colonialism and foreign aggression. Clause 17 endorses this Bill. This proves that this Bill, entitled The Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill, has been formulated through a multilateral approach that responds to a full range of security concerns. It responds to the global aspects of liberation struggles against inequality, exclusion, foreign aggression and marginalisation of peoples.

The new Bill also endorses the important role this Parliament plays in checking that our legislative autonomy is preserved internationally. Clauses 25 and 26 make sure that the President will not simply rely on the United Nations Security Council’s decision to freeze assets or property. Instead, all the United Nations Security Council’s listed persons or entities, identified as committing or supporting or facilitating terrorist activities, will be submitted to this Parliament for consideration and decision.

Having said that, this Government has always and will continue to regard the United Nations Security Council as one of the best options available in helping to prevent international terrorism. Globalisation has necessitated interdependence against conflict and war, and terrorism. However, being obligated to United Nations standards does not mean that South Africa has suddenly become a puppet of international standards. On the contrary, South Africa continues to uphold its contextual policies, which could sometimes challenge, when necessary, inhumane behaviours perpetuated by the United Nations member states. The Iraq crisis was a vivid example.

It is important, therefore, for this Government to confirm that the establishment of the African Union in July 2002 has brought new possibilities to invigorate mechanisms against terrorist activities in the continent of Africa. The peace and security agenda of the AU economic programme and Nepad continue to link political security and development issues at regional, national and community levels.

Seeing that my time is running out, I would be failing in my duty if I were not to take this opportunity to thank the legal advisers from the Department of Safety and Security, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the SA Law Reform Commission for their co- operation and assistance in drafting this Bill. I also want to thank my colleague, Comrade Johnny de Lange, for the extensive work that he did. Lastly, I want to thank all parties, especially those parties who were part of the drafting, that is the DA, the New NP and the IFP.

I’m not omitting others because I have anything against them, but unfortunately, probably because of their size, they were not involved in the drafting of the Bill, and I want to say that our democracy is maturing. The support of this Bill by all parties is really appreciated. Thank you. [Applause.]

Adv P S SWART: Madam Deputy Speaker, the phrase “collateral damage”, when used in military terms, is a very unfortunate concept. It relates to the unintended, but consequential, death of civilians and damage to civilian property as a result of military action. But when used, as seems popular nowadays, with reference to terrorist and related activities, it is nothing but the vilest swear words; not a phrase we want introduced into the vocabulary of our nation.

That is exactly the intention of this Bill; the protection of our hard- earned democracy and the wonderful document that is our Constitution, which is so much more than the paper it is written on. It embodies all that we as a proud nation believe in - all our opportunities and dreams, all our rights and freedoms, but also our obligations. It protects the country with its entire people, both strong and vulnerable, across all racial, cultural or religious boundaries.

Maar daar is ‘n probleem. Wanneer ek terugdink aan die inhoud van die aanvanklike wetsontwerp wat in hierdie Huis ter tafel geplaas is, is dit steeds met skok en ontnugtering; ‘n wetsontwerp wat deur die Kabinet goedgekeur is en wat deur die staatsregsadviseurs, kundige mense, spesifiek op grondwetlike aspekte, gesertifiseer is, met soveel tekortkominge en ongrondwetlike bepalings dat dit in die snippermandjie hoort. As dit is wat die Kabinet, deur hulle goedkeuring aangedui, van ons Grondwet dink, vrees ek vir die behoud van ons demokrasie en die kosbare Handves van Menseregte.

Gelukkig het al die partye in die portefeuljekomitee, die ANC ingesluit, reeds tydens die eerste bespreking, nog voor die openbare verhore, saamgestem dat die wetsontwerp drasties herskryf moet word. Ongelukkig was die belangegroepe op daardie dokument, wat ek aarsel om ‘n wetsontwerp te noem, reeds aangewys vir die openbare verhore. Die gevolg was ‘n openbare proses wat bloot die reeds geïdentifiseerde probleme uitgelig het. Vandag is dit steeds bykans onmoontlik om bekommerdes te oortuig dat dit wat vandag bespreek word drasties verskil van die eerste konsep en dat hul probleme en vrese behandel is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[But there is a problem. When I cast my mind back to the contents of the initial Bill that was tabled in this House, it is still with shock and disillusionment; a Bill that was ratified by the Cabinet and certified, specifically on constitutional aspects, by the state law advisors, knowledgeable people, while it has so many shortcomings and unconstitutional provisions that it belongs in the dustbin. If this is what the Cabinet, as indicated by their approval, thinks of our Constitution, I fear for the preservation of our democracy and the precious Charter for Human Rights.

Fortunately all the parties in the portfolio committee, the ANC included, had already agreed during the first discussion, even before the public hearings, agreed that the Bill would have to be drastically redrafted. Unfortunately the interest groups relating to that document, which I hesitate to call a Bill, were already designated for the public hearings. The result was a public process that merely highlighted the already identified problems. Today it is still almost impossible to convince people who are concerned that what is being discussed today differs greatly from the first draft and that their problems and fears have been addressed.]

Working together with the Portfolio Committee on Justice, we immediately deleted certain sections which included all the major complaints by the participants at the public hearings. These were sections making provision for so-called investigative hearings, which reeked of the old detention without trial concept. It included obligations on the media, powers to the Minister to declare certain organisations as terrorist organisations and a number of offences and penalties for anybody in almost any way, having anything to do with anybody who is a member of these so-called terrorist organisations. As these were all quickly expunged from the Bill, I shall refrain from discussing those details.

Spending time and effort with comparative studies of similar legislation in other countries, fine-tuning definitions, drafting and redrafting, we eventually came to a final product. This should put to rest all fears by law-abiding citizens of infringements on their human or other rights while still empowering our security agencies with the means to act decisively to protect our people from this worldwide phenomenon of terrorism and in all aspects fulfil our international obligations. A lot of thought went into the proper definition of terrorist activity and I am of the opinion that we probably came as close as possible to a universally acceptable definition. Sufficient detailed provision is made for intent as element to prevent our courts from too broad an interpretation of this activity.

With detailed and specific definitions to ensure clarity on all aspects, the Bill now achieves its aims, without giving any additional powers to security agencies - apart from the cordoning off of areas for search and seizure that they do not already have. In all instances these and related matters are dealt with through the courts’ and highest prosecuting authorities’ involvement. No prosecution in terms of this Bill may be instituted without the written authority of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. The Bill provides for the following: The creation of the offence of terrorism, in line with the definition, and a whole series of convention offences, fulfilling our international obligations. We addressed various lacunae in our legislation, which I think at last will put to rest the argument that we do not need this new legislation; offences relating to the harbouring or the concealment of persons committing specified offences; the duty to report the presence of a person suspected, hoaxes, threats, attempted conspiracies and inducing another person to commit such offences; jurisdictional matters, with specific reference to extradition; and evidential matters and certain exclusions. Of importance is section 1(4), which makes provision for legitimate struggles by people in furthering their rights to national liberation, self-determination and independence to be excluded from the definition of terrorist activity.

It also deals with: Penalties and matters relating to penalties, including the increase in the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court regarding certain offences to a fine of R250 000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years; and certain investigative powers - nothing new in our law - in particular with reference to financial matters. I can refer to, inter alia, the existing Prevention of Organised Crime Act and the Financial Intelligence Centre Act. And lastly, notification through proclamation in the Gazette by the President of a specific entity, identified by the United Nation’s Security Council with reference to terrorist or related activities. In this regard it only pertains to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, relating to the financing of certain entities. We legislated for such a notice to be tabled in Parliament for decision and action. There is, therefore, no internal identification or declaration of any entity as a terrorist organisation as envisaged in the original Bill.

A number of existing laws were amended and, lastly, the name has been changed to emphasise the move away from terrorism as a phenomenon to terrorist and related activities and the protection of our constitutional democracy in that regard.

My thanks go to the hon Mluleki George for his able chairpersonship of these long and exhaustive meetings, as well as the other members. I want to particularly thank the hon Johnny de Lange, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice, for his hard work and the important role he played during the long process of fixing up a real mess. Also thanks to my colleague, the hon Sheila Camerer, for her valuable input and assistance. She will later touch on the constitutionality of the Bill and human rights.

We need to pay special tribute to Dr Jacobs and all the drafters for their imput. All this dedication and continuous hard work brought to completion a Bill that, in my humble opinion, can be regarded as a well-balanced piece of legislation, achieving its aims without impeding in any way on the rights of law-abiding citizens. The DA supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Adv J H DE LANGE: Hon Deputy Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister and members, ladies and gentlemen - sorry I did not see the Minister - and hon Minister as well, on behalf of the ANC I rise on this occasion in unconditional support of the adoption of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill and commend the Bill to this House.

I commence by endorsing all those who have been thanked by previous speakers, especially the team of four drafters who assisted the committee and were ably led by Dr Jacobs. But it will be completely remiss of me not to thank our chairperson, Comrade Mluleki George, the Chairperson of the Lead Committee, for his sterling work. He held a very firm, yet flexible and inclusive hand over the processing of this Bill. Special mention needs to be made of the manner in which he allowed enormous latitude to those presenting oral submissions before the committees. No complaint can be levelled that they were not granted optimal opportunity to present their views, in some instances with much fanfare, opportunism and provocation. He can claim to be the midwife of a piece of legislation which he can be proud of. A thoughtful and carefully drafted Bill, which in my view meets our national security needs, as far as it is possible within our present legal framework, with a minimum necessary further restriction of the rights of citizens while passing muster on issues of constitutionality, legality, morality and desirability, despite the inclusion in some respects of new, innovative and refreshing approaches. In particular he should also be congratulated as he was able to obtain the unanimous approval of all the parties that were involved in this process.

During the year 2000 Mr Martin Schonteich commented on the potential terrorist threat facing South Africa as follows:

During 1998 some 567 attacks that police alleged were gang or terrorism related, including pipe bombings, petrol bombings and drive-by shootings were perpetrated in the greater Cape Town area. A hundred and sixty-eight arrests were made as a consequence of these attacks. On the first day of 1999, a car bomb exploded outside the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town, injuring two persons. A few weeks later, another car bomb exploded at the entrance of the Caledon Square police station in central Cape Town, injuring eleven. In November of the same year a bomb placed inside a popular beachfront restaurant in the city injured 48. A few days before the end of the year, a police vehicle was ambushed. The seven police officers in the police vehicle who were responding to a telephonic bomb threat were injured as the bomb exploded outside the restaurant they went to.

More recently, in 2002, there were two acts of domestic terrorism in South Africa. Firstly, a series of bombings in Soweto in late October. One person was killed and one wounded. Then again, in mid-November of the same year, a pipe bomb exploded at a police unit in Cape Town, but no injuries occurred.

Despite overwhelming empirical evidence that South Africa, since the advent of our hard-fought democracy, faces a potential terrorist threat, admittedly to varying degrees from various quarters, including religious fundamentalists, right-wing extremists and racists from within the country and also from persons outside the country involving themselves in terrorist activities and seeking a safe haven here, some still contend, astonishingly, that no such threat exists.

Others contend, wrongly in my view, that even if such a threat exists, our security forces have within the boundaries of the present law and resources been able to meet and deal with such threat as it has manifested itself to date and no need exists for further legislative intervention. Others have gone so far as to ludicrously suggest that South Africa is a puppet of the United States, Britain, Israel and other imperialist interests, merely acting as rubber a stamp by assiduously and diligently promoting and implementing President Bush’s so-called “War Against Terrorism’’, especially his Patriot Act. Some even outrageously argued that the present legislation is our direct response to the bombing of the World Trade Centre, that is, 9/11. Others have even, mind-bogglingly so, averred that the present legislation is the same as the apartheid security legislation. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, you must wonder where these aliens are from.

Not much good can come from once again dealing with all the responses to be made in respect of such assertions, especially the more outrageous and hysterical elements thereof. I rather prefer to spend my time on reflecting on the approach of the ANC and the Government on the constitutionality and the desirability of introducing counter-terrorism legislation in South Africa.

One has often heard the refrain here and abroad, especially recently in South Africa with the introduction of counter-terrorism legislation, of a possible conflict between the respect for human rights and the rule of law, on the one hand, and the prevention and combating of terrorism on the other. There is no such conflict between the respect for human rights and the combating of terrorism. No person who supports human rights can support terrorism, which usually results in a grave violation of such human rights. Terrorism is the mortal enemy of a human rights culture and the rule of law. Terrorism respects neither rules, nor law, nor human rights. The state has the responsibility for the security of our land and its citizens and therefore also for the fight against terrorism.

A symbiotic relationship exists between the national security of a state and the security of life, limb and property of its citizens who comprise the sum total of such state. No rational government can afford to off-set the one against the other. Rational and thoughtful nations are not driven and governed by and through emotion and populism. The scourge of terrorism is condemned unconditionally and countered without equivocation by such nations. But, a prudent and emphatic nation will always do so guided by a human rights culture, which strikes a principled, yet pragmatic, balance between the enjoyment and protection of freedoms and human rights and the legitimate concerns of its citizens and for its national security.

In these times of the so-called “War Against Terrorism”, we need to guard against, on the one hand, the quick-fix solutions and knee-jerk reactions of some world leaders and countries which view tolerance and inclusivity as luxuries and not a way of life and, on the other hand, the moral equivocation of others, often including so-called civil libertarians, to condemn and advocate zero tolerance towards terrorist acts.

The struggle against terrorism must always be contextualised within the limits of struggle for human rights and human dignity and of international peace and security. Therefore, counterterrorism legislation must, at its core, involve the most fundamental of rights, namely, the individual right to life, liberty and security of each person and freedom from fear, and the collective right to peace and security for humankind. Even the implication of the often-quoted mantra that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”, which often leads to a moral or legal blurring of issues or debates around acts of terrorism, cannot and should not form the foundational or justificatory basis of a principled counterterrorism Bill.

Simply put, true freedom fighters or revolutionaries do not blow up civilians indiscriminately. In any case, this approach depends entirely on the subjective world-view of the definer. According to this school of thought, it would be sufficient to say what looks like a terrorist, sounds like a terrorist and behaves like a terrorist, is a terrorist. This position, naturally, contributes nothing to the understanding of an issue fraught with difficulties and complexities. It amounts to nothing more than a zero sum analysis.

The message from every true democrat, civil libertarian, freedom fighter, revolutionary, and caring and thinking nation should be that acts of terrorism from whatever quarter, for whatever purpose, are unacceptable, the anathema of the enjoyment and protection of human rights and it is unequivocally condemned. Likewise the message from the same persons should be that the fight against terrorism from whatever quarter, for whatever purpose, at the expense of the undue restriction of human rights or outside the rule of law or by overzealous securocrats, is equally unacceptable, the anathema of human rights culture and unequivocally rejected.

This approach is most eloquently captured by the British scholar, Paul Wilkins, in his writings, Terrorism and the Liberal State:

The primary objective of a counterterrorism strategy must be the protection and maintenance of liberal democracy and the rule of law. It cannot be sufficiently stressed that this aim overrides in importance even the objective of eliminating terrorism and political violence as such. Any bloody tyrant can solve' a problem of political violence if he is prepared to sacrifice all considerations of humanity, and to trample down constitutional and judicial rights ... To believe that it is worth snuffing out all individual rights and sacrificing liberal values for the sake of order’ is to fall into the error of terrorists themselves, the folly of believing that the end justifies the means. It must be a cardinal value of liberal democracies in dealing with problems of civil violence and terrorism, however serious these may be, never to be tempted to using the method of tyrants and totalitarians. … It is a dangerous illusion to believe one can protect' liberal democracy by suspending liberal rights and forms of government. Contemporary history abounds with examples of emergency’ or `military’ rule carrying countries from democracy to dictatorship with irrevocable ease … The keynote to the liberal democratic response to terrorism must be firmness and the determination to uphold the constitutional authority and the rule of law.

In line with this approach, the present South African Government did not respond to this potential terrorist threat in a knee-jerk or populist manner, nor with undue haste. The thoughtful response of Government was twofold. The first response was in November 1995, to refer the review and possible rationalisation of the security legislation in South Africa to the SA Law Commission for consideration and report. These original terms of reference were later updated and amended. The end result of this process, seven years later - I emphasise “seven years later”, because many say that we suddenly rushed this through Parliament because of things that have happened in other countries lately - is the Bill now serving before this House for debate and adoption.

The second response, as Mr Schonteich has pointed out on occasion, was in 1998, when the South African Government approved a new official policy on terrorism. According to this policy, the Government is committed to upholding the rule of law, never resorting to any form of general and indiscriminate repression to defend and uphold the freedom and security of all its citizens and to acknowledging and respecting its obligations to the international community.

According to this policy, the Government further shall condemn all acts of terror; take all lawful measures to prevent acts of terror and to bring to justice those who are involved in acts of terror and undertake to protect foreign citizens from acts of terror in South Africa; in the event of an act of terror in a foreign country involving a South African citizen, co- operate with the host government to resolve the matter; not make concessions that could encourage extortion by terrorists; not allow its territory to be used as a haven to plan, direct or support acts of terror; support and co-operate with the international community in their efforts to prevent and combat acts of terror and use all appropriate measures to combat terrorism; and support its citizens who are victims of terrorism.

These responses were already the responses of this Government in the mid and late 1990s. The whole suggestion that we keep having to hear, and I have been reading about in the newspapers again recently, over and over again that we have suddenly passed this legislation or that we are responding to 9/11 because of the attack on the World Trade Centre is just so much cockypop that it is really embarrassing that people can even put such views forward. [Interjections.] Well, I can use a stronger word, but this is a family show, so I am not going to do so.

It is actually embarrassing to the intelligence of the persons who say these things. If they just do the slightest bit of reading, which I know most of them do not, then they would find the answers to that kind of ridiculous suggestions that have been made.

Now it has been pointed out by others that, during the public hearings, a host of problem areas have crystallised, which we have dealt with in a completely redrafted piece of legislation. First, there is the definition of terrorism. Although there is no internationally accepted definition, we were able to draft a definition which I feel is very well balanced. It has at least three elements the state has to prove; firstly, an act. There are nine different acts that can be proved. These are all best practices in most of the world. Secondly, the state has to prove that the person acted with a certain intention and then three possible intentions are spelt out in the legislation. And thirdly, and very importantly, the state also has to show that a specific motive was the guiding force of the act that has been perpetrated. And then, very importantly - I am not sure about this, but we are probably one of the few countries in the world that has done so

• we have also excluded from the operation of this Bill all acts that were committed during true liberation struggles elsewhere in the world that were fought in accordance with and are defined within the parameters of international law. This exclusion exists in this legislation.

I am proud to have been associated with this legislation, and I thank everyone who has made it possible to bring this legislation before this House. I am sure that we can all sleep a bit safer tonight, although whatever is on paper is not necessarily the solution to the problem. Thank you.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Does the hon Sheila Camerer know the difference between poppycock and cockypop? We will wait for her to tell us. [Laughter.] Mr E T FERREIRA: Chairperson, when a country considers antiterror legislation, it has to do so with great circumspection. Antiterrorism legislation inevitably curtails some freedoms that citizens normally would enjoy. When you live in South Africa, of course, considering our dark past with security legislation that makes your hair raise, one has to be even more careful. After long deliberations and very careful consideration over a period of literally months, the IFP sees its way clear to support the Bill before us here today. Generally known and also introduced as the Anti- Terrorism Bill, it now has a more fancy name of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill. Taking into consideration what a politically correct bunch of people we have become in South Africa, some people may well feel that this name is more suitable.

The Bill before us has had a very long and painful path, and has been very controversial from day one. One can safely say that in its original form it had virtually no chance of surviving a constitutionality test. It looked too much like old South Africa security legislation. Opponents of the Bill had all the reasons in the world to shoot it down in flames. We simply cannot go back to detention without trial. No way could we have supported the Minister declaring organisations as terrorist organisations as he sees fit.

Amongst other things, the above were removed and over a very long period of time the Bill was changed to the extent that it would make it very difficult not to support it now. Compared to antiterror legislation from most other countries in the world, that do have such legislation, this Bill cannot be seen as unreasonable in any way. We also believe that this Bill before us will have no problem in passing a constitutionality test, should it be challenged - which is unlikely.

One gets the distinct impression that the opponents to this Bill are more opposed because of their perceptions of this Bill than to its realities. It reminds one of the opposition from large sections of the community to the Firearms Control Bill not too long ago. Things will go so much better in our country if people will concentrate more on reality and a little bit less on perception. There is, of course, the notion that we have sufficient laws in our country to deal with terrorism. Some professional commentators say that we have over 40 pieces of legislation to deal with terror and related attacks quite effectively. There is undoubtedly a lot of merit in this argument. The question can be asked as to whether we need this legislation at all.

We handled the threat of urban terror in the Western Cape quite effectively, even though it might have taken a bit longer than what most people were hoping for. The Boeremag threats were flattened in just about no time. This would not have been possible had we not had good legislation in place to deal with those acts of terror. Terrorism is much more than mere actions though. There are other threats and activities which also need to be covered more thoroughly by a Bill like this. People who make hoax calls of bombs, explosions and threats, or any other forms of intimidation, must realise that, in future, they can go to jail for up to 10 years. This sounds very harsh, but hoaxes disrupt people’s lives and the economy, and they do more psychological harm to the citizens than many people would ever realise.

I must be honest in saying that the IFP will have no sympathy for people who spend many years in jail as a result of making hoax calls. As I have mentioned, the point can be argued that we have enough legislation in South Africa to deal with terrorism. The point which cannot be argued against, however, is that current legislation does not cater for all the international agreements and accords that South Africa has become party to.

This Bill is undoubtedly necessary in order for us to fulfil our international obligations. The provision in the Bill which makes it an offence to give financial support to terrorist organisations is very controversial. It must be remembered though that one could still give financial support to liberation movements whose members are accepted by the United Nations as freedom fighters. There are many people in our country who have the perception that it is a United States inspired Bill, resulting directly from September 11. As was evident quite early in the debate, this Bill had been in the pipeline for more than five years before September 11 even occurred. This, again, is an example of people’s perception versus the actual reality.

We have a democracy in our country. Many of us are not necessarily happy with the way the ANC is running our country. We have every reason to be very unhappy about the manner in which the Government is dealing with crime, unemployment and Aids. At the end of the day, however, we have the right and the freedom to convince the public at large to replace this Government at the ballot box. The sooner we do this, of course, the better. However, we have neither the right, nor moral right, to revert to terror and terrorism to get our way. There can be no sympathy for terrorists or their activities.

This Bill is not aimed at a single individual, organisation or a group of people in South Africa. This Bill is antiterror and antiterrorism, nothing more or less. Let us not make any apologies for this Bill.

Mr G SOLOMON: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, hon members of the House, my task this afternoon is to deal particularly with Muslim responses to this Bill.

Muslim responses to this Bill can only be understood in terms of the character of their faith, Islam, and particularly the important concept of ummah, which is known to Muslims as a universal community of faith and solidarity.

It therefore follows that what is happening in Palestine, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir and recently in Iraq, or anywhere in the Muslim world, will have a profound effect upon Muslim responses to this critical and sensitive piece of legislation.

I am not suggesting here that Muslims are an entirely homogeneous or monolithic group, but there is more than enough common ground in their basic faith to invoke a united response from Kabul to Cape Town to whatever they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as affecting their dignity, their identity and aspirations as Muslims.

The notion that the United States of America is behind this Bill, and that this Bill will largely discriminate against Muslims and Islam, is one that pervades the responses of all Muslim groups from the Muslim Judicial Council; the United Ulama Council of South Africa; the progressive group, the Call of Islam; the Islamic Forum and the professional group, the Association of Accountants and Lawyers for Islamic Law and others.

This is not surprising if one considers the treatment meted out by the United States Government against Muslims accused of terrorism held in Quantanamo Bay; and the statements attributed to Muslim countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq or the Sudan; and the threat of aggression against a host of others.

It is certainly not in the best interest of world peace and stability if the United States of America, as a superpower, and its allies display such profoundly blatant moral duplicity and double standards in response to the serious problem of international terrorism and related activities in the world.

Because of this, one can understand and empathise with Muslim responses in our country to this particular Bill. The United States of America, for example, will condemn activities as terrorist when committed by factions in the legitimate struggle for self-determination by the Palestinians, but will subsidise Israeli state terrorism against the houses and lives of innocent civilians in occupied Palestine. The United States of America is also known to have subsidised terrorism in the case of Unita in Angola and of the Contras in Nicaragua.

I am not making out a case for terrorist activities - whether from national states, liberation movements or individuals. What I am saying is, if we have an international problem of terrorist and related activities, why do we not get together as equal partners and pool our expertise and resources in an international conference on sustainable international peace and security?

Unilateral action has convincingly been proven to be disastrous and counterproductive. Under the circumstances, the least that is expected is fairness and justice of policy on the part of whoever is serious about regional or international peace and security.

I am not aware of any Muslim state which disagrees that international terrorist and related activities need to be addressed in a very serious but just and fair manner in a multilateral way. Despite this, there is an overarching universal perception that the problem is located almost entirely in the Arab, Muslim and Islamic world with this frightening concept of Jihad, and its association with suicide bombings at the centre. The concept of Jihad is so widely misconstrued internationally that even Muslims erroneously immediately associate the term with conflict, violence and war. But prominent Muslim academics and religious scholars and some of the world’s most progressive intellectuals across the religious divide, amongst them Edward Said, Rosemary Said, Noam Chomsky, Ali Mazrui and Amin Samir have critiqued this concept in the Middle East milieu precisely because it refers to a wide range of endeavours; including political negotiations, social and political actions and even personal human transformations, and, of course, to take up arms if necessary.

To the Muslim mind, the label “terrorist”, particularly after September 11, has become a convenient cover to defy Muslim governments as evil and as part of a collective axis of evil, which itself reflects a type of religious fundamentalism. This is then conveniently used as a pretext to invade, destroy and occupy.

The response to this type of treatment is the lethal human weapon of a suicide bomber, with which the world is so familiar today. Maybe the United States of America and its allies should reflect seriously on the noble Christian rule “do not do unto others what you would not they do unto you”.

The fact of the matter is that a correct understanding of Islam and its world view clearly indicates that peace with justice is the preferred norm and option in Islam.

On the homefront in the Western Cape, Pagad - People against Gangsterism and Drugs - succeeded in its formative years to attract great support by focusing its image as defender of the rights of families to an environment safe from gangsters and drugs. Indeed, a very noble cause. However, the violence that came to be identified with it, particularly urban terror in Cape Town, eventually lost it its credibility.

In the Pagad case, as a predominantly Muslim phenomenon, appropriating the symbol of Jihad, clearly violence did not sustain the movement in a constitutional democracy like South Africa, where the rule of law is a fundamental principle.

What is our position with the introduction of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill? South Africa is a constitutional democracy, where fundamental human rights such as the right to life and freedom and free political activity are constitutionally enshrined and many of the other things have been stated by my colleagues here.

To what extent then did the relevant portfolio committees accommodate Muslim concerns? The minority who have a principled opposition to the Bill can unfortunately not be accommodated.

South Africa is an independent and sovereign country with national, regional and international duties and obligations. It is committed to the United Nations, to the African Union and to the Non-Aligned Movement in the matter of the prevention and combating of terrorist and related activities through international co-operation. It would be highly irresponsible of South Africa not to heed these obligations.

For the rest their concerns were, amongst others, that the Bill will largely discriminate against Muslims and Islam. Here I would like to state that Muslims have made a significant contribution to the struggle for freedom in South Africa. They have exercised, in fact, their Jihad, together with others, to bring down apartheid. Muslims have enthusiastically embraced the democratic process under the ANC-led Government with the freedoms which they enjoy as a religious community with the rest of society. The Bill is not about to interfere with any of this.

We can assure Muslims that this Bill does not, in any way, hope to interfere with any of the freedoms that they enjoy, and that any other South African enjoys, under the Constitution of South Africa. They can look forward to a very good and a very prosperous life in South Africa. Thank you.

Mr J SCHIPPERS: Deputy Chairperson, the process of legislating this Bill was slow and arduous. The original title of the Bill was changed to an acceptable one. The public hearings and the consultation process with focus groups aided the portfolio committees tremendously to shape the Bill into the product it is.

The New NP is of the opinion that the Bill is necessary, because we must fulfil our international obligations and commitments, as contained in all the conventions. South Africa is part of the global community and that is why we must adhere to those calls.

Thirteen conventions are mentioned in the Bill, and more can be added as the years go by. I will mention only three to show their importance: The Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed at Tokyo on 14 September 1963; the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 26 October 1979; the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

Internally, we need an instrument like this, because, in the Western Cape especially, we have a history of terrorism. The instrument will be a deterrent against any person, group, or entity who has the intention of undermining our democracy and our Constitution.

The Bill is highly technical regarding legal terms and impressionist idiom, but under the able guidance of hon De Lange and the state law advisers, spearheaded by Dr Jacobs, the public can rest assured that a very high level of excellence was attained to serve their best interest and that of the Government.

The Bill will be a good instrument in the hands of all the law-enforcement agencies and the South African courts. They will have a very clear and definite guideline in any legal procedure. For example, the definitions and interpretations, as contained in Chapter 1 of the Bill, has been fine-tuned to describe exactly what is meant by all the terms and phrases used in the Bill.

Previously the investigating powers and freezing orders referred to in Chapter 4 of the Bill were grey and woolly areas, but the Bill now gives the investigating authority a direct indication how to deal with those matters. But the most important aspect is that the Bill is created to safeguard human life and to protect our young democracy. The New NP supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Miss J E SOSIBO: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members of Parliament, the recent bombings that took place in countries like the United States, Thailand, Indonesia and many other countries have shown that peace and stability of yesterday do not necessarily translate into the future safety and security of innocent citizens.

There is no country in the world that can claim immunity from the threats of terrorist activities, and South Africa is no exception. With this Bill we are reassuring law-abiding citizens of their guarded safety and security, while at the same time giving a stern warning to those who draw their satisfaction from the pain of human suffering. Here at home a series of terror blasts in the year 2002 ravaged the country. Just after midnight on 30 October 2002, eight bombs rocked Soweto. Seven of the blasts destroyed commuter railway lines running through the townships, inconveniencing more than 200 000 commuters. The eighth blast occurred at a mosque, causing part of the building to collapse. The hitherto unknown organisation, the Boeremag, claimed responsibility for the bombings.

Earlier on, on 30 October 2002, The Star newspaper reported that an explosive device was detonated in a togbag near a taxi rank at the Esso Filling Station in Dlamini, and was defused just before midnight by the police bomb disposal unit. Soon afterwards the explosions started, including one that went off at the Buddhist temple in Bronkhorstspruit.

These bombings brought home the realisation that the country should do something, or else its international image would be impaired and racial relations damaged. May I remind the House that that was not the first time the country had been dogged by explosions of this nature with the resultant loss of life and damage to infrastructure and property.

Between 1994 and the end of 2000, over 400 criminal detonations and explosions occurred in the country. They were caused by improvised explosive devises, commercial explosions, pipe bombs, hand grenades, etc. Most of the explosions occurred in the context of the mutual-destruction gang warfare and vigilante action against criminal gangs in the greater Cape Town area.

After mid-1996, the motive for some acts of violence, in the form of bombings, drive-by shootings and assassinations, changed. It would appear that the violence was no longer solely committed by gangs battling for territory and markets, or by vigilantes in their attempts to eliminate suspected drug dealers.

This new violence sought to create a climate of fear and terror. In this instance, I am sure the bombings that took place in popular entertainment areas, restaurants and tourists destinations of Cape Town are still vivid in the minds of the members in this House.

At times the violence increasingly began to target the state in the form of police stations, courts and the personnel of the justice system. Compared to criminally motivated crime and violence, these acts of terrorism mercifully had few victims.

The two dozen bomb blasts that occurred in Cape Town between mid-1998 and the end of 2000 caused five fatalities, of which two involved the suspected bombers themselves, and about 120 injuries. The impact of terrorism should, however, not be measured in terms of its actual victims.

A sustained terrorist campaign can repeatedly undermine public trust in the state’s ability to protect its citizens. In democratic states terrorist acts have the effect of eroding public confidence in the rule of law, the courts and the police. This detrimentally affects investors’ confidence in the victimised country, something a developing country such as South Africa can ill afford.

Terrorist acts can also have a significant impact on tourism, a lucrative industry for many developing countries. The tourist market is sensitive and indications of terrorist activities in a country quickly lead to cancellations which could have serious repercussions for the economy and employment levels.

I hope that this brings into the fold those who have had misgivings about the need, and were cautious about the intentions, of this piece of legislation. I sincerely hope that they now see things differently. This is the time to reassure all South Africans from all walks of life about their safety and security, which is their constitutional right.

Had we failed to come up with a Bill of this nature, we would have failed in our responsibility as this Parliament to do whatever we can to put meaning to this important constitutional principle of the right of our people to freedom and security and to ensure that we have an obligation to see the reduction of criminal activities in general, and terrorist and other related activities in particular.

Measures had to be put in place to keep a check on anarchists, like the ones who are responsible for this spate of bombings, and this Bill seeks to do exactly that. In addition, notwithstanding any provisions of this Bill, any act committed during the struggle waged by people - including any action during an armed struggle in the furtherance of their legitimate right to national liberation, self-determination, or occupation, or aggression, or domination by alien or foreign forces, in accordance with the principles of international law, especially the international humanitarian law - is not considered as a terrorist activity.

For all those activities that are in contravention of this proposed law, there will be a hell of price to pay. I know some of the security measures might be an inconvenience to the law-abiding citizens. However, the safety of this country and its people is worth that supposed inconvenience. We do not want to leave anything to chance.

The ANC is acutely aware that it is never an easy task to deal effectively with sustained terrorist threats. The state has to expend considerable resources and collect evidence over frustratingly lengthy periods of time to successfully convict the kingpins in a close-knit terrorist network.

This requires excellent teamwork between the various intelligence and the law-enforcement agencies, and a motivated and specialised investigating and prosecuting unit devoted to identifying and convicting terrorists. However, just because it is difficult, we cannot fold our arms and say that there is nothing we can do. We are a responsible Government. Whenever there is a threat to the security of our citizens, this Government will always choose to do something.

With these words I support the Bill. [Applause.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairman, the PAC opposes terrorism in all its forms, including state terrorism. The PAC has experienced state terrorism, which made it possible for the PAC to be outlawed when it was only one year and one day old.

The PAC survived underground and was terrorised from 8 May 1960 to 2 February 1990. Many of its leaders were sent to Robben Island as early as 12 October 1960. Laws on terrorism have been abused by many governments to deny a people their right to self-determination. According to this important principle of international law, all peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. In no case may a people be deprived of its means of subsistence. In a democratic society the ballot must promote and enhance democracy. If it is corrupted through the rigging of elections, violence, political turmoil and intimidation, the electorate must take action. This may open another way for the struggle for democracy.

This in fact happened in this country after the massacre of our people by the racist colonials on 21 March 1960 in Sharpeville and Langa. It is as a result of terrorism against the oppression of the people of this country that the PAC formed its military wing Poqo, later called the Azanian People’s Liberation Army.

According to clause 14 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill the Minister may declare an organisation to be a terrorist organisation in terms of the decision by the Security Council of the United Nations. There are nations …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member, your time has expired.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Chairperson and hon Ministers. This Bill appears to clarify a number of terrorist definitions that could impede upon the citizen’s democratic rights deemed by our Constitution as lawful.

The Minority Front shares the international concern about terrorism, that is, to find the need to have an international definition of terrorism, the act of terrorism and activities associated with it. This would enable proper legislation and the curtailing of the matter.

The MF supports the clarity that this Bill aims to provide, and the democracy it protects in doing so. We find the financing of terrorism to be a different crime, punishable by law for supporting and motivating such criminal activities that often cost the lives of many. It is necessary for September 11 to be mentioned as a matter of recent concern in our own South Africa.

The MF denounces all terrorist acts and supports the department in its efforts to protect our country from such violence, and applauds the noninterference of the right of our people, especially our Muslim community. The MF supports the protection of the constitutional democracy against terrorism and related activities. Thank you, Chairperson. Ms F I CHOHAN-KHOTA: Hon members, much of the concern around the original Bill as tabled were raised by Muslim organisations. Given the experiences of Muslims in countries like the United States and Britain in these last few years, these fears are perfectly understandable.

The countries that claim the copyright and monopoly of democratic thought are the very ones who display the most vicious form of vilification against Muslims or anyone who fits the stereotype. The despicable approach by these and other countries against the legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine, the baseless invasion of countries like Iraq, the threat of further such invasions in the name of global terror, and the use of such dramatic notions as the Axis of Evil, together connote to Muslims all over the world a total onslaught not just on their liberties, but on the practice of Islam itself.

Islam rests on five main pillars of which the giving of alms to the poor or zakaat is sacred. Ordinary Muslims throughout the world engage in funding charitable organisations whether they are based locally or internationally. In this country, and on the continent, much good work gets done by these organisations.

In Britain and other so-called democracies such Muslim charitable organisations have either been banned, investigated or generally harassed. These matters are not insignificant to the Muslim community in South Africa. It is therefore entirely understandable that ordinary Muslims reacted adversely to the tabling of the Anti-Terrorism Bill as it was then called. And I daresay, their concerns were well-founded. Together with a very loose and wide definition of a terrorist act, terrorism was not defined. It seemed as if the original drafters had come undone when they began grappling with the concept of terrorism. It is of course no easy task. After all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This approach, however, suggests that the question of who is a terrorist is entirely a subjective one. In other words what appears to be a terrorist, must be a terrorist. Not a very comforting proposition for South African Muslims who have seen blatant stereotyping stripping ordinary law-abiding citizens of their liberty, dignity and even their jobs in the aftermath of September 11 in that bastion of civil rights, the great US of A.

These and other complaints were tabled at the public hearing stage of this Bill, resulting in a much-altered piece of legislation more in tune with the protection of a constitutional democracy.

The Bill now, through the criminalising of very specific acts, defines more closely our idea of what terrorism is, but more importantly what it isn’t.

Legitimate struggles for liberation akin to our own in this country are set apart and are not regarded as terrorist activitiy. A more direct reference to the struggle of the Palestinian peoples you could not find in any domestic legislation.

In defining terrorist activity, what constitutes such acts is specifically stated. All the elements are spelled out in each of the crimes as well as the stringent legal tests to be applied.

Funding a terrorist organisation is a crime in terms of this Bill, but this crime is very specifically drafted. Again, to fall foul of this provision, there would have to be an intention to finance an entity engaged in the outlawed activity. The ordinary Muslim or family paying zakaat into a fund established ostensibly, but not really, for charitable purposes would not fall foul of this provision as long as there was no knowledge or intention to fund murderous acts or organisations.

Much has been said about the contents and the provisions of this Bill, and I just want to take this opportunity, in the last few minutes that I have, to say to fellow Muslims and indeed to all those who cherish democratic liberties that it is the unwise who point to this Bill as a reason to feel disaffected.

One only needs to take the time and trouble to read it and understand its provisions, to see that this Bill is targeted at threats to our collective security and wellbeing.

One only need remember that the essence of this democracy is built on, and at the very heart of this Government lies, the conviction that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. All, hon members, all who live in it. Thank you, very much. [Applause.]

Mrs S M CAMERER: Chair, particularly since 11 September, supporting the fight against terrorism both domestically and internationally has become like being in favour of motherhood and apple pie - it puts you on the side of the angels. Therefore, particularly because of international developments and new imperatives in terms of South Africa’s obligations to the United Nations, the DA supports in principle the need for domestic legislation to combat terrorism.

The challenge for the joint committee, which has worked on and produced this Bill, has been to draft an instrument which will enable our Government to combat terrorism and fulfil its international obligations, but which, at the same time, complies with the Constitution and, more particularly, does not infringe on the protection it affords to human rights of every individual as well as the freedoms that are guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.

The DA believes that what has been placed before this Parliament today does achieve these goals, and for that reason we support the Bill. In the committee, the DA adopted a two-pronged approach. While my colleague, the hon Paul Swart of the safety and security committee, kept a beady eye on the effectiveness of the antiterror provisions, my brief from the justice portfolio committee was to keep a watch on protecting human rights.

To be effective against terror, but, at the same time, to preserve and conserve the delicate plant of constitutional values, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the media and due process of law, is no easy task. History is littered with failures. However, I’m satisfied on this account.

This legislation, which had been mooted for some time even before the events of 11 September 2001 - although those shattering events caused it to return to the priority list - has had a long gestation and a difficult and controversial birth. The original draft Bill, which surfaced in response to the Pagad bombings some years ago, contained echoes of past human rights abuses such as detention without trial. It was then referred to the SA Law Commission team, led by the current President of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Judge Craig Howie, for fixing, and many months later they came up with a much better draft.

However, something funny happened to the Bill on the way to the forum of Parliament. Again, redrafted, apparently by SAPS officials, the Bill initially tabled in Parliament and presented to the joint committee was an abortion. The definition of terrorism covered almost any crime, and such innocuous acts as sending a food parcel to the Palestinians could have been deemed a terrorist act.

As my colleague the hon Paul Swart has indicated, that Cabinet could have passed such a Bill and that Parliament and the scores of organisations which made outraged submissions on this shocking draft, should have been made to waste a large amount of time and effort, giving consideration to this dreadful piece of work, is one of the puzzles of this five-year term of Parliament.

One of the unfortunate consequences of this is that the Bill still has a bad name amongst significant communities in our country. Not a day goes by that I do not receive an e-mail from some Muslim or freedom-of-speech group lobbying me to reject the Bill. Hopefully, the hon Imam Solomon and the hon Chohan-Khota have allayed some of their fears.

What we need to get across is that this antiterrorism Bill is an entirely different animal. It’s been completely redrafted by people with a sense of our constitutional values and with the goal of ensuring that human rights are protected. The offensive clauses of the previous draft have gone. Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, in The ANC Today, Volume 1, Number 34, our President writes:

The memory is still fresh in our minds of the hundreds of Africans who died when the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by people who have clearly identified the US government as their enemy. … none of these Africans could ever be accused of having been involved in planning or conducting acts of war. They died because those who killed them have little or no regard for human life.

Our President goes on to say, and I quote:

Whatever their cause, those responsible for these mass murders have demeaned that cause and placed themselves in a position in which they cannot be accepted as people who should be treated as genuine representatives of a just cause. Regardless of that cause and its future outcome, it can never be said that the end they pursue justifies the means they have used.

Later, in that particular letter, he goes on to say:

There have been some in our country who correctly opposed and spoke out against the phenomenon of gangsterism and drugs. Again, there can be no doubt that this phenomenon corrodes the very fabric of our society and condemns thousands of people to a life of misery. All of us therefore have an obligation to fight and defeat the gangsters and to wipe out the trade in narcotics.

However, we do not and will not accept that because the struggle against gangsters and drug abuse is correct and just, it is permissible for anybody to resort to a campaign of bombs and assassination. The argument cannot be defended that the end justifies the means.

It is against this background and within the context of these words by our President that we deliberate on the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill.

As has already been stated by previous speakers, much criticism has been levelled against the very notion of a Bill that seeks to combat or prevent terrorism. One of these criticisms refers to the fact that South Africa is merely putting into legislation a Bill that is similar to President Bush’s Patriot Act. Now it is important that we dispel any notion that South Africa is being dictated to by the USA or anybody else.

The African Union and the United Nations have conventions to which South Africa is a signatory. Many of these conventions are multilateral agreements which deal with terrorism. More importantly, however, in response to the criticism that we are being dictated to by the USA, South Africa acceded to many of these conventions long before the horrible events of 9/11. I urge hon members and other people to familiarise themselves with these conventions, which are listed in the preamble to the Bill.

An important mechanism in combating and preventing terrorist activities emanates from the International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1999, and later ratified by South Africa in May

1. Although South Africa only ratified this convention earlier this year, this Parliament had already approved the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, which, amongst other things, seeks to focus on money-laundering activities by organised crime syndicates by placing an onus on financial institutions to report suspicious and unusual financial transactions. This Act has now been amended by the Bill before us to include the financing of terrorist and related activities.

Another important Act of Parliament, which has been amended by the Bill before us, is the Prevention of Organised Crime Act - particularly the provision which allows our law-enforcement agencies to apply for the civil forfeiture of the assets and property of crime syndicates. The Prevention of Organised Crime Act has now been amended to allow for the forfeiture of assets or property, which are concerned with the commission of offences that are associated with terrorist and related activities.

These amendments are welcomed because they strike a blow against the financing of terrorism. Several speakers have also referred to the constitutionality of this Bill and the very important human rights enshrined in our Constitution. As sacrosanct as our rights are to human dignity, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and movement, etc, so too are our rights to personal security and in particular the need to ensure our freedom from any terrorist threat.

Section 198 of our Constitution sets out the governing principle for all South Africa’s security services, particularly the fact that all South Africans must live in peace and harmony to be free from fear and want, and this precludes any South African citizen from participating in any armed conflict domestically and internationally. This Bill seeks to address the principles contained in section 198 of our Constitution and this too must be welcomed.

For these reasons and the reasons put forward by speakers before me, I commend this Bill to this honourable House. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, hon members, I am grateful for the support which the Bill appears to enjoy from all sides of the House. One might almost say that there is unanimous support for the Bill, which reminds me that I should paraphrase Winston Churchill’s warning, that whenever the House of Commons is unanimous, the decision is usually wrong. [Interjection.]

Of course, recently we experienced that the British cabinet passed a Bill - it was passed by the House of Commons - on terrorism and was thrown out by the House of Lords. That’s very recent. In other words, there are no infallible institutions. The price of liberty is vigilance …. [Interjections.] … You have to be vigilant. I beg you pardon? I didn’t hear that.

I think that the vigilance of the House and of members of the portfolio committee is something we should all be happy about and it should also be a characteristic of this House. As I say, there are no infallible institutions and, therefore, this House also is not infallible. We will see during implementation whether the Bill that we are so enthusiastic about will actually work. We don’t know yet.

In many other countries they have excellent legislation and the experience was very different. The Germans found out, when they were dealing with the Baader-Meinhof Gang, that their wonderful laws and constitutions didn’t really help them for very many years. So we must also watch out because the law is an instrument. It also depends for its effectiveness on how we respond to some very unusual activities by terrorists and others.

No one could have anticipated the attack of September 11, planned by some men in a cave in Afghanistan, and which has given shock to the greatest power in the world today. So we must also prepare ourselves for some shocks, and those shocks will determine whether or not the legislation that we are passing is effective. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Chairperson, it gives me great pleasure to place before this House two pieces of legislation that, once passed, will usher in a new code of environmental protection and management in the country. It will ensure, for the first time in the country’s history, that management is truly done for the people by working together with the people.

I place before you the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill as well as the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill.

Firstly, let me place these two Bills in the context of the advent of democracy in this country. The environmental rights of the individual in our Constitution require that Government put mechanisms in place to ensure a healthy and decent environment, conducive to the wellbeing of all, to have the environment protected and to promote ecological sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

The passing of specific sectoral legislation gives impetus to the achievement of our goals as set out in the Constitution. These two Bills take our country to the next step of our law reform programme. You will recall that in 1998 we passed the National Environmental Management Act which lays the foundation for environmental management in this country.

This was a vision that we gave ourselves as a country and indeed a vision the world adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We are aware too that our work on environmental management will only succeed in sustainably changing the lives of our people if it is informed by Government’s overall vision of ensuring a better life for all. These legislative tools that are placed before the House today play a significant role towards the attainment of that national goal.

The Biodiversity Bill finally replaces the apartheid framework for our national parks as was set out in the National Parks Act of 1976. It ensures that South Africa has a single legislative framework governing the management and conservation of the country’s precious biological resources.

The Bill further recognises and institutionalises efforts by our people who have for many centuries applied conservation measures. It ensures that Government and the people work in partnership in achieving the objectives of our democracy through conservation of our biological resources.

It is a well-known fact that South Africa ranks as the third most biologically diverse country in the world and it is our constitutional and moral responsibility to jealously guard our gift from nature and ensure that it contributes to the upliftment of our nation.

For many years the planning of development did not take adequate cognisance of our biodiversity heritage, thereby leading to developments that were not in harmony with the environment but rather threatening environmental sustainability.

The Bill provides for an integrated, co-ordinated and uniform approach to biodiversity management through the establishment of a national biodiversity framework. This in turn creates the context for bioregional plans which protect unique biomes, such as the Cape floristic kingdom and other biomes across the country. The Bill recognises that the time has long passed where Government alone can take responsibility for the conservation of biodiversity and as such has made provision for the highly valued and crucial community input and participation in biodiversity conservation planning, marking yet another step forward in Government’s efforts to ensure that environmental protection and management are people-owned, giving added impetus to Government’s efforts to ensure conservation by the people for the people.

The Bill also makes provision for the private sector to become actively involved in the development of biodiversity management plans for particular ecosystems and species. In this way, the person in the street can also become involved in the protection of sensitive ecosystems and endangered species.

The threat to biodiverstity by the introduction of alien invasive species has been one of the biggest problems that our environment faces. Large areas of land have been invaded by alien plant species which compete with indigenous vegetation for scarce water and other resources.

Similarly, alien animal species have invaded natural vegetation and in the absence of natural enemies are destroying the natural habitat of indigenous species, thereby displacing our valued indigenous biodiversity.

The good news is that this Bill endeavours to address this threat by means of instituting a permit system, based on the conservation of the environment, for the importation of alien species. The Bill envisages the establishment of both national and provincial lists of evasive and alien species which would require permits and also species which, owing to their aggressive invasiveness, may not be allowed at all into the Republic of South Africa.

An area of great concern to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is the apparent lack of co-ordination between the different legislative instruments currently being applied in the country.

An alien species is allowed into the country by virtue of a permit issued by one or other province, although the application may have already been turned down by another province. The import is achieved by means of a practice which we refer to as province-hopping. This may result in some of the species having a detrimental impact on biodiversity in the country as a result of the unco-ordinated implementation of legislation and policy.

Again it pleases me to announce before this House that, for the first time, South Africans can now be assured that a species that is not allowed in the country will not legally be imported as a result of unco-ordinated implementation of legislation.

The import and control of genetically modified organisms is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture through the Genetically Modified Organisms Act of 1997, in which the Department of Environmental Affairs plays an important role as a member of the GMO council, established in terms of that Act.

The dangers associated with GMOs have been a concern of members of the portfolio committee for a very long time. So, together with my department, this matter has been receiving attention. The monitoring powers of the department are now strengthened by linking the GMO application process in terms of the GMO Act with the National Environmental Management Act in instances where it is felt that the environment could be impacted upon negatively.

By linking the two legal instruments, the department now has a lever to require an environmental impact assessment in specific cases. The biodiversity of the country and the knowledge of the indigenous people on the benefits that can be derived from the ingredients of natural resources makes it an ideal place for research and bioprospecting for medicinal and other purposes.

Much concern was expressed about the selling of the country’s biodiversity heritage and genetic material through the National Botanical Institute agreement. This Bill seeks to address these concerns.

The Bill provides for the protection of the rights of communities who, for so long, did not have the benefit of legal protection of the rights based on providing access to biological resources and supplying of information that can direct research and development.

Yet another effort is to ensure that our people are empowered and will directly benefit from the provision of valuable knowledge. The Bill establishes legal instruments such as benefit sharing agreements and material transfer agreements that will ensure that people providing information or resources will be compensated should the developments of such resources prove to be effective. This will be done by taking into account that not all benefits will be of monetary value, as the fair sharing of these benefits is also catered for.

As my time is running out, may I just point out, in conclusion, that the Bill also establishes, for the first time, a South African National Biodiversity Institute which will transform the National Botanical Institute from one of only concentrating on botany to one concentrating on biodiversity and ecosystems as a whole.

The amendment Bill, which is also before us, does a number of things, but one of the most important is that it gives teeth to the department as far as the establishment of an inspectorate is concerned and as far as ensuring that proper monitoring and effective action can be taken in instances of wrongdoing as far as the environment is concerned.

I would like to thank the members of the portfolio committee for all the support and the tremendous amount of tireless work that has gone into both guiding the department in terms of policy making in regard to these two Bills, and in the meticulous way in which these two Bills have been processed and of the valuable additions that were made. [Applause.]

Ms G L MAHLANGU-NKABINDE: Ngiyabonga mhlali nga phambili. [Thank you, Chairperson.]

Indeed South Africa’s richness in biodiversity is recognised, not only nationally but internationally as well. Don’t we all know and appreciate the contribution that this national heritage has made and continues to make to the economy of our country, whether in tourism or trade.

Allow me to refer to the White Paper on Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable use of Biological Resources, which was published in 1997. The fragmented, polarised and inefficient administrative and legislative structures created by apartheid resulted in no fewer than 17 government departments having primarily the responsibility for nature conservation, prior to the 1994 elections.

This situation did not improve with the establishment of new provinces and government structures. Divided responsibilities, together with the duplication of effort and profusion of laws, and most importantly a lack of co-ordination, has been a major factor hampering the effective conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity management cuts across all spheres of Government and it is a multisectoral or cross-sectoral issue. It lies within the ambit of the different national departments, at both provincial and local levels. In all these spheres and sectors, legislation exists which seeks to regulate the different aspects of South Africa’s biodiversity.

South Africa is also a signatory to a number of multilateral and environmental agreements, be they international conventions, original and international protocols, which are binding and therefore national legal frameworks for their implementation has to be put in place. Aspects of biodiversity management include conservation, trade, access to genetic resources, bioprospecting and a fairly new notion of benefit sharing. Trade alone happens at both domestic and international level and both with species in abundance, but unfortunately with those that are under some sort of threat and therefore need protection. Conservation as well happens within the confines of parks or protected areas as they are commonly referred to, natural ecosystems and other enclosures, like zoological and botanical gardens, as well as sanctuaries.

To enforce, therefore, such a range of aspects of management with existing regulatory systems spending across all levels of Government, which involves a plethora of provincial ordinances and national pieces of legislation, has proved to be ineffective.

Recognising the fragmentation as already stated, which was not only peculiar to biodiversity or the environment per se, you will recall that soon after the heroic transition to democracy in 1994 the new democratic Government embarked on an extensive policy and legal reform programme as steps in eradicating apartheid, while reconstructing and transforming the sociopolitical and economic setting in the country.

Amongst other things, this has triggered a thorough and consultative environmental law reform process, which started with the publication of the White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa in 1998, to which I referred earlier.

As a first step in giving effect to this policy, Parliament enacted the flagship National and Environmental Management Act, commonly referred to as Nema, in 1998. This Act is an overarching framework for environmental management as is evident in the name of the Act itself. Overarching as it is, it necessitates the development of sectoral pieces under it and those that are relevant to conservation and to the sustainable use of South Africa’s biological resources, such as protected areas, which this House deliberated and voted upon on 16 September 2003.

This Bill, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Bill which is in front of us today, does not directly repeal existing provincial ordinances and other relevant laws. It provides for the consolidation of many different pieces of biodiversity legislation, particularly with regard to aspects of co-ordination of international obligations and the distribution of benefits derived from indigenious biological resources. Many provincial pieces of legislation are already being rationalised and aligned with Nema.

The biodiversity Bill will, among other things, enable the Government to do the following: To establish an integrated, co-ordinated planning and monitoring regime, whose key components will be the specification of bioregions; the preparation and review of bioregional conservation plans; as well as the approval, publishing and review of biodiversity management plans.

In implementing provisions on planning, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism will develop a national biodiversity strategy and action plan which will seek to mainstream biodiversity management with planning and development imperatives and which would link up with the integrated sustainable rural development strategy.

This legislation also mandates the Minister to report to Parliament - which I know he likes very much - on the status of biodiversity in South Africa. Regulation of alien and invasive species in a genetically modified organism, as well as trade in protected species, is contained in this legislation. My colleagues will elaborate on some of these matters.

Of particular importance, which is currently not regulated in any sector or sphere of Government, is bioprospecting of indigenous biological resources and regulation of benefits that arise from the commercial utilisation of our resources, which this legislation will do.

The drafting of this and other sectoral pieces of legislation necessitated the amendment of Nema, which I have already indicated is overarching legislation. It is for this reason that the Nema Amendment Bill is tabled before you today. These amendments are required in order to ensure that Nema provides the necessary supporting legal framework for this new legislation.

The amendment rationalises and streamlines the administration and enforcement provisions in Nema and is also aimed at addressing the previous lack of effective enforcement and implementation of environmental laws. The primary advantage of these amendments is that provincial and local government staff of those departments responsible for biodiversity management may be designated as environmental management inspectors to enforce the provisions of national and environmental management legislation

• for any legislation is as good as nonexistent without the necessary enforcement mechanisims.

In conclusion, as we look back over 10 years of democracy in our land and take stock of our achievements and the lessons we have learnt, we are planning for the future by a marked beginning of a new era in biodiversity management with the passing these two Bills. We support these two Bills.

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, there are more than 12 000 plants and animals threatened with extinction, said the IUCN recently, and this is 1 000 more than last year. It is also more than the number of new species identified. We are on a downward spiral and the Bill before us today is the response to this looming crisis.

Is human technology destroying biodiversity? While the IFP wholeheartedly endorses the Environmental Management Act, we have serious concerns with the biodiversity Bill and we give it only qualified support. To understand our concerns we need to get clear on a few definitions. The first is the definition of ``biotechnology’’, which is the use of life forms and technology and there are thousands of these.

The second is biodiversity'', which refers to the variety of life forms. It is the variety that enables life forms to respond to stress and continue to evolve.Ecology’’ is in fact the flow of energy through living and nonliving matter towards a state of balance. In this respect our bodies are no different from our earth. If we lack water, we thirst and if we drink water we achieve balance. If we do not get the water, we die.

While we are mere trivial microscopic specks in the macrocosm, it is we who must prevent technology from fouling up the magnificent work of nature. If the legislation we adopt today does not do this, then our support for the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol and the WSSD are mere words and empty promises.

``Modern biotechnology’’ refers usually to the use of genes regulated by the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, or GMO Act. In this field we have a far greater capacity to destroy than to create. The IFP supports that South Africa is becoming a biotechnology hub. We have a rich source of indigenous knowledge in plants and herbs and to have a vigorous biotechnology industry it must be safe and transparent, protect the interests of people with indigenous knowledge and protect the public from harm. We do not believe that the GMO Act or the biodiversity Bill which is based on it will necessarily protect the public from GM harm.

Food production is only one aspect of biotechnology and should not advance at the expense of all others. I have here a document produced by the international food policy research institute. In it there is a summary of the pros and cons for GM foods. The pros are mainly related to the product in the short term and the cons can be devastating to biodiversity and to health. The dangers, in fact, are long-term and irreversible.

Our GMO Act and biodiversity Bill will not protect us from harm because they do not introduce mandatory controls. All activities needed to check GMOs, their side-effects and their field trials may be requested if the GMO council or the environmental Minister deems that necessary.

They may request risk assessments, field trials or EIAs. All GMO activities require a permit, and that is fine, but according to Nema all activities requiring a permit require environmental impact assessment. It sounds good but it has already been established that the GMO Act does not necessarily allow for transparency or always require an environmental impact assessment.

Two hundred permits have been issued for GMO activities. All have had risk assessments and field trials done which, in most cases, is paperwork submitted by companies looking for the permits. If planting is involved it may be in a local area with local effects, but no environmental impact assessment assesses the harm which may cause irreversible damage to the environment.

We already have three commercial products on the market: cotton, maize and ready round-up, but no environmental impact assessment has been done on the effects of those. Recently, following trials in Britain, two GM crops, namely oilseed rape and sugarbeet, face a Eurowide ban after field trials showed that they reduced butterfly, bird and bee populations. Other trials have shown that GM crops can produce super weeds. Therefore, as I say, hon Minister, we give qualified support for this Bill in the knowledge that the chairperson and the hon Minister have a genuine concern for the environment and that the Bill must align with the GMO Act, but this Act must come up for review. We are strongly opposed to the casual way in which it handles GMOs and the lack of transparency attached to that Act. We propose that no permits should be issued unless there are mandatory risk assessments, field trials and EIAs. An unimpeded transparency as to who has applied for or has been given permits to do what and where should prevail so that the committee can follow the implications. We also call for a paper trail in future from seed to stomach so that, if accidents do occur, we know how to rectify them.

Mr J D ARENDSE: Chairperson, hon members and hon Minister, South Africa is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Today the convention is the main international instrument for addressing biodiversity issues. Biosafety is one of the issues addressed by the convention.

This concept refers to the need to protect human health and the environment from the possible diverse effects of products of modern biotechnology. Our beloved country being a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and to the Convention on Biological Diversity, it has to take the necessary and appropriate legal administrative and other related measures to implement and honour its obligations in terms of this protocol.

During the portfolio committee deliberations on the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Bill the committee was of the view that the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, Act 15 of 1997, commonly called the GMO Act, does not adequately deal with the obligations as clearly outlined in the Cartagena Protocol.

The committee, therefore, found it necessary that the shortcomings of the GMO Act be addressed in this Bill and thus section 76(a) was included in the Bill, which we believe adequately deals with and complies with the country’s obligations in terms of the Cartagena Protocol.

Section 76(a) of the Bill empowers our Minister to recommend to the permit- issuing authority not to issue a permit for the release, whether trial or general, of a genetically modified organism into the environment if it is suspected that it poses a threat to any indigenous species or the environment, unless and until an environmental assessment has been conducted in accordance with the stipulations of the Act when this Bill is enacted.

Again, hon members, in adherence with the principles of good governance, the Minister is requested to submit such beliefs as alluded to above to the authority issuing such permits in terms of the GMO Act of 1997, before a decision is made regarding the approval of the application of the relevant permit.

It is, therefore, our firm belief that section 76(a) ensures that our country, as one of the original signatories to the Cartagena Protocol, adheres to the spirit and letter of the protocol, in so far as genetically modified organisms are concerned.

Hon members, in order to fully address our obligations in terms of the protocol, this Bill proposes the establishment of the SA National Biodiversity Institute which will, amongst other things, monitor the status of the Republic’s biodiversity, conservation, and the status of all listed or protected species and listed ecosystems, as well as the status of all listed and invasive species, and will report on all such to our Minister.

Of paramount importance is that this institute again will, on the request of the Minister, report on the impasse of any genetically modified organisms that have been released into the environment inclusive of the impact on nontarget organisms and ecological processes, indigenous biological resources and the biodiversity of species used for agriculture.

The institute is also expected to assist the Minister in the performance of his or her duties and also the exercise of powers assigned to the Minister in terms of this Bill. It will also advise him or her on any matter regulated in terms of this Bill inclusive of the management and conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of indigenous biological resources.

Hon members, this Bill proposes the establishment of this institute as a juristic person and as such the general powers which will influence and enable the effective and efficient running of the institute and fulfilment of its expectations and requirements.

The institute will be governed by a board of not less than seven but not more than nine members, depending on the decisions by the Minister. The Bill dictates that members of the board should have appropriate qualifications - and experience of course - in the field of biodiversity and, therefore, members of Parliament and of provincial legislatures and municipal councils unfortunately cannot become members of this board.

In line with the principles of transparency and accountability, the appointment of members of the board of the institute will be advertised in the media circulating nationally and in each province in which nominations will be invited by the Minister in terms of section 15 of the Bill.

This Bill also proposes that the Minister should appoint a member of the board as the chairperson. He or she will also be responsible for determination of the conditions of employment of members of the board. As in all institutions of this nature, accountability is one of the criteria requested and expected of people placed in such responsible positions. Thus section 15 outlines the conduct of members of the board.

Now there is much more to be said about this institution, but I think I have adequately dealt with what this institution is supposed to do. The Freedom Charter states that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. With this Bill the ANC ensures that the environment will be enjoyed by all who live in South Africa for many generations to come.[Applause.]

Mr E K MOORCROFT: Chairperson, I don’t think one would be exaggerating if one were to say that this Bill is one of the most important Bills ever to have been presented to the portfolio committee by the department. The reason for this is because it is aimed at protecting one of our most valuable assets, which is our unsurpassed wealth of biological diversity. Indeed, we are recognised internationally as being one of the most biologically diverse countries on earth.

The benefits of this rich heritage of ours are legion. One of the most obvious benefits is to the tourist industry. Tourists come to our country from far and wide in order to admire our magnificent flora and fauna. This includes not only the much-vaunted big five, but also the largest concentration of bird species outside the Amazon basin and one of only six floral kingdoms in the world.

If we destroy this heritage, we will not only be impoverishing ourselves and thereby proving ourselves unworthy and irresponsible custodians, but we will also be destroying an asset which gives us the opportunity to exploit, for great profit and in a sustainable way, the natural bounty with which we have been so amply blessed.

The greatest cause of loss of biological diversity is the destruction of natural habitats by human intervention. For this reason, there has been an ongoing attempt to create protected areas which maintain representative reservoirs of biological diversity in areas threatened by development. However, these storehouses of biological diversity, praiseworthy as they might be, are insufficient in themselves, particularly so if they exist merely as islands of biological diversity to protect the diversity in a sea of biological destruction.

Furthermore, there is great cause for concern because many areas of irreplaceable biological diversity, which are seriously threatened, do not as yet enjoy protection. These threatened unprotected areas have increased dramatically over the past 20 years as human intervention continues unrestricted and biological diversity continues to pay the price.

Many of the protected areas in our country ignore natural lifelines drawn through river basins, migratory corridors and fertile ocean currents. This often has serious consequences for biodiversity. The funds for conservation are always in short supply, and I am sure the hon Minister will agree with that. What this all adds up to is a closing window of opportunity. If we fail to act now, we will miss our last chance to protect our rich natural heritage for the benefit of future generations.

The Bill before us seeks to supplement the very important function currently being carried out by our protected areas programme, by covering the entire land and sea area of our country over which we have jurisdiction. This is a most commendable initiative, and the DA has no hesitation in giving its enthusiastic support to the Bill before us.

In the remaining time allotted to me, I should like to address one or two aspects of the Bill which caused the committee a degree of concern. The first of these, as we have heard from the hon Rabinowitz who, unfortunately, had to leave early, is the problem of how to handle so- called genetic engineering. In a critique of the Bill published in the Mail and Guardian in February 2003, it was stated that:

Even more distressing is the Biodiversity Bill’s deafening silence on genetic engineering. This omission is unacceptable at a time when there is widespread acknowledgement of the inadequacy of South Africa’s legal framework on genetic engineering.

Whatever merit this criticism might have had in February, it surely does not apply now. The Genetically Modified Organism Act of 1997 is, in our view, an adequate instrument for the control of this important new science.

Part 3 of the Bill before us, under the section ``Other Threats”, clause 76(a) states clearly and unambiguously that if the Minister has reason to believe that if the release of the genetically modified organism into the environment, under a permit applied for in terms of Genetically Modified Organism Act, may pose a threat, then no permit for such a release may be issued in terms of the Act unless an environmental assessment has been conducted in accordance with Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act.

There is therefore what might be called a double device to protect us from any possible harm from genetically modified organisms: first, the Genetically Modified Organism Act and then the provisions made in clause 76(a) for contingency protection by the Minister of Environmental Affairs.

The second matter which exercised our minds was how best to regulate bioprospecting and to protect the interests of those who might be called stakeholders in benefits arising from bioprospecting. A good example for those not familiar with this field is that of the appetite suppressant which has been utilised by generations of Khoi people to lessen hunger pangs. In affluent societies, where dieting is a problem, exploitation of the plant, from which the appetite suppressant is extracted, holds out great promise as a commercial money-spinner.

In the Mail and Guardian article quoted earlier, the point is made that:

International best practice stresses the needs for benefits arising from commercialisation to be shared fairly with holders of knowledge or owners of resources, and for their informed consent to be obtained before collection and commercialisation proceed.

This is precisely what Chapter 6 of the Bill seeks to do. Importantly, the ambit of bioprospecting is widened to include all indigenous biological resources rather than restricting it to genetic resources only.

Furthermore, clause 80 of the Bill makes a watertight provision for the interests of all people and communities who provide or give access to indigenous biological resources to be protected. And so it should be!

Other excellent provisions of this Bill include the management of alien and invasive species through control of the introduction, spread and the protection of rare or endangered species protected under international agreements as well as threatened species, as I have already mentioned.

The National Environmental Management Amendment Bill is largely a technical Bill that provides for co-operative environmental governance by establishing principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment and institutions that will promote co-operative governance. It also makes provision for the designation of environmental management inspectors. We have no problem in supporting it, also.

In closing, I can only repeat what I said in the beginning - that is, we are dealing here with an important ground-breaking piece of legislation that will set the course for the protection of our biodiversity for many years.

We have pleasure in supporting the Bill. [Applause.]

Mrs J CHALMERS: Chairperson, hon Minister, members of this House, the Bill before us today aims to provide for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the National Environmental Act of 1998.

Chapter 4 of this Bill contains provisions for the protection of rare or threatened species. It includes those protected under international agreements as well as threatened ecosystems, setting out the listing of species in ecosystems on the basis of their national or international status and regulating the activities, including trade, that may involve such listed species and ecosystems. The scientific authority for this purpose is established, and its functions are set out.

Provisions are also made for regulations to facilitate the objectives of this Bill. I think we need to be clear in our own minds just why this is so important; important locally, regionally, nationally and at the highest level, globally. Why is it so vital that we protect, try to halt and, if possible, reverse the rapid disappearance from our planet of creatures, plants and whole ecosystems that have taken millions of years to settle into the complex system that makes up the biodiversity of our natural world?

The chain of living creatures throughout the world is critically interdependent; none exist in isolation. Remove one of those links forever and, whether it be on a major or minor scale, the domino effect kicks in with serious consequences to life further along the chain. A good example of this linkage is provided in our Eastern Cape by the Addo elephant, so nearly wiped out of its natural habitat in the 1920s. In their absence, the ecosystem would have functioned very differently. Elephants are important as seed dispersers, and many plants in the Addo bush rely on the ability of the elephants to disperse their seed; a task that cannot be provided by the smaller herbivores. In their absence plant communities will change and some species will be lost in the long term.

In addition, in the course of their feeding these elephants open up the thick bush, providing feeding and refuge opportunities for a range of other animals, including the black rhinoceros, which otherwise would not be able to penetrate the thick bush. These opened up areas also provide opportunities for sun-loving plants to grow, and these would be lost from the system if they were shaded out in the absence of the elephants. So the links remain intact, maintaining biodiversity and a functional ecosystem.

To cap it all, in addition to their value in maintaining biodiversity, the Addo elephants are a critical resource to the region for tourism operations, generating hundreds of millions of rand - R350 million in tourism expenditure every year - and are the foundation of a booming ecotourism industry.

Many of the factors that threaten human health also threaten biodiversity, such as the effect of toxic and hazardous materials and forms of pollution. Yet biodiversity provides the basis for many traditional and local forms of health care, and makes numerous other contributions to human health. We must remember that it is the basis of some 75% of the world’s modern drugs, which are produced by the traditional and modern pharmaceutical sectors. When we so foolishly abuse or neglect the biodiversity on which our very survival depends, we place at risk more than just our own health, but also that of all living organisms.

Yet the human race continues on its merry way, ignoring the warning signals rapidly becoming evident. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’ Red List of Threatened Species, more than 11 000 species are currently threatened with extinction. Some of these may be small, insignificant species, others are the magnificent mammals, such as the blue whale. But all have a critical role to play in the chain of the ecosystem that encircles our globe.

What is South Africa doing about this massive challenge? Biodiversity in this country has up to now been regulated by means of a plethora of fragmented and incomplete legislation, mainly at provincial level, but in some sectors also nationally. This has made it extremely difficult for those tasked with managing it to do so effectively and it has provided few, if any, incentives for those wishing to use these resources legally and sustainably.

It is no exaggeration to say that the sustainable and wise use of our natural resources, combined with the initiative to ensure in-country value- adding, have the potential to provide food, clothing, medicine, shelter and an income for millions of South Africans, the ability to create thousands of jobs and keep the tourists coming. That is why we are not being unrealistic when we say that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be passed since 1994, and certainly the most important piece of biodiversity legislation for decades.

If coupled with sound enabling regulations, and if sufficient resources are devoted to ensure adequate implementation, this Bill, providing as it does an effective legal framework, has the ability to transform biodiversity management in South Africa for the good of all of its people.

The proviso in the Bill on trade regulation is particularly important. The value of the international trade in wildlife has recently been estimated at US$11 billion per annum. And if one includes fisheries and timber, the estimated value rises significantly to nearly US$160 billion.

Much of the trade in wildlife, however, is conducted illegally, and is considered to be the third most significant illegal trade in the world, after drugs and weapons. Where are these endangered ecosystems and how will we know and participate in their protection? The Minister and MEC of the relevant province will publish a national and provincial list of these ecosystems, rating them, respectively, according to their degree of degradation, how much they are at risk and the degree of protection required; a list that must be reviewed at least every five years.

The same protection will be afforded to species at risk, with permits required for activity in threatened or protected species. Management of our precious heritage or biodiversity will receive far greater protection and oversight than ever before.

Chapter 6 of the Bill before us covers bioprospecting, access and benefit sharing. Currently, there are no regulations guiding bioprospecting in South Africa. This legislation is extremely important if we are to protect our precious resources from being exploited by foreign countries and foreign companies.

What is bioprospecting? It involves a search for wild species’ genes, and their products, of actual and potential use to humans. That is the exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biological resources.

What is biopiracy? It is the commercial exploitation of the genetic resources of a country by foreign countries without permission and without benefits accruing to that country.

Throughout human history wealth has been targeted for profit. South Africa’s rich biological heritage is extremely attractive to companies from around the globe as a natural source of compounds with medical, agricultural, horticultural and environmental applications. We need to protect it.

Provisions in this Bill require bioprospecting permit holders to enter into benefit-sharing agreements with relevant owners of rights in the resources, and to acquire material transfer agreements as proof of access to resources, following consent of the holders of rights to those indigenous resources. It also provides for the protection of indigenous biological resources through the listing of such. A bioprospecting trust fund will be created for receipt and disbursement of all fees.

It has been estimated that six cataclysmic global extinctions have taken place on our earth over the past 450 million years, emanating from various causes. The fifth was 65 million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs. The sixth is taking place as we speak, and is well advanced, with thousands of species at risk because of humankind’s use and abuse of the earth’s natural resources.

Our country is becoming increasingly aware of how critically important it is for us to have in place effective measures to protect our biodiversity for future generations. This Bill will be an essential part of that protection. Thank you. [Applause.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Chairperson and hon Minister. Our environment plays a very important role in the existence of our people, be it for food, water or shelter.

With poverty being a major factor negatively impacting on our existence, a healthy ecosystem can greatly assist, especially in matters such as food, security and water provision, as well as other resources necessary for our survival.

Furthermore and most importantly, section 24(b), under our Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 makes it a right -

… to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that -

(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Noting the many efforts and projects that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has successfully embarked upon, the MF is confident in their commitment to upholding this constitutional provision.

The MF supports the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill of 2003 in its efforts to manage biodiversity in South Africa.

Perhaps at this stage, I should ask our hon Minister that, when he comes to give his reply at the end of the debate, he will kindly let us know how our environment is now that we are not using the plastic bags. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mrs R A NDZANGA: Igama lamakhosikazi! [The name of women!]

Thank you, Chairperson. It gives me great pleasure to place before this House the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill and the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill, or Nema.

I must say that I am proud to be a member of the team that considered, debated, influenced and shaped the crafting of these pieces of legislation. The Bills must be seen as building blocks towards an integrated, transparent and coherent environmental management goal in general and, in particular, integrated sustainable conservation.

Although the focus of my speech will be on Nema, I think it will be necessary to place the two Bills before you within the context of the broader legislation reform initiatives of the democratic Government of the country. This is important if one has to understand where these Bills fit within the broader scheme of legal reform in our country.

Members will recall that, soon after the heroic transition to democracy in 1994, the new democratic Government embarked on an extensive policy and legal reform as a step towards eradicating apartheid while constructing and transforming the economic setting of the country.

Amongst other things, this triggered a thorough and consultative environmental law reform process, which started with the publication of a White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa in 1998. As a first step in giving effect to this policy, Parliament enacted the flagship National Environmental Management Amendment Act, Nema, in 1998.

The National Environmental Management Act sets the framework for the more detailed sectoral environmental legislation. These include, among others, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, which is in front of you today. The drafting of the sectoral legislation necessitated the amendment of Nema to support and strengthen these pieces of legislation, hence the tabling of the Nema Bill before you today.

Moreover, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, through the environmental right provision in section 24, requires the Government to put mechanisms in place so as to measure a healthy and decent environment, conducive to the wellbeing of all, to ensure that the environment is protected, and to promote sustainable development and use the natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. It is against this background that the two pieces of legislation were crafted.

Nema provides for a variety of mechanisms for the achievement of the constitutional requirements. Central to this amendment is the creation of an enforcement arm to monitor compliance and enforce environmental laws. It does so by providing for the designation and appointment of environmental management inspectors.

The Minister, or the provincial MECs for environmental affairs in their respective provinces, will designate the inspectors who will be responsible for environmental affairs in their provinces. These inspectors will be appointed subject to specific prescribed qualifications and standards and will have extensive powers to enforce our environmental laws.

They will have some of the powers of the SAPS, such as powers to enter and search vehicles, vessels and aircraft. They will also have powers to seize items and carry out routine inspections and will be able to issue compliance notices. Moreover, the Bill provides for these powers to be extended to the SAPS for the enforcement of designated environmental laws.

Recent experience has shown that there is a need for such an enforcement law. Environmental crimes are escalating. An example of this is the well- known poaching of abalone. People have been able to escape the long arm of the law, the reason being that they have identified gaps in our environmental laws and have capitalised on that.

The weak enforcement provision in our environmental legislation makes it easy for criminals not to comply with the law while making it impossible for our officials to bring them to book. If this situation continues, I can assure you that the country’s precious environmental and ecological resources will soon be depleted.

It is against this background that the amendments to Nema before you are needed as a matter of urgency. Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

HON MEMBERS: Malibongwe! [Praise.] [Applause.] [Laughter.]

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Hon Chairperson, I think that is rather appropriate. I will tell you why in a moment. Let me first say that some speakers, the hon Chalmers and hon Moorcroft, have said that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been placed before Parliament, and I want to agree with that.

The import of this legislation is very far-reaching indeed. In fact, much of this legislation is ground breaking. Hon Moorcroft referred to an article about international best practice. In fact, there is no international best practice in much of what we are dealing with, in things like benefit sharing and the GMO issue.

This legislation is ground breaking. I can assure you that people around the world, including those in developed countries, will be looking at certain aspects of this legislation for lessons to be learnt.

I have to report, before I do anything else, to the hon Rajbally about the impact of the plastic bags. I must just say that we have been getting reports from all around the country that there has been a discernible and immediately visible impact of the plastic bag legislation. People from all over have been reporting that in areas and places where there was litter before - plastic bags all over the show in fields, on trees, on fences, on beaches and in all sorts of places - there is nothing now. [Applause.]

I must say that this House supported me on that, and I think all of us can feel extremely proud. The manner in which South Africans have taken to this new legislation is once again internationally ground breaking; not international best practice, but better than international best practice. That is what we do in South Africa. [Applause.]

I must say that this very far-reaching piece of legislation is extremely complex. Before the hon Dorothy Motubatsi-Hounkpatin leaves, let me just say to her - because she was one of the leaders of the women’s tent at the WSSD, and taking a great interest in that, and also one of the leaders of the women’s movement, but particularly for her role during the WSSD. I am also happy that the hon Lulu Xingwana has walked in at this late stage, because she is the leader of women in Parliament and the leader of women in the SADC parliaments - it is my pleasure to report to you that in today’s debate there were seven speakers, of which five were women. [Applause.]

HON MEMBERS: Malibongwe! [Praise!]

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: I also want to report to you that this Bill has been processed by a committee which was chaired by the hon Mahlangu-Nkabinde, who is also a woman. [Applause.]

More importantly, something which you may not be aware of, is that the officials of the department who for many months, in fact for many years, have been writing the legislation, debating it with the portfolio committee, debating it at public hearings with interest groups, with environmental organisations and with industry, are all women.

I would like to introduce some of them to you. The leader, who is not here, is Miss Pamela Yacko. She is the DD-G. She is busy with other duties, so she is not here, but you can see from the name that it is a woman, if you do not know her. Other members of her team who are here presently are Maria Mbengashe. Please stand up, Mrs Mbengashe. [Applause.] We have Miss Koekie Maphanga who is also here … [Applause.] … and Miss Lesego Sello is also here, and, of course, my ministerial parliamentary officer, Rina Agherdien, is also here, although she has not drafted the Bill.

As you can see, I can assure you that we had to face formidable and powerful interest groups, and many authorities, provinces and local authorities, but this is a team that you do not want to face in a negotiation, I can assure you of that. [Applause.]

Then of course I must thank the D-G, Dr Olver, who has inspired all of this. One of the reasons we have succeeded in completing this legislation is because of the dogged determination of the director-general. I did not think that we would be able to complete it. Thank you very much, you were right in the end. I thank you all. [Applause.]

Debate concluded. National Environmental Management Amendment Bill read a second time.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill read a second time.

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF MONTREAL AND BEIJING AMENDMENTS TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER, IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF CONSTITUTION

Ms G L MAHLANGU-NKABINDE: Ke a leboga Modulasetilo. [Thank you, Chairperson.]

South Africa has always been regarded as a developed country when it came to this protocol, because the past regime excluded all the Africans who found themselves in the TBVC states, and as a result taxpayers here paid a lot of money on the level of all the developed countries. Thanks to Peter Mokaba and a number of officials in 1997 who went to Montreal and changed the status of South Africa, this was amended. Otherwise, the requirements on us as a country would have been that of a developed country, and this was the only protocol in this country that was ever subjected to developed status.

There is no doubt that South Africa is doing extremely well in as far as protection and conservation is concerned. We have proved that the environment is as important as the defence of the country. There are those countries that have not looked after their environments, and they are very sorry today because of that. I am very happy that under your guidance, and the leadership of Comrade Chippy and the wonderful ladies who are so resourceful, we have been able to pass good legislation almost every month. We have done extremely well. [Applause.] I know others say so, but it is also important for us to say so. [Applause.]

The Montreal Protocol is not new to South Africa. We ratified the London Amendment to the Protocol, designed to restrict the use of chlorofluorocarbons and haloids, on 12 May 1992. We also approved the ratification of the Copenhagen Amendment to this protocol. Granting this request will lead to the phasing out and the eventual disappearance of ozone-depleting substances. It is our responsibility, as members of Parliament, to fight degradation of the environment. We owe it to our children and to generations to come.

Irresponsible human activities lead to global warming and ozone depletion. This can be reversed if we all act together to provide a safe environment for our children and generations to come. The portfolio committee supports the amendments. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Montreal and Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer approved.

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY (SADC) PROTOCOL ON CULTURE, INFORMATION AND SPORT, IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF CONSTITUTION

Mr N NGCOBO: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members of Parliament, I stand here on behalf of the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology to present to you the SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport. The SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport was presented, discussed and adopted during the SADC committee of ministers of culture, information and sport on 30 May 2001 in Mauritius.

The line function departments representing this historic event were the Government Communication and Information Services, GCIS, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Arts and Culture. On 14 August 2001, the protocol was finally signed in Blantyre, Malawi, by the heads of SADC member countries.

Other than culture, the protocol includes competencies such as information which is seated with our regional databank, known as the Southern African Cultural Information Systems, or SACIS, which in the South African context represents the GCIS. It also includes sport, which is seated with the Department of Sport and Recreation, as well as copyright and neighbouring rights, seated with the Department of Trade and Industry.

The signing of the protocol in August 2001 was a culmination of the strategy of the OAU as laid down in the first stage of the Abuja Treaty of

1. In this treaty it is stated that the African community shall be established in six stages of variable duration over a transitional period, not exceeding 34 years. The important role that culture can play in the regional integration agenda was recognised within SADC as one that can successfully bring grassroots involvement.

The SADC declaration of heads of state and government issued in 1992 follows from this. It states that regional integration would continue to be a pipe dream unless the people of the region determine its content, form its direction and are themselves its active agents.

The treaty itself declares that one of the objectives of this regional organisation is to strengthen and consolidate the long-standing historical, social and cultural affinities and links among the people of the region. It is for this reason that the SADC has taken a political view that its regional integration agenda should be driven by the people and their will to live together and to share in a common destiny.

According to Chapter 14 of the Constitution, section 231(2), the protocol needs to be presented and approved by the resolution of both the NA and the NCOP. On 11 November 2003, the SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport was submitted by the Department of Arts and Culture as the country’s contact point for the sector to the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology for ratification.

The portfolio committee then recommended on the same date that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approves the said protocol. On behalf of the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, I, therefore, move that this protocol be ratified. [Applause.]

Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport approved.

The House adjourned at 18:50. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Joint Subcommittee of the Joint Programme  Committee  on  20
     November 2003 took  a  decision,  in  accordance  with  Joint  Rule
     216(2), that the Electoral Laws  Second  Amendment  Bill  [B  73  -
     2003] (National Assembly  -  sec  75)  be  fast-tracked  by,  where
     necessary, dispensing with any relevant House Rule  or  Joint  Rule
     and shortening any period within which any step in the  legislative
     process relating to the Bill must be completed, in  order  to  make
     it possible for the Bill to be passed by 28 November 2003.


     In terms of Joint Rule 216(4) this decision must be tabled in  both
     Houses for ratification.

1. Introduction of Bills:

 (1)    The Minister of Home Affairs:


     (i)      Electoral  Laws  Second  Amendment  Bill  [B  73  -  2003]
          (National Assembly - sec 75)


     Introduction and  referral  to  the  Portfolio  Committee  on  Home
     Affairs of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the  Joint
     Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of  Joint  Rule
     160, on 21 November 2003.


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

1. Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent:

 (1)    Bill passed by National Assembly on 20 November 2003:


     (i)     National Environmental Management Amendment Bill  [B  29  -
          2003] (National Council of Provinces - sec 76)

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

The following Bill has, in terms of Rule 274(1)(a), been placed on  the
 Order Paper of the National Assembly for debate and decision:


 (i)    National Health Bill [B 32D - 2003]  (National  Assembly  -  sec
     76).

1. Messages from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly in respect of Bills:

 (1)    Bill rejected by National Council of Provinces  on  20  November
     2003:


     (i)      Pensions  Second  (Supplementary)  Bill  [B  59  -   2003]
          (National Assembly - sec 77)


     The Bill has been  placed  on  the  Order  Paper  of  the  National
     Assembly for reconsideration in accordance with  National  Assembly
     Rule 295.


 (2)    Bills, subject to proposed amendments, passed by Council  on  20
     November  2003  and  transmitted  for  consideration  of  Council's
     proposed amendments:


     (i)     Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill  [B  1B
          - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) (for proposed amendments,
          see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 19 November
          2003, p 1459 and Minutes of Proceedings of National Council of
          Provinces, 20 November 2003, p ).


          The Bill has been  referred  to  the  Portfolio  Committee  on
          Finance  of  the  National  Assembly  for  a  report  on   the
          amendments proposed by the Council.


     (ii)    Local Government: Municipal Systems Amendment Bill  [B  49B
          - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75) (for proposed amendments,
          see Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 13  October
          2003, p 1285).


          The Bill has been  referred  to  the  Portfolio  Committee  on
          Provincial and Local Government of the National Assembly for a
          report on the amendments proposed by the Council.

1. Membership of Committees:

 (1)    The following changes  have  been  made  to  the  membership  of
     Committees, viz:


     Environmental Affairs and Tourism:


     Appointed: Chikane, M M (Alt).


     Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions:


     Appointed: Odendaal, W A.


     Public Auditing Function:


     Discharged: Southgate, R M.


     Transport:


     Appointed: Herandien, C B.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Finance:

 Government Notice No R1454 published in  Government  Gazette  No  25557
 dated 8 October 2003: Regulations: Procedures for submitting returns in
 electronic format and requirements for electronic signatures  in  terms
 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).

1. The Minister of Trade and Industry:

 Report and Financial Statements of Proudly South African for 2002-2003,
 including the Report of  the  Independent  Auditors  on  the  Financial
 Statements for 2002-2003.

1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

 Government Notice No R1593 published in  Government  Gazette  No  25637
 dated 31 October 2003: Regulations: Judicial Officers in Lower  Courts,
 1994: Amendment in terms of the Magistrates Act, 1993  (Act  No  90  of
 1993).

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. Report of the Mediation Committee on the Liquor Bill [B 23B and B 23D - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 19 November 2003:

   The Mediation Committee, having considered the Liquor Bill [B 23B and B 23D - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76), as well as the papers referred to it, reports as follows:

   1. The Liquor Bill [B 23B - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76) was passed by the National Assembly on 21 August 2003 and submitted to the National Council of Provinces for approval.

   2. The National Council of Provinces passed the Liquor Bill [B 23D
      • 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76) on 8 October 2003, containing a number of amendments agreed to by the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs.
   3. Upon referral of the latter amended Bill to the National Assembly, that House accepted some of the amendments passed by the National Council of Provinces, with the exception of Clause 6(2) of the Bill. Consequently, the National Assembly rejected the Bill.

   4. The Bill was referred to the Mediation Committee on 18 November 2003 in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b) of the Joint Rules of Parliament. The Mediation Committee met on 19 November 2003, and, after deliberation, agreed to submit another version of the Bill.

   5. The effect of this decision is that the Secretary to Parliament is required to submit the latter version of the Bill to both the Speaker and the Chairperson of the Council in terms of Joint Rule 188(3), for consideration by the House and the Council.

   6. The Committee therefore submits the Liquor Bill [B 23F - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76), and recommends that the House and the Council pass this mediated version.

2. Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, dated 5 November 2003: The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, having met on 5 November 2003, wishes to report as follows:

       The  Committee  welcomes  the   appointment   of   the   Hefer
       Commission.
   
   
       However, the Committee views with alarm  and  serious  concern
       the issuing of subpoenas by  the  Hefer  Commission  to  South
       Africa's Intelligence and Security Services compelling them to
       provide classified and  or  sensitive  information  that  will
       purportedly  serve  the  Commission's  purpose.  Ignoring  the
       provisions of the law relating to national security  in  order
       to satisfy the objectives of the Hefer  Commission  will  have
       serious consequences for South Africa  both  domestically  and
       internationally.
   
   
       The role of the Committee, amongst other things, is to  ensure
       that South Africas' Intelligence and Security Services protect
       and preserve the country's national security, the  defence  of
       the Republic and the investigation, combating of crime and the
       protection of classified and or sensitive information in their
       possession.  It  is  a  universally  accepted  principle  that
       information in the possession  of  the  Intelligence  Services
       cannot be made public. This includes especially the  names  of
       sources, agents, operatives and identities of members.
   
   
       The  Committee  therefore  supports  the   position   of   the
       Intelligence Services as presented to the Hefer Commission. We
       believe that the Intelligence and Security Services should not
       be embroiled in this matter and that those  who  have  brought
       the matter into the public domain, should  provide  the  basis
       for their allegations to be tested by the  Commission  without
       causing databases and files of the Intelligence  and  Security
       Services to be inspected at great risk to  the  Constitutional
       mandate of these structures.
   

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology on Visit to Freedom Park, dated 11 November 2003:

   The Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, having sent a delegation to Freedom Park, reports as follows:

       The delegation, under the leadership  of  Mrs  T  J  Tshivhase
       (ANC) consisted of Mr V C Gore (DP), Ms X C Makasi (ANC), Dr R
       Rabinowitz (IFP) and Mr J Ramrock (Committee Secretary).
   
   
       The purpose of the visit was  to  meet  with  members  of  the
       Freedom Park Board and to monitor the structural progress that
       has been made with the building of the park.
   
   
       Introduction
   
   
       The Freedom Park project is  a  national  government  project,
       approved by Cabinet in June  1989.  The  project  entails  the
       development of commemorative structures at the  Salvokop  site
       in Pretoria. The object of the project is to establish visible
       cultural structures that celebrate and  commemorate  the  rich
       tapestry of events that have  taken  place  on  South  African
       soil, from the "Cradle of  Humanity"  through  pre-history  to
       colonisation to the  struggle  for  democracy  and  stretching
       beyond to a vision for the future.
   
   
       Findings
       The delegation met  with  the  Executive  Chairperson  of  the
       Freedom Park Trust,  Dr  Wally  Serote,  officials  and  other
       members of staff.
   
   
       Dr Serote gave the delegation a briefing on the progress  that
       has been made with the  project  and  mentioned  some  of  the
       potential problems that the Trust is faced with, in particular
       the present housing complex, which is still occupied. Attempts
       to try and relocate the people staying in  those  houses  have
       failed, but there are ongoing discussions  between  the  Trust
       and Transnet, the owner of the complex, to try and resolve the
       problem.
   
   
       Another concern for the Trust is the possible  impact  of  the
       Gautrain on the building  of  the  monument.  The  train  will
       ostensibly travel right through the middle of the park. An  ad
       hoc committee, consisting of eight Ministries, the  Presidency
       and the Trust, have  been  tasked  to  try  and  resolve  this
       problem.
   
   
       Freedom Park consists of three major elements:
   
   
       1.  The Memorial, which is centered around the  anti-apartheid
           struggle,  the  anti-colonial  struggle   and   historical
           events. The structure  is  expected  to  be  completed  by
           2006.
   
   
       2.   The  Museum,  which   emphasises   the   acknowledgement,
           preservation and presentation of  South  Africa's  history
           for present and future generations.
   
   
       3.  The Garden of Remembrance, which focuses  on  people's  or
           communities' positive contribution to the  development  of
           the country.
   
   
       The delegation was also addressed by two Traditional  Healers,
       Ms  Matshilo  Motsei  and  Ms  Koena  Tsebe,  who  served   as
       consultants for the Trust. The two were also tasked to conduct
       research on the spiritual significance to healing  in  African
       life of the rock, water and circle. They mentioned that it  is
       envisaged that the Garden of Remembrance will become a  sacred
       space designed for individual and group  spiritual  uplifting.
       Constituted by boulders and water, the Garden will represent a
       home founded on, and solid as, a rock, whilst its spirit flows
       and cleanses like water. One of the  pre-requisite  activities
       that needs to be done before the construction  can  begin,  is
       the rovincial and national cleansing and healing process. This
       process has started already in  the  provinces.  Boulders  (to
       immortalise  the  departed),  soil  and  provincial   heritage
       plants, to be used as symbols of unity and  healing,  will  be
       collected from all nine provinces. The President  has  already
       planted a few indigenous trees at the park. It is through  the
       boulders that the departed will be  immortalised.  There  will
       also be a boulder representing National  Government.  Boulders
       from foreign countries, where our people fell, will be brought
       in by Ambassadors of those countries, to the hill.
   
   
       The delegation was taken to the site at Salvokop and shown the
       different construction level  points.  It  became  clear  that
       there still remains a lot to be done,  including  security  at
       the site, but  the  delegation  was  pleased  with  what  they
       observed and the progress made with the  construction  of  the
       park. There is no doubt that all South Africans will be  proud
       of the park, which is scheduled for completion around 2010.
       The Committee wishes to commend Dr Serote and the Freedom Park
       Board, including staff, for the inspirational work  that  they
       are doing.
   
   
       The Committee is committed to ensuring that the representation
       of historical truth is as inclusive  as  possible,  reflecting
       the parts played by a wide range of role-players. To this end,
       future interaction and  feedback  between  those  writing  the
       history and the Committee should be ongoing.  This  will  feed
       into the objective of healing and reconciliation.